It basically is meant to convert people. He says so right in the preface. Not convert fundies, but people who are perhaps agnostic or non-religious or people who haven't heard the arguements before.
Though I wouldn't say it's sloppy thinking. His pot shots are not part of his logic base, they're just pot shots. It's like he'll make a point and then write something about how perhaps he should rephrase what he wrote because fundies will misconstrue what he's saying because they like to take things out of context for whatever their adjenda. You sorta read that and think "ok, you're right about that, but *I* understood what you meant, no need to add that bit". His rational is most certainly logic based and it does make a lot of sense.
Perhaps for people like yourself there won't be much new in it, but it covers the gamut so there is a lot to swollow. The "meat" of the book is about proving the nonexistance of god. Which of everyone says you can't do, but he brings up the idea of probibility, which most people forget about and uses that to prove why agnosticism is lame and for all intent and purpose god doesn't exist.
The rest of the book touches on stuff about childhood indoctrination, morals, and a lot on natural selection (even down to tying in natural selection into religion in the first place). It's all interesting, and stuff to ponder.
He also has a good part of the book devoted to people becoming ok with being an athiest. I know this is hard for me, as very few people know my religious beliefs. It's just so taboo. Thankfully it's easy to hide, but it makes it very uncomfortable around family when religous conotations come up and I don't participate (or don't want to). It's really not easy. :/
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-08 07:39 pm (UTC)Though I wouldn't say it's sloppy thinking. His pot shots are not part of his logic base, they're just pot shots. It's like he'll make a point and then write something about how perhaps he should rephrase what he wrote because fundies will misconstrue what he's saying because they like to take things out of context for whatever their adjenda. You sorta read that and think "ok, you're right about that, but *I* understood what you meant, no need to add that bit". His rational is most certainly logic based and it does make a lot of sense.
Perhaps for people like yourself there won't be much new in it, but it covers the gamut so there is a lot to swollow. The "meat" of the book is about proving the nonexistance of god. Which of everyone says you can't do, but he brings up the idea of probibility, which most people forget about and uses that to prove why agnosticism is lame and for all intent and purpose god doesn't exist.
The rest of the book touches on stuff about childhood indoctrination, morals, and a lot on natural selection (even down to tying in natural selection into religion in the first place). It's all interesting, and stuff to ponder.
He also has a good part of the book devoted to people becoming ok with being an athiest. I know this is hard for me, as very few people know my religious beliefs. It's just so taboo. Thankfully it's easy to hide, but it makes it very uncomfortable around family when religous conotations come up and I don't participate (or don't want to). It's really not easy. :/