/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23052849]

I’m agnostic. Is picrel worth reading or is it just “le sky daddy” posturing imbued with the unearned sense of superiority typical of “new” atheists?

[Anonymous No.23052865]

I haven't read it but Richard Dawkins is easily the best and least unpleasant of the "new atheists", he is an actual academic who has written independently valuable books about science (I'm planning to read The Selfish Gene soon, heard good things). He's quite different from Christopher Hitchens, who doesn't really have any qualifications beyond just general intelligence and fundamentally misunderstands mainstream religion by taking it too much at face value. Richard Dawkins is a self-described 'cultural christian', and his views are fairly representative of the mainstream in UK society.

[Anonymous No.23052875]

>>23052849
Try this instead.

[Anonymous No.23052917]

>>23052849
Try this instead. The fact is that the cannon of the Bible is abhorrent and no moral person should view it as divinely inspired. Also, if you already have a negative view of "The New Atheists", why are you drawn to the book in the first place? It's going to be very similar to how Dawkins is in his lectures/speeches/debates.

[Anonymous No.23052952]

>>23052917
He's obviously Christian and just wanted to vent about getting buttblasted.

[Anonymous No.23052961]

>>23052865
Everything this anon said is wrong.

Richard had a very mediocre academic career in biology and then wrote selfish gene which isn’t really anything new but more an explanation of existing ideas from literature. He then went into science explainer role and doesn’t actually do biology. His bibliography is small.

His actual arguments about god are extremely poor in quality and are irrelevant in actual intellectual circles. This book is extremely bad and a relic of its time in popular culture. It is not An actual piece of intellectual work.
It’s political in its aims and even Richard knows this and is embarrassed at what his ‘movement’ has become

[Anonymous No.23052963]

>>23052961
You speak like a ten year old.

[Anonymous No.23052969]

>>23052963
Maybe but he's right.

[Anonymous No.23052976]

>>23052963
this

[Anonymous No.23053005]

>>23052961
Yeah basically
>mediocre at biology
>write a book about existing concept and make it interesting for normalfags
>joined the Bill Nye, Neil degrASSe Tyson grift
>writes another book to pompously ridicule mainline christian apologetics
>now dissociates from new atheism because it isn’t edgy any more

[Anonymous No.23053008]

>>23053005
It served it's purpose.

[Anonymous No.23053042]

>>23052961
>"He says bad things about my imaginary friend so actually HE is bad"
This all you got?

[Anonymous No.23053108]

>>23052952
this lol
>posturing imbued with the unearned sense of superiority
pottery

[Anonymous No.23053141]

>>23053042
There are much better athiest books out there. Try Antichirst by Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.23053350]

>>23052849
Athiests use liberalism to cause a ton of problems so I do my best not to support thier grift.

[Anonymous No.23053399]

>>23053042
You could at least try to understand the superior arguments for your in-group.

[Anonymous No.23053407]

>>23052961
True. It's shit.

[Anonymous No.23053426]

Do you remember how every vocal atheist in around 2009 spoke? Dawkins is the source of that

[Anonymous No.23053609]

>>23052849
It's not what you fear it is, it's not posturing and vulgar. But it's not very good, it's very low level. You're better of reading Vico's "New Science" and Cassirer's "Language and Myth" on the historical psychology of god and myth making, newer ancient history books like Mark Smith's "Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel," John Day's "Yahweh And The Gods And Goddesses of Canaan," and Russell Gmirkin's "Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible."

Philosophically Schelling's freedom essay presents the most interesting and viable theology: that god is the chaos (ungrund) as well as the form, and that the universe begins with an act of will. Hegel's "Early Theological Writings" critiques the problems of the social applications of Christianity better than the new athiests do, and his "Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion" give a strong philosophical history of religion. Feuerbach "The Essence of Christianity" puts forwards Dawkins and Hitchens arguments on the personal and social harms of god as a concept much better than they do.

Back to vulgar athiesm, pic is good, despite the title, as a science book to explode vulgar athiest assumptions that scientific naturalism has worked everything out about the universe, and the full scope of the fine tuning problem which vulgar atheism handwaves away.

[Anonymous No.23053612]

>>23053609
Cassirer's "Language and Myth," short and the best place to start:
https://monoskop.org/images/f/fa/Cassirer_Ernst_Language_and_Myth_1953.Pdf

[Anonymous No.23053614]

>Well, you're not that great yourself, Mr. Hitchens: A review and fact-checking of God is not Great.

https://old.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/xnt9gq/well_youre_not_that_great_yourself_mr_hitchens_a/

[Anonymous No.23054487]

>>23052849
The Bible is a math textbook. If you want to make the world a better place, pray every night that Richard Dawkins doesn't wake up. That clown needs to be in Hell yesterday

[Anonymous No.23054550]

>>23052849
It’s always the latter. It’s an intelligence LARP, and since the world is becoming divided between the college educated (who can’t fight) and the undereducated (who can fight), the ghost of early 21st skeptics will finally be put to rest.

[Anonymous No.23054553]

>>23052961
>irrelevant in actual intellectual circles
What, you mean in our communist universities? Such bastions of theology!

[Anonymous No.23054585]

>>23052849
This >>23052961.

[Anonymous No.23054590]

>>23054553
>tips fedora

[Anonymous No.23054609]

>>23054590
your teenage neo-nazi discord server full of people with Spanish, Italian, and Slavic surnames is not an "actual intellectual circle"

[Anonymous No.23054725]

>>23054609
>atheists are titans of intellect
>[but expect you to be impressed they don't believe in Santa]
>atheists stand for free-thinking
>[but demand you adhere to Scientism]
>atheists are champions of reason
>[but have strong opinions about things of which they're uneducated]
>atheists are anti-dogmatic
>[but insist you interpret scripture only according to their ideas of it]
Atheism is an intelligence LARP that retards indoctrinate themselves into. Being an atheist is ridiculously easy; their main weak point is their unearned pride and if you poke at their (entirely self-perceived) intelligence they become reactive and break down. Reminder that the legacy of New Atheism is pic-related: homosexual rape/cuck furry fetish cartoons.

[Anonymous No.23054731]

>>23054725
Where is the "actual intellectual circle" taking theology seriously? Are they writing about how the Christian God is a Palestinian transwoman for Princeton University Press? Why are you so evasive? Are you embarassed to say your intellectuals are social media grifters with batchelors' degree in economics?

[Anonymous No.23054773]

>>23054609
You jest but most universities are so bogged down by bureaucracy that any kind of unique insight is snuffed out the instant it appears

[Anonymous No.23054801]

>>23054731
>no god is ever new, only a new emphasis may be given to a conception potentially present from the beginning
Fedora tippers are hilarious. They openly exhibit how uneducated and filtered they are while expecting strangers to be impressed by the fact they're adults who figured out Santa isn't real. "I SAID 'SKY-DADDY THO!' CAN YOU NOT SEE HOW HIGH IQ I AM?!" Lol.

[Anonymous No.23054805]

>>23054773
bureaucracy is everywhere, the next innovative idea is rich people bypassing bureaucracy by spending ungodly amounts of money on transhumanism, the inevitable Chinese development of gene editing, Musk cyborg implants where you need a subscription to use your own body, etc., it's not speculations about which christology is the most based or how Muslims being mean to homosexuals is a good argument for liberal Christianity as a social norm compared to an anti-racist multi-culturalism shielding minority groups from criticism when they do a misogyny

[Anonymous No.23054807]

>>23054801
When are you going to answer me? Before or after the second coming?

[Anonymous No.23054811]

>>23054807
An enemy that numbers time in millennia with a cultural basis that goes back to preliterate man and symbolism rooted in primordial hominids 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: meditation; 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.23054820]

>>23054811
Looks like I broke you, and your smug insistence that theology was more favorable in "actual intellectual circles" was just you feeling euphoric at the moment because of his Jewish volcano demon

[Anonymous No.23054830]

>>23054820
>Looks like I broke you, and your smug insistence that theology was more favorable in "actual intellectual circles"
Who the fuck are you quoting you absolute retard? Lol

[Anonymous No.23054848]

>>23054830
>>23052961
>christlarper too dumb to remember his own posts, busy with canned responses about fedoras
lol

[Anonymous No.23054850]

>>23054848
>his own posts
Retard confirmed.

[Anonymous No.23054866]

>>23052849
It's decent, but he's kind of a midwit when writing outside Creationism.

[Anonymous No.23054879]

>>23054850

[Anonymous No.23054881]

>>23054850
Alright, so there are no such "actual intellectual circles" you can identify which take your brand of culture war driven theology more seriously than atheism or agnosticism. Why did you reply to me 4 times with garbage about gay furries or whatever you were fantasizing about? Are you some kind of autistic freak? And this is supposed to make atheism look poorly?

[Anonymous No.23054884]

>>23054850
>screencap "proof"
retard confirmed

[Anonymous No.23054887]

>arguing with christnegroids

[Anonymous No.23054896]

>>23054887
You just have to give them a little bait and they will argue against themselves. It's a schizo thing. Guy says atheists are dumb for thinking they are smart by merit of rejecting an idea, then turns around and acts like he's not dumb for thinking he's smart by merit of rejecting an idea. I ask him where these smart people are who think theology is serious business, he starts posting screenshots to prove he isn't talking to me. It's poetry.

[Anonymous No.23054899]

>>23054887
this. who's more annoying, a christnigger or some greeny nu-atheist who thinks he can convert a christnigger through argumentation?

[Anonymous No.23054940]

he killed God and replaced it with Trannys and mass Nigga immigration, what a king.

[Anonymous No.23054948]

>>23054940
>doctor says you've got AIDS
>resent him for telling you about it
christer apologists are awful at their jobs

[Anonymous No.23054957]

>>23054879
Thanks for your effort, retard.
>>23054881
>tl;dr
I'm a different anon.
>>23054884
>no you
Yawn.

[Anonymous No.23054970]

Fedora tippers confuse being strongly opinionated with being intelligent. They'll regurgitate the same arguments they've heard from others over and over and over instead of actually debating anything.

Fedora tippers will also sperg about science when they can't even do basic calculus. Atheism is an intelligence LARP to which midwits subscribe.

[Anonymous No.23055038]

>>23054970
this applies to armchair theologians even more than to "atheists," the latter merely rejecting the former, and you are repeating exactly what I said you would >>23054896
>Guy says atheists are dumb for thinking they are smart by merit of rejecting an idea, then turns around and acts like he's not dumb for thinking he's smart by merit of rejecting an idea

[Anonymous No.23055066]

>>23055038
>no you
You can tell they're totally braindead by the fact they always respond with "no you." They're incapable of thinking for themselves.

[Anonymous No.23055089]

>>23053141
All atheists that haven't read Nietzsche are just frauds.

[Anonymous No.23055192]

>>23054487
>The Bible is a math textbook.
> 1 Kings 7:23 “Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference.”

[Anonymous No.23055267]

>>23054970
No amount of equivocating can change the fact that religions are cults of credulous fools. Examine the concrete assertions of any religion and you will find patent absurdities. All holy books bear the unmistakable stamp of human authorship, the flaws and foibles of human beings attempting to claim knowledge they cannot possibly have.

[Anonymous No.23055275]

>>23052849
No I would rather read books by real atheists who follow their worldview to it's natural conclusion not shills and grifters

[Anonymous No.23055749]

>>23055267
>Examine the concrete assertions of any religion and you will find patent absurdities

The Vatican doesn't get to burn all the druids and then pretend magic isn't real. If it were, why did they have to burn anyone in the first place?

[Anonymous No.23055817]

>>23055089
Agreed

[Anonymous No.23056021]

>>23055192
Did I stutter? The Bible is a book that contains text about math. MATH TEXTBOOK

All atheists are counter-reformation agents and also gay

[Anonymous No.23056382]

>>23052849
I also wonder who was funding these pseuds

[Anonymous No.23056667]

>>23052849
It is surface level atheism. If you want to understand why atheism is outdated though then realize that NDEs are unironically irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they should not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

So any atheist would be too, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:

>"I'm still trying to fit it in with this dream that I'm walking around in, in this world. The reality of the experience is undeniable. This world that we live in, this game that we play called life is almost a phantom in comparison to the reality of that."

So even "the new atheists" that >>23052865 talks about would be convinced if they had an NDE themselves, we already know this.

[Anonymous No.23056675]

>>23052849
It's another example of STEMfags overestimating their understanding of philosophy

[Anonymous No.23056701]

>>23056667
life after death could just as well "prove" Buddhism, not your specific christology

[Anonymous No.23056742]

>>23052849
I refused to read this book because like many other wackjob conspiracy theorists I heard Dawkins in a documentary talking about how Jesus was a knock off of "Sun gods" from pagan mythology and Christianity just ripped it off for their "Son of god" so you shouldn't believe in him the same way you don't believe in those. He used this pun to try convert Christians to Atheism even though this only works in modern day English which is only about 500 years old and wouldn't make any sense in Hebrew. Is he smart and is his his book actually good or is it just more of this kind of nonsense?

[Anonymous No.23056792]

>>23056701
I think the afterlife is important proof for some apologists to present is because it is often tied to the historical argument. Atheists will see history pointing to the historical resurrection and say they can't believe in it because it requires proof of an afterlife for Jesus to come back from so obviously it didn't happen and had to be something else we can't explain. So then they whip out this and show there is reasonable evidence for that as well. As an ex-atheist the idea of near death experiences proving anything and converting me is a bit ridiculous even today as a believer so I feel like they are wasting breath on this line of argumentation but who knows

[Anonymous No.23056801]

>>23056742
Christianity is knock off Zoroastrianism anyway which I'm pretty sure isn't about the Sun, rather that comes from the Romans DEUS SOL INVICTUS shit

[Anonymous No.23056813]

>>23056792
You can be an atheist and believe in an afterlife, if we define atheism in terms of rejection of an eternal creator God. And bodily resurrection is something different entirely. One could reason that an afterlife is possible in a new body—why would you want to return to your corpse anyway? Alternatively, only ritually preserved corpses are entitled to an afterlife, e.g. the Egyptian religion. NDE does not necesitate Christianity, let alone support it.

[Anonymous No.23056820]

>>23056801
It's Jewish gnosticism with neoplatonic characteristics. Zoroastrianism provided some of the gnostical doctrines but not the essence of the religion, which is its Jewish core of covenant theology

[Anonymous No.23056825]

>>23056813
That's why I said it's important to some as an argument when combined with the historical argument as that's the only pillar stopping people believing in the resurrection

[Anonymous No.23056826]

>>23055267
>Fedora tippers confuse being strongly opinionated with being intelligent. They'll regurgitate the same arguments they've heard from others over and over and over instead of actually debating anything.
You proved this point.

[Anonymous No.23056827]

>>23056820
>Jewish gnosticism with neoplatonic characteristics
Thats Kabbalah

[Anonymous No.23056854]

>>23056801
>knock of of Zoroastrianism
>only evidence is found 1000+ years after Jesus
>only similarities are:
>Zoroaster began his "ministry" at 30
>....
>....
Wow damning stuff here

[Anonymous No.23056861]

>>23056827
Neoplatonism is like 100-500 the exact period when Christian theology was formalized. Kabbalah is a cousin, it routed through Islamic sources as well, which also contained platonic translations
>>23056825
It's simply unbelievable. Reincarnation is far more intuitive than necromancy, thats why it was a normal belief until Christianity and Islam ruled against it, and still is normal in "heathen" countries

[Anonymous No.23056889]

>>23056854
this list contains features of Christianity over Judaism at the time that are also defining features of Zoroastrianism over most other religions at the time
>clearly defined dualist good and evil factions
>clearly defined demons
>existential dogmatism (if you dont follow this religion at the end of the world you're doomed)
>anti-sorcery
>an antagonist
>cleansing the world by defeating the antagonist
>focused around one single human idol
>monotheistic (old Judaism was not monotheistic in the modern sense of the word, complex topic)
>
also the 3 "wise men" from the Bibble are literally Zoroastrian mystics

[Anonymous No.23056895]

>>23056889
If Christianity is anti-sorcery, why did Jesus go around performing... ummm...

[Anonymous No.23056924]

>>23056889
>good and evil etc
that is pretty much every religion and they are quite different in their descriptions. You had the audacity to claim the concept of "an antagonist" is copied? That's almost very writing ever historical or fictional it's merely parallelomania. Neverminded that all of our written evidence for this stuff in Zoroastrianism comes hundreds of years after the bible.
>also the 3 "wise men" from the Bibble are literally Zoroastrian mystics
That's not even biblical that's a later tradition that still predates our Zoroastrian writing and I'm pretty sure it was 3 kings in that tradition for a long time before changing it to "wise men"

[Anonymous No.23056926]

>>23056895
you know how in some games you have a spellbook that contains your "spells" even if you're not a mage, so it will still contain shit like "Heavy Strike" and "Blessing of Holiness"

[Anonymous No.23056931]

>>23052865
At least Chris Hitchens is witty and entertaining, although I wouldn't call him very intelligent. He's a fiery and funny midwit, Richard Dawkins is a boring Bill Nye type midwit.

[Anonymous No.23056933]

>>23056924
>that is pretty much every religion and they are quite different in their descriptions
Zoroastrianisms defining trait according to everyone is its idea of dualist good and evil that only Christianity really has as well.
>You had the audacity to claim the concept of "an antagonist" is copied?
it is, no other religions run on that logic, shit happens everywhere but "defeat the Devil and get the High Score in the afterlife" is a Christian/Zoroastrian thing (and I guess Islamic? Idk much about it)
>before changing it to "wise men"
nop

[Anonymous No.23056936]

>>23056931
He was cool until he got effortlessly btfod by Mother Teresa of all people

[Anonymous No.23056939]

>>23056924
A major figure in the history of world religions, Zarathushtra has been the object of much scholarly attention, in large part because of his apparent monotheism (his concept of one god, whom he referred to as Ahura Mazdā, or the “Wise Lord”), his purported dualism (indicated in the stark distinction drawn in some Zoroastrian texts between the forces of good and the forces of evil), and the possible influence of his teachings on subsequently emerging Middle Eastern religions (e.g., Judaism).

[Anonymous No.23056943]

>>23056924
>good and evil

The point is other religions don't pit them against each other, which is why Christian retards are schizos who think everything is demonic.

[Anonymous No.23056948]

>>23056933
Still dodging the fact it was all written long long after The Bible?

[Anonymous No.23056950]

>>23056826
You don't have to be intelligent to realize religion is bullshit

[Anonymous No.23056954]

>>23056948
uhh Jews openly admit stealing monotheism from Zoroastrians? Zoroaster was Buddhas contemporary? This is a troll innit?

[Anonymous No.23056961]

>>23056954
Christians are not averse to lying, Dawkins was right, immoral bastards.

[Anonymous No.23057042]

>>23056954
Zoroastrianism wasn't even close monotheism in the biblical sense it would be called dualism as we observe it back then, it's a complete myth that it was monotheistic. I'm gonna need a source on that one because no scholar seems to believe that this religion was ever in a position to influence Judiasm in such a dramatic way. The only theories I see are the opposite where Judiasm may have influenced it into over time becoming a more monotheistic religion over a long period of time which really doesn't help your case when all it's similarities are coming after the religion you think copied it

[Anonymous No.23057068]

>>23057042
The dualism is what makes you all drooling mentally ill retards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)

[Anonymous No.23057076]

>>23057068
Yeah the scholars are the retards not conspiracy theorists like yourself

[Anonymous No.23057085]

>>23057076
Christians aren't scholars, they have only read one book.

[Anonymous No.23057555]

>>23056950
You engage with something at the level at which you're capable. That's why fedora tippers are lolcows. Nu Atheism tried to mix in Scientism in order to make the intelligence LARP complete but ended up making their brand of satanic pride even more funny. They're divorced from the historical context of their own beliefs and their (defensive) reaction to anything outside their understanding is condescension. Complex thought and nuance are their enemies; their followers betray their ignorance every time they regurgitate "their" beliefs. When this is pointed out all fedora tippers can do is fall back to "no you."

[Anonymous No.23057605]

>>23057555
>blah blah blah me smart me worship Jewish volcano demon

[Anonymous No.23057872]

>>23052963
That's actually called typing. Speaking is when words come out of a mouth you shit-eating retard.

[Anonymous No.23057885]

>>23057555
"Scientism" isn't a word, and "historical context" has no bearing on whether a claim is factually true or false. More equivocation from a religious minded fool, embarrassing anon.

[Anonymous No.23057904]

>>23052865
Christopher Hitchens wasn’t even smart, Americans are just easily fooled by someone being snarky in an Oxford accent.

[Anonymous No.23057954]

>>23057605
>their (defensive) reaction to anything outside their understanding is condescension
Lol
>>23057885
>"Scientism" isn't a word,
It is. Fedora tippers don't like it because it draws attention to the ideological nature of "their" belief structure.
>"historical context" has no bearing on whether a claim is factually true or false
It does when it comes to how you classify and categorize knowledge claims. Again, complexity and nuance are the enemy of fedora tippers.
>More equivocation
"No you." Lol, every time.

[Anonymous No.23058044]

>>23052865
>He's quite different from Christopher Hitchens, who doesn't really have any qualifications
Hitchens actually had a third class degree on Philosophy. Dawkins field is zoology and that's it

Hitchens is the one with some qualifications to talk about metaphisics and loosely about theology.

[Anonymous No.23058086]

>>23057954
"god" is outside of your understanding according to your own theologians you stupid larper

[Anonymous No.23058109]

>>23058086
>"god" is outside of your understanding
Never said he wasn't. Seethe more fedora tipper.

[Anonymous No.23058211]

>>23058109
>in this moment i am euphoric, not because of some understanding of god, but because others don't believe in what i don't understand

[Anonymous No.23058219]

>>23057555
>Scientism
I think you mean logical positivism

[Anonymous No.23058395]

>>23058211
>no you
>>23058219
No, I mean Scientism (although fedora tippers idealize science as if the positivist project didn't fail).

[Anonymous No.23058505]

>>23058109
>"You need historical context to categorize knowledge claims!"
>"uhh, no... I'm not actually making any knowledge claims"
AHAHAHHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.23058508]

>>23058505
>You need historical context to categorize knowledge claims
Never said that either. You're bad at this.

[Anonymous No.23058568]

>>23058508
Yes you did here >>23057954
>It does when it comes to how you classify and categorize knowledge claims
You're a dishonest buffoon.

[Anonymous No.23058597]

>>23058568
I never said you need historical context to categorize knowledge claims. You said "'historical context' has no bearing on whether a claim is factually true or false" to which I replied it does have bearing when it comes to the classification and categorization of knowledge claims. Need an example (I ask because it will likely go over your head anyway)?

See, this is the problem with fedora tippers. All they can do is regurgitate really simplistic ideas they've heard from others. When the time comes to expand their horizons they can't because they took a bad shortcut.

[Anonymous No.23058609]

>>23058597
>I never said you need historical context to categorize knowledge claims.
> I replied it does have bearing when it comes to the categorization of knowledge claims
Buffoon. You can only repeat the same thing over and over again because you're an NPC who can't comprehend what you are actually saying and can't identify that you have contradicted yourself. If historical context has a bearing on categorizing knowledge claims, then it is needed to properly categorize knowledge claims. Lurk more and drop your dogma, you may learn a thing or two.

[Anonymous No.23059048]

>>23056021
>The Bible is a math textbook that has incorrect math.
Keep huffing that copium, christcuck.

[Anonymous No.23059116]

>>23058609
>I'm too stupid to understand and it's somehow your fault
Lol
>If historical context has a bearing on categorizing knowledge claims, then it is needed to properly categorize knowledge claims
No, retard. Having a bearing on something doesn't mean it's needed. I'll give you an illustrative example relevant to your own life. Being hungry has a bearing on whether or not you eat but, as a fat fuck you well know, you don't need to be hungry in order to eat.

Do you understand this now? Should I give you an example relating to the history of science and tie it into religious understanding as well or are you still having trouble putting it together? I understand you're slow.

[Anonymous No.23059242]

>>23059116
Everyone can see you're retarded. You don't have a grasp on the things you are referencing and it's painfully obvious. Take the L and apply yourself better next time.

[Anonymous No.23059264]

Christcucks really be lecturing you on what's shallow and bad faith while believing God simultaneously kills infants and loves us.

[Anonymous No.23059271]

>>23059264
When you think you have a monopoly on truth condescension comes easy.

[Anonymous No.23059275]

>>23059264
Bro, you just don't understand the nuance of killing infants, human sacrifice, and ritualistic cannibalism. It's all in the nuance, man.

[Anonymous No.23059281]

>>23059275
>>23059271
You need to grow up and possess at least 500 iq to understand why slaughtering goyim children is a virtue of a deity we must donate our souls to.

[Anonymous No.23059283]

>>23059281
If voices in your head tell you to stab your son with a knife, you better do it. You'll become the founding religious figure for billions who come after you!

[Anonymous No.23059311]

>>23059242
>t. doesn't know the difference between necessity and bearing
Anyone who isn't a fedora tipping retard can see you lack the reading comprehension required to understand a very simple point. Remember when I initially said that you engage with something at the level at which you're capable? Fedora tippers are very low level.

That anon said that historical context has no bearing on truth/falsehood of facts to which I replied it does when it comes to the classification/categorization of knowledge claims. This has gone over both of your heads so you devolved the conversation into semantics, as retards being BTFO in online arguments tend to do, by insisting I said that historical context is needed to verify knowledge claims. Now, historical context doesn't necessarily determine the (present) truth/falsehood of knowledge claims but it does present one with the understanding of how such claims evolve and mutate over time while shining light on the idea of "validity." Would you like an example or are you still too far behind?

[Anonymous No.23060192]

>>23059048
>your iq is too low to understand it so it must be incorrect

total roman death

[Anonymous No.23060203]

>>23060192
>pi = 3
Total christcuck death.

[Anonymous No.23060223]

>>23057872
I interrupted my meditation to laugh at this post

[Anonymous No.23060232]

>>23052849
Depends, do you think Richard Dawkins is smart enough to disprove the idea of a Creator? If you believe that Richard Dawkins is that intelligent, meaning, more intelligent than any other man who has ever lived, then sure it might be worth it.

[Anonymous No.23060236]

>>23052865
Both Dawkins and Hitchens are heroes to the adolescent and insufferable to the grown.

[Anonymous No.23060279]

>>23057872
Dumb people speak when they type.

[Anonymous No.23060314]

ITT: the last gasps of religious cope.

[Anonymous No.23060320]

>>23052849
there are no good books on this topic. there are good books about this topic, but not on it. if religion interests you then read jung and his like, if biology interests you read the classics and go outside. if you are looking for a book to tell you what to believe, just go to church because its easy and the morals are generally good.

[Anonymous No.23060407]

>>23060203
>why did these homeless desert nomads round to the nearest whole number

lmfao

[Anonymous No.23060455]

Anons, you should understand why people believe in christianity. Eternal blackness and nothingness is scary. Its not even that, because you will have no sensation at all after death. People need some comfort and cope.

[Anonymous No.23060467]

>>23060455
>because you will have no sensation at all after death
Source???

[Anonymous No.23060486]

>>23060455
It would be really sneaky if they created the idea of eternal hellfire to get more followers.

[Anonymous No.23060505]

>>23060455
Eternal blackness and nothingness is simply a different kind of belief.

[Anonymous No.23060540]

>>23060467
>>23060505
Well, remember the time when your consciousness was switched out? Like Sleep, anesthesia etc. It is reasonable to assume this state also for death.

[Anonymous No.23060545]

>>23052849
If you want the truth and have enough humility, you inevitably find yourself looking at Christ as the most likely explanation for why you exist

[Anonymous No.23060564]

>>23060540
My mind enters the realm of dreams when I sleep. Yours doesnt?

[Anonymous No.23060599]

>>23060540
Then what’s the fourth state of consciousness?

[Anonymous No.23060704]

>>23052849
>admits Christianity is essential for Western civilization
>agrees with Christian morality
>is "culturally" Christian i.e. observes holidays
>thinks Christians and society need to stand firm against muslim and pajeet invaders
>Spends his career shitting on it because he does not think its le "true"

What kind of retard is Mr. Dawkins? Or is he just the archetypal boomer?

[Anonymous No.23060826]

>>23060704
It seems like typical boomer pride and denial

[Anonymous No.23060842]

>>23060704
Yeah you finally figured it out.
Richard Dawkins doesn't really have anything interesting to say or any reason to justify his career, because he's a Christian. So he basically just decided to say "I'm a Christian but...perhaps?????" So he could write books and get famous

Guys just a Christian bullshitting himself

[Anonymous No.23060848]

>>23060704
So tribe is more important than truth?

[Anonymous No.23060904]

>>23052963
>You speak like a ten year old.
"Write" like a ten year old.
Regardless, he's correct and you're a fedora 14 year old too young and inarticulate to post here.

[Anonymous No.23060920]

>>23052849
Read "The Everlasting Man" by Chesterton and Europe And The Faith by Belloc. Then read this kind of nonsense.

Dawkins job is to help convince you that you are worthy of slavery and nothing more. That's why he and the New Atheists came along as ((((usury-driven monopoly capitalism))) stopped hiding its agenda.

[Anonymous No.23060924]

>>23060904
Your Reddit memes are stale and old like your religion. You lack original thought.

[Anonymous No.23061375]

>>23060314
yeah 2 more weeks bro

[Anonymous No.23061384]

>>23060455
This argument is completely reversible, doing whatever you want and then getting to turn to nothingness afterwards is immensely comforting to people who disobey the natural laws

[Anonymous No.23061656]

>easily the best and least unpleasant of the "new atheists"
That would be Daniel Dennett
>Inb4 some panpsychist tard whines about muh qualia.

[Anonymous No.23061675]

>>23061656
I met that guy once. I told him he was wrong about free will. When he asked me to argue it I refused. This was in college

[Anonymous No.23062851]

>>23052961
>"The Selfish Gene was extremely popular when first published, causing "a silent and almost immediate revolution in biology",[19] and it continues to be widely read. It has sold over a million copies and has been translated into more than 25 languages.[20] Proponents argue that the central point, that replicating the gene is the object of selection, usefully completes and extends the explanation of evolution given by Charles Darwin before the basic mechanisms of genetics were understood. "

>"In July 2017, a poll to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Royal Society science book prize listed The Selfish Gene as the most influential science book of all time.[3]"

>"The Royal Society, formally The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge,[1] is a learned society and the United Kingdom's national academy of sciences. The society fulfils a number of roles: promoting science and its benefits, recognising excellence in science, supporting outstanding science, providing scientific advice for policy, education and public engagement and fostering international and global co-operation. Founded on 28 November 1660, it was granted a royal charter by King Charles II as The Royal Society and is the oldest continuously existing scientific academy in the world.[2]"

Hmmmmm.

[Anonymous No.23062861]

>>23060314
That was when they seperated church from state

[Anonymous No.23063091]

>>23062851
>a popsci book about evolution is the most important scientific work of all time
Lol.

[Anonymous No.23063324]

No one itt has actually made any compelling arguments for why a religious person should become atheist or why an atheist should become religious. This is just discussion that goes nowhere for its own masturbatory sake.

[Anonymous No.23063630]

>>23055192
Thirty cubits, give or take

[Anonymous No.23063637]

>>23063324
The only reason that matters
Pussy
You better believe an "atheist" or "theist" will claim the exact opposite beliefs if some he thought it'd lead to sex

[sage No.23063669]

>>23060455
Any man who finds comfort in an illusion to protect himself from the truth is a pitiful man. In fact, such a person is no man at all, he is a small child clinging to his blankie, scared of the specter of time which is coming to take him. Stand on your own two feet, face time, face oblivion, face destiny and be not afraid. What will be will be. Will you take up the mantle of manhood or cower like an infant? Nay, I see in your post the mettle of your soul, and it's account is wanting. Cleave, then, to your false comfort, hide behind your mother's skirts, feebly grasp at your father's pant leg. Fear will cripple you and your part in this reality will be forever marred by falsehood. As quickly as your death comes, your pathetic life will be forgotten. A sad fate for a being with such noble potential.

[sage No.23063675]

>>23063091
Let me guess, you haven't read it

[Anonymous No.23063678]

>>23063675
Next he'll say he doesn't need to read it because it's popsci trash

[Anonymous No.23063777]

>>23060407
I'm not the one claiming the Bible is a math textbook, retard.

[Anonymous No.23063794]

>>23060455
But we are already dead. We only have a sensation of 'now' because we have a memory that grants us the illusion of time and continuity. We have been born this very moment and will die the very next. Every moment exists in eternity alongside the others, unmoved and unchanged. Moreover, the universe only exists because it can be perceived, and its structure is a result of it being perceived by 'us' (other universal configurations may be possible, but 'we' won't be in them). Non-existence is absurd.

[Anonymous No.23063950]

>>23063324
Maybe because that wasn't the topic of the thread, dipshit. Go find the actual containment threads if you want to be part of that discussion, it isn't hard to do.

[Anonymous No.23063971]

>>23060848

[Anonymous No.23063974]

>>23056813
>You can be an atheist and believe in an afterlife, if we define atheism in terms of rejection of an eternal creator God
There's this funny situation that sometimes happens here where Christians end up inadvertently categorizing more people as atheists with their 'my god is bigger than your god' nonsense, they'll tell you that God is and inherently must by all-powerful even to the end that he "exists beyond logic" (not that they know what that means when they say it). I'm a bit spiritual and open to some of these ideas, but they want to make it a binary choice between 'le heckin science and nothing else' and a 100% all encompassing capital 'G' God who is "omnibenevolent" and so powerful that he can do literally anything including making a boulder so big even he can't pick it up but still pick it up anyway, but still lets the world be filled with constant problems for some reason.

[Anonymous No.23063980]

>>23060704
All of that is completely reasonable but your autism prevents you from processing it since it isn't cute.

[Anonymous No.23064134]

> Is picrel worth reading or is it just “le sky daddy” posturing imbued with the unearned sense of superiority typical of “new” atheists

you have fallen for subversive memes. being a defensive hipster about religion, still doesn't make you any better.
if you still call yourself agnostic you definitely need to read it.

[Anonymous No.23064151]

>>23054887
yeah no point at this point really. it's been like 200 years since their bs was debunked to death. if someone wants to larp at this day and age - there really is no helping it

>>23055038
this so much

[Anonymous No.23064179]

>>23052849
What was the best rebuttals of this book?

[Anonymous No.23064530]

>>23064179
When you think about it, those neo atheists e-celebs were really foolish to debate a guy who was really well trained and respected on philosophy and whose main focus was all about logic and debate.

The guy could be an UFO enthusiast and he would still stomp them all. That's why Darwin didn't debate and Thomas Henry Huxley had to defend his research for him.

[Anonymous No.23064555]

>>23064530
They probably thought he was just some Christian apologist. Plenty of atheists on the internet all think Craig is just an apologist and don’t realize that it’s only something he does on the side as a hobby. His first debate with Lawrence Krauss, especially his debate with Sam Harris we’re embarrassing to watch for how bad his opponents did.

[Anonymous No.23064565]

>>23057954
Why do you keep referring to Atheists as "fedora tippers?" No atheist I have ever personally known has ever worn a fedora. This is such a dead stereotype, but I expect ad hominems from religious types already.

[Anonymous No.23064681]

>>23064555
I think it's just as likely that they didn't know what philosophy was at all and that it was just as stupid to debate with a philosopher about logic or Metaphysics as trying to defend yourself against a lawyer.

But again I have no idea why philosophy ins't considered as basic as math at schools, just like politics and finance. But somehow physics, biology and arts are.

[Anonymous No.23064826]

>>23052865
Selfish Gene is very, very good.
Which is all the more impressive when you read other Dawkins and realize he isn't that good a writer, or at least stopped being one once he was popular enough to get away with it.
Ancestors Tale is so full of odd ramblings and weird potshots at people, even while containing much interesting information. When it comes to his atheist writings which contain nothing interesting its far, far worse.
Really makes me admire the effort it must have taken him to make Selfish Gene as good as it is.

[Anonymous No.23065048]

>>23064826
Good to know, I'll try to make a point to read it soon.

[Anonymous No.23065122]

>>23052865
I have started reading The Selfish Gene a few times but its too depressing learning how every emotion, impulse and thought you have is purely there to confer some evolutionary advantage.

[Anonymous No.23065197]

>>23065122
In the end it's just a reminder that our only purpose, what we were all born to do is to love and protect mankind and life as a whole, focusing on it's survival and happiness.

[Anonymous No.23065198]

>>23065122
Why fear the truth, anon? All your predispositions have passed through the crucible of evolution whether you like to think about it or not. The only question is: are you brave enough to look the truth in the eye, or will you cower and cringe behind your chosen ignorance?

[Anonymous No.23065236]

>>23065122
>>23065197
>even the evil people are trying to be good on their own twisted way
>people naturally can't be evil unless they are extremely fucked up in the head, it's our very nature, our very purpose to be altruistic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-lnBCKXkrs

[Anonymous No.23065529]

>>23065236
That movie sucked.

[Anonymous No.23065693]

>>23065122
evolution isn't true fuckhead, greek history is millions of years

[Anonymous No.23065954]

>>23063980
It is not reasonable because without God there is no objective "truth". What even is truth in a secular context? If nothing has meaning, then everything goes. So, what is the point of undermining Christianity when you value it for its sociological effect? Especially when you don't think there is meaning within existence?

[Anonymous No.23066180]

>>23063669
Why are you typing like that

[Anonymous No.23066286]

>>23064530
>Lawrence Krauss (>>23054590)

[Anonymous No.23066299]

>>23065122
You read that and didn't realize how such indicates evolution operates as an unfalsifiable heuristic and not a discrete theory? Once you pick up on that and reflect on it a bit you'll get why scientism shouldn't guide the ethic of social policy.

[Anonymous No.23066428]

>>23066299
The truth is that all we know is that we know nothing so even philosophy shouldn't be taken for granted.

[Anonymous No.23066463]

>>23066428
in the end everybody logically should be an agnostic but it is biologically impossible to be an actual agnostic

[sage No.23066676]

>>23066180
It's fun, you should try it

[Anonymous No.23067252]

>>23052849
I read it when I was in high school. Not gonna lie, it helped me deprogram from my religious upbringing, but if you're not a literal high schooler, you might find it somewhat childish and petulant. It's a few hundred pages of whining about how mean god is, and how silly religion is.

[Anonymous No.23067258]

>>23065122
Read Margulis or Slijepcevic instead. Natural selection is not the driving force of evolution, symbiosis is.

[Anonymous No.23067297]

>>23054970
99% of people are idiots, no matter what they believe personally.

[Anonymous No.23068092]

>>23065122
Oh, buddy, that's just the start of it. The memes that live inside your head treat your DNA as an ecosystem too. They're fighting to confer advantage for themselves; so, your DNA is fighting against parasites in the form of conceptualizations about reality which exist to hijack consciousness and spread themselves at the expense of your personal reproductive success.

[Anonymous No.23068102]

Also, if evolution were true, which it isn't, then "God" would just be de facto the most evolved life form in existence, but don't expect Dicky Dawkins to rub his pair of neurons together and figure that out

[Anonymous No.23068230]

>>23053042
His arguments are very bad logically. If you want to be an atheist cheerleader read Hume. Dawkins is really really bad philosophically.

[Anonymous No.23068245]

>>23054553
Yes I mean even the intellectual atheists in the godless Letist indoctrination centers are aware the book is trash.

I did know a few biology grad students in the 00s that liked the book but they weren’t philosophically educated >>23054848
You’re a moron . Just learn to take good advice. Atheism / Christianity isn’t a team sport and it’s not a contest.

[Anonymous No.23068255]

>>23060540
It’s not reasonable at all lmao. Atheists …

[Anonymous No.23068263]

>>23062851

Sorry kiddo, you can’t quote Wikipedia and just make shit up. I’ve read the book and I have a degree in evo bio and years in the field. It’s just not true. It’s a pop sci book for general audiences. I’ve even seen some of the stuff from the book presented as Richard’s ideas by PHds but the reality is that there is very little original work in the book, if any at all. It’s all just compiling and explaining.

And really if we wanted to waste time thinking about it we could start to laugh at the poor choice of words and the built in Thomastic neo-scholasticism he didn’t realize permeates his work.

[Anonymous No.23068324]

Shouldn't the opinion of people on God be irrelevant unless they study Metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.23068439]

Dawkins works for the Inquisition, charge him as an accomplice to the murder of the druids

[Anonymous No.23069209]

>>23052849
Simply put no. He ignores history and says Jesus never existed and knows nothing about philosophy to even have the capacity to speak about God. Growing up I idolised people like Dawkins but today I see him for the pseud he was, rewatching the debates makes me cringe even people like William Lane Craig could have danced circles around him arguing about the that moon isn't real or something if he wanted to. Don't read this tripe, read about real atheists who are honest enough to admit what a world without religion would truly be like.

[Anonymous No.23069313]

>>23069209
>Don't read this tripe, read about real atheists who are honest enough to admit what a world without religion would truly be like.
This drivel aside, you are correct, none of his debates show him saying anything that interesting or prodding, his form of atheism is very unrefined, juvenile and simply boils down to petty rationalism.

[Anonymous No.23069543]

>>23069209
Well we can't be sure if he really existed or not, it's far more likely that he was an actual person because it would be considerably harder to convince the early christians otherwise, however it's still a possibility, there is a 30 years gap between his death and the earliest sights of christians. Maybe some guy invented the whole story and claimed to have heard from someone else and it worked since he was so similar to other figures at the time that were preaching their own cults, we just don't know.

[Anonymous No.23069556]

>>23069543
Show me one scholar who says Jesus never existed

[Anonymous No.23069577]

>>23069556
It's irrelevant, they all say it's likely but none of them gave any evidence that makes Jesus a made up character or even urban legend an impossibility, the closest we have is the fact a historical Paul existed although we can't know for sure if Paul or Saul was his real name nor that any of his claims about himself or his experiences were true including meeting the original apostles.

[Anonymous No.23069795]

>>23069577
It's very relevant if you are going to say it's likely he wasn't an actual person because the evidence states clearly he did, if you choose personally to not believe that's fine just keep your atheistic religion out of the classrooms we don't need you disrupting history class. Jesus' crucifixion is one of the most well attested facts in ancient history. I don't really see what Paul would have to gain by making up a religion that goes against everything the Jews and Romans believed with 0 evidence to back up his claim just to get himself killed, kind of a silly plan but maybe you have a naturalistic explanation for why he would do such a thing?
>>23069543
back to your previous post it's a 30 year gap until we can date the Gospels written in the lingua franca of the time but Christians existed long before that and long before that and some of Paul's letters than the Gospels. You seem to believe he existed and you can track him backwards pretty reliably and you will find the Christians were preaching the Deity, Death and Resurrection of Jesus immediately
>Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.”
>Robert Funk (Non-Christian scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar): “…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.”
>James Dunn (Professor at Durham): “this tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus' death."
I could go on but you get the point. Sure maybe 40 or 50 years ago you could say Jesus existed but today we know different

[Anonymous No.23069891]

>>23069795
>It's very relevant if you are going to say it's likely he wasn't an actual person because the evidence states clearly he did
there ins't
>I don't really see what Paul would have to gain by making up a religion that goes against everything the Jews and Romans believed with 0 evidence to back up his claim just to get himself killed

That's the thing WE DON'T KNOW if he was killed, he don't know if his name is Paul, we don't know if he was a pharisee we don't know anything, all we know is that a guy who called himself Paul on his letters and who was a christian wrote all those letters over the years as a reaction to events and developments he didn't approve to convince christians to follow HIS views on christianity rather than other branches, and to make his claims stronger he basically claimed to be a de facto prophet who saw God in a vision, who was protected by constant miracles, who was able to summon curses on his rivals and whose words were divinely guided plus he also knew the apostles and claimed insane feats on his missions that would outshine any other christian preacher of his time making him the ultimate authority on the christianity after Jesus death.

[Anonymous No.23069904]

>>23069891
>there isn't
great argument
>making him the ultimate authority on the christianity after Jesus death.
Well that really backfired since Peter ended up in charge

[Anonymous No.23069998]

>>23069904
there is even less evidence of Paul and the other 12 as of a historical Jesus

it's possible that Paul never saw Peter who never existed, died or disappeared at the time and that his little debate story(where he clearly won) was to make his opponents who claimed to follow Peter or anyone else but him to shut the fuck up, the only thing that is clear is that he was constantly arguing with several other preachers and was a controversial figure among christians at the time.

[Anonymous No.23070004]

>>23069998
>there is even less evidence of Peter

[Anonymous No.23071165]

>>23069891
>That's the thing WE DON'T KNOW if he was killed
We have a first century source saying the Romans killed him. We don't know if he was a martyr or if he was beheaded those things are church tradition but he was killed. You really gotta study this stuff before speaking on it

[Anonymous No.23071308]

>>23052961
>hard knows this and is embarrassed at what his ‘movement’ has become

watching dawkins come face to face with the consequences of nihilism sure has been something

[Anonymous No.23071348]

>>23052849
Also agonstic
> is it just “le sky daddy” posturing imbued with the unearned sense of superiority typical of “new” atheists?
It's pretty much this desu.

[Anonymous No.23071372]

>>23065122
Jesus Christ

[Anonymous No.23071885]

>>23068263
That's super cool, bro. And where did your book end up on the list?

[Anonymous No.23072054]

>>23052963
tsmt

[Anonymous No.23072073]

>>23056667
I don't want to spend 11 pound on a philososlop-of-the-month book but I'm curious, so I'll consider pirating it. What does the author's metaphysical background look like? Which philosophers does he admire and how did he shape his worldview/ontological frame of reference?

[Anonymous No.23072764]

For someone who doesn't exist he sure spends a lot of time sperging out about Him

If I did'nt think something wasn't real I wouldn't spend my entire life obsessing about it on a daily basis

[Anonymous No.23072771]

>>23072764
ESL

[Anonymous No.23073090]

>>23052963
>>23052961
Ad hominem

[Anonymous No.23073100]

>>23071885
I don’t write pop sci books aimed at rebellious midwit teenagers so I’m not on a list

[Anonymous No.23073492]

>>23073100