/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21640353]

Anyone remember this book? How does it hold up? Are his arguments valid or is it typical fedora crap?

[Anonymous No.21640363]

>>21640353
it created todays trannies, so you tell me

[Anonymous No.21640370]

>>21640353
If one thinks of God as merely a bearded ghost man in the clouds who sculpts the solar system with playdough, then yeah it utterly debunks God.

[Anonymous No.21640583]

>>21640353
The German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk called this book one of the stupidest, modt banal, and philosophically illiterate books ever written.

[Anonymous No.21640611]

>>21640353
listen to me you stupid fucking retard because I'm only going to say this once, "God" is geometry and "god" just means astronauts

Now someone arrest Dawkins and put him in space jail

[Anonymous No.21640612]

>>21640583
he kinda looks like Einstein so he must be right

[Anonymous No.21640690]

>>21640583
Where did he say this? Source plz

[Anonymous No.21641272]

>>21640353
I think Erasmus and Voltaire made better cases. But something like this is more of a necessity for someone who actually does believe in the horrors of abramic theology; being genuinely terrified of their parents not getting into heaven, etc. and is psychologically traumatized over the thought of that. Or a parent who drowns their baby so it gets into heaven and avoids sin.

Also don't forget the ignorant savages in America and Africa and the Middle East who are more like this in their minds that we are.

>>21640611
heresy.

[Anonymous No.21641410]

>>21640370
SPBP and /thread

[Anonymous No.21641428]

lol I remember how about 15 years ago this was like a bible for all neckbeards

[Anonymous No.21641452]

>>21640353
It makes a good case for atheism if you are a midwit stuck in a religious mindset. But if you are high IQ and/or not in need of escaping a religion, it is an irrelevant joke.

Also, it is absolutely crushed by the argument in this book, which proves that there is an afterlife and that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die.

Dawkins book will persuade many midwits to abandon a religion they were already unsure about, sure. But the book in pic related is known to convince even hardened skeptics that there is an afterlife. So Dawkins would be crushed by it too.

Here is a very persuasive argument for why NDEs are real:

https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

It emphasizes that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

>"Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."

Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. When you dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep dream and the NDE world is the undeniably real world by comparison.

Or as one person quoted in pic related summarized their NDE:

>"As my soul left my body, I found myself floating in a swirling ocean of multi-colored light. At the end, I could see and feel an even brighter light pulling me toward it, and as it shined on me, I felt indescribable happiness. I remembered everything about eternity - knowing, that we had always existed, and that all of us are family. Then old friends and loved ones surrounded me, and I knew without a doubt I was home, and that I was so loved."

Needless to say, even ultraskeptical neuroscientists are convinced by really deep NDEs.

[Anonymous No.21641467]

It makes nu-christians seethe to this day so it must be.

[Anonymous No.21641492]

>>21641452
>"As my soul left my body, I found myself floating in a swirling ocean of multi-colored light ..."
But don't they consider it might be all just an outro your brain plays for you when you are dying? Feeling of happiness, seeing the light and so on, just a huge dose of hormones released

[Anonymous No.21641524]

[Anonymous No.21641544]

>>21641452
It makes evolutionary sense that our minds trick is into believing there's an after life, else why bother procreating? We need more than the gratification of un petit mort.

It also makes sense for an abusive, judgemental god to introduce doubt about the afterwards.

Also
>Proves

It's why we can't take Christfags seriously. Evidence for, is the phrase you are looking for.

[Anonymous No.21641550]

>>21641544
>It makes evolutionary sense
You believe in lies.
https://youtu.be/5o5bsxjG_CE

[Anonymous No.21641557]

>>21641524
Helping kids realise it's ok to be different is not akin to telling them they'll be punished for all time because of it.

Also is indoctrinating what were calling what hundreds of priests did to all those kids? Seems like the o should be swapped for an i

[Anonymous No.21641559]

>>21641524
Replace the top with a christer seething over a bust of a Roman emperor and the bottom with all the different brands of early christlarping (I think you call them heresies)

[Anonymous No.21641565]

>>21641550
>Hey guys come watch proof on YouTube.

[Anonymous No.21641567]

>>21640353
Skip Dawkins, start with the ancients

[Anonymous No.21641574]

>>21641550
>those scribbles
what prompt did you use?

[Anonymous No.21641764]

>>21641452
>"As my soul left my body, I found myself floating in a swirling ocean of multi-colored light. At the end, I could see and feel an even brighter light pulling me toward it, and as it shined on me, I felt indescribable happiness. I remembered everything about eternity - knowing, that we had always existed, and that all of us are family. Then old friends and loved ones surrounded me, and I knew without a doubt I was home, and that I was so loved."
And then everybody clapped

[Anonymous No.21641775]

>>21641550

[Anonymous No.21641802]

>>21641775
Is that girl second from top on the right Mary of Egypt? If so that’s very sweet. I once told a whore her story at the dreamy hours of night in an Alabama swamp. She liked it.

[Anonymous No.21641805]

>>21640370
this
it's so easy to deconstruct though, "The Devil's Delusion" does it pretty well
>god is improbable, therefore god shouldn't exist
>the universe is improbable, therefore it shouldn't exist, but it's here, that means there's no god
what
>simple universe, simple argument, simple god

[Anonymous No.21641813]

>>21641802
did she turn her life around and follow the example of St Mary of Egypt though?

[Anonymous No.21641824]

>>21641805
also:
From little Dawkin's writing I've read, I suspect that Dawkin's isn't an idiot. If so, then he's likely arguing in terrible faith solely to defend his position in academia and justify his career. As a politician lies to further his career, an academic will now do the same, though the naive would not expect such.

[Anonymous No.21641971]

>>21641544
>the afterlife is disproved because procreation exists

This argument doesn't even make sense regardless of your belief. You can easily look at hookup culture, casual sex, the existence of condoms, abortion, tube tying, vasectomy, or even plan B pills as a means to have sex merely because it's fun.
>Proves
>Evidence
This is why I can't take you fedorafags seriously. This is 4chan, not an academic debate.

[Anonymous No.21642049]

>>21640353
John Lennox absolutely dismantles Dawkins and his book

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zF5bPI92-5o

[Anonymous No.21642091]

>>21640353
His arguments don't even begin to address this "steelmanned" argument for the existence of God.

https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2018/11/22/the-case-for-the-physical-existence-of-god/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIno-PhSQlM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0BFJpKpwVE

[Anonymous No.21642116]

>>21641452
God not existing != an afterlife not existing. You don't need God to exist for there to be an afterlife. There are many plausible mechanisms for how an afterlife could exist, like eternal recurrence, quantum immortality, open individualism, and eternalism.

https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65jdcvSOOjI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w13yLq16QiM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSChbQEUP7g

[Anonymous No.21642124]

>>21641813
I’m not sure. God will help her though. I really believe that. I know she started praying and reading and meditating. Pray for her Anon please

[Anonymous No.21642291]

>>21641557
>be different
>become a label
Not even a christfag, but this is retarded.

[Anonymous No.21642332]

>>21640353
Max fedora. Dawkins is a retard.

[Anonymous No.21642342]

>>21640583
>fall for the Osho meme
Yeah nigga, for sure

[Anonymous No.21642363]

In case any one is ever under the illusion that the average IQ of /lit/ is high, these kinds of threads should be eye opening. Posters in this thread literally can't understand how evolution operates and cling to ancient myths as if they contain legitimate information regarding the origin of the universe itself. Embarrassing would be a charitable description.

[Anonymous No.21642408]

>>21642363
Evolution is a lie from the devil.
https://youtu.be/5o5bsxjG_CE

[Anonymous No.21642436]

>>21641492
prove it

[Anonymous No.21642483]

>>21641971
>the afterlife is disproved because procreation exists
Didn't say that. I said it made sense. That's a supposition, not proof. You get hung up between evidence and proof.

I, as an atheist would love to be proven wrong. How marvellous would that be? Another life after this? Assuming Catholicism is the correct answer (and remember, when you only believe in one god, you have to be certain, but just for argument's sake), I could convert, confess, and enjoy an eternity of Riverdance and Guinness or whomever sponsors the afterlife.

Now. Can you say the same? Are you willing to tolerate the idea that you are wrong? If not, then I have some bad news for you:

>Mark 7:20-23
>And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him.
>For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
>coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
>All these are evil

It's the pride that fucks you over. Now there are plenty of proud atheists, but not me. I honestly would love to be proven wrong.

[Anonymous No.21642491]

>>21642291
I'm not even sure you're literate. Yet here you are, the sum aggregations of a slime mould moving a mouse.

[Anonymous No.21642507]

>>21642408
>Evolution is a lie from the devil.

[Anonymous No.21642523]

>>21640353
It got BTFO'd with by an imagine shitpost upon release.

[Anonymous No.21642529]

>>21640353
An enemy that numbers time in millennia with a cultural basis that goes back to preliterate man and symbolism rooted in primordial homonids appears!
>[(You)--Choose your fighter]!
a) Richard Dawkins: rat-faced evolutionary biologist who popularized the word meme (secret weapon: Scientism; weakness: Kafka)
b) Sam Harris: midwit who solved the problem of induction (secret weapon: meditiation; weakness: complex thought)
c) Christopher Hitchens: reformed commie/former fag with great talent for rhetoric (secret weapon: alcoholic snark (aka Hitchslap); weakness: Neoconservatism)
d) Daniel Dennett: Saturday morning philosopher (secret weapon: midwit empowerment (aka Reddit); weakness: phenomenology)
>(You): WEAPONIZED CONDESCENTION! ALL FOUR HORSEMEN, I CHOOSE (You)s!
*****[Fight!]*****
>(You) choose: YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS, DO YOU?!
[Counter attack: nuance. Enemy isn't 4 and is unimpressed you don't believe in Santa. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: WHY DON'T YOU WORSHIP ZEUS?!
[Counter attack: nuance. Even myth is meaningful in a way not reducible to materialism. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: SCIENCE THOUGH!
[Counter attack: nuance. Enemy brings up the history of science and its complex relationship and continuing interplay with religion. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: FEDORA TIP!
[Counter attack: enemy is laughing.]
>(You) choose: NO YOU!
[Counter attack: enemy is laughing.]
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>[(You) have fainted.]

[Anonymous No.21642545]

>another day of christians playing 4D philosophical games instead of presenting proof of God

[Anonymous No.21642614]

>>21642545

greeks are from space, kill yourself

[Anonymous No.21642629]

>>21642507

evolution is an inside joke by masons, in no way is "natural selection" real or everyone in Africa would be dead

[Anonymous No.21642640]

>>21640353
I like the one guy who said that watching Dawkins try to do philosophy was like watching a dolphin try to tapdance

[Anonymous No.21642650]

>>21642363
Evolution is fake you disgusting criminal Admetus and Ivi were created by the Gods

[Anonymous No.21642653]

>>21640583
and why should I care about what he has to say?

[Anonymous No.21642661]

>>21641452
you're a schizo dimwit nigger, a walking dunning-kruger effect

[Anonymous No.21642671]

>>21642661
it's a shame reincarnation is real because I wish I would never have to see your retarded ass again

[Anonymous No.21642695]

>>21641272
>But something like this is more of a necessity for someone who actually does believe in the horrors of abramic theology; being genuinely terrified of their parents not getting into heaven, etc. and is psychologically traumatized over the thought of that. Or a parent who drowns their baby so it gets into heaven and avoids sin.
Dawkins' worldview isn't really any better; in his philosophy your parents have essentially forced you into existence as a desire-fueled DNA-powered suffering machine without your consent and there's literally nothing for you to do except suffer and then die. The only reason Doctor Dick isn't an antinatalist is because that won't sell books, he even admits in his other books that life under his view of the world is a miserable slaughterhouse of unending carnage and pain that has no purpose or reason for occurring and that human beings are basically Frankenstein's monsters that have been cobbled together by violent crude unthinking forces in order to ceaselessly perpetuate themselves.

He writes big blustering overly-flowery paragraphs about how the entire planet is a veritable hellscape and then he goes and has a kid. Even the meme-meister antinatalist-extraordinaire, David Benatar himself, has called Dawkins out for his totally inconsistent optimism regarding the human condition.

[Anonymous No.21642961]

>>21640353
It was always cringe.

[Anonymous No.21642963]

It feels like even when this book was written, almost no one in the UK actually believed in God. So why was it such a big deal?

[Anonymous No.21642983]

>>21642661
>buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword
>thinks he's thinking

[Anonymous No.21643004]

>>21642961

he got a worthless degree in theology. what a waste of money

[Anonymous No.21643012]

>>21642963

it was because of the title

the book had a good title

[Anonymous No.21643096]

>>21642963
>who are Americans

[Anonymous No.21643110]

>>21642661
it's obnoxious to read this post; you're a parody of every retard on this website wrapped up into one little faggot.

[Anonymous No.21643123]

>>21640353
Dawkins is a hack at best, retard at worst.

[Anonymous No.21643132]

>>21640363
/thread

[Anonymous No.21643144]

>>21640353
its the smartest most intelligent book you will ever read when you are like thirteen and a "gifted" kid and a faggot who does drama class and want to read big boy smarty pants books on the bus so that everyone can see how big boy smarty pants you are.

t. i was that kid

[Anonymous No.21643237]

>>21641764
>old friends and loved ones surrounded me
nightmare for me, I don't want to see my breeders again

[Anonymous No.21643276]

>>21643123

[Anonymous No.21643314]

>>21642629
>>21642650
>evolution is an inside joke by masons
>Evolution is fake

[Anonymous No.21643318]

>>21640363
>>21643132
I mean, according to Christians, so did God

[Anonymous No.21643323]

>>21642695
>his totally inconsistent optimism regarding the human condition.
>that human beings are basically Frankenstein's monsters that have been cobbled together by violent crude unthinking forces in order to ceaselessly perpetuate themselves.
Well that's objectively true about all life (apart from amoebas perhaps - who retain their purity of unpolluted oneness, praise be), in the most basic sense. It's not a philosophical proclamation to acknowledge that, I think that's where the theistic misunderstanding is; to look for ..uhmm.. hrrmm.. idk... what would you even call it... "grand universalist political narratives" in things outside of religions.

>>21642961
>>21643144
Thing is, this book meant nothing to me. But I guarantee you ever diehard reader was raised as a strict evangelical. There is a big differne between what I said, >>21641272
>for someone who actually does believe in the horrors of abramic theology; being genuinely terrified of their parents not getting into heaven, etc. and is psychologically traumatized over the thought of that. Or a parent who drowns their baby so it gets into heaven and avoids sin.
and with 'your' use of religion, where you don't really believe in it but you pretend to because you want a political narrative. For someone who would kill their baby to save the baby from mortal sin, for instance, consider the jihadi or genital mutilation societies, it's a different place entirely to where you guys are coming from.

I mean, in my experience, the cringe atheist type is always a former christian or muslim who was fucked up in their upbringing and is undergoing a long process to unfuck themselves; whilst their personality remains very much 'religious'... Matt Dillahunty is a good example of this, he's an atheist who was raised as a "holier than thou" bible thumper evangelist and his personality is still a "holier than thou" bible thumper evangelist. It's a narrow path to walk.

>>21642483
>Mark 7:20-23
also,
"they claim to know god, but by their actions they deny him,"
Titus

fffffucking christlarpers

[Anonymous No.21643348]

>>21640353
It's basically babys first anti-Christian book. It's really only good for serving as a collection of the most common rebuttals and arguments against religion. Dawkins other books are much better where he sticks to stuff he actually specializes in (evolutionary biology).

[Anonymous No.21643354]

>>21640583
Appealing to authority, this means nothing

[Anonymous No.21643363]

>>21641550
I'm not watching your heckin basederino tradcath youtube video. Hell I'm not even gonna click the link to it.

[Anonymous No.21643442]

>>21640363
You need to be at least 18 to post on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.21643445]

>>21643323
>who was fucked up in their upbringing and is undergoing a long process to unfuck themselves
The point is that they aren’t actually getting “unfucked” and are just being fed a new mythology/narrative in place of the old one. Instead of properly reorienting their ethics around a purely immanent, mechanistic view of the world devoid of nous or telos (i.e. “Nonexistence hurts no one and existence hurts everyone” distinguished from the purely theistic presupposition that being is an inherent good), the Dawkinsite merely seeks a replacement carrot on a stick to continuously justify the value of continuing human life, culture, society, procreation, value systems etc.

[Anonymous No.21643495]

started watching this because of this thread https://youtu.be/nQ-Y5NWV9kc

WOW he is the epitome of a midwit remarkable
"Stalin and Mao Zedong just happen to atheist" he admits to not knowing about the God of the quran in the first 5 minutes in a debate about Islam!

[Anonymous No.21643580]

>>21643445
>The point is that they aren’t actually getting “unfucked” and are just being fed a new mythology/narrative in place of the old one. Instead of properly reorienting their ethics around a purely immanent, mechanistic view of the world devoid of nous or telos
that's a little ironic; isn't that just another mythology?

> distinguished from the purely theistic presupposition that being is an inherent good), the Dawkinsite merely seeks a replacement carrot on a stick to continuously justify the value of continuing human life, culture, society, procreation, value systems etc.
I mostly agree with that take, although I never understood why some people need a fairy story to justify anything. You could argue that "needing" a mythology is a religious circumvention or side-stepping of reality in the first place, one that doesn't arise naturally anyway. I mean: if you're hungry and go fishing why do you need to pretend you're... "paying a visit to the river god" ...to explain why you're sitting with a rod waiting for fish?

>nous
but that's probably what you mean.

[Anonymous No.21643612]

>>21640583
Dawkins is not a philosopher but normalfags also don't read philosophy. If you want to reach a wide audience, you have to make it simple. You might wish it were otherwise but that's reality.

[Anonymous No.21643625]

>>21643580
>although I never understood why some people need a fairy story to justify anything.
Because life sucks and it doesn't justify itself, mere existence is either boring or painful, therefore you have three choices

>believe that there is some justification or greater transcendent meaning behind the suffering - or at least something that can make up for it (anchoring)
>ignore the problem entirely and occupy yourself with trivialities instead of looking at the situation with a sober eye (distraction/isolation)
>reject any inherent meaning and fully comprehend that bare existence is fundamentally pointless suffering, spend your time either regretting your birth or elaborating on your ontological despair to others (sublimation)

Absent some kind of "mythology" or system of rationalization the burden is on the person who wants to assert that it's worth it to impose existence on a being that will be subjected to excruciating pain and misery

[Anonymous No.21643748]

>>21642291
That's progress, chud. You WILL be reduced to a label and you WILL be judged by it. Those labels that are judged to have it worse are better than you and you must serve them before yourself or you WILL be punished.

[Anonymous No.21643826]

>>21642116
Infinite life seems worse. What if your life is just torture?

[Anonymous No.21643849]

>>21640583
>Some nobody called this book one of the stupidest, modt banal, and philosophically illiterate books ever written.
ok

[Anonymous No.21643856]

>>21640583
It's funny how Hegelians have the nerve to say that about anyone else's books. Dawkins's book might not be highly sophisticated, but it is clear, concise and makes strong points, even though they are relatively simple. The same cannot be said for anything Slaughterdyke and his Hegelian cronies have published.

[Anonymous No.21643863]

>>21641544
>else why bother procreating
The only reason you would want to procreate is if you believe there is no afterlife (hence why there are so many atheists and evolutionists who believe the purpose of life is procreation, rather than knowing God). Otherwise there is no reason to procreate, unless God commands you to. Ascetics do not procreate because procreation is the manner of prolonging earthly existence, at best, rather than actually attaining true eternal life.

[Anonymous No.21644247]

>>21642671
>>21642983
>>21643110
>boo-hoo, stop being mean
I don't care fags. You are retarded and your delusional copes must be ridiculed if you truly believe that you will turn into a turtle when you die. Fucking men in their thirties believing in fantasies, so pathetic

[Anonymous No.21644278]

>>the most retarted thing I've ever read

[Anonymous No.21644295]

>>21640353
He's broadly right about biology and evolution, his actual field.

[Anonymous No.21644329]

>>21640353
Dawkins is probably smarter that anyone here and yet you people act like you understand this book.

[Anonymous No.21644799]

>>21644329
Dawkins is a counter-initiation agent working for the vatican to attack gnosticism and I'm going to masturbate when he's dead

[Anonymous No.21644809]

The moderators who deleted the post about NDEs deserve to be tortured

[Anonymous No.21645192]

>>21643856
Peter Sloterdijk isn't a Hegelian you ignorant babboon.

[Anonymous No.21645309]

>>21641567
>Sigmund Freud
>taking his opinion on anything other than psychology seriously
this board is going down-hill.

[Anonymous No.21645370]

>>21643856
>and makes strong points
No it doesn't lol

[Anonymous No.21645774]

>>21645370
You haven't read it, so why you comment?

[Anonymous No.21645813]

>>21644809
it was just that one faggot shilling his book again. good riddance

[Anonymous No.21645826]

>>21640583
Based German

[Anonymous No.21645877]

>>21642363
People here don't really believe in Christianity per se but in the idea of being "religious" as a contrarian reaction against "Liberalism" or "Globohomo", it's derived from the Gamergate/2016 era. Nevermind that Christian ethics are the foundation of liberalism. Actually I think we'll see more Dawkins posting in the coming years as fedora-theists start catching onto the obvious reality that it doesn't support their political program.

[Anonymous No.21645883]

>>21645877
>Nevermind that Christian ethics are the foundation of liberalism.
This is false. Liberalism is Luciferian. Lucifer was the first liberal rebelling against the monarchy (God).

[Anonymous No.21645885]

>>21645883
Cope. Actually read the Gospel. ]

[Anonymous No.21645961]

>>21645885
You don't know what you are talking about. No Christian believed in liberalism until the so-called "Enlightenment".

[Anonymous No.21645981]

>>21645961
Yes, and then they did, because Christian ethics laid the groundwork for it. Almost all Protestant denominations basically affirm liberalism, most of the Catholic clergy in the West are liberals and the institution is moving steadily leftward.
>inb4 "my special snowflake Orthodox ethno-Church is the one-true Church, so there!"

[Anonymous No.21646033]

>>21645981
Ironically even though you want to critique liberalism, you have fundamentally liberal presuppositions of viewing history through the lens of "progress" and also judging things by what the majority believes.

[Anonymous No.21646067]

>>21646033
What matters is what church leadership believes as they're the custodians of their respective traditions, not what the laity at large believe. Said leadership are now mostly liberals. Assuming this continues to hold, after what duration can we safely consider liberalism to be continuous with Christian tradition?

[Anonymous No.21646085]

>>21646067
The Bible says that there will be false prophets who preach in the name of Christ but are really of Antichrist.
Also, it has been prophesied that in the last days the number of true Christians (not merely Christians in name only) will be very small.

[Anonymous No.21646091]

>>21640353

[Anonymous No.21646098]

>>21640353

i have every richard dawkins book saved to a cdr-r somewhere

you can fit more than 800 books to a cd-r if you download mobis and epubs under 1mb

[Anonymous No.21646103]

>>21646085
>The Bible says that there will be false prophets who preach in the name of Christ but are really of Antichrist.
Okay, but one can easily imagine a future in which the liberal clergy in 2100-2200 declare that a (presumably) conservative Christian such as yourself is actually a false prophet. Who's right?

[Anonymous No.21646184]

>>21646103
goyim certainly do have a missing input protocol which they like to fill with absurd dogma.

[Anonymous No.21646211]

>>21646103
NTA but it's impossible to project the state of society 20 years from now (let alone over a century from now). Libtards assume constant progress and that's what makes them so dangerous in their hubris. The maintenance of institutions that brought us this far is what conservatism is about--the idea that it's about standing still is a strawman that betrays someone doesn't know what they're talking about. The saying that the church thinks in centuries is reflective of it's role as a conservative institution; the church isn't thinking "this is what we'll do if trannie transhuman nonsense comes to fruition" but rather "the unforseeable outcomes involved in such are dangerous, these are the negative impulses involved in such, and rushing into them reflects immaturity."

[Anonymous No.21646235]

>>21646211
>he maintenance of institutions that brought us this far is what conservatism is about--the idea that it's about standing still is a strawman that betrays someone doesn't know what they're talking about.
where did this off-topic rant come from?

[Anonymous No.21646239]

>>21646211
People say things like "Cthulu swims left", I point out that Christian ethics are giving him a current at his back, and then all of a sudden we can't extrapolate trends since the 1700s out another hundred years...

[Anonymous No.21646261]

I will never get the idea of these books. You don't need to be a scientist to say that, actually, it's not possible for some metaphysical spirtual being to materialize stuff out of thin air and make people live to be thousands of years old, and you obviously don't need to read a 500 page book to understand that.

The bible is not a science manuscript. It's a religious book, it's about religion, culture, etc People are religious because they are naturally inclined to want some magic, some spirituality, something in their life other than numbers and figures, which is also not hard to understand, I don't need a scientific book to understand that I love my brother or my father, and it can't all be put into numbers and words on a page. But of course the real point of these books is so a bunch of people can think "I'm so smart because I haven't been fooled like all these stupid religious people"

[Anonymous No.21646272]

>>21646261
You have to understand the God Delusion in the context of the Bush years when you had 9/11 and panic over alleged fanatical Pentecostal Christians in the White House.

[Anonymous No.21646288]

>>21646211
>the church isn't thinking "this is what we'll do if trannie transhuman nonsense comes to fruition" but rather "the unforseeable outcomes involved in such are dangerous, these are the negative impulses involved in such, and rushing into them reflects immaturity."
When did the church ever take that position?

I feel so frustrated that you guys don't more easily understand that the 'church' was, for centuries, the same people (faggots, incels, child rapists, petty authoritarian white people), the same mentality (violent social enforcement of totally stupid fairytale ideology) hard at work at the censorship as the "libtard" is today.

It's almost the constant culture, unchanged, for many many many centuries.

[Anonymous No.21646294]

Read this instead.

[Anonymous No.21646296]

>>21646261
>The bible is not a science manuscript

it's a mathematical allegory you fucking imbecile, biblical flat earth is plato's cave, the entire book is like that

[Anonymous No.21646302]

>>21646261
You have to understand that Dawkins is a retard outside of his field. He invested himself so fully into the idea of "Science" (i.e. indocrinated himself into scientism) that he's completely filtered by other methods of understanding. He's a literalist (ironically) and that makes him a terrible critic of religious understanding overall. His ideas are simplistic so they were picked up in the mainstream but not deep enough to have any staying power (i.e. one of the main reasons New Atheism was a short lived fad).

[Anonymous No.21646332]

>>21646302
New Atheism was short-lived because GWB left office in 2008. New Atheists split off into SJWs and the proto alt-right over arguments about Feminism.

[Anonymous No.21646343]

>>21646288
>When did the church ever take that position?
The East-West Schism, The Reformation, Counter-Reformation, etc.
>I feel so frustrated that you guys don't more easily understand that the 'church' was, for centuries, the same people (faggots, incels, child rapists, petty authoritarian white people), the same mentality (violent social enforcement of totally stupid fairytale ideology) hard at work at the censorship as the "libtard" is today.
No, you're projecting a modern stereotyped understanding of the church and are completely ignorant of it's history and evolution. I could point to something like the development of scholasticism (just one many possible examples) but the standard cope is complaining about the monopoly the church had while denying any organic interplay it had throughout history. Everyone understands that the church can be reflective of human failings--you're not a genius for figuring that out. The problem is you can't seperate yourself from modern biases and get a true picture of how the church functioned throughout history. That's why most atheists are retards--they state the obvious in the most superficial way and act like it's a profound criticism.

[Anonymous No.21646364]

>>21642545
I have photos of him but they're all over 500 GB in size and impossible to compress

[Anonymous No.21646375]

>>21641557
>"But what about when priests did it," Says Increasingly Nervous Tranny for the Tenth Time This Year

[Anonymous No.21646384]

>>21646091
that's a good list
AI might just be 'aight

[Anonymous No.21646765]

Proof of god: there’s infinite aspects of reality that are infinitely abstract. Relativity implies every thought is infinite multiverses.

The only god is love.
All is a thought.
A thought is a soul.

Magic is the thought that all matters.

Do LSD.

But all the best to Dawkins. He’s a good soul and a hero. Tomboy Yahweh, tomboy Jesus, and tomboy allah all love worshiping me eternally and sucking on my ass forever.

I love how dawkins talks about thought-viruses/memes.
Yes all is a meme. All begins as a thought. As we live in thoughts, as civilization began as a thought.

We must invoke good memes to invoke a good world.

The only god is love as the only motive is love and the only force is love. As all is consciousness. Observed quantum states proves all is consciousness and all is connected. All is a quantum state of infinite quantum states/relativities

Anyways there’s infinite more science to explore. everyone is god exploring god. God being real adds to the fun of science.
I love studying the abstract realms.

[Anonymous No.21646778]

I was an atheist until I did LSD and realized how abstract reality is.

But I still oppose bad religion

Religion has infinite room to evolve, and it must evolve.

The soul of heaven-for-all must grow forever.
Everyones truest desires are mutual. As true love is real and there’s only one love.

[Anonymous No.21646787]

The highest power is the highest love.

Lets recolonize Africa perfectly this time.

[Anonymous No.21646800]

Also also

Progress = absolute divinity and immortality

Inevitably we become the god we seek

Relativity also implies the future looks at us when we look at the future.
Every thought has all potential and every thought is a unique soul/god.

[Anonymous No.21646807]

The permanent death of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam has already happened.

All love to ever goodder religions being born. Only worship your love/lover.

[Anonymous No.21646979]

>>21645309
Freud is absolutely correct on religion, it is an illusion which serves as both fantasy and a provider of order (literally personified as a father figure above). You can't get more psychological than an imaginary father figure who demands certain behavior and then (supposedly) rewards it!

[Anonymous No.21646988]

>>21645877
>>21645883
>>21645885
>>21645961
>>21645981
>>21646033
>>21646033
>>21646067
>>21646085
Y'all never actually read the Greeks, have you? Our society's modern ethics are derived from Greek moral principles (which were poached and appropriated in Christianity).

[Anonymous No.21646999]

>>21646091
Huh, weird, it doesn't list anything along the lines of "being convinced by a logical argument for God". Interesting.

[Anonymous No.21647004]

>>21646261
Realizing religion is retarded nonsense doesn't indicate someone is smart. It's actually one of the most simple things to realize. It's once you clear away the flagrant selfish bias and wishful thinking in religion that intelligence can blossom.

[Anonymous No.21647084]

>>21646999
It is called the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG). It is literally irrefutable. Atheists simply do not know philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21647099]

>>21646302
The true irony here is that you are criticizing him for subscribing to the idea that you should question your own bias and beliefs when you, yourself, have an utter contempt for this and try to project this guilt in yourself onto someone who it does not even apply to.

"Scientism" is not a word. Science is about the desire to dispel false notions and replace them with more plausible ones. Theists, on the other hand, do the opposite, they cling to a preordained notion about "God" and deny any arguments that they may be wrong. In fact, most will even admit that, if they were shown factually that God does not exist, they would deny it and cling to God (pic very much related). In short, you are a hypocrite and a moron.

[Anonymous No.21647102]

>>21647084
>Transcendental Argument for God
It literally just presupposes there is a God. If God is in one of your premises, you can't then use that formula to prove God. Thanks for, once again, showing how retarded theists are.

[Anonymous No.21647161]

>>21647102
>It literally just presupposes there is a God.
That is not what TAG is. You have no idea what you are talking about desu.

[Anonymous No.21647165]

>>21647099
Science is not an all-encompassing paradigm. Science relies on presuppositions that cannot be proven by science.

[Anonymous No.21647170]

>>21647099
almost literally every "god" that humans ever worshiped was real, most of them were just white people. next are you going to tell us hercules was a metaphor or some stupid bullshit

stop polluting this fallen world with your ignorance. it's a shame you weren't in atlantis when it sank beneath the waves, because you don't deserve to be alive

[Anonymous No.21647182]

>"Relative truth" is primarily represented, for our age, by the knowledge of science, which begins in observation, proceeds by logic, and progresses in orderly fashion from the known to the unknown. It is always discursive, contingent, qualified, always expressed in "relation" to something else, never standing alone, never categorical, never -absolute."
>The unreflective scientific specialist sees no need for any other kind of knowledge; occupied with the demands of his specialty, he has, perhaps, neither time nor inclination for "abstract" questions that inquire, for example, into the basic presuppositions of that specialty. If he is pressed, or if his mind spontaneously turns to such questions, the most obvious explanation is usually sufficient to satisfy his curiosity: all truth is empirical, all truth is relative.
>Either statement, of course, is a self-contradiction. The first statement is itself not empirical at all, but metaphysical; the second is itself an absolute statement. The question of absolute truth is raised first of all, for the critical observer, by such self- contradictions; and the first logical conclusion to which he must be led is this:, if there is any truth at all, it cannot be merely "relative." The first principles of modern science, as of any system of knowledge, are themselves unchangeable and absolute; if they were not there would be no knowledge at all, not even the most "reflective" knowledge, for there would be no criteria by which to classify anything as knowledge or truth.
>This axiom has a corollary: the absolute cannot be attained by means of the relative. That is to say, the first principles of any system of knowledge cannot be arrived at through the means of that knowledge itself, but must be given in advance; they are the object, not of scientific demonstration, but of faith.

- Fr. Seraphim Rose, Nihilism: The Root Of The Revolution

[Anonymous No.21647192]

Atheists know literally nothing about philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21647236]

>>21647192
Religious "philosophy," particularly that of the Medieval Aristotelian kind, is junk for the most part.

[Anonymous No.21647244]

>>21647236
I am not a Thomist or Aristotelian.

[Anonymous No.21647266]

>>21640370
/thread

[Anonymous No.21647334]

>>21640353

I enjoy watching fundamentalist evangelical Christians and die-in-the-wool materialists battle it out with non sequiturs and straw man. The "New" Atheists have never produced anything "new" to the catalogues of atheism as far as I can see, except this little gem by Alex Rosenburg, which is the most hilariously refreshing take I've ever read from a committed nonbeliever. The Bible Thumpers are such low-hanging fruit that even Dawkins and Youtubers with Theology degrees can make fools of them.

[Anonymous No.21647361]

>>21647192
Most analytic philosophers are non-theists.

[Anonymous No.21647367]

>>21647361
>analytic philosophy
trash

[Anonymous No.21647372]

>2023
>People still believe in God

There is no hope for humanity. They will literally go out of their way to be stupid as shit.

[Anonymous No.21647380]

God exists noobs
May the father of understanding guide us

[Anonymous No.21647387]

>>21643318
God didn't create us with predestination. we have free will.

[Anonymous No.21647406]

>>21646979
He's not. He thinks by rewriting certain obvious truths (which Christians readily admit themselves) in mocking terms, relying on extremely shaky and questionable psychological hypotheses that are never even proven true in and of themselves, that somehow debunks Christianity. It doesn't.

[Anonymous No.21647410]

>religion is just psychological metaphors bruh

[Anonymous No.21647420]

>>21647410
I that guy supposed to be a Reddit atheist? Because many "theists" here don't even disagree with that statement, except for the word "just".

[Anonymous No.21647425]

>>21647420
The Bible is both literal and metaphorical at the same time. This either/or dichotomy is false.

[Anonymous No.21647432]

>>21642363
Evolution is without significant evidence. There's no reason whatsoever to believe in modern secular dogma, like evolution, which is without proof, without any significant evidence (it is ALWAYS overblown as to how much we "know"), and without even unanimous support by biologists themselves (whether atheist or not). Christianity at least had reasons for belief, secular dogmatism has none, except as a revolt against the previously established truths. Call "trads" or whatever other boogeymen you fixate on "contrarians", or whatever else you call them, but at the end of the day modern secular dogmatism is the ultimate inversion of all order and goodwill, and the ultimate revolt against God and the good. Simply ask what it is they are trying to do with their endless theorizing. They don't know. At best they will say they are looking for "truth", and then ask them what that is and they will never be able to answer. They are juveniles looking for something to attack, to vent their pent up frustration with reality, which is really just all heresy and heathenism in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.21647437]

>>21647432
good post

[Anonymous No.21647446]

>>21647432
>At best they will say they are looking for "truth", and then ask them what that is and they will never be able to answer.
Theist philosophers can't give any better definition than non-theists. There are of course some definitions but at some point things are just fundamental.

[Anonymous No.21647448]

>>21642523
Bullshit. I'm not intimately familiar astrology, but I can argue it's incorrect. It's ridiculous to say that you can only present an argument against something if you do it on their home turf and following their rules.

[Anonymous No.21647493]

>>21647446
>Theist philosophers
They can and have. Look at the Scholastic equality between the transcendentals in God (Truth is of course one of the transcendental properties).

[Anonymous No.21647533]

>>21643442
Which is why you shouldn’t be here little Billy

[Anonymous No.21647614]

>>21642363

I don't know why I keep coming back here

[Anonymous No.21647702]

>>21647387
A will that is "free" conforms to it's nature. It's nature is bestowed upon it, by definition, from nature. Therefore "free will" is simply a statement that a will conforms to it's nature. Don't worry, I don't expect you to comprehend this since your nature is probably that of a simpleton.>>21647406
>which Christians readily admit themselves
"Christians" are not some monolith who all act in lockstep. Whatever you think they "readily admit", I guarantee you huge numbers don't. Hell, they can't even come to a consensus on whether evolution happens or not (take this very thread as evidence)
>>21647432
You do realize that human beings themselves breed animals using the fundamental mechanics of evolution, right? The only difference in evolution more broadly speaking is that the environment itself acts as selector rather than a human breeder. But, again, this is an example where I don't expect you to have the cognitive faculties to comprehend these mechanisms, and even if you do, your cognitive dissonance will kick in à la Dosto and you will cling to the comfort of your delusion rather than the truth of reality.
>>21647614
The reasons for doing so dwindle with each passing day

[Anonymous No.21647717]

>>21647702
Will and nature are two distinct things. A will is proper to a hypostasis which has a nature. However it is not the same thing. You should be more precise with your terminology.

[Anonymous No.21647722]

>>21647448
>filtered atheist makes a strawman
The point isn't that you can't criticize something unless you're an expert, retard. The point is you'd offer shallow criticism and we can even use your example of astrology to demonstrate such.

So you figured out vaguely written prophecies in random newspapers aren't real? Wow, I'm impressed by that Herculean feat of logic. It takes a great mind to figure something like that out and demonstrates just how superior your intellect is when it comes to such things...

But what about the Aristotelian Medeval worldview in which astrology featured? You know, the holistic system that guided human intellectual endeavors for the better part of 2 millenia and eventually birthed what we label "modern" science. Oh, you have no idea about that...let me guess, "we're so more advanced now, let me retreat to cherry-picking the most absurd ideas and convey them in a condescending way that proves how much more intelligent we (I) am than all that." I wonder if 500 years from now, when we've (maybe) figured out just what that currently invisible 96% of universe is, some snarky faggot, just as impressed as himself as you that he figured out Santa isn't real, will be just as assured that he has the one true window on reality and therefore proselytize how all that came before is just stupid.

[Anonymous No.21647723]

>>21647702
Also you should read On The Cosmic Mystery Of Jesus Christ by Saint Maximus the Confessor.
This will help you learn about nature and will. You don't understand what they are right now.

[Anonymous No.21647729]

>>21647723
Also same anon again, I must add one more thing. This same book also will show you why evolution is wrong. The metaphysics in this book clearly demonstrate that evolution is impossible.

[Anonymous No.21647741]

>>21645774
I have read it and it entails Dawkins somehow managing to lose a debate with a guy who's been dead since the 13th century

[Anonymous No.21647742]

>>21647717
>>21647723
Will is a product of nature. You can't will anything other than that which your nature wills, because any impulse to will must flow from a cause, that cause is your nature, which likewise has a cause in a chain going back into the mists of time. To suggest otherwise is to forsake the laws governing the operation of reality, or to commit a more heinous sin of ego that the human organism is somehow exempt from the forces which govern all matter and energy in the universe, of which man is composed.

[Anonymous No.21647745]

>>21647729
>metaphysics
"Metaphysics" is always used as an excuse to dismiss that which one doesn't like or to invent that which one does like. As such, "metaphysics" can, and should, always be dismissed.

[Anonymous No.21647749]

>>21647742
You don't understand the difference between essence and hypostasis.
>>21647745
You require metaphysics to make this claim.

[Anonymous No.21647752]

>>21647702
>You do realize that human beings themselves breed animals
Which is not the same as the "theory of evolution." That is just taking animals with good traits, which already exist, and breeding them together. Again, virtually no substantial evidence for the historical theory of evolution. Just the fact that human beings, an intelligent race, is capable of creating new organisms by virtue of its intelligence. Which, if anything, supports the theory of divine creation, because it is an intelligence which is the cause of an animal's being such and such.
> The only difference in evolution more broadly speaking is that the environment itself acts as selector rather than a human breeder.
That is a huge difference, and one which has never been sufficiently substantiated.

[Anonymous No.21647760]

>>21647749
Wrong and wrong. And until you define "Essence" and "Hypostasis", they are meaningless words.

[Anonymous No.21647768]

>>21647702
>Whatever you think they "readily admit"
It's a dogma of the Church that Christians admit they are indebted to God the Father, who is the providential orderer of the universe. The judgement which is given by God the Son against those who are still sinners and those who have repented, results in either punishment or reward. If they don't admit this then they are, by definition, not a Christian, because this is part of the Apostle's Creed.

[Anonymous No.21647769]

>>21647752
The funny part here is that you simply regurgitate a talking point as if it connects at all with what I just said. Did you miss where I deliberately mentioned that the environment itself acts as selector? If you allow that changes can be selected for by an outside force, you have to allow that just as a human can pick certain traits according to their liking, the environment can select certain traits in so far as it allows the individual to survive better and reproduce. Once you allow one, you must allow the other. But again, I'm wasting my words on a simpleton so good bye and good luck being incapable of ever understanding how incredible nature truly is once you can get beyond feeble man made fables.

[Anonymous No.21647771]

>>21647768
>the Church
kek, you think there's just one church???

[Anonymous No.21647778]

>>21647771
There is only one church, which is the Universal Church

[Anonymous No.21647779]

>>21647760
To put it briefly
essence is nature
hypostasis is person
The two are distinct and should not be confused, as you have done.

[Anonymous No.21647789]

>>21647334
Realizing that religious fundamentalists and materialists are effectively two sides of the same coin is extremely liberating and actually allows you to pursue the truth without two rival mythologies competing for dominance in your own psyche

So-called "atheists" have been just as duped into viewing the world through the filters of fantastical superstition and linguistic fabrications as a bible-thumper who insists that the world is 6000 years old and thinks Harry Potter is the work of the devil (amusingly modern materialists and claimed enemies of religion now claim the exact same thing, demonstrating plainly that they are merely another dogmatic sect and not the bastions of reason that they fancy themselves to be)

Start playing a fun game and try to spot how many unsupported assumptions, non-empirical statements, and instances of question-begging the average atheist/materialist ends up making during the course of them trying to elaborate on their points - there are plenty in this very thread, I guarantee if you do it for long enough you'll start picking up on frequent mantras, taglines, and thought-terminating cliches just as frequent as a fundie quoting a verse of scripture in place of an argument

>inb4 "you can't say le both sides are bad"
People only say it because it's true

[Anonymous No.21647791]

>>21647769
>Did you miss where I deliberately mentioned that the environment itself acts as selector?
Did you miss where I said that this has never been substantiated? And did you also miss that the example you gave does not lend support to your hypothesis in the slightest, and is if anything simply more support of intelligent creation?
>If you allow that changes can be selected for by an outside force
This is basic physics. It has nothing to do with evolution. That changes can be effected by an external force implies nothing about evolution. That beneficial changes in organisms have only been observed occurring by way of intelligent actors (human beings), implies that intelligence is the only external director of forces which is capable of modifying creatures beneficially, or according to a particular intent. Because "nature" is not capable of selecting or having intentions, and has never been shown to be so.
>he environment can select certain traits
The environment is not intelligent, and therefore cannot select anything.

Yes, it's your choice to remain in ignorance, relying on spurious theories with no evidence in support of them apart from a half-baked theory about "external causes" (which has already been extrapolated far beyond the reaches of your comprehension, anyway, by ancient and even modern philosophers). So go right ahead and continue believing your secular dogma, I didn't expect you to change your mind anyway.

[Anonymous No.21647810]

>>21643826
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering_risks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiZxEJcFExc

[Anonymous No.21647871]

>>21643826
>Infinite life seems worse.
Yes it does. Welcome to Hinduism / Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.21647948]

>>21646343
>>When did the church ever take that position?
The East-West Schism, The Reformation, Counter-Reformation, etc.
...what? How are they examples of "the unforseeable outcomes involved in such are dangerous, these are the negative impulses involved in such, and rushing into them reflects immaturity," ...? The western schism was a political thing for no good reason during a golden age, the reformation/s were violently suppressed and created a good many martyrs, etc.

>The problem is you can't seperate yourself from modern biases and get a true picture of how the church functioned throughout history.
No, the problem is that you're fully ingrained with modern biases and have a picture of the catholic church that is ahistorical. You can't figure out and solve "why the libtard does what he does" if you refuse to study who the libtard was throughout history.

>> the same people, the same mentality (violent social enforcement of totally stupid fairytale ideology)

>. I could point to something like the development of scholasticism (just one many possible examples)
You know, that's where the university came from, right? A closed-minded group of self-appointed administrators deciding what is true and what is not true; agreeing upon a dogma, and punishing people who differed from it. The root of the insane ideology which you'd recognize in the leftists stems from (and is identical in the mind and social interactions) theocracy and theology, i.e. things made-up with no submission to evidence for the sake of a political narrative.

>organic interplay
Mot of the most important people (Paracelus e.g., literally invented most of modern medicine singlehandedly), not just Galileo, were hounded and hunted by the Catholic Church in mainland Europe for their thought crimes we don't need to go in circles on this,I'm just asking you whether you recognize the the 'thought crime' basis applies to the political ideologue as much as it does to the religious ideologue; and to be honest about where the concept came from and how it was perpetuated.

this, is exactly why I don't think you will admit to these things and why you won't figure out how to solve the problem;
>Everyone understands that the (institution) can be reflective of human failings
i.e. when a fault is found in the ideology you don't think it's the ideology itself, you won't question the narrative, you declare the flaws to be a result of individuals rather than individuals operating within the framework of that narrative.

...any absurdist dogma or creed creates a potion within a person which is hostile to the world; rejecting logic and reason, etc. in favor of the man-made superstition. A Christian 'should' get this by recalling that it was this 'absurdism' itself which led the Pharisees to demand Jesus be killed for offending them, and it should be obvious that the later churches; post schism, were identical to the Pharisees for doing the same thing.

[Anonymous No.21648005]

>>21641557
You are a retard but I keked at indictronating

[Anonymous No.21648333]

>>21647779
A person is the product of nature.

[Anonymous No.21648762]

>>21648333
Wrong! If this were true then each person would be the same because each of us has human nature, and each Person of the Trinity would be the same because each has the divine nature, and thus you arrive at the heresy of modalism!

[Anonymous No.21648984]

>>21641557
it's not ok to be different though

[Anonymous No.21649675]

>>21648762
>heresy of modalism
spotted well, imperial iterator, proceed with orbital bombardment of this primitive planet.

[Anonymous No.21650058]

>>21641550
Why do easterners always just link YouTube videos instead of actually making compelling arguments.

[Anonymous No.21650171]

>>21650058
>easterners
You mean some dweeb in Kentucky.

>>21648762
He clearly means "nature" as an immanent force, not a single nature as in an Aristotelian pseudo-Form.

>>21647702
>You do realize that human beings themselves breed animals using the fundamental mechanics of evolution, right?
He rejects that. He doesn't believe that heredity exists. It doesn't matter if you break down the basic mechanisms of genetics or show the hundreds of times that new species have been evolved (or selected) in laboratory environments because he doesn't believe that heredity exists. Every organism is a unique special being with no connection to other organisms except when he has to shove things into the Rabbinical box of "kinds".

Creationism is fundamentally about defending universalism in the name of Anti-Whiteness. There's nothing logical about it, because there's zero reason to reject heredity. He's only doing it as an attack on White people.

[Anonymous No.21650457]

>>21650171
muhh huuur fehello hhhuwwwhughte people

[Anonymous No.21650991]

>>21650171