The immaturity of the writing was annoying thought tolerable but this book instantly lost all credibility once it mentioned the multiverse “theory” and actually took it seriously.
The immaturity of the writing was annoying thought tolerable but this book instantly lost all credibility once it mentioned the multiverse theory?...
>It's another Christcuck thread
Why don't you internalize what the Bible is telling you and frick off already
I’m an agnostic
>it's another diaper baby atheist with their endless tantrum
Why don't you just go back to your home board?
You should try internalizing my dick in your mouth.
Dawkins should stick to biology, he is ass at religion and philosophy
>The immaturity of the writing
This book is specifically targeted at young English people in sixth form and undergraduate university. Dawkins just knows his audience. The book is meant to create legions of Reddit atheists.
When I was younger I volunteered for the open day at my school to shill religious studies as a sixth form option (the bit between secondary school and university) to kids who were about to do their GCSEs and needed to decide what to do next year. We talked about this and about Rodger Scruton’s views on aesthetics with them. I think critique of pure reason was another book we discussed. It was a trade show type of set-up where the kids just come to the stalls of the option their interested in and you discuss it with them. I put this down amongst other things as community work/volunteering on my university application because I have Asperger's and didn’t know everyone just lies on their university application.
This. Check out Swinburne if you want an Anglo with a good take on God. I’ve seen him speak in person and he’s brilliant. He’s also quite arrogant in a very self aware and amusing way (he gave out a sheet explaining his argument using algebra for people who couldn’t keep up). He also doesn’t make any argument off of vibes or assuming the correctness of certain unfounded presuppositions. I saw him tell a kid to his face that if someone gets a disease then that’s God’s way of allowing them and their neighbours to exercise their free will correctly (this was in a conference on religion in the City of London btw not just out on the street).
People don't read prifessional philisophers. Dawkins gets millions of views, Graham Oppy goes on YT channels with literally 50 subscribers. I think Dawkins did an ok job introducing some of the arguments and he did it in a way that was simple enough for the average person.
>doesn't know what theory means
Cope, seethe and dilate, christgolem.
Then explain what you think a theory is. Enlighten us, I'm waiting.
Why do theists see Dawkins as an atheist pope? How did he traumatize them so much.
The 'new atheists' BTFO'd them so hard they have never recovered
ywnbaw
Rent free
Dawkins most lasting impact on culture will always be that he was the progenitor of Rick and Morty.
The central thesis of the book stands. Religion, and the concept of a deity, is a delusion, or if, like Freud, you wish to be slightly more charitable, an illusion. If you get upset about this then you have to drop any semblance of a facade that you care about the truth and what actually exists in reality, since you are more concerned with maintaining your illusion/delusion.
it's been a while since I read it, but I don't remember the multiverse, unless he used another world as an example to prove a point, but the book is completely fine, he BTFO Aquinas five "proofs", that was funny
> he BTFO Aquinas five "proofs
No, he didn’t
yes, he did, every single one
No, he didn’t. He didn’t even understand them and had to resort to strawman.
>he didn't understand
not an argument
All the dharmas that arise arise by reason of the five causes and the four conditions that we have just explained. The world does not proceed from a single cause that is called God, or Purusa, or Pradhana, or any other name.
How do you prove this thesis?
If you think that the thesis is proven through arguments, you betray your doctrine that the world arises from a single cause.
64d. Not from God or from any other cause, since there is a succession, etc.
That things are produced by a single cause, by God, Mahadeva, or Vasudeva, is inadmissable for many reasons.
1.) If things were produced by a single cause, they would arise all at the same time: now each of us knows that they arise successively.
[The Theist:] They arise successively by virtue of the desires of God, who says, "May this arise now! May this perish now! May this arise and perish later!"
If this were the case, then things do not arise from a single cause, since the desires (of God) are multiple. Moreover these multiple desires would have to be simultaneous, since God, the cause of these desires, is not multiple, and things would all arise at the same time.
a. [The Theist:] The desires of God are not simultaneous, because God, in order to produce his desires, takes into account other causes.
If this were so, then God is not the single unique cause of all things. And the causes that God takes into account are produced successively: they depend then on causes which are themselves dependent on other causes: an infinite regression.
[The Theist:] It is admitted that the series of causes has no beginning.
This would admit that samsara does not have an origin. You then abandon the doctrine of a single cause and return to the Buddhist theory of causes (hetus) and conditions (pratyaya).
b. [The Theist:] The desires of God are simultaneous, but things do not arise at the same time because they arise as God wishes them to arise, that is, in succession.
This is inadmissible. The desires of God remain what they are. Let us explain. Suppose that God desires "May this arise now! May that arise later!" We do not see why the second desire, at first nonefficacious, will be efficacious later; why, if it is efficacious later, it will not be so initially.
What advantage does God obtain from this great effort by which he produces the world?
[The Theist:] God produces the world for his own satisfaction (ptiti).
He is then not God, the Sovereign (Isvara), in what concerns his own satisfaction, since he cannot realize it without a means (upaya). And if he is not sovereign with regard to his own satisfaction, how can he be sovereign with regard to the world?
Further, do you say that God finds satisfaction in seeing the creatures that he has created in the prey of all the sufferings of existence, including the tortures of the hells? Homage to this God! Well said, in truth, is the popular stanza, "He is called Rudra because he burns, because he is excited, ferocious, terrible, an eater of flesh, blood, and marrow"
3.) The followers of God, the single cause of the world, deny visible causes,—causes and conditions,—the efficacy of the seed with regard to the sprout, etc. If, modifying their position, they admit the existence of these causes, and pretend that these causes serve God as auxiliaries, this then is no more that a pious affirmation, for we do not maintain any activity of a cause besides the activity of the so-called secondary causes. Furthermore, God would not be sovereign with regard to auxiliary causes, since these cooperate in the production of the effect through their own efficacy. Perhaps, in order to avoid the negation of causes, which are visible, and in order to avoid the affirmation of present action by God, which is not visible, the Theist would say that the work of God is creation: but creation, dependent only on God, would never have a beginning, like God himself, and this is a consequence that the Theist rejects.
We would refute the doctrine of Purusa, of Pradhana, etc., as we have refuted the theist doctrine, mutatis mutandis. Thus, no dharma arises from a single cause.
Alas, persons are unclear! Like the birds and the animals, truly worth of pity, they go from existence to existence, accomplishing diverse actions; they experience the results of these actions and falsely believe that God is the cause of these results. (We must explain the Truth in order to put an end to this false conception.)
>The God Delusion
>Rick and Morty
>like a plot in every capeshit movie these days
Why do sois and atheists salivate so hard over stupid-ass "multiverse" shit? Is it just because it makes them think "wubba lubba anything is possible!" and imagine their childish fantasies are actually coming true somewhere?
don't care, but the multiverse was proved by math, it came out of math. it's understandable that your low IQ associates it with marvel, but the multiverse is older than you zoomie
Wubba lubba dub dub!
Actual scientists have found evidence it's bullshit though.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/05/22/ask-ethan-have-we-finally-found-evidence-for-a-parallel-universe/
>the multiverse was proved by math
a blatant lie. They need to posit the multiverse to discount the teleological argument.
"They need a billions of years old Earth to make time for evolution"
Actual physicists hate the many worlds theory and consider it hogwash (as they should), Dawkins even says this in TGD.
Why do christcucks pretend they don't onions over and think about reddit, rick and morty and richard dawkins more than any atheist? Be honest, this is all very important to you.
Nice b8 gay
Do you gays really just type "cuck" and think your garbage bait is serviceable?
Nu Atheism was a fad and, like all fads, those who bought into it the most are painfully cringe in hindsight.
"Nu-atheism" was a decade ago.
Those debatebros and Dawkins mentally and spiritually sodomized you, in a way no Priest ever could. You can insist upon yourself anything you like but the actions of a sore loser are clear.
Who are these "debatebros" you speak of? The guy who shoved a banana up his ass?
The fact that your beliefs are so moronic, that even a gay who shoves bananas up his ass is easily able to refute them, isn't the own you think it is.
"Fidget spinners" were a decade ago.
Those tips&trickbros and Tech Decks mentally and spiritually sodomized you, in a way no Tamagotchi ever could. You can insist upon yourself anything you like but the actions of a sore loser are clear.
Multiverse doesn't matter for my desires. Whatever beings there might be in a parallel universe, we don't share our consciousness so I don't see them as me.
what would an irl debate between Dawkins and Aquinas look like?
For Dawkins it would look the same even if Aquinas spoke Latin.
Aquinas was a genius trying to rationalize a moron philosophy to ensare people dumber than him, so he was able to hide its moron meanings behind sophistry.
I'm confident Dawkins is still dumber than him though. It would be comedic to witness.
it was when he started citing literal nobody D-list celebs like Julie Sweeney as examples of positive atheism, is when I realized the book was fricking trash
>Sweeney's third autobiographical monologue is titled Letting Go of God. In it, she discusses her Catholic upbringing, early religious ideology, and the life events and internal search that led her to believe that the universe can function on its own without a deity to preside over it; as well as her becoming an atheist. Sweeney shares the account of when her mother told her that her birthday was really October 10 instead of September 10, and how traumatic it was to discover she was not a winsome Virgo but really a Libra.[19]
kek women
I much prefer that non-fiction book that describes how an all-knowing, all-seeing God walked through the Garden of Eden without a clue as to what Adam and Eve were up to.
>multiverse theory is somehow too much for christcucks
>but a virtually non existent "god" who is omnipotent and impotent at the same time is totally fine
lol, lmao even
Does Dawkins ever address theist bottom surgery?
>religious people literally believe in magic men a long time ago who spoke to the creator of the universe
Embarrassing. Just say they were philosophers or leaders, don't add gay supernatural shit.
It was this was before Descartes and Spinoza and even then, they were god botherers to an extent. Atheism wasn’t really a thing until the Enlightenment. Atheism is an Enlightenment project.
Atheism in history means no one was around to teach you the lore behind the local psyop growing up or in adulthood. Theism occurs when a grifter inducts you to the grift or you go the mormon route and create the grift yourself to extort money and benefits from your goy cattle followers.
i always appreciate christBlack person threads that at least discuss literature. anything else belongs on IQfy. i hope others can learn from this.
We won’t.
How the frick can you "discuss literature," homie, you can't even capitalize your words.
those are the rules, i didn’t make them. try to refrain from being ironic in every post you inbred zoomer homosexual
The average inbred would still type better than you, downie.
>every choice has infinite possibilities
>even though nothing is random and ever choice we’ve ever made, every movement of every atom was set into motion by the Big Bang
The multiverse theory is anti-science.
>Nothing is random
This is literally the central debate. Is there quantum uncertainty? And if so, does that mean that two outcomes exist simultaneously?
If anything, the multiverse is a way of maintaining hard determinism while also incorporating "randomness" or quantum uncertainty, since the uncertainty gets accounted for by all possibilities actually occurring.
No one cares
It's one of the most ignorant books ever published the audacity of a man to prove that God isn't real
>prove god isn't real
>prove trannies aren't real women
Theists approach God like Trannies approach gender identity. Not our problem if you can't provide evidence for what you're claiming. It's both mental delusion. A God Delusion if you will.
/// He gets astonishing levels of media attention and that is a cross the young player has to bear /// His avuncular image belies his steely determination /// After a sudden burst of activity, the team lapsed back into indolence /// Such controversies have waxed and waned but continue to this day /// International support has given rise to a new optimism in the company /// Further analysis showed the absence of pathogenic bacteria /// The septuagenarian brothers are still heavily involved in the running of the business and they have no desire to relinquish control /// Later on, she would prevail on somebody else to chauffeur her home /// Was the newspaper report bylined or was it anonymous? /// His tailored suit had subtle inset patterns on the lapels /// This specialized knowledge is beyond the ken of most patients so that they must rely on others to fill in the gap /// He writes as an elegist for a lost England /// The stocks run the gamut from defensive staples to bets on emerging markets /// Those examples test the application of the fair use doctrine in copyright law, which allows creators to play with existing copyrights /// The latest evidence puts an entirely different slant on the case /// He is acknowledged within the music world, and is highly esteemed by the genre's marquee names /// The home team saw off the challengers by 68 points to 47 /// They went for a quick snog behind the bike sheds /// Numerous fabulists invented stories about enemies of the state /// Shame on them and shame of the student who actually believe the tripe being peddled /// Next time you pull a stunt like that don’t expect me to get you out of trouble /// The old women crooned their mystic tuneless dirges /// He answered openly and honestly without hesitation or equivocation /// After that five-mile run I was completely wiped out /// They do not benefit from state subsidies and therefore are not beholden to the government ///
Dam, that proves it, Noah DID gather every animal on earth in a boat go escape God's wrath. I'm getting baptized today.
Yeah, this guy is a fricking idiot.
>>Be me, 2015
of my university's edgelord 'Secular Student Society' chapter
>>'Angry Atheist buttholes' would have probably been a better name
is coming to give a speech at my school
>>Get my tickets like 6 weeks in advance, m'lady and I are vibrating with euphoric energy
>>Go listen to this dull bastard breathe into the microphone for 2hrs while he recites shit off a PowerPoint
baffled by how moronic what he's saying is
>>He gestures at a line graph (Year on the X like 1910-2010, worldwide # of atheists on the Y)
intones that based on the trend outlined on the graph, 80% of the world will be atheists by 2050 or some shit
>>This feels so fricking daffy that I think I must be misunderstanding him
Dawkins-kun is not this moronic
>>Over the next 15 minutes it becomes abundantly clear that this is exactly what he thinks
>>Q&A at the end of the speech, I get up to the microphone
>>"You say that the vast majority of the world will be atheists by 2050 based on the trend of movement away from organized religion over the 20th century. However, isn't it the case that much of this movement towards atheism was prompted by the despair spurred by directly experiencing the depravities of World Wars I and II, and then afterwards, via direct imposition or forced 'conversion' by authoritarian regimes? With those causes of rising secularism in mind, how can you suggest that this trendwill continue, or accelerate as your presentation suggestions? Absent any further major geopolitical conflicts, or famines, etc., it's hard to expect this trend to continue.
>>Dude stares back at me blankly for a minute, then his eyes narrow
>>"Well, I hardly think that we humanists are hoping for wars or famines."
>>The crowd titters and applauds.
>>"No, of course not. What I'm asking is-"
>>"Next question please!"
>>They cut my mic
>>Frick this moron
And the whole bus clapped
Great reading comprehension, moron. I was not the lone hero speaking truth to power and being rewarded with a shower of praise and admiration. Nobody was on my side at all. This was, for me at 19 years old, a formative experience that forced me to recognize how hypocritically dogmatic New Atheism was and is.
>New Atheism
Nu* Atheism (like Nu Metal).
It's quite funny how he claims to be a "Cultural Christian" now, he wants benefit of traditional Christian society, but without things that actually mke it possible
He already said that 20 years ago.
What is "christian society"? Your cult is globohomo
World before progressive American empire took over the world
I wonder how he feels about the fact that Christianity becoming irrrelevant didn't bring the age of reason and instead it brought the current clown world