/lit/ - Literature

"This poor ersatz Martian is saying that sex is a way to be happy. Sex should be a means of happiness. Ben, the worst thing about sex is that we use it to hurt each other. It ought never to hurt; it should bring happiness, or at least pleasure.
"The code says, 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.' The result? Reluctant chastity, bitterness, blows and sometimes murder, broken homes and twisted children — and furtive little passes degrading to woman and man. Is this Commandment ever obeyed? If a man swore on his own Bible that he refrained from coveting his neighbor's wife because the code forbade it, I would suspect either self-deception or subnormal sexuality. Any man virile enough to sire a child has coveted many women, whether he acts or not.
"Now comes Mike and says: 'There is no need to covet my wife... love her! There's no limit to her love, we have everything to gain — and nothing to lose but fear and guilt and hatred and jealousy.' The proposition is incredible. So far as I recall only pre-civilization Eskimos were this naive — and they were so isolated that they were almost 'Men from Mars' themselves. But we gave them our 'virtues' and now they have chastity and adultery just like the rest of us." (FE)

Mike is like the first man to discover fire. Fire was there all along — after he showed them how, anybody could use it…

"Eskimos were invariably described as the happiest people on Earth. Any unhappiness they suffered was not through jealousy; they didn't have a word for it. They borrowed spouses for convenience and fun — it did not make them unhappy. So who's looney? Look at this glum world around you, then tell me: Did Mike's disciples seem happier, or unhappier, than other people?"
"I didn't talk to them all, Jubal. But — yes, they're happy. So happy they seem slap-happy. There's a catch in it somewhere."
"Maybe you were the catch." (FE)

But, science teaches you to be satisfied with what little understanding/knowledge we do have of the world.

There is much we don't know, and much we'll probably never know, so there's no reason to be smug in whatever case.

>>2277232

>satisfied

no, no one implied that

>>2277232
>science teaches you to be satisfied with what little understanding/knowledge we do have of the world.
No it doesn't you fucking idiot, science teaches us to constsntly push the boundaries of knowledge.

>>2277232

No it doesn't, it teaches that there's always more that needs to be learned ...

i prefer sagan's version of that sentiment, "Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." but i think theyre overly bitter about religion, you can replace 'spiritual fantasy' with many other spheres.

Now here we have another emotional symbol — wrought with exquisite craftsmanship, but we won't go into that, yet. Ben, for almost three thousand years or longer, architects have designed buildings with columns shaped as female figures — it got to be such a habit that they did it as casually as a small boy steps on an ant. After all those centuries it took Rodin to see that this was work too heavy for a girl. But he didn't simply say, 'Look, you jerks, if you must design this way, make it a brawny male figure.' No, he showed it… and generalized the symbol. Here is this poor little caryatid who has tried — and failed, fallen under the load. She's a good girl — look at her face. Serious, unhappy at her failure, but not blaming anyone else, not even the gods… and still trying to shoulder her load, after she's crumpled under it.
But she's more than good art denouncing some very bad art; she's a symbol for every woman who has ever tried to shoulder a load that was too heavy for her — over half the female population of this planet, living and dead, I would guess. But not alone women — this symbol is sexless. It means every man and every woman who ever lived who sweated out life in uncomplaining fortitude, whose courage wasn't even noticed until they crumpled under their loads. It's courage, Ben, and victory. (UC)

Victory in defeat, there is none higher. She didn't give up, Ben; she's still trying to lift that stone after it has crushed her. She's a father going down to a dull office job while cancer is painfully eating away his insides, so as to bring home one more pay check for the kids. She's a twelve-year-old girl trying to mother her baby brothers and sisters because Mama had to go to Heaven. She's a switchboard operator sticking to her job while smoke is choking her and the fire is cutting off her escape. She's all the unsung heroes who couldn't quite cut it but never quit. (UC)

>>2277241
you sound like dr. sartorius in solaris. "you must get used to everything!"

>>2277232
>But, science teaches you to be satisfied with what little understanding/knowledge we do have of the world.

What? I can't think of anyone dedicated to the sciences who is satisfied by the current understanding of our universe and the forces at work within it. It is this very dissatisfaction that inspires the scientific zeal for discovery and fuels the hunt for knowledge.

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)

>>2277251
This is pretty lame.

Dawkins says:

I am smug.

>>2277257
Why

>>2277248

>"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy."

This is fair too vague and out of context to constitute as a good quote. Spirituality is generally looked as an augmentation of reality, or in some cases a way of enriching it. When looked at independently, it can be a wholly good thing.

>>2277254

Qualitative experiences are always a treat, it's good to know someone so intelligent and narrow (narrow by his field choice, an assumption based off of things I've heard from people that have spoken to him) was able to appreciate such experiences to that degree.

"Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily.”

Napoleon Bonaparte

>"EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE; OBJECTIVITY IS RELATIVE; RELATIVITY IS OBJECTIVE".

Why do you love that quote OP? It's remarkably stupid. Dawkin's literally has no idea what he is talking about. He lacks any kind of critical flexibility. He is an excellent popularizer of scientific ideas, but he is not an intellectual. He does not -he cannot- *think*.

>>2277300
So because you don't like Dawkins the quote is stupid?
Please tell me I'm wrong.

>>2277305
Where did I say anything about not liking Dawkins?

The quote is stupid because "religion" (scare quotes because the category is so broad as to be, for the purposes of this discussion, near meaningless) absolutely does not in and of itself teach people to be satisfied with not understanding the world. Some relgious people are wilfully ignorant, so are some non-relgious people. Dawkin's is wilfully ignorant with regards relgion. This quote is a confession of his own intellectual self-mutilation.

>>2277300

"Critical flexibility"? Is that sort of like a compromise?

Bahah.

>>2277300
You haven't actually said anything critically substantive here. Saying Dawkins is stupid and he doesn't know what he's talking about isn't equivalent to showing, or even alluding to a showing of, how he's these things. And what exactly does "critical flexibility" mean?

Today's world, as we all know, is faced with multiple threats. From whichever angle I look at this menace, I always come to the conclusion that salvation can only come through a profound awakening of man to his own personal responsibility, which is at the same time a global responsibility.

Thus, the only way to save our world, as I see it, lies in a democracy that recalls its ancient Greek roots: democracy based on an integral human personality personally answering for the fate of the community.

>>2277313

No. It's the ability to approach ideas non-dogmatically, top put aside ones prejudices and wishes. Dawkin's cannot do this with regard top relgion. He is on a propaganda crusade, his intentions may well be thoroughly moral and honourable, but he is as dogmatic as many fundamentalist Christian. His views on religion are anti-intellectual.

>>2277311

"the quite is stupid derpderpderp so many religions derpderpderp doesn't teach people to ignore facts derpderpderp Dawkins has never studied religion derpderpderp intellectual mutilation???"

>>2277315

>You haven't actually said anything critically substantive here

see >>2277311

>And what exactly does "critical flexibility" mean?

see >>2277322

>>2277325


Herp derp? hurr durr hah durr rah der derp arh derp.

>derp derp derp derp

Hurr durr? Derp har derp hargh.

"If the ignorance of nature gave birth to such a variety of gods, the knowledge of this nature is calculated to destroy them."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Baron_d%27Holbach

>>2277300

Guy posts a comment about a quote he loves.

In you come and start throwing shit about

Nice one.

"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."

A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-40) Part 4 Of the sceptical and other systems of philosophy, Sect. 7 Conclusion of this book

>>2277311

Intellectual self-mutiliation is better than the intellectual suicide of religion.

I see you are trying to attack Dawkins by widening the meaning of the word 'religion' so much that Dawkins attempts to confront it seem absurd.

But if we define religion by its widest but still tangible limits, we can describe it as a belief in a supernatural entity/entities who had some influence on the formation of the observable universe.

If you believe these entities are supernatural, then we cannot hope to scientifically understand their existence or the process by which they manipulate the world. This is what supernatural means. If your God isn't supernatural, then why call him God?

"I love the cock"

- OP

>>2277358

His kritsism is somwat understandble, altho stil not on mark, for the reeson that alot of peeple use the word "religion", and related words "religious" overly brod to refer to any position that they konsider to be dogmatik. This is especialy comon among modern peeple that kall themselvs "skeptics", "brights" etc.

This use of the word(s) is not very useful, in fakt, it is detrimental to good diskusion. Dawkins is not like that, ofk, so the kritisism, if based on the abov idea, is off the mark.

the constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear.
A leaf that falls from the tree is not afraid of death
Truth is a pathless land
etc. etc. etc.
- Krishnamurti (ANY Jiddu Krishnamurti quote I find to be very insightful and profound. I think this man is seriously undervalued)

- man sacrifices his health in order to make money.
Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health.
And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present;
the result being that he does not live in the present or the future;
he lives as if he is never going to die, and then he dies having never really lived - Dalai Lama

I would recommend everyone at least look at the quote of jkrishnamurtionline.org

You never know what he outcome is, but the truth is always the best place to start.

- Julian Assange

>>2277371

Any reason in particular you're typing like a prick??

>>2277379

He's a linguist or some shit. Just ignore him.

“Whenever I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver”
-Herman Goering.

>>2277386
The quote is "Whenever I hear 'culture'... I remove the safety from my Browning!"

and it's from a Nazi play, not Goering.

>>2277383
I'm a linguistics student. I can confirm that he is not a linguist. he is just a dick.

why would anyone care about the 'world'?

>>2277358

>Intellectual self-mutiliation is better than the intellectual suicide of religion.

Religious belief is not intellectual suicide.

>we can describe it as a belief in a supernatural entity/entities who had some influence on the formation of the observable universe.

Nor is it soley a matter of ontology, but taking it to be so: either the current materialistic conception of the world is part of the picture or the whole picture (the former, I believe).

Science deals with a certain manner of observation.

Mystics observe a truth in their own manner.

The two are fundamentally compatible, though this cannot be scientifically proven due to the current state of technological development (for suggestions of this see David Bohm - a scientist and also an a genuine *thinker*, unlike Dawkins).

The dichotomy Dawkins draws between a religion and science is false. They are not in epistemological conflict. There is too much *unknown* for them to be so.

Religion does not teach people to not search for scientific truth (though particular relgious people do do that, of course).

Science does not entail irreligion (though some scientists believe it does and propagandise on this basis).

Like often attracts like: fundamentalists and Dawkins/Hitchens/Adams style atheists are the functional inverse of one another. Both sides are dogmatic, anti-intellectual and constrain the search for true understanding.

I was on my way to meet a milf I'd met over the Internet. Abruptly arriving at her house, with no knowlege of how i got there, knocked on the door. A pretty young girl answered and seemed to know exactly why I was there, showing me into the house she lead me to a door. I opened it to find a burley fat man with a handlebar mustache smoking on the toilet and typing on a computer. "shit" I thought. He looked up at me, seeing the disappointment on my face, turned back to the computer and continued typing. "so this is your gimmick" I said coldly. He responded with a mere grunt. I obviously wasn't going to fuck this dude so I decided to leave. On my way out I caught the eye of the young girl who'd showed me in, still feeling horney I decided to try my luck and turned on the charm. We chattered for a little while, as I established I wasn't a creep. She showed me into her room, once we where inside with the door closed, she pulled out a half smoked joint and asked if I had a lighter. "sure" I said eagerly. I have this way of making it obvious I want to fuck without saying anything, so she knew what was up. After we'd smoked the joint, she pulled down my trousers and began to suck my cock. It felt good, then we fucked.

- myself, waking up this morning.

>>2277391

Thats interesting. Wy is that?

ITT: How a bunch of arguing faggots ruined a quote thread.

"And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: 'I.'"

"I've been dead a long time"

>>2277412
Because anyone who has studied phonetics will understand that your attempt at what seems to be advanced phonetic spelling i.e. substituting /c/ for /k/ to represent the IPA velar plosive /k/ is absolutely pointless, widely misunderstood and just causes controversy (as my reply is demonstrating) it also shows a wilful disregard for the value of the complex orthography of English. If you'd like me to really explain why typing in your assumed made up alphabet is actually not constructive I will be happy to do so. Or you can trust that you are an attention seeking douchebag and shut up.

>>2277379

U shud not use such ofensiv languaj.

See e.g.: http://www.spellingsociety.org/

>>2277405

>religious belief is not intellectual suicide

Intellectually suicidal in the same way as existentialism, you are eluding confrontation with the absurd nature of our universe with baseless and unprovable meanings.

>there are two kinds of truth etc

I'm sorry, but putting yourself into an intangible corner where rationality and empiricism cannot touch your position effectively murders the debate.

>48 replies
>"op is a faggot" isn't one of them

You always disappoint, /lit/.

>>2277430
take a look around, anon. you are the only faggot in this thread.

>>2277427
Yes, I have seen this. While I DO approve of some of the points made, all you are doing here is drawing attention to yourself rather than the issue.

I sincerely doubt that this will take off. Then again if its you or the grammarians I suppose I'll side with you. I maintain that this is neither the time nor place to be demonstrating how 'clued up' you are on spelling.

Spelling reform has altogether FAILED time and time again with few exceptions. I believe in 1996 the Germans had partial success, but I suggest you research the history of Spelling Reform on Wiki before you start lording it over us. In short, Douchebag.

>>2277210
"When I reach for the edge of the universe, I do so knowing that along some paths of cosmic discovery there are times when, at least for now, one must be content to love the questions themselves." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

This is not an admission of failure, it's our torch to light the fire of future generation's discovery.

>>2277430

This isn't /b/. We elaborate on our objections rather than using a pea brained response like 'OP is a fag'

>>2277439

Hope is definitely not the same thing as optimism. It is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.

-Vaclav Havel, 1986

>>2277427
Again when the final vowel in language is the phoneme /I/, why would you represent it as 'a', and why represent the phoneme /w/ as 'u'!! Contradictory much? That is not simplifed...

>>2277210
>Religion
At the end of the day you are satisfied with yourself

>Science
At the end of the day you wish you could have done more

>>2277429

>I'm sorry, but putting yourself into an intangible corner where rationality and empiricism cannot touch your position effectively murders the debate.

It dissolves the debate. And this is a good thiong because the debate, at least in the way it is framed by the likes of Dawkins, is totally uneccessary. Except perhaps as a way to shift books:

>The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

>Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #374 in Books

>God is not great: how religion poisons everything - Christopher Hitchens

>Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #67 in Books

>Wholeness & the implicate order - David Bohm

>Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #55,382 in Books

>>2277450

>dissolving the debate is a good thing

well, at least I got you to say it.

my main qualm about Dawkins' anti-religion crusade is the fact that he doesn't seem to understand the myriad of religions.
despite what he thinks, some religions DO employ mans capacity for reason whilst not admitting the truth of a god (i.e. eastern Buddhism)
go suck a lemon Dawkins

>>2277421

Mor of this ofensiv languaj. It wil not help ur kase. In fakt, it wil make it look wors.

Not exaktly sure wy u want to show and with the unesesary teknikal languaj/jargon, i.e., "velar plosive", wich shud hav been "voiced velar plosive" anyway.

As for the reeson u giv, it is bad. Not surprising. Most arguments against speling reforms ar bad, tho som ar reesonable. It is a sort of hiden apeel to authority. Unfortunately, the authority apeeled to does/wil not do the thing u klaim. This shud kom as no surprise. I dont think u wud konsins anyone with that argument, eeven if one interprets it very, very charitably.

It is unfortunate that u try to show authority on ur side and then go on to misuse or fail to use the korekt terminolojy. U made at leest two erors. One of them is this:

>If you'd like me to really explain why typing in your assumed made up alphabet is actually not constructive I will be happy to do so.

Sins it is quite klear that ther is no such made up alfabet. Ther is a reformed orthografy but the alfabet used is, in fakt, the same. The klosest thing u wer to beeing ryt is that the frequensy of sertain leters, e.g. C has chanjed.

Besides, all alfabets and orthografys ar 'made up' in the sens that they wer made/invented by peeple. If u ment that it was invented by a smal number of persons, perhaps one, then that may be so, but it does not show anyway.

>complex orthography

"Complex" here reely seems to meen "bad" or "horrible" or "terrible". EN orthografy is not only komplex, it is unesesaryly komplex and very much so.

>>2277454

Dissolving The Big Science vs: Religion debate is a good thing.

Its playground stuff, juvenile.

>>2277456
Just because he doesn't talk about religion in each and every one of it's forms doesn't mean his points on conventional (for lack of a better word) religion aren't valid.

>>2277460
Not when people are still trying to teach creationism in school.

>>2277210
>Dawkins
Spending your whole life trying to go against a well established but weakening function of society that makes people happy can't be that fun, I imagine.

But to stay on topic:
"Worry is the misuse of imagination."

>>2277465
Every school I've seen it taught puts it up as an option and doesn't say that's the way it was.

>>2277439

Be sivil. Refraining from doing so wil only make u look eeven wors.

>While I DO approve of some of the points made, all you are doing here is drawing attention to yourself rather than the issue.

The only thing i hav don is use alternativ spelings. It is not my fault that peeple keep komenting on it. I wil kontinu to defend languaj reform ideas wen peeple like the (perhaps seudo-) linguist student make arguments of poor quality against the idea.

>Spelling reform has altogether FAILED time and time again with few exceptions. I believe in 1996 the Germans had partial success, but I suggest you research the history of Spelling Reform on Wiki before you start lording it over us. In short, Douchebag.

U make klaims of such failurs, but dont seem to hav don much reserch. I hav don alot of reserch on this. That is wat wise peeple do, they look at the evidens befor forming opinions (cf. Hume's remark on this). It makes me angry wen peeple who obviusly hav not don their reserch sujest that peeple that hav don their reserch, hav not don so. U shud stop doing that.

>>2277457
Die in a fucking fire for typing like that. Yes I mad, that would be enough reaason for me to murder you in the most painful fashion I can imagine.

>>2277470
>That is wat wise peeple do

No, it is not. Wise people spell in an understandable manner. You are just an attention-seeking whore trying to rise some controversy.

Get out.

>>2277448
Anon beat me to it.

>>2277469
There are islamic schools here in the UK that teach the Qu'ran is if it's fact. I'm sure you could find christian examples in America if you looked, aren't there people campaigning for it to be taught as an alternative in science classes?

>>2277472

U shud get over ur nationalistik feelings about languajes. Presumbly this is wat kauses such stupidity.

This reminds me, sins this is a quote thred.

"If love is blind, patriotism has lost all five senses."
William Blum, Rogue State (2006)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nationalism

>>2277465

I agree to an extent with this.

But this makes Dawkins a (useful) propagandist, not a thinker.

I'm not a US resident so am not exposed to the difficulties of living in a country with backward, narrowminded religious people.

>>2277477
>Call me stupid
>Spell like that
No, you are right, nevermind.
It's like the jews: kicked out of every nation, but they still think that the rest of the world is the problem.
Retard, making my damn coffee taste worse.

Get some live webcam show and put a bullet between your eyes so I can see the world get a little bit brighter, knowing that your IQ and pseudo-intellectualism will die with you. Dear lord.

>>2277481

Dawkins is both. Altho to kall him a propogandist is misleeding. It seems to imply that his works ar not reesonable or deep or that he misrepresents peeple he quote.

>>2277481

I'm also somewhat averse to the idea of manufacturing backward, narrowminded irreligious people as an antidote to the former.

>>2277484

>Get some live webcam show and put a bullet between your eyes so I can see the world get a little bit brighter, knowing that your IQ and pseudo-intellectualism will die with you. Dear lord.

Someone isn't feeling the Christmas cheer.

>>2277488
I was feeling it, until I saw that retard spell like a 12 year old.
>I want to change the world lol, let us change the way we spell 'cause it's "kewl"
Seriously?
Give me some cats and I'll be alright. Nothing else to upset me here.

>>2277484

It is unfortunate wen peeple ar both rong about somthing and almost violently ofensiv towards people who disagrees about it. It is, sadly, a comon thing on 4chan, eeven on /lit/ the suposed intelektual bord.

Atheists shouldn't be allowed to get Christmas presents, you can't have it both ways.

You don't believe in Santa, you don't believe in Jesus, you don't even believe in Mithra NO PRESENTS FOR YOU!

>>2277232
Science doesn't teach that...

>>2277484
>It's like the jews: kicked out of every nation, but they still think that the rest of the world is the problem.

No-one who makes statements like this should be calling others pseudo-intellectual. It's not only morally condemnable, it's also grossly factually inaccurate.

>>2277448

>>2277493
>Atheists shouldn't be allowed to get Christmas presents, you can't have it both ways.

When I was a kid and nobody celebrated Christmas, you'd get presents from Father Cold on New Year's. A socialist version of Santa if you will. Christmas still feels like an imposed holiday to me.

>>2277493
>holidays
>meaning anything beyond "WHO WANTS TO HAVE FUN TODAY?"
Yeah, nah.

>>2277493
>>2277493
>>2277493
>>2277493
>>2277493

>>2277486
People like Dawkins and Hitchens aren't "narrowminded", they spend all day listening too and considering/debating religious arguments. Just because they've yet to be convinced doesn't mean they're close minded.

>>2277484
You do realise mate that you're the only one drawing attention to the anon with the idiosyncratic spelling. You couldn have just ignored it.

>>2277497
Haha, nice. So did all the kids get the same present then?

Requesting Dawkins' thoughts on Taoism.

>>2277498

>>Holidays
>>Holydays
>>Holy Days

>>2277493
Neither should christians, you should be going to church and living a life of austere contemplation.

>Sheahen: In one essay you mention that the Abrahamic faiths, in particular, can lead to intolerance and violence. Does this mean you find Eastern traditions like Taoism a little less objectionable?

>Dawkins: I don't know very much about them, but I suspect the answer is yes.

Can he just be Abrahamic religions and not religion in general?

>>2277511
Only if you're Catholic. Catholics get presents but they have to feel bad about it later

>>2277492
This is what they thaught you? To be a passive vegetable, parasitizing for attention? Dear lord.
Again,
>call yourself intellectual
>spell like that
You are a worst troll than D&E.

>>2277495
I'm guessing you haven't been to many Zionist meetings, ey? While being misinformed it's normal that you should say that what I'm saying is "morally conemnable" (someone isn't familiar with the past-grieving process of nihilism).
Read some more before stepping into this board comrade.

>>2277501
Am I supposed to shut up and keep it to myself when something is bothering me? It's not that I lust for confrontation, I merely like to enlighten morons when they are wrong/acting stupidly.

>>2277504

On the evidence of Dawkins' God Delusion and Hitchens' GING I judge them to be close-minded in their apporach to religion.

You seem to be conflating civility with open-mindedness.

Dawk and The Hitch are/were dogmatists who enjoy arguing.

>>2277513
>I don't know very much about them

positivists really piss me off sometimes

>>2277516

>Ditch the bitchers, talk to the trashers.

Good bit of advice that.

I think you just wanted him to talk to you.

You two are in negative-love.

>lust for confrontation

Yup, dark and steamy negative love.

Fact: we'll never understand a lot of things about the world.
Should this make us unhappy?

the new atheists don't understand how important religion has been to make us more adapted to our environment (btw I don't believe in god(s)).

>>2277531
Well, that certianly got me in a better mood.
You want to grab a cup of coffee, or...is this too soon for me to ask? We could discuss Diogenes' syllogism while laying on the grass, with the birds singing messages of hope around us...what say you?

>>2277516

>This is what they thaught you? To be a passive vegetable, parasitizing for attention? Dear lord.
Again,
>call yourself intellectual
>spell like that
You are a worst troll than D&E.

-

Do u realise that aktual speling used is not a predictor of speling kapability? It is rather obvius. Eeven great spelers ar poor at speling under som konditions, such as beeing very drunk or sleep deprived.

Not so mention that using spelings like those i am using now (i chanj ofen to experiment) is not now bad spelers spel. Their spelings ar eeven mor inkonsistent than traditional orthografy. Indeed, a person nolejable about speling mistakes/erors and languaj in jeneral wud quikly rekognise that such spelings ar on purpos and thus not a syn of a person of low intelijens.

Besides, i dont think i kalled myself intelektual in this thred, altho that is tru.

Who does "they" refer to, anyway?

>>2277460

It's not playground stuff when the genitals of countless of newborn babies are legally mutilated everyday by Rabbis.

It's not childish when children all over the world in religious institutions are deprived of a proper education.

It's not juvenile for the 19 hijackers on september the 11th 2001 who killed nearly 3000 people in the USA or the 52 people killed by the 4 suicide bombers on the 7th of July 2005 in London. I don't believe the victims would have seen the flippancy you detect either.

It's not a game when in 2011 religious fanatics can enslave, starve and murder millions of people by the justification of an imagined higher moral authority.

Maybe human suffering seems trivial to you, humorous even. For the majority of the world affected by religion in one form or another, it's the only debate worth having.

>>2277533

>the new atheists don't understand how important religion has been to make us more adapted to our environment (btw I don't believe in god(s)).

Id like to see som evidens that for.

>>2277507

Richard Dawkins on Taoism:

>"taoism? Well, it's not even really a proper religion, is it? Just a load of stories and bizarre mystic mumbo jumbo. The chinese don't believe it really, or even the Taoists themselves. Nobody can believe this stuff. I'll ignore it completely and get back to bashing those retards who think the earth is 4000 years old. HA HA HA! How stupid and dangerous are these people! Let us point and laugh at their idiocy! Ha ha ha ha! This feels grrrrrrr-eat! Where's my royalty cheque?"

“And it came to me then. That we were wonderful traveling companions but in the end no more than lonely lumps of metal in their own separate orbits. From far off they look like beautiful shooting stars, but in reality they're nothing more than prisons, where each of us is locked up alone, going nowhere. When the orbits of these two satellites of ours happened to cross paths, we could be together. Maybe even open our hearts to each other. But that was only for the briefest moment. In the next instant we'd be in absolute solitude. Until we burned up and became nothing.”

-Murakami "Sputnik Sweetheart"

"I have not been afraid of excess: excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit."

-- W. Somerset Maugham

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be."
--Vonnegut

"Our goal is to discover that we have always been where we ought to be. Unhappily we make the task exceedingly difficult for ourselves"
-- Huxley

"Every transcendence beyond a known realm provides an overview of that realm, and deep insight into how it fits into the greater picture"
-- Frank White

Some of my favorites

>>2277543
McFarlane - http://sitemaker.umich.edu/satran/files/harvard_science_review_fall_2005.pdf

Atran - http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/BIOT_a_00018.pdf

Blume - http://www.blume-religionswissenschaft.de/pdf/ReproductiveReligiosityBlume2009.pdf
http://www.blume-religionswissenschaft.de/pdf/Blume_Barcelona_ReligiousKnowledge.pdf

Here you have.

>>2277544

Congratulations on managing to undermine your own moralistic, crass position more than Dawkin's in your miserable attempt at parody.

"Someone please kill me and everyone posting in this thread" - Richard Dawkins

>>2277540
Why are you dodging my questions and twisting my words? I do not care if you are experimenting or just being a troll/retard, no man under no circumnstance should spell like that. For the sake of Ajax.
I could understand if it was a mild change, much like Blake with his little apostrophe, but this is just cataclysmic. Cluster-fuck for the lack of a better word.

>Besides, I don't think I called myself intellectual in this thread, although that is true.
You implied you were intellectual by saying that you "hang out" with the fellows of this "intellectual" board. It was more obvious than the homosexuality of Anne Frank.

>They
As in your parents, your teachers and the awful, awful, AWFUL people who shaped you in this....foul manner, ultimately leading to you spelling like a crack-addicted hobo.

>>2277550
How clever and cool and edgy.
Just kidding.

>>2277550
u rock xD

>>2277541

This *is* playground thinking.

Religion is the cause of all suffering.

Pure nonsense.

How about:

Politics is the cause of all war.

Science is the cause of weaponary.

>It's not a game when in 2011 religious fanatics can enslave, starve and murder millions of people by the justification of an imagined higher moral authority.

Vanquish religion and these people would use poltical ideology. Eliminate that and they'll use something else.

There was plenty of evil and brutality in the world before the major religions arrived, I am sure.

Marry and you will regret it. Do not marry, and you will also regret it. Marry or do not marry, you will regret it either way. Whether you marry or you do not marry, you will regret it either way. Laugh at the stupidities of the world, and you will regret it; weep over them, and you will also regret it. Laugh at the stupidities of the world or weep over them, you will regret it either way. Whether you laugh at the stupidities of the world or you weep over them, you will regret it either way. Trust a girl, and you will regret it. Do not trust her, and you will also regret it. Trust a girl or do not trust her, you will regret it either way. Whether you trust a girl or do not trust her, you will regret it either way. Hang yourself, and you will regret it. Do not hang yourself, and you will also regret it. Hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret it either way. Whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret it either way. This is the quintessence of all wisdom.

>>2277548

Your posts don't make a great deal of sense. Explicate more.

>>2277556
>>2277556

>>2277536

>what say you?

I say yes. Active or passive?

>Dawkins

Don't you mean DARWIN? Fuck you are fucking dumb OP.

bad thread.

and not because of spelling reform dane.

>>2277545

>"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be."
--Vonnegut


Always stuck with me that one

>>2277573

Very simple, very true.

>>2277571
Why?

>>2277569
"I often had to run very quickly to be on time, and from being a fleet runner was generally successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed my success to the prayers and not to my quick running, and marvelled how generally I was aided."
Charles Darwin.

>>2277545
huxley ftw
I'd like to hang out with that guy.

>>2277558

Religion is a huge cause of suffering because it caters to the worst of human desire's; the wish to be a slave, while also giving dictators he mandate to inflict that slavery.

Science doesn't do that.

>>2277585
religion is evolutive

>>2277584

Another of my favorites from huxley


"In a world where education is predominantly verbal, highly educated people find it all but impossible to pay serious attention to anything but words and notions."
-- The Doors of Perception

>>2277588
You can not be serious right now.

>>2277589
That is by far my favorite book. I love you mate.

"But a curiosity like mine is the most agreeable of vices - pardon me! I mean to say that the love of truth has its reward in heaven, and already upon earth." Nietzsche

>>2277590
>>2277546.
protip: check out FACTS

>>2277588

i have no doubt, although I think as an byproduct of the human brain's compulsion to detect patterns and meaning or the innate naivety of human children, rather than some advantageous outcome of social or group selection.

>>2277593
I was startng to get uncomfortable by the lack of Nietzsche in this thread.

"That which is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil".

>>2277585

Science is a huge cause of suffering because it caters to the worst of human desire's; the wish to be in control, while also giving dictators the mandate to control their populations.

>>2277588
so is rape

>>2277585

>Science doesn't do that.

Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? All professed to glory science.

>>2277594
>FACTS
>Independent study
No sir, that is not a fact. Religion is not evolutive because it has no contraries. Contraries are necessary for evolution.

>>2277604
Yes, but not science for the common good. Personal science is not science, is merely a journey to improve bullshit in a selfish way (for yourself).
>We found out how to melt metal
>Must be science lol
Not really dude.

>>2277607

>science for the common good

lol yes this is a thing that has ever existed

>>2277597
>>2277597

most of our actual social problems ahave a LOT to do with tour lack of social cohesion. religion can do what politics, science and most of our human activities can't. Religion gives you a "total" vision of the world, it helps you understand the meaning(?) behind al of this. i'd recommend you (also) Wittgenstein's "Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology, and Religious Belief" and "On Certainty" (http://web.archive.org/web/20051210213153/http://budni.by.ru/oncertainty.html))

>>2277608
Ever heard of medical science? "Rocket science", to use the common term?

>>2277607

Yeah I agree. And the Wahabis in Saudi are fake religious leaders too.

>>2277605

>Religion is not evolutive

nope.icon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hinduism

>>2277600

I see what you're trying to do, but you've shot yourself in the foot.

Being in control of our environment through science and technology has increased our quality of life in the last 300 years exponentially and vitally, we wouldn't be able to have this discussion were it not for the desire to be in control.

And science can't give a mandate for anything other than the alleviation of suffering from the human species, implying it can give a mandate for anything else is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.

>>2277604

I was wondering when someone was going to bring up those guys, a perfect example of theocratic dictatorship, where the leaders are even professed to have performed supernatural feats. You may call them atheist, but you cannot call them secular.

>>2277605
Fact: major religions rule (most of) the world. Atheist cultures dissapear (chack it out).

>>2277613

if medicine were intended for the "common good" would prescription medications be marked up thousands of percents?

http://www.rense.com/general54/preco.htm

which isn't to say that people haven't been helped by medicine, but it has a funny way of happening mostly when it's in somebody's financial best interest!

>>2277618
>common good
My brain tumor grows everytime I read these words.

>>2277618

So blame greed and the embarrassing state of your countries healthcare system, not medicine you blithering retard.

>>2277616

>Being in control of our environment through science and technology has increased our quality of life in the last 300 years exponentially

hole in the ozone layer from cfc's
ddt
chernobyl
those plastic rings around soda cans that strangle ducks
hormones in milk and meat
thalidomide
smog

better living through science!

>>2277621

i do blame greed, insofar as greed inheres in the sciences

science is discovery is imperialism -- the discourse is constructed in such a manner that greed is inevitable

>>2277622

You're a funny man.

>>2277622
It's interesting to think about how dental caries and a lot of nutrition problems came along with the Neolothic era.

>>2277615
I didn't mean it in the way that the "story" (because honestly, it's nothing but bollocks, but well designed mass-control bollocks) doesn't evolve, but in the sense that it doesn't allow the people to evolve. Socially speaking.
>do this, do that, end up here sharing the throne with me
>do that, not this, and you'll end up down there burning forever
Doesn't leave much choice, and most religions are like that.

Also,
>Wikipedia
No bro.

>>2277617
Give it a few years. Most of the civlized countries are leaving religion behind.

>>2277618
Yes Kevin Trudeau, I agree with you, but take a look at the early stages of medicine. Pasteur, is the most recurring example. He was doing it for a motive bigger than the man himself, not the greed.
You are twisting my words good sire.

>>2277616

>And science can't give a mandate for anything other than the alleviation of suffering from the human species

This is a fundamental mis-understanding of what science does.

Science does not give mandates. It is a-political.

>Being in control of our environment through science and technology has increased our quality of life in the last 300 years exponentially and vitally

This is seriously problematic statement.

Scientific advance has increased QoL in some areas, decreased it in others.

The use scientific advance was put to ruined the QoL of people working in factories in the industrial revolution, or for the pepole who fought in WW1, or died in the concenration camps, or at Hiroshima.

Science is a method, a power. Not a political ideology or ethical system.

>>2277616

>a perfect example of theocratic dictatorship,

What? Dogmatic, blinkered, ignorant thinking can be based on purely materialistic philosophies as well as supernatural ones? You're kidding me!

>>2277629
>Eurabia
>Westboro Baptist Church

O'relly?

And wikipedia is becoming one of the most efficient tools, trolls don't use to waste a lot of effort onb their purpose, and everyone can correct you when you're assuming stupid affiramtions.

>>2277632
science is jut a tool, it's morally neutral.

>>2277638
I'm sorry, are you being serious right now?

Also, I'm not speaking merely of trolls, but also misinformed people.

>>2277645
yes. I didn't say it's perfetc, but you can find a fuckload of nice bibiography through wikipedia.

>>2277650
Not the WIkipedia part, I made that pretty clear. Yes, it is useful sometimes and it comes in handy when doing works for college, but not much more.

>The Staff! I told you to take the wizard's staff!

>>2277632

>Science is apolitical

I agree with you, i should have specified that I meant a 'moral' mandate to alleviate human suffering.

>hurr durr science has fucked shit up concentration camps were science's fault

you're fucking pathetic. Science has enabled human beings to be the first species capable of escaping the horrific cycle of natural selection, it has tripled our life expectancy and emancipated us from the daily, brutish struggle for survival from foes we were not even aware existed (bacteria, mental illness etc).

These things were achieved because they alleviated human suffering, something science is very good at and which is advantageous for the survival and wellbeing of our species.

Dropping several names of atrocities perpetrated by humankind against one another doesn't prove a damn thing about science until you explicitly link how the scientific method reasoned that the holocaust would be advantageous for our species.

I won't accept you defending the laissez-faire governance which allowed the economic exploitation of poor factory workers or the political activities of the catholic right-wing which triggered the second world war.

Why don't you talk about the emancipatory inventions like the printing-press which helped people fight back against the exploitation you described?

>>2277656
you'll have to be more obvious, I'm notso clever.

>>2277659
science is based on efficiency and riogorousty, just that. you can use weapons to kilpeople.. yet you can use it to protect them.
I'm not a captialsim fan, but blaming science...well, we have to do a lot of illogical implications to do that.

>>2277659

As you're getting insulting:

You're a dull man and a dull debater.

I'm not "anti-science". What I'm trying to point out is that the attacks you make on religion can be equally made against science. The attacks are equally stupid.

I'm holding up a rhetorical mirror to your blinkered view of religious belief.

>>2277660
Neither am I, but I'm good at improvising. Have a splendid day good sir, Lord of the Rings is on TV at the moment.
And merry christmas for you (despite not being religious, I believe that this has other significance).

>>2277670

I already said several posts ago I know what you're trying to do, but you still haven't managed to do it and you accuse ME of being dull?

Religion and science are based on fundamentally different belief systems, Religion on authority and science on empiricism and principle.

One of these leads to dictatorships, fanaticism and exploitation. The other one doesn't.

>>2277677

>Religion and science are based on fundamentally different belief systems, Religion on authority

Science is not a belief system. It does not mandate *anything*. It is a method. It is amoral and apolitical.

You don;t seem to know what science is and you travestise religion.

I assume you know a fair bit about Quakerism, liberation theology, Sufism, the various Hindu sects, Taoism etc etc etc.

So why do you say:

>religion leads to dictatorship, fanaticism and exploitation

?

>>2277672
merry crhistmas for you too, sir!

>>2277553

I dont rekall any important question u gav me that i did not anser. U see, i may hav mised it bekus of all the insults i had to evade/doj.

I am quite obviusly not a retard. I may be a trol depending on the exact definition. I am aware that debating such maters as this evokes the emotions in peeple, and those with poor impuls kontrol (such as urself) end up mouthing off. Such is the way it is with kontroversial topiks like languaj reform, eugeniks, IQ/g reserch etc.

>For the sake of Ajax.
I could understand if it was a mild change, much like Blake with his little apostrophe, but this is just cataclysmic. Cluster-fuck for the lack of a better word.

If u had red about other proposals, u wud no that my spelings (as in, those used in this thred) wud aktualy be a mild reform. Chek the Wiki paj about English speling reform proposals so see a few examples of reforms that ar not 'mild'/small in skope. In fakt, the fakt that peeple who kan reed English wel kan reed this is without much trouble is rather good evidens that it is not a very larj reform. Larg reforms do things such as inventing a new or chanjing a substantial part of, the alfabet. Typikaly by introdusing alot of symbols from IPA. This is understandable but too impraktikal IMO.

>You implied you were intellectual by saying that you "hang out" with the fellows of this "intellectual" board. It was more obvious than the homosexuality of Anne Frank.

I didnt eeven say that. Here is wat i did say:

>It is, sadly, a comon thing on 4chan, eeven on /lit/ the suposed intelektual bord.

-

>As in your parents, your teachers and the awful, awful, AWFUL people who shaped you in this....foul manner, ultimately leading to you spelling like a crack-addicted hobo.

U ar reely hurting our own position by mouthing off so much and providing terrible arguments (wen they ar provided at all).

>>2277691

why don't you change the g in eugenics to a j?

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”
― Mark Twain

>>2277687
Both sciende and Religion are based on belief (plus some diferent empiric facts). And:
>religion leads to dictatorship, fanaticism and exploitation
Is NOT logical implication...

>>2277695
A great one.

>>2277694
>pic related

>>2277694

Mistake on my part.

>>2277687

>science is amoral

Would you say medicine is amoral? Would you say medicine is a science? Everyday doctors have to make scientifically informed moral decisions based on the wellbeing and suffering of their patients.

I never said science is a belief system, I said it was 'based upon a belief system' of trusting empirical data, logic and principle over authority and tradition. But good try splitting semantic hairs in a desperate attempt to elude my point that science and religion cannot be criticised using the same arguments.

Also, I didn't say religion leads to dictatorship I said that religion represents a belief system which gives room for dictatorships, fanaticism and exploitation to arise. Again, another elusion, but how can I expect integrity from someone who has committed intellectual suicide.

>>2277706
>Would you say medicine is amoral? Would you say medicine is a science?
Hehe! I like your kind of argumentation.
The hippocratic oath is not science. it's the base of medicine (based, too, on the scientific method) bu8t has nothing to do with science.

>>2277677

You could of course say:

>religion *can* lead to dictatorship, fanaticism and exploitation

Which would be true. But seeing as Stalin and Mao were not in any traditional sense religious, bteer would perhaps be:

>belief can lead to dictatorship, fanaticism and exploitation

And we could discuss the natureof this causative chain. And why some peple with strong beliefs don't perpetrate evil. And why some people with no strong poltical, religious or ethical beliefs do evil too.

But that would of course scupper the "Science is great, religion is bad and stupid" tubthumping you seem to enjoy so much, like a kid cheering on his favourite wrestler.

>>2277691
I asked 2 questions, one was rethorical and the other one was for you to answer. Do not blame me for the lack of your comprehension skills.

Also, I can asure you that I am not doing this out of impulse. I analyzed, thought and devised my every word. I am not emotional at the moment and am thinking leisurely.
You are not debating a controversial topic, but defending a rather stupid way of spelling that should not exist in the first place.

>mild reform
Yes no, I have to double check every single sentence so I can be sure that I didn't miss anything. Thus making this impractical and useless. And do not dare blame my reading abilities, because I have been perusing books since my tender years.

>It is, sadly, a comon thing on 4chan, eeven on /lit/ the suposed intelektual bord.
I will take half of the guilt for that, but not entirely since this mooncalf spelling is killing me. As you can see, I can put forth the admition of my mistake. Perhaps you should do the same.

>U ar reely hurting our own position by mouthing off so much and providing terrible arguments (wen they ar provided at all).
Re-write that in an understandable way. The only part I truly digested was "providing terrible arguments", which I haven't been doing.

Read my first point, perhaps you'll understand what I meant.

>>2277712
So we could asume "Science can lead to stupidity, yet science can lead to success" (same statement about religion).

> I didn't say religion leads to dictatorship I said that religion represents a belief system which gives room for dictatorships

Yes you did. You said

>Religion and science are based on fundamentally different belief systems, Religion on authority and science on empiricism and principle. One of these leads to dictatorships, fanaticism and exploitation. The other one doesn't.

Nothing about "giving room" there

You also said:

>Religion is a huge cause of suffering because it caters to the worst of human desire's; the wish to be a slave, while also giving dictators he mandate to inflict that slavery.

Which is entirely onesided. religion causes a liot of pleasure, joy, compassion, love, fellow feeling too.

Which you ignored.

>>2277311
He is not talking about religious people, you are taking this too personal. He is talking about religion. Those religious people who are not ignorant are actually less religious than they think. Religion in itself is what is being criticized, and it really teaches us to be satisfied with fabricated answers, instead of trying to understand what is around us. It doesn't mean "all theists are idiots, all atheists are clever", the people is not in question here, but that is what your argument is all about.

It's like saying "exercise makes you healthy" and then you say "but I know a guy who excercised (smoked, ate too much, slept 3 hours a day, but exercised) and he had a bad health". The argument doesn't make exercise any less healthy.

>>2277720

are we going to spend this entire debate on you trying desperately to misconstrue my words?

I used the pronoun 'these' to refer to the differing belief systems which my entire post was discussing. Even if you did legitimately misinterpret my post, you should be able to see now after i've spend a stupid amount of words explaining it to you.

>nothing about "giving room" there

because it shouldn't have been necessary and was heavily implied in my original post, i was just paraphrasing my point more clearly for you to understand.

>religion causes a lot of pleasure

even if this was true it wouldn't mean anything, religion had 50,000 years to increase our quality of life but it's only in the last 300 years that civilisation has started moving thanks to the development of technology and the scientific method.

"Life is brief. The selfless pass on their knowledge, the selfish hoard their wealth and the pitiful undermine the opinions of others." - me upon reading that Dawkins quote.

>>2277750
I know, but it's different when you do it on an internet forum.

>Start with Dawkins
>instant war over if Dawkins is a hack or not

Dammit people, contain your obese tits eager for discussion. This is why we can't have nice things.

I have no mojo to post a quote now.

>>2277764
I just think it's rather immature to start a thread with an anti-theist quote. Of all the great quotes out there, why start with an inflammatory quote?

>>2277771

Because otherwise he would get no comments.

>>2277771
And why not? (I'm not OP btw)
Because it sparks controversy? I hoped for better from /lit/. Any quote could inflame a discussion just as bad, but religion seems to be "touchy" for everyone. It's time for people to see atheism as natural. I'm not talking about ignoring the discussion, but fuck, you don't have to push it every single god damn time everyone mentions something like this. The Dawkins quote is preety entry-level, a ok quote that we all heard about it before. No need to even talk about the man who said it.

>>2277771

Its mainly inflamatory for stupid peeple. Relijion is a low-IQ fenomenon now a days. That it sparked so much kontroversy here shows somthing about the IQ level here. Or somthing about how many peeple from the US. Probably both.

Dear Anon that spells funny for attention,

The linguistics Anon set you straight. Please spell properly from now on. Otherwise, we will collectively ignore you.

Sincerely,
Some anon who does not speak for the collective Anon

PS that linguistics anon fucking schooled you, son

>>2277802
I'm probably asking in vain but does anyone have a screencap?

>>2277806
it's in this thread

>>2277807
Oh, sorry about that, I'll check.

>>2277802

Lol, as if. But i advise peeple to dout ur klaim and simply reed the diskusion (in this very thred) and form their opinion from that.

>>2277785

>religion seems to be "touchy" for everyone. It's time for people to see atheism as natural

The opposite of religion is irreligion.

Buddhism is a religion and atheistic.

I know you probably mean Christianity by religion. So say what you mean.

"Those with character seem sinister to the rest." - Hesse

>>2277777

>>2277821
I understand that, bro. I'm not talking about religion or Dawkins, I'm talking about people talking about religion and Dawkins. People react to his apology for atheism, which puts some religions in check,. And religion is touchy. I never said anything about opposites.

>>2277797
I bet Datrwin had higher IQ than you (not pretending to sound offensive) and he actually believed in God.

>>2277836
Not that guy, but I highly doubt that he believed in god.

>>2277826
pretty nice one
reminds me of artaud somehow

>>2277809
Is it your intention to force the reader and reward those who can take your spelling? What's your point behind doing this? It's curious to see how we can understand you even though the words are not spelled "right". But the curiosity goes away fast and it's just annoying. I don't read your posts, I avoid them and I don't even know if you have good points or not because I really don't read them at all. Is that your goal? To repel?

>>2277840
He was Unitarian.

>>2277840
>>2277840
>I highly doubt that he believed in god.
Read his fucking books.

>>2277845
>>2277847
Let's not lower ourselves to the point of believing that Unitarianism is a legit religion.

>>2277840
Then, you're ignorant.

There are multiple accounts--some by Darwin himself--where he was racked by grief about what his work would do in relation to people's belief in God, including his own. He was reluctant to publish.

>>2277848
It's a movement within a religion. So yes he was a Christian and a Unitarian.

>>2277849
Without confirmation you can't claim such thing. Since he never directly said "I believe in a bearded guy who decides our faith as we speak", you can only assume.

>>2277860
Because when Darwin talked about his fear of his work affecting his and other people's belief in God he was clearly talking about Godwin Hallward who lived 2 doors down.

>>2277860
You are clinically retarded.

Read his books and shut your ignorant trap.

apatheist here giving a delightfully meager amount of fuck

groomet homes.

Darwin was an example. I find it very ironic that he was a theist himself. He had to make a choice, he knew his work was questioning religion, but he was a religious man himself. He published his books, he didn't compromise, he told the truth even if it was inconvenient for everyone and even from him. He lived with these things in his mind, one could say his work was ahead of himself. He was contraditory in this way.

We have enough evidence to see that in his work.

>>2277860
Well, if we're interested in the truth, we can't really claim that religion is a matter of low IQ without confirmation either, and that's not just a matter of waving around the averages that we all probably know. You'd have to look at the spread of IQ in relation to religiosity and then from there figure out what exactly constitutes a "fenomenon," and whether that describes the situation with low IQ scores and religion.

>>2277867
Don't be silly, that means nothing. Maybe he was a satanist? Or a Buddhist? Or something else.

>>2277869
Pic related.

>>2277873
I never said such thing. But there is, and we know this to be a fact, a large number of men out there who are considered geniuses and casually most of those men didn't believe in god.
Not saying that all of them were atheists, but you get my point.

>>2277740

>it's only in the last 300 years that civilisation has started moving

Lol.

>>2277836

Not partikularly likely. Biolojists ar not nown for their hy IQ. They also tend to publish their best works late in after, many years after their IQ has toped.

In one sens, u ar korekt, C. Darwin (im asuming) did at one time beleev in God, but he chanjed his mind later (after hid dauter died IIRK) and bekame an agnostik, aka. negativ atheist in today's terms.

>>2277873
What I'm saying is that, for someone who seems to march under the banner of scientific materialism, you would make a piss-poor scientist.

Geez, now we have to prove Darwin was christian? Wtf, read his work, god damn it, people are saying this a thousand times. Don't read wikipedia, read his fucking work, it's accessible, it's easy, it's good, just read it.

>>2277887

Was a xian at one point in his life, yes. Stoped beeing a xian, also yes.

>>2277457

One korektion. Rote the rong one. Shud hav been "voiceless velar plosive". Voiced velar plosive = /g/.

" pebende sebenarnye tak paham . " - aan bertukar

carpe diem quam minimum credula postero - Horatio

Just the rest of the verse already changes the "carpe diem" motto people use as "hakuna matata".

>>2277740
>are we going to spend this entire debate on you trying desperately to misconstrue my words?

Yes, reading back I did misconstrue you. You don't write clearly and your ideas are muddled and I am tired.
Ok, you said science is based on a belief system of "empiricism and principle". And religion is based on a belief system of "authority". The latter, in your view, can lead to fascism, exploitation, tyranny etc.
I see what you are saying now. It is incorrect, firstly. And your distinctions are superfluous to the flow of the argument we are having.

Firstly, not all religion is based on authority.

Secondly, you say you cannot use the same arguments to criticise religion and science. I agree with this. Just as I said earlier: Dawkins dichotomy between science and religion, the Science VS Religion debate, is farcical. They are not alike.
However, the validity of my earlier travesties of your arguments against religion does not rely on science and religion being analogous in the above fashion. You made sweeping claims against religion which cannot hold due to the contradictory elements that need to be brought under the concept of "religion".

Science (a method - a tool as anon pointed out) has been used for evil, as evil has been done in the name of religion. The evil done using science does not invalidate it (it's a tool). The evil done in the name of religions may invalidate specific religions, and it may only invalidate the people who used religion as their cover. it dioes not invalidate Religion.

Is secular humanism as a belief system invalidated on the basis of manifest destiny or the Vietnam war?

>>2277994

it's christmas eve dude

>>2278001

I'm at work. And it's x-mas day here.

A happy one to you.

"Ow! You shot me!" - John Lennon.

A smart man can work his way out of almost any unpleasent situation; a wise man, however, would not get into such a situation in the first place.

I don't remember who said it, or the exact wording.

>>2278004
Get back to work, anon.

>>2277882
BUT he believed in god while all the "origin of the species" shit running all arround...
I find this kind of iq arguments too much "ad hoc"...

>mfw this fucking thread

>>2277410

What the fuck am I reading

1. What is "religion"? Spoiler: Dawkins don't know. Found something in Feuerbach.
2. And Science, guys, can understand?

>>2278480
Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [Unmensch], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

>>2278494
>the heart of a heartless world
Marx can be so badass sometimes.

that "science vs religion" fight is stupid, they're not even on the same battle field. Religion is not even interested about what really happens on nautre. the only problem here is about thology: opretending to apply the scientific method (because it makes you look clever) to beliefs based on faith...

>>2278539
>thology
>theology
fix'd

>>2278480
>pic
lol
Those were trolls

SCIENCE is just another religion with the scientific method - messiah.
Face it!

>The universe is made up of stories, not of atoms.

Muriel Rukeyser

>>2278692
>>2278682
aw... come on...

>>2278682

That's the stupidest fucking thing I've heard all day, but it's Christmas, so I'll let it slide. Merry Everybody!

>>2278854
lol

>>2278854
Marry Everybody!

Dawkins is a dumbass -- that's all!

Everyone seems to be obsessed with stars. They're beautiful and incredible, but there are at least 200 million in our galaxy alone.

Lamp-posts, on the other hand, are amazing. For all we know there could only be a few million in the whole universe.

~Terry Pratchett
(paraphrased, as I'm too lazy to google it.)

>>2278989
There was only one in Narnia.

>>2277457
oh my god dude.

1. a voiced velar plosive is still a velar plosive...it is two parts of a three part description. Jesus.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_spelling_reform_of_1996 -

"Even six years after its introduction, 77% of Germans consider the spelling reform not to be sensible. This came out of a representative poll. A majority of adults reject the new rules (for example 81% of those between 30 and 40 years old). In the meantime, only one out of every five German citizens (21%) feels that the spelling reform is acceptable."

3. 'Psuedo' as 'suedo' rather than 'swaydo' or something similar. :-|

4. Critics have pointed out that a consistent phonemically based system would be impractical: for example, phoneme distribution differs between British English and American English; furthermore, while English Received Pronunciation features about 20 vowels, some second language varieties of English have 10 or even fewer. A phonemic system would therefore not be universal.

5. YOU HAVE NOT DONE YOUR RESEARCH. I refer you to Vallins - Spelling, Bauer, L (1983) English Word Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Carney, E (1994) A Survey of English Spelling London: Routledge


Sorry to everyone else in the thread for being a dick about this but this guy needs to STFU. Clearly has not done any research.

>>2277457
.

Now you have made a big mistake. Or to quote Menace II Society "you know you done fucked up now".

"An alphabet is a standard set of letters—basic written symbols or graphemes—each of which represents a phoneme in a spoken language, either as it exists now or as it was in the past."

You use graphemes of the Roman (English) alphabet to represent phonemes in an alternative manner to English. Therefore, you are using a 'made up', different alphabet. You also say you 'change spellings and experiment' so you decide the rules anon? And this doesn't constitute being 'made up'? Well then what does?!

And in the face of these glaring contradictions you then tell me (I am in my final year of study achieving a first in English Language & Linguistics at a prestigious uni) that I have not researched the language I have spent my young life studying.

>>2279026
Fucking owned lol.

>>2279026

>I am in my final year of study achieving a first in English Language & Linguistics at a prestigious uni

the whole book, man.

The famous man looked at the red cup.

>>2278997

Student1987
simon.v.peterson@gmail.com

-

Oo, a respons.

1.
I agree, ofk, but u wer trying to show off with jargon and in that kase u shud hav used the ful name. In any kase, this is not an important point and hardly qualfys as a mistake on ur part.

2.
Suposing those numbers ar korekt (i didnt chek), wat do u think they show?

3.
Typo. Shud hav been "seudo".

4.
This is indeed a problem but not one imposible to solv. Ther ar stil many words wher ther is no diferens between the two major ways of pronounsing the words and those words kan be respeled without the kind of problem that u refer to.

In fakt, the problem that u deskribe is almost always ther with langs, perhaps always with natural langs. Ther ar almost always dialekts that difer a bit from the standard pronunsiation. This is not a good reeson not to hav an orthografy. The orthografy shud, however, be based on the most comon pronunsiation of the lang.

Furthermor, one may want to begin dividing US-EN and UK-EN into having diferent spelings (eeven mor diferent spelings). Sins the pronunsiation of the two langs ar mooving away from eech other, eventualy they wil hav to part spelings. Perhaps now is the time. Perhaps not. (Im thinking not yet.)

5.
I hav don plenty of reserch. But at leest now u (or whoever is aktualy posting, we'r all "anons") ar trying to make lejitimate points. Thats nise.

>>2279041
I had to see the post of the guy you quoted to see if you took a piece of his post or just exagerated yourself. I'm appaled.

I always hated that quote.
Religion teaches us to try to understand ourselves and our motivations. They generally don't give a shit about how the natural world works.

>>2279146
r u rtard or sumthin

>>2279157
Are you serious about this shit? Religion teaches us to keep our head down and question nothing, it doesn't send us into path of understanding, but one of ignorance.

>>2279026

1.
U wud hav been korekt (maybe, see below) if that was the only definition of "alphabet" comonly used. However, it is not. Other definitions do not inklude the "each of which represents a phoneme in a spoken language, either as it exists now or as it was in the past." part.

See: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alphabet, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alphabet

U ar using the teknikal def. of "alphabet" but i wasnt. I was using the comon one: "The set of letters used when writing in a language." wich was suficient for my purposes.

Besides, suposing that i was using the same def. of "alphabet" as u, ur point does not aktualy go thru, at leest not very thoroly. If any chanj in the frequensy of wich foneem is refered to by a leter is enof to imply that one is using a new alfabet, then from every time a new word gets aded to a lang, it folows that the lang is using a new alfabet. I dont think u want this to be the kase, so ur going to hav to be a litle lenient with the term.

I think the larjest chanj in wich foneem a leter refers to is with C, but it stil keeps its asosiation with watever foneem is not /k/ and /s/, i.e. /tʃ/ and /ʃ/. Do u reely think that this chanj is big enof for it to make the alfabet a diferent alfabet (in the teknikal sens)? I dont think so.

Another larj-ish chanj is that of J wich gets alot mor use, but it stil refers to the same foneems: /dʒ/ and /ʒ/.

>>2279146
Not my name, btw, is a fake name and email i was using for another site.

>>2279030
Not at all, but at leest now he (or whoever) is aktualy trying to hav a diskusion insted of just typing insults.

>>2279157
Word.

>>2279163
i doubt your religious understanding goes beyond a mixture of common legends and misinformation along with what you remember from being a kid

>>2279170
I already "owned" you earlier. Yesterday, at least. But apparently you learned nothing and you keep babbling like a moron.
You know what they say, if a washes his hand merely to stick it in a pile of shit, it's wortheless.
Ruefuly, you are to blame only yourself for your stupidity.

>>2279176
Well, since I dedicated myself to religion from the moment of my intellectual birth I think I understand more about the matter than a priest.
Absent of progress, I changed into a more evolutive road.

tl;dr I know my shit kid.

Newton was religious, /sci/diots!
Catholic and wrote about hell (topography).

Cold case.

Why'd you angsty faggots have to ruin a good quote thread..

This quote from Isaac Newton caught my attention as I was reading James Gleick's biography on him:

"I don't know what I may seem to the world, but, as to myself, I seem to have been only like a boy paying on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."


And bonus points to Newton for alluding to the poetry of John Milton.

↑

>>2279458
Nice!

here existed no need on Caladan to build a physical paradise or a paradise of the mind — we could see the actuality all around us. And the price we paid was the price men have always paid for achieving a paradise in this life — we went soft, we lost our edge.

from "Muad’Dib: Conversations" by the Princess Irulan

>>2277513
Welp, fuck Dawkins.

Sir Isaac Newton proves to Dawkins groupies.

>>2277230
>MFW I am more mad at this quote than at the athiest/religionfag war this thread has become.

Why does every species on the planet compete over the right to mate if there's no reason to be jealous? I hate anyone who discovers some new thing that works for them and then proceeds to decide it's the natural way that all humans truly are and should be.

>>2279163
>I think about religion in stereotype and never actually read about it
Fix'd.

Did you ever read the book of Job?
Job challenges god and asks him why there is suffering in the world if he is good. An act that would otherwise warrent some fine smiting. And yet Job is the one who is rewarded in the end, and his friends who told him to never question anything were the ones chastised. Also, the woes of the pharisees definitly don't say "follow blindly".
The Talmud offers various interpretations of the old testament, it's basically just rabbis arguing with each other.
I can go on.

Saying religion says "never question anything" is fucking ignorant, because it doesn't.
And the bible isn't supposed to be a scientific textbook, and people who don't understand that(like Dawkins) are frankly, retarded.

>>2279503
If you wanna this thread as "ITT: Quotes you love.", you wanna a natural way -- what you hate.

Decide, my son.

>>2279535
I was going to prove you wrong, but apparently you did it yourself (and made your argument look like complet crap in the process). My mind was already devising a reply that should put you in your place, right until this point:
>And the bible isn't supposed to be a scientific textbook
That is all.
I must say that it made me laugh, that religious people think like this.

And no sir, I have read more about religion and its processes than what you would imagine.
I spent 9 years in a Seminary school and all this to end up ditching the faith to logic.
Simple.

>mfw you are using the most recurrent example of contrariety in the bible despite being wrong since god is supposed to know the outcome
Not sir, it is not evolutive when the man who plays dice knows when, how and which result will the aformentioned dice provide.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo

>>2279565, REMEMBER >>2279450

"i just want to smoke weed and buy shoes, and do what fly guys do" - alan ginsberg

>>2279565
>I must say that it made me laugh, that religious people think like this.
Why? The bible is a book of stories at it's heart. People have always used stories to explain things to each other. The bible obviously isn't all that concerned with natural processes. It's concerned with people and how they relate to god and each other.
>Not sir, it is not evolutive when the man who plays dice knows when, how and which result will the aformentioned dice provide.
"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?"
Did it ever occur to you that the nature of god, if he does exist, is impossible for your feeble human mind to comprehend or understand?
>I spent nine years in the seminary!
Then you didn't listen very close, because frankly I learned this shit in fucking Sunday school.

"Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."

- Dr. Ron Paul

>>2279565
>And no sir, I have read more about religion and its processes than what you would imagine. I spent 9 years in a Seminary school and all this to end up ditching the faith to logic. Simple.

If seminary was the extent of your religious education, the focus of your studies was probably too narrow for you to draw conclusions about religion, religious experience, and religious people outside of your chosen tradition.

The fact that you're making these arguments with at least some background in religious studies makes you a more worthwhile critic of religion than people like Dawkins. Though if you studied for nine years without moving beyond simplistic dichotomies like "religion vs. logic" or without transcending mere assumptive faith, I'm not sure that your studies were worthwhile...

>Not sir, it is not evolutive when the man who plays dice knows when, how and which result will the aformentioned dice provide.

Unless you believe in mind-body dualism, free will is illusory anyway. I'm sure there's more to your non-belief than your trouble with the idea of omniscience.

>>2279643

Omnisiens is konsistent with free wil, or at the very leest, the usual arguments that try the show the oposit ar unsound. The same is tru for kausal determinism.

">believing the new testament"
From Tesla

>>2279599
>Pic related
Take a look at the first two points.
Until you learn how to debate properly, we're through here.

>>2279643
>Though if you studied for nine years without moving beyond simplistic dichotomies like "religion vs. logic"
Me deciding to focus the main point of this discussion on that particular 'debate' (religion vs logic) is all you got from there?
Dear lord. Take a look at the link I previously posted, it should epitomize what lead me to think like this.
>I'm not sure that your studies were worthwhile
Oh, but they were. They come in handy putting people like you on their place.

>Unless you believe in mind-body dualism, free will is illusory anyway. I'm sure there's more to your non-belief than your trouble with the idea of omniscience.
Of course there is more. Since I'm addicted to studying, reading and so on, my route eventually lead me to biology. Without free will a, let's say, computer would be able to predict every single event in the universe. Perhaps what I'm saying is too complicated for you to understand, but I'm sure you'll get there...eventually.

>>2279610
lol nice