by ADParker wrote:Armageddo wrote:Put a sock in in hackenslash.
HEY! No need for that now!
Armageddo wrote:You've been shown to be utterly wrongIn Dawkins' own words, he is attacking gods, all gods.
Ah, the power of the quote mine eh?
But fine, let's look at that then. Just let me find my copy then...ah here we go {ahem...needs a bit of a dust}
Final paragraph of "Polytheism" section of chapter two:
"...I know you don't believe in an old bearded man sitting on a cloud, so let's not waste any more time on that. I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."
So:
a. Yes he misspoke. As elsewhere he specifies that he is referring to a limited subset; the "personal god."
b. But; this is not a comment without context. It is in direct contrast to specific god beliefs (his example the bearded man in the sky), in order to stipulate that the target of his arguments is broader than that. To counter the expected accusations that his arguments were not about "My god."
Taken in the full context of the book (i.e. not just fixating on single quote-mined passage, or the title!) It is evident that he is arguing against the belief in the existence of supernatural entities, that can be denoted as "personal gods"; entities that interact with the world, and humans in some fashion. Not anything and everything that one might wish to refer to as a god (Not Einstein and Spinoza's god for example.) and likewise from the other direction; not merely one very narrow specific concept of a god (not only the bearded man n the clouds for example.) But instead a generalized idea of "God" within those two extremes.Armageddo wrote:And for a book called the GOD delusion, he has barely even touched the subject, instead opting for the tired old avoidance tactic of equating religion with god (strawman argument).
Still waiting for any substantiation of this thus far EMPTY assertion.Armageddo wrote:I've got news for you mate, God is not a religion,
Well duh.Armageddo wrote:and Dawkins' book is called the GOD delusion, not the religion delusion.
And isn't it interesting how you can't even grasp the meaning for such a simple little title?
God (...Zeus, Allah, Shiva...) is the object, religion is the belief in that object.
Truth/fact this object exiting or not, delusion is the unfounded belief in the existence of said object.Armageddo wrote:Tell me, what on earth did you think a book called the GOD delusion was going to be about?
How BELIEVING in a god is delusional. NOT that this god does not exist.
_______________Armageddo wrote:As if it were not obvious, my point is that hackenslash seems to read book covers and replace the word God with Religion.
Unlike you, he probably doesn't try to read JUST the title, at least not trying to read the entirety of the argument into the title.
Armageddo wrote:The god delusion barely even attempts to achieve what it sets out to do, which is to debunk God, which is a copout.
See now, here is a fine example of a Straw Man argument: You assert that the aim of the book is to "debunk God", then that it failed to meet up to the aim YOU devised, and thus claim victory.
The apparent aim however was to expose some of the flawed thinking in god-belief. How such beliefs are fallacious. The one chapter actually about the existence of God, set out to argue just as it's title suggested; that there PROBABLY is no such being.Armageddo wrote:Are you seriously telling me that a book with such a title would be about anything other than God?
No, of course not.
But the very word "Delusion" implies that it is more about god BELIEF than God itself.
Incorrect.
Religious people believe in God, non religious people can also believe in God. Please do look up the definition of religion. Dawkins has created a strawman and you've fallen for it without even bothering to apply any thought process. He is equating God with Religion, calls his book the God delusion then does next to nothing to actually refute God, choosing instead to deal with Religion. They are not the same thing. And it's not by error, he has deliberately called the book the GOD delusion, he knows what he's doing. I feel sorry for you for having fallen for it although on the other hand I get the feeling you know that it's a strawman tactic.
Really?
