God delusion book is an embarssment to athiest anyone who agrees?

Question

I know a few athiests and they have admitted its rubbish because it shows what an unconvicing athiest richard dawkins really is, I read it the other week and I totally agree.
In his arguments against God, the sloppy thinking gets even worse. We are repeatedly assured that a universe where God existed would be very different from one where he did not. This, Dawkins claims, makes God a scientific hypothesis. But we are never told how the universe would be different if God didn’t exist, or what experiment we should do to verify his non-existence. The treatment of the traditional proofs of God's existence is largely an attack on straw men. The cosmological argument is far stronger than Dawkins gives it credit for and he does not bother interact with its modern proponents like William Lane Craig. On the ontological argument, Alvin Plantinga is the man to go to, but Dawkins goes nowhere near him.

I'm not against athiests what so ever but richard dawkin really is pathetic!

Answer 1

I disagree. Dawkins' book is well-argued.

Just to mention one point - it's impossible to "verify non-existence." Can you prove that centaurs don't exist? Or leprechauns, or fairies? You would have to find a specimen to prove that they DO exist - so how would you prove that they don't? In the absence of a specimen, we technically have to say that it's unverified - and yet most people don't seriously believe in centaurs as they do in "God." It's not just as reasonable to assume the existence of these beings as to assume their non-existence. Otherwise, the universe would very quickly become overpopulated with imaginary beings.

I don't recall if Dawkins actually uses this or a similar argument in his book, but it's pretty standard fare. You can't prove a negative.

BTW, I'm sorry people are being rude to you. We've talked, I know you're a decent person and you're not trying to be hostile. I do think you're wrong on this one though!

Answer 2

I quite liked it. Some of his arguments and methods are dodgy and it's hard to rationalise people ut of it but I didn't find it an embarrassment or anything and he made some good points. I agree with the idea of god being a hypothesis because people can put forward it as an idea but so far there seems to be a lack of any evidence let alone proof. I can understand why Dawkins gets frustrated sometimes, too.

Atheists are not an organised group and while some atheists might do things that others aren't proud of, it really has no bearing on our life. We just don't believe in god. That's it. We are not trying to argue a cause or anything. Some may try to put forward rational arguments for their disbelief, and that's their right.

Answer 3

I incredibly loved it. a number of his arguments and recommendations are dodgy and it quite is problematic to rationalise human beings ut of it yet i did no longer discover it a humiliation or something and he made some stable factors. I believe the assumption of god being a hypothesis simply by fact human beings can positioned forward it as an theory yet so far there seems to be a loss of any information no longer to point information. i will comprehend why Dawkins receives annoyed now and back, too. Atheists at the instant are not an organised team and jointly as some atheists ought to do issues that others are not pleased with, it truly has no pertaining to our life. We in basic terms don't think in god. it quite is it. we at the instant are not attempting to argue a reason or something. some could attempt to place forward rational arguments for his or her disbelief, and that's their proper.

Answer 4

It is not an embarrasment to anyone. Athiests do not believe in god. they need no proof, no testimony, no science - nothing. For simple reasons, such as incredible, unrealistic, illogical, contradictory, fantastic, and paralleling other mythology, religion, including the christian version, is all a fantasy.

Originally a means to try to explain Origins and the unknown, religion now has grown into a web of "them and Us", hatred, bigotry, domination, threats, violence and war. Hardly a testiment to the peaceful and loving god propagated by the mythology of the bible.

Atheists live without all of this troubling propaganda and the resulting human conflict. they simply do not believe so there can be no embarassment.

Answer 5

Actually, you are the first person I've heard say this, but I see your point.
I think the problem is that most people perceive that Dawkins is 100% against god itself, when actually he's mostly against religion and how it imposes its beliefs on others. The problem is that Christians don't separate the two, so Dawkins is forced to attack the simple belief in a god to get his point across.

Answer 6

I've never read any of Dawkins' books, or any other (non fiction) books about theism/atheism

My atheism is based on you not being able to prove that any gods exist.

I mean come on

Step up

Prove it!

Should be a piece of p!ss

Answer 7

I never read it. But Dawkins is a pretty smart guy and I am quite sure that it isn't "rubbish."

God would be a hypothesis unless you can tell me how it has been scientifically tested. That is pretty much the definition of hypothesis, an idea that hasn't been tested. The way you guys have it set up it is impossible to clearly define "God" and thus it is impossible to test. Meaning it will remain a hypothesis until the situation changes.

Answer 8

At least he spells better than you do.
If you are going to criticize an author you should be aware that you are going to be criticized too.
Richard Dawkins happens to be a very intelligent man who is making a very serious argument. (If you consider the cosmological and ontological arguments to be strong I would hate thinking about what you consider weak)

Answer 9

I tried to read the book because it was all the talk on R&S. I couldn't do it though, I found it dull, dry, boring, and humorless. In some parts I couldn't tell if he was making an argument for god or against. Yes I think he must be a mixed up pathetic creature for sure. Canadian atheist.

Answer 10

Richard Dawkins is a great mind and speaker...

EDIT
If you can't even spell "atheist", your argument against atheists and atheism becomes hollow