/lit/ - Literature

>>13205022
yes.

it's very telling that the christcucks had to try and turn it into a forced "cringe" meme as their only way of attempting to refute it.

it's not the most scholarly refutation of theism out there, but it gets the job done.

>>13205022
philosophically illiterate biologist thinks he knows more than he actually does and presents extremely weak strawmen which require all his intellectual might to topple

All that needs to be said

>>13205037
t. brainlet

>>13205052
>t. butthurt atheist

>>13205033
Edward Feser btfo this book

Dawkins already admits he's culturally Anglican

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10303223/Richard-Dawkins-admits-he-is-a-cultural-Anglican.html

>>13205066
edward feser couldn't btfo a bowl of microwaved macaroni.

>His book The Last Superstition claims to be a refutation of the New Atheism, which he accuses of "intellectual dishonesty, philosophical shallowness, and historical, theological, and scientific ignorance"; he tries to prove the existence of God starting with Aristotle's teleological metaphysics, in contrast to mechanical Newtonian metaphysics which he rejects.[5] So gravity is explained not by curvature of spacetime but the fact that stones naturally seek the centre of the Earth, and forming water via reaction is the final end of oxygen and hydrogen.[6] To most people this may appear monumentally nonsensical in comparison with Newtonian or Einsteinian physics, but maybe we should ask the stone what it's doing. If you believe that stones have a final purpose, it's not that far a step in terms of credulity to claim that God exists, but that's not really a strong argument for the existence of God.

>>13205037
Nothing wrong with Dawkins in this pic though.

>>13205079
>quoting rationalwiki
pls anon

>>13205079
Have you read the book? That is a gross misrepresentation

>>13205055
>Heisenberg
Unknown religion
>Einstein
Atheist
>Schrodinger
Atheist
>Bohr
Atheist

>>13205108
>>Heisenberg
>Unknown religion
He was Lutheran like Max Planck

>>13205108
>>Einstein
>Atheist
He was agnostic and admitted to believing in a Spionzian-like God.

>>13205145
Atheism and agnosticism mean essentially the same thing. It's just an autistic semantic distinction. One doesn't believe in a theistic god, the other thinks you can have no knowledge of one (which means he doesn't believe).

>>13205108
They got brainwashed by judaism (atleast Einstein and Bohr, Heisenberg was called a white jew by the nazis...)
Chad Wernher von Braun, who actually build stuff, was a christian.

>>13205033
Half the arguments are r/atheism “gotcha” strawmen, the other half is bizarre shit like
>atoms and particles are really really small, therefore how can God exist???

Atheists are miserable cunts. Thats all you need to know

>>13205383
ah, the rigors of theistic rationality on display

>>13205022
Blind 19th century propaganda.

>>13205145
>Spionzian-like God.
What do you mean by this?

>>13205022
I am an atheist who likes Richard Dawkins however I didn't find The God Delusion educational, thought provoking or enjoyable other than the famous paragraph in the second chapter. I would recommend Selfish Gene though that book is good if you are interested in evolution in the form of a popular science book.

>>13205169
knowledge and belief are different things

>>13205022
Its not good literature in the way [insert favorite book] is good literature, yet I think it has merit for several reasons. Mainly the fact that a book that takes such a recalcitrant stance on organized religion even got published and sold as much as it did is an achieve for freedom of speech. It also sparked a lot of discussion that is still ongoing today and it made a lot of people think about, reconsider or strengthen their belief.

If you have already made up your mind about religion, its probably not for you. Leaf through it and decide if it is for yourself.

>>13205295
>Half the arguments are r/atheism “gotcha” strawmen, the other half is bizarre shit like
>>atoms and particles are really really small, therefore how can God exist???
If you're refering to the whole gold atoms argument, please tell me you're not this fucking dense. It's a very fucking simple argument and it is not saying god does not exist.

>>13205527
Whats the argument?

>>13205022
I'm an atheist and I hate it. It's one of the most revoltingly disingenuous books that I have ever read.

>>13205531
Can't be bothered to look for the quote, but the gist of it is
>we used to think that matter was just matter. Then we discovered it was actually made of lots of tiny stuff (atoms). Then we discovered those were actually made of even smaller stuff (quarks)
>in the same fashion, we used to ascribe all phenomenons we couldn't understand to god
>as science progressed, the room for god diminished
>if the trend continues we can imagine we'll reach a point where we don't need god
I don't agree with the argument, but putting it as "atoms are tiny so god can't exist" is dishonest at best, retarded at worst.

>>13205578
that's just the god of the gaps

>>13205022
>>13205033
Richard Dawkins should stick to biology; he doesn't know shit about philosophy or theology. Terry Eagleton summed him up pretty well;
>"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."

>>13205665
Richard Dawkins knows more about theology and theologians than Terry Eaglecuck. Dawkins traveled the world sampling religious idiots from every culture, on EVERY level... and it's always the same... the low-level religious cucks spew the garbage they were indoctrinated since they were children so much so that their brains appear like smooth silly pudding.
And the higher-ups (read: philosophical clergymen) will resort to the old "What is God anyways? He's incomprehensible." shtick and will yield a lot of ground to Richard when he presses them on certain problems central to their dogma

>>13205812
this

Dawkins actually took the time to thoroughly understand theology. the same can't be said for theologians who dismiss evolutionary biology or scientific realism.

Only retarded kids that are in college read trash like this by authors so pathetic

>>13205665
>Terry Eagleton
...is a literary critic who knows about as much about either genetic biology or religious philosophy as my cat

It is pure shit. Its like if malcolm gladwell was a reddit atheist. Like popularist pseud antitheology.

>>13205826
No one does this. To legitimize people who think the earth is 5000 years old is to transform insane people into a strawman.

>>13205022
No. Any other book on atheism is better.

>>13205022
Yeah, but this BTFO'd christcucks even harder.
https://youtu.be/2tIwYNioDL8

>>13205022
it's very good.

follow it up with pic related

>>13205928
"Dude Jesus never existed lmao" is absolute horseshit that's only believed by particularly desperate fedoras who will use every excuse they can think of to discredit Christianity.

>>13205928
Is this bait or are you David Fitzgerald? Richard Dawkins is a respected scientist who has done some serious work in biology, whereas David Fitzgerald is such a hack fraud he had to self-publish his garbage.

>>13205033
Lol brainlet. The books central argument makes no sense.

Dawkins wrote 12 scientific papers on bumble bee digging patterns before moving to pop science. Only a moron would listen to him for anything other than bumble bee digging

>>13205169
You read too much Richard Dawkins man

>>13205108
Bohr was a Lutheran, Einstein was a Jew and they are half atheists to cope with being religious and cultural minority. You can read books about Jews in the 20s being atheist at six y.o. Etc not really interesting.

>>13205843
>>13205908
>>13206071
>>13206097
itt: people who have never actually read the book

>>13205812
Those videos only impress Total idiots anon. Dawkins knows evolution and throwing big words in front of the ignorant isn’t winning an argument it’s putting on a sophist show.

Dawkins is a moron too, he just made a business out of impressing the other retards

>>13206113
I have read it and I have also seen him lecture and met him on a book tour.

Only college fags with no knowledge of modal logic or any formal logic are impressed with his rhetorical quips.

I’ve also researched his non-existent bibliography. I know grad students with more peer reviewed publications than him.

Sorry anon, his book is complete trash. It’s hard to accept but you’re not smart enough to see it if you’re really trying to defend it because it’s that bad.

You’re just a fool in awe of the sublime that is Richard Dawkins work and all it’s evolution big words and references.

Trust me, take a few undergrad bio courses and it’s hardly impressive, worse take philsophy and logic and you’ll become frustrated with how stupid he his book is and he and most of his followers will never even know.

>>13206154
>you’re not smart enough
>You’re just a fool
Wow, you're an arrogant sack of shit aren't you?

>>13206113
Not only have I read tgd, I have an autographed copy of tgsoe. Ive met dawkins on his book tour. Hes a pseud.

>>13206154
Lol same, i met him at davidson college around 2009.

>>13206154
>>13206224
dumbasses

The Selfish Gene is literally one of the most impressive intros to that sort of evolution and is highly recommended to this day by academia.

even >>>/sci/ recognizes its value and recs it.

>>13206274
>>>>/sci
You're kidding right?

>>13206278
it's objectively a more intelligent board than /lit/.

>>13206291
>Hurr climate change
>Materialism
It's the most retarded board

>>13206311
>Materialism and climate change are wrong
oh, lol, that explains a lot.

I wish you retards would wear badges or something so we can know beforehand not to waste time on you

>>13205445
If I remember correctly the idea of a 'Spionzian-like God' isn't so much as about an actual God, but more about that God is reality. Not a 'man in the sky' like classical beliefs go, instead the Universe itself is God.

>>13205256
Wernher von Braun the guy who stole all of his research from Goddard.

>>13206406
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

>>13206414
>plug my ears and sing la-la-la
>only happy thoughts
>aquinas was a big brained boy and he believed in god!
>Leibniz, Newton, the list goes on...
face it. theism is empirically proven to be for brainlets.

the dumber you are, the realer god becomes!

>>13206437
Since you love appeal to authority so much: Christopher Langan with an IQ of 195 is Christian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

>>13206451
>literally arguing the validity of his dogmas by propping up one meme "independent scholar" to try and invalidate the data of the majority of his religion being made up of redneck hicks who have the iq of the room-temperature coors lights they chug each night before beating their wives(sisters)

>>13206459
Keep crying fucking retard. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and you know it.

>>13205022
It's not good but if you're already an atheist and fairly ignorant of actual theology and metaphysics you will probably love it and want to recommend that anyone you know that is religious ought to read it.

>>13206346
That's a reasonable description of Spinoza. Lots of people don't really understand him but he's closer to Imam Ghazali in that way.

>>13206459
Cringe argument bro. Yikes

>>13205508
You are so ignorant it is painful. Atheist works have been written for centuries, and they are significantly more thoughtful than “Bible says it's 6000 years, we have the evidence of much longer periods, God:0, Atheism: 1, fuck yeah!” Also, there have been many countries in which atheist propaganda has been many times more broad. I guess you are from some backward country, like USA, and can't imagine un-Christian societies exist.

No.

>>13205022
He's not even a good atheist. Moldbug ruins him.

>>13206693
who?

>>13206714
You get here yesterday?

>>13206656
The USSR was an example of broadened atheist propaganda, and before that there was Robespierre. That's two from modern history.

Sternly my grandmother told:
Every deed is judged by god!

But in scientific light
There is no god in sight!

>>13206813
Phallic object on the screen
Makes the girl lapse into sin

>>13206406
religious pseuds eternally BTFO

>>13205022
It's pointless, why bother trying to refute the irrefutable when religiousfags will easily dismiss any points you may try to make with "yeah but that doesn't prove God isn't real"?

>>13205079
The movement of stones downwards isn't in of itself first philosophy, it's physics. Newton has a metaphysics, but one should not confuse it with physics. The same goes for Aristotle.

>>13205169
One believes that there is no God, the other doesn't believe in God. The former attempts to justify their belief, the latter either believes that they cannot justify a belief of this kind, or that a belief of this kind has yet to be proven. Some believe that we can call the fundamental forces of the universe, or the universe in entirety God. Others believe that this is a misnomer. At which point the definition of God changes.

>>13205022
I work at a bookstore. The only people that buy this book are greasy, pallid, skeletal, autistic, graphic-t-shirt-white-new-balance-sneaker-wearing insect "men". Rarely do they look me in the eye when makimg their purchase. They are rightfully ashamed of their life choices.

>>13205022
I have yet to read it, so the question must be asked, how does Dawkins define God? I've heard that his point is to go after common cultural traditions, and that he allows for Einsteinian and Spinozan conceptions of God, definitions which do not include dogmatic and potentially toxic interpretations.

>>13207490
based

>>13205033
Have to agree. It serves as a good introduction in at least trying to question fast held beliefs of theists. Besides that, though, the arguments are considerably weak.

>>13205089
True, true.

>>13205383
And theists are sad little incels. It doesn't take a whole lotta brains to cuss in such an easy manner. Try harder.

>>13205386
Well said. 'Theistic rationality,' seems almost oxymoronic and yet sadly, it isn't.

>>13205022
The Bible reads much better.

>>13205033
first post best post

>>13205033
Absolute pseud
This book is fucking laughable. I remember reading it, and almost LMAOing out loud at his “refutation” of Aquinas. This is a guy that hasn’t even read Aristotle, thinks movement in a philosophical sense means spatial movement, and “refutes” the 5 ways on this broken made up premise. Like most atheists, he is the epitome of a pseud, an intellectualist who has done little to no reading and merely wants to prove he is intelligent, rather than find truth

>>13207716
>>13207714
The rational logic of the average atheist argument on display