Anyone else see Richard Dawkins get BTFO?

Anyone else see Richard Dawkins get BTFO?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=45vGBs58TDw
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Molyneux is a fucking idiot. Statements are not intended to be arguments outside the context of an argument.

at least its funny

"Not an argument" is not an argument

Would you shoot me?

Stefan would actually hire this person.

inb4 "'not an argument' is not an argument" is not an argument"
but
is also not an argument

Does anyone ever think if Molyneux will find this lost, fabled argument?

tfw youre a leftist who respects molyneux more than dawkins

You mean retard, not leftist.

not an argument

...

Not an argument

Requesting Richard Dawkins doesn't know what continental philosophy is.jpg

LE MEMES

Not an argument.

...

Is Milhouse a meme?

Thanks

This man is a living meme.

ffs what a dunce

He's kind of right. Why does it matter?

Never go full STEMlord

Do you even know what Continental Philosophy is?

Wikipedia just says that it's a set of philosophers, but nothing more than that. Care to explain?

same.

NEVER

im pretty sure he's joking…

I am becoming more and more convinced that "BTFO" is a synonym for "insulted by an idiot".

Dick Dawkins is a fool, everybody knows that - except for neo-atheistas.

Requesting meme filter

Well, Dawkins is much more despicable.
Even Sam Harris makes Molyneux look less retarded.

Let's be nicer to Molyneux, he's better than Dawkins and Sam Harris, plus he freely shows how stupid anarcho-capitalism is.

...

That is an argument, numb nuts, it's called an argument from anaology. The only 'non' argument is the non-sequitur "Not an argument".

What's the problem with thinking that the continenental/analytic divide is a false dichotomy? This view isn't that uncommon.

Also this:

People are now using SRS/SJW lingo unironically here?

One of the reasons why New Atheism became its own thing is become a lot of people that didn't fit the right wing mould were alienated by how the contemporary left lost its anti-theistic edge and grew apologetic to Islam.

They also mangaged to avert their hijacking attempts by SJWs contrary to non-identarian communists who are reduced to use a Mongolian finger painting forum as their communication channels.

I was not aware that it ever had.

I like how the picture doesn't answer its own question.

Why are you posting a drawing that is endorsing intelligent design? Do you think that evolution is bogus?

debatable.
Dawkins and Sam haven't tried to get people to defoo from their families…[spoilers]yet[/spoiler]

Actually an argument, quality 7/10.


Not an argument.

Sad!

Its a sort of Philosophy that focuses on being and subjective experience rather than pure logic and linguistic rules. It's misleadingly called Continental Philosophy because it was more popular on the continent of Europe rather than Analytics which was popular in the UK and US. It's a stupid name because its obviously not a hard rule but it stuck so now we use it for ease since changing it now would only confuse people more.

youtube.com/watch?v=45vGBs58TDw
Here is an argument :^)

God wasn't made comrade, God is eternal. Read some Aquinas.

not an argument

You've done it now you atheist shit.

Article 3: Whether God exists

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

If god can be eternal, why can't the universe be eternal?

And why can't time be a function of material reality rather than a seperate medium through which it travels?

Time for my half ass response.

Not everyone attributes these concepts to God, which already cripples your adopted arguments.

Firstly, you make the argument from motion. As noted, not everyone attributes this to God. I certainly don't, since I don't believe in God. Furthermore, which God?

Secondly and thirdly, we've got the classic, "Something Can't Come from Nothing" argument. Firstly, this is no more proof of God than Aliens producing us. So it is not proof of God.

Good and Evil are subjective terms. Furthermore you only have a verbal idea of perfection.

And finally we have an argument from design. Most of the world is poorly designed. In fact, all of it is. It seems God's idea of creation is exceptionally limited for an all powerful, all knowing being, so much so everything is dependent on him.

Furthermore, you fall into another pair of issues. Firstly, "Which God?" (I'm presuming the Christian God, which ever one that may be) and secondly, Proof Via Logic. As David Hume noted.

Premise: Nothing can be proved to exist a priori unless its non-existence would imply a contradiction.

Premise: Nothing that is demonstrable or distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction.
Premise: For everything that conceivably

existing, we can also conceive its non-existence.
From (2) and (3), there is no being whose non-existence implies a contradiction.

From (1) and (4), there is no being who's existence is demonstrable a priori.

"I propose this argument as entirely decisive, and am willing to rest the whole controversy upon it."

Like overall, most of this is very typical Theist stuff, a lot of it re-worded Descartes arguments (all of which are so poorly constructed, you could drive a truck through them). I'd advise reading up on wiki.ironchariots.org.

Aren't we going for the heat death though?

He did not make that argument. He just cuntpasted an argument that had been made by Thomas Aquinas.

You only need force for a change in motion.


If your drivel is supposed to be an argument for anything, I think I actually prefer non-arguments.

Give the guy a break. He died before Newton was born but not before Epicurus who said essentially the same thing.

...

The universe is not a thing in the same sense as God is. The universe is a name we use to label all existing things. While God Himself would be a being.

Which attributes are you referring to comrade? Omniscience, omnipotence, the causer of motion?
The impossibility of something from nothing, is proof of some sort of first mover, the further proof continue to that this is what we call God.
Good and Evil are not subject you moral relativist, there are obviously some outcomes which are more favourable than others which we would call the Good.
You've contradicted yourself, if there is no good and evil than you would be unable to judge creation and whether it is good or bad. This is the argument that Hume gave but is useless. How can was judge whether the world is poorly designed? Maybe it can be labeled such for humans but we are only a small part of the created order.
Which God is an irrelevant question since only the basic attributes of God are laid, it can be 'any God' you choose.
You're problem with understanding the arguments, from what I see, is that you nitpick details that don't seem to fit, to you. You're using your partial judgment to influence your perception of the arguments.

Of course I did, the text starts with "Article 3". I never implied it was mine. To quote argument identifying king himself: "not an argument"

LMAO BTFO! Take that Aristotle!

kek
I know the "read x" meme is dumb, but pls read the critique of pure reason, these are not good arguments

Dank Memes Dawkins always struck me as a sort of contrarian protestant that's angry with God rather than a genuine atheist.

For instance, take the line from the God Delusion that he's so proud of:

That's not how you analyze a mythological figure. He sounds less like an atheist and more like God's ex-girlfriend.

So, you are saying that god doesn't exist?

Ah the new "i don't want to answer you but still get the last word in" meme. I guess it will replace other meme responses like "fedora" or "cuck".

Not an argument

Let me take a look here… yep, no arguments.

...

Isn't that what most followers of New Atheism are in the first place? It would seem as if the need to have their beliefs validated by consensus and the act of trying to undermine the beliefs of others is more important than believing anything at all.

stefan molyneux is not a philosopher

God created time because he exists outside of time. Because of this, time is finite by creation as it is grounded in materiality desu

I don't think the average stemlord is smart enough for anything past a BSc.

This is silly. Real scientists know that science only finding evidence for or against a hypothesis and that facts are spooks. In statistics, you do not prove your hypothesis – you can either reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Lenin is more absolute about truth than any scientist I've ever met.

If god 'exists' 'outside of time' then he exists outside of reality.

Jesus christ. Molyneux is an embarassment.

That's a wholly accurate description of God as portrayed in the bible though. He's not doing analysis of a mythological figure. He's trying to point out to laypeople what a huge asshole this character is, according to "his" own book. Jesus Christ, you people are so fucking autistic. You are not his audience. His audience are the people that religion has miseducated. They would not be familiar with highfalutin literary theory.

Nigger, if anything The God Delusion was preaching to the choir. I don't know of anyone who would have been swayed by the God Delusion except someone who had both never questioned their faith before and was also not particularly knowledgeable about it. Dawkins is completely ignorant of theology and proud of this fact.

But they're not his audience either. Christians with any theological depth will have sufficient rebuttals for God's behaviour in the Old Testament, while those Christians that don't aren't going to listen to him anyway because Pastor Roberts said he was a Satanist or whatever.

His audience is goony Internet atheists looking for some sort of CHECKMATE, CHRISTFAGS argument

...

Are you a christian or something? I've read Christian apologetics and it's breathtakingly stupid. Dawkins and others have debated with exactly those people so if you're too lazy to actually read the writings, you can see those people make those arguments in real time.

Nope, New Atheism was born from late 2000's anti-Republican memery. I was part of it.
They merged into the alt-right from

It's almost like Holla Forums is full of liberals larping as lefties.

That's like 75% of religious people to be fair though

Sufficient rebuttals in their mind

And no, I'm not a Christian I just see the futility over trying to convince any significant number of people "the errors of their way" over something as important to their identity as religion

Really?

When has Dawkins debated an actual theologian? As far as I'm aware Dawkins and the gang tend to keep to debating Pastor Cletus the Creation King.

i agree. honestly there's no reason why dawkins couldn't tackle the most sophisticated arguments for the existence of a god. theology isn't like rocket surgery, and it mainly concerns itself with the nature of god and religion instead of the question of his existence.

I'm sorry Rebel, but Aquinas's arguments aren't convincing. The third argument doesn't necessitate the existence of a Christian God - it could be a giant turtle and the logic would still work.

The fourth and fifth lack coherency. One must only question "why" exactly there needs to be something greater than all genus's, or why after the initial giant turtle served as a catalyst for the laws of physics there still *needs* to be a god for them to loose all weight.

right back at you.
New Atheism is propped by the same debunked Liberal philosophy that Libertarians eat from.

which is why atheism rose steadily along with the growth of the internet?

They had a chance to create a real intellectual reawakening, but of course they were all analytic weenies so it's all either secular humanism or Protestantism - God.

75% is a pretty conservative estimate IMO


You do realize that the process of cultural transition isn't something that happens in some ethereal space, right? It happens in real life when people interact and exchange ideas, in response to their material conditions.


Maybe you should actually attempt to familiarize yourself with the subject you criticize instead of responding you caricatures you fucking moron.


Tankies gonna tank. Follow that comment chain back. I was responding to somebody laughing at butthurt christians.
New atheism is just "movement" atheism or making a point of talking to people about religion and non-religion. Most people in the west have the same basic ideology. Any group of people whose activities involve much thinking are going to reflect the common ideology. New atheism isn't "propped by" that ideology; it's incidental to it. New atheism is just a reaction to the overt stupidity of religion.

…or alternatively atheism rose in addition to major changes in society over the last few decades.

Look at the changing patterns in religious behaviour since the '50s, such as the collapse of mainstream Protestant churches in most Western nations. I think there are greater forces at work than millions of people "being enlightened by their own intelligence" because some site said that Jesus cleansed 35 pigs of demons, but three gospels later he said it was 41 CHECKMATE, CHRISTIANS

No, you fucking retard. Most people turn to secular humanism or Protestantism - God because that's the ambient ideology that everybody was already immersed in. Removing God is a small step but it's a step in the right direction nonetheless. You are too insipidly unimaginative to conceive of a path from ignorance to understanding and expect everyone to suddenly arrive at your personal version of "enlightenment."

Unless that's the very bizarre name of a theologian, not an argument my dood.

ITT: We post arguments

I'll start:

m = Molyneux
L = libertarian
R = retard

1. ∀x (Lx > Rx)
2. L(m)
∴ (Rm)

R8 my argument.

Maybe you should ask young atheists instead of assume, of course the decline of the churches came first but there were still plenty of cultural christians around before atheism really took off

You are doing a really good job of making the case that you are not an anally annihilated christian. :^)

That's not Rebel. That's a different Christ Com. If it was Rebel then he would of been using his tripcode and he would be telling the person he was arguing with to read Kierkegaard constantly.

You're arguing with two "I'm totally not a christian I'm not mad you guise," one of whom explicitly rejects empiricism, btw.

I don't into formal logic so either 10/10 or 0/10 pick whichever one you feel you deserve.

You making the fundamental error that humans are rational beings, when most of our decisions are based on emotion. I'd wager that most of those "atheists" were never really strong believers in God in the first place. I know I wasn't.

Pic related makes a good case that most of our political/religious beliefs are post-hoc. People don't turn to Marxism because "Das Capital showed me the way!", they turn to Marxism because they were already emotionally inclined to do so.

Because Ricky Dicky and friends never proposed any new way of thinking except dropping God and religion.

Considering an alarming number of people who used to follow old Dank Memes have joined in with the alt-right and fellow travelers, I'd say you can go very astray and there is no set "path" that begins simply by rejecting the existence of deities.

1, 2 and 3 are repetitions of the same point and only prove that the nature of the universe is not fully accounted for by current scientific models. The holes in those models can be filled by many things besides 'God'.

4 is plain retarded and not much more than semantics. The existence of goodness does not imply the existence of a perfectly good being, any more than the existence of heat implies the existence of a maximally hot thing.

5 is more or less the same as 1, 2 and 3, with the difference that it factors in the baseless assertion that 'unintelligent' bodies move with purpose.

Was Aquinas retarded?


He's right though. You don't need to know much theology to knock down the arguments for the existence of the Christian God. All theology depends on the acceptance of those arguments.

yeah true nuff, i'm bored anyway but i guess i can find better stuff to do

At most, that's hardly true by Dawkin's own admissions. As he's said in interviews, that book was more intended towards the until then, unquestioning fence-sitter. The author himself has said that he didn't expect it to have much impact upon the community of the devout.

And who could disagree when the book is one of hostile, blasphemous, explicit damnation of the holy?

New Atheism is for children.

whenever someone like dawkins comes up (even when it has nothing to do with god) a bunch of people get offended. some people in this thread actually said they have more respect for a self-published pop philosopher and cult leader than dawkins, who has actually contributed to the scientific field. people who loathe dawkins are usually muslim apologists (the epitome of liberalism) or religious themselves (the epitome of conservatism).

i actually think people like dawkins do a good job of exposing liberal hypocrisy and denial when it comes to islam. dawkins is definitely an enemy of the pc liberal bullshit that leftypol supposedly hates.

This. The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype are actually pretty fucking important. If you want to bitch about New Atheists, bitch about literally anyone else. Hitchens was an orator, not a thinker, and he said some horrible things like "The Iraq War was a good idea IMO." Daniel Dennet has contributed nothing of note. Sam Harris is objectively a fucking idiot.

There are many people who also blame him for propagating neo-imperialist attitudes found more blatantly in Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.

Well, theology is important for other reasons, but for the sake of the narrow scope of disproving a religion to its followers, you need something of a deeper understanding of said religion of your goal is to convert anyone but the most fickle of its adherents.

Because they are also immersed in that culture, and because nobody up and drops their worldview because they're presented with the "right" one, you literal autist.

An alarming number of people from many other groups have joined the alt-right. Who knew fascism was appealing to people, it's not like that's a major lesson we should have learned by now.

I never said there was a "set" path. The metaphor is intended to illustrate that nobody can snap their fingers and force someone to utterly transform their worldview. It's a process, and rejecting religion is a step in the right direction.

The people that attack Dawkins aren't doing it because of The Selfish Gene. They're doing it because of his New Atheist antics.

I don't know fam, I've been floating between Stalinism and Lolbert ever since i watched Friendman senpai(who made some bretty good arguments)
Most people are simply afraid of questioning their beliefs.

Yeah, I was talking about Classical Liberalism not burger Liberalism.

No it is not.

So, the overwhelming majority of adherents. Because most people are shocked to find out what's actually in those holy books they love so much but haven't read.


You completely missed the point of that post. Dawkins has legitimate contributions to science. The other New Atheist leaders really really don't.

I'm really simplifying/dumbing down Haidt's ideas, but he points out that liberals and actual leftists and libertarians actually share more of a moral basis than would otherwise be believed, given their stances on economics.

Honestly this is the best reception I've had mentioning this here, since usually it gets drowned in a bunch of IT'S NOT MY FAULT YOU'RE NOT RATIONAL LMAO YOU SPOOKED OUT IDIOT

What the fuck was the point of The God Delusion and all that other shit they wrote if not to make people drop their old worldviews and pick up the "right" ones.

Yes it is. It's an important look into the culture and psyche of the writers and adherents of said theology.

This is true, but he didn't have to write a whole book to point out a few basic arguments against the existence of God that have existed since the 18th century.

Who cares? It really doesn't mean anything in the context of what we're talking about. No one was attacking him for The Selfish Gene.

To get them to make the marginal change of beginning to doubt or ceasing to believe in God. You literal autist.

Yeah, you're right. I was deliberately being an asshole here because your arguments are so bad I figured you had to be a religious zealot. I still have my suspicions. You are at the very least still prone to the kind of thinking as a religious zealot.

Your elitism is showing.

The point is that he has credentials in a field that has concrete evidence of the points he criticizes. The others are much more valid targets of the kind of criticism he catches.

Which is getting them to drop their worldview when presented with the right one. The fact that they don't present any guidelines on the implications of this, or the fact that they really weren't qualified to be the ones bringing it up doesn't change this fact.

No, it is not. It leaves their value system and general worldview largely intact. It just removes the (already largely irrelevant) supernatural element from their belief system if it succeeds. You were just arguing about why these people still have ridiculous ideology after losing God, you amnesic fuck.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, go tip your fedora somewhere else, faggot. Were you one the of New Atheists or something? Is this why you're getting all pissy?

Atheism is not, and was not, a new idea. My problem is that he didn't bring anything new to the table and, indeed, has represented something of a setback for irreligious thinking, as people attack religion and "unreason" as some sort of Great Satan and turn to the secular religion of humanism.

Being a published evolutionary biologist doesn't shield you from all criticism.

It's still a change to their worldview. If you get them to change that, you've already won through to them and made them open to new ideas. Dawkins only stopped at giving up belief in deities because that's only as far as he himself went.

Is religion not a great satan in a sense? there are people in america who care about two dudes fucking and zygotes because of it. there are people in the middle east who will kill themselves and others for it. how is religion not a great satan? you dont have to be an atheist, but seriously, following ancient religious dogma runs contrary to modern morals and especially left wing values.

The problem with fedora bashing, as demonstrated by this thread, is that it attracts the kind of people that are spooked by the greatest of all spooks.

No, it's because you're the kind of faggot to use the fedora meme.

It was not a popular idea, which is the point of popularizing something, you illiterate fuck.
He brought a lot of new non-religious people.
Do you disagree with historical materialism? Do you think humanism isn't preferable to traditionalist religion? Why aren't you personally trying to convert humanists to leftists, since you apparently believe it's possible to just get them to change their minds?


Yeah, a change. It's not a fundamental replacement. It still leaves the vast majority intact. In fact, the strategy largely takes advantage of the inconsistency between that worldview and their religion.


Yes it is, and spurdoposter is just doing a lame tu quoque argument here. I won't point that out directly to him, because he would just go "lol you think logical fallacies matter?" He rejects analytics

...

That's a beautiful quote sure, but:
Yeah, totally different from religious zealots who quote bible verses at you.

Religion may not be the Great Satan, but it's always been an arm of the ruling class. For all of Marx's genius and the poetry of that quote, he is way off base here.

Yeah, i think the other user is right, you're a fedora.

I don't into formal logic either, but
libertarians are retards
molyneux is a retard
therefore molyneux is a retard

yes?

The logic is sound assuming that the first premise is true. The question is whether we can deductively prove that libertarians are retards.


All libertarians are retards
Molyneux is a libertarian
Therefore, Molyneux is a retard

Yes, I am the fedora bucko.


Almost. It's
It's valid logic. The conclusion is true. The only question is whether the assumption in 1 is true.

I'm not sure where to ask this but, can someone link me some stirner?

Indeed, is assumption 1 true? :^)

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own

Thank you

Hard to say. If there exists any non-retarded libertarian, it's false. Checking every single one is not possible unfortunately.