how do we restore reputation of this intelligent and brilliant writer that got ruined by a bunch of fedora tippers?
how do we restore reputation of this intelligent and brilliant writer that got ruined by a bunch of fedora tippers?
how do we restore reputation of this intelligent and brilliant writer that got ruined by a bunch of fedora tippers?
I'd probably be a fedora tipper too if I had been raised in some crazy fundamentalist household, and only realized that everything I was taught was a lie by age 26. These people are mindbroken and have a twisted sense of what's normal.
did you read his books? they are barely about religion, but about culture
I've read The Selfish Gene. Why would I waste my time reading his cultural takes which I probably already agree with anyways.
the selfish gene is his shittest book. Read The greatest show on earth
Also read endless forms most beautiful
Absolutely brainded.
Shut up moron
>engaging with creationist arguments seriously is more interesting than real researech that actually adds to human knowledge
This can only mean you're on a similar level as the creationists.
Read the fricking books I mentioned you fricking homosexual.
A moron that doesn't understand selfish gene is telling me to read his favorite culture war propaganda instead. Why should I? Say something you mindless cancer.
Oh please. The only reason he invented memes was to rationalize the existence of religion. He talks about "culture" in a broader sense so he isn't seen for the seething cynic he really is.
I prefer Aleister Crowley's reaction to being raised by crazy fundamentalists
>if I had been raised in some crazy fundamentalist household
Does not even happen. Also, it would be good if it did.
lol he ought to be eaten by the monster he helped to create
he is not distinct from the fedora tippers
he is their fully accepted king with all the recognition from both sides
He doesn't like trannies so go with that i guess
Wrong. He calls James Morris a 'she'. He believes they ought to be sympathized with them. As a biologist, he just can't accept their nonsense as being literally true.
>being literally true
I don't think any of them quite believe that. No one has found a "trans gene" or anything. And even if it's not biological, why does that mean it's not literally true? If it holds symbolic weight for human perceivers, then why not accept it as literally true in that sense? Dawkins seems like an agent of the demiurge. He accepts nothing as true unless it is mediated by the indefinite and mute mechanisms of the natural order. But when it comes from the human spirit, he thinks it's false. I'm not trans btw.
It's certainly more than that, trannies think they literally are the other gender, to the point that they take offense at the mere suggestion that they were once the other gender. If it was simply a matter of living your life like the other gender without pretending to be one, no one would care.
That's because they believe gender is socially performative rather than biologically inherited. They are wrong in a sense, right in a sense, but no one should follow Dawkins and promote the strangulation of the human mind down to the natural order. Nature is boring. If gender is inextricably linked to nature, then we should use science to disrupt that link. Human desire, above all else.
Fine, but facing any kind of negative consequence for not sharing the exact same opinion as the new age leftists is pathetic. Dawkins didn't deserve to have his awards stripped. How are you going to get people on your side being this hostile to your critics?
That's not exactly the case. It's claimed he made snarky remarks about trans and racial identity. If you got an award for having humanist opinions ("humanist" of the year), I don't see why the award shouldn't be taken away if your opinions turn out to be anti-humanist. Dawkins proved himself to be a nature worshipper, not a humanist.
>Having opinions that were considered completely sane at the time he was awarded means he should be stripped off it
He was a product of his time. Atheism got ruined by the Atheism+ morons who repurposed Christian Universalism for those who beat off to science textbooks. There’s no coming back from that.
The Bible is a Greek math textbook and Dawkins should be crucified
He ruined his own reputation by being such a proud and vocal fool.
Anon, you may have the answer to OP's question. I would tip a fedora in your general direction but it might be in poor taste given the thread.
Umm, would?
We don't need to, he's the most important biologist of our age and will go down in history as one of the top scientific minds of the 20th century.
>b-b-b-but atheism! fedora! cringe!
Dawkins's lame atheism stuff will be a fun footnote about how ZANY and WHACKY the past was, like Newton being an alchemist and weird pseudognostic. He will be remember for his work on Gene Centered Evolutionary Theory.
The only Zany and Whacky thing is that there are still so many people operating under the God Delusion. If you can't recognize and transcend your own internal childish desire for a powerful daddy figure in the sky to protect and love you while also demanding worship and subservience, that's your own failing. Religion is a psychological and anthropological phenomenon, not actual knowledge.
You sure are assuming a lot of things about people who believe in God.
Maybe many of us think that it is quite plausible that a god-like figure exists in our reality.
I for one make no assumptions on his love for us or his desire for subservience.
Simply put, our reality doesn't feel that random to me, so I think there is at the very least a coin's flip chance that a higher existence is aware of us, maybe has even created us, or all we know, including the big bang.
(1. Why would "God" have a personhood like a human being? If you're willing to abstract the concept of "God" far enough, why not simply say "the universe" or "everything that exists"? It's like Spinoza trying to define God as reasonably as possible and basically removing everything that makes the concept "God".
(2. You fall into the exact fallacy of ignorance that people applied to the diversity of life. For centuries the specialization of animals to their environment was proof positive that God created each one with the tools to survive. This was perfectly plausible to hundreds of generations of people right up until the revolutionary discovery of the mechanisms of evolution. Now we know that blind mechanistic forces replicate themselves, and in combination with interactions in the environment, produce complexity which appears to be designed for that environment. Also, if you are willing to accept that "our reality" doesn't feel random, that it must have been deliberately ordered, then why the hell would you suddenly accept that there is a "God" who must be infinitely more ordered and non-random who doesn't, himself, need an explanation?
From top to bottom, theology is a non-starter and serves only to assuage psychological uneasiness among those who are mentally frail and unable to accept that we are limited beings in an extremely complex reality. In short, if you wish to be honest you must accept the limitations of your knowledge and resist the temptation to claim you know more than you do, which is exactly the faulty basis of any formal religion.
1. I am explicitly talking about a living creature, perhaps just very advanced, or perhaps beyond our science and/or understanding. There is nothing abstract about a god-like figure holding some sort of power over our reality.
2. Fallacy of ignorance? Really?
I was referring to the various coincidences I regularly encounter in my life and around the world. It often feels almost like a higher being is taunting me with its presence by creating almost impossible coincidental situations.
So first hand experience already forces me to think in the direction of creator, author, god, etc...
Not to mention that our science basically ends with 'so uhhh physics stop working inside a black hole and uhhh the big bang somehow happened' yet we pretend to own reality 100%.
We're so primitive that time fluctuations are still just meme science to us, we can barely theorize unperceivable dimensions, we're like children thinking they have it all figured out.
>theology is a non-starter and serves only to assuage psychological uneasiness among those who are mentally frail
That's a nice speech, maybe try replying to the post you're replying to next time instead of talking to yourself.
Claiming that I think it is probable that a god-like being exists and that it, like as not, doesn't care all that much about us, isn't exactly the "cure for the mentally frail" you keep preaching about.
It's just a simple theory, no need to be so ideological about it.
>I was referring to the various coincidences I regularly encounter in my life and around the world. It often feels almost like a higher being is taunting me with its presence by creating almost impossible coincidental situations. So first hand experience already forces me to think in the direction of creator, author, god, etc...
You are a pattern recognition machine due to biology. Not only that, but your bias is to jump to the conclusion that there is agency in randomness. Take for example ancient man out in the wilderness. If you hear a rustle in the grass, your very survival may depend on you recognizing it as a predator. Not only that, but jumping to the conclusion that it is a predator and believing in it so you begin running, would be a hugely sensitive survival advantage. Therefore, you have a built-in bias to be searching for patterns and projecting agency onto that pattern. To better understand this, examine the permutations of this particular situation. If you jump to the conclusion it is an entity, a predator, and it is, you get the jump start and probably survive. If it is just the wind, you don't really lose anything by being jumpy. Now consider the reverse, if you fail to jump to the conclusion that a rustle is a predator, and it is, you almost certainly die. If you fail to notice, and it's just the wind, nothing happens. Intuition can be a powerful tool, but you need to understand the basis on which intuition came into existence and how it can serve you. Taking from this example, you begin to understand superstitious thinking, it served primates to be constantly trying to connect one's own action to possible effects. Hell, even pigeons will repeat actions that randomly coincide with when they get fed. These are ingrained tendencies which bias us towards certain beliefs, but to shackle ourselves blindly to these feelings is complete foolishness.
>homie wrote a book
How bad did the nuns beat you anon?
Why is it that IQfy invariably has the absolute shittiest replies out of any board on IQfy? What do you think your post contributes? What did you have to express? That a certain word count automatically filters you because you only want to read generic one liners that are endlessly posted over and over again by brain dead zombies who wouldn't know an original thought even if somehow their dopamine addled functionally inhibited cerebrum generated one? Where do you think you are, /b/? This is motherfricking LITERATURE "homie", the whole board is LITERALLY about READING. Holy shit you absolute troglodytes have sullied this board beyond redemption. Just to annoy you, I'm going to continue typing words and complete a second volume for you since you think a single paragraph which is basically stream of consciousness equates to a book. Seriously, the education system failed you to a monumental degree but you haven't done yourself any favors considering you have access to the internet, untold works of human genius lie before your fingertips yet you are utterly unwilling (or incapable) of harnessing this embarrassment of riches before you. How many learned men throughout history would kill for a single day's access to this treasure trove of intellectual stimulation? And you waste it and denigrate it with your mere presence. I never understood the contempt elites have for the unwashed masses until I stumbled upon this den of absolute fraudulent pseuds who can barely string two thoughts together but have the absolute AUDACITY to frequent a discussion board on literature. I swear on all that is holy I hope you give your head a shake and realize what an absolute waste your existence has been up to this point and turn things around for yourself. Also, keep your strict-punitive-nun fantasies to yourself, your reference to them reveals far more about yourself than anyone really cares to know.
tl;dr: you mad
>Take for example ancient man out in the wilderness.
Source?
Are you for real? Can you not reason on your own given specific criteria?
What is "ancient man out in the wilderness"?
Our ancestors who existed in untamed lands as hunters and gatherers. What did you think I meant?
What makes you think such things ever existed?
The archeological record. The numerous tribes that have been discovered who still live in this fashion in those lands which have continued to be untamed. Are you just being contrarian or do you seriously doubt that the human species spent a great deal of time living in these conditions?
>The archeological record.
Total fabrication.
>To better understand this, examine the permutations of this particular situation. If you jump to the conclusion it is an entity, a predator, and it is, you get the jump start and probably survive. If it is just the wind, you don't really lose anything by being jumpy. Now consider the reverse, if you fail to jump to the conclusion that a rustle is a predator, and it is, you almost certainly die. If you fail to notice, and it's just the wind, nothing happens.
Also, this is totally backwardly reasoned.
How so? Explain yourself, just saying "nuh-uh" is literally of zero value.
How are IQfy poster this moronic? That scenario is perfectly reasoned, if you assume a rustle is a predator, either you survive if correct or nothing happens if wrong, if you fail to assume it's a predator, either you're wrong and you die or you're right and nothing happens. Therefore there is a survival incentive to have errors in favor of assuming that some being is behind the rustle. It's as straightforward as can be.
If you assume a rustle is a predator, and it is not, and you run away, into the jaws of a predator that was otherwise not aware of you, you do not survive.
I sure hope you haven't dislocated any joints with that Herculean stretch
I get what you're talking about, but I wasn't talking about patterns.
I was talking about one-off situations that have such low odds of happening that I cannot interpret them as anything other than intentional.
It feels like there is a certain back and forth between myself and the world and I cannot deny it.
I appreciate that these experiences have had a powerful impact on you, but I have to confess it simply sounds like superstition to me.
>theology is a non-starter
If you already start from that assumption, the position of arrogantly dismissing all human history because you have it all figured out.
You don't have arguments, you have conditioned biases and tropes based on ignorance which you desperately try to justify while you pretend you're on the side of reason. You're not conscious of your blatant biases and don't even respect the methods designed to mitigate those biases, the methods you pretend to promote but don't really apply or understand.
Even theists have to recognize that the vast majority of Theology that has been advanced by humans is wrong.
>arrogantly dismissing all human history
You completely miss my point, I am saying the specific claims by theists are almost definitely false. If the Hindu tradition is correct, than all the other religions have to be wrong in their claims. If Islam is correct, all the other religions must be false in their claims, etc. They are all mutually exclusive and contradict each other, you have to be a drooling moron to claim that just because each of them have a long history has anything to do with whether their specific claims are true. Religions serve a social utility regardless of their truth value, which you must necessarily accept for the reason I just stated, all but one are necessarily false, and more than likely, they are all false in their claims. This false nature does not prevent the social binding and cultural significance of the religions to those who are believers. Point out any part of this post which is not eminently reasonable.
>Even theists have to recognize that the vast majority of Theology that has been advanced by humans is wrong.
You understand how braindead this argument is when applied to "science" but then dishonestly apply it when it suits you.
All science was "wrong".
>If the Hindu tradition is correct, than all the other religions have to be wrong in their claims
No. You're a moron. Newton was correct and so was Einstein. All forms of knowledge are flawed approximations, your ideas aren't special. Dismissing everything including the history that lead to your own thought process has no merit. Any attempt to justify your arrogant bullshit will be counter productive to the project of approaching of truth you pretend to promote while undermining it in the next breath.
Science operates on the basis of results. Theories are accepted or rejected based on how well they fit the data. Theism operates in the reverse, it is accepted so long as there is no data. And trying to reconcile all religions as a kind of hippy "they are all the same God maaaan" is doomed to fail. Religions make very specific claims. Either Mohammad flew to the moon on a winged horse or he did not. Either Jesus performed miracles and was himself an aspect of God or he was not. Either Arjuna received divine wisdom from Krishna or he did not. If any one is true, they negate the others. I dismiss these claims as patently false, not as unimportant to the development of various human groups, but I guess that nuance is too much for you to comprehend.
Naturalism is self-refuting, evolution violates the laws of science as well. There is no observational science proving that our ancestors were anything other than human or that matter and energy can come from "literally nothing" as Dawkins puts it, but people go on believing in blind faith that it happened. Naturalism and evolutionism are the tax-funded state religions and they falsely call it science to indoctrinate the youth. I dismiss such claims as patently false, I simply do not have enough blind faith to believe in spontaneous generation of matter, energy, information, and life.
If you believe that evolution "does not have one iota of fact", you are beyond hope. Humans have selectively bred animals for centuries. You can artificially select traits by selective breeding, based on this knowledge, you can then use inductive reasoning to understand that the conditions a species exists in in nature acts as a selecting process. Therefore natural selection changes a species over time. In order to make such a ridiculous post as the one you just did, you need to be utterly and completely disconnected from reality. good luck with that.
Variations and adaptations don't prove evolution on the scale the evolutionist religion claims. All you really have is baseless assertions and personal attacks because you can't provide one example of a change of kinds or "macro evolution" as evolutionists often call it. Further, you completely avoided the origin of matter, energy, information, and life problem because your false religion of naturalism has no answers to them. Natural selection can only explain the survival of the fittest, but not the arrival of the fittest; and it doesn't work to change something like dogs into a new kind of creature; centuries of dog breeding and they're still dogs. Evolutionists will point to something like that or to Darwin's finches (which are still finches) or to bacteria and all of which are a loss of information, then tell people to "have faith" that given enough time that will account for all life that came from a common ancestor which came to life from nonlife which contradicts all observational science. I just don't have enough blind faith to believe in such an anti-science religion as naturalism or evolutionism.
You're lost at sea my man. The origin of matter and energy is recognized as a mystery by science, and the theories concerning it, like the big bang theory or string theory are acknowledged to be tenuous and incomplete. You seem to use "blind faith" as a bland pejorative when really science is about recognizing that there are mysteries first and foremost. No science can be done until we realize we have incomplete understandings of a thing. Science takes doubt as it's starting point, and an important point at that. As to "macro evolution", it's not about faith, it's about calculating change over time based on observations. I'm curious, do you dispute that tiny errors can occur in the replications of cells? To put it more directly, you think novel mutation simply does not occur? That's what you would have to advance if you dispute the emergence of novel traits over a long series of generations of specific genes.
At rock bottom, it seems pretty plain to me that you are unwilling or incapable of grasping the concepts you are criticizing. It sounds like you heard a preacher say some stuff once and you just uncritically parrot it without trying to understand the concepts or looking for the logical answer based on the available evidence and arguments presented. I hope I'm wrong and that your grey matter is taking these ideas into account and actually turning them over for yourself to forge the connections yourself, but for the moment I'll remain in doubt that this is happening.
>evolution violates the laws of science as well
Evolution just means how things change over time. They theory of evolution, in regards to biology, is built upon observations of how life has changed over time.
>There is no observational science proving that our ancestors were anything other than human
There's our shared genetics with other species (including behaviors and instincts), a frick ton of previously missing links that have been added to the fossil record in the modern era, the fact that human cells can decide they want to be single-celled organisms once more (cancer), etc.
>or that matter and energy can come from "literally nothing" as Dawkins puts it
Who says it came from nothing (Dawkins does not make this claim). Could have just always been there, but we're limited to the Singularity for as far back as we can see.
>Naturalism and evolutionism are the tax-funded state religions
Because they get results. I'm thankful for the prevalence of vaccines, antibiotics, and antivirals modern medicine provides. Praying diseases away does jack shit and isn't worth spending government money on.
>spontaneous generation of matter, energy, information, and life
Evolution doesn't claim any of these, aside from life itself. As for life, the building blocks can emerge from natural processes. RNA can naturally form on basalt glass, which the Earth had a shit ton of in the early days.
>Evolution just means how things change over time. The theory ... is built upon observations of how life has changed over time
It's built upon the imaginations of men, not science. Look at slight variations within a kind and imagine enough time being a magic wand to make that account for all life. Time is not a magic wand.
>shared genetics with other species (incl. behaviors and instincts)
Doesn't prove common ancestry nor does it prove that one kind can bring forth another kind. It proves common designer as much as your creation story, which is why Christians don't typically make that argument for similarities proving common designer. The data is inconclusive, but DNA which is code or information proves abiogenesis can't happen by the laws of information that information only arises from an intelligent mind and the law of biogenesis that life only comes from life not nonlife. We've never seen the law of biogenesis disproven, all observational science supports it.
>ton of previously missing links that have been added to the fossil record
You're lying or you've been deceived by deliberate frauds like Lucy who is just an ape or other frauds and lies they passed off as fact and many of which are still in textbooks. There are missing links between every single kind of creature and when a creature appears in the fossil record it remains unchanged until it disappears. Fossils don't form over billions of years anyway, an animal dying in the woods is quickly devoured by scavengers, they need rapid burial in sediment like during the flood which also perfectly explains the cambrian explosion and the sedimentary rock layers.
>Who says it came from nothing (Dawkins does not make this claim)
See
and something coming from nothing violates laws of conservation of matter/energy.
>Could have just always been there
It couldn't, by the second law of thermodynamics there would never be any life. Eternal universe with an eternal timeline combined with the law of entropy and at any point on that timeline you have an infinite past and all the energy and heat in the universe would've dissipated infinite years ago. Go infinite years in the past and you still have an infinite past.
>Because they get results. I'm thankful for the prevalence of vaccines, antibiotics, and antivirals modern medicine provides
None of that is founded upon evolutionist belief.
>Praying diseases away does jack shit and isn't worth spending government money on
Weak deflective argument and also untrue, miracles still happen.
>As for life, the building blocks can emerge from natural processes.
You could have all of the building blocks of life, you still wouldn't have life. You could take a cell and kill it, it won't magically come to life. And a cell is more complex than a space shuttle but you believe a space shuttle could build itself given enough time as you view time as a magic wand.
>RNA can naturally form
You're just making things up.
>You're just making things up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world
>It's built upon the imaginations of men, not science
We can replicate it to the point of engineering life to our whims. That's a pretty damn clear indication it's science.
>Look at slight variations within a kind and imagine enough time being a magic wand to make that account for all life.
We don't even need to do it with living shit. We've replicated similar emergent behavior in other mediums as well. Ever watch a neural network play Mario?
>Time is not a magic wand.
More time = more permutations. Simple as
>Doesn't prove common ancestry
We even share the retrovirus junk data, so it's a pretty damn good indication.
>nor does it prove that one kind can bring forth another kind
You'd be surprised how much a few mutated genes can accomplish. Pic related
>It proves common designer
If you saw all the garbage in our genome, along with the horrible design flaws, you'd believe this designer to be total shit. The laryngeal nerve is an easy example of such a design flaw. Not even giraffes can escape such a moronic "design."
>The data is inconclusive
No, you're just centuries behind on the data
>but DNA which is code or information proves abiogenesis can't happen by the laws of information that information only arises from an intelligent mind
There is no such law of information. Intelligence is emergent from matter, not vice versa.
>and the law of biogenesis that life only comes from life not nonlife
Literally everything alive is formed from non-living parts.
>We've never seen the law of biogenesis disproven
It's unfalsifiable, thus useless. For all we know, literally everything was created last Thursday. Burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.
>You're lying or you've been deceived by deliberate frauds like Lucy
Wasn't a fraud. They also found more along the same family line. You're really outdated in your info
>they need rapid burial in sediment like during the flood which also perfectly explains the cambrian explosion and the sedimentary rock layers
Then why are the layers completely segregated? I would be more convinced if you could find me a single bunny fossil from the Cambrian era.
>It couldn't, by the second law of thermodynamics there would never be any life.
We don't know the universe is closed, since he have a hard limit on how far we can see. Earth itself certainly isn't closed, since we take in concentrated energy from the Sun.
>None of that is founded upon evolutionist belief
Yes they are. Viruses and bacteria have predictable evolution, allowing us to exploit that to frick with their reproduction.
>You could have all of the building blocks of life, you still wouldn't have life
You have all the building blocks for life and are alive
>You could take a cell and kill it, it won't magically come to life
Consuming it and re-using the proteins to create more living material does just that.
>You're just making things up
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2022.0027
>Science operates on the basis of results.
More dishonest applications of principles to serve your biases. No interest in actually approaching truth, just reinforcing your own dogma.
If we evaluate claims based on results religious belief are a more successful survival strategy than non-belief. When honestly applied the standards you appealed to in order to undermine religion elevate religion. You don't understand how to think, you only know how to reinforce dogma and then you project that kind of thinking on the world. You're everything you say you oppose.
>If we evaluate claims based on results religious belief are a more successful survival strategy than non-belief.
I've already stated a number of times that religious belief conveys social utility. This is separate from the content of the claims being true. To demonstrate this even more clearly for you, simply consider that mutually contradictory religions convey the same group benefits and utility. This means that the claims of one MUST be wrong, yet they still convey social utility and thus survival advantage. Are you able to grasp this concept or not? Also, you've conflated "results" in terms of logical inferences of data to "results" of biological organisms prospering given certain conditions, but I'll let that slide as my point stands regardless.
>(1. Why would "God" have a personhood like a human being? If you're willing to abstract the concept of "God" far enough, why not simply say "the universe" or "everything that exists"? It's like Spinoza trying to define God as reasonably as possible and basically removing everything that makes the concept "God".
This irks me every single time people bring up god. It's unreal how much anthropomorphizing there's going on just to cope with the absurdity of this world
>We don't need to, he's the most important biologist of our age and will go down in history as one of the top scientific minds of the 20th century.
>We don't need to, he's the most important biologist of our age and will go down in history as one of the top scientific minds of the 20th century.
There's no coming back for R-Dogg after these takes
Idk about the race nonsense but there are only 2 sexes and Islam is a cancer on humanity.
hail satan
benajmin fearnow being the name of a rage-baiting sensationalist journalist is a great example of nominative determinism
Just goes to show Dawkins is based. He adheres to reality, religious cults on his left and right all seethe over his eternal basedness. His basitude. His basosity. His basedelity.
>two sexes
Yeah, he's a biologist and sex is a biological function. His stance is that gender is a completely different playing field. If sex is physics, then gender is metaphysics.
>usefulness of race
It helps heavily with medicine, since different groups of people have differing reactions to drugs/treatment/disease/etc. It's been rather muddled since we're a global society, but we're still at a time where difference can be statistically significant.
>compares Islam to cancer
He's 100% spot on. Their tactic is to gain entry to different lands, form enclaves, and outbreed everybody around them to take over the country from within. The religion was formed by a literal highway robber. You need to be significantly inbred to follow along such garbage
Well he's right on every one of those points. Nice that someone has the balls to say it without also dragging insane right wing baggage like certain critics of islam
now what does he think about the israelites? Maybe we can pitch the idea to him in terms of understanding their evolutionary strategy. Do you think he’ll be receptive to that?
He encouraged morons to LARP as high IQ by being aggressively outspoken about their poorly founded ideas/opinions. He got what he deserved. Frick him.
His main problem, even beyond the fedora tier new atheism, is that he didn't ever dive deep enough into memetics, his one actual good idea. I know Moldbug's writing style can be irritating, but his entries about Dawkins are quite insightful.
>intelligent and brilliant writer
Who are you referring to sir? I only see a picture of Richard Dawkins
I don't find him too interesting. When I was in highschool I thought it was cool how he managed to shut some people up, but then I grew up a bit.
Anyway, there's a reason why he isn't quoted on theological and metaphysical matters. He has a belief in certain branch of metaphysics but he never cared to articulate it. Rather, he assumes that facts and empirical science are on his side and he is transcending other humans that merely believe in things.
He went off the deep end and started attacking other people on twitter. The guy turned into a huge troll and I don't think it was anyones fault but his, he just couldn't handle morons posting stupid shit on a public forum.
I thought briefly that, yeah, some academics cannot stand the fact that they are not adored and respected by "the public". That what they are doing is just a niche thing that didn't bring them public acclaim.
I don't think it's about being adored or liked, I think he's just new to the experience of shitposting and feels like he has to battle everyone that tweets him. Dawkins was always pretty hostile to religion even before he went on social media, he just can't stand when people attack him about it.
That's in part what I mean. People can shitpost, but surely they cannot shitpost Him, The Great Scientist, right? That's my two cents of speculation, and maybe it's not related to him at all.
>Dawkins was always pretty hostile to religion even before he went on social media, he just can't stand when people attack him about it.
Yeah. He, like many others, thinks that he is attacking the thing that he speaks about when in fact he just tries to sort out his internal world, thoughts, emotions and so on. That's what projection does to you. You start airing out your laundry in public under pretence that you are being rational and are against irrationality or some such non-sense.
It would be different if it was in public and like the typical Q&A back and forth, people are different on the internet and will fight tooth and nail to the bitter end over their beliefs, and will take personal offense to anything that looks like a challenge, completely lacking context or an emotional feeling for where the conversation is supposed to be. Most of these people would be cut off after their first question and the argument would stop there. He just can't let a bad comment slide, he has to say something to set them straight in a futile attempt to make someone see reason, and in the end it just makes him look like an butthole, or childish for giving in to and feeding the trolls.
>He just can't let a bad comment slide
Sure, but this is due to his psychology. Not due to the comment itself.
>he has to say something to set them straight in a futile attempt to make someone see reason
No. He may think that that's the case and some others may believe that that is the case, but he is simply projecting his inner conflicts.
I'll just leave these here before I go if anyone actually wants to learn more about the scientific Christian arguments (so you can at least debate against them better).
https://trueorigin.org/abio.php
https://www.christianevidence.net/2017/11/15-reasons-why-evolution-is-fairy-tale.html
There's many more I could find and link, but you can bookmark them for later if you actually want to learn and argue against the Christian arguments. Observational science doesn't contradict the Bible, only the naturalist's interpretation of data does but they're ideologues and they impose their ideology on the data. I really don't care to argue with people indoctrinated by government schools to believe they're hairless talking apes (or still fish) and that we share a common ancestry with earth worms and maggots any further today. I'm really just tired of people who dehumanize man who is made in the image of God, they're all typically fine with mass murdering unborn innocent babies too, I just can't stand it.
I know that this is a very reddit viewpoint, but were Hitchens and Dawkins a sort of last gasp of the bourgeois-elite public verbal debate caste?
Before the liberal era of aestheistic debate came things like Buckley, which were also enjoyable to watch.
It seems like nobody ever has those comfy 2000s rationalist debates any more. I do not like Sam Harris and Peterson.
No. They were the start of the "DESTROYS!" and "OWNS!" culture that ruined public debates. If you like 00s kind of shit check out the iq2 ("IQ squared") channel.
The end of Dawkins is the end of Modernism's dominance. For better or worse. Being Catholic, I'm not sure whether to be happy or sad about it. For now, the world will be about who pulls things out of their ass better and expresses the stronger feelz.
Didn't he defend "mild pedophilia", human cannibalism, and all other array of degenerate shit?
He didn't.
Yeah and he tried to backtrack on the pedophilia shit by saying he only meant there are varying degrees to it. The fact is he said it can be harmless and most of the damage comes from parents who make a big deal out of it, kek.