[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 22 KB, 242x242, doyouli.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1437930 No.1437930 [Reply] [Original]

Do you like my books?

>> No.1437937

Not really, but I've always been distasteful of intellectuals who gladly whored their theories out to make themselves famous because they didn't get laid when they were top of their class.

>> No.1437936

What books have you got? Shelf thread!

>> No.1437945
File: 324 KB, 800x451, .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1437945

>>1437937

I don't like you very much.

>> No.1437951

>>1437945

Go make a documentary, faggot.

>> No.1437957
File: 6 KB, 199x253, .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1437957

>>1437951

NO, IT'S YOU THAT IS THE FAGGOT

>> No.1437977

>>1437957

Oh, it actually is Dawkins.

>> No.1437982

>>1437957
God called. He says you definitely are a fag cuz he's omnipotent and evolution is just theory.

>> No.1437984

Hell yeah I want the cheesie poofs

>> No.1437992

Age has not been kind to Emma Wattson

>> No.1438014

>>1437992
Has she been writing books?

>> No.1438015
File: 8 KB, 260x190, s-CHRISTOPHER-HITCHENS-large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1438015

Fuck off Richard,

>> No.1438069
File: 235 KB, 440x410, 1227635635559wl2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1438069

>> No.1438076

>yfw Dawkins coined the term "meme"

>> No.1438085

>click on /fit/
>oh look a cool thread
>wait why isnt there any gay porn or jenn dox being posted
>OH THIS IS /LIT/ LOLOLOLOL

goodbye

>> No.1438087

>>1438076

>my face when it's pronounced meː-meː

>> No.1438088

No. You remind me of Peter Singer.

>> No.1438110

>>1437930
>Do you like my books?

They're ok.

>> No.1438116

>>1438087
/me:me:/

>> No.1438136

Books? I didn't know you wrote books.

I have seen all your youtube videos though.

>> No.1438146

>>1438087
Its pronounced mEEm faggots.

Saying Me-Me in conversation just sounds stupid.

>> No.1438154
File: 135 KB, 599x336, dawkins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1438154

i like magic

>> No.1438161

>>1438146
Nobody cares about your faggy internet culture, douche bag.

It's pronounced "mee-dee-oh-kurr"

>> No.1438171

>>1438146
maymay

>> No.1438195

>>1438087
>>1438116
>>1438171

Um, no. It's /mi:m/. It's supposed to sound sort of like "gene". If any of you actually read The Selfish Gene you would know this. Dawkins meant it to be a combination of "gene" and some Greek word which I forget the meaning of.

>> No.1438214

>>1438195

>mfw you fell for obvious trolls

are you autistic?

>> No.1438216
File: 64 KB, 646x536, carl_sagan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1438216

Dear Mr. Dawkins,

I enjoyed your books very much. I thought they were very interesting and thought provoking. However, I feel like I must say this to all scientist I encounter with as much respect as I can. No modern scientist is on the level as greatness that Carl Sagan was. Please, for the love of Darwin produce a Sagan clone and aspire to be more like this man.

Notable mentions: Jonas Salk

>> No.1438245

>>1438214

Nope, just a bit drunk. Although I probably would have done it anyways. My troll-sense is very weak. Perhaps I am autistic.

>> No.1438249

I think you know jack shit about religion apart from what you see on the news, and that you're a condescending prick.

That being said, I could care less. Your books are repeated word for word constantly on every internet forum and I've realized that getting upset over their blatant stupidity is a waste of time. Fact of the matter, people who read your books are usually just as closed minded as the people you deride. As you yourself are.
That being said, stick to biology and let the large questions of life and the meaning thereof be pondered upon by people who do not have their heads up their asses.

>> No.1438256

>>1438249

Give that man a beer!

>> No.1438272

>>1438249
>could care less
>umad

>> No.1438500

Think he's a prick who posts bigoted views of religions and tries to hide behind science to hide his close minded reviews.

You don't want religions to comment on science? That's fine. Why the fuck you then have the right to get involved with spirituality then?

>> No.1438507

>>1438088
I fucking hate Singer.

>> No.1438519

>>1438272
Do you not understand how sarcasm works?

>> No.1438521

I've never read any of Dawkins' books. He's always just struck me as such an asshole whenever I've seen him on television that I have no desire to read his work. I figure if I he disgusts me from listening to him for five minutes how would I feel after reading one of his books? I'm also not a fan of the bigoted Dawkins fanboys who feel the need to trash other people's beliefs because they don't agree. I'm not even religious and that strikes me as pure bullshit.

>> No.1438523

>>1438521
You'll get the point by page 5 but have to suffer through 295 more pages of repetition of the same tenuous, boring, not very interesting point: god doesn't exist.

>> No.1438524

>>1438523
god doesn't exist*

*according to scientific evidence and reasoning

>> No.1438527

>>1438523
The selfish gene is pretty decent as a popular science book. The rest are all just too up his own ass with self-satisfaction.

>> No.1438531

>>1438524
>as if using science, a metaphysical world view that uses as an axiom "God does not exist", can somehow prove that God doesn't exist
I don't mean to start an argument, but I just don't see why anyone would give a shit about this. Science is for asking "why does water freeze at 0 celcius" not for asking "why do bad things happen to good people."

>> No.1438538
File: 127 KB, 320x313, 1294559783817.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1438538

>atheists
>reason
>mfw

>> No.1438539

>>1438249
Lol u mad bro

>> No.1438540

>>1438076
The word meme can be found in Finnegans Wake also (page 527).

>> No.1438542

>>1438531
I don't disagree with you, I was just pointing out something that annoys me about Dawkins - that he bases so much of his argument on scientific reasoning (without ever pointing this out) and proves through the use of scientific reasoning God Doesn't Exist. As if anyone intelligent had claimed that God exists using this scientific paradigm... it's ludicrous.

>> No.1438550

>>1438542
Just food for thought..
The main difference between an atheist and a theist is that an atheist can not possibly comprehend the idea that that there might be something outside of our perception.
In the atheist wold, the only thing that will ever exist is what we can measure or hold in our hands.

Science is the study of the natural world. Of course Dawkins looks at everything through science, he thinks the natural world(or more specifically, how he perceives it) is all that exists.

>> No.1438552

>>1438550
No, the main difference between an atheist and a theist is that an atheist does not believe in God, and a theist does.

Any other definition is you baselessly theorizing.

>> No.1438556

>>1438552
But WHY does one believe and the other not, that's my point.
It's two different ways of looking at the world. Ultimately the perspective you have is more important then anything else.

>> No.1438557

>>1438550
You're thinking of materialists, not atheists.

>> No.1438559

>>1438557
They usually go hand in hand, to be honest.

>> No.1438561

>>1438556
The why is different for each individual atheist or theist. The term only indicates the end result.

>> No.1438563

>>1438561
I'd say not each individual atheist, broad generalities do arise.

>> No.1438564

>>1438559
In certain time periods and certain cultures, maybe. But it's not some universal thing. Atheism and theism have been around for a lot longer than Dawkins has been writing books. The concepts stretch back millenia.

>> No.1438565

>>1438564
Well so does the concept of the "atom" but that doesn't mean we have to appeal to Democritus anytime we try to perform chemistry.

>> No.1438573

>>1438565
But if you say "atheist" and really mean "edgy internet teenagers hellbent on rebelling against their religious parents," you should indicate that. If you say atheist and mean "the current crop of Western materialist logical positivist scientists" you should indicate that. Atheism is a large, all-encompassing term. If you are referring to a small subset of those atheists it would make sense to mention that.

>> No.1438619

Dawkins is a very competent writer and at times I believe people are unjustified in calling him a prick - usually for quotes out of context that just sounds bad alone

His love for science is infectious and I commend him for that

>> No.1438623

Wait till Richard hits like 60-70, he'll start believing in God again.

>> No.1438706

>if you say "atheist" and really mean "edgy internet teenagers hellbent on rebelling against their religious parents," you should indicate that. If you say atheist and mean "the current crop of Western materialist logical positivist scientists"
hurr >implying there's a difference

>> No.1438720

>>1438573
Subset?

Kid, you're talking about reasons for being an atheist not different types of atheism. Get a clue.

>> No.1438837

I forget what its called, but he supports the idea that Earth as a whole is one giant organism. This is no different than all the religious beliefs that God is everything. He believes in God but he doesn't' even realize it.

>> No.1438842

>>1438837
sounds like spinozism or a monad.

>> No.1438844

>>1438842
Sounds like my balls slapping against your chin.

>> No.1438845

>>1438837
Ugh. He believes in Gaia theory?

>> No.1438848

If I were Dawkins, I'd go more and more extreme in my opinions about the (non)existance of God. Then, when about to die, I'd make sure I'm surrounded by several reporters videotaping my last words and yell: now, I proceed to encounter my master Jesus, who encommended me the holy task of making you, humans, doubt me. My job is done. Now, burn in hell, you atheists.

>> No.1438849

His books are better than his ability to speak, that's for sure.

>This is England's version of the jonas' or w/e male is hottest currently.

>> No.1438860

Sure is trolls in here, Richard.

>> No.1438861

It's a shame, really. He had the chance to become a respected scientist. Instead he offends people just to make a quick buck.

>> No.1438868

>>1438861
considering the pay and respect your average scientist gets, I'd say he's much better off now.

>> No.1438942

Mr Dawkins i love your books, "The blind Watchmaker" was brilliant, i may not agree with your aggressive atheism your ability to put forth your argument is most excellent

>> No.1439724
File: 64 KB, 638x696, animal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1439724

Yes. A lot. Does it bother you that a generation of internet users think that "meme" means "jpeg of a talking animal"?

>> No.1439813

Why the fuck should I care about some scientist who thinks all of religion amounts to either Muslim fundamentalism of retarded American off-shoots of Protestantism?

Marx, H Freud, Nietzsche did atheism way better and it seems like Dawkins thinks he's the first atheist ever in the world.

Enjoy your audience of 14 yr olds, alienating intelligent religious people and ultimately only ever preaching to the choir of angsty teen boys.

>> No.1439816

>>1438861
>He had the chance to become a respected scientist
>implying he's not very respected in his field

>> No.1439817

>>1438540
And quark is in there. Joyce does it again...

>> No.1439825

I don't like it when scientists try to do theology anymore than when theologists try to science.

So no, I don't like your books, Doc. You should stick to your specialty in science.