/lit/ - Literature

>>1784481
I bet it's going to be him talking about children shouldn't be given religious propaganda whilst he spreads his antitheistic propaganda. i cant believe people actually take this guy seriously, he's like the new bill o reilly.

>One day you will die and everyone you love with die. Spot the puppy will die and his decaying body will be eaten by worms. Spot the puppy is dead. He did not run away to some country farm like father said. The worms are eating him and one day they will eat you too.

I'm pretty sure the opening sentence will go along the lines of this.

Oh, no. This is just terrible.
I hate when people fill up kids with philosophical crap, and values they haven't the capacity to understand.

>>1784497
either that or

Santa claus doesn't exist you retard what the hell is wrong with you don't you have a brain of course he doesn't exist your parents buy you those presents every year but it doesnt make up for the fact that they lied to you about santa claus guess what jesus isnt real either i am such a genius for bestowing upon you these universal truths please give me more of your money while i state the obvious and fight with people who obviously have very little brains compared to me no please dont bring a philosopher in here i only argue with preachers and the religious

Does anyone know if he is a parent? I looked around a little but can't find an answer one way or another.

>>1784503

it's a mistake to believe that children are stupid.

>>1784514
>On 19 August 1967, Dawkins married fellow ethologist Marian Stamp; they divorced in 1984. Later that same year, on 1 June, he married Eve Barham (19 August 1951[23]–28 February 1999) in Oxford. They had a daughter, Juliet Emma Dawkins (born 1984, Oxford).[23] Dawkins and Barham divorced; she died of cancer.[24][25] In 1992, he married actress Lalla Ward[26] in Kensington and Chelsea, London.[23] Dawkins met her through their mutual friend Douglas Adams,[27] who had worked with her on the BBC's Doctor Who.

literally 2 seconds on wikipedia

>>1784514
If you could find me a woman attracted to him I would give you a money prize.
>>1784517
I don't think that's true, but i think its a mistake to believe that adults are any less stupid

>>1784520
I was ctrl-f'ing for "children" through that article. But thank you so much for the 2 seconds work.

>>1784520

I never said that.

Its just that when you learn certain things too early in development, it doesn't work properly. Kids are very easily brainwashed, as their minds are sponges that soak up every little thing. People brung up with hardcore religious systems never turn out quite right, and its also why abused toddlers who've had trauma have a 95% rate of tremendously non-functioning psychological disorders.

There's just things you don't let kids know.

Likely he'll give kids the tools of reason.
What they then make of the world and of religious claims will be up to them.

>>1784536
And what of critical theory?

I want Zizek to produce a children's book.

>>1784536
If you've read something by the guy, you'd found, if you're capable of it, that he's argumentation is nothing but rational. He relies on mockery and name calling more than anything else.

isn't he being manipulative and demagogic by using that clearly unrealistic imagery for his book cover. What makes him any better than JK Rowling?

>>1784531

You sound a lot like Dawkins, actually.

Dawkins doesn't advocate brainwashing children or enforcing any convoluted ideologies upon them, I think this book will be about giving children the tools of rational and critical thinking.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

>>1784543

Žižek is a really great philosopher and respects science and rational thinking.

>>1784545

Show me one instance where he mocks an opponent instead of addressing their question.

This is just nonsense.

Oh God. A book encouraging children to use their brain before drawing conclusions.

>>1784551
>Žižek is a really great philosopher and respects science and rational thinking.
But unlike Dawkins, doesn't worship it. He's quite the critic of Dawkins' little possie.

>>1784545

>that he's argumentation is nothing but rational. He relies on mockery and name calling more than anything else.

I think you meant "anything but rational."

And read his works that aren't antitheist.

I loved The Selfish Gene. He has some well-founded arguments, and he's a very good scientist.

>>1784639
>He has some well-founded arguments, and he's a very good scientist.
What has he done science wise recently?

>>1784551
That's just it. He's /giving/ them "tools" which are actually his own ideas and values, that kids need to develop themselves.

I have a 3 year old sister. I don't tell her what to think. I don't tell her my Atheist values of creationism, nor do I let her know the world is abysmally cell-sized.

I only guide her in finding the right thing herself, and teach her to read, and basic quantum mechanics, and to love books, as she's really intelligent (psychologically evaluated as 6 years old), and learns and retains entire manuscripts from cartoons, so anything anyone tells her is going to be her world.

>>1784646
He's probably the most important evolutionary scientist since Darwin. The Selfish Gene and Extended Phenotype theories offer a completely fresh perspective on life, and he's published over 300 peer-reviewed essays.
It seems to me like you've heard some bullshit about 'militant atheism' and decided that he's an idiot. You're the idiot for believing that.

>>1784653
Actually, I was trying to point out he's more or a philosopher of biology than a scientist. His writings supporting a gene centric view, which you cite, support this.

>>1784635

He does not worship it, he just has a different vision about what can be done. Žižek has different pre-occupations and proclaims that trying to remove religion is futile because people will continue to act in the same way even if they don't believe it. (e pur si mouve).

I honestly doubt a man with such a mind like Žižek would dismiss Professor Dawkins as a brutish leader of a posse, especially since Žižek himself frequently similarly dismissed as a dogmatically lacanian clown.

>>1784657
>philosopher of biology than a scientist
>philosopher of biology
try not to abuse what it means to be a philosopher there good buddy

>>1784650

Well that's very nice ter but in an imperfect world there are so many ways people can fall prey to irrational logic and religious beliefs, especially females who are statistically more likely to believe in God than men.

>>1784660
I never said he was a good philosopher. A sophist of biology might be better.

>>1784669

I'm going to do an onionring and just call you a retard.

>>man who coins the term Meme

>>he's not a scientist, he's just an idiot.

Honestly I hate the guy, but his preliminary work on memes is quite interesting

>>1784659
Zizek is coming in at a radically different angle. Dawkins is a positivist, Zizek is a critical theorist. That's really the main difference.

>I honestly doubt a man with such a mind like Žižek would dismiss Professor Dawkins as a brutish leader of a posse, especially since Žižek himself frequently similarly dismissed as a dogmatically lacanian clown.
Zizek knows he's dogmatically Lacanian. Dawkins thinks he isn't dogmatically anything, and has thus solved all the world's problems.

>>1784673
I'm going to do a Dawkins and say No, it is you who is the retard.

>>1784668
Statistically true, but I'll make sure she has a good upbringing. I'm even staying at home for her. And I really hate it here.

>>>/sci/3085510

>>1784678

The two are not so mutually exclusive, both use ruthless critical analysis and rely or reason and logic. Žižek may be a lacanian but he is also a supporter of science and the spreading of atheism throughout the continent to promote secular tolerance.

Maybe he dislikes them for their disregard for their disregard for anything outside of materialism.

This is a nice article by Žižek about atheism: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/13/opinion/13iht-edzizek.html

>>1784680
when has Dawkins ever said this or anything like this?

Please, show me. I do not follow him dogmatically and if he started saying things like this i would abandon my support for him over night.

>>1784689
Best of luck to you and your sister.

>>1784718
>The two are not so mutually exclusive
>Positivist and Critical Theorist
Uhh... the epistemological views aren't compatible.

>>1784724
They aren't incompatible.

>>1784724

I never said that they were, but relative to religious belief they seem more similar in their rejection of the existence of the big other.

>>1784718
Dawkins will often turn things around on audience members who say "Where is your proof that there is no God?" by switching the burden of proof back to them, a la: "No it is you who needs to prove that there is one."

Probably what he was alluding to there.

>>1784739

The logical problem of the burden of proof isn't' the same as name calling, if that's what he was alluding to then he fucked up.

>>1784744
Welcome to 4chan.

>>1784730
You don't know what you're talking about.
>>1784731
I don't think Dawkins rejects the big other so much as replacing it with science and some back patting. I can see a certain similarity in the NYTimes article, but he seems to have changed on this position in the past couple of years. Anyway, the difference is in the approach; to Dawkins it's all about experiment and hypothesis testing, but he doesn't question ideology. As a postivist, this is how he finds his objective truth. Critical theory is about interpretations and reflection. So while Dawkins says Christians are wrong, Zizek says Christians are atheists.

>>1784739
That feels very semantic to me. I sympathize with Dawkins's position (person making the positive claim needs to provide evidence of claim) but it could all be dissolved if the theist would simply ask "well, what's the reasoning behind your unbelief?" Likewise, if Dawkins could question the believer, "what is the reasoning behind your belief?" It could be done much more civially if it were done socratically. That's a utopian ideal though. Not both theist and atheist will be intelligent or emotionally composed to do that in nine cases out of ten.

>>1784744
Yo dawg, I heard you liked ad hominem, so I ad hominemed your ad hominem, but you were too autismal to get it.

>>1784747

i'm not criticising him for name calling, i was the one that initiated it anyway. my point is that he is demonstrably wrong when he says that Dawkins engages in such verbal shit slinging during debates unlike onionring.

>>1784754
I think if it more things were done Socratically, there'd also be a lot more drinking hemlock.

But I see what you're saying, and I agree. Just people get blinded by their own pride and desire to be a certain kind of person.

>>1784763
I think what I'm trying to say, concisely, is that it would be better to assume that the opponent has something worth saying. Instead both sides bludgeon each other with the relatively trivial burden of proof debate. I'm not saying burden of proof is trivial itself. It's a very important logical issue. The thing is both sides seem to have some sort of proof and they'd rather just say the other side is a stupid asshole for not getting this basic logical starter right.

I for one worship the great Dawkins, being an ardent Dawkinite. I follow his teachings and try to be like him in every way. I look forward to the day when the whole world can be converted - by means of mockery or by force if necessary - to our way of thinking. The world and its people must be enlightened, for ours is the one true path. I worship the ground he walks on and attend every meeting of the atheist club, since we all share the same set of beliefs. This club is most certainly NOTHING LIKE a religion because we have atheist in the name, get it?

>>1784758

ad hominem me all you like man, I don't care. The difference is you made it seem as if Dawkins typically evokes ad hominems, which he does not.

>>1784784
>It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
Dawkins

Doesn't sound like ad hominem at all...

>>1784659
I was just reading The Parallax View this morning, and Zizek happened to be talking Dawkins and his idea of memes. He then quoted Dennett against Dawkins saying that the end effect would be memes deciding what other memes should be kept. He also said Tolstoy was the first to come up with such a meme theory.

What I like about reading Zizek is, even when I can't tell what he is arguing for, I get a good a idea of the various ideas that other people Zizek has read are arguing for.

>>1784797
Zizek would destroy like remark like a secret Czech military robot designed to destroy that remark.

I've got a question

When did everyone become such a pussy that if you utilize "ad hominum" you're automatically wrong? If I made a perfectly reasonable argument and end it by calling my opponent a fuckhead, so what? Does that somehow make my reasonable logic less reasonable?

2 + 2 = 4 you faggot

Am I wrong?

>288-page
>aimed at children

Okay.

>>1784840
2+2=4 isn't objectively true, if that's what you're saying. It still relies on a number of assumptions.

As a statement, it's meaningless since then it just says 2+2 and 4 are exactly the same thing. It gives no insight.

>>1784840
That's not what a ad hominem is

>>1784848
I read lots of books that long when I was a kid you faggot

>>1784848
>he wasn't reading books of this length by age six.

heh, maybe /b/ is more your speed, pal.

>>1784797

He said that 20 years ago and people are still using it to attack him. He explained his use of adjectives quite concisely in an article named 'Ignorance is no crime'.

>They are contradicting—influentially and powerfully—vast fields of learning in which their own knowledge and reading is indistinguishable from zero. My "arrogant and intolerant" statement turns out to be nothing but simple truth.

>There is wickedness here, but it is the wickedness of the institution and what it does to a believing victim, not wickedness on the part of the victim himself.

You might be interested in reading it: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_3.html

>>1784797
>Doesn't sound like ad hominem at all...

Eh? I don't think you understand what an ad hominem is.

Ad Hominem: "Evolution is true because opponents of it are stupid."

Dawkins: "Evolution is true because of evidence X, Y, and Z. This evidence is so strong that we should conclude that opponents of evolution are either ignorant of the subject or not reasoning properly"

>>1784918
>'Ignorance is no crime'
>No discussion of the ideological framework of terms like ignorant, insane or wicked, all of which boil down to "you do not see the world as I do"
Just like the Church in the old days..

>>1784850
>2+2=4 isn't objectively true, if that's what you're saying. It still relies on a number of assumptions.

>As a statement, it's meaningless since then it just says 2+2 and 4 are exactly the same thing. It gives no insight.

This what liberal arts students actually believe.

>>1784924
>This evidence is so strong that we should conclude that opponents of evolution are either ignorant of the subject or not reasoning properly
Still ad hominem. The evidence is strong or undeniable, you must be stupid to think otherwise. No, there are no other valid perspectives on this. Lalalala, no criticism no criticism...

>>1784925

christ and people called me autistic.

>>1784928

there is no scientific criticism of evolution. seriously.

there is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for gravity.

>>1784929
What a conclusion! But seriously, that's the issue I have with that comment, and I'm sure I'm not alone. It's not whether Dawkins actually thinks anyone is ignorant, wicked or insane or if it's their fault. He could go suck a bag of dicks for all I care.

>>1784937
>there is no scientific criticism of evolution.
That's only defeats the point about not taking into account other people's views in so far as Dawkins is arguing with scientists, or people who base their world view on science. And he's not.

Why you all so mad?

I don't see this as telling children what to think or what not to think. Dawkins is doing an incredible work to avoid people from forcing kids into religious thinking. And he is sensible enough to talk about it in a reasonable and charismatic way, it's not much like he is forcing "reality" into kids minds, more like introducing them to a world they don't really get in touch that often.

You being mad is the reason skepticism is taken under such a prejudiced light. The problem is that religious people are certain about it and preach about it with thousands of religious books for the children been released every year and atheists are so open minded they often look down and think they don't need to spread what they think. Dawkins is doing something for the survival of his opinions, I don't see nothing wrong with that.

I rather get mad at religious kids books.

>>1784967
>Dawkins is doing an incredible work to avoid people from forcing kids into religious thinking.
Dawkins is a religion without religion.

If atheism isnt a religion, then why do so many atheists treat it like one?

>>1784943

of course that's the issue you have with it, retreating into semantics is the only move you can make.

>>1784951

that's because you can't actually debate someone who doesn't base their perceptions on rational thinking. Ask any religious person if they would renounce their religion if you had evidence that God didn't exist and they invariably say that they would not.

The same cannot be said for a rational thinker and, say, evolution.

>>1784970
You are just listening too much to religious propaganda, son. That's the whole point of the criticism towards him. He is not like that at all.

And don't act like you were the first to say that.

>>1784973

They don't. The main problem I see is people using atheism as if its some sort of social attack point. Atheism should be more akin to apathy.

Most self proclaimed athiests are more like anti-theists.

>>1784975
The enlightenment was a long time ago. And it isn't semantics, just a lack of reverence for Dwakins.

>>1784981

>the enlightenment was a long time ago

when 40% of americans believe in creationism i sometimes have to check.

>>1784979
>And don't act like you were the first to say that.
How is anyone acting like that? It's a famous point made about Derrida's philosophy. I'm pretty sure someone levelled something similar at Nietzsche as well.

>>1784980
Why should apathy be related to atheism?

This sounds exactly like "gay people are okay, they should just stay quiet".

>>1784998
They should.

>>1784928
>Still ad hominem.

No, it's not. An ad hominem is an attempt to use an unrelated fact about an advocate of an argument as evidence against the validity of the argument e.g. "David's new theory of evolution is ridiculous. He owes tons of money to the IRS!". Dawkins does not do this.

>The evidence is strong or undeniable, you must be stupid to think otherwise. No, there are no other valid perspectives on this

No, there really are no other valid perspectives. It is a fact that things evolve, and have been evolving for billions of years, and science has proven this. There is, of course, always room to make a theory more accurate, but this does not change the facts of evolution.

>>1784951
/sci/entist dropping by.
You're missing the point. Religious beliefs are completely separate to science. Science requires evidence and must be testable and falsifiable. Religion is not science and it never will be because it is not subject to the same rigour. Nothing is true in science, it just explains the world using the best rational, evidential based conclusions to explain the world around us. But it is rough around the edges. The theories can always be tweaked and changed as we get more and more evidence.
However, take the Bible's explanation for the creation of Earth. You can't honestly say to me there is sufficient evidence to take this literally. So then we get into interpretation, there is no fundamental truth, interpret it in your own way. See how this isn't science? Don't try to mix the two.

>>1785015
>The theories can always be tweaked and changed to accommodate and reflect late capitalist system which perpetuates and dominates such systems of hegemonic, binary instrumental reason

fixed that for you, can tell you're from /sci/ pretty easily

>>1784998

I think thre should be a distinction. Not everyone who doesnt believe in religion wants to be lumped in with the FUCK JESUS NIGGER FUCKING CHRISTFAG CUNT brigade. Let them be known as 'anti-theists' as it sums up their agenda more accurately.

>>1785015
>You're missing the point. Religious beliefs are completely separate to science.
No, you are missing the point. If someone, despite evidence, remains unconvinced of scientific conclusions (and perhaps even criticizes them), it's still a small minded, dickish move to just start calling them ignorant, insane or wicked. Whether or not other scientists find the conclusion convincing or if they choose to criticize it is tangential. Religious beliefs are even tangential at this stage, as this part of the argument makes no reference to religious ideologies.

The issue I have with Dawkins, and by extension this book, is I think that his sort of neo-logical positivism is detrimental to science. Scientists, despite what /sci/ would have you believe, need a good and wild imagination. That's where ideas come from. Teaching small children to value rationalism before imagination, especially during the years where their imagination is allowed to run wild, only serves to put a damper on creativity, and this will have negative effects on the scientific community.

>>1785029
I'll just leave this here for the visiting /sci/ guy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_moons#Dedication_to_the_Medicis

>Scarcely have the immortal graces of your soul begun to shine forth on earth than bright stars offer themselves in the heavens which, like tongues, will speak of and celebrate your most excellent virtues for all time. Behold, therefore, four stars reserved for your illustrious name ... which ... make their journeys and orbits with a marvelous speed around the star of Jupiter ... like children of the same family ... Indeed, it appears the Maker of the Stars himself, by clear arguments, admonished me to call these new planets by the illustrious name of Your Highness before all others.
-Galileo

Funny that there just the right number of moons for just the right number of Medici, who just happened to be funding Galileo...

>>1785044
A distinction? That's exactly why atheism is not a religion, pal. Atheists have nothing in common beside they don't believe in god. Atheists are already separated from each other, one by one. They don't need to organize themselves in groups and fight against religion, they also don't have to stay quiet and cope with everything.

There is nothing wrong with spreading ideas, specially in such a reasonable manner, unlike, say, with outright lies. In fact, that's exactly what you and others are doing right here, saying how atheists should or shouldn't behave like.

>>1785096
>Atheists have nothing in common beside they don't believe in god.
What a meaningless sentence.

>>1785048

there is no other perspective that you can have besides willful ignorance (probably brought on through a wicked institution in the case of evolution).

>>1785063

Even if Galileo did negate the existence of other celestial bodies in order to appease his masters, this in no way impacts on the validity of the scientific method. In fact if anything it would reveal the corrosive nature of religious authority upon rational thought.

But you can't prove he deliberately negated the existence of those other planets so your entire point is useless.

Also I find it interesting that d&e thinks science can be manipulated to support capitalist establishments when in fact psychological sciences frequently place our childhood rearing as more influential than our innate genetic abilities.

>>1785096

I'd just like to say that this gentleman does not speak on behalf of all atheists, and that at least one atheist finds him to be a nitwit.

>>1785096

I'm just saying there should be a seperate distinction of agendas. Pretty fucking simple bro. Some people arent into religion, some people are AGAINST religion. Big fucking difference there. I'm not implying there should be a cult or whatever, just saying, quite simply, we should expand our vocabulary.

fuck jesus and god

lol

and fuck atheists too

lol

oh yeah and fuck every other major religion also

waffle

>>1784497
>>1784505
ITT: People who want to shield children from the truth and can't answer questions their children ask them.

>Oh their precious little brains can't handle it, Don't worry children you don't disappear when you die you go up to a magical place and everything will be alright!.

>Mommy why is the earth round
>Errm Uhh (Oh shit I have no fucking clue) because God created the world in 7 days little one.

this entire thread has reminded me why I stopped debating religion in the first place.

>>1785059
>>1785059

How do you know this book will suppress imagination. It might enhance it. Getting them to think intelligently and independantly. Getting them to ask questions about the wold and getting them to wonder how and why we know what we know today (which I assume s the aim of the book).

As opposed to "Hur God did it now stop asking questions" which rather inhibits imagination and creative thought.

>>1785102
Truth, but when was it stated otherwise? People (including atheists themselves) just assume that, because he makes some noise. Assuming that is what's wrong with the world.

>>1785101
>the scientific method
There is no such thing as the scientific method per se. It's also not what has defined science throughout the ages.

Since we're on Galileo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment
Has an excerpt from Mathematical Discourses and Demonstrations early on. If you want more, you need Philosophers of Science, like Kuhn, Feyerabend, Popper. There are several more if you include social sciences.

>In fact if anything it would reveal the corrosive nature of religious authority upon rational thought.
You'd be hard pressed to call the Medici a religious authority. That's also oversimplifying the situation. One could just as easily talk about the corrosive nature of capitalism on the search for truth.

>Also I find it interesting that d&e thinks science can be manipulated to support capitalist establishments when in fact psychological sciences frequently place our childhood rearing as more influential than our innate genetic abilities.
Science is necessarily manipulated in the capitalist system. Look up antipsychiatry if you can't see an example of this.

>>1785120
>As opposed to "Hur God did it now stop asking questions" which rather inhibits imagination and creative thought.

Nice strawman, bro. I'm sure Tolkien really brofisted you from the grave for this comment.

>>1785120
Because getting people to think rationally and critically about the world is antithetical to harbouring imagination and creativity. The games I used to play by myself and with friends when I was a lad would not have been fun or made sense if I were to consider them rationally. Trying to beat the storm home on my bike isn't fun when I consider that the storm is a product of the water cycle and high/low air pressure patterns, but it is when the storm is the product of an evil sorcerer trying to prevent me from getting to the treasure buried in my sand box. Having an imagination is about having a crazy idea and running with it, thinking rationally is the ability to nip that crazy idea in the bud. Irrationality breeds creativity, which breeds ideas, which breeds scientific breakthroughs. Rationality breeds methodology and strictness of mind. If you really think an 8 year old would benefit more from rationality than creativity, then I hope you don't reproduce because that poor child will be boring as shit.

>>1785154
Not only is it a strawman, but it's demonstratably false. There are a plethora of ideas which are the product of the crazy and wild idea of God. Now, they may not be right, but plenty of ideas are the result of God. Descartes return from solipsism, Aristotle's unmoved mover, Newton's motion of Mercury, Leibnitz' perfect world for monads. Sure, these don't correspond to nature, but they are ideas that are the product of the crazy idea of God. They don't hold up to experimental scrutiny the way other crazy ideas such as wave/particle duality do, but they are ideas none the less.

What we should be doing is teaching our children to run wild with crazy ideas and as they mature they will examine them and find their holes. This is why the fundy Christians don't like their kids reading Harry Potter, because when they examine the reason Harry Potter doesn't cohere with reality, they will also realize that God doesn't either. Kids are smart, they often ask the right questions and are capable of finding answers themselves. They don't need to be taught how to experiment, they do it every day with their action figures and their made up games that don't work.

>>1784998
"The world would be a better place if people would just not give a fuck!" ~ Dr. Durell (History and Geography) Atheist Professor.

Why can't we all not force our beliefs or lack of down peoples throats and LIVE LIFE, look you are arguing with people who you will never see in real life, have no impact on your life, lol internet is serious bizness! Countertroll the trolls! Oh No I just did it too xD

>>1785223
people who waste time on the internet telling others not waste time are the biggest morons on the internet.

gtfo fuckwit

>>1785239
People who cannot detect sarcasm and do not understand the humor of a cynic need not apply to 4chan. Please sir kindly and quietly leave.

What a douche

>>1785249
>>1785249
>People who cannot detect sarcasm and do not understand the humor of a cynic

that pretty much sums up you bro, that was my first post itt and a total troll. u mad?

>>1785260
nope just apathetic really, anyway going outside now bye bye, enjoy your life!

>make thread about richard dawkins on 4chan
>never fails to generate hundreds of posts

>>1785271
It's about his book...

>>1785171
>Trying to beat the storm home on my bike isn't fun when I consider that the storm is a product of the water cycle and high/low air pressure patterns, but it is when the storm is the product of an evil sorcerer trying to prevent me from getting to the treasure buried in my sand box.

It can still be fun ofcourse. CHildren can and will play games. Its an irrelevant point to make. It would be insulting a childs intelligence to see a group of them playing the "the floor is molten lava" game and jumping on chairs and things, to say that they really believe its lava and can't have fun if not. They KNOW its not really lava, they're just playing a game and using their imagination using fictional and wild figments of imagination.

However, the difference comes here. When you get home. A scientist or a curious child might then wonder, why is the storm cloud there? How does it work? Why does it move accross the sky and chase me? Why is there lightning and what is it? WHy am I safer inside and not under a tree???

These are all stimuating questions that the child can, should, and regularly does ask. They don't detract from the fun, infact they make it more interesting.

It is alot more stimuating for the child to know what lightning is, and get thinking about what it is than simply live in ignorance.

If I have kids I can and will answer any and all questions they have about the world, and he won't be boring as a result of it nor will I force it down his throat 24/7. But its a good thing to stimulate the mind. Asking a child what they think lightning is will be an interesting enough insight.

>>1785149
>you'd be hard pressed to call the Medici a religious authority.

Well whatever if not strictly religious then similarly totalitarian.

Also I know about anti-psychiatry and you should know that anti-psychiatry was actually very influential on bringing modern psychiatric attention to the social circumstances of it's patients.

>>1784497
Freaking lol'd, especially because I read that in his voice.

>>1785285
>If I have kids I can and will answer any and all questions they have about the world
AHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAHAAA!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u2ZsoYWwJA&t=7m25s
>yfw you don't know what the fuck you're talking about

>>1785316
>Well whatever if not strictly religious then similarly totalitarian.
So now the issue is not religion, but totalitarianism. The Will to Power. But by denying the non-scientific view, scientists like Dawkins are also being totalitarian, trying to repress those who disagree.
>Also I know about anti-psychiatry and you should know that anti-psychiatry was actually very influential on bringing modern psychiatric attention to the social circumstances of it's patients.
>was
Still is. Also, it was still "modern" psychiatry then. And if you know about it, then you know that there have always been issues with the Doctor Patient relationship, and how people take on those roles.

>>1785346
>repress
Oppress even.

I smell of balls. I majorly smell of balls. But not just balls. I also smell of anus. I also smell of piss. I smell majorly of piss, balls and anus.

>>1785316

> Well whatever

Hot Topic atheism there.

>>1785365
Confirmed for troll.

>>1785346

The issue with religion was always its totalitarian aspects. How else could it impact science? Science can't be totalitarian because it isn't based upon authority but evidence and principle.

The rejection of totalitarianism is not totalitarian.

I can tell you are quite a fan of anti-psychiatry, no wonder you have such an issue with genuine scientific practices.

Wow, Dawkins is all about the money. This is a franchise expansion too far tho - I don't know what's funnier, the '288-page book... for children' or the title, which is like 'The Awesomeness of Vegetables'. It's the sort of thing a loathed aunt gets you instead of a real present. I hope the kids who get this prove Darwin right by biting off the giver's fucking face.

>>1785379
>burden of proof lies on religion
That's quite a touching meta-epistemological claim that cannot be proven

>>1785334

I was that kid by the way. I thought I was on /sci/ so I was about to say all of us were but you guys probably aren't quite so interested by how things work.

Yes its a comedy sketch because kids don't know when to stop, there reaches a point you can't explain anymore, but the first questions were perfectly legitimate questions asked by a childs curiosity. It's a shame that some adults have lost this curiosity about the world. The comedian summed it up pretty well.

>I don't know why I don't know how that works
>Why?
>Because I'm stupid okay
> Why?
>Because I didn't pay attention in school

That illustrates my point fairly well.

Also its not so much the answering, sometimes its just as imaginitive to answer "I don't know" and get them to think about why you don't know, maybe why no-one knows, or what it could be.

If you don't engage your childs mind when they ask these questions then you have failed them

>>1785380

> The issue with religion was always its totalitarian aspects.

No, the issue is 'is it true?'.

> How else could it impact science?

Because no-one gives a fuck about scientists but admires pastors, and they jelly.

>>1785383
Religion, makes a claim that there is a god.
They have to provide evidence for their claim.
Is it really that hard?

>>1785388
>They have to provide evidence for their claim.
There's another, albeit not entirely meta meta-epistemological normative claim that cannot be proven

>>1785380
>Science can't be totalitarian because it isn't based upon authority but evidence and principle.
O RLY? I'll leave it with whose evidence and whose principles? And the fact that there is clearly a hierarchical structure throughout the scientific community. It always comes down to the Will to Power.

>>1785395

This guy gets it.

>>1785394
So you're telling me that I have to prove my claim that claims need to be proven. Holy fucking shit.

>>1785400
I'm not telling you that you have to do anything, old sport

>>1785380
science is about authority as well. Almost all of person's science education is taken at face value. You read the value in the book, you write it down, you continue. All education is based on authority, really; the subjugation of your doubt to the authority of texts, teachers, experts, so on, so forth. And this is how it has to be, unless you seriously think we can drop a pile of dirt on a high schooler and expect them to reproduce the periodic table.

tl:dr: dawkinheads have delusional and romantic views of science, news at nine.

>>1785402
So please explain to me the problem with asking someone to provide evidence for their claim?

>>1785407
>the problem with asking someone to provide evidence for their claim?
No problem, but that's not the same thing as claiming burden of proof

>>1785407

Do you mind not quoting someone I've got on 4chan filter?

>>1785413
When someone makes a claim, if they expect me to believe them then they aught to provide evidence for their claim, instead of saying it's true because it's true.

>>1785395

what do you mean 'whose' evidence? You think the observation may change depending on who is looking at it?

What kind of reality do you live in?

>sits back to watch Eniggerma get trolled willingly

also going to bed now everyone have a good time itt

>>1785405

Exactly. Dawkins is taken on faith by goth atheists.

Fuck me...

>>1785417

This one - the one where you fail because you don't understand the way human beings actually think.

>>1785424

You're just like your mom.

>>1785427
My mother was a saint!

So, does anyone think this book won't take a dive? I mean, I know there are some horrible parents, but is any kid not going to throw this out of the nearest window?

>>1785417
>You think the observation may change depending on who is looking at it?
>Doesn't realize it does
No two experiments are exactly alike, neither are experimenters looking for the same things. Although I was referring more to stuff like the experiments for something like phase diagrams for metals. No one can have first hand evidence of the results required for one or two metals, due to the amount of time needed. You just have to take on faith some results from an army of PhD students.

Science is far from objective, despite claims to the contrary.

>140 posts
>and nobody's mind was changed.

>>1785448
>thinks that's the point
Fucking sophistry.

>>1785405

But the difference is that the experts are not the final dictators of science. The truth speaks for itself through controlled experimentation and evidence based theory

The fact is that science works, and if you seriously believe that it's all based upon subjective postulations and the dictats of some illuminati group of scientists then I would be very nervous going on a plane journey.

Seriously I have a feeling this is one crazy marxist guy with some pseudo-scientific ideas about psychiatry spouting this nonsense.

this is the most retarded thread ever to pustulate upon the handsome face of /lit/.

>>1785453

No, asshole.

>>1785455

>>1785450

That's the only point - if you don't see that, look forward to spending sixty years lecturing your wife as you both live on the breadline in a shitty little house because you were too good to eat some ass.

>>1785453
>Seriously I have a feeling this is one crazy marxist guy with some pseudo-scientific ideas about psychiatry spouting this nonsense.

This better not be your image of ZIZEK

>>1785453
zzzzzzzzzreadaboutthefrankfurtschoolsometimeyouidiotzzzzzzzzz

>>1784739
That's because Dawkins never claims that there is no god with complete certainty. He simply lacks a belief. In that case, asking the audience member for his proof is not so inappropriate as you seem to suggest. In fact, it is one of the only proper responses.

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER ME AND TELL ME IF THEY THINK THIS BOOK ISN'T GOING TO BOMB BECAUSE NO-ONE BUYS THEIR KID PROPAGANDA FOR FUN, AND NO KID SITS AND SWALLOWS IT?!

>>1785462
This.

>>1784503
If you treat kids as if they're stupid they grow up stupid.

This is the problem with the western education system today.

>buy my kids atheist propaganda disguised as a childrens book or See Spot Run
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>1785468
Nice dropped trip, you samefagging cocksucker.

>>1785285
Children already have that question asking spirit, they don't need a book by a positivist to learn it. And besides, anyone who would buy this book for their kids will already have the insight to teach them so-called critical thinking and rationalism. What children need is something to pique their imagination.

This is exactly the same shit as fundie Christians pull. In basing his business model off of the people he's opposing, perhaps Dawkins is the greatest troll of all, second only to Diamond Dave Lee Roth.

>>1785462

antipositive sociology is too fucking biased to be taken seriously. Maybe it's good for describing social constructs but for everything else it's useless.

>>1785490

Eat my ass like a peach.

thank god.

I know there's a horrible epidemic among Anons who don't know the difference between fact and opinion, and don't think facts matter because facts are "subjective."

Maybe a children's book like this will put an end to it.

>>1785493
Everyone knows that a peach is more like a pussy than an ass, you stupid fucker. Read a motherfucking book and stop bothering me and this board with your ignorant analogies.

>>1785496

No, man, it's not that we don't know the difference, it's that we don't give a fuck.

>>1785499

It's not an analogy for the object, but for the technique - I want him to give tongue to my ass and suck down the run-off.

>>1785504
Oh, well then I respectfuly retract my statement.

New topic:
Ever read Anonymous Rex?

It sucks.

>>1785405
No you cute little simpleton. Science is not taught according to authority. Sure, at first things in the class may be taken at face value unquestioningly, but the student of science always knows that he can perform the experiment himself, on his own time, and he also has confidence in knowing that scientists all over the world have already done these experiments hundreds of times, will continue to do the experiments hundreds more times, and all receive the same, singular, unchanging, unmoving, objective answer. Although science may, at a glance, seem to be taught according to pure authoritative command, this is definitely not the case when we observe that the "authority figures" you speak of hold a very real, very legitimate authority that can be verified, time and time again, by rigorous and honest experimentation.

>>1785516

Never heard of it, what is it?

In excellent related news, I just found out the syntax to add more than one tripfag to 4chan filter. You were right Truman, science is my friend.

>>1785518

>mfw feyerabend

>>1785518

> confidence
> legimitate authority

lol

>>1785522
Nice dubs.

Anonymous Rex is based on the premise that dinosaurs are still around, they just have latex human suits to blend in with us. The back of the cover says "The best interspecies sex ever!" or something to that effect and should not be left on top of your book pile for your friends and family to see no matter how pure your intentions about buying it were.

The sex was rather odd and stupid by the way.

>>1785535

Hmmm... I may take a look at that in the fulness of time.

>>1785535

Hmmm... I may take a look at that in the fullness of time.

>>1785535

Thanx. Truthfully I may never get around to that, but thanks for the recommendation.

>>1785567
Oh, I was recommending you NOT read it. That is, unless you want to hear about dinosemen and other such things.

Try this pic instead as my parting gift to you.

>Dave Mckean
FUCK YES

>>1785581

What makes that strip is that the triceratops' name is Mr. Trihorn.

>>1785518
Thats a cool story dawkinhead. Go look up the millikan oil drop experiment now, and enjoy a bit of history to go with your ideology.

I'm really horny.