Imagine spending 2000 years on philosophy, theology, and metaphysics, and this English biologist comes in and destroys it all in one book. After reading this book, I can now confidently say: "There is no God." Dawkinspost in the thread.
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
Christians, as in this review, refuse to debate Dawkins on the facts and instead downgrade into treatises that Christianity is "useful" rather than true.
It is nothing more than "Plan B", and will fail as well.
The review posted is a whining attempt at saving a totally destroyed religion. What about hope? Dawkins has faith too you know. And on and on.
It's 2022. Religion is over guys.
It’s 2015+7
>refuse to debate Dawkins
Hello.
Lol atheists will debate a soccer mom in south Tennessee but won’t engage anyone serious
Wow
what a sad point we've come to that marxists are arguing this rather than the reverse
>Why doesn't Dawkins question the studies of questioning everything?
It's always interesting to watch dogmatic thinkers try to wrap their heads around the impersonal and inquiring nature of the scientific method. They seem to think that science follows not only a set of rules, but a set of beliefs. These people will say "but you believe that gravity is holding everything in place!" and "but you have faith that magnets attract and repel!" and then try to clumsily compare their childish superstitions to rigorous exploration, empiricism and data, as if these are things that scientists "have faith in" or "feel love for", rather than understanding the difference between acknowledging objective and empirical evidence as fact and believing something because it sounds like it might be true. But then, if they could think critically, and acknowledge when their beliefs are bullshit, they'd be scientists.
Science doesn't question everything.
All knowledge must be derived from axiomatic truths which cannot themselves be proven, because the system used to prove those truths relies on the assumption that the system is capable of proving those truths, which requires adhering to an axiomatic truth, ad nauseam. This is the most fundamental flaw of empiricism.
So then you just have multiple perspectives look at the same thing. I use axioms of set A, you use axioms of set B, someone else does C, etc. After a certain point we get enough datasets that we can say the error due to axioms is below a certain threshold, and we're golden.
Your proposal works for naturalistic issues like the composition of atoms or how to cure polio, but it still contains axiomatic assumptions, that A) the greater the variety of data sets the more reduced the risk of error, B) that datasets can be universally interpreted under a consensus, and C) that a given axiom can be experimentally tested. Give 30 people an ethical quandary like "what is evil?" and you get 30 different answers. How do you develop a metric for determining when the optimal definition of "evil" has been found? How do you reduce the error rate and get to a solution by increasing that number to 40 or 100 people? How do you test different permeations of a given idea of evil?
Again,
>You only need faith in two things: That "induction works" has a non-super-exponentially-tiny prior probability, and that some single large ordinal is well-ordered. Anything else worth believing in is a deductive consequence of one or both.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zmSuDDFE4dicqd4Hg/you-only-need-faith-in-two-things
As to 'what is evil' the author would probably say the question is a category error.
Fair enough on the "evil" issue. I typed that out hastily and it's past my bedtime. I'm sure you understood the point I was trying to make though.
I read the article, and the commenters in that very article point out that both axioms require their own assumptions. One must also assume that deduction and probability theory works for the first part, and the inclusion of "well-ordered" in the second part brings with it all the baggage of actually reaching that ordinal in a set, which assumes every axiom that comes with set theory, for starters.
>A)
Then we include axiom-sets that say otherwise.
>B)
Then we include axiom-sets that say otherwise.
>C)
I agree with what you are saying, but in practice, we can see if 1) an axiom is true for the world we live in, and 2) if an axiom produces meaningful and true predictions.
Now, you might say
>okay but you still have a wildly divergent group
And that is my point. We can concoct all sorts of axioms, that does not mean that they produce anything meaningful (like eight-sided triangles). Some of the axiom-sets will include "update views in light of new information". We can even make that a requirement, that if an axiom turns out to not be true (see above for "true"), you have to get rid of it. If "refuses to update axioms" is the only axiom that we exclude, then we have something to compare against.
If I wanted to cheat I'd just say that you have to have an axiom like "producing a society is good" or something like that so as to not include LMFAO RADICAL ANARCHY DUUUUUUUDE bullshit because we know that that is not going to happen.
There are also those who argue:
>You only need faith in two things: That "induction works" has a non-super-exponentially-tiny prior probability, and that some single large ordinal is well-ordered. Anything else worth believing in is a deductive consequence of one or both.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zmSuDDFE4dicqd4Hg/you-only-need-faith-in-two-things
>I know for a factg hormones are bad for humans.
LMFAO hormones of all sorts are important to the functioning of the human body. Or do you mean external hormones? But the hormones trans people take are in most cases today bioidentical- the exact same molecule as what the human body naturally produces.
>Unless a study comes out claiming that these hormones do no damage there is no point in thinking that taking these hormones can help anyone who doesn't have physical problem but a psychological one
This is an artificial distinction. The brain is a physical organ of the body.
Because that doesn't work. If gender dysphoria can be treated by means other than transitioning, show me the evidence.
Literally just google "pimozide". But you already know about that, because the entire LGBTBBQ++P community hates this because it works, because it's not about a medical condition, it's about an attack on normal people.
>do you mean external hormones?
ofc i mean external hormones
>bioidentical
they are still harmful, that's why they are illegal and are not allowed in any compitition. I was so fricking close to taking test but didn't becuase of the side effects. if you are taking too small a does then it wouldn't effect the body but if you take high enough fot it to cause significant effect then it'll have side effects.
There is a method called 'micro-dosing' where athletes take small doese (small enough to not show up on testing) but gain an advantage but it still fricks up their body (to a lesser extant ofc)
Yes brain is an organ but the hormones aren't taken for that, they are taken to develop feminine and masculine characteristics in people who don't have them
Yes- to alleviate distress. And yes, they do have a positive effect on the level of the brain too, the hormones themselves positively affect mental health for many trans people. Which is not surprising- if you have a brain that's really wired more like the opposite sex's, it's going to run better on the opposite sex's hormones.
>positive effect on the level of the brain too,
that is a claim that is not yet proven, if it is then I'd like to see the study.
It definitely has positive effects on mental health before physical effects start showing up, though that might just be the knowledge that it's there.
it could be just placebo effect.
Not trying to be an A-hole but a male can never be a female and female can never be a male. That's just a fact plain and simple. I have seen studies where people report feeling happy and excited about their initial treatment but in the long run are miserable.
The problem is when a man tries to be a women, he/she can dress as a women and look feminine but at some point he/she realizes that very few men wanna date them (go to /lgbt/ for proof) so they wanna look more feminine, they get surgeries to cut up their jaw and penis and they try to do more and more to become a women which only makes them miserable. Again i know I'm sounding like an a hole but no one wants to frick an axe wound.
I do believe when a trans person says they wanna be the other gender they truly mean it. but you have to weigh the discomfortthey have being their biological gender vs the discomfort brought by taking hormones and getting surgeries.
Look up the side effects of estrogen and testosterone both have bad effects on mental health. causing rage issues and what not.
I mean, I'm aware it's not as good as actually being born that sex, but if you're truly miserable as your birth sex it may be the only option to alleviate your misery sufficiently that you can go on living.
Though if you are gender dysphoric, you'll be somewhat better off if you managed to realize and receive treatment early enough to avoid going through your natal puberty.
>if you have a brain that's really wired more like the opposite sex
If you're born a male, you have a brain that is wired like a male's. You're confusing subjective beliefs with physical facts. Of course if you play into a schizophrenic's delusion they will be happier in the short term rather than distressed that you are being hostile towards them, up until they inevitably come into hard contact with the barriers of reality.
>If you're born a male, you have a brain that is wired like a male's.
By that do you mean 'there are no differences in neural wiring between the sexes' or do you mean 'I know a prior that there are no individuals whose neurological wiring is strongly sex-atypical'?
By that I mean the "wiring" (which is a fricking misnomer to begin with) of the brain, which is better called a "cast" or "mold", is set from after the initial pre-natal period which determines the structural characteristics of the brain for the rest of the person's life. It's possible that biological males might not receive as much androgen as other males in this pre-natal period, causing slightly more effeminate mannerisms and tendencies, but these are statistically rare exceptions, especially the cases of chromosome abnormalities. But even men with deformed chromosomes generally have no identification with the opposite gender. Basically if you have no extremely obvious physical deformations to begin with which would have affected the structural cast of the body and brain, you are the gender you are born with and any statement otherwise is a subjective delusion. Basically this hinges around the fact that there is no spiritual separation of body and mind.
I'm not talking about intersex conditions, necessarily, merely people with sex-atypical neurotypes- they do exist.
"Neurotype" is a subjective delusion if it is not demonstrable via structural physiology.
There are neurological studies, though, showing trans people's brains to be observably more like the opposite sex in some ways.
That doesn't actually tell us anything about structural physiology. If I spend a lot of time thinking about trains, my brain might also show up with more "masculine" MRI outlines compared to prior. In reality all this demonstrates is a difference in temporary activity, not "normal", "abnormal", except contingently relative to the norm of the general circumstance. It's so much more complicated than just looking at brain scans.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8839957/
Nothing good old pimozide couldn't fix.
In that one specific case.
Nice find.
Um okay? I still believe in God.
We know. You are delusional.
Yet he's happier and more fulfilled than you curious
imagine choosing the bliss of ignorance over miserable knowledge. Couldn't be me
Ignorance is bliss... right up until you're hit by the truck you didn't know about. And it's possible to get hit by a truck even while knowing about it, but knowledge at least gives you a fighting chance. It's never rational to deceive yourself, because you can't know whether it is until you know the actual truth, and once you know the actual truth you can't deceive yourself anymore.
Frick you for putting this low-effort garbage on here.
Thank you for bumping the thread, moron
Eat shit frickface
God is dead. Religion isn't. The symbols of Christianity, its values, morals and anesthetics are so ingrained in our culture that they can only die if we die.
Also now that you discovered there is no god, don't go and pretend that now you cannot learn anything from religious people, or from sacred texts and traditions for that matter. It's not all "stupid and meaningless" and if you say so, you're only lying to yourself.
>God is dead
>believes in his senses
depths even deeper than deep, horrible horrible fate it is to jump from bedrock thinking you can fly and get out
They're already dead. Most of the "Christian symbols" and "Judeo-Christian philosophy" that western culture has is actually Greek philosophy and symbolism. Christianity in its purest form is Islam and Judaism: empty, bland, and depraved.
Christianity has not even a hint of Islam’s sublime multiplicity. Post-Christianity westerners have the strangest ability to be completely ignorant and misguided while still mantaining an air of arrogance.
If you have read Rumi, Suhrawardi and Ibn Arabi and still think Islam is “empty, bland and depraved”, it is you who are empty bland and depraved.
Yahewh is pure evil.
>uses general noun religion
>proceeds to talk exclusively about Christianity
Why is this phenomena so omnipresent in discussion on topics like this?
Probably because we're having this discussion in English and Christianity is the main religion in the Anglosphere historically. If we were having it in Thai they would probably have used Buddhism.
God is a living God. He lives in His church.
God is geometry and Richard Dawkins should be in space jail
Shut the frick up Heather, I will literally rape you
Christian atheism was a mistake.
>Jan assman
He's the assman, egyptologist Jan Assmann
is ASSMAN his real name?
After reading this book, I can now confidently say: "Richard Dawkins is a pseudo."
Is it actually worth reading? If so, why?
It's worth reading maybe as an introductory text to scholasticism, or if you're interested in an introduction to teleology and/or universals. It's written for absolute beginners to give them an idea of the philosophical grounding of God.
I don't believe in God but this book has dumb reasons
>If god was really a giant man in the clouds planes would have bumped into him
That's an actual argument from this book
I lost any and all respect for Dawkins when I saw them shilling for cannibalism in a post-superstition society but wtf? Does he actually literally think that God is a man in the clouds?
Wow, Dall-e put in a truly inspired effort for that prompt.
> God a man in the clouds
You fail to realize that this was EXACTLY what early Christians believed. Stars were angels. Heaven was in the clouds. Hell was underground.
If he said that Hell does not exist because we have dug where ancient people said it exists, you would still believe in Hell?
The point is that you all today are atheists compared to past believers. You would be burned at the stake. If you denied God was actually a man in the sky, you would be blaspheming.
The truth is that if you brought an early Christian 2000 years in the future and brought him up in an airplane, he really WOULD BE devastated seeing his beliefs shattered.
>You fail to realize that this was EXACTLY what early Christians believed.
So? It wasn't integral to their belief. It's not like most early christians were holding to the position of early hebrew cosmology just because it was taught at one point.
>So? It wasn't integral to their belief.
So disproving the heliocentric model couldn't possibly get anyone into trouble? I mean, it comes straight from Aristotle, so all good Christians believe in it.
You are really reaching for a silly point you know does not represent anyone. You aren't really interested in discussion just infantile mockery of things you personally don't like (much like Dawkins) imagine making up a strawman and basing your whole life around owning the people in your head about said strawman. No one cares what you think.
Dawkins doesn't even begin to address this "steelmanned" argument for the existence of God. AI will eventually become so powerful that it essentially becomes God.
You don't understand God and never will, have a nice day technocrat hylic
>have a nice day technocrat hylic
Sounds very Christian
AI is moronic computer algorithims and datasets, it will never become god, it won't even become a viable tool for doing the dishes, it will forever remain as a marketing ploy and autistic hobbyist pursuit
How do you figure? The human brain is composed of matter following the laws of physics, there's no reason to think it does anything that's fundamentally uncomputable.
>essentially becomes God
You either don't know the meaning of God or understand the meaning of essence
Don't understand the meaning of essence*
>Dawkins doesn't address a 7,000 view YouTube video uploaded 10 years after his book was released
Dawksisters, it's over...
why does he have his shirt off.
>recursively self-improving
Lmfao define improve moron that's kinda the whole problem with making something like that
I don’t want to associate myself with him but evolution explains virtually everything. I don’t know why God made such a science available to us. Even the desire to go to heaven, or to love, or to do anything, can be described through evolutionary biology. Sin is not some conscious choice to be evil made by a perfectly free will/soul, but the result of basic biological desires and ignorance. Instead of the whole sin/righteousness dichotomy, it makes more sense to focus on natural lifestyle, and how to be healthy based on how we evolved to live. It doesn’t even make sense to act a certain way to reach an afterlife. The Bible makes much more sense if you view it metaphorically, “the kingdom of heaven is within you” etc.
why doesn't it make sense to act a way to reach a goal?
furthermore, why doesn't it make sense to act natural in a self rewarding way, while also looking to overcome or transfigurate that nature?
>while also looking to overcome or transfigurate that nature?
you can’t overcome what you are
biological evolution doesn’t explain the origins of life itself, but life still “evolves” in a similar manner through cosmic evolution, especially if you consider a multiverse. Universes are selected for to sustain life, and within those that can, planets are selected for. And under certain conditions life is created. It doesn’t matter if the odds are 1 in 10^100, it will happen.
Imagine, transhumanism. Why yes this is a very intellectual discussion.
i dont think you understood my question, wow yes absurdism and chance happen; that really wasnt my object of focus.
i should have said "why doesnt it make sense to act a certain way to reach an afterlife?"
>Imagine, transhumanism. Why yes this is a very intellectual discussion
okay but we’re not transhuman yet
Wow.
What a shaking revelation, this tale will leave you astonished and flabbergasted - the New York times
>why doesn't it make sense to act a way to reach a goal?
Because it's just chance mutations and chance environmental changes converging in particular times or places. it is drift, not linear progress. it isn't oriented to long term future goals but to immediate survival.
If a there is a pond and two fish live in it, one with a slightly mutated tolerance for being outside of the water, and that pond dries up, the fish with the mutation for surviving outside of the water might survive and the one without will die. The fish that lives spreads its genes and thus its mutation. The mutation survived not because of any long term goal but because in one particular place and time due to the mechanics of blind chance it was successful. It's not a goal driven or creative process but a purely physical pragmatic survive-or-die in the moment mechanic/.
>I don’t want to associate myself with him but evolution explains virtually everything
What has created the process of evolution?
It explains virtually everything but itself.
evolution evolved into itself brah
imagine being this dumb
>I don’t want to associate myself with him but evolution explains virtually everything
If your going to be a reddit athiest at least make use of logic. There is no proof of evolution. No new species has been created or bred. The new traits necessary to do this have never been formed in a lab setting. All we have seen is a shuffling of existing traits.
Imagine, if you will, the scenario of the evolution of deep sea fish, which produce a special substance that helps them survive in high pressure environments. For this trait to evolve, and a new species be created, the fish would first need to somehow spontaneously gain the complex ability to protrude new substances in the body, which cannot be done in increments, as it wouldn't work and would be an energy drain on the fish, making it less fit. This is not to mention how rare it would be for a beneficial mutation to form. Think about it, has any baby ever been born in the modern day with a mutation that was anyway beneficial. No, you get downies and dwarves from this. Then, consider how this fish with said trait would find it's way into it's new environment, taking advantage of it's new trait. It could not survive and reproduce in an alien environment with different resources, and no other fish of the same species around to pass on it's genes to. It would not survive in it's normal habitat either with the production of the substance being a drain on it's energy, the trait would be at a disadvantage. Let's pretend that somehow all of this manages to work out. What are the chances of this happening millions, if not billions of times throughout history. The odds just do not make sense. Evolution is gay, plain and simple, and it's a shame how readily it was accepted.
The odds are irrelevant. In the multiverse, life must happen eventually.
>multiverse
Multiverse is nihilistic pop science designed to make you think that you don't live in the perfect iteration of reality. For the universe to exist without reality coming apart at the seams, it must necessarily be perfect, and a perfect universe would need no follow up.
many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics provides a foundation for the multiverse even within physics that we understand. But if you think that the Void created just this world, you’re moronic
>For the universe to exist without reality coming apart at the seams, it must necessarily be perfect, and a perfect universe would need no follow up.
Imagine thinking that anyone ever could even consider either side of the argument about whether the universe has purpose / is "perfect"
>Think about it, has any baby ever been born in the modern day with a mutation that was anyway beneficial.
Michael Phelps? Usain Bolt? Pretty sure they're some kinda mutants.
>Michael Phelps? Usain Bolt? Pretty sure they're some kinda mutants.
They're definitely freaks, but their traits did not come out of nowhere. They inherited uncommon genes from their parents, and for this to be an example of evolution they would need to be born with traits.
>Well, yes. I mean just look at who is exploding and who is winnowing to see what traits nature is currently into
You misunderstand what evolution is. Here you are showing an example of mandelian genetics and natural selection, which are observable phenomena. These are not tied to evolutional theory, and can be separated from it. Evolution requires new traits to be created, which is not happening. What you are seeing is a mass campaign selecting for disingenic traits like poor impulse control and lack of empathy, which modern israeli society facilitates. All of these traits existed in the white man, although in lower quantities than other races. This is why they are being forcefully selected by society through the suppression of individuals and the encouraging of miscegenation.
What you all need to understand is that evolution aligns perfectly with the christian and judaic conceptions of the world. They see it as having a definite beginning, and then an indefinite end state. Evolution implies that there is some goal to reach with regards to evolving, as many trans-humanists will attest to. It is completely at odds with the native white conception of the world, which is cyclical.
>Evolution implies that there is some goal to reach with regards to evolving
That is a very common misunderstanding of evolution.
>That is a very common misunderstanding of evolution.
The theory of evolution is one of obtaining greater and greater complexity. That is the goal, and it isn't a misconception.
>oh look it's another moron who thinks his brief accumulation of experiences mean anything on the scale of billions of years
As above, so below. Basic principles, man.
This has a brief explanation of why it's a misunderstanding.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoalOrientedEvolution
This too
https://crucialconsiderations.org/science-and-philosophy/evolution/why-evolution-has-no-goal/
The tv tropes article only reinforces the israeliness of the nature of evolution. In evolution, it says that there is no honor or merit in evolution, only "fill[ing] specific niches that aren't already full." This is why evolution finds it's highest expression in Social Darwinism. Evolution's goal is only to favor the ruthless and the uncaring. Under evolution, the hyjacking and destruction of high trust traits is not only seen as natural, but encouraged and seen as the next step in evolution.
You can try to "debunk" the fact that evolution works toward ever increasing complexity, and the ultimate goal of god, but you'd be wrong.
it doesn't work towards complexity, hence why we have flightless birds that are arguably less complex than their predecessors.
> Why Evolution Has No Goal
Yet "Evolution being blind implies that lineages only ever **strive towards** local optima" and "It was explained further above that, **in terms of reproductive fitness**, the evolutionary **trend** is always upwards. "
You can't escape teleology in biology. Even if there's no tendency to go toward complexity, there's a tendency to maximize fitness.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Common_descent
>has any baby ever been born in the modern day with a mutation that was anyway beneficial
Well, yes. I mean just look at who is exploding and who is winnowing to see what traits nature is currently into.
Poor future time orientation? That's beneficial, pushes the gene onward nicely, even if it shortens the life of the organism. Overabundance of empathy, well thats a bad neuro development, causes things like suicide and antinatalism.
Strength, facial symmetry, looks like genitals are being selected for when you compare us to rest of the pin-dicked primates. A lot of tribal cooperation baggage is really turning against us, which means at some point it didn't move the ball. Nature is all about moving the ball even at the expense of the organism.
Basically the best humans for the job of moving forward are shown to be at least somewhat bereft of self-reflection, so nature is not the biggest fan of consciousness. A sophisticated hunting system gone haywire just isn't getting the job done, apparently.
>species
lol
This is actually a really good point: if israelites can so radically impact evolutionary processes via finance and Qabbalic Finance, why the frick would you imagine that these things are too complex for Yahweh to figure out?
oh look it's another moron who thinks his brief accumulation of experiences mean anything on the scale of billions of years
oh look it's another moron who has blind faith in evolution since any example requires billions of years and so he can't observe it, thus, making it non-scientific.
Finches, anyone?
"Change from X to X" is not the same as "Change from X to Y" as is the case of human and monkey having the same ancestor. We have no observable example of any change of species.
The concept of 'species' is fuzzy in the first place.
Dwarfism is a beneficial trait for humans in the modern world though
What does this book say that is not already obvious? Anything?
I mean at this point in history you really have to be a moron to believe in God. I mean European intellectuals by the time of Nietzsche already had seen the obvious.
Well it depends on what you mean by "god"
Whos making fun of who?!
>I can't see it therefore it doesn't exist !!!
faulty logic
the only faulty belief is in a god that cares about humanity or thinks and feels like a human. god is not loving nor kind but simply a cosmic animal/insect that does not know or care that we exist, and is beyond the scope of human comprehension. to call it god is to make the mistake of assuming it to be above all when it is simply another expression of the scale of the organic; ants have their hills, we have our buildings and cities and then the earthen rock has its mountains and oceans and so on and so on in an exponential game of scale, so that even god becomes surpassed by something else in terms of relative size. there is always a bigger fish so to speak
Actual moron speaking on topics he doesn't understand. This is a post I would expect a 13-year-old to make, as indeed I understood the world the same way at that age.
It helps no one to be reductive
Top-teir b8 lmao, Dawkins is such a fricking gay its unreal. Atheshits who think "no skydaddy" always subscribe to shit like "its a simulation" or other ideas that act as replacements for God
>always subscribe to shit like "its a simulation"
Literally no one serious believes this. Why do christians keep peddling this BS?
Because Christians' ultimate cope is "Okay, yeah, maybe we are absurd and irrational and believe in nonsense because it makes us feel better, but so does everyone else!"
I love watching their heads explode when they start screeching about how I have "faith" in the Big Bang and I explain to them that I don't believe in the Big Bang and neither think about nor care where the universe came from. And then they are like "You believe in science! You have faith in science!" and I'm like "I don't believe in science. I don't think about or care why my microwave works, though I do notice that science has provided me with a microwave and your stupid religion hasn't provided me anything but headaches."
Hell, I don't even believe in logic, I just don't know how to avoid using it. I don't believe in anything. I'm not even convinced I exist.
youre a moron
*You're
If you needed this book to realize that, you're a brainlet.
Stemgays are bugmen
>Anti-Logos
no thanks
damn that name is cool as frick. I didn't read libido dominandi because its 800+ pages (reminds me of the underground history of american education), do you have a pdf of logos rising? is it good?
>Imagine spending 2000 years on philosophy, theology, and metaphysics, and this English biologist comes in and destroys it all in one book.
Do I have to have a degree in leprechaunology to say that leprechauns don't exist?
By that do you mean you believe atheism is false (i.e. God actually exists) or do you mean you don't believe anyone is really an atheist?
I must say I really love Dawkins for writing this book. I don't really find it that impressive, but damn, the immense seething it causes in religious goobers is truly a sight to behold
Read Ellul.
I cannot for the life of me find an ebook of this. I want to read it very badly though.
>After reading this book
You could have said that 2500 years ago
Why do you think relitards need to catch them early and do constant reinforcement?
Supersition comes natural to humans because of patternseeking and mirroring our own selves into everything we see. Religion is just exploitation of the gullible by the deluded. The Greeks knew this, and so did the Christcucks, or they wouldn't have been so desperate about killing and burning anyone that pointed out their obvious moronation
Man needs something good and eternal to have faith in. Man without faith will become sick and needlessly suffer. Machines and pleasures are temporary, faith in materials and thrills won’t save you.
For all the riches in the world
May be gifts from the devil or earthly kings
I should suspect I worship’d the devil
If I thanked my god for earthly things
>Man without faith will become sick and needlessly suffer.
that´s where the Will steps in
Take a look at IQfy threads. Kids with nothing but entertainment to fill the void, and they’re all depressed. We as a species need something eternal not temporary to love and trust in. Willpower is important but letting go and accepting the mysteries in life with a loving confidence is more important
Terrible bait.
i don't believe in atheism
Why does her tigh look so gigantic?
If "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking plunged me into fedora atheism in college days then it was "God Delusion" that cemented my new beliefs.
Tho my atheism is now more complete than it ever was. It would make even Dawkins shudder
Dawkins and the nu atheist cope is just repreating the same arguments Hume made hundreds of years ago
Based OP. Fundies and Spaghetti Monster fence sitters are seething ITT
>Imagine spending 2000 years on philosophy, theology, and metaphysics, and this English biologist comes in and destroys it all in one book. After reading this book, I can now confidently say: "There is no God." Dawkinspost in the thread.
Am I on fricking Reddit? Get lost troony, and take your filthy atheist globohomosexual with you. IQfy will always be a based tradcath board.
>IQfy will always be a based tradcath board.
but shitskins can't read
White Catholicism is on the rise and will soon stomp your infected troonholes. You know what’s coming, I know you’re scared.
>White Catholicism is on the rise
literally where pablo?
Everywhere.
Unironically probably born after 9/11 and spent his life on twitter. No one in real life gives a shit about catholicism. If you think people getting sick of troons means they want the 'no fun allowed brand' of Christianity you are moronic
>catholicism
>no fun around brand of Christianity
Don't confuse them for Baptist they are the guys with the constant Holidays every five day
Baptists and other protestants are infinitely more fun to be around than Catholics. Never met a catholic who wasn't either a double life hypocrite or a miserable frick. Catholics can't even have sex with their wife regularly.
People hate troons because they're obnoxious busy bodies policing everyones thoughts and telling them what they can and can't say, the idea that they would want Catholics who love nothing more than be busy bodies policing everyones thoughts and lives is laughable.
Idk, maybe you have had bad experiences with Catholics but in my experience they are pretty chill, though if you want Christian sex-havers you need to turn Orthodox. Catholic priests get in trouble for raping little boys and Russian Orthodox ones for taking them to a brothel to be initiated
Maybe novus ordo ones, but Trad caths are cold people, it's built into the religion. Protestantism is partly defined by having the priest face the audience, this is quite literally intended to generate a sense of closeness, humanity and sense of community. Trad caths have the priest face away from the audience, deliberately to make people feel separated from god, intentionally giving off a personality of aloofness and cold mysticism. I've noticed this reflected in the personality of adherents, with protestants just generally being more genuine and pleasant people, and catholics being more cold and almost self hating.
Catholics tend to be warm in my experience, though somewhat strict
They are usually more introverted and creative
>People hate troons because they're obnoxious busy bodies policing everyones thoughts and telling them what they can and can't say, the idea that they would want Catholics who love nothing more than be busy bodies policing everyones thoughts and lives is laughable.
Trans person here, as long as you don't try to harass or assault me, exclude me from society, prevent me from accessing the medical treatment I need (or encourage others to do so) I really don't care that much what you think.
Sure thing you ugly frick
Are you saying you don't believe some part of which I'm saying? Why not?
It’s an anonymous website why are you being a trans apologist if not to impress
In hopes of people reading it and being influenced to be a bit more tolerant?
They’re concerned for your well being. I’m sorry but you aren’t a woman. You can just tbink you are something and be that thing. you’ll be sad, poisoning yourself, maming yourself. And ending yourself with no hope of self actualization.
The whole thing is absurd really. Do you really believe you are a woman? Of course not. It’s devolved into some sort of their ‘gender’ now you want acknowledged that you’re not a male or female but a ‘trans’ person.
Whatever man. They just want you to feel better instead of looking the other way out of tolerance.
My advice is to stop thinking about gender at all. That’s just silly. It’s like thinking about McDonald’s or ford cars. It’s all marketing shit shoving the brand in front of your face all day. Try Christianity or Buddhism
I'm aware that physically I am not fully of the female sex, but nonetheless something went funny in the development of my brain that causes me to want to be so, as a terminal value.
Child you are a fool who’s not in control of his own emotions and mind.
Wow
Is there anyone who really is? There are people who think they are.
Some people take hormones and dress like women and have surgery for emotional reasons. That’s very different than average and Thebopposite of someone who’s got a high emotional EQ
Hey, I wouldn't have chosen this either, but I can't help how I am. I would be thoroughly miserable if I didn't transition- that's a fact I can't change.
>that’s a fact I can’t change
You are weak
If I could have solved the problem another way, I would have. But as far as I can tell, that's not possible.
I can only say that you are incredibly ignorant and I blame your parents and your community and our garbage culture.
Read Brithers K. Lotus sutra or gospel of Thomas with an open mind. Probably you are not capabale or are too lazy. But nobody can help you but yourself.
How can you presume to know my mind better than I do?
Surely that reply works equally well for anybody with any desire? Do you think people have any responsibility for their desires?
You’re a sick miserable person obsessed with his penis.
Normal people don’t think about it at all. It’s a new thing but it’s the same as being obsessed with Disney or whatever. Craving as Buddha calls it. You’re just mentally / spiritually immature and it’s an ancient problem.
Obsessed with the material world. Read gospel in brief by Tolstoy too.
I'm perfectly aware that all phenomena are interdependently arising and non-self. But that knowledge doesn't actually solve the thing that went wonky in the development of my brain that causes me to want to be female. I'm not going to refuse treatment for a medical condition. (I'm also pretty ambivalent about my genitalia in particular.)
Oh dear. Idk why I wasted my time
Yes, you are definitely wasting your time. Just telling someone 'it's a craving' doesn't actually make gender dysphoria go away, it's a medical condition.
It’s not a medical condition moron
https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/
Ahahahahahahahahahjahahahas
Sorry, can't hear you over this fricking mountain of evidence.
Listen homosexual, I’m a real doctor, everyone in medical school and the hospital rolls their eyes when the bleeding heart pink hair comes in an tries to justify that shit.
You’re reading in isolated little club of phd research. 97% of the surgeons and anesthesia don’t approve of the 1 wacko cutting off penises and shoving hormones into you guys. But they have enough to worry about without becoming a politician. It’s not real medicine. Has more in common with a cult.
I’ve already wasted enough time, though. Enjoy suffering, but you chose it.
So you don't have a rebuttal to the scientific evidence. Just like I thought.
>the scientific evidence
You’re so ignorant, it’s sad.
This is why nobody bothers to interfere when Dr Frankenstein is butchering the trannies. They’ll make $30k a day feeding your delusion and throw you out the door to figure out why your still an ugly homosexual after you got butchered
That's not a rebuttal. I've posted evidence and you've only mocked it. Can you explain why, exactly, this isn't valid evidence?
If the Glove don’t fit you must acquit!
I fricking love Science gays and atheists are so god damn stupid. They have a top down view of everything and a solid understanding of nothing.
You don’t know how science works at all, you think if it’s in some journal or website it’s Infallible dogma.
Sad, but you’re hopeless.
If you think these studies are wrong, then point out what's wrong with their methodology.
You’re a damn moron, I want you to know it. I’m not just shit posting. Do better
I've posted evidence, you've posted none, and you haven't explained why my evidence doesn't count as evidence.
We're not talking about the metaphysical question of who's 'really' a man or woman, we're talking about the empirical question of what treatment works to treat gender dysphoria and save lives.
Were talking about delusions son. You have a penis
And I'm saying that we're not talking about metaphysics here, we're talking about what actually works to alleviate distress and save lives, empirically.
>the god delusion
What do you call it when a gaygit cited 14 ‘scientific’ papers to prove he’s not a boy when the entire world can look at his penis and decide he’s a boy?
A delusion. You are a cult homosexual arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a match.
>mountain of evidence.
that's not evidence that's an article you dumb homosexual
It's a bunch of links to scientific studies.
I'm not reading all of those, but if you click on the first one it says it's SURVEY of transgenders which has 2 major problems.
1. Placebo effect
2. Congnitive dissonance
So many of these fricking 'studies' have these flaws.
The first one. You looked at the first one and then dismissed the rest of them.
because I'm not gonna look at all of them. it's just moving the goal post.
I know for a factg hormones are bad for humans. This is why they are illegal in virtually all countries. I personally know people who took testosterone and fricked up their lives, even when they 'micro-dosed' it. Unless a study comes out claiming that these hormones do no damage there is no point in thinking that taking these hormones can help anyone who doesn't have physical problem but a psychological one
Oh, cool, like pic related then.
The medical industry takes advantage of a lot of people with medical conditions, doesn't mean those conditions aren't real.
So why cut your dick off and pretend to be an ugly woman instead of just taking the cheap and easily affordable medication that makes your brain work properly?
This is of course ignoring the fact that it's a made up condition, but that's neither here nor there.
People are sick of hedonism, they’re beginning to understand that the supposed fun is hollow trap. Pay close attention to young intelligence in online spaces and you’ll see there’s hunger for truth and meaning - and only Catholicism can provide that, as it always has. We’re on the brink of huge cultural shift and let me just say, I’m thankful to God that I’m not on the cringe atheist side of things.
People want communities back, which Catholics don't provide because they're so miserable and stoic.
Why are so many of these types buddy buddy with Epstein? Lawrence Krauss(known pervert) even defended Epsteins character after initial allegations came out
Anyone who still follows organised religion knowing full well the whole covering up child sexual abuses/corruption etc etc isn't at a good member of their religious belief.
New atheism/pure materialism is already horrific and will result in the catastrophes.
People need to think about how and why God was created and why for everyone everywhere wants to believe in such things.
>New atheism/pure materialism is already horrific and will result in the catastrophes.
Isn't the more important question whether it's true? If something's true, then the consequences of it being true can't make it false, just like if something's false the consequences of it being false can't make it true.
>Isn't the more important question whether it's true?
I don't follow, are you asking whether it's true that new atheism/pure materialism are "correct"?
To me they are correct, however the problem in my humble/brainlet opinion is that a person still needs to accept that the VAST majority of all humans have had strong faith and spirituality, many whom were and are intellectually superior.
Due to such there is significant importance on theological/metaphysical (?) discussion because it's important to humans whether they like it or not
Sure, but if it's correct then shouldn't we act under the acknowledgement and awareness that it's correct?
That would imply humans are rational, even when attempting to follow only rational thinking.
I personally also wouldn't tell someone else that atheism/materialism is correct. I consider it to be so and have yet to be proven otherwise. That may change.
I mean, obviously we're not perfectly rational and can't be but that doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and refuse to try.
Which is why I think a good starting point should be to try and consider why even very intelligent people believed in Gods existence and to accept if the answer isn't something that would fit in an academic paper.
>the answer isn't something that would fit in an academic paper.
Of course it fricking would. Stuff like agency detection and reasoning from effect to cause have very solid evolutionary grounding. Where's the damn XKCD strip with disciplines rated from least- to most-scientific.
Depends. For a single person? Perhaps. For society? Absolutely not. All that matters is that whatever society believes makes it work in an orderly fashion. Babylonians actually believed that the gods would punish them if they lied in their presence, which is what they depended on to solve crimes. It didn't matter that this was untrue, what mattered was that it worked most of the time.
But if something's false, people will eventually figure out it's false. And then if you want to keep people believing it, you need to push systematically bad reasoning in its defense, which impedes people's ability to seek truth in general, including the forms of truth that are useful in the immediate term.
>If you once tell a lie, the truth is ever after your enemy.
>I have discussed the notion that lies are contagious. If you pick up a pebble from the driveway, and tell a geologist that you found it on a beach—well, do you know what a geologist knows about rocks? I don’t. But I can suspect that a water-worn pebble wouldn’t look like a droplet of frozen lava from a volcanic eruption. Do you know where the pebble in your driveway really came from? Things bear the marks of their places in a lawful universe; in that web, a lie is out of place.
>What sounds like an arbitrary truth to one mind—one that could easily be replaced by a plausible lie—might be nailed down by a dozen linkages to the eyes of greater knowledge. To a creationist, the idea that life was shaped by “intelligent design” instead of “natural selection” might sound like a sports team to cheer for. To a biologist, plausibly arguing that an organism was intelligently designed would require lying about almost every facet of the organism. To plausibly argue that “humans” were intelligently designed, you’d have to lie about the design of the human retina, the architecture of the human brain, the proteins bound together by weak van der Waals forces instead of strong covalent bonds . . .
>Or you could just lie about evolutionary theory, which is the path taken by most creationists. Instead of lying about the connected nodes in the network, they lie about the general laws governing the links.
>And then to cover that up, they lie about the rules of science—like what it means to call something a “theory,” or what it means for a scientist to say that they are not absolutely certain.
>So they pass from lying about specific facts, to lying about general laws, to lying about the rules of reasoning. To lie about whether humans evolved, you must lie about evolution; and then you have to lie about the rules of science that constrain our understanding of evolution.
Link to full essay
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XTWkjCJScy2GgayDt/dark-side-epistemology
>Two boards filled with threads resurrecting old religion vs atheism arguments and cheap shots from fricking 2007
Make a fricking religion board already you frickwit site managers what are you shit-eating apes doing with your time?
midwit book
retroactively refuted by Divine Plato(PBUH)
>and this English biologist comes in and destroys it all in one book.
This English biologist calls himself "a secular christian" and his "critique" is, essentially, an autistic screech that yahweh is a psychopath.
If you want something that "destroys religion", try Nietzsche. His criticism lies in an entirely opposite direction.
I've seen few people skewer it as well as Mark Twain did.
>we keep learning things in science
>some stuff we thought was divine in origins is now explained with science
>therefore all things will eventually be explained naturally
This is the central argument of the book (in as much as it has one).
I hope you see that it is clearly a poor argument
this board loves dawkins and thats all you need to know about it.
I mean the guys doesn't even try to disprove pantheism, to which there is only 1 (one) sentence dedicated in the whole book. He prefers the easy target - the triade of main abrahamist religions. Hinduism, buddhism?
Well, at least he acknowledges those as way above his head.
dennett is the only one of the four horsemen who isn't giga cringe
>Oh look young earth creationists and evolution deniers. Lets point at them and laugh
>2k22
>gay internet debates from the 00s are repeating except this time the atheists are less homosexual than the tradcath larpers and esotericism-cringelords
I want off this ride.
>Dawkins
See you in a thousand years gay, let see which ideas prevail through time.
That's not an answer to which is actually true.
Bro Christian denominations can't even last 10 years without doing major doctrinal renovations and you're talking about 1,000?
>Christian
Ew.
>it may be the only option
that's the point, it's not the only option.
The only people who get butthurt about Dawkins are Christgays. israelites, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, none of them care about him. Only Christgays.
I wonder sometimes if atheists with a non-Christian background are as obnoxious as the Christian ones. do you think they like Rick and Morty; and degenerate sex too?
It depends on what you mean by 'Christian background', and n=1, but I'm an atheist who was raised non-religious and have never watched Rick and Morty. I've had sex with only one person so far, and it was relatively vanilla; more cuddling than anything.
I think you mean non-western. A lot of anti-religious people rise to the level of celebrities and many of them don't understand the meaning of atheism, it means lack of belief not belieft in some secular ethics.
Can’t take this guy seriously. He spent his whole career dunking on Christianity only to turn around and start defending it once he realized an Islamic majority in the UK means his death.
Let's be honest, IF the God of the Bible is real, he's more likely to be some sort of amped up demon than the almighty creator of the universe. It just makes no sense, he's too weak in power and historically too obsessed with one tribe of backwards, vindictive, immoral Semites descended from Abraham. He's at most their patron spirit, blown well out of proportion by an insanely bloody campaign through the centuries.
But there's no way you can ever be certain that there's no creator of the universe. Some abstract entity or entities who began everything for any number of reasons. All I know is that if you're applying that designation to Yaweh, you're swimming in the Kool-aid.
>English biologist comes in and destroys it all in one book.
nothing he said in that book is new, it's all been said before by plenty of philosophers. He just compiled it into a book
>God can't be real, why would he allow all this evil in the world?
>what is evil?
>...IT'S JUST EVIL OKAY?