[ 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: 268 KB, 400x509, itta.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1754953 No.1754953 [Reply] [Original]

Just watched Dawkins on BBC Big Questions show.

All i saw were theists feebling arguing against him, and i felt shortchanged.

Are there actual arguments against Dawkins that don't rely on faith?

not troll, just

>> No.1754957

ONLY TERRIBLE AND EASILY DISMANTLED ONES

>> No.1755014

it's, like, the Jews, man.

>> No.1755015

Are there any arguments from Dawkins that don't rely on faith?

Are there any arguments at all that don't rely on faith?

>> No.1755017

>>1755015

it's, like, the all relative, man.

>> No.1755019

>>1755017
Well, that's just like you opinion, man.

>> No.1755022

link OP?

>> No.1755026

>>1755022

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__tSOHoYgJmY/TGjvk24e1QI/AAAAAAAAAFE/myUzV7T3OJY/s320/dawkins.jpg

>> No.1755027

Two of the best responses:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

Also, if you are interested in more by Eagleton, read his "After Theory," which contains an extended critique of Dawkins.

>> No.1755030

>>1754953

Yes - the argument that he has defined his terms unscientifically. He's invented a version of what 'religionists' believe, and he uses a no true Scotsman whenever this misrepresentation is challenged.

>> No.1755031

>>1755015

Well, you gotta have faith.

>> No.1755040

>>1755026
>>1755026
no i meant to the bbc thing..

>> No.1755046

>>1755040

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/images/progbrand/b007zpll_178_100.jpg

>> No.1755047

>>1755040

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0114q4t/The_Big_Questions_Series_4_Episode_15/

Should be up within a few hours.

>> No.1755054

Yes, despite his very astute understanding and work in evolutionary theory his knowledge of the philosophy of religion is basic. He uses arguments that have had responses made to them and in turn responded back.

>> No.1755061

No.

His analysis starts from what we do know and what we can know. He is careful not to discount anything without cause, but he insists that, in the least, what we do choose to believe comes from some reflection of experience.

His treatise is more against Dogma that religion, but one follows the other.

>> No.1755062

>>1755054

His appeal is largely based on faith - his professional background, doing work only a small subset of his current audience read, in no way prepared him for his current gig, but the informed attribute of his intelligence makes people think he must automatically be qualified to sound off on subjects he knows nothing about. There's an irony to the fact that this only works because people are in the habit of placing FAITH in reputed expertise.

>> No.1755063

>>1755061

Incorrect.

>> No.1755070

>>1755063

no u

>> No.1755072

>>1755070

Nah.

>> No.1755073

>>1755062
>>1755062

Are you criticising him or his arguments? What you just wrote doesn't touch on any of his arguments.

>> No.1755075

>>1755072

yah.

>> No.1755077

>>1755063
>>1755070
>>1755072
>>1755075

Best. Discourse. Ever.

>> No.1755081

>>1755073

He doesn't have any arguments. See >>1755030

If someone found awful and incriminating images on his computer, it wouldn't matter what his arguments were.

>> No.1755084

>>1755075

No, he has no treatise, his jeremiad is against Christianity, not Islam, because he's a physical coward, and he just don't listen to what people think before he tells them what they think so he can refute it.

>> No.1755086

>>1755062
>There's an irony to the fact that this only works because people are in the habit of placing FAITH in reputed expertise.
Very well said.

>> No.1755089

I love it when you see a goth's bookshelf, and there's a well-worn copy of The God Delusion and an untouched copy of The Blind Watchmaker or something.

>> No.1755090

>>1755084

I can't find fault in what he says, though. I really want to understand if there is a way to disagree with him, because the only people I see who do are clergy, who are inherently biased against atheism.

And, again, it sounds like you don't like him but haven't said how what he says is incorrect.

>> No.1755094

>>1755086

Thank you!

>> No.1755096

>>1755090

No, I already have. See >>1755030

>> No.1755098

The problem I have with Dawkins is that he, and most neo-Atheists, ride roughshod over the intersection of religion and larger socio-political issues. To them, it is simply a cosmic, Manichaen battle between the forces of rationality and irrationality; whereas, a more nuanced approach would yield a better understanding of how religion is part and parcel of (though not reducible to) larger battles over meaning, power, self-determination and control.

>> No.1755100

>>1755090
Again, read these articles:
>>1755027

>> No.1755103

>>1755098

The elephant in the room of the New Atheism is that not all atheisms are equal, nor progressive. Generally, British atheists are left of centre, and American atheists are right-wing 'Libertarians' (nowhere else in the world can 'libertarianism' embrace capitalism), frequently Objectivists.

>> No.1755104
File: 91 KB, 640x400, atheism_a4prophetreligion..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1755104

>>1754953

I watched it too, i didn't find either side compelling regarding the relevance of the bible.

NB. Richard Dawkins is a media whore, he does a discredit for atheism, he is kinda like a prophet for new atheism.

>> No.1755107

I really wish someone would examine, in print or online, the direct correlation between Dawkins' version of Darwinism falling out of favour among biologists and his career change to full-time Atheism pitchman.

>> No.1755110

wtf is new atheism

>> No.1755114

>>1755110
Basically, the new crop of Atheists, like Sam Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens. and the garden variety Atheists on YouTube. There are very real differences between them, to be sure, but what connects them all is their very evangelical need to spread the Good News of Atheism.

>> No.1755117

>>1755110

New Atheists are atheists who evangelize atheism, with the explicit aim of eradicating religious belief. By which they mean Christianity. By which, usually, they mean the Christianity of lower-middle-class people, not the genteel Episcopalianism/Anglicanism of their colleagues.

>> No.1755118

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

...that's it. Dawkin's flavor of atheism doesn't need anything else to completely crumble.

He's doubly retarded, because admitting and using the theist terminology to argue against them only strengthens their point. Theological non-cognitivism is the only reasonable position on god.

>> No.1755123

>>1755118

But does he argue that there cannot be a God due to lack of evidence?
I wonder who burden of proof really falls on when so many people burden themselves with dis/proving God.

>> No.1755125

>>1755117
>By which, usually, they mean the Christianity of lower-middle-class people, not the genteel Episcopalianism/Anglicanism of their colleagues.
Good point. Also, New Atheists have generally come out hard against Islam, which puts them in the unseemly position of giving ideological justification to an aggressive and brutal US foreign policy against the Muslim world.

>> No.1755126

>>1755123

I wonder why salesmen pretend to be customers.

>> No.1755128

>>1755123

Yeah, he's a strong atheist. The burden of proof falls as heavily on him as it does on theists. And his answer to Humean ignosticism is that it's not intellectually satisfying...

>> No.1755130

>>1755128

... or indeed marketable. Though he doesn't say that bit out loud.

>> No.1755131

>>1755130

If he only pretends to be a strong atheist on grounds of marketability...I'm cool with that. Retards can only understand so much.

>> No.1755136

>>1755131

I don't think he's an agnostic - the point is that what he's doing is intellectually dishonest whether or not he himself is an atheist - he's using rationalism as the pretext for an irrational conclusion.

>> No.1755142

I've wondered the same thing Op.
And after watching Christopher Hitchens dominate debates, I am left wondering if atheism is a point of view that can really be tackled philosophically.
My only idea is of apatheism, in the sense that to say your an atheist is to give theism credit, whereas it feels perfectly natural to not care about the possibly of an all powerful being existing outside of time and space, who is as far as we can tell absolutely indifferent. Arguing over god is about as persnickety as arguing for or against predeterminism.

>> No.1755145

>>1755131

Exactly. Let the Dawkinses, clerics and Coulters be shrill and bombastic for the attention of the mentally disadvantaged.
Personally I've found a wealth of evidence pointing at the existence of a creator, his other creations and older universes. The collective unconscious gives plenty of reasons to believe in things, but not to worship them.
At the risk of sounding haughty, as a deist these religious and atheist arguments are all very interesting and occasionally informative but that's the nature of history and history denial. Fascinating things that may or may not be true.

>> No.1755149

That Eagleton article is one big whine from theological liberalism that Dawkins doesn't take its angle seriously. Well, neither do the overwhelming number of religious people who are (evidently) so dumb they think 'God exists' is a true or false claim that a person exists who made this world.

Yes, if you redefine religion as a set of vague ideas it becomes easy to defend against anything...and it becomes easy to claim someone is ignorant for not knowing all the bullshit you're making up.

>> No.1755164

>>1755149
pretty much, except dawkins is being too rough. liberal democracy needs moral seriousness, and that seriousness is necessarily religious, although also necessarily naturalistic.

>> No.1755167

>>1755149
Oh no you don't. Just because Eagleton doesn't explicate the form of Christianity that neo-Atheists love to hate doesn't mean that his argument is invalid.

>> No.1755174

deism is entirely a biological phenomenon.

but, why would you then give up deism?

>> No.1755187

>>1755142
Here's the problem. Go to his video and listen to Chomsky at 1:05:30.
His point is that religion is not something that people can simply be turned off. A Christian, Evangelical mindset is deeply ingrained in our culture.
Just how deep is it? Well, as many posters have rightly pointed out, many of the pillars of Neo-Atheism depend heavily on Christian inflected concepts like FAITH, EVANGELICALISM, BATTLES OF GOOD VS. EVIL, THE CULT OF PERSONALITY, etc.
I mean, this Christian, Platonic ideology is at the heart of Western culture. It's exactly the influence Nietzsche and his 20th century anti-humanist foot soldiers tried (and failed) to destroy. Only a fool would believe that religion is a surface decision of whether or not to believe in a God.

>> No.1755188

>>1755187
Oh sorry, here is the vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUsXt8TmVfU

>> No.1755195

The Christianity of the unsophisticated masses is the genuine Christianity.

>> No.1755198

>>1755195
The only genuine Christian died in 33 CE. Everything else since then has been a variation on a theme.

>> No.1755204

>>1755187
Yes it is obvious we are greatly influenced by our society which we can say has been built upon Christian ideology, but you have to look at why that it.
Why do we seek out an explanation to our existence and our world? Because we are inquisitive by nature.
Is religion built into us? No, not in the sense we all prescribe to JC.
But do we always need a theory of why we are here? Yes, but thats not because of religion, or because of philosophy rules us. It is our nature to explain things in ways we can understand.
It is our nature that can account for all of our actions and thoughts. Our nature can be accounted for materialistically.

>> No.1755211

>>1755195
a name is not a thing.

>> No.1755213

>>1755198
all are in christ and christ is in all.

>> No.1755214

Dawkins is a single minded fool really.
He is the prototypical "angry internet atheist".

>> No.1755217

>>1755204
Right, and I'm not saying that if you can't understand the world in s secular, materialist way. That's fine if it floats your boat. If it makes sense to you, embrace it.
I'm specifically speaking about the Neo-Atheists. The only people who are blind to their zeal and fundamentalism is themselves, which makes it particularly embarrassing for them. Their whole ethos is deeply informed by Christian evangelicalism. They have the Truth, and through them is the way, the truth and the light. Well, this begs the question, why didn't they adopt, say, a heroic ethos from the Homeric Age? Well, obviously because Christian imagery, metaphors and poetry have the most universal currency in our fractured society.

>> No.1755221

>>1755114
>but what connects them all is their very evangelical need to spread the Good News of Atheism.

Which makes them just as irritating as those that they criticise.

Useless, the lot of them

>> No.1755222

>>1755117
>By which, usually, they mean the Christianity of lower-middle-class people, not the genteel Episcopalianism/Anglicanism of their colleagues.

LOL.

I stay out of reading any of the atheist vs. theist crap that's so in vogue these days, I have enough tedious crap throught which to read without adding to the pile.

So, consider me out of the loop, could you elucidate on your statement?
Thanks.

>> No.1755226

>>1755222
Not him but obviously there are more intelligent people and less intelligent people who are religious and the former are bound to have a more sophisticated and finer understanding of what God is or what this or that is than those who take the Bible literally etc. etc.
T. S. Eliot for instance.

>> No.1755227

>>1755198
Gandhi was pretty close.

>> No.1755229

>>1755222
I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

>> No.1755235

>>1755217

I understand you, but I don't think its fair to say we can't escape Christianity.
I can see problems with the arguments put forward by these neo-atheists, but given the context of the situation, the debate, the counter arguments, its unavoidable.
I see the problem localized. I don't think we are all compromised.

The one exception I do see is A C Grayling, who argues very logically, and isn't blinded by the experience. Again, he does fall victim to circumstance too.

>> No.1755237

>>1755229
Poor metaphor that doesn't really demonstrate anything.

What is your argument?
That philosophy, literature and art are irrelevant? That observations of the material world written in plain and unadorned English is the only important thing?
If that's what you're saying, I don't think much more needs to be said on my part.

>> No.1755238

>>1755229
>>1755237
Oh I see, copy paste. Never mind.

>> No.1755239

>Are there actual arguments against Dawkins that don't rely on faith?

Does Dawkins have any arguments that aren't entirely based off of materialism?

>> No.1755240

this is a video of a discussion between richard dawkins and lawrence krauss. krauss being an extremely good theoretical physicist, and also one of these new public intellectual atheists, but i think people will find him less militaristic towards religion. in the video the difference between them is discussed and its interesting. its not an hour of bashing religion, a lot of topics are discussed like education, evolution, various physics topics and a little about religion. its a really good format, not a debate but a discussion which allows for more fluid conversation. having typed all this i realise its not really /lit/ related but its very interesting nonetheless.

heres the link : http://www.youtube(dot)com/watch?v=ZLctxRf7duU&

oh and here's another video of lawrence krauss discussing for an hour pretty much explaining what cosmologists have discovered about the shape of universe and what that entails for us, if you love knowledge you'll find this enjoyable, and you dont need knowledge in physics to understand it.

here's the link for that http://www.youtube(dot)com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

>> No.1755243

>>1755239
Further to that I challenge anyone to prove that the only world that exists is the physical one (hint: that's impossible). It's simply incorrect to say that only the material world may exist.

>> No.1755245

>>1755226
Thanks. I was really only wondering about the so called "genteel episcopalian anglicanism" clap trap.
Growing up in the orient leaves one without a full understand of the various denominations of these other religions.

>>1755229
I did enjoy reading that - would you be offended if I asked if it were simply a copypasta?

Well on the matter of garments (whether imaginary or not), I was my hands of the subject. Though I must say that I've never been a fan of that particular designer.

People can rant and rave about whether or not the Emperor's arse is visible until they choke.

I'm going to continue to enjoy MY clothes, whether they are there or not - it's warm where I live, I don't really need them, but if they're there, I'll keep them on; can't really be bothered to take them off.

All in all, I'm not fussed.

>exits thread

>> No.1755246

>>1755243
Then again, isn't it theoretically impossible to prove that an immaterial world exists?

>> No.1755247

>>1755243
Will your life change so greatly if you discover it is one way or the other?

Useless academic wankery never helps.
The status quo benefits me, so I shall roll with it.

>> No.1755249

>>1755246
It's impossible to deny the existence of such a world.
There is no reason why it would be impossible to prove its existence, but the question of its existence is not what's important.
Rather the question is what is the USE of postulating the existence of such a world?

>> No.1755266

>>1755235
Well, it's a tough question. One level you're right, given that Christian imagery is basically the only "universal" language our fractured society shares, I suppose the most obvious and effective language Neo-Atheists could employ would be a religiously tinged vocabulary against its theistic enemies. But I don't think that religious imagery need necessarily be a detrimental one. Don't forget that the Civil Rights Movement, the Abolitionist Movement and Liberation theology were all important social reform programs that employed religious imagery to rally the people. Like anything, it just means that we have to be careful about how words are used and be sensitive to the consequences of, say, portraying American foreign policy against the Muslim world as a "Crusade," as George Bush did. It takes hard work and the hard work of being conscientious, whatever we do.

>> No.1755301

>>1755217
>The only people who are blind to their zeal and fundamentalism is themselves
nonsense, if they said the same things about politics or oil & big pharmaceuticals companies nobody would be complaining about their tone, why when you introduce belief in a supernatural agent do you get this double standard?

>> No.1755322

>>1755246

Well, if you believe that the Copenhagen Interpretation is an accurate description of the world, you have to abandon monistic materialism.

>> No.1755323

>>1755301
Well you see, this is part of the problem, that Neo-Atheists by and large are high schematic in their dichotomy of rational vs. irrational, at the expense of being able to understand not only how religion functions at a cultural, semantic, semiotic and political level.

So for instance, if I wanted to talk about the role of corporate and financial institutions in our life, how could I have a discussion without mentioning their affects on our political system. I couldn't.

Yet, take this debate between Reza Aslan and Sam Harris. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5og-hyD3A7A Harris summarily refuses to inject the political climate into a discussion of Middle Eastern mentalities. Or more precisely, he feels that Middle Eastern mentalities would become more tractable if religious dogmatism were taken out of the equation. What an absurd position! These things are inextricably linked, not discrete parts.

>> No.1755329

>>1755323
>Or more precisely, he feels that Middle Eastern mentalities would become more tractable if religious dogmatism were taken out of the equation
>These things are inextricably linked

And that's the problem.

>> No.1755336

an image painted, a house defended
concreteness and illusion, or is it imprint and action.

many a many levels to this house, alice dear.

>> No.1755347

read Hegel if you want an argue against Dawkins

Dawkins is shit-tier atheism and he doesn't understand religion

>> No.1755360
File: 20 KB, 369x576, Hegel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1755360

>mfw idiots like Dawkins think religion is irrational
>mfw morons think religion doesn't arise from rationality

>> No.1755361

>>1755329
Look, Chomsky makes the great point that up until the 1990s radical, militant Islamic fundamentalism was our friend. Remember who fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan? Not only the indigenous population but also a group of foreign fighters led by a fellow named Osama bin Laden.

And radical Islam was always the traditional barrier against secular Arab nationalism. Secular Arab nationalism, like the kind spreading throughout the Arab world right now, would fuck up US hegemony in the region, for the simple reason that the US supports dictators in the region, dictators who follow the US' commands; whereas, truly democratic Arab governments would not stand for our shitty foreign policy. For instance, the traditional US domination over Egypt, which has long been of strategic use to the US, is now in danger because of (you guessed it) secular Arab nationalism.

So things aren't as simple as they seem. You might deride these people as backward camel jockeys, but the truth is much more complex. I suggest you stay away from cleches.

>> No.1755372
File: 18 KB, 293x360, clairesknee1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1755372

Gnosticism = god-tier religion

Enjoy your edgy atheism, high-schoolers.

>> No.1755375

>>1755347
Yeah, basically Dawkin's "critique" of religion is stuck in the early 18th century.

>> No.1755377

>>1755323
>not discrete parts
then why the double standard?

>> No.1755383

>>1755377
Me no understand the question. Also nice dubs.

>> No.1755387

>>1755372

What's so good about Gnosticism?

>> No.1755393

>>1755387
Imo, it resolves all the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the belief of an omnipotent god.

>> No.1755397

>>1755393
I personally like the inconsistencies and tensions within Christianity. It makes for more interesting theological hand wringing.

>> No.1755412

>>1755397
Fair enough.

I'm really just talking about the problem of evil in light of an omnipotent and benevolent god.

>> No.1757204

>>1755245

It's not claptrap, imbecile.

Dawkins generally includes a caveat, somewhere in all his expatiations, noting that there are scientists whose achievements he respects who have some form of religious belief. In his case, this will mostly be Episcopalianism/Anglicanism. Why is it that he can respect that their capabilities as a scientist are not qualified by their faith, but he would never extend that courtesy to the masses he rails against? It's ultimately a class issue.

>> No.1757346
File: 24 KB, 461x403, 1298038352003.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1757346

i think prof. john lennox of cambridge just runs circles around dawkins every time they debate.

http://www.fixed-point.org

>> No.1757365
File: 79 KB, 689x600, yup. pretty rational..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1757365

>>1755360
>mfw he thinks religion is rational.

Or did you mean to ammend an "Except Muslims." to that statement. Because when you say "Religion is based on rationality," people like you tend to be thinking of all those kindly church folk on sunday who donate to charity, while people like me think of those guys back in Mezo-America who used to sacrifice human hearts to the sun.

>> No.1757869

>>1757365
Sacrificing to the sun seems pretty rational to me.

. . .If we don't do it the sun will DIE!

>> No.1757903

>>1757365
>dur hur im a dumbass with no philosophical education

>> No.1757913

>>1757869
I got sun burn. I say we make an example of the sun, before other celestial objects start following suit. What next, moon burn?

>> No.1757942

This is the best argument for a religion I've ever read. In truth, it's the only argument I'd ever heard that didn't grate with offense to logic. A note though, it's specifically arguing the existence of a Christian God. Paraphrasing:

If one looks at the texts of various world religions from a literary point of view, their elements and construction are that of fables. They read as fables, cautionary tales, fiction, essentially. The Christian Gospel (Not Revelations, and a few other things, just the Jesus books) reads as non-fiction. The dialog, action, pacing of the story mimics a news report or biography more than a fictional tale, and most fictional moments in the Gospel are when Jesus or someone employs a fable or cautionary tale in person to convey a complex ethical/religious ideal. The implication is that while other parts of the Bible might be argued with, it's harder to deny that a divine being came down to earth in the Holy Land, and if so, then the religion he supported is most likely true.

For those who are well read, they may recognize that this is the argument that Tolkien made to Lewis to convince him to pick Christianity over Buddhism(or some other religion he was considering) but it still doesn't do it for me. But I appreciate the ingenuity of the argument.

>> No.1757973
File: 20 KB, 249x249, 1282267906270.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1757973

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawkins_Delusion%3F

This book dismantles the God Delusion entirely. Written by Alister McGrath who studied biochemistry and molecular bio physics at Oxford, it isn't some weak American apologetics shite. And it is exclusively about the shaky logic of the book and Dawkins amaturish internet-mining.

>> No.1757989

>>1757973

Dawkins response:
>"Other theologies contradict his Christian creed while matching it for brash over-confidence, based on zero evidence. McGrath presumably rejects the polytheism of the Hindus, Olympians and Vikings. He does not subscribe to voodoo, or to any of thousands of mutually contradictory tribal beliefs. Is McGrath an “ideological fanatic” because he doesn’t believe in Thor’s hammer? Of course not. Why, then, does he suggest I am exactly that because I see no reason to believe in the particular God whose existence he, lacking both evidence and humility, positively asserts?"

Seems reasonable.

>> No.1757990

Well, besides the fact that a biologist has no place commenting on the origin of the universe? He gives the word Atheist a bad rap. We're not all egotistical chucklefucks.

>> No.1758000

>>1757989
If Dawkins has renounced the Christian salvation myth why has he not abandoned the progress salvation myth? 'One day we'll be free of Christians and their dogmatic thinking and only our dogmatic thinking will remain and science will bring us to a heaven on earth.' One faith for another.

And he has argued against a response to his book which dealt with each argument in turn with one argument from his book. How about some original content?

>> No.1758004
File: 19 KB, 370x309, hellajeff.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1758004

You think a man who was a professor of biology at THE most prestigious university in the world has no place to comment on the origin of life in the universe?

The communication of science is very important to him, and I sometimes feel he has made helping people understand the importance of scientific truth the meaning for his life.

>> No.1758010

>>1755084
That's not true at all. He has confronted Islamic leaders several times on television and in print, and has made scathing remarks towards Muslim ideologies. I read a short article of his about Wahabism once that, when paraphrased, said "This is exactly why I am against religion."
You're a liar or ignorant. Pick one.

>> No.1758018

>>1758004
He is commenting on philosophy and theology. It's like a priest reading the Brithish Book of Birds and then writing a book claiming evolution is a lie, just from the other side. He has no experience in these fields. Love his scientific words. Hate his bogus, circular attempt at philosophy.

>> No.1758019

Also, Dawkins tackles the subject from one small perspective and never has claimed that he does anything but that. He comes from a scientific background and he says that that is where he begins and ends his view.
If you want a philosophical investigation, as Dawkins and Hitchens have mentioned themselves, there are many atheist philosophers who have stated the case against god in that small perspective. Bertrand Russell's collected essays "Why I Am Not a Christian," or even just that titular essay itself, would be a good place to start.
What almost all of these people contend is that a disbelief in Christianity has the same arguments in principle that could be argued against any religion. They attack Christianity because of its cultural relevance, which I'll admit is exactly why it's a misguided and flawed approach.

>> No.1758025

>>1758018
>He is commenting on philosophy and theology. It's like a priest reading the Brithish Book of Birds and then writing a book claiming evolution is a lie, just from the other side.
And I would read that book, and if he made good arguments, I would disregard that he's a priest or that he has no credentials.
This is just a fallacious argument from the get-go, please stop. "He's not a EXPERT though!" You're assuming that all Dawkins has ever done is just breeze through the Bible or something. You really think a scientifically-driven mind is just going to read one thing once, never pick up any secondary texts, never in the course of his education prior to this had any experience in studying it, and never once bothered to examine the other sides of the argument, and never once considered that some portions of the other sides' argument must be omitted for the purposes of his own rhetoric? That's a little far-fetched.

>> No.1758032

>>1758025
Uhm, most of his arguments come from trawling the internet and he barely engages opposing arguments beyond dismissing them as stupid with ill-concieved analogies. He totally misrepresents things on the other side with rediculous strawman arguments. It is either ignorance or he is trying to 'educate' fence-sitters with a false view of things.

I was one of them. Loved the book when I first got it. Of couse I was an impressionable sixteen year old Marxist then.

>> No.1758036

>>1758025
Oh, and an actual quote;
"Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?"

>> No.1758045

>>1755227
No, Gandhi wasn't "pretty close" to any form of Christianity.
The firm conviction that all men are reborn inequal contradicts very basic premises of Christianity.
Ending British colonial rule in India was a great achievement, but Gandhi's actual believes, particularly his support of the caste system, where horrible.

Believe in karma opens up a whole new can of worms when it comes to religious opression.
If it was combined with the zeal for conversion that's found among Christianity and Islam, we'd have the worst religion ever.

>> No.1759859
File: 57 KB, 550x520, 1297992484407.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1759859

people come to believe in God.
people don't come to believe in Santa Claus.

we all agree that no one is perfect and that we ourselves are not perfect, but what are we comparing ourselves to?
if there is no God then we should never have found God, just as if there is no light then we would have never found light being creatures of perpetual darkness without eyes to see light.

>> No.1759894

>>1759859
Ontological arguement is shit.

Replace God with Allah, and Santa Clause with Jesus.

seriously, you just make a statement that is true to muslims.

Fuck, I thought you motherfuckers read books. . .

>> No.1759897

>>1757990

This.

Dawkins is a careerist, intellectually dishonest douche.

>> No.1759906

>>1758032
Your assessment is reactionary and juvenile.
Clearly not ready for rational discourse.
Go bury your head in the sand until that brain of yours ripens.

>> No.1759913

>>1758032

So true - his money is made from immaturity, these days.


>>1759906

Fnar.

>> No.1759932

>>1758000
First:
McGrath does nothing but make excuses to maintain faith.
Second:
Why refute an arguement with a creative and customized response when a response that you say had been refuted, as it is in the god delusion, does the job succeedingly?

You have the mind of a peasant. You parrot what speaks true to your own belief without understanding anything said on either side so long as you can feel justified.

>> No.1759936

>>1759932

HAHAHA! Get out of here, pleb.

>> No.1759938

>>1759932

> succeedingly

lol

>> No.1759957

If God doesn't exist, nothing is permissible.

>> No.1759958

>>1758000
>'One day we'll be free of Christians and their dogmatic thinking and only our dogmatic thinking will remain and science will bring us to a heaven on earth.'
that premise, if he indeed holds it, is not a premise involved in any argument supporting atheism, nor should it be

>> No.1759961

>>1759958

Yes, it's what he's about, you fucking cunt.

>> No.1759962
File: 92 KB, 750x600, Samefag.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1759962

. . . . . . . Just like every other religious debate on 4chan.

>> No.1759977

>>1755198
I love you, just saying bro.

>> No.1759980

>>1759961
because you say so, right?

>> No.1760008

>>1759980

No, because his writing says so.

>> No.1760009

>>1760008
where?

>> No.1760014

>>1760009

Every line.

>> No.1760021

>>1760014
seems controversial

>> No.1760023

>>1760021

Whatever.

>> No.1760042

The number of idiots in this thread is both impressive and saddening.

>> No.1760049

>>1754953

Watched that ep too OP. That show is the one of the more retarded shows on UK TV, but it was cool to see that Dr Fran chick who's name I forget.

>> No.1760058
File: 17 KB, 373x330, atheists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1760058

>For all the atheists bashing Dawkins.


He's not the best guy, but fuck he does get so much shit he doesn't deserve. I think it's just because he;s slightly mainstream that people get butthurt over him.

>> No.1760068

>>1757973

>Alister McGrath
>hahahaohwow.jpg

I remember seeing that tool getting the verbal shit slapped out of him by Hitchens/

>> No.1760071

>>1760058

No, it's for the reasons we've spent two days outlining, fucker.

>> No.1760074
File: 169 KB, 400x246, gervais.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1760074

>>1760071

>> No.1760076

>>1760068

translation: I giggled at him being shouted over drunkenly by Hitchens

>> No.1760080

>>1760074

No, I just like calling idiots 'fucker'. Gervais is an appropriate choice there - if you needed any proof that you don't have to posess critical intelligence to be an atheist, he's the guy.

>> No.1760085

>>1760076
>can't defeat drunk cancer ridden neocon in an argument

>>1760080
>thinks anyone argues that you need to posses more than 3 braincells to dismiss religious bullshit

>ho fuck, they so mad.

>> No.1760092

>>1760085

Yes, you have nothing to add.

>> No.1760105

If god were to speak to me and only me. . . Asking for the murder of any number of people for no reason other than he demands it. . . After accomplishing this deed I would face trial. . . My claims that the devine ordered me to do what I had done would be thought of as the ramblinds of a deluded man. . . Would that mean that I was deluded all along? . . Does that mean that those who didn't believe me were all atheists?

>> No.1760113

>>1760105

It wouldn't matter, you'd still go down for it. So, you know, orobably not a very good way to make a retarded point.

>> No.1760129

>>1760113
To those not experiencing god, those who do or claim to be appear delusional. I am open to the idea of god, but the shear number of gods, and the reactions I observe from those who serve them to one another lead me in no particular direction. I see tham all equally as valid. The most hardcore christian is just like a hardcore muslim in my eyes. Both ambivalent and violent.

When I ask for proof, I get the response; "No u!"
It's hard to take these people seriously.

>> No.1760164

Yes. but I don't know what he was arguing, I just know he doesn't have insight into magic objective truth.

>> No.1760175
File: 389 KB, 159x124, ralph.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1760175

>>1754953

>mfw i watch The Big Questions on bbc iplayer after this thread

that theatrical dyke in the crowd really rustled my jimmies.

>> No.1760177

His assertion that the prior existance of a mind that created everything else is improbable rests on the assumption that the mind is not a simple substance. I agree with this, but like, the philosophical zombies argument is still around. If you believe in souls or whatever then a first soul needs no more explanation than matter does

>> No.1760190

>>1760177
But there is no evidence for the existence of souls.

And anyway, anything capable of creating an entire universe must have a fair amount of complexity.

>> No.1760201

>>1760129

You're a bullshitter. No-one says 'no u', and of course you're not open to faith. Nor have you talked to any religious people. It's all bullshit to sell the Dawkins position.

>> No.1760203

>>1760164

This isn't anyone who was previously replying.

>> No.1760204
File: 48 KB, 675x612, itdo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1760204

>>1760201

Ask a dyed in the wool theist if there is any argument or evidence you could present that would change their mind and make them stop believing in God.

9/10 they will say no.

This is the reason I no longer debate religious people.

>> No.1760205

>>1760204

Why are you telling me this?

>> No.1760210
File: 42 KB, 500x500, fuck_you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1760210

>>1760205

Because I'm agreeing with that anon that arguing with religious people is usually a futile endeavor because they don't appreciate the rules of rational debate.

It's not bullshit to sell Dawkins.

They really are like this.

>> No.1760219

>>1760210
>Because I'm agreeing with that anon that arguing with religious people is usually a futile endeavor because they don't appreciate the rules of rational debate.

I disagree. Most religious people are still very rational, and often just as intelligent as those who are irreligious around them. The only difference? They likely fear applying that rational thinking to their spiritual beliefs. I had a buddy that best personified this… he was working to become a doctor, and had no belief in miracles nor magic. He did however believe in god and Christ. Why? He always simply said "because I don't want to end up in hell."

Fear is a powerful motivator, often moreso than ignorance.

>> No.1760221

>>1760210

Yes, it's bullshit to sell Dawkins while pretending you're talking honestly about something you've never done, and something no-one's ever said.

If you understand what 'faith' means, and still ask for proof, you are simply trying to start you can't finish, and you deserve to be demeaned.

>> No.1760223

>>1760210
>>1760210
This, which is why I ignore all thiest vs athiest threads or discussions.

>> No.1760226

>>1760221
>>1760221
Did you know if you wish it hard enough, Tinkerbell will appear for you?

not working?
needs more faith bro.

>> No.1760228

>>1760226

You're missing the point, which is that atheists are right about themselves. You are piles of chemicals with no essential value or uninflected identity, and it is completely legitimate to do anything we want to you to make your faces change color. Enjoy perception.

>> No.1760229

>implying the question of the existence of god is currently answerable if it isn't trivially true or false

>> No.1760236

>>1760228

You wish the world was a nicer place, so you invent a God which makes world a nicer place...

>> No.1760238

>>1760236

God makes the world a nicer place? This statement needs more Leviticus.

>> No.1760240

>>1760238

Well he tells you what you should and should not value and people who don't like to be individuals like that.

>> No.1760242
File: 105 KB, 600x400, capote_ball.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1760242

>>1760228

There is this thing called empathy.

I've found most people to possess it, and as long as they do we don't need religion.

Not that I rely on irration evolutionary impulses to maintain the order of society, rather I raise the importance of people up on their ability to create meaning of themselves.

Each individual is constantly constructing a universe for themselves which they themselves give meaning and value.

And that's the best we get if we are to preserve our intellectual integrity, and it's enough for me, sir.

>> No.1760245

>>1760238
leviticus was created in a time and place that was so lawless they needed a sort of structural draconian system. imagine post egyptian riots (which is exactly what occurred during the time of leviticus) but before there were modern convienences like hospitals, phones, police, etc. In many ways, it was a lot like Darfur was not too long ago. The fact they were able to set up any kind of structuralized legal system was amazing.

>> No.1760250

I think God is a manifestation by people as a way of coping with the inexplicable. The existentialists called this the Absurd, but honestly you can see people trying to deal with it everywhere. It's the reason the victim blame is such a problem in rape cases. It's the reason few people look at the death of a person in a single objective way (think of the death of Osama vs. the death of the people of WTC). When something powerful and immediate impacts people their very sanity demands an explanaition (we are rational beings). When we can't explain it....then we look toward things like science, or god.

>> No.1760253

>>1760250

or we blame the jews or the capitalists.

>> No.1760260

god=/=intelligent design

>> No.1760266

>>1760245
>leviticus was created in a time and place that was so lawless they needed a sort of structural draconian system. imagine post egyptian riots (which is exactly what occurred during the time of leviticus) but before there were modern convienences like hospitals, phones, police, etc. In many ways, it was a lot like Darfur was not too long ago. The fact they were able to set up any kind of structuralized legal system was amazing.

Doesn't make the laws within any more reasonable. The book spends half the book telling the Hebrew people what to eat, most of the rest of the book what to tolerate (certainly not gays), and what little is left telling you to kill anyone that doesn't follow the previous two. White supremacists couldn't have done a better job writing such a backwards manual of information. Many of the other Old Testament books don't fare any better.

>> No.1760268

>>1760260
the interesting thing about ID, is that science hasn't fully explained it yet....getting close, but not complete

I think most scientests just kind of take it for granted at this point, but the idea behind the orderly universe actually comes mostly from thermodynamic processes (the second law to be specific). It gets a little complicated though when you look at protein folding....we know that they fold up spontaneously due to a thermodynamic process, but it's so complicated we still don't even have the computing power to explain how yet.

>> No.1760269

>>1760260

Intelligent design = God, gods or sufficiently-advanced aliens.

Take your pick.

>> No.1760273
File: 61 KB, 400x388, pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1760273

this fucking thread man

this fucking thread.

>> No.1760281

>>1760266
killing as punishment durning that time period was considered lesser than exile. Exile was THE capital punishment, however without explicitly stating it, this also creates for your tribe another enemy to deal with. The difference in the punishments then and the punishments now is that for the most part a person was 'forgiven' after they underwent punishment. This is a diffcult idea for us, but imagine if after serving a jail term you were accepted back into society with open arms...everyone giving you just as much support and opportunities as they would another family member. There were not laws against homosexuality (as we understand it today...in fact men in that period were closer to each other than they are today) but the laws were against sodomy. Sodomy was seen as an unnatural way of just extracting lustful pleasure from a natural process. People were afraid that it brought about corruption (as it was commonly found in and associated with corrupt societies). The food laws were probably a propaganda system to keep the people of the tribe from mixing with their enemy tribes that had not such restrictions on food, which is no different from the laws that we have today requiring people to speak english if they want to attend our schools.

>> No.1760289

keep in mind though, even Christ broke the laws as written specifically in Leviticus and for the most part was not accosted for it. In fact in a lot of places where a levitican law is broken in the gospels, it's not even mentioned. We can only suspect that the hebrew society of that time understood that Leviticus was timeperiod piece that guided a lot of laws but was not to be taken literally.

>> No.1760294

>>1760281

Actually, kashrut likely was a way of creating safe food practices… the ancient equivalent of the FDA. As for homosexuality, men in ancient times were explicitly forbidden from loving each other in most middle Eurasian societies. In fact, this is even true of ancient Greece; while the ancient Greeks tolerated homosexual activities, romantic affairs between men were scorned and forbidden.

>>1760289

I agree with that statement. In fact, this is one of the major reasons I don't understand why Leviticus hasn't entered the Apocrypha at any point in history.

>> No.1760313

>>1760058
>durr you dislike an annoying faggot you must be a smug hipster durr

>> No.1760326

There are other atheists and secular humanists I like better than Dawkins. Grayling is an interesting writer that pulls off being a vocal atheist while not being a douche about it. If Dawkins would just stop degrading people who are religious as being "delusional", he might have a broader following.

>> No.1760572

>>1760326
I think he means what he says. I believe he has the right to express his opinions that way. Others have the right to agree. Dawkins is an atheist evangelist. His mission seems to be stirring shit up so people stand up and defend a stance they share. I would say it works rather well.

The thing most similar between atheists and religious folk; Both have people who choose a side while not understanding either.

>> No.1760580

>>1760236

Total non-sequitor. The person you were replying to doesn't wish the world was a nicer place, clearly.

>> No.1760607
File: 87 KB, 247x294, 126848641567.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1760607

ITT: 17 year-old armchair philosophers and butthurt christians think they're smarter than an Oxford professor.

>> No.1760615

>>1760607

That's right... put your FAITH in his expertise.

>> No.1760617

I'm an atheist rather bored with the idea of converting a few fundies. I just like to tell them that they are no different in my eyes than those in other religions they despise. You are Catholic and hate Jews? I see no difference. Sure you say different chants and whatever, but neither of you are right or wrong, in my opinion. Same goes for muslims, hindu's and scientologists (are they still a religion or do they downplay that now?).
In any case they all believe one another are false. I simply share that veiwe with all of them. You all seem to be wrong to me, pick a reason, others can fill in my answers while defending their own faiths.

In summation:
Christian=Catholic=Jedaism=Islam=Hinduism=Buddhism, etc. =/= Atheism.
Not saying any are superior.

>> No.1760618

>>1760607
This poster thinks they're smarter than Montaigne, clearly.

>> No.1760620

christianity, richard dawkins, and all of you faggots are figments of my imagination, deal with it.

>> No.1760624

>>1760617

You were already TOLD, last time you dribbled this fifteenth-hand warmed-over piss popsicle of an opinion, you fucking cunt.

>> No.1760628
File: 10 KB, 400x300, 1301522211654.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1760628

>>1760617
>Subjectivism

>> No.1760629

>>1760620
I actually enjoyed this post.
It's just fun to play with the idea.

>> No.1760634

>>1760620
Solipsist.

>> No.1760635

>>1760624
Clarify please.

>> No.1760649

>>1760617

Buddhism = Atheism

It is one of the few popular religions that actually doesn't have gods, and one of the major reasons that I wish we had another term for people who don't believe in the supernatural.

>> No.1760658

>>1760635

>>1760129

>> No.1760667

>>1760649
You are quite right, however, I still equate it in a religious sense to any other religion with gods.
I don't see the practice any more useful or true than the others. I needn't choose a side when all sides make little sense to me. Like believing in souls or spirits that live on forever. Even if buddhist wish to snuff theirs out of the cycle of reincarnation.

>> No.1760672

>>1760667

I needn't choose a side when I want to slap every part of your face.

>> No.1760687

>>1760658
I saw no refutation made to either post.
A statement that I am full of shit, though true at times, does not mean I am lying on this subject.
Am I full of shit because if I perform a certain ritual or undergo a certain brainwashing I would change my mind? Please tell me in detail what must be done to prove to me personally a particular religion is true.
I have been through this process before if you suggest either baptism by tongues or partaking in the eucharist. I have also read and thrown away a copy of Dianetics.

>> No.1760694

>>1760687

FUCK OFF YOU BULLSHITTER.

>> No.1760695

>>1760672
I would love to oblige, if you would cuddle me afterward.

>> No.1760698

>>1760694
Oh dear. Being TOLD is satisfying in a devious way.

>> No.1760704

>>1760695

Drop the strained pseudo-sophistication, you were born to be abused.

>> No.1760705

>>1760694
Provide an exersize in proving to one'sself that a particular religion is true. Please.

>> No.1760709

>>1760705

> exersize

FUCK OFF YOU ILLITERATE BULLSHITTER.

>> No.1760711

>>1760704
I enjoy it as well, if you hadn't noticed.
The only reason to debate with the religious is for the reaction they provide. It will allways end in either violence or namecalling. Be it amongst eachother, Baptists and Pentacostals, or those of different gods/no god.

>> No.1760712

>>1760709
I wonder if you will resort to doublenigger?

>> No.1760719

>>1760711

I'm an atheist, idiot.

>> No.1760724

>>1760719
>I'm an atheist idiot
ftfy. PROTIP: never use a comma between a modifier and what it's modifying

>> No.1760727

>>1760719
I don't give a shit. Being an atheist adds nothing to your garbage response. Atheists can be dumbasses too. Example: Yours truely.

It doesn't take a genious to disagree over something so rediculous as religion.

>> No.1760732

>>1760724

This is all that Dawkins fans are capable of.

>> No.1760740

>>1760711
>>allways
>>namecalling
>>eachother
>>Pentacostals

Your inherent superiority shines through

>> No.1760742

>>1760732
>Dawkins fans
Is that like a Dyson Ring?

>> No.1760743

>>1760740

A reading from the book of TOLD, 3:16.

>> No.1760745

>>1760727
once again, the erudition hurts

>> No.1760746

>>1760743
...but John doesn't rhyme with Told. So this is not clever...

>> No.1760751

>>1760746

That's why it's funny.

>> No.1760756

>>1760740
Did I mention that I'm an idiot?
Still waiting for an actual answer. . .
I am the common man rejecting claims I see as false.
Give me a way that will guide me to your faith. I will try it, as I have tried others.

>> No.1760762

>>1760756

You've been answered at least twice. You are a liar, and a salesman.

>> No.1760771

>>1760762
Where are the answers?

>> No.1760778

>>1760756
Certainly. Please gain a solid understanding of classic Greek thought, in particular the works of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. Once you have a thorough familiarity with, specifically, Gorgias and the Nicomachean Ethics move on the the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as his lesser works.

Then, when realizing that Thomism is the best philosophical construct so far devised insofar as it 'maps' to reality, contemplate how the existence of an objective morality, the congruence of Thomism/Aristotlean metaphysics and Catholic dogma (as well as Judaic ethics) result in certain implications about the nature of reality.

Start a thread when you are done and we'll continue

>> No.1760780

>>1760771

You've read them.

>> No.1760801

>>1760778
Thank you kind sir.
Half way there. . . A re-read may be in order.
I might get hung up on Thomas Aquinas.
I take it this would be Catholicism?
I enjoy it's aesthetics well enough.

>>1760780
Clever boy.

>> No.1760804
File: 334 KB, 574x430, Screenshot2010-04-23at31750PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1760804

>>1760778
>Thomism is the best philosophical construct so far devised insofar as it 'maps' to reality
>mfw

>> No.1760810

>>1760801

Don't take that tone when you're illiterate, you illiterate fucking cunt.

>> No.1760818

>>1760804
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/5571908/nonlinear-brain-dynamics-and-intention-ac
cording-to-aquinas

>> No.1760819

>>1760810
You win. I'm an illiterate fucking cun't.
One whom you cannot give an answere.
I suppose that makes us finished.
I'll miss you, sugar pie!

>> No.1760820
File: 31 KB, 363x310, 4274.fc56084_Let Me Laugh Even Harder.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1760820

>>1760818
>http://academic.research.microsoft.com/
>academic.research
>microsoft.com
Aside from the rampant non[sequitur in the article in question.

>> No.1760821

>>1760819
How old *are* you? And is English your native tongue?

>> No.1760829

>>1760821
I bet you say that to all the girls.

>> No.1760830

>>1760820
So you read all 26 pages of the journal article and went through the references in 5 minutes?

Suuuuure you did.

Tell ya' what, Sparky. Since a 26 page article on neuroscience (with bibliography) took you 5, you should be able to finish this in 20

http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Contemporary-Philosophical-Aquinas-Lecture/dp/0874621577

and this in another 15

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Rival-Versions-Moral-Enquiry/dp/0268018774

>> No.1760832

>>1760821
18, yes pidgin.
I do love to read (why I am here.)
I tend to get lazy after a while, also troll. This board gets tiresome.

>> No.1760833

>>1760830
>bitches don't know about abstracts
It's like how some people can identify bullshit from the smell, without having to go to the trouble of eating it up.

>> No.1760845
File: 7 KB, 206x244, gi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1760845

>>1760833
>>expects me to believe they have the training in neuroscience to call bullshit on a journal article by one of the world's leading experts on cognition by reading the abstract

>> No.1760851

>>1760845
>Thinks that's needed with phrases like:
In my experience there is no extant philosophical system than that of Aquinas that better fits with the new findings in nonlinear brain dynamics.

Well, that's just like his opinion man. It's also had relatively little impact.

>> No.1760860

>>1760851
Uh-huh. I mean, its not as if there might be an explanation in the long, technical article accepted in a peer-reviewed journal on neuro-biology and cognition that makes that statement understandable. After all, Freeman only has degrees in Philosophy, Medicine, and Neuropsychiatry and sits on the IEEE board as a Life member because of his expertise in neural networking and AI - WTF does he know about philosophy and cognition?

tl;dr - I'm sorry you think reading is hard

>> No.1760869

>>1760860
On the contrary, I am sorry for you. Critically appraising something is clearly too hard when one can just look at qualifications of the author. Did you read Freeman's article on how sucking his dick will help you achieve perfection? What am I asking, of course you did!

>> No.1760901

>>1760869
Oh, I am not appealing to authority, I am mocking this post

>>1760833

What's next? 'oh the sparknotes on Moby Dick sucked, so the book is BS'; 'I read the back of Gravity's Rainbow and it looked boring, so the book is terrible'.

Abstracts exist to let a reader know what topics are covered so that, if you are interested, you can read the entire thing. I am mocking the idea of 'well, there was a sentence in the abstract that I didn't understand, so therefore the article is worthless'

That's what the full article is for, genius - to actually explain the points being made. Thus, I mock the poster for being too lazy to seek the answers that are an entire click away.

Get it now?

>> No.1760910

>>1760901
>appeals to authority
>totally not appealing to authority guys!
facepalm.jpg

>> No.1760921

>>1760910
is this hard to grasp? I didn't say "Freeman has three degrees, therefore his is correct" I was pointing out that "Freeman has 3 degrees, therefore the entire article is worth a look". So far the only attempt to say Freeman is wrong is 'I don't understand this one sentence in the abstract, dude'.

Well, read the fucking article - the guy has made a career analyzing how people think, maybe it is a bit too dense to be abstracted fully.

Now, if you want to disagree about his conceptualization of our cognition moves from abstract forms to concrete ideas - let's talk. If you want to discuss Freeman's interpretation of Thomistic ideas of thought, sure. But 'I read the abstract so i know its wrong'? Deserving of mockery

>> No.1760964

>>1760921
>But 'I read the abstract so i know its wrong'? Deserving of mockery
>Mocking the status quo

>> No.1760975
File: 124 KB, 427x640, 1289276474912.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1760975

lol god is stupid

lol religion is stupid

lol so irrational

lol im so smart

lol