The God Delusion

[Equipped_4_Love]

Been communicating with a person who is having doubts about her faith because of this book.

I've never read it. Can someone please respond and give me a synopsis of what it teaches, so that I can respond to her? I've heard some say that it is not very convincing, and even less intellectual.

What are it's weaknesses? Like I said, I've never read it.

Thank you

[ilovemetal]

I do own a book called 'The Dawkins Delusion'. It addresses such a book. I have yet to read God Delusion. I've read some of 'God is not Great', and it was similar. Lot's of basic insults, and nothing really valid, in my opinion.

Those books are a weak attemp at bashing the faith.

I'm sure you will also recieve a useful reply...That's all I got.

[Athanasius]

Been communicating with a person who is having doubts about her faith because of this book.

I've never read it. Can someone please respond and give me a synopsis of what it teaches, so that I can respond to her? I've heard some say that it is not very convincing, and even less intellectual. It is an extremely poorly, unconvincing book.

What are it's weaknesses? Like I said, I've never read it.

Thank you

The book's weaknesses start on page 1 and end with the conclusion of the book. It's essentially one giant rant on why Christians are dumb and God 'most probably doesn't exist'.

These two articles you might find to be of help:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...rticle&id=5493
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html

Otherwise, you'd be better off telling us what parts of the book she's having trouble with. There are too many to give a brief synopsis.

In terms of books which give some sort of refutation to Dawkins.

The End of Reason - Ravi Zacharias
The Dawkins Delusion - McGrath
Contending with Christianity's Critics - William Lane Craig and Paul Copan

[VerticalReality]

I'll be perfectly honest. With the legendary status that atheists exalt Richard Dawkins with, I was truly expecting more when I heard the man speak.

After observing the interview I actually left thinking, "This guy? Really? This is the guy these atheists adore?"

He may actually be a very intelligent fellow, carnally speaking of course. However, he came across as very shallow with little depth of thought.

[Athanasius]

I'll be perfectly honest. With the legendary status that atheists exalt Richard Dawkins with, I was truly expecting more when I heard the man speak.

After observing the interview I actually left thinking, "This guy? Really? This is the guy these atheists adore?"

He may actually be a very intelligent fellow, carnally speaking of course. However, he came across as very shallow with little depth of thought.

His older books on evolutionary biology are some of the most clearly elucidated pieces of writing I've ever read. Ever since he's jumped on the 'God probably doesn't exist' bandwagon, however, his writing seems to have suffered. His newest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, turns out only to be a re-hash of his older material with a hint of 'Creationists are stupid' thrown in at the end of every chapter.

He should stop while he's ahead; leave the rhetoric to Hitchens.

[Equipped_4_Love]

I'll be perfectly honest. With the legendary status that atheists exalt Richard Dawkins with, I was truly expecting more when I heard the man speak.

After observing the interview I actually left thinking, "This guy? Really? This is the guy these atheists adore?"

He may actually be a very intelligent fellow, carnally speaking of course. However, he came across as very shallow with little depth of thought.

Are you talking about the Lennox/Dawkins debate? Ya, I just watched that. I couldn't believe how little Dawkins knows and understands the Bible, and his argument about morality and why we don't need God was really weak.

I remember at one point thinking "He just completely contradicted himself," although I don't remember where. I found his argument interesting about how we could "rise above Darwinism" -- interesting about how uncompelling it is, especially if we merely "dance to our DNA."

Thanks for the info, you guys. Oh, and Xel....I guess what she is having trouble with is the part about religion causing all of the destruction in the world.

[ilovemetal]

she is having trouble with is the part about religion causing all of the destruction in the world.

doesn't it? I could have sworn....

(not all, but alot, it is an unfortuante fact.)

[Athanasius]

Thanks for the info, you guys. Oh, and Xel....I guess what she is having trouble with is the part about religion causing all of the destruction in the world.

In that regard, I think I'd begin by explaining what proper Christian belief dictates. That one cannot judge an entire system by the deviants who claim to believe in it. Further, that even on an atheistic level, there are potentially worse atrocities; abortion, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, etc. All while acknowledging that people have abused 'religion'. I wouldn't get 'suckered' into defending all religion. Dawkins tends to equivocate the three major monotheisms, which is superficial on his part (something he's just recently come to admit).

[tt1106]

I think Mohler does a good job in Atheism Redux of illustrating how Atheists' like Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins really are receiving attention merely because of the volume of their dissention. Contrasting this with actual meaty arguments like the problem of evil, the new argument is not the problem with Evil it's stuff like, have you ever seen the sea parted. Come on, that's ridiculous.
Their plan of attack is no longer to question God's existence, but to illustrate God in such a way that nobody in their right mind could ever believe in him.
Taking the Bible out of context and portraying God as a monster is quite effective, especially when so few Christians can paint a picture controverting it, because of lack of Biblical knowledge.
I've read Ravi's book which is actually a direct response to another book, but it was still a very light read, full of great information and arguments.
Both Mohlers's book and Ravi's book are short and can easily be read in a couple of hours.

[decrumpit]

Been communicating with a person who is having doubts about her faith because of this book.

I've never read it. Can someone please respond and give me a synopsis of what it teaches, so that I can respond to her? I've heard some say that it is not very convincing, and even less intellectual.

What are it's weaknesses? Like I said, I've never read it.

Thank you

The weaknesses are too many to mention, but the gist of the book is this:

1. Evolution is true, therefore God does not exist.

2. Christians act badly sometimes, therefore God does not exist.

There is tons of material on both of these, and if you have any further questions don't hesitate to post them.

I have read that book in its entirety and it really isn't anything to be scared about.

[GreekAsianPanda]

I've read a book review of it. It's basically just Richie ranting about religion and how stupid theism is and blah, blah, blaaaaah...Dawkins makes a lot of ridiculous claims in it.

[Equipped_4_Love]

In that regard, I think I'd begin by explaining what proper Christian belief dictates. That one cannot judge an entire system by the deviants who claim to believe in it. Further, that even on an atheistic level, there are potentially worse atrocities; abortion, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, etc. All while acknowledging that people have abused 'religion'. I wouldn't get 'suckered' into defending all religion. Dawkins tends to equivocate the three major monotheisms, which is superficial on his part (something he's just recently come to admit).

Thanks, Xel...Yes, once I understood the nature of her difficulty, I brought up most of the points that you did.....except for the atheism part, but you're right. Thanks!!

[moonglow]

I would send her this video if you can..its a series on youtube from a TV show done on this in 06 and has Dawkin in it:

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.

I have read a little online of his book and its just so illogical I really don't understand how people fall for what he is saying...but then people believed the fictional book that claimed Jesus lived and married Mary M and had a child.. Even many Christians thought that was true inspite of the fact it said it was fictional! So go figure...I guess some believe anything in print...

[Athanasius]

I have read a little online of his book and its just so illogical I really don't understand how people fall for what he is saying...but then people believed the fictional book that claimed Jesus lived and married Mary M and had a child.. Even many Christians thought that was true inspite of the fact it said it was fictional! So go figure...I guess some believe anything in print...

Dawkins doesn't like intelligent design. By that, I mean that he doesn't like intelligent design if any one of the gods of the three monotheisms is the designer. If it's aliens, however, he has no problems.

[moonglow]

Dawkins doesn't like intelligent design. By that, I mean that he doesn't like intelligent design if any one of the gods of the three monotheisms is the designer. If it's aliens, however, he has no problems.

Ok but then that begs the question...where did the aliens come from?