/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2365080]

Just read The God Delusion.

I cant shake this notion that most of his views seem to come from him getting diddled by a priest with a tennis racket, an act that he claims he enjoyed and even joked about with friends.

The rest of it just seems like him trying to shock religious people for attention.

"Atheists are more opressed than gays in the 50s!"
"Deny Evolution? might as well deny the HOLOCAUST"
"Religion....CHILD ABUSE"

maybe its because i was already an atheist upon opening the book but it just felt like senseless quibbling to me that doesnt really bring anything new to the table.

As for good atheist literature? Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan etc.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2365084]

Well now that you got that off your chest, you can delete this stupid thread

[Anonymous No.2365088]

Yes, it's mostly bitching and FLYING SPHAGETTI MONSTER HURR HURR

I straddle that Atheist/Deist line, and Dawkins fails to do much with this book.

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2365090]

anti-dawkins people are becoming the new anti-theists

[Anonymous No.2365094]

The Antichrist by Nietzsche would be perfect, although short.

Captcha: the techli

[Anonymous No.2365098]

me
>this looks like it will be great , im not religious but im open to alot of things
me after reading this book
>i want to kill myself knowing people like this exist in our society today

[Anonymous No.2365100]

Well it's as common for atheists to write books for other atheists to preach to choir and add nothing really new to the dialogue as it is for religious people to do the same thing. This phenomena, of course, extends beyond the topics of religion into other things like politics.

Gotta get dat paper

[Anonymous No.2365102]

>>2365088
>>2365088
>>2365088
OP here. Im more on the radical atheist side, kind of straddling the atheist/antitheist line

(I fucking hate the influence religion has had on politics and many aspects of culture, but at the end of the day i dont give a fuck what you believe, as long as your not a douche, its your right to practice whatever religion you want.)

Dawkins isnt quite content with that, he wants to basically remove religion from the minds of people as he believes that it will inevitably lead to evil things. Bertrand Russell had a somewhat similar view, but he approached it by forming a very sound and logical argument against the basic premises of Christianity that was easy for anyone to understand. Dawkins just flings shit at people.

My priest diddling comment was more than just a personal jab at dawkins. I think its a driving force behind his writing. I dont believe for a second that he just shrugged off getting molested like he claimed (gotta love the way he belittles other people who got molested, accusing them of 'complaining' basically)

[Anonymous No.2365107]

>>2365094
Nietzche seems more christian than he realizes, or would say.
Come on, the death of God (who we killed) followed by the 'Ubermensch' with new values based solely on will and love?

Christianity is the Anti-Christ, we can be the Christ.

[Anonymous No.2365108]

>>2365102
I've heard that "the God Delusion" is pretty much the book by Dawkins you shouldn't read. I think it's the one he wrote for hype and publicity.

[Anonymous No.2365109]

lol, I wrote a poem for you, /lit/:

Some say the world will end in death,
Some say in life.
When struggling for naught but breath,
I side with those who favor death.
But when I'm free from all my strife,
I forget enough of fear,
For faith in that eternal life.
And in that ordinary chasm,
ambivalence alone is rife.

...if it's not a pearl, remember that anonymous is ovine!

[Anonymous No.2365111]

You have to remember that Dawkins comes from the same tradition as Hitchens, Cowell and Ramsay, which is a sort of British minstrelsy for American audiences. The reasons he doesn't parade his (doubtless genuine) atheism in the UK are because his accent would carry no cachet and because so few people care about religion here. His attention-whoring wouldn't earn him any money.

[Anonymous No.2365112]

>>2365102
Yeah... I used to be pretty left wing, now I'm pretty right wing. Not totally sure all of why. Being diddled by a woman that went on to be elected as a Democrat probably didn't help.

[Anonymous No.2365113]

>>2365102

I don't understand why Richard Dawkins can't into liberal principles. A person's belief doesn't directly harm someone else - crusades do, and they should rightly be condemned.

As a sceptic, he should understand that to get a better view of the truth we should discuss all views, no matter how perverse, disagreeable or damned wrong.

[Anonymous No.2365117]

I think religion is rather irrelevant to things like war, given that chimpanzees wage war.

[Anonymous No.2365118]

>>2365109
Cool poem, but I feel like I've read it somewhere before????

[Anonymous No.2365120]

>>2365118
:P

[Anonymous No.2365729]

>>2365112
>>2365112
>>2365112
>>2365112
>>2365112
wait. you have to tell me more about this
>implying democrats are liberal and not central conservatives

[Anonymous No.2365740]

>The rest of it just seems like him trying to shock religious people for attention.

That's the point.

Religion should pay attention to atheism and people should pay attention to religious abuse.

Damn the day that people thought it was anything more than that. "It's okay to be atheist, if you feel religion is not right consider these things, religious people, don't ignore us". That's it.

[Anonymous No.2365742]

>>2365117
>>2365117
>>2365117
i dont think religion is the root of all war, war would exist without religion for sure, but i think its a huge motivating force in it.

[Anonymous No.2365748]

>>2365109

I preffer robert frost:

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

[Anonymous No.2365755]

this thread again.

[Anonymous No.2365759]

>>2365113
>>2365113

I think a major part of his thesis is that religion does harm people because it can inhibit the mind. I'm not talking about your kierkegaards, etc, but normal church goers.

And that is also divisive leads to disharmony within a community (assuming more than one religion exists in that community)

[Anonymous No.2365762]

>>2365112
>I used to be pretty left wing, now I'm pretty right wing. Not totally sure all of why.
It's called growing up.
I wish I was trolling.

[Anonymous No.2365771]

>Hitchens

Atheism, Politics, war ecetera, actually has diverse subject matter, doesnt pander or write for shock value

>dawkins
HURRRRRR GOD IS LIES AM I EDGY YET?

[Anonymous No.2365774]

I don't believe in god but I'm not an atheist because I routinely argue in favour of monotheism.

Check out GK Chesterton, Alexander Campbell and Fred Copleston.

[Anonymous No.2365781]

>>2365762
Yeah people tend to turn into bastards as they get older and their wealth accumulates. it doesn't mean right wing politics is any more virtuous though.

[Anonymous No.2365785]

>>2365781

Actually, the older I've become and the more money I've socked away, the more anti-authoritarian I've become. Even though I am now an authority figure, which is pretty fucked if you think about it.

[Anonymous No.2365790]

>I don't believe in god but I'm not an atheist
I have bad news for you.

>>2365781
That's a way to look at it. I simply think the right wing policies are more in-tune with reality.

[Anonymous No.2365796]

>>2365774

>I don't believe in god but I'm not an atheist

Explain this bullshit please.

[Anonymous No.2365805]

>>2365796
>>2365790
these

[Anonymous No.2365808]

>>2365805

Atheists raise not believing in god to the status of a faith and a church, with high priests like Dawkins who control the thoughts of millions of devotees.

Not believing in god is just a personal choice.

[Anonymous No.2365822]

>>2365808

Your reasoning seems shrouded, atheistism, per defintion, means not beliving in god. So if you don't belive in god you ARE an atheist, as simple as that.

[Anonymous No.2365824]

>>2365822

*Atheism

[Anonymous No.2365825]

>>2365796
>>2365805
Not the same guy, but it's rather simple. In western culture the only image of god we have is this unique guy with a a rather large white beard that knows everything and is everywhere. People tend to avoid that because it's asfixiating and kind of impossible given what we know in present times.
People move from "God" to some sort of cosmical force or something else to believe, like the universe as an organism. Something.

[Anonymous No.2365830]

OP, go read Chris Hedges' "I Don't Believe in Atheists" or Terry Eagleton's "After Theory." Both of them expose the neo-atheists as nothing but intellectually half-baked trash, while making a good case for what the place of the sacred should be in contemporary society.

[Anonymous No.2365832]

>>2365825
>In western culture the only image of god we have is this unique guy with a a rather large white beard that knows everything and is everywhere.
This is as much an image of God as the bearded patriarch. As is the sublime in the works of Bach. As is the fiery dove in the Gospels.

[Anonymous No.2365833]

Is religion some kind of branch of schizophrenia? No seriously, is it?

[Anonymous No.2365838]

>>2365090
the new atheists should be kicked in their godless nuts, at least the vast majority (including Harris and Hitchens) who were apologists for the neo-conservative agenda of war and imperialism in Muslim countries.

[Anonymous No.2365849]

>>2365833
We're likely to never know, it's impossible to establish dialogue on the subject because
>MUH FEELINGS

[Anonymous No.2365850]

>>2365822

>atheistism

lol. If that were a word, it would be exactly what I meant - the religion of atheism.

In other news, I know what the fucking definition of atheist is, but I'm talking about a specific usage of the word in 21st century western culture. In particular, blowhards like Dawkins and Hitchen who use their public podia to browbeat people into accepting their viewpoint.

If you want to bog down in semantics and definitions like a fucking retard, do it with someone else, you cunt.

[Anonymous No.2365855]

>>2365830
The man has a pro-theist agenda. His "work" is pure character assassination and using the worst interpretation of possible motives to attack his subjects.

There's nothing new about "new-atheists," they're just more recent.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.2365863]

Read Hitchens and Dennett. They actually understand the arguments proposed by the other side, and knock them down convincingly without being condescending or sophomoric.

Everyone should generally read Hitchens, doesn't even have to be his most famous works regarding religion.

[Anonymous No.2365866]

>be in medieval times
>meh life goes on, you got priests, peasants, kings, knights, farmers and shit like that, we don't know much shit I never even read a book in my life, i just heard about something that is 20 days of travel by horse away from my town...
>god? yes, he is good, the priests are wise men, they know what's wrong or right and how the world came to be, i go to church even though i don't understand latin, i think it's important to be with god and all, my daughter is getting married tomorrow she is 14, i'm proud that her man is cool, i hope they have at least 10 children so that 4 can survive infancy, sex before marriage is wrong, the world is like this

>scientist here, i'm rich and faggy and i studied throughout the years about a bunch of shit, i write things down and exchange letters that take months to arrive and so i have to write them carefully, i am intrigued by the things around me, i read the bible and i want to know about the creation some more, i knew a fellow who wrote some things that had nothing to do with anything on the bible, he was crazy and the priests locked him up and all, maybe he should have seen it better

[Anonymous No.2365867]

>>2365863
>Everyone should generally read Hitchens, doesn't even have to be his most famous works regarding religion.

Why? His political writings are even worse.

[Anonymous No.2365869]

>be in modern times
>holy shit dude there are muslims and buddhists and christfags and atheists and all those things, i study since i was 3, i plan to be an engineer but it's tough to pay college, but i'll make it and have money afterwards, i know two languages, i travelled the world, i have 873 friends on facebook and we exchange campaigns to stop sopa and funny cat videos, i read many books like harry potter and lotr but not the bad ones likes twilight, i really like books, i think things are like this, sattelites and internet, i don't go to church but i believe in god, i masturbate and all, but that's not the point anyway god is looking out for me, i don't get these atheists guys they just want to go against the flow

>scientist here, i know the world is round and evolution happened and this is my life of study, i never really read much of philosophy but i know how to behave in a lab, i want to discover the world that surrounds me, when i look back at things like the bible i see that many things are not possible and i don't understand how people can believe in walking on water guys or that illogical son of himself thing, not to mention adam and eve and noah's ark, it doesn't make sense, because we know what really happened now, we observe the stars and we study the rock, we have method and all

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.2365880]

>>2365867
Nope.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/10/muammar_qaddafi_should_not_ha
ve_been_killed_but_sent_to_stand_tr.html

[Anonymous No.2365908]

>>2365863
>They actually understand the arguments proposed by the other side, and knock them down convincingly without being condescending or sophomoric.
No they don't. For them, "religion" is synonymous with the most cartoonish forms religion can take: Biblical literalisms and fundamentalism. It's not very hard to mock these forms of religion; even the more intelligent of the religious despise these forms of Christianity. They have no theological training, so they don't know anything about the tradition of religious dissent: Kierkegaard's Christian existentialism, the 20th century neo-Augustinians, the liberation theologians, feminist theology or black theology. The neo-atheists are wrong, wrong wrong.

[Anonymous No.2365913]

>>2365908
You never read Dennet or Hitchens.

[Anonymous No.2365920]

>>2365913

I honestly don't know where Hitchen gets this reputation for being so erudite. He was a hack who magpied any ideas he read into his arguments in order to bemuse and bedazzle the chattering classes who have read even less than him.

His most important debating tactic was talking over people and shouting.

He did have a wonderful voice though.

[Anonymous No.2365927]

>>2365908
>they don't know anything about the tradition of religious dissent:
You just revealed the fact that you haven't read a single word of Hitchens's work. He probably knows more about the history of unbelief than anyone posting here. He also friends with many quite sophisticated and intellectual religious thinkers.

>Biblical literalisms and fundamentalism
Exactly. It wouldn't be necessary if these people didn't exist and weren't massively influential in American politics.

[Anonymous No.2365928]

>>2365908
They are not mocking religion, they are making a point against it. Mocking is a bonus and you shouldn't take it seriously, all the cool guys do it, including the religious that mock the atheists. It's not about debating against the most clever guys in religion, but to make the ordinary guy see things differently. Most religious people are just idiots, they ACTUALLY think dinosaurs died in a flood and they are teaching creationism in school. Now that is a political and educational problem. Those who don't see it that way and have a background in philosophy are fine the way they are and this is a debate that goes behind the curtains, not because they hide themselves, but because not much people can't get deep into it and get to a conclusion like that. It's not about who is right or wrong, or to get to a conclusion on the existence of god, but to make people wake up to the fact that atheists are not wrong (as it is previously taught) and that religion is getting in the way of science and politics in dangerous ways. These are not times for religion, our references are varied, our knowledge is vast and we are in need of introspection and asking the right questions so that science can be seen the better way and religion can be seen the better way as well. But before that, people need to see the other side.

[Anonymous No.2365929]

>>2365920
"the chattering classes"

[Anonymous No.2365931]

>>2365920
>I honestly don't know where Hitchen gets this reputation for being so erudite

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW8yBnpN48w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP0uboc5Dk0

[Anonymous No.2365936]

>>2365913
I never read Dennet, but I held my nose and read Dawkins. When Dawkins isn't outright taking unwarranted logical leaps (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/)) he is missing the entire point of the last 200 years of religious thought. God "existing" or "not existing" isn't the point, and it hasn't been the point since Kierkegaard. The point is how religion orders the world, gives us meaning, and gives us tools and a language to resist injustice. Dawkins doesn't address these issues because he can't.

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2365937]

>>2365928
>Most religious people are just idiots, they ACTUALLY think dinosaurs died in a flood and they are teaching creationism in school.
hahaha.

[Anonymous No.2365941]

The only people who enjoy that book are regulars on reddit. Antitheists tend to be angry college kids who don't like being told what to do. Religion is the excuse, but not the cause, for ruling over people. If we didn't have religion, they'd use some other scare tactic.

I know a college freshman who thought he had the world figured out. He said, "Anyone who is religious is stupid." Full stop. When classic examples of religious intelligence were presented (Plato, Aristotle), he said that they were all "Closet atheists in a world where religion would kill you if you weren't a believer." I don't think he realized that not all religion was the Catholic Church.

[Anonymous No.2365942]

>>2365936
Wait, so you're criticizing Hitchens and Dennett based on arguments used by Dawkins?

[Anonymous No.2365943]

>>2365920
>>2365920
>His most important debating tactic was talking over people and shouting.
Hehe, and it's hilarious when Hitchens got beaten at his own game:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHW3PM_d7SM&feature=related

(go to the 8:30 mark) The consequences will never be the same.

[Anonymous No.2365945]

>>2365937
Hey, I'm talking about religious people, not religion. Most people are idiots, most people are religious, most people within the religious people are idiots, most people within the idiots are religious. Etc...

[Anonymous No.2365946]

>>2365942
Let's just deal with Dawkins, dawg. He's the more famous one anyway.

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2365948]

>>2365941
>scare tactic
I think organised religion is actually a pretty noble lie in some ways. society would be much more nihilistic than it already is, and im fairly sure that would lead to decadence.

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2365949]

>>2365945
are you from the american south or something? because creationism is a non issue in everywhere outside of the usa, just because americans are idiots, doesnt mean the religious are. also use the word christians and not the religious.

[Anonymous No.2365951]

>>2365936
>God "existing" or "not existing" isn't the point
Hey, religious people started that. Blame materialism, not atheism.

People never heard of Kierkegaard.

[Anonymous No.2365954]

>>2365946
No, you responded to a post recommending Htichens and Dennett. Modern atheism and anti-theism isn't just one man, it's a series of arguments set forth by many different people in a verity of fields.

[Anonymous No.2365957]

>>2365928
>religion is getting in the way of science and politics in dangerous ways
Well, I think you are mistaking a symptom for a disease. You have a lot of angry people venting their grievances in religious language (i.e. Christian fundamentalists furious at the "heathens" who aren't "real Americans" [Jews and liberal agnostics] and Muslims who decry the decadent West who are polluting Islamic culture). Neo-atheists assume that if you get rid of religion, then everybody will calm down. This is nonsense. This is a time of massive economic dislocation as too few people have way too much, and too many people have much too little. That the neo-atheists, supposedly the most rational people alive, just don't understand the rage people are feeling now is astounding.

[Anonymous No.2365960]

>>2365936
>The point is how religion orders the world, gives us meaning, and gives us tools and a language to resist injustice

What a condescending and anti-humanistic world view. Knowledge is the search for truth, not which comforting lie is most useful to society.

[I was atheist before it was cool on reddit No.2365961]

>ITT hipster atheists find a way to make themselves feel superior to everyone

No one delivers intellectual bitch slaps in debates like Dawkins and Hitch.

[Anonymous No.2365964]

>>2365949
>because creationism is a non issue in everywhere outside of the usa
Not true, man...

I'm not from U.S., btw. But the bookstores have 100x (this is a reasonable estimative) more religious books then science books here. And they sell more too. And people look with disgust if you say you don't believe in God. And when asked about how things came to be, they give a God answer and frown to science. People go to priests before going to doctors. They doubt they teachers (as they should!), but they don't doubt their priests and what is worst is that they don't question either of them, they just remain silent. Protestant preachers ask for money and people give to them but they keep it to themselves and buy companies instead of doing charity. And everyone thinks they are going good. This is a social problem. Regardless of personal beliefs, this is about people abusing others.

[Anonymous No.2365965]

Look, you can call Dawkins arguments petty. But why does he need to do any more? It's all the Theists offer in their arguments, and he can beat them at their level.
He goes over Aquinas proofs, he talks about C.S. Lewis and other Theologians and refutes their points. Why not throw a bit of ad hominem in there?
I don't consider all cases of parents religiosity thrown upon children as an 'abuse', but there are people who take it way to far and never let their children decide for themselves, which is wrong in my book.

There is no space for God to fill, and while this comes across as obvious to Atheists, to the religious reader it could be quite shocking.

[Anonymous No.2365966]

>>2365954
>let's not address his criticism; let's quibble about something irrelevant.
Cool story, bloo.

[Anonymous No.2365967]

>>2365961
>No one delivers intellectual bitch slaps in debates like Dawkins and Hitch.
Yeah, because they're bitches.
Listen to Bertrand Russell. Now that's an atheist.

[Anonymous No.2365969]

>>2365965
>he can beat them at their level.
Yeah, like that time he wiped the floor with Dr. William Layne Craig.

[Anonymous No.2365970]

>>2365957
Stop talking about "neo-atheism", that word is meaningless and condescending, it only makes you look stupid in the end.

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2365971]

>>2365964
where are you from? that doesnt sound like an innately religious thing, since i know no religious people like that, and was raised catholic and am surrounded by catholics.

[Anonymous No.2365973]

>>2365949

Except for the middle east, parts of Africa and a few other scientifically illiterate places.

[Anonymous No.2365974]

>>2365781
lol I'm right wing and I've never made 20k in a year

[Anonymous No.2365976]

>>2365966
My point is that the arguments set forth by Hitchens and Dennett aren't the sam as those set forth by Dawkins. Bitching about "modern atheism" without reading them is like bitching about modern religion while only taking Jerry Falwell into consideration.

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2365977]

>>2365973
why do antitheists then pick fights with people in the first world?
>>2365974
what?

[Anonymous No.2365979]

>>2365970
OK, then let's address Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins (I've never read Dennett). My my, you're certainly being prissy about your terms, labels, and ad hominems, but thin in your counterarguments. Seems a common thread among you neo-atheists.

[Anonymous No.2365983]

>>2365969
I didn't know Craig and Dawkins had debated.
care to share?

Plus what proofs has Craig got that havent already been refuted?
A re-hashed Cosmological argument??

[Anonymous No.2365984]

>>2365969
No, Hitchens did that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

[Anonymous No.2365986]

>>2365976
I've read Dawkins. I've said let's talk about Dawkins. I've talked about Dawkins. You're the only one who keeps harping on Dennett. This is getting pretty fucking tedious.

[Anonymous No.2365987]

ITT atheists trolling atheists

[Anonymous No.2365989]

>>2365971
Latin America.

The whole world is religious, brah, it's not only about the US. In fact, the US is an exception of a disparity, where you can actually learn a lot and be scientific and at the same time you deal with the religious nuts. If you are in England, that might just be okay to be an atheist. There a bunch of atheists there. Italy is also a case of a disparity, they have a lot of atheists even though the Vatican is right there (kind of the opposite to the U.S.), they see how dirty the politics of the Vatican can be. The rest of the world is just very religious, regardless of the religion. Muslims hate christians... and atheists. Christians hate muslims... and atheists.

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.2365992]

>>2365960

>what a condescending anti-humanistic worldview

deluded liberal has no grasp of the inherently caustic nature of the dull brute (the 99 percent).

knowledge has no practical import in governing the lives of the mercurial proletarian hordes. organized religion is a "necessary evil".

[Anonymous No.2365996]

I think I found this exact thread in comic form
http://xkcd.com/774/

[Anonymous No.2366000]

>>2365984
Hitchens won this debate? LOL, yeah sure, whatever you say. My favorite part is when Hitchens is so haggard and punch drunk at the end of the debate that he doesn't even bother making a closing statement. He was that confident about his victory, amirite?

[Anonymous No.2366001]

You're all fags being trolled by a butthurt christfag.

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2366005]

>>2365989
>Muslims hate christians... and atheists. Christians hate muslims... and atheists.

this is not innately religious, this is innately human. what do you think would be different without religion? people would just find some other reason to hate each other.

[Anonymous No.2366006]

>>2365992
Evidence that religion is just a tool used by power hungry sociopaths to control the masses.

[Anonymous No.2366007]

>>2365983

Craig challenged Dawkins to a debate. Dawkins refused because he doesn't do "debates" since they're fucking stupid. (There is always a huge time advantage to the pro position since they can throw out a load of lies, misinformation and general nonsense, each point takes a few minutes to de-construct by the other side.)

Well Craig put an empty chair on the stage and said Dawkins was too scared to show up.

The empty chair won the debate.

[Anonymous No.2366008]

>>2365983
I was being sarcastic. Dawkins was a pussy and refused to debate Craig at Oxford after Craig had his way with Hitchens and Harris. Even his fellow atheists were calling him a coward.

[Anonymous No.2366009]

>>2365992
You are the worst kind of human. This type of thinking is a blight to society.

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2366011]

>>2366006
all ideology does that. do you think most people understand the physics of the big bang? or do you think they just go along with it because science is the prevalent mode of thought of the day?

[Anonymous No.2366013]

Yes , he can get extreme a bit , but you just can't argue that the book contains any kind of logical fallacy.That's what makes it so good.

[Anonymous No.2366014]

>>2366000
Quints don't lie.

[Anonymous No.2366016]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

Richard's response to Craig's self-promotion stunts and other non-sense.

[Anonymous No.2366018]

>>2366013
But it does.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/

[Anonymous No.2366019]

>>2366000
Craig? You mean the guy who ONLY argues from non sequiturs? The guy who says that if reason conflicts with faith and revelation then reason must be discarded? The guy who's main argument is that you can't disprove the existence of god, therefore god? The guy who thinks that "morality" (human solidarity) is evidence? He won that?

[Anonymous No.2366020]

>>2366008
you didn't answer my second question though.
what evidence does Craig bring that hasn't already been refuted?
He might be able to win an argument for Deism, but Theism is just not possible.

[Anonymous No.2366021]

>>2366005

>what do you think would be different without religion?

things would be different if we overcame religion, as a society, using reason and logic. the experience and understanding would make us stronger

[Anonymous No.2366024]

>>2366019
>You mean the guy who ONLY argues from non sequiturs?
Give an example that isn't him assuming we all know Philosophy 101.

[Anonymous No.2366025]

>>2366016
Ohhh those are fighting words by Dawkins ... j/k he's a coward.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC1xgS1XGSg

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2366028]

>>2366021
>using reason and logic
this is more important than the religion beef. they're not mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.2366029]

>>2366021
Reason and logic are as dogmatic as any religion. You wouldn't be any better off.

[Anonymous No.2366033]

There's obviously a Christian in Atheists clothing in this thread.

[Anonymous No.2366037]

Who really gives a shit if Dawkins was a coward or not.

Dawkins is a coward, therefore god. WELL PLAYED THEIST.

Resorting to insults when you run out of arguments.

[Anonymous No.2366039]

>>2366024
The notion that absolute morality exists, therefore a creator is necessary.

[Anonymous No.2366042]

>>2366019
Better than the drunkard whose only "argument" was that God is a big meanie.

[Anonymous No.2366045]

>>2366029
Reason and logic brought the computer you're using to communicate right now. It's gives tangible results unlike religion.

[Anonymous No.2366047]

>>2366028
>>2366029

yea I forgot, the leap of faith you have to take when believing in sky-daddy is obviously equal to the one you have to take when believing in the use of reason and logic. thank you phil 101 for another glorious day on planet earth

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2366049]

>>2366045
>wow a shiny new computer!! my life is full of meaning now!!
thats magpie mentality bro.

[Anonymous No.2366052]

>>2366005
>this is innately human
But.. but... I don't think so. I don't hate people that disagree with me. Do you?

[Anonymous No.2366053]

>>2366042
No, his argument is that there has never been convincing evidence for the existence of a god, therefore believing in one is foolish. His "god is a big meanie" argument is used to support his anti-theism, not his atheism.

[Anonymous No.2366054]

>>2366049
>being scientific is being materialistic

Jesus, what the fuck are you up to here? The mad scientist myth?

[Anonymous No.2366056]

>>2366045
>Reason and logic brought the computer you're using to communicate right now.
No. Reason and logic are analytical not synthetical, and as such are purely critical, they're not used in the creation of things. So after creating a computer we can then apply reason and logic to see if it makes sense. Great.

[Anonymous No.2366059]

>>2366033
It's hakas samefagging. Like three posts for each one against him.

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2366060]

>>2366052
i personally don't. what do you think about politics? do you think politics doesn't lead to hatred? do you think race and ehtnicity doesn't lead to hatred? religion is just one arena in which people find reasons to hate each other based on difference.

[Anonymous No.2366061]

Religionists care about the truth.
Scientists care about the process of determining truth.

[Anonymous No.2366063]

>>2366049
>meaning
What a ridiculous notion. Life doesn't "mean" anything, similar to the way that millions of dead African children doesn't "mean" anything other than the fact that we should probably find ways of distributing walter filtration systems more reliably.

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2366064]

>>2366059

[Anonymous No.2366072]

>>2365960
>has never studied modern religious thought
Again, since Kierkegaard, the main point hasn't been whether or not God exists. Take the example of Chris Hedges, a Harvard seminarian and neo-Augustinian. Hedges eschews magic and superstition, miracles, the afterlife, and a literal belief in the incarnation. But he takes religious wisdom very seriously, especially the religious insight that man is fallen, and that the human struggle against personal and collective sin can never be won. So in a sense, he is "anti-humanist" but he isn't "tricking" anyone into believing in God because it's 'socially useful'. God, another angry atheist who hasn't done a lick of reading.

[Anonymous No.2366073]

>>2366056
>implying that mathematics isn't just applied logic
Without logic we wouldn't have the the computer.

[Anonymous No.2366076]

>>2366039
He doesn't argue for a creator, but he does point out the need for some external "other" that defines morality/ethics. This could be some disembodied paranormal force, in his argument it doesn't need to be God. See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxDKvqcUADU&t=2m30s

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2366078]

>>2366063
>Life doesn't "mean" anything.
why do you think the results that science gives are more valuable than the resutls that religion gives?
everything is permitted ok

[Anonymous No.2366082]

>>2366037
No, the point is that neo-atheists like Dawkins are carnival barkers who purport to be "rational", but can't even back up their beliefs with reason and logic. It's very damning. Dawkins and his ilk, at their core rely on an appeal to emotion to garner followers. They're as detestable as the evangelicals.

[Anonymous No.2366083]

>>2366061

[Anonymous No.2366084]

>>2366073
Again, mathematics in that sense is an analytical/critical framework. It can only be used after the point of creation, to criticise what you've made.

[Anonymous No.2366087]

>>2366072
Why call any of that religion? I'm sorry, but your post is basically white noise to me.

[Anonymous No.2366090]

>>2366082

WHAT beliefs? Dawkins doesn't have any supernatural beliefs that need justification from reason and logic. That's the point.

[Anonymous No.2366094]

>>2366078
Science is simply a method of creating tools and understanding reality objectively. Religion doesn't offer one iota of insight regarding "meaning" that can't be offered by secular art or literature or philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2366098]

>>2366084

What the fuck? You think engineers are just ramming random bits of silicone together and then going "That's done, now lets check the math and see if it works!".

[Anonymous No.2366100]

>>2366094
>Science is simply a method of creating tools and understanding reality objectively.
No it isn't.

[Anonymous No.2366108]

>>2366076
God was what was implied. The non sequitur would be that objective morality exists, therefore an external force in necessary. This is simply not true. We good idea about why we evolved solidarity with other humans.

[Anonymous No.2366114]

>>2366098
Yeah. As an engineer I know the design process is iterative. You need to have an initial design first, then you use mathematics and physics to look at the efficiency of your design. This then gives you an idea of where to start with the next stage of design.

[Anonymous No.2366119]

>>2366100
Yes it is. Science is the method. The method by which we understand our environment despite our imperfect senses.

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2366121]

>>2366094
ok the focus on meaning was my mistake. what do you think of buddhist philosophy?
my point was that having a computer, is not more valuable than becoming more happy due to brainwashing yourself.
also enjoy that objective reality you're finding.

[Anonymous No.2366123]

>>2366108
>We good idea about why we evolved solidarity with other humans.
But you can't use "is" statements to make "should" statements.

[Anonymous No.2366126]

>>2366064
You are mad, actually. You can't let this thread go and none of your posts show any intention of stepping back and admiting being wrong or even admiting that some other person might not agree with you. You're mad because someone doesn't think like you do and you can't sleep without telling that person wrong. You were consumed by internet discussion and comic strips on atheism vs religion and your arguments are based on wild assumptions, out of touch ideas (that creationism is only an issue in the USA, for example) and basicly a very big butthurt. The samefaggotry is indeed obvious and there is no doubt in my mind that you have this thread opened up for hours just to "tell the Dawkinsfags". You are clearly only cultured within the boundaries of your religion and what you are doing is no different than preaching, and being a dick about it. At the same time you just assume everyone here is only cultured on Dawkins and Hitchens, which is plain wrong. You are the type that debates with 13 year olds, atheists and theists alike and you like to throw names around. It's not what you know or don't know, what we know or don't know, but your position in never assuming you maybe don't know enough to be making a good point. That is something some atheists have, some theists have but you clearly don't have.

Also,
>9gag

[Anonymous No.2366128]

I'm so glad I live in a place where none of this shit is important to anyone.

[Anonymous No.2366131]

>>2366121
>is not more valuable than becoming more happy due to brainwashing yourself.
A computer has many more uses apart from entertainment. It's useful in communication, creation, storage and dissipation of knowledge, et cetra.

[Anonymous No.2366134]

>>2366090
That's not all he believes. He also believes that if people are simply more "rational", they'll be better human beings, that if they stopped praying to Mecca five times a day, we'd have world peace. It's very thinly veiling cultural imperialism, and only someone with so little self-knowledge like Dawkins could miss that.

There is an incident that is very telling. Rebecca Watson, a 'feminist atheist' last year wrote an article about mysogany (sp?) in the atheist community. Dawkins was infuriated. 'How dare you complain about your problems when Muslim women have it so much worse?' was the gist of his response. In other words, 'how dare you criticize the movement. This was never a movement about self-awareness. This was always a movement about reforming the "lower classes", about making them conform to our discipline and expectations.' The incident was as disturbing as it was revealing.

[Anonymous No.2366143]

>>2366123
Not you're playing this words. We're the ones who define morality. Humans, not taking sociopaths and psychopaths into consideration, have a natural tendency to help other humans due to the survival benefits. Ultimately, can we say that killing someone else is "bad" in a objective sense? No. But we can say that we wouldn't survive a world where that wasn't considered "bad"

[Anonymous No.2366150]

>>2366134

People with a better understanding of the way the universe actually works will make better decisions.

Dawkins' inadvertent sexism or whatever has nothing to do with religion. He makes mistakes just like everyone else.

[Anonymous No.2366152]

>>2366134

>look up this woman
>she whines about being asked to get coffee with someone

Jesus Christ how horrifying, those horrible misogynists

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2366155]

>>2366126
oh god.

>>2366131
>communication, creation, storage and dissipation of knowledge, et cetra.

without a meaning of life, none of these things are objectively useful. if i dont like to communicate, communication is not useful for me. humanism is humanity not being able to give up the ghost of their dead god.

[Anonymous No.2366158]

>>2366143
>Not you're playing this words.
Don't blame others for not knowing the is-ought problem.
>No. But we can say that we wouldn't survive a world where that wasn't considered "bad"
>implying capital punishment, human sacrifice, war are universally thought to be bad

[Anonymous No.2366162]

>>2366143

We can say indiscriminate killing in a society leads to poor societal health. (That is an objective statement.)

If we value societal health then we can say it's objectively morally wrong.

Objective Facts:
- We value societal health.
- Societal health is a function of many things that we can objectively measure and understand. (Not perfect understanding, but we have a good idea.)

[Anonymous No.2366163]

>>2365808
>>2365808
>>2365808
>rabid generalizations

haha, no. Those are just Dawkins fans, usually consisting of angry teenagers/people whove been diddled by priests (like Dawkins)

Atheist just means not believing in god, so you're an atheist.

[Anonymous No.2366172]

>>2366152
>look up Rosa Parks
>she whines about not being able to sit where she wants on the bus
Jesus Christ How Horrifying

[Anonymous No.2366174]

>>2366162
You're ignoring the is-ought problem again.

[Anonymous No.2366175]

>>2366158
>"implying capital punishment, human sacrifice, war are universally thought to be bad"
Which is what we would expect given how human solidarity evolved: in a tribal context. Morality is about group survival, and how humans need to behave reciprocally in order to survive and pass on our genes.

[Anonymous No.2366179]

>>2366172

I admit, I am not an American. Are there laws there which forbid women to say no to coffee or to approach men themselves?

[Anonymous No.2366180]

>>2366072
So in a sense, he is "anti-humanist" but he isn't "tricking" anyone into believing in God because it's 'socially useful'. God, another angry atheist who hasn't done a lick of reading.

This read very differently from how you intended. Can't you see that your use of God in the last sentence precisely illustrates its usefullness as a catch-all word? You use it to display your displeasure, your calling to a higher intelligence that can empathize with you, when you could simply have not used it at all.

[Anonymous No.2366183]

>>2366150
>People with a better understanding of the way the universe actually works will make better decisions.
And do you have an example of this principle in action?

>Dawkins' inadvertent sexism or whatever has nothing to do with religion.
OK fair enough, but that's not my point. My point isn't just that Dawkins if popular because he reminds people that there might not be a God. That skepticism has been around since the pre-Socratic philosophers. (Why is Dawkin's so in love with ideas developed by bronze age charlatans anyway? They came up with those ideas way before science came along, which make those ideas suspect). Part of Dawkin's appeal is that he gives people a way to feel superior to other people, and justifies the suppression of cultural difference.

[Anonymous No.2366185]

>>2366175
So you concede that:
>But we can say that we wouldn't survive a world where that wasn't considered "bad"
Is incorrect, since it may be beneficial in tribal societies? You seem to be having a problem working out what is beneficial or necessary for survival and what isn't.

[Anonymous No.2366188]

>>2366174
That's a false dichotomy. We can only interpret "ought" with brains evolved to handle "is." We ought to behave a certain way because it IS beneficial to the survival of our genes.

[Anonymous No.2366189]

>>2366174

It's not a problem. We already live in a society that does this. It's working. Any philosophical argument you present that says it cannot happen is demonstrably wrong.

[Anonymous No.2366190]

ITT:

>you clearly don't understand
>it's not like that at all
>it's just the dawkinsfag/atheists/scientists/religious/christians/ignorants/creationists, not me

This is why discussing on the internet is dumb.

[Anonymous No.2366194]

>>2366180
I was trying to create a "I see what you did there" moment. Thanks for catching it.

[Anonymous No.2366197]

>>2366179
Why bring up the law? Rosa Parks bus thing was about societal racism, and not breaking the law:
>In 1900, Montgomery had passed a city ordinance for the purpose of segregating passengers by race. Conductors were given the power to assign seats to accomplish that purpose. According to the law, no passengers would be required to move or give up their seat and stand if the bus was crowded and no other seats were available. Over time and by custom, however, Montgomery bus drivers had adopted the practice of requiring black riders to move whenever there were no white-only seats left.
She only broke custom.

[Anonymous No.2366198]

>>2366185
>You seem to be having a problem working out what is beneficial or necessary for survival and what isn't.
Maybe, but that doesn't disprove my main point.

[Anonymous No.2366202]

Richard Dawkins and all other "New Atheists" are counterproductive pomps, and are also puppets of neoliberalism and imperialism, they're jokes and I'm glad they're dying.

[Anonymous No.2366203]

>>2366198
Which is?

[Anonymous No.2366205]

>>2366134
>>2366134
>>2366134
>>2366134
First of all, Rebecca Watson is a giant cunt, if you see the original videos where she describes the incident its quite clear.

Dawkins response was pretty dumb as well. He should know better than to use the whole "starving children in africa" fallacy as i call it. The truth is Dawkins is actually quite dim when it comes to constructing arguments and analyzing history. This becomes quite clear when you read the god delusion. He relies almost exclusively on strawmen, red herrings and appeals to emotion. Simply put, there is very little substance in his writing.

However, he was actually onto a good point had he not fucked it up. Rebecca Watson labeling a man who told her that she was interesting and asked her out for coffee as a "misogynist" and later painting him as a sexual assailant trivializes both feminists and women who are victims of true misogyny by reducing it to her petty quibbling. It opens the flood gates for "Mens RIghts" idiots and those who believe that women who are raped are full of shit. So yes, Dawkins was right to bash her for her stupidity, but as usual, he has quite a bit of it himself.

[Anonymous No.2366213]

>>2366172
>>2366172
>>2366172
>>2366172
................................dont even respond to this guy. Yes i just did it and hell probably bring that up in his pathetic little "Well if u dont care y u respond" follow up.

But. just dont do it.

[Anonymous No.2366218]

>>2366203
That "morality" is simply the reciprocal relationship one has with his/her own tribe which is necessary for the survival of both the individual and the individual's genes. No external "force" is necessary to define it. There is not "ought," there is only what IS needed for survival.

[Anonymous No.2366222]

>>2366197

Because she was arrested and there was a trial, you silly person.

[Anonymous No.2366225]

>>2366213
Just like Dawkins refusing to debate Daniel Lane Craig...

[Anonymous No.2366233]

>>2366222
Arrested for civil disobedience, silly anon. That's just the justice system being used as a tool of oppression, not dissimilar to contemporary rape trials.

[Anonymous No.2366238]

How does the book differ from the Movie?

[Anonymous No.2366243]

>>2366197

>Rosa Parks bus thing was about societal racism

Yes but the Rebecca Watson thing wasn't about societal misogyny, she's just a deluded cunt. That was the fucking point.

[Anonymous No.2366246]

>>2366233

Sorry, I guess I am just confused. What about this makes you think the situation is analogous to being asked to drink coffee?

[Anonymous No.2366252]

>>2366243
>Yes but the Rebecca Watson thing wasn't about societal misogyny, she's just a deluded cunt.
O RLY? Then explain the response:
>How dare you complain about your problems when Muslim women have it so much worse?
To Dawkins, he accepted some form of misogyny was occurring, but must feel that a climate of misogyny is fine unless it reaches the levels of those dirty Muslims.

[Anonymous No.2366270]

>>2366252

>To Dawkins, he accepted some form of misogyny was occurring

Whether Dawkins thinks there was misogyny or not is irrelevant (although if he did, he's retarded).

THERE WAS NO MISOGYNY. The man asked in a subtle manner if Rebecca wanted to come to his room and have sex. That is not misogyny. Rebecca is a stupid cunt, that's all.

[Anonymous No.2366285]

>>2366270
>Whether Dawkins thinks there was misogyny or not is irrelevant
This is a thread about Dawkins, not your waifu Rebecca Watson.

[Anonymous No.2366297]

>>2366285

This particular discussion started when someone compared Rebecca Watson to Rosa Parks. It has nothing to do with Dawkins.

[Anonymous No.2366300]

I am exploring theology and decided to go with The God Delusion simply because it was probably the most popular atheist book one could find. I read it all the way through and was outright disgusted. Dawkins is a fucking prick, through and through. He just sort of rambled on and on, then claimed to have disproved the many 'proofs of God'. It seemed like he was just masturbating over himself, like he was some fucking genius and had proved to there being no entity. He seemed to believe that if you believed in a deity of ANY kind, you were fucking drooling retard. He also seemed to want to prove that ANY fucking scientist with any impact was NOT a religious person, because his precious scientists couldn't have believed in a God and have been smart, no way! Hurrr durrr. I then went on to read The Blind Watchmaker, which outright didn't even impress me. I read his wiki article before picking him up and figured him to be a nice guy, just against religion, but he just seems like a prick. I need a different atheist to put in my theology part of my library. Especially since I'm trying to get a fair and balanced perspective on all religious/non-religious view points. He being the only atheist I've read, he only served to piss me off.

[Anonymous No.2366302]

>>2366297
Are you obsessed with RW or something? She was only brought up to criticise Dawkins, not apropos of nothing.

[Anonymous No.2366306]

>>2366300
>>2366300
>>2366300
>>2366300
Read Bertrand Russel's "Why Im Not a Christian"

Its an actual logical argument, not "HURR I GOT DIDDLED BY A TENNIS RACKET WHICH IS FINE BY ME BUT I HATE RELIGION!"

[Anonymous No.2366307]

>>2366300
Theology is a shitty word and God Delusion is not about theology.

You use "philosophy" or "mythology". Theology implies a god and tries to explain it and study it and think about it. You don't think about something by assuming things in before hand. If you get to the conclusion of god, then you get to the conclusion of god and you are being existential and metaphysical, but theological is a word that is meaningless outside of the religious circlejerk.

[Anonymous No.2366309]

>>2366302

Rosa Parks was brought up to make a point unrelated to Dawkins.

Try to keep up, retard.

[Anonymous No.2366316]

>>2366309
You seem upset no one wants to talk about your waifu.

[Anonymous No.2366327]

>>2366307
But I do believe in a God, I am a deist/agnostic theist.
Fine I'll say 'I am exploring/researching religion.'

[Anonymous No.2366346]

>>2366327
It's fine to believe in god, but it must be a conclusion, some place you ended up being, not your starting point. Keep the starting point as closer as you can get from you.

If you say you are studying "christianity", you are implying a lot of religious background to it that will impregnate what you read.
If you say you are studying and being "rational", you are already implying that rationality is the way to go, which is also a jump.
If you say "theology" you imply god.

So we just keep to "philosophy" that is, "I'll think about stuff". How you'll think and where will it lead you is a whole new issue.

And even that can be dismissed with the "ignorance is a bliss" thing. But we are assuming one doesn't think like that.

Yeah, "philosophy" is a cool name.

[Anonymous No.2366348]

>>2366316

You're not even making any sense (unless you're proposing that Rosa Parks is my "waifu")

[Anonymous No.2366359]

>>2366348
>evasive
Masturbating about black civil rights and atheist feminists is fine in the privacy of your own home, but keep it to yourself on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.2366363]

>>2366300
Feuerbach and especially Marx & Nietzsche are generally considered as having the best atheist arguments.

[Anonymous No.2366378]

>>2366346
But it's not merely philosophy, I'm just exploring religion and such as whole, and I'm including atheism in that batch. I'm reading the Quran, The Book of Mormon, The Old Testament, The Inferno, The Confession of St. Augustine, The Unlikely Disciple, etc.

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2366381]

>>2366378
no eastern stuff?

[Anonymous No.2366382]

>>2366363
You can't forget Hume.

[Anonymous No.2366389]

>>2366378
Sounds pretty good.

[Anonymous No.2366391]

Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Essential.
http://books.google.com/books?id=E7dbAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&am
p;cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

UCLA's Science, Religion, and Witchcraft. It's from a western-civ perspective, mind you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3Zx-qcNZf4

The TTC's "World Religions" series is a good primer.

[Anonymous No.2366394]

>187 posts and counting.

oh wow. This guy must be good.

[Anonymous No.2366399]

>>2366381
I've read some Sikhism, but that's next on my list of importance. Already covered Buddhism with 'Sit Down, Shut Up', 'Wide Awake', and 'Hardcore Zen'.

[Anonymous No.2366401]

>>2366378
What I mean is that you are not reading to affirm your believes, neither to prove them wrong, isn't this correct? Then you are reading to think. It's philosophy, it's what connect you with those guys, with atheists and theists and etc.

You can study all the different takes on Batman comics and you wouldn't say you are studying "Batmanology", you are studying comics. And a guy who learns about Stalin is not a "stanilonologist", he is a historian. The means comes first.

[Anonymous No.2366414]

>>2366401
I'm sorry for your aspergers.

[Anonymous No.2366415]

>>2366401
Ooh, alright, that makes a little more sense in a way. Still, for me it is shorter to say 'exploring religion' since that is basic and too the point. Hard to say 'philosophy' when you're reading the Quran in public and get asked why.

[Anonymous No.2366427]

>>2365964
>I'm not from U.S., btw. But the bookstores have 100x (this is a reasonable estimative) more religious books then science books here. And they sell more too.
>Im not from the US btw, but here BUSINESSES have 100x (reasonable estimative) books that SELL MORE than books that DONT SELL MORE.

HOLY SHIT HOW HORRIFYING, RITE?

[Anonymous No.2366432]

>>2365989
I live in latin america here and you're so full of shit is disgusting. It's.. just, stop it.

[Anonymous No.2366441]

Why are you still here?

[Anonymous No.2366458]

>>2365989

http://www.infobarrel.com/25_Most_Atheist_Countries_in_the_World

[Anonymous No.2366649]

>>2365781
It's more that when you have something, you aren't so quick to throw it all away.
When you've worked for your wealth, you aren't so quick to hand it to people who don't work.

And when you have experience with other people, you aren't so foolish as to think mass immigration and "integration" is going to work out.

Almost all left-wing thought relies on some rejection of reality/human nature/etc.

[Anonymous No.2366686]

>>2366649

>human nature

Oh boy here we go. Could you define "human nature" please?

[Anonymous No.2366694]

>>2366197
Have you BEEN on a bus anytime recently? I love how you leftists like to be 1000 miles away yet preach about the importance of "tolerance".

Now you go on a bus and it's nothing but nigger animals, crime is rampant, etc.

So what if they had to sit at the back of the bus? It's strange when they bring up bullshit about oppression, and all they have is, different washrooms, sitting at the back of busses, not being allowed to go to exclusive private pools for whites(for free). All of this is just fucking freedom of association anyways.

Rosa parks was a paid "activist" she was ordered to go make a fuss, ordered to get herself arrested, and then what she did amounted to nothing at all!
It was some other lawsuit which resulted in desegregation of buses. But some utter retards hold her up as an example of something, i don't know. Same with that nigger, MLK. I guess when you don't actually live around blacks, you can believe strange fantasies about how they behave.

[Anonymous No.2366701]

>>2365989
lol italy

I watched some video recently, some 99% protest or w/e. And one of the fags went into a church and smashed a statue of the Mother Mary. And he was lynched afterwards.

God Bless.

>>2366686
No i'm not interested. But when you ideology starts off with "things SHOULD work this way" they are doomed to failure .

[Anonymous No.2366743]

>>2366701

>No i'm not interested.

Stop using it then.

>But when you ideology starts off with "things SHOULD work this way" they are doomed to failure.

Excuse me? "Things should be like x instead of y" is doomed to failure? Changing things is doomed to failure?

[Anonymous No.2366751]

>>2366701

>I watched some video recently, some 99% protest or w/e. And one of the fags went into a church and smashed a statue of the Mother Mary. And he was lynched afterwards.
>God Bless.

Oh wow I should've read this before I responded. You are a fucking douchebag.

[Anonymous No.2366770]

>>2366751
>>2366743
hahaha butthurt atheist spotted.

I will continue using human nature, and you will continue being butthurt.

[Anonymous No.2366818]

yeah considering he's the high priest of atheism, his work and conclusions aren't so impressive. scientific progress in no way invalidates the existence of god, and all his arguments are basically just glass-half-empty nonsense. it's been some time since i read the god delusion but as i recall he never presents any substantial philosophical arguments which haven't been easily rebutted long ago. iirc his big trump card was the epicurean paradox, that infamous formula which has proven so popular with angsty teenage pseudo-intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.2366827]

>samefags
>religion thread
>dawkins thread
>christfag butthurt
>derp herp everywhere

Herm.. okay.

[Anonymous No.2366828]

>>2365928
>Most religious people are just idiots, they ACTUALLY think dinosaurs died in a flood and they are teaching creationism in school.

wrong. its a vocal minority dude, get over it.

[Anonymous No.2366829]

>>2366827
wrong about everything. ever.

[Anonymous No.2366832]

Stephan Jay Gould said that science in no way invalidates religion, unless religion makes a claim about the physical world that is demonstrability false.

For instance, with creationism.

Also, what had Dawkins ever done as far as actual science is concerned? Gould made many meaningful contributions to biology. He revolutionized the very concept of evolution with his theory of punctuated equilibrium.

But I get the impression that Dawkins spends more time worrying about theists than he does doing any actual research.

[Anonymous No.2366834]

>>2366832
>gould
>revolutionized anything

he wrote articles for POP SCIENCE that got him well known. He was a leftist jew who promoted ideas that we're all the same!

[Anonymous No.2366841]

>>2366828
>>2366829
>>2366832
christfag butthurt samefag exxxtreme edition

C'mon, at least conceal yourself.

[Anonymous No.2366842]

>>2366832
He popularisd the metaphor of the selfish gene.

That's it.

[Anonymous No.2366846]

>>2366834
Dammit Stormfront anon we spent nearly 4 hours arguing about this on Saturday.

I know that you're very butthurt about Gould's research about race but don't call the man a bad scientist, all right?

[Anonymous No.2366847]

>>2366828
What makes you think that is true and that people are that smart? They are brainwashed as kids. It is known that they actually claim it, I think you would even offend them if you said otherwise.

[Anonymous No.2366851]

>>2366832
Almost every claim made by religion has, in fact, been demonstrably false. The only exceptions are

a) historical events for which little evidence survives and
b) statements that are not able to be proved or disproved either way.
c) folk knowledge that has little to do with actual religion but helps people when doing activities such as farming

It's true that only a vocal minority of religious people believe in Young Earth Creationism or that men walked with dinosaurs, but the underlying claim made by religion that they believe in is no less idiotic.

"There is an omniscient, omnipotent being that you cannot see, hear, or feel or otherwise sense in any meaningful way that controls everything."

There is no evidence backing that statement. None whatsoever. You can manipulate the specific words however you want, the claim will still basically be the same unless you approach some sort of pantheism.

To be able to look at all the evidence against the existence of a supreme being and still claim a faith is an act of extreme lunacy.

[Anonymous No.2366864]

>>2366841
More than one person can disagree with you at a time anon.

How about you refute our points instead of calling us names?

>>2365928
>Most religious people are just idiots, they ACTUALLY think dinosaurs died in a flood and they are teaching creationism in school.

If you're going to bitch about Christians it helps to know what you're talking about. And most do not believe in creationism. Not even most Protestants believe in creationism, and they're the ones who believe in "Sola Scriptora."

[Anonymous No.2366885]

>>2366851
>Almost every claim made by religion has, in fact, been demonstrably false.

No, because, as you yourself said, claims made by religion can't be shown true or false. You can't prove or disprove the existence of souls, of life after death, or a deity who will subject all beings to final judgement for their actions.

What other kinds of claims could you be talking about here? Not stuff like "the world was made in 6 days" which most Christians and Jews don't even believe. The stuff that they believe in, the stuff that is important, is "there is a God" and stuff like that.

>To be able to look at all the evidence against the existence of a supreme being and still claim a faith is an act of extreme lunacy.

What evidence is there against the existence of God, exactly?

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.2366894]

>"Atheists are more opressed than gays in the 50s!"
Sorry to bump a crap thread but... what?

[Anonymous No.2366910]

>>2366846
punctuated equilibrium is a dogshit theory, which isn't even correct at all.
and it's made up to fulfill his left wing bias.

His later books have been even worse.

[Anonymous No.2366913]

>>2366841
lol no. enjoy your boring non-religion.

[Anonymous No.2366917]

>>2366910
>and it's made up to fulfill his left wing bias.

The idea that evolution is not a slow continuous change, as Darwin imagined it to be, is something he made up to "fulfill his left wing bias?"

[Anonymous No.2366921]

>>2366917
gould did not invent anything new, and his particular theories are garbage since there IS slow continuous evolution going on all the time.

He is only popular because, he wrote pop-science articles, and because he was a left wing jew.

[Anonymous No.2366927]

>>2366921
Well most biologists now seem to agree that evolution is something that happens slowly for long periods of time and very quickly for short periods of time.

But I suppose that they're being controlled by the Jews and so we can't trust their expertise.

[Anonymous No.2366931]

>>2366927
So where does punctuated equilibrium come in? oh wait, no where, because its an irrelevant "theory" made up by a left wing jew so he could claim humans are all the same.

[Anonymous No.2366933]

angry atheist

[Anonymous No.2366942]

>>2366931
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

If anything, punctuated equilibrium would support the idea that humans have quite a bit of genetic variation between them. We're such a young species, but if evolution sometimes happens quickly, that wouldn't matter.

[Anonymous No.2366946]

Oh and stormfront anon, are you ready to admit that your graph which showed that the USA was over 90% white until 1965 is bullshit? Because I pulled out some real census data for you in our last thread but you never responded.

After all, you were mature enough to admit (at least somewhat) that your claim about forensic anthropologists being able to determine race through skeletal measurements with "100% accuracy" was bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2366948]

this thread is as shitty as r/atheism.

in a related matter, this thread is now about who would win in a K1 match, hitchens' rotting corpse or pope benedict xvi castrated sweaty balls

[Anonymous No.2366960]

>>2366946
>forensic anthropologists being able to determine race through skeletal measurements with "100% accuracy" was bullshit.

I guess 95%+ is so far off.

>are you ready to admit that your graph which showed that the USA was over 90% white until 1965 is bullshit?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the USA wasn't founded exclusively by whites, for whites?

Are you trying to suggest that if america was not white, it could somehow magically be the same?

[Anonymous No.2366979]

>>2366960
America is not white. You have a black man as a president. Fuck it, your entire southern economy used to run on black slave labour. Cunt. It's like saying South Africa is white.

[Anonymous No.2366986]

>>2366979
and the UK is a muslim country now

deal w/ it.

[Anonymous No.2366982]

>>2366885
Can you disprove the orbiting teapot? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Thor?

To disprove a religion is an arduous task, and you're right, there is no way to be certain. Not about religion mind you, but anything really.

Is there a Flying Spaghetti Monster? Nobody can say for certain that there isn't. But, what is the likelihood of such a thing existing? Small. So small a number that the human mind cannot properly comprehend it.

Take any religion. Christianity, Animism, Old Greek, Old Norse. Take the claims that come with that religion and if you can (and this is hard for Judeo-Christian religions) do not cherry-pick the bits that you like.

Now proceed to dismember every statement using our accumulated scientific knowledge.

This is the only way to properly dissect a religion and show that at its core, it is a primitive and astronomically unlikely fairy tale.

I implore any religious people I find to take first ask for evidence before believing in something. I ask them to look at the whole of human history and the dearth of scientific knowledge available to them.

There is no God, or gods, or supernatural entities.

[Anonymous No.2366983]

>"Atheists are more opressed than gays in the 50s!"
>"Deny Evolution? might as well deny the HOLOCAUST"
>"Religion....CHILD ABUSE"

The first one, I dunno really, I guess it's kinda subjective but I don't see any problems with the second two, except there is much more evidence for evolution than there is for the holocaust, actually.

[Anonymous No.2366989]

>>2366960
>I guess 95%+ is so far off.

Fuck dammit come on now. Myself and that other anthropology major, castiel or whoever, patiently explained to you that you can't prove a skeleton's race through measurements. And where did you get 95% anyway? Are you making up numbers again?

And again, you can't even determine gender through measurements with 100% or 95% accuracy.

>Are you seriously trying to suggest that the USA wasn't founded exclusively by whites, for whites?

Will you just admit that your graph was horseshit?

And if the USA was created exclusively for whites then why were people of other ethnicities allowed to live there?

Remember, at the time of the first US census 18% of the population was black.

[Anonymous No.2366998]

>>2366942
Well, actually, iirc the way it works is by junk DNA. Basically, when the enviroment drastically changes, individuals with portions of junk DNA activated survive and reproduce. More or less, because everybody else is dying. Imagine if you point a blowtorch at a pile of bacteria - the one that survives will be the one with the activated junk gene for high heat-resistance.

Since no such apocalyptic event has happened in the history of the human species, the whole question is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.2367002]

>>2366989
>Remember, at the time of the first US census 18% of the population was black.
and they weren't citizens then.

[Anonymous No.2367003]

>>2366989

The 18% of black people were slaves you dumbass.

[Anonymous No.2367005]

>>2366982
You can't use science to answer the questions "is their final justice?" and "is there life after death?"

People want answers to those questions. They want to know what will happen to themselves and their loved ones when they die. They want to know if people will be held accountable for their crimes and rewarded for their good deeds.

And please don't bring up FSM, that thing was funny at first but now it's just tiresome.

[Anonymous No.2367011]

>>2366998
>Since no such apocalyptic event has happened in the history of the human species, the whole question is irrelevant.

bullshit

haven't you ever heard of the, uh, whatever event?

there was a bottleneck effect at at least on point in human history

[Anonymous No.2367017]

>>2367002
>>2367003
So? They were allowed to live in the country, which you claim was made exclusively for white people.

[Anonymous No.2367018]

>>2367011
>there was a bottleneck effect at at least on point in human history
The plague.

[Anonymous No.2367020]

>>2367011
it's some African name

apparently the whole thing was related to climate change brought about by the super gigantic eruption of this big volcano

anyway the human species nearly went extinct

[Anonymous No.2367021]

>>2367017
1. They were not allowed, they were forced. Dumbass.
2. They weren't even considered people. The country was originally created to serve the interests of white people. We don't say that America was made for insects just because insects happen to live here. Your logic is shit.
3. Reinforces 2, but allowed to live in a country doesn't mean shit and is just a technicality. Prisoners of War technically live in Russia. The country was not made for them. The real question is who the country serves.

[Anonymous No.2367022]

>>2367018
For Europeans and some Asians maybe. I'm talking about nearly all humans going extinct. This was before we made our way out of Africa.

[Anonymous No.2367023]

>>2367005
As tiresome as it may be to you, it is no less legitimate than Yahweh or Zeus.

You can't use science to explain anything with absolute certainty, but you can get a pretty damn good idea. For example, we're fairly certain that the earth 4.54 billion years old. We're fairly certain that man and chimp evolved from a shared common ancestor. We're fairly certain the Earth is round, and that we orbit the sun, etc.

The point is, there is NO evidence that points to an afterlife, final justice, or whatever religious construct you wish to evoke. All the evidence we have says that once the chemical processes that make a person cease to function, the person ceases to be.

You mention comfort, but is there no comfort in the truth? Before you were born you were, in a way, dead for billions of years. Is final death such a scary concept? To simple minds this may be so, but even those can be educated. After all, it is religion that teaches people to fear death.

[Anonymous No.2367025]

>>2367021
>Dumbass

More name calling.

I've not called you a dumbass even though you throw around made up graphs like real data.

And you still haven't admitted that your graph is bullshit. Act like an adult and fess up already.

[Anonymous No.2367028]

>>2367022
Ice age.

[Anonymous No.2367031]

>>2367023
>it is religion that teaches people to fear death

Lol wut?

[Anonymous No.2367034]

>>2367031
Does the concept of Hell and eternal damnation ring a bell?

[Anonymous No.2367035]

>>2367025
I'm not who you think you are, dumbass. I just jumped in because your black people comment was ridiculously stupid.

[Anonymous No.2367037]

>>2367034
Which religion promises eternal damnation in Hell?

[Anonymous No.2367038]

>>2367023
>Before you were born you were, in a way, dead for billions of years. Is final death such a scary concept?

Actually, the religious believe that before their creation, they still existed somewhat, at least in the mind of the entity that created them.

>To simple minds this may be so, but even those can be educated.

Now don't fucking go there. Religious people are not stupid. Being religious is not the result of a mental defect or a lack in education.

Seriously, being religious doesn't mean that a person is mentally retarded anymore than being an atheist means that someone has 3 doctorates and an IQ of 250.

Also, you keep bringing up Zeus and Yaweh and Thor. Keep in mind that to the religious, the vast number of deities out there does not disprove the existence of a deity or deities. On the contrary it supports their claim that such an entity or entities exist. They would reason that there must be a God or gods because so many people out there throughout history have had some kind of perception of who this being or beings are.

[Anonymous No.2367039]

>>2367034

Did you just skip over the Heaven pieces of religion or what?

Fearing death and fearing damnation are two completely different things. Humans naturally fear death because we are meant to biologically, as a ploy to keep our species alive. Religion teaches that as long as you lead a righteous life and believe, you should have no fear of death. In fact you should welcome it.

While for Atheists death is the end, for believers death is just a stage of neverending life. A doorway.

[Anonymous No.2367040]

>>2367037
Several.

Including Buddhism, actually.

Although to some Buddhists hell is not actually a permanent place, you're just stuck there until you reenter the reincarnation cycle later.

[The Importance of Being On Time and Being !dAqyKvNZuA No.2367041]

>>2367034
>Does the concept of Hell and eternal damnation ring a bell?
That's just the ruler talkin, bro.
To fear death is a biological imperative.

[Anonymous No.2367045]

>>2367035
Well you conduct yourself in a debate as well as the stormfront anon does, what with your name calling.

[Anonymous No.2367048]

>>2367040
The ultimate destination in Buddhism is Nirvana. Most religions promise paradise after death.

[Anonymous No.2367049]

>>2367038
>some kind of perception of who this being or beings are.

er, who this being is or these beings are

[Anonymous No.2367052]

>>2367045

Okay.

Next time think about what you say before you say it. I have a very low tolerance for stupidity.

[Anonymous No.2367053]

>>2367048
>The ultimate destination in Buddhism is Nirvana. Most religions promise paradise after death.

To some Buddhist sects Nirvana is a paradise you moron.

[Anonymous No.2367058]

>>2367052
>USA was a country made BY white people FOR white people

I still think that I have a valid point. At the first census about 1 in 5 people was black. They may not have been citizens but they were living in the USA with white people.

And they weren't prisoners being kept separate from everyone else, either. That wasn't a very good counter point.

[Anonymous No.2367059]

>>2366913

That may be the stupidest fucking comic I've ever seen.

[Anonymous No.2367060]

>>2367053
Apparently you're wrong. Apparently it's Hell.

[Anonymous No.2367061]

>>2367058
er, about 1 in 5 people were black

[Anonymous No.2367063]

>>2366982
why people keep using the flying spaghetti monster thingy? shit got old, everybody

[Anonymous No.2367064]

>>2367037
Christianity for one. If you do or don't do certain things the Bible explicitly states that you will burn forever in Hell.

>>2367038

>Actually, the religious believe that before their creation, they still existed somewhat, at least in the mind of the entity that created them.

That doesn't make it true. Show me evidence stating that we exist before we are conceived and I will concede this point.

>Now don't fucking go there. Religious people are not stupid. Being religious is not the result of a mental defect or a lack in education.


I didn't imply that they were, I only stated that simple minds fear death. Some of the most brilliant minds humanity has ever produced have been deeply religious.

>Also, you keep bringing up Zeus and Yaweh and Thor. Keep in mind that to the religious, the vast number of deities out there does not disprove the existence of a deity or deities. On the contrary it supports their claim that such an entity or entities exist. They would reason that there must be a God or gods because so many people out there throughout history have had some kind of perception of who this being or beings are.

That would be a logical leap deeply consistent with a religious way of thinking, but alas it is flawed. That many people and cultures believed the Earth was flat for thousands of years does not make it true.

Additionally, such reasoning would be at odds with some of the most popular religious doctrines. For example, Yahweh, being the jealous and spiteful god that he is, promised eternal damnation for worship of other deities. To believe that other religions were the manifestation of the same supreme being is akin to heresy, and would presumably damn a person that believes such a thing to spend an eternity in hell.

[Anonymous No.2367068]

>>2367060
No, I'm not wrong. According to some Buddhist religious thinkers Nirvana is a heavenly paradise.

[Anonymous No.2367074]

>>2367040
You don't know jackshit of what you're talking about, dude. Please stop talking about hell, heaven or any religion in general because you're just being retarded.

Thank you.

[Anonymous No.2367080]

>>2367058
They were slaves

A country is not just a piece of geography. They are not "part" of the country just because they happened to live within the borders.

Were any of the founders black?

[Anonymous No.2367081]

>>2367064
>Christianity for one.
No. For many Protestants, they believe that their baptism means they have no chance of Hell. Catholicism with the concept of purgatory also, effectively, no longer has Hell. Orthodox is redemption through payer to the primordial state. Again, no hell.

[Anonymous No.2367082]

>>2367064
>For example, Yahweh, being the jealous and spiteful god that he is, promised eternal damnation for worship of other deities

Not necessarily. God in the old testament didn't have a lot of patience for Heathens, but there's a lot about salvation for gentiles in the New Testament.

And keep in mind that Christians and Jews don't believe that members of other religions go to hell, except for certain fundamentalist fringe groups.

[Anonymous No.2367085]

>>2367081
>Catholicism with the concept of purgatory also, effectively, no longer has Hell.

Not really. You have to be pretty good to make it to purgatory, for Roman Catholics. Only the saintly have a straight shot at heaven.

[Anonymous No.2367088]

>>2367082
Really? They don't believe? Under what basis? Because the Bible is pretty clear about what happens to you if don't believe in God.

[Anonymous No.2367090]

>>2367085
>>2367081
are we ignoring the heresies of vatican II ?

[Anonymous No.2367093]

>>2367074
>You don't know jackshit of what you're talking about, dude. Please stop talking about hell, heaven or any religion in general because you're just being retarded.

>Thank you.

How about you refute my points instead of trying to insult me.

And you really don't know anything about Buddhism if you don't think that there is a Buddhist Hell.

What do you think that Buddhists believe in judges of the dead for? Yamas or whatever.

[Anonymous No.2367094]

>>2367064
>>2367085
the hell part was added by the priests in the dark ages, like a lot of shit they decided to put in or re write

i.e. lilith and eve

[Anonymous No.2367099]

>>2367094
>the hell part was added by the priests in the dark ages

Jesus talks a lot about hell in the Gospels anon.

[Anonymous No.2367101]

>>2367085
I'm afraid that's bull. With the possible exception of suicide (and even then it's pretty contentious) you eventually get to Heaven.

>>2367088
All good deeds are through the grace of God.

[Anonymous No.2367107]

>>2367088
>Really? They don't believe? Under what basis? Because the Bible is pretty clear about what happens to you if don't believe in God.

This is a new concept for you? You've not even remotely studied any theology, have you? Perhaps you should not talk about "what Christians/Jews/whoever believe" until you do.

[Anonymous No.2367108]

>>2367099
He makes reference to Hades. The Gospels weren't written in English, and translations are imperfect.

[Anonymous No.2367109]

Why are theists and religious apologists so hell-bent (teehee) on pointing out fringe-groups, minorities, and states of "oh the Bible is pretty clear about this but nobody ACTUALLY believes it"?

The fact is, most Christians believe (and the Bible corroborates) a Hell where people who don't follow the word of God go to spend eternity.

Furthermore, this just goes to show how wishy-washy religion actually is. Do you think anything resembling modern day Christianity will exist 10,000 years from now? No. And why? Is it because God will have changed his mind? No. It's because religion will mold with the times, and the trend has been to white-wash or completely erase the bad parts altogether in favor of the good.

[Anonymous No.2367113]

>>2367093
>What do you think that Buddhists believe in judges of the dead for? Yamas or whatever.

Oh and before you go there, yes that is just certain sects who believe in that stuff. But don't say that no Buddhists believe in hell, because that's horseshit.

[Anonymous No.2367116]

>>2367108
He talks about "throwing the weeds into unquenchable fires" and "being left in the dark outside of the wedding feast" as part of his parables.

[Anonymous No.2367119]

>>2367107
You couldn't tell so I'll spell it out. It was sarcasm. What X religious group believes is not concretely defined. Everyone knows this. Otherwise, there would be much fewer religions than currently exist.

It's just another thing pointing to the pure bullshittery that is religion.

[Anonymous No.2367120]

>>2367116
They're pretty consistent with other Jewish metaphors for death, like Sheol

[Anonymous No.2367121]

>>2367093
Alrighty:

There's no heaven or hell in buddhism because that's a strictly western idea. Yes, you get punished if you did bad things and you get rewards if you did good things, but here's the catch, you will get the bad things and the good things in a similar way to "what goes up has to go down, and what is down only can go up".
In buddhism, when you die, you hit the samsara, the cycle of rebirth. In this plane, you can come back to earth as a human, go to (let's give it the name of) heaven as an "angel" or to (let's call it) hell as a "demon"
>note that demon, angels and all that are not in the western sense of the word, but anyways
Yet all demons will become angels and all angels will become demons, and both will become humans, because one way or the other they'll eventually end in another part of the cycle.
In the mean time the only way to escape this is through nirvana, hitting enlightment and thus escaping the cycle.


tl;dr: there's no heaven or hell in buddhism because that's a european thing, but you got some sort of punishment/reward system that goes on and on, there's no eternal damnation or 72 virgins. Saying that buddhism has hell incorporated is plain retarded if you take the time to learn about this religion/philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2367123]

>>2367109
> Why are theists and religious apologists so hell-bent (teehee) on pointing out fringe-groups, minorities, and states of "oh the Bible is pretty clear about this but nobody ACTUALLY believes it"?

Because why should the fundamentalists make everyone look bad?

>Furthermore, this just goes to show how wishy-washy religion actually is

You know that not taking the bible literally is not exactly a new thing, right? For instance, Saint Augustine considered the Genesis account of creation to be largely symbolic.

Actually, it's taking everything the bible says literally that's the new thing. That came about because of the protestant reformation.

[Anonymous No.2367128]

>>2367121
But... some Buddhists do believe in hell. Not necessarily a permanent hell, but a place where bad people are tortured for their sins.

[Anonymous No.2367134]

>>2367123
This isn't about taking the Bible literally. Even passages that haven't been taken literally for hundreds of years are being "re-interpreted" to mean new things. Usually, something more positive.

The tendency of Christianity to move toward less harsh interpretations of Scripture is a trend hundreds of years old, as you should well know.

Again, this does not take away from the basic facts of religion, specifically Christianity.

[Anonymous No.2367143]

>>2367123
>That came about because of the protestant reformation.
I hate how this isn't taken into account when doing this whole (useless) debate. Things went from "ok/hmm.. alright.. I guess" to full retard after the reformation.

>>2367128
>I havent fully studied the whole samsara thing, but this is kind of an opinion, and not a fact backed with sources and all that
Yes and no. You don't get there because you murdered someone or because you stole an apple. It's a different system where you become the demon because you take pleasure in this such "bad" things. And as more and more that you do it, you need to do it more often and more violently, thus becoming such thing.

After that, I guess you slowly crawl back in the world to become human.

[Anonymous No.2367176]

>>2365729
This is true if you live in Europe

[Anonymous No.2367273]

For the agnostic this book does nothing. For the religious fundementalist it serves as a convenient straw man to beat around. For the convinced, diehard atheist, it is a collection of shit-tier statements against religion, to be utilized as a justification for intellectual sloth. This is, quite simply put, a book that relies more on incompetent raging and repetition of age-old misconceptions rather than a well-thought case against religion. Sensationalism sells though. 0/10 Dawkins.