Anyone else see Richard Dawkins get BTFO?

Eli Harris
Eli Harris

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

Jaxson Stewart
Jaxson Stewart

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

Isaac Jackson
Isaac Jackson

at least its funny

Hudson Kelly
Hudson Kelly

"Not an argument" is not an argument

inb4 "'not an argument' is not an argument" is not an argument"

Bentley Roberts
Bentley Roberts

Would you shoot me?

Oliver Williams
Oliver Williams

person says they're going to steal everything from a jewelry store if allowed to work there
well they haven't done anything yet and its just words so whatever

Stefan would actually hire this person.

Carter Ross
Carter Ross

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

Brandon Sanders
Brandon Sanders

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

Nathaniel Gray
Nathaniel Gray

tfw youre a leftist who respects molyneux more than dawkins

Josiah Lee
Josiah Lee

You mean retard, not leftist.

Gabriel Russell
Gabriel Russell

not an argument

Evan Flores
Evan Flores

Not an argument

Gabriel Moore
Gabriel Moore

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

Jonathan Butler
Jonathan Butler

not an argument
LE MEMES

Christopher Garcia
Christopher Garcia

Not an argument.

Joseph Morgan
Joseph Morgan

Is Milhouse a meme?

Ethan James
Ethan James

Thanks

Blake Adams
Blake Adams

This man is a living meme.

Leo Robinson
Leo Robinson

ffs what a dunce

Jack Murphy
Jack Murphy

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

Isaiah Perez
Isaiah Perez

Never go full STEMlord

Nolan Gutierrez
Nolan Gutierrez

Do you even know what Continental Philosophy is?

Kevin James
Kevin James

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

William Lee
William Lee

Damn muslims and their irrational homophobia and traditional values.
Let's ban muslims so that our society may progress then!
NO. Then I won't be able to moan about how stupid they are!

same.

Jonathan Barnes
Jonathan Barnes

NEVER

Joshua Lee
Joshua Lee

im pretty sure he's joking…

Brayden Brown
Brayden Brown

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

Jayden Anderson
Jayden Anderson

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

Colton Nguyen
Colton Nguyen

Requesting meme filter

Luis Thomas
Luis Thomas

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

William Jenkins
William Jenkins

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

Andrew Turner
Andrew Turner

totally not a /pol/ype

Luis Garcia
Luis Garcia

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

John Robinson
John Robinson

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

Also this:

STEMlord
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.

Jaxson Myers
Jaxson Myers

New Atheism became its own thing

I was not aware that it ever had.

Samuel Richardson
Samuel Richardson

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

Logan Bailey
Logan Bailey

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

Brayden Hernandez
Brayden Hernandez

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

Connor Ortiz
Connor Ortiz

Actually an argument, quality 7/10.

Not an argument.

Jaxon Thompson
Jaxon Thompson

not a single argument in this thread
Sad!

Thomas Young
Thomas Young

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.

Noah Reed
Noah Reed

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

Matthew Moore
Matthew Moore

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

Carson Kelly
Carson Kelly

not an argument

Bentley Evans
Bentley Evans

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.

Nathaniel Thomas
Nathaniel Thomas

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.

Ryan Hill
Ryan Hill

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

Josiah Powell
Josiah Powell

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

Grayson Jenkins
Grayson Jenkins

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.

James Flores
James Flores

Aren't we going for the heat death though?

Caleb Hernandez
Caleb Hernandez

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

Parker Phillips
Parker Phillips

You only need force for a change in motion.

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

Andrew Flores
Andrew Flores

You only need force for a change in motion.

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

Brandon Ortiz
Brandon Ortiz

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.

Noah Gonzalez
Noah Gonzalez

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"
this logic doesn't work because Aquinas didn't have a knowledge of contemporary physics eight hundred years ago
LMAO BTFO! Take that Aristotle!

Ian Anderson
Ian Anderson

actually using Aquinas' arguments in the 21st century
kek
I know the "read x" meme is dumb, but pls read the critique of pure reason, these are not good arguments

Jack Mitchell
Jack Mitchell

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:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a woman hateric, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

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

John Jackson
John Jackson

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.

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

Christopher Thompson
Christopher Thompson

not an argument

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".

Luke Phillips
Luke Phillips

Not an argument

Noah Gutierrez
Noah Gutierrez

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

Leo Diaz
Leo Diaz

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

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.

Charles Hill
Charles Hill

stefan molyneux is not a philosopher

Angel Harris
Angel Harris

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

Ayden Carter
Ayden Carter

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

Christian Morris
Christian Morris

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.

Liam Stewart
Liam Stewart

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

Blake Powell
Blake Powell

Jesus christ. Molyneux is an embarassment.

Liam Diaz
Liam Diaz

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.

Wyatt Nguyen
Wyatt Nguyen

You are not his audience. His audience are the people that religion has miseducated.
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.

Brandon Perry
Brandon Perry

His audience are the people that religion has miseducated

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

Carter Martin
Carter Martin

all these bum-blistered christ babbies

Jose Wood
Jose Wood

Christians with any theological depth will have sufficient rebuttals for God's behaviour in the Old Testament
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.

Xavier Ross
Xavier Ross

One of the reasons why New Atheism became its own thing
Nope, New Atheism was born from late 2000's anti-Republican memery. I was part of it.
They merged into the alt-right from
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.

Sebastian Gomez
Sebastian Gomez

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

Joseph Parker
Joseph Parker

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.

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

Matthew Long
Matthew Long

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

Adrian Collins
Adrian Collins

Dawkins and others have debated with exactly those people
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.

Bentley Davis
Bentley Davis

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.

Justin Russell
Justin Russell

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.

Connor Rogers
Connor Rogers

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

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

Matthew Davis
Matthew Davis

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

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

Kevin Bell
Kevin Bell

you must be a Christian if you don't like Dick "Dank Memes" Dawkins and the imperialist fedora tippers
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.

Colton Powell
Colton Powell

75% is a pretty conservative estimate IMO

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
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.

not being a christian = being a new atheist
Tankies gonna tank. Follow that comment chain back. I was responding to somebody laughing at butthurt christians.
New Atheism is propped by the same debunked Liberal philosophy that Libertarians eat from.
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.

Sebastian Carter
Sebastian Carter

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

…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

Jordan Scott
Jordan Scott

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.
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."

Jack Kelly
Jack Kelly

Maybe you should actually attempt to familiarize yourself with the subject you criticize instead of responding you caricatures you fucking moron.
Unless that's the very bizarre name of a theologian, not an argument my dood.

Zachary James
Zachary James

ITT: We post arguments

I'll start:

m = Molyneux
L = libertarian
R = retard

1. ∀x (Lx > Rx)
2. L(m)
∴ (Rm)

R8 my argument.

Josiah Moore
Josiah Moore

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

Brayden Morales
Brayden Morales

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

Elijah Moore
Elijah Moore

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.

Josiah Cruz
Josiah Cruz

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

Owen Richardson
Owen Richardson

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

Daniel Robinson
Daniel Robinson

Maybe you should ask young atheists instead of assume

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.

Cameron Peterson
Cameron Peterson

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

You are too insipidly unimaginative to conceive of a path from ignorance to understanding
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.

Easton Jackson
Easton Jackson

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.

Colton Edwards
Colton Edwards

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

Sebastian Lee
Sebastian Lee

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.

Parker Edwards
Parker Edwards

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.

Mason Harris
Mason Harris

1028069
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.
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.

David Brown
David Brown

1028069
There are many people who also blame him for propagating neo-imperialist attitudes found more blatantly in Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.

Andrew Miller
Andrew Miller

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.
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.

Brayden Fisher
Brayden Fisher

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

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

Hunter Gonzalez
Hunter Gonzalez

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

Caleb Thomas
Caleb Thomas

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.
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.

Jordan Moore
Jordan Moore

Well, theology is important for other reasons
No it is not.

you need something of a deeper understanding of said religion of your goal is to convert anyone but the most fickle of its adherents.
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.

The people that attack Dawkins aren't doing it because of The Selfish Gene. They're doing it because of his New Atheist antics.
You completely missed the point of that post. Dawkins has legitimate contributions to science. The other New Atheist leaders really really don't.

Alexander Ross
Alexander Ross

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

Adrian Long
Adrian Long

nobody up and drops their worldview because they're presented with the "right" one, you literal autist.
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.

Brody Stewart
Brody Stewart

No it is not.
Yes it is. It's an important look into the culture and psyche of the writers and adherents of said theology.

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.
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.

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

Noah Lewis
Noah Lewis

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

Liam Ortiz
Liam Ortiz

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

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.
why did meanie Doo Doo Dawkins have to popularize ideas that the average person had never encountered before
Your elitism is showing.

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.
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.

Sebastian Lee
Sebastian Lee

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.

Adrian Collins
Adrian Collins

Which is getting them to drop their worldview when presented with the right one.
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.

John Barnes
John Barnes

I figured you had to be a religious zealot
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?

Your elitism is showing.
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.

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

Connor Jenkins
Connor Jenkins

It just removes the (already largely irrelevant) supernatural element from their belief system if it succeeds.
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.

Noah Hernandez
Noah Hernandez

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.

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.

Wyatt Wilson
Wyatt Wilson

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.

Camden Price
Camden Price

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

Atheism is not, and was not, a new idea.
It was not a popular idea, which is the point of popularizing something, you illiterate fuck.
My problem is that he didn't bring anything new to the table
He brought a lot of new non-religious people.
as people attack religion and "unreason" as some sort of Great Satan and turn to the secular religion of humanism.
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?

It's still a change to their worldview.
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.

Is religion not a great satan in a sense?
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

Nathaniel Brooks
Nathaniel Brooks

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

Jaxson Martinez
Jaxson Martinez

That's a beautiful quote sure, but:
contextlessly quoting passages from your ideological canon as a "rebuttal"
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.

Anthony Brown
Anthony Brown

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

Caleb Williams
Caleb Williams

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

yes?

Alexander Reed
Alexander Reed

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

Elijah Harris
Elijah Harris

offering an opinion instead of a rebuttal
Yes, I am the fedora bucko.

Almost. It's
1. For any x, if x is a libertarian x is a retard
2. molyneux is a libertarian
3. Therefore molyneux is a retard.
It's valid logic. The conclusion is true. The only question is whether the assumption in 1 is true.

Zachary Rivera
Zachary Rivera

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

Landon Murphy
Landon Murphy

Indeed, is assumption 1 true? :^)

Jeremiah Ortiz
Jeremiah Ortiz

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

Adam Thompson
Adam Thompson

Thank you

Adrian Murphy
Adrian Murphy

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

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit