Talk:The God Delusion

Michael Ruse

The section on the book's reception could point out that Michael Ruse has said that it is books like this that make him ashamed to be an atheist (I have a feeling that I first read this in Wikipedia). Vorbee (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Pigs could fly, but not on Wikipedia without a reliable source and care over undue weight. . . dave souza, talk 18:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Critical reception section

Apart from the first paragraph which has no details, this whole section is devoted to negative appraisals of the book. Is this a fair representation of the critical response to the book. Ashmoo (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to say. As this list shows, responding books to TGD had become something of an industry, and their mention here has grown at times until editors trimmed the section back. Barte (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity when presenting information

User is now indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The problem with articles such as "The God Delusion" is that they fail to present information objectively. They constantly address arguments such as "Intelligent Design" as pseudoscientific but opposing arguments like The Big Bang & Evolution are presented as though they are factual (Even though these still remain theories up to today). One must observe & present this information from an unbiased standpoint so that the reader may decide how to interpret this information for themselves & trust that they are not being subliminally influenced to think in a certain way. Wikipedia is a worldwide source of information & they should not be "tricked" into believing one side of the argument more than the other. Repent.The End is Near (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC) See our policy wp:WEIGHT and content guideline wp:FRINGE. More interesting pointers at wp:Five pillars. - DVdm (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Agreed. Wikipedia reflects scientific consensus, which is not on the side of intelligent design. In addition, the task here is primarily to describe the book The God Delusion, not provide counter-arguments. If you're looking for a different model, you're looking for a different online encyclopedia. Barte (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Indeed. For clarification, intelligent design is pseudoscience (creation science relabelled) while the argument from design or teleological argument is theological apologetics, a supposed guide to the attributes of the deity. If any. . . dave souza, talk 18:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC) The OP is a crusader, and crusaders don't last long on Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Derren Brown's favourite book

Should this article say that according to the blurb on the cover of the book, Derren Brown states that the book is his favourite book of all time? Vorbee (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Psychology of religion

I have a copy of this book on loan from a local public library, and I have go up to the chapter entitled "The Roots of Religion". Should this article point out that Dawkins would almost certainly fail an examination in the Psychology of Religion? This chapter never mentions the work of atheistic thinkers such as Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx and their theories as to how religion originates. Or would this be too much like inserting original research into Wikipedia? Vorbee (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It probablywould. 81.133.110.208 (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Not just "probably". Barte (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Please explain your exclusion of John Lennox's quote.

Why do you want that quote excluded? I think adding in some review of the book from the opposite point of view is fair and is in line with WP:NPOV. Why did you revert my revert, User:Hob Gadling? I only reverted it once, as per WP:BRD. Félix An (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Why did you revert my revert Mainly because your revert was a revert of a revert. That means that you are edit-warring and not following WP:BRD. You want that in the article, you need consensus to keep it.

It's a lengthy quote, and it talks about something that is not mentioned in the article. Without context, it does not make sense. Why would Dawkins claim that Christians believe in a "created God"? It does not make sense, and it is a strawman at best and randomly-generated text at worst.

I get it that your side does not have any good arguments against Dawkins, so, if you want to argue, you need to use bad ones, but please do not use Wikipedia pages for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

At one point, this article was buried in quotes from critics of the book and Dawkins. It and he apparently have scores of them. Which is why you now see the sections "Reviews and responses" as way of representing those arguments without piling them on ad nauseam. Lennox is just one of those myriad critics. That he gets a section devoted to him is dubious. That he would get a long quote in addition is clearly WP:UNDUE. If we dropped the debate section and added a short quote from Lennox in the Critical response section above, I could live with it. But proportionality matters here. Barte (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)