What do I do with my old copy of The God delusion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Mrs Vlad is having a tidy up and wishes to get rid of some old books. The God Delusion is on the pile. Should I rescue it, let Mrs V dump it, let it go to a charity shop.?

I. Have written a commentary and critique in the margins so I'm not sure if it would be acceptable at a BHA bazaar.

The book I suspect would be as welcome at the Church jumble sale as Mother Theresa's autobiography would be at a National Secular Society coffee morning.

Mrs V quite likes Dawkins but is more interested in things being Spick and span  and chucking my stuff out. She is not aware of the thing I have for the Prof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Mrs Vlad is having a tidy up and wishes to get rid of some old books. The God Delusion is on the pile. Should I rescue it, let Mrs V dump it, let it go to a charity shop.?

I. Have written a commentary and critique in the margins so I'm not sure if it would be acceptable at a BHA bazaar.

The book I suspect would be as welcome at the Church jumble sale as Mother Theresa's autobiography would be at a National Secular Society coffee morning.

Mrs V quite likes Dawkins but is more interested in things being Spick and span  and chucking my stuff out. She is not aware of the thing I have for the Prof.

[SqueakyVoice]

I. Have written a commentary and critique in the margins so I'm not sure if it would be acceptable at a BHA bazaar.

Perhaps you should contact this person...

chiefstrawman@themuseumofargumentalfallacies.org.uk

...?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps you should contact this person...

chiefstrawman@themuseumofargumentalfallacies.org.uk

...?

I'm sure such a museum would already be in possession of a book like the God Delusion.

In fact it probably has a whole gallery for it.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

Tell your good lady it must be kept, nay cherished for posterior sorry posterity, in fact maybe you should donate it to one of those time capsule thingy's, future generations might need a bloody good laugh

Just to add that my copy is also full of notes in the margins, notes like, away and play with yerself or why don't you learn about yer subject before you start waffling on about how deluded us theists are.

Gonnagle.

PS: It is a great book, arise new atheist the time is nigh

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You could try reading it - seeing the error of your ways might even be good for your "soul".

[Enki]

Donate it to a charity shop would be my advice, where it might sit nicely next to various copies of the Bible which, at least in my local charity shops, seem to reside there permanently.

[Brownie]

It would sit well in a charity shop alongside various biographies (Katy Price, Sir Cliff and Dawn French), not to mention Jeffrey Archer novels, Bridget Jones and the Da Vinci Code.

On the other hand you could put it in your bookcase or, like mine (rather, my son's but he never asked for it back), have it on a pile of other books near your bed.  That's quite a nice touch.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Mrs Vlad is having a tidy up and wishes to get rid of some old books. The God Delusion is on the pile. Should I rescue it, let Mrs V dump it, let it go to a charity shop.?

Rescue it!

It's worth keeping, in my opinion. In attempting to explain why having the notion of God creates an infinite regression right at the end of Chapter 3, he debunks his own evolutionary beliefs!!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Rescue it!

It's worth keeping, in my opinion. In attempting to explain why having the notion of God creates an infinite regression right at the end of Chapter 3, he debunks his own evolutionary beliefs!!

No he doesn't. Evolution concerns speciation, not creation ex nihilo.

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm sure such a museum would already be in possession of a book like the God Delusion.

But not any with your musings written in it though?
So still worth seeing if they are interested in it, given your world eminence on the subject?

[ippy]

Mrs Vlad is having a tidy up and wishes to get rid of some old books. The God Delusion is on the pile. Should I rescue it, let Mrs V dump it, let it go to a charity shop.?

I. Have written a commentary and critique in the margins so I'm not sure if it would be acceptable at a BHA bazaar.

The book I suspect would be as welcome at the Church jumble sale as Mother Theresa's autobiography would be at a National Secular Society coffee morning.

Mrs V quite likes Dawkins but is more interested in things being Spick and span  and chucking my stuff out. She is not aware of the thing I have for the Prof.

Easy Vlad, try to understand it!

ippy

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword,

No he doesn't. Evolution concerns speciation, not creation ex nihilo.

He does bluehillside. In setting up his infinite regression, his argument is that God, if He exists would have to come from something greater than God. As human beings design and make things, the parallel then is that human beings must have come from something greater than human beings. Evolution works bottom up, not top down!

[Gordon]

He does bluehillside. In setting up his infinite regression, his argument is that God, if He exists would have to come from something greater than God.

It's been a while since I read it but I suspect all RD is doing here is pointing out two problems here; a) the problem of where God comes from, which just creates an infinite regress, and b) if the Christian God is the ultimate 'El Supremo' God (none greater), which seems to be what Christians think, then its creator would have to be even greater than this - which is illogical

As human beings design and make things, the parallel then is that human beings must have come from something greater than human beings. Evolution works bottom up, not top down!

Quite so: which just illustrates the logic problems surrounding claims of 'God'.

[Enki]

He does bluehillside. In setting up his infinite regression, his argument is that God, if He exists would have to come from something greater than God. As human beings design and make things, the parallel then is that human beings must have come from something greater than human beings. Evolution works bottom up, not top down!

He doesn't agree with this argument though, does he? He simply suggests that it would lead to infinite regression. Instead, as in Ch 4, he suggests a valid alternative, which is evolution by natural selection, which does not need an input from any god, and, as you say, 'evolution works bottom up, not top down'.

I fail to see how he is debunking his own evolutionary beliefs.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

He does bluehillside. In setting up his infinite regression, his argument is that God, if He exists would have to come from something greater than God. As human beings design and make things, the parallel then is that human beings must have come from something greater than human beings. Evolution works bottom up, not top down!

No he doesn't. What he does say is that a God with the complexity to make a universe would in all likelihood have had to have descended from less complex antecedents. That's the infinite regression bit. "Human beings" on the other hand are just one species ultimately descended from a species or life form common to all species. That's what evolution entails, but it is not concerned with what caused step one - first life - in that process. You're conflating here evolution with abiogenesis, a common mistake but a mistake nonetheless.   

Thus "evolution" (ie, evolutionary theory) is not invalidated at all by the infinite regression problem for the claim "God".