Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Dawkins' new book
#1

Dawkins' new book
[Image: 70457934_2498897953668528_30502617690469...e=5DFEF1E7]

Outgrowing God

Anyone going to read it? Deadpan Coffee Drinker
The following 2 users Like Phaedrus's post:
  • Alan V, SYZ
Reply
#2

Dawkins' new book
(09-21-2019, 01:06 AM)Phaedrus Wrote: [Image: 70457934_2498897953668528_30502617690469...e=5DFEF1E7]

Outgrowing God

Anyone going to read it?    Deadpan Coffee Drinker

I'll send a copy to Jesus.

Deadpan Coffee Drinker
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#3

Dawkins' new book
(09-21-2019, 01:06 AM)Phaedrus Wrote: [Image: 70457934_2498897953668528_30502617690469...e=5DFEF1E7]

Outgrowing God

Anyone going to read it?    Deadpan Coffee Drinker

Depending on reviews and whether it will be translated or not.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply
#4

Dawkins' new book
(09-21-2019, 01:06 AM)Phaedrus Wrote: [Image: 70457934_2498897953668528_30502617690469...e=5DFEF1E7]

Outgrowing God

Anyone going to read it?    Deadpan Coffee Drinker

No.

I understand Dawkins is  an average  evolutionary  biologist, not 'at the top of his discipline'.  --and big surprise, he's a considered to be a poor philosopher . He should stick to his profession .
 
But what do I know? I read Hitchen's  'God Is Not Great" and concluded he was a clever, but bigoted polemicist, but no philosopher .

These are only personal  opinions, which I understand may be in the minority.    I will not argue my positions on these matters
The following 4 users Like grympy's post:
  • The Kerbinator, Alan V, Mark, Tres Leches
Reply
#5

Dawkins' new book
I've already outgrown god so I dunno how it'd be useful to me.
The following 3 users Like GenesisNemesis's post:
  • grympy, Aegon, Tres Leches
Reply
#6

Dawkins' new book
I agree. To many atheists, this my be like preaching to the choir. Nevertheless, I'll at least check out the reviews.
The following 2 users Like Gwaithmir's post:
  • GenesisNemesis, SYZ
Reply
#7

Dawkins' new book
(09-21-2019, 02:58 AM)grympy Wrote: No.

I understand Dawkins is  an average  evolutionary  biologist, not 'at the top of his discipline'.  --and big surprise, he's a considered to be a poor philosopher . He should stick to his profession .
 
But what do I know? I read Hitchen's  'God Is Not Great" and concluded he was a clever, but bigoted polemicist, but no philosopher .

These are only personal  opinions, which I understand may be in the minority.    I will not argue my positions on these matters

How exactly is an understanding of philosophy (sophisticated or otherwise) needed to identify the plot holes in the godman story?
The following 7 users Like Inkubus's post:
  • airportkid, Alan V, Phaedrus, Szuchow, Paleophyte, Thumpalumpacus, Chas
Reply
#8

Dawkins' new book
This bbok is not aimed at the "atheist choir". It is aimed at young people just discovering that religion is a problem.

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019...r-readers/

...
It’s not surprising for the author of a book that sold millions of copies to milk that cow and write a children’s version — and he is, in fact, working on a similar book aimed at even younger children — it makes particular sense for Dawkins to do it since he said in The God Delusion, controversially, that pushing a religious label on children is a form of mental child abuse.
..
Just to put this out there: There’s no shortage of Christian apologists who have written books tailored to a younger audience, and the Bible itself has all kinds of children’s editions. But when Dawkins’ book comes out, you can expect Christian writers to accuse Dawkins of trying to indoctrinate children into godlessness. Even though he’s doing exactly what they do, except from a different perspective. The difference is he actually has evidence on his side.
...

If you are not, say, twelve years old, this book is not aimed at you.
Why does the porridge bird lays his eggs in the air?

The following 4 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • Inkubus, SYZ, Alan V, Gwaithmir
Reply
#9

Dawkins' new book
Nope, I won't be reading it.  The last Dawkins book I read was The God Delusion 10 years ago.

—"Dawkins presents his case for a younger audience, setting out
    with clarity and rigour his steps for living a completely secular life".

I may've read it 60 years ago LOL.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#10

Dawkins' new book
(09-21-2019, 02:58 AM)grympy Wrote:
(09-21-2019, 01:06 AM)Phaedrus Wrote: [Image: 70457934_2498897953668528_30502617690469...e=5DFEF1E7]

Outgrowing God

Anyone going to read it?    Deadpan Coffee Drinker

No.

I understand Dawkins is  an average  evolutionary  biologist, not 'at the top of his discipline'.  --and big surprise, he's a considered to be a poor philosopher . He should stick to his profession .
 
But what do I know? I read Hitchen's  'God Is Not Great" and concluded he was a clever, but bigoted polemicist, but no philosopher .

These are only personal  opinions, which I understand may be in the minority.    I will not argue my positions on these matters

I have no quarrel with your points here about both of those guys.

Dawkins has always come across to me as a bit of a blowhard who is out of his depth. His "Dawkins Scale" is flawed and perpetuates the notion that agnosticism is some sort of compromise waystation between belief and unbelief. His weird attitude toward child molestation as not that big of a deal and something people need to just get over like he did with his "mild abuse" as a child is at best tone deaf. I like his ideas about memetics but have not found much else to take away from him. So no, I have no particular desire to read his latest. It's a topic I've already dealt with anyway.
The following 5 users Like mordant's post:
  • Alan V, Mark, grympy, Thumpalumpacus, Tres Leches
Reply
#11

Dawkins' new book
(09-21-2019, 05:22 AM)Inkubus Wrote: How exactly is an understanding of philosophy (sophisticated or otherwise) needed to identify the plot holes in the godman story?

It is not, in fact it is child's play. If he stopped there, that'd be one thing.
The following 2 users Like mordant's post:
  • Alan V, grympy
Reply
#12

Dawkins' new book
(09-21-2019, 12:30 PM)mordant Wrote: Dawkins has always come across to me as a bit of a blowhard who is out of his depth. His "Dawkins Scale" is flawed and perpetuates the notion that agnosticism is some sort of compromise waystation between belief and unbelief. 

While I agree he's a blowhard, doesn't he have a section in The God Delusion called "the poverty of agnosticism" where he critiques agnosticism?  Consider
The following 2 users Like GenesisNemesis's post:
  • Inkubus, Mark
Reply
#13

Dawkins' new book
(09-21-2019, 01:39 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote: While I agree he's a blowhard, doesn't he have a section in The God Delusion called "the poverty of agnosticism" where he critiques agnosticism?  Consider

Yeah, agnostics annoy me, too.

I mean, it's not as though they're stating, "I don't know that Santa Clause does or doesn't exist" or "I don't know that unicorns do or do not exist".

It doesn't take a genius to logically state the non-existence of something when there is zero evidence for its existence.
The following 4 users Like Phaedrus's post:
  • GenesisNemesis, Szuchow, brunumb, grympy
Reply
#14

Dawkins' new book
(09-21-2019, 01:43 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:
(09-21-2019, 01:39 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote: While I agree he's a blowhard, doesn't he have a section in The God Delusion called "the poverty of agnosticism" where he critiques agnosticism?  Consider

Yeah, agnostics annoy me, too.

I mean, it's not as though they're stating, "I don't know that Santa Clause does or doesn't exist" or "I don't know that unicorns do or do not exist".

It doesn't take a genius to logically state the non-existence of something when there is zero evidence for its existence.

I'm more annoyed with Neil deGrasse Tyson for promoting agnosticism.
The following 2 users Like GenesisNemesis's post:
  • Phaedrus, Szuchow
Reply
#15

Dawkins' new book
(09-21-2019, 01:43 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:
(09-21-2019, 01:39 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote: While I agree he's a blowhard, doesn't he have a section in The God Delusion called "the poverty of agnosticism" where he critiques agnosticism?  Consider

Yeah, agnostics annoy me, too.

I mean, it's not as though they're stating, "I don't know that Santa Clause does or doesn't exist" or "I don't know that unicorns do or do not exist".

It doesn't take a genius to logically state the non-existence of something when there is zero evidence for its existence.


Would it help in being an overconfident know-it-all if everyone else adopted the same stance.  (Too bad. Wink )
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
The following 2 users Like Mark's post:
  • Alan V, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#16

Dawkins' new book
(09-21-2019, 01:43 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: Yeah, agnostics annoy me, too...

Agnostics don't actually "annoy" me per se.  I do however disagree with their attestation that
they can't draw upon enough empirical data to decide whether or not paranormal phenomena and/or
supernatural entities exist in the real world.  Because there is  no data—and never will be any.

Saying it's possible that God may exist is like saying a woman is partially pregnant, or a platypus is
perhaps unique.  It's in reality a non-statement, and in the case of God, unrealistically avoids the
question.  A lot of people like to sit on the fence because they're afraid of people sniping at them from
both or either sides, and/or lack the courage of their convictions.

I've never once considered myself an agnostic—it's a real cop out.  You're either a theist or an atheist.
You can't have a "partial" belief in the supernatural, or a "possible" belief in the paranormal.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 3 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Phaedrus, Mathilda, mordant
Reply
#17

Dawkins' new book
I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father who loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I — who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds — have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them.

Thomas Henry Huxley Wikipedia: Thomas Henry Huxley

— Letter to Charles Kingsley, May 06, 1863

---

One can be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time. I do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But try to disprove His Sublime existence. Here I am technically agnostic. The God of Christianity, omni-everything, creator of all is another matter. The self contradictions of such a defined being makes it a matter of reason and rationality.
Why does the porridge bird lays his eggs in the air?

The following 2 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Gwaithmir
Reply
#18

Dawkins' new book
I'm unlikely to read it. Dawkins' books on atheism have bored me and he comes across as an arrogant jackass. Some of his books on evolution are better and I truly enjoyed Ancestor's Tale.
The following 2 users Like Paleophyte's post:
  • GenesisNemesis, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#19

Dawkins' new book
(09-22-2019, 10:36 AM)SYZ Wrote: I've never once considered myself an agnostic—it's a real cop out.  You're either a theist or an atheist.
You can't have a "partial" belief in the supernatural, or a "possible" belief in the paranormal.

If "I was once an agnostic" means "I once wasn't sure if I believed in god and so sat on the fence" then I agree it's a cop out.

On the other hand if agnostic just means not having a knowledge position due to lack of evidence then it's just the other side of the coin of atheism, which is about lacking a belief position for the same reason and because without a knowledge position it's damn hard to form a belief. I consider myself both an agnostic (can't know) and an atheist (can't believe).

The thing people who identify with either label often forget is that there not only isn't any evidence, but for the standard-issue interventionist supernatural god, there CAN'T be any and never will be any, plus, the god hypothesis is incoherent to begin with. People tend to say "I'm not sure" or "I don't believe" as if one ever COULD do either.
The following 1 user Likes mordant's post:
  • Mark
Reply
#20

Dawkins' new book
(09-22-2019, 02:25 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father who loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I — who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds — have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them.

Thomas Henry Huxley Wikipedia: Thomas Henry Huxley  

— Letter to Charles Kingsley, May 06, 1863

---  

One can be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.  I do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  But try to disprove His Sublime existence.  Here I am technically agnostic.  The God of Christianity, omni-everything, creator of all is another matter.   The self contradictions of such a defined being makes it a matter of reason and rationality.

 Why should agnostics bother me?  As long as they keep their views to themselves, none of my business what  they think. Buy, yes, it's still an irritating position, like say indeterminism

My position: I call myself an Agnostic Atheist, on examination, a quote common position among atheists who simply say "I do not believe" : 

"Atheist= from the Greek . "Theos"= god.  a=without .  "Agnostic"= Greek= agnostos=unknown/unknowable.


Hence, I say I do not believe . [due to a lack of proof} but that I am agnostic, in that I do not know. I make no claims , so my position does not attract the burden of proof.  That honour belongs to those who make positive claims , which include " there IS God", "I KNOW there is a god", and "I believe there is a god"---The same burden  of proof applies to those who claim:  "There is no god", "I KNOW there is no god"   and"I believe there is no god"

The term 'agnostic' is about knowledge not belief.
The following 1 user Likes grympy's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#21

Dawkins' new book
I find it ironic that the atheist community has "outgrown" Richard Dawkins...
The following 1 user Likes epronovost's post:
  • Paleophyte
Reply
#22

Dawkins' new book
(09-23-2019, 02:38 AM)epronovost Wrote: I find it ironic that the atheist community has "outgrown" Richard Dawkins...

Well, the guy was a self appointed spokesman /public  face  of Atheism.  I mean, I wasn't aware we had an election.

Hitchens was  even worse imo; a clever journalist, bigot and polemicist who got so far up his own arse he was in danger of disappearing.  Dodgy
The following 2 users Like grympy's post:
  • epronovost, Tres Leches
Reply
#23

Dawkins' new book
(09-23-2019, 02:38 AM)epronovost Wrote: I find it ironic that the atheist community has "outgrown" Richard Dawkins...

I never really liked him. I don't like famous atheists that make me look like an asshole for being atheist, so that includes Hitchens of course. Anything I read or watched of him that guided my atheism usually had nothing to do with God or atheism. Like this TED talk:



I still watch this TED talk a few times per year, actually. I just love it. (although I just listened to a podcast with a physicist who took issue with scientists saying that things are made up of empty space.)
"If a person gave away your body to some passerby, you’d be furious. Yet, you hand over your mind to anyone who comes along, so they may abuse you, leaving it disturbed and troubled — have you no shame in that?" 

Reply
#24

Dawkins' new book
(09-22-2019, 02:25 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: One can be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time...

I'd have to disagree with this.

Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe in. Agnosticism
is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know. An atheist doesn't
believe in any gods whereas an agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not.  Two
totally different stances.

Personally, I know that God or gods don't exist.  (Which is why I'm ignostic.)

Apparently agnostics, by logical extension, would be unsure if leprechauns exist.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#25

Dawkins' new book
(09-23-2019, 06:21 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(09-22-2019, 02:25 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: One can be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time...

I'd have to disagree with this.

Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe in. Agnosticism
is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know. An atheist doesn't
believe in any gods whereas an agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not.  Two
totally different stances.

Personally, I know that God or gods don't exist.  (Which is why I'm ignostic.)

Apparently agnostics, by logical extension, would be unsure if leprechauns exist.

This entire debate is nonsensical to me. I also tend to agree that it's rather silly to be agnostic about God - it's the only question that agnosticism or gnosticism is ever warranted, so why make it so different from anything else? Like you say, no reason to be agnostic about leprechauns. 

On the other hand, I don't see the differences between belief and knowledge as black and white, so I'm also hesitant to say I know God isn't real because, frankly, I'm not sure how much I actually know, period.

I ultimately find it to be generally useless debate.
"If a person gave away your body to some passerby, you’d be furious. Yet, you hand over your mind to anyone who comes along, so they may abuse you, leaving it disturbed and troubled — have you no shame in that?" 

The following 3 users Like Aegon's post:
  • brunumb, Mark, SYZ
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)