The God Delusion

Originally Posted by arc123

Not criticising here Ed, just interested......

Is there not some difference between interpretation, and being selective over which parts you wish tofollow/believe?

I agree with being selective - don't think the bible (or any other religious scripts) were ever meant as a manual to follow, simply to learn from. That would be my interpretation of a 'moderate'.

yes you are probably right I don't claim perfection, never have.

Originally Posted by sarah

I've been considering reading that book, but have avoided it so far for fear of it being a bit too ranty.

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

It is slightly, it can be a bit wearing. It is based on scientific evidence mainly, unlike Christopher Hitchens book 'God is not great'. He takes a more historical and methodical approach and is probably the better first read.

I think that I should probably read both of those books. The other reason that I haven't read either of them is that I sort of don't see the point because (I reckon) I agree with it all anyway, so there wouldn't be anything to learn or to challenge me. Maybe I should read them just to check...

Originally Posted by sarah

I think that I should probably read both of those books. The other reason that I haven't read either of them is that I sort of don't see the point because (I reckon) I agree with it all anyway, so there wouldn't be anything to learn or to challenge me. Maybe I should read them just to check...

Sarah, save your £££ and go to the library, most public libraries would stock this book. No point massaging Mr Dawkins's ego by increasing his bank balance.

[arc123]

Considering Richard Dawkins is obviously a clever chap, i've never been impressed with him. Read a couple of his books (names pass me by), one of which he claimed that he would 'factually prove' the theory of evolution, thus discrediting creation. About 700 pages later he had done no such thing.

Also found him rather inarticulate when i've seen him on tv.

Originally Posted by sarah

I think that I should probably read both of those books. The other reason that I haven't read either of them is that I sort of don't see the point because (I reckon) I agree with it all anyway, so there wouldn't be anything to learn or to challenge me. Maybe I should read them just to check...

Definately. Two great quotes here:

'reading is a means of thinking with another person's mind; it forces you to stretch your own'

'Always read something that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it'

Both from the same author

Originally Posted by Ed

Belief in the virgin birth and belief in the resurrection.

I dont really understand what you gain by your belief in this... Other than taking pride in the fact that you believe in perhapse the most unbelievable part you could find?

Originally Posted by arc123

Also found him rather inarticulate when i've seen him on tv.

Richard Dawkins is one the most accomplished public speakers in the world, and a very articulate man. He is only limited by the such basic questions presented to him at public lectures. You wouldn't ask Einstein in a public lecture who discovered gravity, you'd only be disappointed by the response.

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

'Always read something that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it'

Like making sure that you always wear matching underwear.

Originally Posted by ThEGr33k

I dont really understand what you gain by your belief in this... Other than taking pride in the fact that you believe in perhapse the most unbelievable part you could find?

As I said above - (a) You're entitled to your view (b) I'm entitled to mine, and (c) I've gone beyond the point where I need proof of everything. Paul defined faith as being sure of what we believe in, and certain of what we cannot see.

Besides, if we all thought the same, then nothing would ever change.

[arc123]

Richard Dawkins is one the most accomplished public speakers in the world, and a very articulate man. He is only limited by the such basic questions presented to him at public lectures. You wouldn't ask Einstein in a public lecture who discovered gravity, you'd only be disappointed by the response.

Glad thats just in your opinion, and that you're not trying to cast your dispersions on me Not sure what you're rambling about Einstein & gravity for??

Dawkins presents some of the most basic arguements i've ever seen - he was ambushed on one of his programmes by some pretty standard responses by an islamic cleric, and came off a rather sorry second place in the debate.