The God Delusion AudioBook written and narrated by Richard Dawkins, £1.99 Deal of the Day at Audible/Amazon - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
63Expired

The God Delusion AudioBook written and narrated by Richard Dawkins, £1.99 Deal of the Day at Audible/Amazon

£1.99 @ Amazon
Winner of the British Book Awards, Author of the Year, 2007. Shortlisted for the British Book Awards, Book of the Year, 2007. Longlisted for the Samuel Johnson Prize, 2007. Winner of the Audiobook … Read More
Ajibee Avatar
7m, 3w agoFound 7 months, 3 weeks ago
Winner of the British Book Awards, Author of the Year, 2007.
Shortlisted for the British Book Awards, Book of the Year, 2007.
Longlisted for the Samuel Johnson Prize, 2007.
Winner of the Audiobook Download of the Year, 2007

Richard Dawkins is considered to be one of the world's top intellectuals. As the author of many classic works on science and philosophy, he has always asserted the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm it has inflicted on society. He now focuses his fierce intellect exclusively on this subject, denouncing its faulty logic and the suffering it causes.

N.B. Not suitable for the hard of thinking!
More From Amazon:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
Ajibee Avatar
7m, 3w agoFound 7 months, 3 weeks ago
Options

All Comments

(35) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
13 Likes #1
I'm sure Einstein was more intelligent than this angry man and he said the exact opposite to this clown by stating its inherent in humans to believe in a Higher creator and correct to. Either way this man a just a annoying gimp.
4 Likes #2
Yeah, I have to say that blurb is a little over selling him. Only place he is considered one of the worlds top intellectuals is on YouTube.

Edited By: catbeans on Sep 30, 2016 03:24
4 Likes #3
Ranty, tedious, fundamentalist buffoon.
#4
You mean Dicky Dawkins. X)
#5
Didnt mean to like Batmobile's comment, I was trying to report it, there's no need for that at all.
1 Like #6
Dawkins sees himself as the higher intelligence the world should worship.
8 Likes #7
All this might be true, but he's still right about the whole God thing. I think I'll send this down the old ear canal.
13 Likes #8
nexus76
I'm sure Einstein was more intelligent than this angry man and he said the exact opposite to this clown by stating its inherent in humans to believe in a Higher creator and correct to. Either way this man a just a annoying gimp.

Any quotes? You only need to do some basic research to realise that you're wrong.

From Wikipedia (yes, Wiki; buy PUP's 'the expanded quotable Einstein' if you need reassurance):

"Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."

Sounds very much like a humanist to me. Also:

"Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God".

Anyway, what do Einstein's beliefs have to do with the credibility of Dawkins or his arguments? Should we ignore all scientists henceforth because Einstein was cleverer than all of them?

You may take issue with Dawkins' methods or his general affect, but you don't get to be an Oxford Professor by being a 'clown'. If he's criticising your beliefs, at least he's not also condemning you to eternal torment/stealing your land/blowing you up as the religious zealots he criticises are wont to do!
6 Likes #9
nexus76
I'm sure Einstein was more intelligent than this angry man and he said the exact opposite to this clown by stating its inherent in humans to believe in a Higher creator and correct to. Either way this man a just a annoying gimp.


You've managed to cram logical fallacies, appeals to authority, misquotings and fallacious conclusions into such a small block of text. I'm actually impressed at the efficiency of your ignorance. The fact it's received likes is testament to the level of stupidity required to actually believe in a God/s without proof - my personal favourite is Thor (what a beefcake), or blindly follow religion/s in the 21st century.
7 Likes #10
Interesting book, should be compulsory reading at schools
2 Likes #11
While I disagree with religion as it's a man made concept used to control it's followers and dictate their lives, and has led to so many problems such as war and genocides, if people want to believe it I'm not going to shout them down and belittle them like Dawkins does. I'm sure I have plenty of beliefs other people disagree with, so dont see the need to appear as a smug **** and tell everyone their beliefs are wrong.

For the record, I believe there is some higher power/ force in the universe. Not an old white bearded dude sitting in a cloud watching me binge watch netflix shows like I'm starring in some kind of celestial gogglebox. But I do believe in Karma. The reason for believing so may be to make me try to be a better person. But hey, it works, I'm probably less of a cock than Dawkins.
1 Like #12
flipnfil
Interesting book, should be compulsory reading at schools

oO
7 Likes #13
teddy1590
While I disagree with religion as it's a man made concept used to control it's followers and dictate their lives, and has led to so many problems such as war and genocides, if people want to believe it I'm not going to shout them down and belittle them like Dawkins does. I'm sure I have plenty of beliefs other people disagree with, so dont see the need to appear as a smug **** and tell everyone their beliefs are wrong.
For the record, I believe there is some higher power/ force in the universe. Not an old white bearded dude sitting in a cloud watching me binge watch netflix shows like I'm starring in some kind of celestial gogglebox. But I do believe in Karma. The reason for believing so may be to make me try to be a better person. But hey, it works, I'm probably less of a cock than Dawkins.

Empirical evidence, or the lack thereof tells people their beliefs are wrong. The fact people go through life with fingers in their ears and blinkers on, doesn't make something they want to believe true. Karma is a nice philosophy to have, but again - lacks any real evidence to support validity. At least in the way many people view Karma, as a force of balance in which bad people are eventually punished for bad deeds. Who's will is it acting upon? Yours, mine, an omnipresent force with an infallible sense of justice? Perspectives change from person to person, laws change from country to country, right and wrong from culture to culture. Having your beliefs questioned, or questioning them yourself, leads to unimaginable growth. Shunning criticism or evidence like a petulant child is moronic, and is a large contributing factor for the state of the world today.

Racist parents teach their kids to hate black people, that they are sub-human and should be exterminated. The kid grows up espousing the same racist garbage, but WHO ARE YOU to tell them their beliefs are wrong...

Beliefs should be challenged - with facts, logic and reason. Otherwise we're left with a society of morons, so blinded by ignorance they're actually enthusiastic about Trump winning an election.

Edited By: Dejaque2k on Sep 30, 2016 12:11
#14
Dejaque2k
teddy1590
While I disagree with religion as it's a man made concept used to control it's followers and dictate their lives, and has led to so many problems such as war and genocides, if people want to believe it I'm not going to shout them down and belittle them like Dawkins does. I'm sure I have plenty of beliefs other people disagree with, so dont see the need to appear as a smug **** and tell everyone their beliefs are wrong.
For the record, I believe there is some higher power/ force in the universe. Not an old white bearded dude sitting in a cloud watching me binge watch netflix shows like I'm starring in some kind of celestial gogglebox. But I do believe in Karma. The reason for believing so may be to make me try to be a better person. But hey, it works, I'm probably less of a cock than Dawkins.
Empirical evidence, or the lack thereof tells people their beliefs are wrong. The fact people go through life with fingers in their ears and blinkers on, doesn't make something they want to believe true. Karma is a nice philosophy to have, but again - lacks any real evidence to support validity. At least in the way many people view Karma, as a force of balance in which bad people are eventually punished for bad deeds. Who's will is it acting upon? Yours, mine, an omnipresent force with an infallible sense of justice? Perspectives change from person to person, laws change from country to country, right and wrong from culture to culture. Having your beliefs questioned, or questioning them yourself, leads to unimaginable growth. Shunning criticism or evidence like a petulant child is moronic, and is a large contributing factor for the state of the world today.
Racist parents teach their kids to hate black people, that they are sub-human and should be exterminated. The kid grows up espousing the same racist garbage, but WHO ARE YOU to tell them their beliefs are wrong...
Beliefs should be challenged - with facts, logic and reason. Otherwise we're left with a society of morons, so blinded by ignorance they're actually enthusiastic about Trump winning an election.

Amen! Preach brother/sister!
#15
flipnfil
Interesting book, should be compulsory reading at schools
http://a67.tinypic.com/2rxbg9y.jpg
3 Likes #16
teddy1590
While I disagree with religion as it's a man made concept used to control it's followers and dictate their lives, and has led to so many problems such as war and genocides, if people want to believe it I'm not going to shout them down and belittle them like Dawkins does. I'm sure I have plenty of beliefs other people disagree with, so dont see the need to appear as a smug **** and tell everyone their beliefs are wrong.
For the record, I believe there is some higher power/ force in the universe. Not an old white bearded dude sitting in a cloud watching me binge watch netflix shows like I'm starring in some kind of celestial gogglebox. But I do believe in Karma. The reason for believing so may be to make me try to be a better person. But hey, it works, I'm probably less of a cock than Dawkins.

If a belief is ridiculous, it is by definition worthy of ridicule.

In my view the idea of a God is ridiculous, even the vaguest notion of a 'higher power' (whatever the fark that means) is ridiculous to me.

Whilst I would echo much of what Dejaque2k said, I would disagree that karma is a 'nice philosophy to have'. If someone does someone else wrong, saying 'oh don't worry, they'll get their comeuppance later/in the next life' is not moral in my view. Palming off the responsibility of righting (or at least compensating) a wrong action, or celebrating a right action, to some mysterious force that just happens to know what is universally good/bad (and as we've established, there is no universal code of ethics), is not reasonable or fair. It is a cop-out. Why would you need to be good if 'karma' will maintain the balance? And before anyone cites the golden rule, it is not a religious notion, it's just common sense!

Karma is simply another belief system (though less noxious than many religious ones) describing the behaviour of the universe for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence.
1 Like #17
cannibalwombat
Dejaque2k
teddy1590
While I disagree with religion as it's a man made concept used to control it's followers and dictate their lives, and has led to so many problems such as war and genocides, if people want to believe it I'm not going to shout them down and belittle them like Dawkins does. I'm sure I have plenty of beliefs other people disagree with, so dont see the need to appear as a smug **** and tell everyone their beliefs are wrong.
For the record, I believe there is some higher power/ force in the universe. Not an old white bearded dude sitting in a cloud watching me binge watch netflix shows like I'm starring in some kind of celestial gogglebox. But I do believe in Karma. The reason for believing so may be to make me try to be a better person. But hey, it works, I'm probably less of a cock than Dawkins.
Empirical evidence, or the lack thereof tells people their beliefs are wrong. The fact people go through life with fingers in their ears and blinkers on, doesn't make something they want to believe true. Karma is a nice philosophy to have, but again - lacks any real evidence to support validity. At least in the way many people view Karma, as a force of balance in which bad people are eventually punished for bad deeds. Who's will is it acting upon? Yours, mine, an omnipresent force with an infallible sense of justice? Perspectives change from person to person, laws change from country to country, right and wrong from culture to culture. Having your beliefs questioned, or questioning them yourself, leads to unimaginable growth. Shunning criticism or evidence like a petulant child is moronic, and is a large contributing factor for the state of the world today.
Racist parents teach their kids to hate black people, that they are sub-human and should be exterminated. The kid grows up espousing the same racist garbage, but WHO ARE YOU to tell them their beliefs are wrong...
Beliefs should be challenged - with facts, logic and reason. Otherwise we're left with a society of morons, so blinded by ignorance they're actually enthusiastic about Trump winning an election.
Amen! Preach brother/sister!

Thanks, but I self-identify as an Apache-helicopter, because I believe I am one. Therefore it makes it true. Helicopters have no gender.
#18
Predikuesi
flipnfil
Interesting book, should be compulsory reading at schools
http://a67.tinypic.com/2rxbg9y.jpg

I probably shouldn't ask but.... why do you say that?
#19
Dejaque2k
cannibalwombat
Dejaque2k
teddy1590
While I disagree with religion as it's a man made concept used to control it's followers and dictate their lives, and has led to so many problems such as war and genocides, if people want to believe it I'm not going to shout them down and belittle them like Dawkins does. I'm sure I have plenty of beliefs other people disagree with, so dont see the need to appear as a smug **** and tell everyone their beliefs are wrong.
For the record, I believe there is some higher power/ force in the universe. Not an old white bearded dude sitting in a cloud watching me binge watch netflix shows like I'm starring in some kind of celestial gogglebox. But I do believe in Karma. The reason for believing so may be to make me try to be a better person. But hey, it works, I'm probably less of a cock than Dawkins.
Empirical evidence, or the lack thereof tells people their beliefs are wrong. The fact people go through life with fingers in their ears and blinkers on, doesn't make something they want to believe true. Karma is a nice philosophy to have, but again - lacks any real evidence to support validity. At least in the way many people view Karma, as a force of balance in which bad people are eventually punished for bad deeds. Who's will is it acting upon? Yours, mine, an omnipresent force with an infallible sense of justice? Perspectives change from person to person, laws change from country to country, right and wrong from culture to culture. Having your beliefs questioned, or questioning them yourself, leads to unimaginable growth. Shunning criticism or evidence like a petulant child is moronic, and is a large contributing factor for the state of the world today.
Racist parents teach their kids to hate black people, that they are sub-human and should be exterminated. The kid grows up espousing the same racist garbage, but WHO ARE YOU to tell them their beliefs are wrong...
Beliefs should be challenged - with facts, logic and reason. Otherwise we're left with a society of morons, so blinded by ignorance they're actually enthusiastic about Trump winning an election.
Amen! Preach brother/sister!
Thanks, but I self-identify as an Apache-helicopter, because I believe I am one. Therefore it makes it true. Helicopters have no gender.

Let's not get started on gender...
#20
flipnfil
Predikuesi
flipnfil
Interesting book, should be compulsory reading at schools
http://a67.tinypic.com/2rxbg9y.jpg
I probably shouldn't ask but.... why do you say that?
Probably shouldn't.
#21
teddy1590
While I disagree with religion as it's a man made concept used to control it's followers and dictate their lives, and has led to so many problems such as war and genocides, if people want to believe it I'm not going to shout them down and belittle them like Dawkins does. I'm sure I have plenty of beliefs other people disagree with, so dont see the need to appear as a smug **** and tell everyone their beliefs are wrong.
For the record, I believe there is some higher power/ force in the universe. Not an old white bearded dude sitting in a cloud watching me binge watch netflix shows like I'm starring in some kind of celestial gogglebox. But I do believe in Karma. The reason for believing so may be to make me try to be a better person. But hey, it works, I'm probably less of a cock than Dawkins.

'I'm not going to shout them down and belittle them like Dawkins does.' - he doesn't do that, he simply states they are wrong without pandering to their delusions. Show me a video of him shouting to stop a speaker.
#22
cannibalwombat
teddy1590
While I disagree with religion as it's a man made concept used to control it's followers and dictate their lives, and has led to so many problems such as war and genocides, if people want to believe it I'm not going to shout them down and belittle them like Dawkins does. I'm sure I have plenty of beliefs other people disagree with, so dont see the need to appear as a smug **** and tell everyone their beliefs are wrong.
For the record, I believe there is some higher power/ force in the universe. Not an old white bearded dude sitting in a cloud watching me binge watch netflix shows like I'm starring in some kind of celestial gogglebox. But I do believe in Karma. The reason for believing so may be to make me try to be a better person. But hey, it works, I'm probably less of a cock than Dawkins.
If a belief is ridiculous, it is by definition worthy of ridicule.
In my view the idea of a God is ridiculous, even the vaguest notion of a 'higher power' (whatever the fark that means) is ridiculous to me.
Whilst I would echo much of what Dejaque2k said, I would disagree that karma is a 'nice philosophy to have'. If someone does someone else wrong, saying 'oh don't worry, they'll get their comeuppance later/in the next life' is not moral in my view. Palming off the responsibility of righting (or at least compensating) a wrong action, or celebrating a right action, to some mysterious force that just happens to know what is universally good/bad (and as we've established, there is no universal code of ethics), is not reasonable or fair. It is a cop-out. Why would you need to be good if 'karma' will maintain the balance? And before anyone cites the golden rule, it is not a religious notion, it's just common sense!
Karma is simply another belief system (though less noxious than many religious ones) describing the behaviour of the universe for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence.

That's a fair comment and I do completely agree. I meant "nice philosophy" in so much as many act with honest intentions in anticipation of a karmic reward, or avoid wrong-doings in order to spare the proverbial rod. As a means to an end, it does make people more conscious of their actions - regardless of validity. It's comparatively "nice" in the pecking order of unfounded beliefs, and certainly more passive than actively hostile.
#23
cannibalwombat
nexus76
I'm sure Einstein was more intelligent than this angry man and he said the exact opposite to this clown by stating its inherent in humans to believe in a Higher creator and correct to. Either way this man a just a annoying gimp.

Any quotes? You only need to do some basic research to realise that you're wrong.

From Wikipedia (yes, Wiki; buy PUP's 'the expanded quotable Einstein' if you need reassurance):

"Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."

Sounds very much like a humanist to me. Also:

"Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God".

Anyway, what do Einstein's beliefs have to do with the credibility of Dawkins or his arguments? Should we ignore all scientists henceforth because Einstein was cleverer than all of them?

You may take issue with Dawkins' methods or his general affect, but you don't get to be an Oxford Professor by being a 'clown'. If he's criticising your beliefs, at least he's not also condemning you to eternal torment/stealing your land/blowing you up as the religious zealots he criticises are wont to do!


well said. critics of Dawkins regularly spew out the invective of others without any fact checking whatsoever, and make personal comments about him which are completely inaccurate. I guess simple minds can't handle their simple beliefs being refuted and their inability to use reason leads to them lashing out in anger.

you have to laugh at fundamentalist buffoons who call him a fundamentalist.
#24
There's a "movie" coming out next month, probably in response to this book:
http://www.atheistmovie.com
#25
tom144000
There's a "movie" coming out next month, probably in response to this book:http://www.atheistmovie.com
A dishonest URL, misleading at best, given that the film is called The Atheist Delusion, and promises to explain "Why Millions Deny the Obvious" and claims "Atheism Destroyed with one Scientific Question" - I wonder why it's taken them a whole film to promulgate a single question of such power.

If, as deity believers assert, there has to be a creator, how did such a wonderful and powerful creator come into being?

If there is a loving god/allah/whatever, what is the purpose of human misery and suffering, especially when inflicted upon the most innocent of beings?
#26
bryanhaines399
cannibalwombat
nexus76
I'm sure Einstein was more intelligent than this angry man and he said the exact opposite to this clown by stating its inherent in humans to believe in a Higher creator and correct to. Either way this man a just a annoying gimp.
Any quotes? You only need to do some basic research to realise that you're wrong.
From Wikipedia (yes, Wiki; buy PUP's 'the expanded quotable Einstein' if you need reassurance):
"Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."
Sounds very much like a humanist to me. Also:
"Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God".
Anyway, what do Einstein's beliefs have to do with the credibility of Dawkins or his arguments? Should we ignore all scientists henceforth because Einstein was cleverer than all of them?
You may take issue with Dawkins' methods or his general affect, but you don't get to be an Oxford Professor by being a 'clown'. If he's criticising your beliefs, at least he's not also condemning you to eternal torment/stealing your land/blowing you up as the religious zealots he criticises are wont to do!
well said. critics of Dawkins regularly spew out the invective of others without any fact checking whatsoever, and make personal comments about him which are completely inaccurate. I guess simple minds can't handle their simple beliefs being refuted and their inability to use reason leads to them lashing out in anger.
you have to laugh at fundamentalist buffoons who call him a fundamentalist.

As I said Im not religious so I'm not on the defensive here, but anyone who calls others simple minded & buffoons, yet fails to capitalize the start of their sentences isn't really helping to argue their cause.
#27
teddy1590
bryanhaines399
cannibalwombat
nexus76
I'm sure Einstein was more intelligent than this angry man and he said the exact opposite to this clown by stating its inherent in humans to believe in a Higher creator and correct to. Either way this man a just a annoying gimp.
Any quotes? You only need to do some basic research to realise that you're wrong.
From Wikipedia (yes, Wiki; buy PUP's 'the expanded quotable Einstein' if you need reassurance):
"Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."
Sounds very much like a humanist to me. Also:
"Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God".
Anyway, what do Einstein's beliefs have to do with the credibility of Dawkins or his arguments? Should we ignore all scientists henceforth because Einstein was cleverer than all of them?
You may take issue with Dawkins' methods or his general affect, but you don't get to be an Oxford Professor by being a 'clown'. If he's criticising your beliefs, at least he's not also condemning you to eternal torment/stealing your land/blowing you up as the religious zealots he criticises are wont to do!
well said. critics of Dawkins regularly spew out the invective of others without any fact checking whatsoever, and make personal comments about him which are completely inaccurate. I guess simple minds can't handle their simple beliefs being refuted and their inability to use reason leads to them lashing out in anger.
you have to laugh at fundamentalist buffoons who call him a fundamentalist.

As I said Im not religious so I'm not on the defensive here, but anyone who calls others simple minded & buffoons, yet fails to capitalize the start of their sentences isn't really helping to argue their cause.


replying on a phone is hardly a formal document and it's hard enough without going back and correcting lack of auto capitalisation, and completely unnecessary. I think the actual veracity of the comment is far more important, otherwise I'd point out the buffoonery of criticising capitalisation whilst being unable spell. oops....
#28
I notice that you object to my lack of capitalisation purely due to your erroneous description of Dawkins being an example of what I referred to. isn't there a name for that type of behaviour? ad hominem?
#29
I didn't invent the URL, but I see your point.

Your question is not a good one, since it only invalidates your own point: "How does anything come into being?". It is a simple rule that anything made has to have a Maker.
You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.
God did not come into existence - He has always been (aseity). He does whatever please Him and He has only ever inflicted suffering on one innocent person and that was Jesus: the God-Man. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.
Yet again, your question about suffering only invalidates your own view: "what purpose is there in suffering?" My world-view has an answer, yours does not.
2 Likes #30
Firstly, you stipulate a simple rule "anything made has a maker". Soon after you say "God did not come into existence - He has always been". This would mean there are exceptions to your rule. Ergo, the big bang theory is (as far as I'm aware) the most credible explanation for the origins of the universe as we perceive it. Until there's definitive proof a prime mover set TBB in motion, why would it be assumed to be the true?

Secondly, I'm all for theorising on the potential existence of a prime mover. But what gets me is how you know gods gender, what his powers are, that he does whatever he wants, his intentions etc. How can you possibly know anything about an entity that hasn't even been proven to exist.

Lastly, what peace has Jesus brought? Did you miss every history class covering any time peroid over the last few thousand years? Also, who's to say there is any point to suffering. We attach our own meanings in and to life, what evidence is there of some divine or higher purpose - besides wishful thinking?
#31
Dejaque2k
Firstly, you stipulate a simple rule "anything made has a maker". Soon after you say "God did not come into existence - He has always been". This would mean there are exceptions to your rule. Ergo, the big bang theory is (as far as I'm aware) the most credible explanation for the origins of the universe as we perceive it. Until there's definitive proof a prime mover set TBB in motion, why would it be assumed to be the true?

Secondly, I'm all for theorising on the potential existence of a prime mover. But what gets me is how you know gods gender, what his powers are, that he does whatever he wants, his intentions etc. How can you possibly know anything about an entity that hasn't even been proven to exist.

Lastly, what peace has Jesus brought? Did you miss every history class covering any time peroid over the last few thousand years? Also, who's to say there is any point to suffering. We attach our own meanings in and to life, what evidence is there of some divine or higher purpose - besides wishful thinking?


You obviously cannot follow simple logic. It is no exception at all. Look at it more closely:
(1) Anything MADE has a Maker.
(2) God is self-existent (not MADE).
(3) It is consistent to say both.

For the record, I don't believe God created the Big Bang. In your understanding, what was there before the Big Bang? Was it eternally there, or was there nothing?

I didn't say I know God's gender, you assumed that. In answer though, God has revealed Himself as a triune (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) Spirit (genderless). However, speaking of Himself, He users gender pronouns that are masculine and that is why Christians refer to Him as He.

Likewise, how we know anything of God is by His revelation: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. - Deuteronomy 29:29".

I suspect though that you do not believe in God because of the lack of evidence (it is all around you), rather it is because of your sinful lifestyle. You have to eliminate God in your mind, or give up your sin, but you don't want to do that. Unfortunately, it's the only two options you have:
(1) Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (His work and person - in case you're not aware, this is what He did:
"God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. - Romans 5:8". For anyone who will believe in Him, He died for (on behalf of) us. A substitute took place:
(a) our sin was placed on Him and He took the punishment on the cross (the full measure of the Father's wrath was poured out on Him). Only He could do it, since only He was the only One who entered into humanity and was completely without sin.
(b) his righteousness was freely given to the believer, so that when we die we may go to heaven. Note: this is entirely based on a free gift of God's mercy and not on my works (I cannot earn my way to heaven).
(2) You continue to reject the free gift of God offered to you personally and you continue in your sin and then die in your sin, when you will be judged by God for all your wickedness.

I pray you will choose the former and not the latter.
4 Likes #32
Oh dear... Evidently it's you that cannot follow simple logic.

exception: noun
A person or thing that is excluded from a general statement or does not follow a rule.

By virtue of always existing and not being "Made", that makes God an exception. I get what you're saying, in so much as you probably assumed I meant God was made, but without a maker and therefore an exception to the rule on those grounds. However, exception was used in this context to highlight God does not follow a rule. He exists outside of any rule... at least from your point of view. That makes god an exception, or at least - exceptional.

"For the record, I don't believe God created the Big Bang. In your understanding, what was there before the Big Bang? Was it eternally there, or was there nothing?"

I'm not Steven Hawkings, nor was I there to witness anything before the big bang - so my understanding is virtually irrelevant. I could come up with a bunch of nonsense to fit the narrative, but I'm not religiously minded, I wouldn't make a bunch of crap up to make sense of a universe I don't fully comprehend. Scientists try to understand the universe via empirical evidence, observable phenomena and testing theories. As we advance, so does our understanding of the universe. But before you go off spouting how religion has answers whereas science does not. Science uncovers answers, religions make answers up. So you can make up explanations based on conjecture, but that doesn't make them factual or based in reality.

"I didn't say I know God's gender, you assumed that."

"He does whatever please Him and He has only ever inflicted suffering on one innocent person"

I guess i got confused when you kept referring to God as he / him.

"However, speaking of Himself, He users gender pronouns that are masculine and that is why Christians refer to Him as He."

Oh I must have missed that visit, when did God visit earth and start speaking of himself? Can you give dates, times / places.

"I suspect though that you do not believe in God because of the lack of evidence (it is all around you), rather it is because of your sinful lifestyle"

Can you list some of that evidence? I didn't realise I was living a sinful lifestyle - which sins am I committing, please tell me more. I don't believe in God because there is no evidence, only conjecture. Show me evidence of God and I will evaluate the strength of that evidence and decide for myself.

As for the rest of the babble. Firstly, the bible or any religious text for that matter were written by people, not God. So quoting text written a long-time ago from people with even more ignorant / backwards beliefs is beyond ridiculous. If I were to follow quotes such as

2. Leviticus 18:22: " Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 3. Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Then really It's my obligation as God commands it, to go and kill gay people. Frankly I find it scary there are still people following this stuff in the 21st century.
#33
Listening to Dawkins on God is like listening to a 6 year old who has won a school science prize trying to talk about Quantum Mechanics or String Theory.
Both have a very limited knowledge on the subject they are talking about with the difference being that Dawkins as an adult and supposedly a scientific thinker should know his limitations much better.
If you want to know about God you should at least talk with the experts and not rely on what the ‘common man’ believes via mainstream religion.
Dawkins is like a cranky belligerent buffoon watching 5 year olds playing football in the park and then writing off football as a sport purely based on their youthful amateur efforts.
The fact that he doesn’t appear to recognise the difference between the naïve amateur religions of the masses and the esoteric inner core of Spiritual Truth that is behind some or possible all of them shows his complete ignorance.
Regardless of his ignorance on this matter he comes across as a loathsome sneering toad and a poisonous one at that.
If I was that loathsome I’d be angry also but with myself not God.
1 Like #34
Agharta
Listening to Dawkins on God is like listening to a 6 year old who has won a school science prize trying to talk about Quantum Mechanics or String Theory.
Both have a very limited knowledge on the subject they are talking about with the difference being that Dawkins as an adult and supposedly a scientific thinker should know his limitations much better.
If you want to know about God you should at least talk with the experts and not rely on what the ‘common man’ believes via mainstream religion.
Dawkins is like a cranky belligerent buffoon watching 5 year olds playing football in the park and then writing off football as a sport purely based on their youthful amateur efforts.
The fact that he doesn’t appear to recognise the difference between the naïve amateur religions of the masses and the esoteric inner core of Spiritual Truth that is behind some or possible all of them shows his complete ignorance.
Regardless of his ignorance on this matter he comes across as a loathsome sneering toad and a poisonous one at that.
If I was that loathsome I’d be angry also but with myself not God.

the naïve amateur religions of the masses and the esoteric inner core of Spiritual Truth
Tell us more, oh Messiah, enlighten us with your spiritual wisdom!
#35
Ajibee
Tell us more, oh Messiah, enlighten us with your spiritual wisdom!
Meditate and you will find the truth within you eventually over many lifetimes.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!