12 of 15 people found the following review helpful
a must read,
This review is from: The God Delusion (Paperback)A worth while read, being a confused believer myself for many years i was afraid to pick up this book. But i'd got to a place in my life where belief was not working for me, it just didn't hold up to scrutiny. Looking at the bigger picture i just could not get my head around the idea of a personal God when religious people claim on one hand to have their prayers answered over such mundane things, when children are dying of cancer, and starvation and God is not intervening in there lives. I also find it very difficult to look at a newborn baby and refer to it as already being 'sinful.' Anyone who is afraid to read this book because of religious indoctrine then I say if your faith is strong then why would a book be able to change it? At best your gonna understand where the arguement for there not being a god is coming from and to read it is just down to openmindedness and want of understanding. This book should also be read with the knowledge of the Selfish Gene also written by Richard Dawkins or it may be a little more difficult to see clearly where the writer is coming from. Both books take a little while to get into, but it is worth while doing so, ive read them many times over. It explains where religion came from, something some religious people do not even know about. The history of religion is very interesting and important to understanding how it developed. It gives good arguement as to why religion isn't needed to make people want to live good lives or for morality, infact it gives a good arguement as to how religion actually contradicts its so called purpose you only have to look at why most wars have been fault ie religion. It also touches on how the bible contradicts itself in many passages in order to try and make prophesies fit which clearly do not, but to see this it would only really take anyone with an open mind to read the bible for themselves. One of many being that Jesus was not a descendent from the family of David since Joseph was not his father, God was. It also points out the misinterpretation of the word virgin in greek, which actually means single woman. The contradictions in Mark and Mathews story's. He also points out the often overlooked promotion of slavery, degradation of women sending them out to be raped when men have homosexual tendencies, child sacrifice, child abuse/sacrifice, so many innocent people are murdered by God's commands in the bible it actually reads more like a war book and this is suppose to be a loving god even in the new testament christianity was spread by the sword, ie soldiers/crusades. He also gives reasons as to why people may confess to need religion ie to feel part of something, to overide death, for others to overide death and to have an imaginary friend who is loyal to them (elaborated on with the knowledge of child psychology and when a child goes from identifying with its mother to seeing him/herself as a separate person, ie humans have an I and a me we can think about the thinker). It ends with a fantastic arguement as to why non belief gives as much if not more inspiration to living this life.
I still do not understand how people live there life by book written in an era when there was lack of understanding, that which we have today, yet these same people will wholeheartedly except medical help from science to prolong there lives, another question asked Why if heaven is so great? Mr Dawkins does not fundamentally preach athetism he is not shoving it down our throats you make a choice to pick up this book, actually he is a calm and collected individual who though strong in his views does not engage in name calling or 'condemning anyone to hell.' He does state religion does have a place in history as historical relevance, and that the writting in some parts of the bible is beautifully written. Dawkins also admits to the fact that if evidence for a God/creation showed up tomorrow he would wholeheartedly admit he was wrong. Dawkins does touch on evolution but this is mainly covered and made more amazing in the Selfish Gene, so maybe this book should have been called the Religious delusion.
My own journey in reading the bible has listed many questions but as a starter in Genesis the Cain and Abel story,Cain was afraid of the consequences of killing Abel out of jeolousy, (how others would react to him murdering his brother) who were these others if Adam and Eve were the mother and father of creation there would only be the 3 of them on the planet? So God put a mark on Cain, but again who was God and Cain afraid of if Adam and Eve were the mother and father of creation then there wouldn't be anyone to be afraid of. The author of the bible has forgotten why he was writting the book in the first place ie as an explanation for our existance. He then goes on to say that Cain left to the land of Nod and Married, again where did she come from? so this proves there was other people in existance so the bible cannot be an explanation for the creation. Another point is all the way through the old and new testament it says God makes the good for the good and the bad for the bad, everything that happens is Gods will, right up to the jews crucifying or in some parts hanging Jesus from a tree depending on what part you are reading, so based on this where does self will come into it? Doesnt make sense does it? Either God plans everything or he doesn't. I can't think of a more purposeless reason for living than to be gods playthings, what is the point? this then also discounts any reason for prayer. All i can say is reading Dawkins and the bible, freed me up.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-7 of 7 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 4 Sep 2010 07:33:15 BDT
Mr. C. J. Waldron says:
In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010 22:51:34 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 12 Sep 2010 22:55:46 BDT]
Posted on 23 Sep 2010 09:36:31 BDT
I would suggest you to read the other side of the argument , weather you agree or not you would enjoy the book.
Evolution Deceit by Harun Yahya
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Oct 2010 21:48:27 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Oct 2010 21:50:40 BDT
aha!Mr Waldron I wondered when you was going to 'bless' us with your presence. Thank you for your very helpful comment, obviously shows as always that you not only do not bother to read peoples reviews (since i claim to be non-relgious) but also that you don't bother to often read the books you comment on. It appears you use this site just to vent your nonsensical swollocks! I mean who else either purchases or listens to two Katie Melua albums to rant about how awful they are? I'm guessing that you are so bitter that even the lemons bounce off the shelves when you enter the supermarket! two words 'anger management.'
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Dec 2010 19:01:12 GMT
James Shanks says:
very well put,i also read the book,as well as your review,as an RC, with interest,so to help matters along i am reading The God Choice by L Linick, so who knows? an opinion is your right, practice, that is often an act of birth and nationality,reason? we should all practice that and not judge too harshly.
In reply to an earlier post on 25 Apr 2012 14:34:20 BDT
Last edited by the author on 25 Apr 2012 18:00:09 BDT
C. W. Bradbury says:
I should like to compliment you on the quality of your review. Within it you raise questions which have also troubled me since my youth, and by teenage I too had concluded that religion was a collection of garbled tales attractive only to the gullible; but I could never truly accept the alternative evolutionary theories, as even my wristwatch didn't fall together of it's own accord; and I'm a far more complicated machine than any watch! A few years ago however, I purchased Zecharia Sitchin's book:- Genesis Revisited and was amazed at how the old Jewish faith of Abraham and Moses is so closely based on the much older faith of the ancient Sumerians. As the Jewish patriarch Abraham came from the Sumerian city of Ur it is in fact quite logical that his early experiences there should have molded his religious outlook, but to read the original tales on which our Bible is based and realize what they were really telling us; was for Me only comparable to Saul's revelation on the road to Damascus.
We all know the Genesis creation story, but the original Sumerian version is subtly different, in that the God's or Annunaki (Literal meaning:- They who from the heavens came down) implanted free will/understanding within a lower creature of the Earth; creating 'Adamah' (Literal meaning:- slaves to "till the earth"). The biblical tale of Lot's wife, turned by God into a pillar of salt for looking back on the destruction of Sodom is another example of the subtle differences between the original Sumerian and later Hebrew versions. As a child in Sunday school I found the tale both interesting and strangely perplexing; God seemed to treat Lot's wife very unfairly, and why change her to salt? Zecharia Sitchin explains that the Sumerian words for salt and mist/vapour were the same (Nimur), thus a simple mistranslation by Moses had resulted in the story being unintelligible for several millenia. The Sumerian original makes clear that Lot's wife was turned to a column of vapour by the power God used to incinerate Sodom, Gohmorrah and the cities of the plain, while Lot himself worried for months that he was also stricken and would sicken and die! To the modern eye this makes shocking sense, the cities themselves were destroyed by some sort of nuclear blast, Lot's wife was vaporized by the searing heat of the flash; and Lot was worried about the effects of exposure to radioactive fallout!
To conclude, having now read several of Mr Sitchin's books I am so glad to have finally understood the faith of our fathers; it IS based on literal truth; mankind was created by the God's to tend the Earth, even the great flood was a literal event. But those God's of ancient legend were not the mystical spirit creatures of modernday religious belief, they were flesh and blood humanbeings like ourselves, capable of fathering children on 'the daughters of men'; but also the possessors of an advanced scientific knowledge which enabled them, amongst other things to roam the heavens; we call it space today.
Ironically, for the first time in my life, I think I understand the meaning behind the Biblical warnings concerning Armaggeddon, the Second Coming and Judgement Day. Mr Sitchin's books reveal, amongst many other things, a story of escalating conflict between Gods and men. If prior to their disappearance/destruction, the Gods had sent to their original home far away across the galaxy, a request for reinforcements (Shades of General McArthur "I shall return!"); bearing in mind both the awesome time/distances involved in intergalactic travel, and the anticipated effects of Einstein's relativity theory on space-travellers, those reinforcements might even now be on their way here to give a final verdict on the amazing events recorded by those ancient Sumerian scribes.
Is it all true? I don't know, but it makes a lot more sense that the teachings of some religious leaders I could name.
Genesis Revisited: Is Modern Science Catching Up with Ancient Knowledge?
In reply to an earlier post on 4 Sep 2012 08:57:10 BDT
Honrus Publicus says:
I want more money. I want more sex. Time is short. I am sure you agree. Enough with these books.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›