Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain
You're going in circles. Dawkins isn't claiming people who believe in God are delusional he is stating for the sake of debate that a belief in God is a delusion and here is why. Like I said before in a debate you need to take a stance. If Dawkins says a belief in God maybe a delusion, I can say maybe it isn't and that's the end of the debate. If you read past the preface of the book and get in to the "here is why" you may find that Dawkins makes some reasonable arguments. Dawkins reasoning comes from his knowledge of science as well as other things. Dawkins doesn't end the book with the conclusion that he is 100% percent certain a belief in God is a delusion therefore God is a delusion as you and janeway72 assume he does, it's up to the reader to come to their own conclusion. I wouldn't put Dawkins on one end of a spectrum that has creationists on the other side because creationists try to alter science to suit their arguments but I'm pretty sure Dawkins's science is accurate. I'm curious how you came to your conclusion that God most likely doesn't exists? You said:
What the f**K? I never said that "God most likely does not exist", I only said that I don't believe in God. Belief - religion, probabilities - science. This cannot be so hard, can it?
Any religious stuff is just a personal truth and that's where Mr.Dawkins as well as you seriously err. Claiming that other people are delusional just because they believe in God is crazy, arrogant and stupid.
If that's the only reason then I say you aren't giving religion a fare chance and maybe you should read some more religious stuff to balance it out with the science stuff you have read or did you use scientific reasoning and your knowledge of the world around you to come to that conclusion just like someone could conclude Santa Claus most likely doesn't exist?
You repeat Mr.Dawkins error. My loss of faith happened while I was a teenager, quite some years before I went to the university. For the zillionth time, science and religion are two clearly seperated and complementary realms of our culture. That's precisely why you cannot analyze one with the tools of the other. One cannot prove or disprove or attribute likelihoods to a concept like God which is inherently improvable and one can neither sell religion as pseudo-science like the creationists try to do.
Whether you like it or not, Dawkins is the mirror of his enemies. Happens quite frequently, e.g. the folks who lead war against terror have become more like their enemies in the process.
Quite funny that you tell me than I am not giving religion a fair chance by the way.
I might not believe in God but that doesn't give me the right to call other people who do delusional. And calling other people delusional just for the sake of argument is a poor excuse. It hardly starts a debate, it is mere bashing.
Perhaps I might add that there is a way one can talk scientifically about religion, one can analyze for example how the notion of God and Gods differs among cultures and has changed over time. That's quite interesting but it is of uttermost importance that the working assumption, that God is a human concept, doesn't imply that God doesn't exist.
It's an idea that is very real to many people, as real as anything else.