<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
<channel>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:46:02 MST</lastBuildDate>
<title>Comments re NMMNG post</title>
<link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/46f9641d</link>
<language>en-us</language>
<generator>BlogDammit!</generator>
<copyright>Copyright 2003-2008 No More Mr. Nice Guy!</copyright>

<description>Recent comments in this blog</description><item><title>Mike Haubrich, FCD</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/46f9641d#700</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/46f9641d#700</guid><dc:creator>Mike Haubrich, FCD</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote>Such a person is probably a lost cause anyway, and is certainly not going to read "The God Delusion" - his megachurch preacher has probably already told him it's a satanic book, and he'll scream forever in infinite agony in the Lake of Fire if he so much as goes into a non-Christian bookstore that might stock a copy. </blockquote>

More likely, since a MegaChurch is more concerned with preaching "prosperity" than hellfire, the preacher would tell him that he should disassociate from such negativity.  Habituating non-Christian bookstores will lead to poverty rather than hellfire. The Megachurches are more concerned with building a "Heaven on Earth" than waiting for the Armageddon.

Yeah, it's <em>all</em> ridiculous, but that's how they roll.

I got the same sense from reading this book that you did, and it's almost like it was granting me a self-affirmation to be an atheist while I was reading it, than any sort of destroy religion screed.]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 00:15:02 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>Rosito</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/46f9641d#679</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/46f9641d#679</guid><dc:creator>Rosito</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[Thanks for the review.  After reading the book I, too, had great difficulty seeing how it could be used to support the all-too-frequently heard assertion that "Dawkins is a jerk".  The term is far, far better leveled at the "God is hate" ranks: Pat Robinson, Jerry Falwell and others who believe they have a divine right to make life miserable for homosexuals, abortionists, atheists, Muslims, single mothers, foreigners, assertive youth, scientists, eminent academics and those who are against war, capital punishment and the torture of suspected terrorists. 

OTOH "Kevin's" posting is moving in the direction or atheists "jerkness", proving that this moral deficiency is not confined to religious bigots. <img src="http://www.nmmng.co.uk/Images/smileys/wink.gif" border=0 alt="wink" title="wink" width="15" height="15" />  

If we follow Kevin's line of thinking to its logical conclusion we would have to declare every child who believed in Santa, the Easter Rabbit or fairies to be legally delusional.  While there may be more of a case for applying this declaration to adults who voted Dubya Bush back into presidential power there are extenuating circumstances even here (although one may have to look rather hard to see them).    

Two facts should be considered before disdainfully dismissing all adult religious people as crazily delusional.  

First, mental health workers are familiar with the relatively normal person who harbors an  "encapsulated delusion".  The delusion is generally held apart from most areas of the person's life.  It is immune from the mental processes used to interface with daily life and  , in turn, may have little persistent impact on that life.  A diagnosis of mental illness is proof that the mental wall is imperfect and the delusion is causing significant interference with normal functioning.  A benign example of this phenomena is the person who believes they have been abducted by aliens.  

The difference between "encapsulated" delusional systems which have been diagnosed as "mental illness" and the religious beliefs of those without such a diagnosis is often no more than a dif]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 05:56:44 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>kevin</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/46f9641d#678</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/46f9641d#678</guid><dc:creator>kevin</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[dawkins is rational... its rational thought that is the bane of religion.  why would an all knowing all seeing all loving NEED to create flawed little beings to worship it?  if those little beings dont worship in exactly the way some fat hick preacher with a really bad hairdoo or some priestophile tells us we should.. or if we succumb to those flaws built into us by the creator, would that creator then burn them for ever??? essentially punishing them for its mistake...not making us perfect in the first place.  rationally, it just doesnt make sense.  and i really dont need fear of burning for ever to do the right thing.  people who do are .... irrational.  deity belief IS delusion.  people who believe in a deity should be declared LEGALLY DELUSIONIAL... and disallowed from voting.... those "values voters" who voted for bush over "choice" or "anti choice"...."sanctity of life"... also gave us... 100,000+ dead iraqi civilians....3700+ dead americans...25,000 wounded and maimed..... sanctity of life my ass.]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:34:03 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>J. J. Ramsey</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/46f9641d#673</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/46f9641d#673</guid><dc:creator>J. J. Ramsey</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA["I thought the exclusion of the ontological proof to be outrageous"

What are you talking about? Dawkins has a whole section in Chapter 3 on the ontological argument. He doesn't do it very well, <a href="http://merkdorp.blogspot.com/2007/02/review-of-god-delusion-tgd-part-3.html">in my opinion</a>, but he does discuss it.]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:08:18 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>Danny Vega</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/46f9641d#672</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/46f9641d#672</guid><dc:creator>Danny Vega</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[A little late to the Dawkin's party huh.  It's a mostly redundant book and Dawkins doesn't add much to the arguments about God and religions in general.  If anything, it's a cultural novelty, since it definitely did cause some outcry, as you mentioned.  Dawkins' refutations of the various logical proofs are well put, though I thought the exclusion of the ontological proof to be outrageous, since it's the most prominent and in my opinion, the most compelling one.  Anyway, I wouldn't bother defending it since you'll end up essentially preaching to the choir. [hardy har]]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 01:45:26 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>J. J. Ramsey</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/46f9641d#671</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/46f9641d#671</guid><dc:creator>J. J. Ramsey</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA["Now, if people had read the book, they'd all know this, but all the folks who wanted to complain about it hadn't"

Errm, the person who started the complaints, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/12/hitler_zombie_massacre_over_evolution_pa.php">Orac</a>, had read the book. Also, "Ruse started it" is not a very good defense of Dawkins, since implicit comparisons to Nazis are still being made in Dawkins' Chamberlain analogy.]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:58:17 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>Blake Stacey</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/46f9641d#670</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/46f9641d#670</guid><dc:creator>Blake Stacey</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[That said, I'm not a fan of the term; I think you have to be a <em>really</em> bad person to be as bad as the Nazis, so most comparisons to them or their various adversaries will be horribly overblown.  The take-home lesson, I guess, is that in a debate, one should defuse the opponent's WWII analogy rather than perpetuating it.]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:16:39 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>Blake Stacey</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/46f9641d#669</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/46f9641d#669</guid><dc:creator>Blake Stacey</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[You've written what I've been thinking ever since I finished reading The God Delusion.  Thanks!

When I got to the part about the "Neville Chamberlain evolutionists", I thought, "Here we go!  Now I'll see what everybody is upset about and why they think Dawkins is a jerk."  Two pages later, I said, "That was it?"

Not enough people recognized that Dawkins wasn't introducing a WWII comparison by himself; rather, he was responding to the WWII analogy dragged out by Michael Ruse, thereby demonstrating, I suppose, how specious such analogies usually are.  When comparing to the same war leads you to two mutually opposed conclusions, what good was it anyway?  Now, if people had read the book, they'd all know this, but all the folks who wanted to complain about it hadn't, so they reacted not to the content of the book but to its image.]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:08:57 +0100</pubDate></item></channel>
</rss>
