/lit/ - Literature

He isn't dead.

Plebs can't win noble prizes.

>>5386920
How dare you insult the God of literature.

Idk, love the guy tho, i was a massive fan of his when i was about 13 and had just discovered atheism

>herr derr religion is bad
omg why dun he hav a nobel prize xD

>>5387079
>herr derr, i'm not gw bush
omg hav a nobel, blakk man

Truth is stranger than fiction.

WHY do >all< those PSEUDO intel-ectual PosTers often _have_ such WEIRD, aLtErNaTinG
>fonts
and TYPE faces? Do their _CREATORS_ >think< it MAKES theM look
>more
Sophis-tiCated?

>>5386730

Because he was an assclown.

>>5386730
Forgive me, but is there a Nobel Prize for journalism? Regardless, he was the greatest orator of our generation.

Geniuine question: Has Hitchens actually done anything but complain about fundamentalist Christians and Muslims?

>>5387160
yes complain about religion in general

>>5387160
Trial of Henry Kissinger was decent.

>>5387153

LaughingGoreVidal.jpg

>>5387153
They need to make one just for him.

>>5387153
>he was the greatest orator of our generation.

Hitchens called for a crusade against the Muslims so his atheism is easily overlooked

>>5387160
A lot of journalism

>>5386730
Should they give him the nobel prize posthumously? Fucking no, you ignorant pleb. Then what? Will we give Rosalind Franklin the nobel prize? Oh let's give Abe Lincoln the nobel prize as well. Why stop there? Let's give Nietzsche a fucking posthumous peace prize.

Your question is insanely stupid. This is the kind of question I expect from /lit/. You all are pretentious faggot. /b/ is smarter than you.

/b/ = Smart people being dumb
/lit/ = Dumb people trying to act smart

Fucking faggots.

>>5387863
>implying this is the popular opinion on /lit/
Fucking christ. Can you people at least lurk for more than 2 minutes before you post about the nature of /lit/? These kind of sweeping statements are pretty much universally used by fools to imply a wisdom that they do not possess.

because he isn't a scientist

pointing out the madness in doctrine is like kicking a child in the face. be nice to children.

>upset at being a gear in the magnificent machine of Creation

Special Snowflake Syndrome

>>5387863
>/b/ = Smart people being dumb
How is this even an opinion

That being said, the world would be a better place if all the philosophical and religious/anti-religious discussion on /lit/ fucked off to some appropriate reddit board.

>>5386730
Because he was a brilliant guy that unfortunately contributed very little to any significant field and preferred to using his eloquence to build a devoted fanbase rather than to sincerely inform.

I don't believe he was actually an anti-theist. I think he just saw an opportunity for money to be made. He is literally for all intents and purposes, just another Anita Sakeesian

Don't respond to this with stupid shit like a fish image

>>5388929
There's no way Dawkins is that rich.

>>5388929
Who is the guy in the upper left corner?

>>5387160
He's the greatest journalist of our time....He only did the religion stuff in the last...15 years of his life

>>5388952
Rhymes with
Miss Kitchens

Come on man

>>5388929
if someone tells you they do not believe in a god, do you automatically assume they are edgy because your parents run your life? once you go out into the world you will see that claiming the earth is 5000 years old, or that muhammed recited the word of god is fucking insane.

>>5388968
That has nothing to do with what I'm saying
I'm saying he spent to much time bitching about religion because he knew people like you would worship him for it and throw money at him.
He was significant during a time when Atheism was on the rise and he took advantage. Can't blame him, its a smart move.
But what i said still stands, his life had very little effect on the world, let alone any positive effect.

>>5388984
>i don't believe he was actually anti-theist
yes he was
>i think he just saw an opportunity to make money
sure he did. no one likes being told noah saved the human race on a wooden boat. no one likes being told to rejoice in their own slaughter because they don't accept allah as god.
>but what i said still stands
not really
go suck some priest's dick

>>5388945
You'd be surprised.
Plus, Project Reason, the circlejerk he helps run with his fellow New Atheists. And the fees he collects for public speaking, and the shoddy books he's been selling. There's always been good money in being a piece of shit shill for the reigning establishment, especially if you can convince people you're a "rebel" at the same time.

>>5389003
Isn't he a scientist?

>>5388998
You sound bitter and I can tell that absolutely nothing is going to change your mind.

Maybe Chris should have focused on spreading awareness about the numerous conflicts in Britain and America, his own 2 countries of residency, rather than ridiculing a group of billions just because a tiny fraction of them is stirring up trouble in an isolated desert.

Nice talking to you.

>>5389003
Why would you pay monthly for an event that must happen less than monthly? How does that work?

>>5389003
This made me rage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Bus_Campaign

>>5389011
notice how i included christians
>jesus resided in america and britain.
ur right. we are done anon. nice talking to u.
mfw when chris should have spread awareness.

>>5389009
He used to be.
In the 80's and 90's a lot of his ideas started sliding out of use. His gene-centered approach to evolution has been disproven (experiments have demonstrated top-down influence on genetic markers; evolution doesn't happen one gene at a time, but in clusters; etc).
Everything he's done over the past decade is just a sad, old man trying to rack up money and fame while warding off his irrelevance.

>>5389038
Damn
I wish I could be up to par on all this science stuff
Respect, man
Not the guy you're replying to btw.

>>5389038
So all the New Atheists are/were hypocrites except Dennett, then.

>>5389011
Have you considered he might have been ridiculing these low hanging fruits as a way to give more perspective to American citizens, regarding the religious cancer in their own country?

Baby steps.

>>5389055
Good point
but I think it would have been more productive to, rather than attack religion and religion people and say
>Religion is cancer
It'd be more fruitful to say
>These politicians that are using religion to push their agenda is cancer
Don't you think?

>>5389057
Btw I gotta take a shower but I'll brb

>>5389060
i do not know what a shower is. i'm a muslim piece of trash so i wash my dick, balls, taint, and gooch saltwater. hooray for me.

i know some of you special people will consider it some sort of blasphemy to even suggest this, but: did nobody find hitchens, for all his mental brilliance, at least a little bit boring?

>>5389038
Your point being?

Almost nothing Darwin said or did is relevant anymore either

I never liked Hitchens that much because he was way too self-absorbed and narcissistic.
You could practically see him sucking his own dick whenever he was having debates. It would be more acceptable had he never said anything wrong, but he said stupid shit every now and then, and he'd always do it while sucking his own dick.

>>5389052
Anyone that believes something without the proper research is a hypocrite
Dawkins and Hitchens do pretty much the same thing a lot of preacher do
>Our way is true and you don't have to do the research, we've done it for you in our books!
Dawkins won't even have a debate with a Christian ever since he got schooled by Lennox

>>5389144
wrong. both hitchens and dawkins repeatedly encourage people to do their own reading and to study the evidence and make up their own minds. dawkins stopped debating on the advice on a friend who stated, quite rightly, that by engaging in a debate with an idiot, you endow their beliefs with some semblance of validity. plus we all know how pointless it is to have a serious discussion with an idiot

>>5389153
>dawkins stopped debating on the advice on a friend who stated, quite rightly, that by engaging in a debate with an idiot, you endow their beliefs with some semblance of validity. plus we all know how pointless it is to have a serious discussion with an idiot
Sounds like an excuse to me
Plus, you have some nerve to call John Lennox an idiot.

>>5387863
>/b/ = Smart people being dumb

maybe 5 years ago

>>5389182
you just have to watch one of these debates to see how pointless it is. the whole thing would be greatly improved if the theists stopped asking the same stupid old questions. ask a question, reflect on the answer, then ask new questions. "how can you look at a sunset and say there's no god?" still seems like a good question to theists

>>5389182
Why? Isn't he religious?

>>5389197
>"how can you look at a sunset and say there's no god?" still seems like a good question to theists
You've never watched Lennox debate if you think thats what he'd say. I could turn it around on you and say Atheists still think "If God is real then why was I born ugly" is a good question but I won't since that'd be ignorant of me.

>>5389207
thinking "theists" = "john lennox" is ignorant. i'm talking about religious people in general. i've never heard an atheist pose such a silly question as "if god is real then why was i born ugly" the closest is probably "if god is real, why is there evil?" which is a valid question to ask

>>5389225
I guess Atheists in general replace ignorance with disrespect and the inability to have a moral discussion
>It just gets me so mad that people think differently can you blame us >:(
I've also never heard a religious person pose that question, they usually keep their beliefs to themselves. You must live in the bible belt, if so, then my heart goes out to you.

>>5389182
Have you ever talked with a religious person?

>>5389233
Everyday
Atheists to

>>5389230
Religious people are retarded enough to think that there can be objective morals. What can you say? They forget that for there to be objective morals, then we must have completely unambiguous understanding of those morals. Our understanding of the Bible's morals are inherently ambiguous; therefore, the Bible does not have objective morals.

Basically this means, morality and immorality are always defined post hoc by the intuition of men, they can never be written down and it makes no sense to think that could be the case. The rest is them playing semantic games and acting like fucking morons.

>>5389235
The bible has objective morals
The 10 commandments

>>5389234
Then you should no that there's nothing to be gained from talking about anything serious with them

>>5389230
it isn't disrespectful to point out that the debate would run better (and generate better results) if the theists upped their game a bit. and no, i live in the uk, thankfully

>>5389236
they're not morals, they're laws

>>5389236
They are only objective because they are tautological, you fucking idiot.

What is murder? Murder is killing that is wrong! What is killing that is wrong? We don't know! We haven't disambiguated that yet because it's inherently impossible to disambiguate!

What is stealing? Stealing is the wrongful taking of objects! What is the wrongful taking of objects? We don't know! We haven't disambiguated that yet because it's inherently impossible to disambiguate!

>>5389237
That goes for both sides
People just refuse to believe that the other side just might be true
>>5389239
They don't need to up their game. Watch the end of the debate, everyone questioned thought it was a fair show from both. You're just biased.
>>5389240
What do you mean by objective morals
>>5389244
We know why murder and stealing is wrong, it goes without explanation

Come on man, have some respect, I'm talking to 4 people and I have called you guys fucking idiots.

>>5389239
I could argue for God better than they do. They do it in Family Guy:

"I'd like to call a witness stand: he's a ghost that never lies. And I'm the only one who can hear him!"

Even back to Descartes, arguments for God involved such dumbass ontologies such as "God doesn't lie cuz he perfect so therefore I know God exists :-)"

>>5389246
Haven't called*
my bad
inb4 Freudian

I'm not religious but that quote is pretty dumb. People are hardwired to be self-centered, so religion once again only acts as a mirror of what is already inherent in human nature.

>>5389246
>People just refuse to believe that the other side just might be true
Of course it may all be true. Anything could be true if you add in the obvious "Everything I'm seeing is not real". You can suggest anything the fuck you want.

>We know why murder and stealing is wrong, it goes without explanation

Because murder and stealing are tautologically wrong you fucking imbecile. The reason they are worthless sayings is we have no way of applying them to reality that is unambiguous. This is the key problem of "objective" morality: ambiguity precludes absoluteness, and therefore the timeless objectivity of them.

If the Bible's morals are "perfect", why then do we still judge every murderer in court and look at things case by case to see if they match the "objective" morals? Oh yeah, that's because the Bible's morals are not perfect, they are not ambiguous, they have to be applied by men and thus are intrinsically not perfect. INB4 muh divine revelation that God will tell me exactly what's so. Fuck you.

>>5389235
>morals have to be dis ambiguously defined.
agree.
>morals are ambiguous.
I understand what you're getting at:ahit luke glassing cities and floods are a bit ambiguous. And contradictions as well. But I ask for your attention on the 10 commandments-there is an objective gain for the whole of society if you don't cheat, steal, lie,and if you get along with your neighbors.

the problem with"ambiguity" comes from being unfamiliar with the bible - it becomes easier with time to get the correct meaning or lesson out of the passages that apparently contradict themselves, among other things.

also, I'd appreciate you'd show more empathy for other people's opinions. After all, I have a modest Iq of a few units over 130, I'm religious, studying aerospace engineering, and demonstrably not a retard.

>>5389254
I'm done
Don't talk to me like you're an enraged animal, man.
No my feelings aren't hurt but if you're gonna act like a butthurt little kid then I'll treat you like one.

>>5389240
they're morals. Laws are the legal enforcement of moral codes...

>>5389246
they do need to up their game. i'm tired of hearing variations of "religious people do good things therefore religion is a force for good", etc. whether the debate was "fair" or not is irrelevant. was the debate good? did the debate get somewhere? were new questions asked? in short, was the debate worthwhile? theists have to try harder

>>5389261
it's hardly a moral teaching to simply state what you've not to do, though. it needs to be justified. a moral lesson is more than one sentence long. no, the ten commandments are just a set of laws, but they may be based on "christian morality" (source? for the love of god, don't say the bible!)

>>5389258
>I understand what you're getting at:ahit luke glassing cities and floods are a bit ambiguous. And contradictions as well. But I ask for your attention on the 10 commandments-there is an objective gain for the whole of society if you don't cheat, steal, lie,and if you get along with your neighbors.
No, there is not an "objective gain", and using the terminology you are in the way you are is senseless (in the Wittgensteinian definition)

>the problem with"ambiguity" comes from being unfamiliar with the bible

No it does not. The problem of ambiguity comes from being a human and having to use written and verbal language to speak. We can't bridge this gap. It's absolutely unavoidable. We can never establish a rule that perfectly applies to every situation in reality. Language cannot do that.

>also, I'd appreciate you'd show more empathy for other people's opinions. After all, I have a modest Iq of a few units over 130, I'm religious, studying aerospace engineering, and demonstrably not a retard.

I'll stop using insults.

>>5389260
Why would you continue to talk after saying "I'm done" when it clearly shows you are not done?

IAC, fake moral indignation is exactly what I would expect from a person who has absolutely no way to articulate a response to what I have said. The Bible is worthless morally, and it's trivial to demonstrate that.

>>5389258
>Still thinks IQ is a measurement of intelligence

>>5389270
>they do need to up their game
There is no game to up. It's unsalvagable

>>5389277
so it would appear. >>5389144 and >>5389182 (if they're not the same person) suggested that debates should continue, though, so i'm saying that, if they are to take place, they should be worthwhile

>>5389276
It's pretty sad, isn't it? Feeling the need to justify yourself with inductive "but I'm smart" arguments only proves his deep relationship with religious people.

You never hear scientists say "I have 140iq, therefore my mathematical proof is correct"

>>5389285
Hitchens said once that he would not like religion to go away because he would be bored. These men simply enjoy debating, and there's no use in esteeming them as the necessary posterchildren for atheism.

>>5389286
I'm Christian, I was just making the point that he should show his intelligence with his words and not those meaningless numbers
You're really mean spirited dude.

>>5389286
>scientist
>"my mathematical proof"

>>5387109
give this man a nobel prize

>>5389290
in the "four horsemen" conversation alongside dawkins, dennett and harris? yeah, i heard him say that, and i disagree with him. i'd like to see an end to religion. there's plenty other stuff to talk about once religion is gone. without religion gone, it's possible we won't be at liberty to talk about anything. it may be meek now (christianity, that is) but i'm sure it still yearns for the crusade/inquisition days. other religions aim for their own version of that in today's world. that must be stopped

>>5389260
You're so obviously mad.

>>5389342
I wonder what your crush is doing right now

>>5389351
same as yours, sucking my dick under the table.

>>5389364
Does his mustache tickle your wiener?

>>5389368
Yes.

>>5389286
anon, I wasn't justifying my arguments with my Iq. If anything, I was addressing his point that every religious person is a retard, when there's proof that isn't the case. I'm no genius, but certainly not a retard either.

anyways, why the blatant shitpost on /lit ? What does such blatant intellectual dishonesty accrue to? What does anyone have to benefit from that?

I'm pretty sure you can pop a thread on /b where you can carry out this exact same shitposting in the exact same context.

>>5389293
Yeah, I kind of am.

>>5389296
Eh, I was too lazy to fix my profession. Scientists don't prove, they induce, mathematics is the only field that really disambiguates with regularity

>>5389323
I really don't know if it matters which way the future goes. I'd say nothing is more likely than the human species making the planet uninhabitable through mindless consumption and slowly dying off, and the specifics between then and now don't really matter

>>5389437
Okay, this is a perfect example of the semantic bullshit people play. When you first saw my use of "retard", you had to infer its meaning. In the process of disambiguation, you picked (or didn't know the alternatives) the meaning that I did not intend. No, I did not mean retard as "having an IQ below 70" or whatever the medical definition is (which you have to admit is just a disambiguation, attempting to give authority to language is inherently a stupid move. consider what language is before you ever abuse "correct" or "incorrect" use of language).

>anyways, why the blatant shitpost on /lit ?

I'm not shitposting, and there's nothing blatant about it.

>What does such blatant intellectual dishonesty accrue to?

I have never met anyone that defined "intellectual dishonesty" in this way. Your faulty disambiguation is not my dishonesty.

>What does anyone have to benefit from that?

We have everything to benefit from making the realization of why everything religious people believe should not be believed.

>I'm pretty sure you can pop a thread on /b where you can carry out this exact same shitposting in the exact same context.

You're the shitposter here, considering you're being weakly condescending and are also avoiding any direct confrontation on any point

Look, there is nothing objective but a tautology. Four equals four. Two plus two equals four because four equals two plus two. Take anything real and try to disambiguate it. Turn real sensations into words that leave absolutely no ambiguity about what that thing could be.

This is fundamentally impossible. I'll even prove it you: consider Newton's law of gravitational force. It states the relative force between two masses is a ratio of the product of the masses over the distance between the masses square. Normally we use this to talk about the force between say, astronomical collections such as planets because as it turns out, you can approximate a sphere of mass-containing particles to the combined mass at the center of the sphere itself.

However, this is an approximation, which means it necessarily and definitionally leaves ambiguity. To disambiguate the gravitational force on one particle of mass would mean to sum the force vectors of that one particle to every other particle in the whole universe.

>>5389437
>>5389532
Go ahead and figure out how many atoms are in the universe, every atom has mass and even at the ambiguous proposition that atoms are the lowest particle of mass, you have a sum with an amount of iterations equal to the number of atoms in the universe.

Now, in order to predict ANY state of the future with no ambiguity, you must also know exactly where each particle will be in the next time. This means you must sum the forces between every single other particle. This means that to have predictive capability of JUST the gravitational forces with no ambiguity is the amount of atoms factorialized. Throw on this the electromagnetic force and you're effectively squaring that quantity.

In case you aren't following how big this number is, let's just say I don't even know how you would express a quantity so huge. And this is just to disambiguate a very tiny fraction of anything. We don't have further knowledge and so ultimately our knowledge is either incomplete or ambiguous (and ambiguity necessarily leads to contradictions). Godel effectively applies to all language as well.

"How does physics effect the bible?" you may ask. Oh, it certainly does if you're going to call the Bible objective. For "murder is wrong" to be objective, you need to disambiguate "murder" and "wrong". So we say "murder" is "intentional killing". So then we disambiguate "intention" and "killing". So we say "intention" is a certain event in the person's mind, etc. You would have to disambiguate the whole tree of knowledge to make this statement objective above it's tautology; or, in other words, have a complete circular model of definitions which we cannot get because our knowledge is incomplete.

So when you say, "murder is objectively wrong", I don't just think it's stupid, I think it's about as hideously stupid as any attempt to be objective. Of course religion is worthless, it offers nothing but conjuring tricks for people who can't parse through it's obvious chicanery.

>>5389532
anon, I didn't care enough to read that wall of text.
I wish I had half the energy to devote to your posts as you've so clearly put into them, I really do. But you spend so much time trying to bind me to your point of view, denying my interpretation and intention about whatever subject, that your very lack of willingness to compromise repels me from this conversation.

as a final note, your second post was a clear attack on my person. How was I supposed to know you were the one so bitterly interpreting my post when you had previously stated you wouldn't be insulting anyone anymore?

there's a clear lack of integrity on your part. And it damages both you and me. It damages us both in wasted time and yourself because you lose credibility

>>5389615
I lose no credibility, I lose the attention of a person too stupid to work out the most basic things. Bye, loser.

>>5389536
okay, I actually re-read the last of your post to make sure I was taking the right approach.

and you're literally saying there's no way to disambiguously state that murder is wrong.

even tho a person produces on average millions of dollars of worth to it's society throughout his life either directly or indirectly.

objectively, a murder brings sk many undesirable consequences to a society via unrest, feelings of turnmoil from the loss of the loved one, and QUANTIFIABLE productivity loss to the entire society... It triggers so many animal aspects in life that have a meaningful undesirable impact in life... How can you say murder can't objectively be a bad thing when all objective analyses on the subject tell you otherwise.

>that tumblr rethoric aka 5th grade name calling.

anon, for all your,intelligence, your ego denies you victory in any argument whatsoever : you can't even control yourself.

>>5389669
Reality is continuous, to be objective about one thing you have to be objective about everything. We can't be objective about everything, so we can't be objective about anything.

Not only am I saying murder isn't objectively wrong, I'm also saying all "objective analyses" are inherently deluded and stupid.

Your argument is foundationless. Again, the refutation of ethics is fairly simple. You say murder has undesirable consequences. What does it mean for something to be undesirable?

>unrest
Why is unrest bad?

>feelings of turnmoil from the loss of the loved one
Why are these bad?

>and QUANTIFIABLE productivity loss to the entire society
Why is productivity loss bad? Also, how does quantifiability mean anything?

>It triggers so many animal aspects in life that have a meaningful undesirable impact in life... How can you say murder can't objectively be a bad thing when all objective analyses on the subject tell you otherwise.
How is this objective in any sense at all? Look, ethics are very simple. At some point, a few people agree on a foundational moral principle, and they live under that and force others to obey, or are forced to obey themselves. No matter what, disambiguating any ethical claim leads you back to a foundationless beginning or a simple social contract. Of course, objective understanding of any of this is impossible because you can't scrub anything clean of ambiguity and thus the subject.

>>5389615
I also like how you're talking like you're such a big shot on astrodynamics. Here's a hint: that's what I'll be doing for a living 2 years from now. You someho>>5389615
w found it necessary to state things considered obvious and in fact introduction to the subject by literally anyone in the field.

I know it makes you sound smart anon, but you should pick the right crowd.

>>5389694
Did you link the wrong posts?

I'm not "talking like a big shot" on astrodynamics, I merely commented on the sheer volume of unobtainable knowledge that is necessary in the disambiguation of language. You're the one in a pissing contest about arbitrary qualifications

By two years from now you mean when you graduate uni, right?

>>5389688
I'd say, society furthering itself in the development cycle is a good thing.

you might say the,definition of good is relative.

good going there mate. You bring the conversation to a stall, no one proves anything, and you feel better about yourself for saying something smart.

here's the kicker tho : eventually, you either define you "goods" and "bads" and live by them, or you simply fail at life.

want me to be scientific in my reasonings? (the holy rebuke of the atheists ) then let me put it this way: according to the scientific method, that which produces the "best" results for a society is what's best (morals or otherwise). Tell me now, are the 10 commandments prone to, by scientific method, give way to better societies? You don't even need to speculate: just watch some BBC wildlife about apes or gorillas.

now you can say some relativist shit. Again. At which point I'll tell you: good luck surviving out there.

>>5389705
and for the record, you're using arbitrary wrong. It doesn't stand for random. It stands for something decided upon. You use it to imply that things decided upon are inherently baseless. But they aren't.

I don't blame you tho. I had the same notion from linear algebra and the Xs or Ys used.

but fact of the matter is, studying about astrodynamica and producing scientific papers makes me more qualified to discuss it than some armchair teenager on lit. Not that it means anything or gives me reason in this whole debate. That's why you should simply have said it was a random qualification without correlation to any aspect of this talk.

>>5389153
>i am so superior your opinion is not worth hearing

>hey kids be open minded
>except if you think unlike me

>>5389727
as for the definition of best, we live in concurrent competition in this world.

the better society is that which surpasses the others.

>>5387109
Theres no difference in font in that picture. Just a bolding, underlining, italicizing and changing the size.

>>5389727
>here's the kicker tho : eventually, you either define you "goods" and "bads" and live by them, or you simply fail at life.
No fucking shit. In what way is this ranting pertinent to anything?

>want me to be scientific in my reasonings? (the holy rebuke of the atheists ) then let me put it this way: according to the scientific method, that which produces the "best" results for a society is what's best (morals or otherwise). Tell me now, are the 10 commandments prone to, by scientific method, give way to better societies? You don't even need to speculate: just watch some BBC wildlife about apes or gorillas.

I don't care whether you're scientific or not and I don't care what you do. I'm just here to laugh at your for being an idiot and explicating on why your belief in the Bible is hilarious and pathetic.

>now you can say some relativist shit. Again. At which point I'll tell you: good luck surviving out there.

Thanks.

>and for the record, you're using arbitrary wrong.

I didn't use it wrong, actually. How do you say so many demonstrably idiotic things back to back and not want to kill yourself?

>I don't blame you tho. I had the same notion from linear algebra and the Xs or Ys used.

Someone spot the undergrad!

>but fact of the matter is, studying about astrodynamica and producing scientific papers makes me more qualified to discuss it than some armchair teenager on lit. Not that it means anything or gives me reason in this whole debate. That's why you should simply have said it was a random qualification without correlation to any aspect of this talk.

There's no way you're producing scientific papers with this level of literacy.

the clique of hitchens, dawkins with the "i watched a couple of vsauce videos" scientists is just as ignorant as some religionfags can be. then there can also be scientists who aren't buttmad logic sperglords sucking their own dicks and religious people who just acknowledge the laws of the universe.

the god delusion book is at least as ignorant as the bible is, yet both have underlying ideas that can be valuable

>>5389757
>There's no way you're producing scientific papers with this level of literacy.
not that guy but scientific papers are about getting god results and knowing how to explaim the convincingly rather than writing lite a pompous faggot.

>>5389777
*good results

>>5389746
not quite. more like "your argument is so crap it's not worth hearing"

>>5389777
*explain
*them
*like

as you can see i write like shit but still published some papers

>>5389794
>your argument is so crap it's not worth hearing
do you realize the problem with this?
just writing something off as stupid without hearing it


>inifinite jest was so bad i didn't even read it

>>5389757
>nothing but bitterness.
oh well, you show your true colours again.
+1 atheists, right?

>belief in the bible
did it ever occur to you that all I get from the bible is inspiration and solace? Not all theists believe in big daddies with beards watching over us from the sky : that's nothing but your biased view on things extripating what you're talking about of it's real meaning.

as for the rest, you're now again demonstrably not worth my energy. Do have fun shitposting on lit, anon. Carry on.

>>5389757
>no shit. How is this pertinent.
so you admit that there's a criteria for choosing what's good or bad. Jesus christ anon, how blind do you have to be not to realize your bigotry?

So wait, there are actually people who are unironically being christian?

>>5389802
the point is that theists recycle the same old arguments over and over to the point that debates are predictable and largely a waste of time. obviously i wouldn't dismiss as crap an argument i haven't heard before

>>5389825
Yes, they're called Marxists.

>>5386730
>giving a noble to a imperialist neo-con atheist with no soul

>>5387108
Actually Obama is Bush, even more militaristic.

>>5389817
MORAL RELATIVISTS GETTING

BLOWN

THE

FUCK

OUT!!!!!

>mfw people unironically support an alcoholic, neo-conservative, war mongering, ex-Trotskyist Atheist who never produced a notable piece of literature.

>>5389817
...there is no way anyone is this stupid.

>>5389803
>oh well, you show your true colours again.
You show that you're mentally ineffectual and a moron, again. +1 Christians, right?

>did it ever occur to you that all I get from the bible is inspiration and solace? Not all theists believe in big daddies with beards watching over us from the sky : that's nothing but your biased view on things extripating what you're talking about of it's real meaning.
I don't care at all what you get from anything

>>5389777
Not that guy but not being able to understand what other people are saying and deriving trivially moronic conclusions over and over tends to not correlate with the ability to do good science

>>5389858
Marxists are against culture that breeds religion in modern minds, so no, you're wrong here.

>>5389872
>Actually Obama is Bush, even more militaristic.

They didn't know that before they gave him the Nobel.

he was mostly a vulgar polemicist.

There's a reason Chomsky couldn't stand him towards the end.

>>5390306
uh, I bet ur just an ignowent kwishian (or muslum), there is no other possible reason to dislike Hitchens

>>5390306
He was also right 100% of the time. He predicted ISIS.

>>5390286

lol that you think that's a good argument

moral assertions =/= objective moral standards even if you feel them super hard

>>5387863
>/b/ = Smart people being dumb
Being this new.

>>5391634
He was wrong about Iraq.

If he's so smart, how come he's dead?

Also, he confirmed to be at least as stupid as Johnny Knoxville:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58
Afterwards he says he still gets panicky from time to time and that he had nightmares for weeks after.

No fucking shit, sherlock. Who would have thought that getting tortured might be traumatizing..