/lit/ - Literature

>>7089426
>is already self evident to atheists so they seem pointless
Atheists, just like conservatives, liberals, sjws, anti-sjws, etc (the list goes on and on really tbh) like to read people who already agree with them. The books provide arguments to justify their beliefs since they're too fucking dumb to do it themselves, and eventually they come to a point where they only read people who agree with their ideology. This drives them to be so deluded that they think its impossible for someone to be well read and disagree with them.

>>7089434
/thread

>>7089426

The Selfish Gene is quite good, if a little tedious in places.

>>7089439

Not quite.

>>7089434
which is why his books on evolutionary biology are more interesting

>>7089426
Good writer on evolution with some unique ideas. However, fails painfully when he tries to tackle matters of philosophy. Has spawned one of the most obnoxious social movements in recent memory.

selfish gene is p good tbh

>>7089434
vacuous posts for 100 alex

>>7089426
Yeah his atheist books are a big circlejerk. It is catered to people already atheist or doubting their faith rather than challenging theologians and religious people. The book is also considered shit in my opinion because it made him the pope of "new atheism" which replaces religious dogma with scientific dogma.

>>7089434
Exactly why I dislike people so deeply rooted in their own ideology. They don't take time out of their day to try to understand the opposing viewpoint.

>>7089426
You've already written my exact thoughts. His works in biology and genes and names are cool, and his atheist stuff is inflammatory circlejerking.

>>7089434
But technically he's not wrong in in those books about atheism/religion. It's just frustratingly futile (and at times amusing) to watch him, a purely scientific and logical man, try to argue against religious people. As smart as he is, it's as if he simply cannot comprehend someone else not being able to comprehend logic and the scientific approach. Like that dude in the big lebowski, he may be right but he's an asshole.

This whole thing is interesting but relevant clip is at 41:30
https://youtu.be/z2w4nurt0X4?t=41m32s

>>7089482
>not being able to comprehend logic
Logic has been used to prove God's existence countless times.

>>7089476

>simplistic
>stupid
>pointless

You need better diagrams.

>>7089474
>>7089497
Called out and mad about it

>>7089497
its just some shit I saved long ago and posted it because its semi relevant to the thread and for the lulz.

>>7089486
Actually that image has it the other way around, and that's enough b8 for now thanks bud

>>7089501

Expand and explain.

>>7089426
Ancestors Tale is awesome. Why some one would need to read an entire book on atheism, I cannot understand.

>>7089426
isnt he just a bee scientist, academically?

>>7089504
Are you retarded or trolling?

>>7089482
>dawkins
>intelligent

>>7089521
No but I'm fairly certain you are. Feel free to explain what you think that retarded image means, btw

>>7089523
Well is a fellow at Oxford and has written many successful books so he probably ain't dumb

>>7089482
>but he's an asshole.
literally who the fuck cares. go back to tumblr if your christard feels are triggered

>>7089476
It becomes apparent to me how useless it is to argue with people like you when you equivocate scientific dogma and religious dogma. One is based on generations of critical thinking and analysis on first principles and the examination of a breadth of physical data - things that exist. While you and the chatterbox/echochamber machine of human drivel that is the mass media might disagree, science does not exclude its critics. That critics have concern for the aptitude of dogma in addressing new data is not only important, and their research more often read than generalized research ( within the academic specialty ), it doesn't preclude their credibility within the field.

The only relation between the two is by word choice. Since humans have to make value derived choices ( nearly always ), and must choose where to spend their time ( nearly always ) it makes more sense to choose to be atheist than does the choice to be agnostic ( and invite religious discussion into one's live ). Why ? Because there are many compositions of God and Godhood that preclude a physicality we can ever comprehend or particularly identify. Being unfalsifiable there is no way for the discussion to end, and therein it is necessarily a waste of time ( between people ). Should you choose to believe in a God(s)/etc then that should be a personal investment of your own time for your own gain and spending others discussing it is unethical, by coercion, lack of respect for the other's time, and a general wanton preference for vagueries.

Tl;dr
Religion is based on absoultely nothing but cherry-picking tunnel-vision blowhards. that Richard Dawkins is a blowhard doesn't mean you can't disown his logic, but I agree you can ask him to shut the fuck up.

>>7089555
>Well is a fellow at Oxford and has written many successful books so he probably ain't dumb

Books that are all about bashing religion. Show me his papers or his contribution to science and then we'll talk.

>>7089555
>No but I'm fairly certain you are
fuckin rekt man good one

>>7089582
incoming post about the subjectivity of our perceptions so science is invalid etc so empirical measurements are for naught so we should turn to the numinous etc tbh fam

>>7089633
forgot: read popper, feyeraband and kuhn shitlord

>>7089482
>trying to show people a way to judge themselves, their worldview/actions/interactions, and leverage dignity in the eyes of other human beans
makes him an asshole?

Sometimes he is an asshole, but that he argues and debates does not make him an asshole. Yelling you're wrong and it is proven are asshole moves i've seen him use.

>>7089616
i'm another dude, but you didn't explain the image, which is a reverse troll. Both the atheist and the christian presumably choose to do 'altruistic or cooperatively beneficial things' because it benefits themselves and their communities, and makes those people they value feel good/do better, which they can see. However, when we define good to following to the word the codex or ruleset dictated by another it becomes a meaningless endeavor ( as in the rule has no external cause or origin ) unless there is the aforementioned. In the case of a cult is is praise by the leader, promotion, and the lack of punishment/onus. For the religious it is believe that they live for the next word; therein their lives have no meanings inherent to them, and only by following this arbiratrary set of rules can they hope to 'get to' the part of their lives where they can achieve meaning. That or they are insane and the way they practice their religion really has no logical foundation:

I wanna do good cause god is leading and telling me to do so! I feel it to be true and so it is. This is illogical and but leads to generally good outcomes, unless the person is very stupid and his/her decision making process is so flawed as to make for bad outcomes to others.

>>7089633
Yes, our experiences are subjective and it appears so is our ability to relate to the difference between the experiences of others and our own. But arguing that there is logic inherent in the view is something else entirely. So is the importance you place on that subjectivity is very important. Most people believe that sczhicophrenic people try to interact with the greater world at large and try to maintain their sense of the collective other so as to distance themselves from the noise ( hallucinations ) that their mind occupies itself with. To an extent all humans have to deal with noise, collectively and individually. There are no exceptions; logic allows us to determine the difference.

>>7089648
>>7089633
Not sure if trolling me as I haven't read anything but popper, but from a logical standpoint you can't disagree with Popper but in portion. Enough collaborating evidence can lead you to make assertions and assumptions, which may lead to quicker breakthroughs/ more robust models, but they are not unassailable - in fact they may have more contradictions apparent and otherwise as a result of the lack of falsifiability in previous assertions.

>>7089648
Can you summarize their views on subjectivity?

>>7089594
>Show me his papers or his contribution to science and then we'll talk.

"Richard Dawkins has papers that have a large number of citations. Some of his work has been cited more than 100 times. Examples include :
"Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy",
"Evolutionarily stable nesting strategy in a digger wasp" and
"Arms races between and within species".

A quick study reveals that on average, his citation count per paper is 215 , with a std. deviation of 334 (couple of his papers have fewer than 10 citations). Only papers published in journals in the 70s and 80s are included (n = 11). Though the median number of citations is still 78 per paper, it is not a small number. No book chapters were included. In and after the 90s, he seems to have moved towards popularization of science."

which was his job as Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, btw

>>7089594
>>7089811
Also he created the idea of the "meme", a piece of cultural information that acts as a replicator, analogous to how a gene acts in evolution

>>7089669
>but you didn't explain the image
I have to explain something I didn't even post that's at an elementary level of understanding? No, I won't spoonfeed you retarded shit you should be able to understand.
>However, when we define good to following to the word the codex or ruleset dictated by another it becomes a meaningless endeavor
No. This simply isn't true.
>For the religious it is believe that they live for the next word
What religion is this? Certainly not Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, which are the religions you are almost certainly referring to.
>only by following this arbiratrary set of rules
Except it's the exact opposite of arbitrary if it's set by an objective source such as God. This is only true if there is no objective source, and God does not exist. That is when the rules are arbitrary, subjective, and baseless.
>This is illogical
It's extremely logical. If God exists, then it is objectively correct to follow his will, as that will is the objective truth and correct way to live.

>>7089821
>Not posting the song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tIwYNioDL8

>>7089821
Have you read his papers? They repeat very old concepts. Nearly everything Dawkins has done is recycled, and that is why he isn't deserving of respect. It's so common sense that even high school biology students can come to the same conclusion based only on an understanding of Darwin and Mendel.
>Also he created the idea of the "meme"
No. He put a name on a concept that has been present throughout history.

>>7089841
>not knowing that science is an iterative process
If it's so common sense that even high school students can come to the same conclusion, why don't you see many of them putting out scientific papers? And if everything he did was so trivial and recycled what was with all those citations? Anyway from all the grasping at straws you're doing, you clearly have some sort of internal bias against the man

>>7089824
>This is only true if there is no objective source, and God does not exist. That is when the rules are arbitrary, subjective, and baseless.
to clarifiy classical theistic teaching, while a good part of morality (and no, theyre not "rules", fucking kant) can be found/accepted without an appeal to God, the complete morality needs the acknowledgement of God (since he is, our highest good). But even this, so the Christian claims, isnt sufficient in order to be moral, since the Christian faith takes what man has found by reason alone, and perfects it through God's grace.

>>7089876
>why don't you see many of them putting out scientific papers?
Are you aware of how journal articles are published? It takes money, a reputation, and an understanding of proper format. High school students don't have any of these things.
>And if everything he did was so trivial and recycled what was with all those citations?
So because people cite it that means the findings are high quality? This isn't even a defense and is fallacious.
>Anyway from all the grasping at straws you're doing
Point to one time I have done this.
>you clearly have some sort of internal bias against the man
Strange logical jump you made here. I never once said anything that could imply this.

>>7089824
>spoonfeeding; retarded; explain
Don't address a post ( especially in /lit/ ) if you don't plan on discussing it - that should be obvious child. Since you haven't added to the discussion and are misinterpreting the image ( see >>7089504 and >>7089669 : 2nd paragraph ) for context.

>rules have meanings
Please create an argument for this, or without context it default onto a meaningless and arbitrary set of robotic actions. That you don't understand having no justification for something makes it meaningless doesn't render my point moot, and 'no' is not an argument or justification.

>christianity, judaism, islam
That your argument falls on "it is meaningful because God says it is" then its meaning can only be derived when you meet with god; so you are living for the other side.
Yeah, they all live for the next world, but describe a long winded way of getting there. Feel free to rebut me without repeating no. In other words point me to justification for a 'meaningful life without afterlife' in any of those religion's primary texts; i'd even humor an argument made on a secondary text, although that would clearly be of a philosophical nature rather than a religious one.

> objective source
I can't rebut that there could be a meaning to the rule, but only if you proscribe that one of those texts render unto us literally defining rules, without stipulations and reinterpretations. Regarding it being subjective, it is subjective as language is subjective - not all languages are the same, translations have occurred and word usages have occurred. They describe roughly the same thing within an arbitrary and subjective/baseless degree of approximation - this is different from the original transcription into/onto the brain of 'prophet-x' ( which can be redacted and edited in real time by an omnipotent god figure to mean the exactitude of his intent ). Unless you proscibe that all editors of the bibles have had the same direct link with god, to which i would ask, "Where is the evidence of this in your primary text?".
>illogical
This follows your previous circular logic, which i cannot rebut. I can only say that if your life's meaning can only be derived from following those rules then you really have from where does the other feelings of meanings in your own life come from? Do youbelieve every feeling of yours derives from a direct link with God, and that everyone else is abhorrently rejecting it while God feeds them their current streams of conciousness? This is a must different god than the one of the Old testament who remained apart from man.

If you believe in the editing argument than how do you address discrpencies of contradiction in your primary text ( christianity and islam have 'only listen to the later statements' statements).

>>7089876
Yeah what this guy said. Even if what Dawkins had done is entirely plagarism ( which it isn't, but most of it is popular science interpretation of population genetics ) you'd still have no point as he demonstrates his intelligence in the formulation of his arguments, his wit, breadth of knowledge and derives value for society for making a large body of people critically question the basis of their reality. If they come to the same conclusion he still had them excersize their individual notions and clarify their beliefs.

>>7089888
>human's interpretation and living of his life cannot be godlike, and thus must not be true good
Yeah that's a good argument too, but it doesn't rebut his idea that 'true good and meaning derives from trying to follow 'x' rules'. Because a 'good' human will be inspired by god to follow them correctly.

>>7089889
>wahwah
High school students have been on scientific papers, and in any case your argument is meaningless. Only the quality of his work matters and since I know you've read none of it what's the point in talking to you but i will.

>>7089889
>citation as a method or discerning merit
Yeah, it means that he either summarizes concepts well ( so that others can build on them easier ) or that his work had inherent discovereies or ideas that needed to be built upon or argued. Either way it means he was meaningful and had contributions that drove helped spur science forward.

>grasping at straws
1. Comparing Dawkins to a high schooler in order to push the idea that he is incompetent. Every genius has been a high schooler, does that mean every high schooler is a genius?
2. "very old concepts"
Literally a strawman - you can't even define what you're saying. There are many very old concepts, but without a base of knowledge to support them they are meaningless. Besides if they are old and backwoods even describing them in current worldviews has meaning in summary and understanding.
3. bashing religion
No, they are often more about the physical nature of the world than they are about bashing religion. That's more his public persona.

>>7090016
>human's interpretation and living of his life cannot be godlike, and thus must not be true good
but that's not what i said, i said that man can follow some part of what is good for him, but that he will never be perfectly good (which doesnt mean that he wont be good).

I never said anything about interpretation or the like.

>you'd still have no point as he demonstrates his intelligence in the formulation of his arguments, his wit, breadth of knowledge and derives value for society for making a large body of people critically question the basis of their reality.
except that the only reason he is known for in the public sphere is for christ bashing, an activity in which he, as most of his fellow academics agree, is completely ignorant of the actual claims of the opposing party, or the reasons they give for their claims.
And im pretty sure he has received some criticism on his scientific papers.

>it means he was meaningful and had contributions that drove helped spur science forward.
except citation doesnt discern merit, since you can cite works to either praise them or criticize them, and the reasons for praisal/criticism can be doubted, for they can be either scientific or conforming to already established dogma/beliefs

>>7090121
>except that the only reason he is known for in the public sphere is for christ bashing
...therefore he is unintelligent / incompetent? Sorry, but I don't follow

>is completely ignorant of the actual claims of the opposing party, or the reasons they give for their claims.
Tell me what the "actual claims" and "reasons" are of creationists and educators who want to teach creation as a valid theory alongside evolution. Because those are usually the types he's targeting

>citation doesnt discern merit, since you can cite works to either praise them or criticize them
irrelevant, since critique is an essential part of the scientific process. You seem to forget that. The fact that his works gets attention, whether "praise" or criticism, means it's significant

>>7090016
>Every genius has been a high schooler, does that mean every high schooler is a genius?
>missing the point
how can anyone be this stupid

>>7090121
I must have misinterpreted but if we define good as following the words of god literally as they have been presented to us that we are following them, then we can do good.

In other example, if we try to follow the words of god and we cannot, but by trying god manifests good in us ( because we cannot understand the meaning of the rules, but attempting to follow them creates meaningful good ) we are doing good.

I'm sure there are other interpretations of godlike good, but clearly they have nothing to do with human-human interactions and have more to do with an indiscernable 'objective-godlike-truth', which cannot be touched by argument?

>known for; fellow academics; complete ignorance
I don't have time to watch a barn full of straw burn down. I'm only going to refer you to YEC's and hollow earth theorists as to why he is so flagrant in his disrespect for anti science advocates. (much like their disrespect for the scientific principles they marr in their obvious misinterpretations)

>meaingful contributions
If you spur discussion you do in a minor way contribute. The rest of your argument basically devolves into a pointless parade of science bashing, and senseless believe that religious parables parallel scientific dogma in their perveance. Scientists that get published in any worthwhile paper discuss the foundations of their systems of believes in respect to the new knowledge, so they don't rely on the repetition of dogma ( by part ), although there's definitely hand waving. to discredit them all without reading any of them just shows your blatant bias against Richard and science as a whole.

>>7089434
>thinking he's convincing anyone other than himself and people who already agree with him by posting this

>>7090178
I'm trying to show you how pointless your excersize in making that comparison was - so thank you for missing my point.

>>7090016
>High school students have been on scientific papers, and in any case your argument is meaningless. Only the quality of his work matters and since I know you've read none of it what's the point in talking to you but i will.
Just more fukin rekt holy shit
You didn't ignore what I said at all

>>7090016
>Comparing Dawkins to a high schooler in order to push the idea that he is incompetent. Every genius has been a high schooler, does that mean every high schooler is a genius?
This isn't what I said or relevant to the discussion at all.
>Literally a strawman - you can't even define what you're saying.
Except I can and if you weren't autistic I wouldn't need to. Reiterating an old concept means nothing and shows no progress. If you honestly didn't understand that then I don't know how you're able to use a computer.
>bashing religion
No, they are often more about the physical nature of the world than they are about bashing religion. That's more his public persona.
I never said this. Attacking a point I didn't make like this is actual strawmanning.

>>7090166
>...therefore he is unintelligent / incompetent? Sorry, but I don't follow
perhaps it's because you forgot to complete the sentence, try reading the full text next time
>Tell me what the "actual claims" and "reasons" are of creationists and educators who want to teach creation as a valid theory alongside evolution. Because those are usually the types he's targeting
one of his most famous books,The God Delusion, targets theism in general.
>irrelevant
how is it irrelevant? it goes against your claim that the only reason to cite someone is to build on his supposed contributions
> The fact that his works gets attention, whether "praise" or criticism, means it's significant
a guy mooning on the street gets attention, YECs get attention, Astrology gets attention, Elliot Roedger gets attention does that make them significant, in the sense you mean significant?
>>7090186
>I don't have time to watch a barn full of straw burn down. I'm only going to refer you to YEC's and hollow earth theorists as to why he is so flagrant in his disrespect for anti science advocates.
>i'll label it as straw, see if that works
both of us know well that Dawkins' criticism is FAR more extensive than creationism and the like for being antiscience(and no, asserting that religion is inherently anti science doesnt make it true, you have to argue in order to make such claims. And when it comes to arguing, Dawkins falls short)

>The rest of your argument basically devolves into a pointless parade of science bashing

lol, ok

>to discredit them all without reading any of them just shows your blatant bias against Richard and science as a whole.
yes, because criticizing one man and a common attitude among certain academics means i reject science, even though both claims arent correlated in the least

>>7089476
Is there anything wrong with catering towards people doubting their faith? All the book did was succinctly summarise some of the points for and against a theistic worldview. I would argue that the book was written for all laypeople, regardless of religious affinity. I'll agree that it didn't break any new ground but Dawkins is considered by many to be a fairly accomplished writer and succeeded in bringing the debate to a new audience.

>replaces religious dogma with scientific dogma
I'm not sure the far-reaching consequences of the book's publication should have any real bearing upon reviews of the book itself. Although I still feel that this 'scientific dogma' issue is somewhat contrived to a degree

>>7090252
You've avoided saying anything though bro. Let me reiterate.

>it requires 'x' which people don't have
So he was just given those and did not by merit of impressing his peers in academia, or his writting. Well I can't argue it either way since I wasn't there, but you telling me most HS students can't doesn't mean that those with merit couldn't. Basically you're coping out on your own shitty argument by running away from supporting it.

>citations don't mean anything
But they do as I already said for many different reasons, even if they are negative ones ( which they mostly aren't ).

>strawmen
>Ignore, report, hide.
yep, you're a champ retard
>ignoring what I said
You're a terribly bad troll m8.

>>7090264
yeah it is; you are arguing a vague generality without evidence. You need to objectively critique his merit on any particular idea and then compare that to how a high schooler would explore the idea ( and discover observable parallels ), which you won't do. So, I threw another useless generality into the argument xD

>>7090264
>reiterating an old concept
Address the specifics of what meaning can be derived from an old concept or fuck off. You are a useless shit poster. Atoms are an old concept bro, guess what they were objectively discovered too! They mean something different? Yea they do, just like the treatment of a gene as the subject of evolutionary pressure in population genetics.

>bashing religion
I'm losing track of the number of people i'm arguing with sorry... Take it with a grain of salt considering all you retards do is repeat yourself and pretend you have addressed my points.


>>7090278
>anti science sentiment
Yeah, there's no where I can take this. Tons of examples of people who have been lambastard, killed, paraih'd because of their 'new scientifc thought' and the general public just jumps on the bandwagon.
That and religious makes a ton of random claims about the history of the earth that go against some bits of science, which are met with massive hostility. ( evolution, plate tectonics, carbon dating, salt deposition history, dinosaurs, earth's orbit, the soul manifesting physically).

Honestly garbage argument to say he's more extensive because he gets into greater detail. That's equivalent to crying because someone rebuts your idea better...

>only the people associated with richard dawkins do bad science ( in order to support your claim that his citations are meaningless / or not good )
Yeah, ok. I'm not going to read a bunch of fucking random papers to rebut you for your insane projection of more than n>30 papers. Statistically you are arguing that it is the process of paper publication that is fallacious, which is the foundation of science, hence why i said that yes you are anti-science.

>common attitude among academics
Why is it wrong for academics to hate those people who have blantantly incorrect assertions "based on science" (e.g. young earthers)?

>>7090325
I'll be back tonight. I need a break from the shitposting, feel free to legitimately address anything discussed in this thread.

>>7090325
>That and religious makes a ton of random claims about the history of the earth...
i really doubt youve actually read the claims of religion, see? both of us can play this game!
>evolution, plate tectonics, carbon dating, salt deposition history, dinosaurs, earth's orbit, the soul manifesting physically
HA! give me a break, is salt deposition history meant to argue that salt levels among christians increased after darwin?
>Honestly garbage argument to say he's more extensive because he gets into greater detail. That's equivalent to crying because someone rebuts your idea better...
of course, because all religious people assert YEC or Hollow earth, and theism ABSOLUTELY depends on the former being true.
do you even hear yourself?
>Statistically you are arguing that it is the process of paper publication that is fallacious
lol, nice
>Why is it wrong for academics to hate those people who have blantantly incorrect assertions "based on science" (e.g. young earthers)?
well, it is wrong to hate anyone in principle

and why do you want to bring the YEC? those arent the ones im talking about, im talking about the materialist/naturalist approach to science in general

>>7089426
All his books are full of shit; not that you would expect anything else from someone who doesn't think and engages in blind faith.

>>7089821
While memetics has gained a few boosters in fields that study culture such as social psychology, sociology, and anthropology, it has largely been ignored as a methodological approach or met with harsh criticism. In the final issue of the Journal of Memetics, Bruce Edmonds argued that memetics had "failed to produce substantive results," writing "I claim that the underlying reason memetics has failed is that it has not provided any extra explanatory or predictive power beyond that available without the gene-meme analogy."

Climbing Mount Improbable is a fantastic book

>>7090375
>i doubt you read the claims of religious
Literally make a single direct claim in your posts so we can play?
>salt deposition
Niceeeee strawman bro. In regards to your collective texts' baseless idea of a great flood? Or you could address any of the hateful commentary thrown at those sciences on their inceptions by the religious, or you could consider the insane 'evidence' dredged up by the religious groups i've mentioned. But that's cool you can just cherry pick your 'religious' denomination.

>absolutely depends on the former being true
If you believe in absolute religion then yes you must accept your text's discussion of the origin of the earth, or you aren't an authentic religious person? I don't even know who this religious subset you're describing is? The weak religious// spiritual non practicing christian who was brought up believing in god?

>lol nice
can you address any of the bullshit you spout? Or are you just going to cherry pick the papers you are going to critique without reading any of them, that's insane...

>wrong to hate anyone
Yeah bruh, cause emotions don't exist and humans don't need to control and transcend them every day. xD

>ist/ist (without any understanding of the words)
You're garbage.

>>7089474
>le ironic post with meme slang that shits on posts with 1000x the content
simply ebin

>>7090463
>Niceeeee strawman bro
>cant even know what a strawman is
i wasnt strawmanning, i was mocking you, anonymous
>If you believe in absolute religion then yes you must accept your text's discussion...
in what manner? metaphorical? scientific? historical? why one and not the other?
and my claim was that THEISM doesnt depend on YEC being true, you can have theism without religion, if you didnt already know that (you didnt)
>Yeah bruh, cause emotions don't exist and humans don't need to control and transcend them every day. xD
literally what, how does that make hate not wrong?
>make claims about what other people believe without asking them what they believe
no u

I'm a Christian. I like Christian writers. I especially like many of the Christian nonfiction writers of the early 20th century.

I find Dawkins' thoughts on religion mostly awful, but he was performing one real public service in going on about evolution: many Christian writers simply did not understand the theory of evolution. I have seen otherwise brilliant writers criticize the theory of evolution for being non-explanatory because it required randomness to explain human complexity. Which is obviously nonsense to anyone who understands the theory. The misunderstanding was very common among many otherwise educated and even intelligent people.

Dawkins was a little out of his depths dealing with religion, but he was right to criticize common misunderstandings of evolutionary theory. Many people still don't understand it. As a popularizer of science he's not so bad.

>>7090653
>ebinn ay lmao git rekt
Thanks for proving yourself incapable of an argument, not that the other shiposts didn't?

>strawman
>make up a shitty argument to knock down
do you deliberately create hypocrisy in every statement you make?

>absolute religion
All of those contexts because you can't exist in a world without them - but cherry pick your argument. I'm giving an example of literal religious interpretation, the only religious interpretation that makes sense given the rule-set/meaning argument i discussed earlier. You cannot have religion without a young earth argument given the context of a non-naturalist approach ( what you seem to indicate you believe you have ).

>hate not wrong
Hate is fine, its acting on emotions like hate that is wrong - and only if you do something that hurts others... It is really like you don't understand what an argument is even supposed to look like.

> claims about other
I supposed a posibility because you give me literally nothing to work with except: "there is an example I swear you just don't see it yet bruh"


Give me any such example of demographic or system of belief? Seriously the fact that people like you vote makes me believe democracy shouldn't exist in its current form.

>>7090709
>>ebinn ay lmao git rek
who said this? not me
>make up a shitty argument to knock down
i didnt do this, i was mocking you, not arguing your point
>the only religious interpretation that makes sense given the rule-set/meaning argument i discussed earlier.
you havent established this
>You cannot have religion without a young earth argument given the context of a non-naturalist approach
>if you arent naturalist you are YEC
im sure Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus were YECs
>Hate is fine, its acting on emotions like hate that is wrong - and only if you do something that hurts others...
prove it
> It is really like you don't understand what an argument is even supposed to look like.
hah, and you do? given you just made empty assertions three periods before this text im quoting.
>Give me any such example of demographic or system of belief?
theism, pure theism, it's like you havent been keeping on with what i was saying

how would he fare in a debate with Dawkins?

>>7090775
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/DawkinsGodDelusionPlantingaReview.pdf

>>7090775
Not well, because Dawkins is a pleb devoid of all logic and rationality, thus allowing him to ignore any legitimate arguments in favor of his deep delusion.

>>7090784
I agree with you on him cherry-picking, but I think it's a bit facetious to consider him completely devoid of logic and rationality.

That being said, he likes implying that science and religion are incompatible and seems more averse to a literalist reading of the Bible than a charitable understanding.

I saw, in an interview, that he considers the Bible to be one of the great works of literature but denies its applicability to contemporary times. I don't think that anything is further from the truth, and I don't think hes read very much 20th century literature (for instance, East of Eden is a modern recapitulation of the themes at play in the story of Cain and Abel).

I haven't personally read any of his works (except for a chapter from the Selfish Meme in a collection by Daniel Dennett), but he seems to argue that, because science offers a compelling model for the history of the world, it is the most compelling argument. Of course, I may have something wrong in this exegesis (as it is based upon secondary sources).

>>7090672
Good post