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

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 78 KB, 773x403, dawguns.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4981024 No.4981024[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

well?

>> No.4981029

Makes me laugh every time.

Recently, there was another amusing Dawkins bit about how all fairy tales should be abolished but it turned out to be just the Daily Mail misquoting.

>> No.4981030
File: 566 KB, 914x557, avedons_pound_1958.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4981030

>> No.4981031

Please no

>> No.4981055
File: 35 KB, 538x320, continental.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4981055

>>4981024
he's such a philistine

lol

>> No.4981064

>>4981055
I want to believe that tweet is fake.

>> No.4981071

>>4981064
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/334656775196393473

tok kek

>> No.4981083
File: 1.80 MB, 320x240, gibus snipers.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4981083

>>4981071
>Next they’ll be talking about “French food”! When will the madness end?
this guy

>> No.4981097
File: 35 KB, 542x308, they did great things in the middle ages though.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4981097

>> No.4981106

>>4981055
Please for the love of god stop

>> No.4981127
File: 223 KB, 600x339, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4981127

Why is he so goddamn stupid?

>> No.4981142

>>4981055
>Einstein equations
>Hawking radiation
>what kind of Search for Truth is person-specific?

>> No.4981144

>>4981127
Oh my god.
Please keep them coming.

>> No.4981145

>>4981127
Too much logic, not enough heart

>> No.4981147

go to /pol/ with the juvenile bullshit

>> No.4981194
File: 123 KB, 1440x900, richard_dawkins_wallpaper_by_kampy-d37566w.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4981194

>> No.4981482

>>4981127
He's kind of right.

>> No.4981507

>>4981194
that almost sounds like something that witty would write not dawkins

>> No.4981509

>>4981482
Not really, since Christ said even bad thoughts are sins (thinking about a woman sexually who isn't your wife). It's impossible to not be a sinner.

>> No.4981510

>>4981482
plz educate yourself in original sin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

>> No.4981568

>>4981507
>that almost sounds like something that witty would write not dawkins
It's not:

>[9] In the words of Frithjof Schuon: ‘The true and complete understanding of an idea goes far beyond the first apprehension of the idea by the intelligence, although more often than not this apprehension is taken for understanding itself. >While it is true that the immediate evidence conveyed to us by any particular idea is, on its own level, a real understanding, there can be no question of its embracing the whole extent of the idea since it is primarily the sign of an aptitude to understand that idea in its completeness. Any truth can in fact be understood at different levels and according to different ‘‘conceptual dimensions’’, that is to say according to an indefinite number of modalities which correspond to all the possible aspects, likewise indefinite in number, of the truth in question. This way of regarding ideas accordingly leads to the question of spiritual realization, the doctrinal expressions of which clearly illustrate the ‘‘dimensional indefinity’’ of theoretical conceptions.’ The Transcendent Unity of Religions (Tr. Peter Townsend) (London: Faber and Faber, 1953) p.17.

http://www.allamaiqbal.com/publications/journals/review/aproct09/3.htm#_edn9

>> No.4981582

>>4981194
>>4981507
>>4981568
le mayonnaise

>> No.4981595

>>4981568
Curses, my gambit has been discovered!

>> No.4981596

>>4981595
and it would have all worked out if it wouldn't have been for those meddling teenagers

>> No.4981619

>>4981029
>reading Daily Mail ever

>> No.4981648

>>4981083
dicky getting btfo

>> No.4981970

>>4981510
>Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man,[2] stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.[3]
From what I understand, it's original sin is an embedded part of humanity. Everyone has it, because it was "transmitted" by by Adam and Eve to all of their descendants as original sin, causing humanity to be inclined to sin. Because we inherited this sinful nature, we should thus turn to God in hopes of salvation. (Obviously the road to salvation varies from sect to sect, especially since some say it doesn't matter at all if you accept God, everything is predetermined, but otherwise, you more or less have to accept God and Jesus). Jesus was sent here because of humanity's sins. 33 years later he did, essentially taking the heat for our sins.

However, like Dawkins pointed out, since modern evidence shows that Adam and Eve couldn't have existed, then humanity couldn't have inherited the original sin (unless you apply some heavy throttle apologetics). So, what did Jesus die for?

I'm not trying to sound like the stereotypical fedoratheist, but sounds like he has a point. Unless there's something I'm not understanding, which is totally possible.

>> No.4981974

>>4981970
>So, what did Jesus die for?
jesus didn't die because he never lived

>> No.4981975

>>4981974
:OOOOOOOO

>> No.4982010

>>4981970
You might call it an apologetic stance, but the answer you'll often come across is that the creation story is heavily symbolic. The Garden of Eden was not literally a physical place, Adam and Eve were not literally two living people, they did not literally eat an actual fruit that fucked over all humanity.

One could look at it as representative of early humanity's first understanding of the distinction between what is "good" and what is "evil," with the "Original Sin" being the realization that one can deliberately do evil with the full knowledge that it is evil.

I guess, I'm no theologian, I just grew up in a Christian household and that's the understanding of Genesis that I'd formed before I just decided to give up Christianity altogether.

>> No.4982017

>>4981127
>Makes me laugh every time.
>Recently, there was another amusing Dawkins bit about how all fairy tales should be abolished but it turned out to be just the Daily Mail misquoting.
>>>
> Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:02:49 No.49810
Impossible. No body would write something that stupid. How do I know these quotes are true?

>> No.4982095

>criticizes scientist
>does nothing for humanity
someone pls find the religious "logic" to transform christianism in a big, suicidal circlejerk for the luls

>> No.4982118

>>4981097
#shotsfired

>> No.4982129

>>4981029
My mate once said how he thinks the Daily Mail is a good paper and representative of the majority of the intelligent public.

Got a good laugh out of me.

>> No.4982130

>>4981974
He's still alive, he's amanita muscaria.

>> No.4982184

>>4981097
is this eal

>> No.4982190

>>4981055
>truth

>> No.4982237

>>4981055
ahahahaahahaha is this fucking real that's hilarious

>> No.4982434

>>4982129
>associating with people who read the Daily Mail

>> No.4982453

>>4981974
There 's more evidence for Jebus' existence than Caesar's existence, fool.

>> No.4982470

>>4981482
In the most autistic way possible maybe

>> No.4982473

>>4982130
Sick reference, I had never heard of Jesus and a mushroom metaphor before.

>> No.4982478

>>4981024
>people who have done little for the sciences or literature but pander to politicals
He might as well have wanted to give it to Dawkins or deGrasse-Tyson.

>> No.4982488

>>4982129
Well he would be right.
The real plebs read the Guardian and think they're more cultured for it.

>> No.4982491

>>4982478
Winston Churchill won the Nobel Prize in Literature

>> No.4982492

>>4982491
I'm lmboing a that

>> No.4982495

>>4981055
He sounds English even in his tweets, I can hear him saying "What nonsense!"

>> No.4982518

>>4982491

He did write a bunch of non-shitty things.

>> No.4982551

>>4982453
Well that's wrong

>> No.4982553

God I wish Dawkins would realize that he's slowly sliding into irrelevance and take it with dignity. He's like that kid at school who did one thing which made him really well known and popular for a few days and then just kept trying to outdo it because he couldn't deal with losing the limelight.

Go back to what you're good at Dawkins, writing about biology.

>> No.4982563

>>4982553
It's too late, he's leeched on to Hitchens and the atheist movement, and is neither witty nor knowledgeable about the subject.

>> No.4982567

>>4982563
At least Hitchens is dead.

>> No.4982570

>>4982495
E's fookin right bent, tho, innit

>> No.4982575

>>4982563
Hitchens lost all credibility on Atheism after his debate with William Lane Craig. He lost credibility about everything else much earlier.

>> No.4982577

>>4982453
no
can you even name a source (read: historian) who mentions jesus by name once?

>> No.4982579

>>4982577
Yeah those ancient historians are very reliable

>> No.4982584

>>4982579
they're the best we have
if the person in question did nothing important enough to be recorded by historians they may as well not have existed

>> No.4982594

>>4982575
William Lane Craig is autistic, but Hitchens is just a piece of shit.

>> No.4982600

>>4982594
He's not a piece of shit, he's just very opinionated, I always hated his anti-theism though

>> No.4982610

>>4982453
this is what churchbabs actually believe

>> No.4982613

>>4982594
You're too forgiving of Craig. He doesn't have a mental disorder, he's just a charlatan.

>> No.4982617
File: 1.41 MB, 694x7025, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4982617

>>4982594
Autism stems from Atheism, actually.

>> No.4982621

>>4982617
If you've actually known any autistics IRL you would know they can be very religiously devout. Atheism is just another thing they can be devoted to

>> No.4982624

>>4982577
Pliny (the younger), Tacitus, for instance.

>> No.4982633

>>4982624

Pliny the younger the better.

hoho

>> No.4982635

>>4982613
He's not a charlatan, he's just really good at making reasonable-sounding arguments for what he believes. His arguments are absolutely autistic, though.

>> No.4982636
File: 237 KB, 1420x538, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4982636

>>4982621
Get with the science, kid. Atheism is for autistic fedora wearers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2039690/Atheism-autism-Controversial-new-study-points-link-two.html

>> No.4982643
File: 322 KB, 546x700, back to paul.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4982643

>>4982636

>kid
>fedora
>pic
>DM

simblyy ebine bost ladm8 XDDDD :^)

>> No.4982649

>>4982633
Made me chuckle so hard my shoulders hurt from flipping them up and down from all the chuckling of course

>> No.4982671
File: 37 KB, 480x600, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4982671

>>4982643
Epic post, my fine gentleman friend :) 'tis simply to see thine yonder xtian getting pwnd :D

>> No.4982691

>>4981055
Sounds like the set up to a Jerry Seinfeld joke. Reading it in his voice makes it so much better.

>> No.4982702

>>4982636
>The study authors... studied discussions by 192 different posters on an autism website. They also looked at a survey of 61 people with high-functioning autism
>In the group of high-functionining autistic individuals, 26 per cent were atheists, compared to 16 per cent of 'neurotypical' individuals.

lel

>> No.4982707

>>4982702
I know, it's hilarious when Atheists try to deny it as well.

>> No.4982745

>>4981024
this cannot be real

please tell me it's not real

how can he be so. fucking. daft.

>> No.4982751

Why the fuck not?
Is it because litterature-writers have nothing going on in their life without their little prizes that taking one away from them would reduce their social-standing so low that the entire contest would become pointless thereafter?

>> No.4982753

>>4982745
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/365527708458946561

>> No.4982756

>>4981509
Why do you think it's impossible to not think bad thoughts?

>> No.4982778

>>4982745
i mean russell won so whatever

>> No.4982811

>>4982633
>pliny the younger
>born after jesus' supposed death
>reliable

>> No.4982819

the anti-atheist circlejerk is pitiful

>> No.4982822

>>4982751
>nobel prize for LITERATURE
>non-literary winner

>> No.4982829

>>4982577
Josephus.

>> No.4982830

>>4982822
Scientific literature is not literature?

>> No.4982835

>>4982671
>>4982643
>>4982636
Whoever is autistic you guys absolutely are

>> No.4982837

>>4982829
>born after jesus' death
again, none of these people wrote accounts about jesus while he was alive -- you cannot trust a secondary source reliably
>>4982830
nope
besides, they already have like 5+ other nobel prizes for those losers

>> No.4982843

>>4982707
Autistic people are often better at thinking outside the box than normals, so it's not surprising they'd be more likely to hold an unpopular view

>> No.4982850

>>4982837
Define literature and explain how scientific writing isn't literature.

>besides, they already have like 5+ other nobel prizes for those losers
So what? The prize should go to someone who deserves it in the category, it's not a "participation award" like in american education.
It's not chess league for women because women can't compete with men in chess, Nobel prizes are universal.

>> No.4982851

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/824

>Implying Ricky isn't based as fuck

>> No.4982852

>>4982707
are you fucking dumb
you could not be more stupid
autistic people being more likely to be atheists says nothing about atheism as a concept you retard

>> No.4982853

>>4982837
But wasn't the only notable thing about (historical) Jesus his death and the followers that resulted? Why else would a historian note him?

>> No.4982855
File: 35 KB, 269x187, 16405656.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4982855

>>4982837
>again, none of these people wrote accounts about jesus while he was alive -- you cannot trust a secondary source reliably
Before about 1200AD we have basically nothing but secondary sources. We have no primary sources for the likes of Alexander the Great or Hannibal Barca, but nobody seems to question their existence.

And besides, why would they lie? Tacitus hated Christians but he also hated hearsay, he would never have written something unless he was sure it was true. Josephus met Jesus' brother, and refers to him as Jesus' brother; imaginary people don't have real brothers.

>> No.4982857

>>4982850
written works with lasting artistic merit? science is not 'artistic'

>> No.4982859

>>4982853
>>4982855
i concede

>> No.4982860
File: 77 KB, 354x320, 1300839749429.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4982860

>STEMfags trying to talk about history
We're as sure of Jesus' existence as we are of Sophocles or Hannibal.

Historiography goes beyond division into primary and secondary sources. Before the 12th or 13th century a source written within 100-200 years of the subject's lifespan is considered "primary".

>> No.4982871
File: 580 KB, 1146x1597, art.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4982871

>>4982857
>written works with lasting artistic merit? science is not 'artistic'
Ha ha ha.
Confirmed for not reading scientific literature or anything that has to do with science.
http://www.labtimes.org/editorial/e_428.lasso
>I think the relationship between science and art is best described in words of the French polymath and philosopher of science Jules Henri Poincare: “The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful”. Many scientists share that appreciation of beauty and are fully aware of the aesthetic aspects of their research. The marriage of scientific approach and artistic talent can be best exemplified by awe-inspiring work by Ernst Haeckel, whose “Artforms from Nature” is a continuous source of inspiration for me.

>> No.4982872

>>4982860
Let me guess, the apostles don't count? (Well, except for Johannes, he's from another calibre than the three others, I agree in foresight)>>4982860

>> No.4982873

>>4982857
OTOH maths is artistic and math writers should be allowed to win Nobel Prize in Literature (esp. since there isn't one for math)

>> No.4982878

>>4982871
mhm keep telling yourself that

>> No.4982882

>>4981055
This has to be a ruse?

>> No.4982888

>>4982882
his capitalising of 'Search for Truth' makes me think so

>> No.4982889

>>4982878
Nabokov worked as a researcher on entomology.
You don't think that some of the papers he wrote could have literary merit?

>> No.4982890

>>4982871
wow, scientists claiming the shit they do is art what a great argument

these people have no understanding of art beyond it having to do with beauty, of course they think the stuff they are doing is art

>> No.4982898

>>4982889
It depends on how he wrote them.

>> No.4982899

>>4982889
no because they are not works of literature they are works of scientific research
i understand that, for instance, an article in a newspaper may be written in a beautiful prose style, but i wouldn't consider it 'artistic' because that is not what the content of the piece is for.
>inb4 no authorial intent

>> No.4982927

>>4982890
>>4982898
>wow, scientists claiming the shit they do is art what a great argument
All it boils down to is whether the Nobel prize committee finds artistic merit in an author's writings.

>>4982899
>no because they are not works of literature they are works of scientific research
Can't be both?
Isn't it possible to decide to write on science and to choose your words in such a way as to present literary merit?

>i understand that, for instance, an article in a newspaper may be written in a beautiful prose style, but i wouldn't consider it 'artistic' because that is not what the content of the piece is for.
Hemingway or Márquez were both journalists.
Maybe the prize is only awarded for novels, but Dawkins has a point then, Wilson or Pinker or even Dawkins or Gould are scientists who wrote books that weren't only scientific reporting and had a lot of opinion and invention in them.
I guess the taste of the day isn't for science-themed books.

>> No.4982930

>>4981970
>So, what did Jesus die for?

He was trying to warn the white people but the Jews didn't like that so they killed him. Also the Catholic Church is a fraud and Satanic. Fin.

>> No.4982935

>>4981024

>Steven Pinker gets Nobel Prize for literature
>Thomas Pynchon doesn't

Oh God, I want this to happen. Just so we can finally dismiss the Nobels once and for all.

>> No.4982947

>>4982927
>Maybe the prize is only awarded for novels, but Dawkins has a point then, Wilson or Pinker or even Dawkins or Gould are scientists who wrote books that weren't only scientific reporting and had a lot of opinion and invention in them.
They aren't novels, though.

>> No.4982954

>>4982935
they'd better give it to papa cormac before he pops it

>> No.4982957

>>4982935
I doubt most of them like Pinker if they even know who he is

>> No.4982959

>>4982935
>>4982954
i think the most likely american candidate is ashbery

>> No.4982982

>>4982947
If the Nobel prize can only be awarded to novels then Dawkins' bit is ignorant.
Can't be bothered to check their rules.

>> No.4982986

>>4982982
it is awarded for poetry, novels or plays, or a combination of them

>> No.4982993

>>4981024

My god, it's like he's /sci/ incarnate.

>> No.4982994

>>4982986
One could also argue that literature is diverse and they should relax their rules.

>> No.4983002

>>4982577
for modern historians, its enough that his stories are attested to in multiple source materials, both extant and otherwise, that date with 15-30 years of his death, which are acknowledged to be also based on widely held oral tradition, esp:

>Crucified by Pontius Pilate
>The song and dance around explaining his crucifixion in theological terms (a jewish messiah would not have been crucified)
>The "King of the Jews" sign at the Crucifixion which is obviously derogatory
>The structure of many of his ethical teachings as they appare in multiple sources.

Q, Mark, Matthew, M, Luke, and L in addition to Polybius and Tacitus as mentioned previously. The Gospels are in the form of Greco-Roman Biographies. And is it really that hard to grasp that there may have been a wandering apocalyptic preacher in Palestine named Jesus? It requires no lead of faith...

>> No.4983005

>>4982579
>Rejecting history in antiquity

Might as well say we know NOTHING of the Ancient world prior to the Italian Rennaissance

>> No.4983008

>>4983002
Josephus not Polybius.

Fuck

>> No.4983011

>>4983005
we don't

>> No.4983017

more proof of the STEM agenda trying to push actual fiction literature out of the zeitgeist

>> No.4983023

>>4983008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijvxHbxSDOI

>> No.4983039

>>4983005
The sad part is that the STEM-fags who propogate that crap reasoning are playing into the hands of chucklefucks like Ken Ham who try to draw a line between "experimental" and "historical" science, with the latter being suspect because "were you there?"

>> No.4983049

>>4983039
we had to learn about ken ham in a philosophy class when the jew teacher forced us to learn about intelligent design/creationism as if it were the truth

>> No.4983058

>>4983049
Fun fact: Ken Ham looks like his name sounds

>> No.4983099
File: 990 KB, 892x1936, Tree Letter.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4983099

>>4982130
Are you Dorothy Skutezky?

>> No.4983199

>>4981970
Honestly, when atheists pull this shit it's like they're begging to be in the same category of retardation the bible thumpers are in.
>Welp how do I know mythology is mythology? Well you see, this mythology has FAKE stories in it! Checkmate christians!

>> No.4983209
File: 337 KB, 800x451, 1400434783487.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4983209

To be fair, he's a good scientist.

>> No.4983215
File: 45 KB, 460x276, 1400432777095.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4983215

He's pretty smart tbh.

>> No.4983229
File: 112 KB, 640x635, 1400437193457.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4983229

Neil Degrasse Tyson is also really smart, I heard he got a nobel prize.

>> No.4983236
File: 44 KB, 448x448, 1400433991719.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4983236

Even Dawkins agrees religion is terrible.

>> No.4983263

>>4983002
the problem with those sources is that they are heavily biased, perhaps to the point of outright dismissal. oral tradition is no solid basis in history. could there have been an apocalyptic preacher by that name? sure. could this being simply be legendary, an amalgam of the apocalyptic rabbis from the last century?

the primary problem with jesus is the baggage that comes with it. He is claimed to have regularly violated the laws of physics. In such cases extraordinary amounts of evidence would be required to accept that existence. I have the feeling that you are a deceiver, you try to have the lowest standard of evidence so you would no have to deal with the theological baggage. that can't be done since, his acts are crucial. who cares if a guy named jesus if he did nothing, what does it matter?

>> No.4983272
File: 17 KB, 320x320, jerry-seinfeld[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4983272

>>4982691
What's the deal with continental philosophy? What do they philosophize about? Why does it have to be a continent?

>> No.4983282
File: 978 KB, 200x200, 9939393939.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4983282

>>4983272
Perfect.

>> No.4983298

>>4982871
>art is beauty
Leave.

>> No.4983361
File: 8 KB, 570x533, 1293851190018.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4983361

>>4983099
That's pretty neat.

>> No.4983371

Daily reminder that science is not infallible and is often totally wrong.

>> No.4983377

>>4983298
Appreciating beauty can lead to artistic expression.

>> No.4983384

>>4983371
Here's a reminder for you.
Results that some science give is fallible. Science itself is not. It is by definition about finding the facts and being irrefutable, infallible

>> No.4983393

>>4983377
everything can lead to artistic expression

>> No.4983404

>>4982778
Russell won mostly for his humanitarian and anti-nuclear writings, I think.

>> No.4983409

>>4982935

Pynchon's too weird and not obiously political enough for the Nobel

>> No.4983416

But EO Wilson writes books.

Genius guy really, next Charles Darwin.

>> No.4983420

>>4983384
No, literal scientific progress has been overturned many times. Just taken Einstein's refutation of some of Newton's principles for an example

>> No.4983443

>>4983420
Yeah now no-one can ever use Newton's work every again because it's wrong. Except that there's a ton of situations where it's right enough and it's perfectly valid to use and calling it 'wrong' is just as retarded as expecting it to be 'right' in the first place.

Science is about incrementally refining approximations to physical systems. Einstein coming up with a better approximation than Newton had is a scientific success, not a failure.

>> No.4983463

>>4983443
Yet contemporaries (read: fedora-wearing neckbeards) see all current science as being correct, when much of it is constantly changing. Something that was seen to be absolutely objective one day can be made total nonsense the next.

>> No.4983470

>>4983384
That's funny, religion has the same goal.

>> No.4983477

>>4983443
Which proves that science can be fallacious.

We don't view things as the Earth bring flat do we?

>> No.4983491

>>4983477
No it doesn't. It just shows that the ridiculous standard of never having been wrong about anything ever, which no sane scientist has ever pretended science does or ever would aspire to satisfying, is complete nonsense.

>> No.4983507

>>4982860

STEMfags? are you from SRS or a feminist, by any chance?

>> No.4983907

>>4983236
>Neil DeGrease Tyrese

my fucking sides

>> No.4983916

>>4981024
Poets and philosophers are regularly awarded it too Dawkins. The prize is already bad enough, why award it to scientific journalists?

>> No.4983944

>>4983507
it's a pretty common term on 4chan you idiot. also SRS does not condone the use of the homophobic slur 'fags'

>> No.4984257

>>4983491
Which means at some point, chronologically, due to the direction of progress that science so assumes, it would have to be proven fallacious at regular intervals and reinvented in some form or fashion. Which it has, again and again.

>> No.4984576

>>4981024
People who read literature and philosophy are too stupid to read anything that is of real value.

>> No.4984584

>>4984576
Like what?

>> No.4984585

>>4984584
/r/askscience

>> No.4984596

Is Dawkins hurting atheism?

>> No.4984597

>>4984584
Science, Mathematics, History, Economics, Ethics, Sociology, Psychology.

Philosophy is none of this
its
"look how pretty everything I say sounds, it must be true"
no aristotle
you just hinder the progression of society and knowledge

>> No.4984600

>>4984596
atheism shouldn't even be a movement in the first place. it only exists because fundies exasperated other people, and it spawns retardation such as ITT.

>> No.4984604
File: 101 KB, 487x461, 1352320164181.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4984604

>>4984597
>Philosophy is none of this
How to spot people who don't read.

>> No.4984605

>>4984597
>its
>"look how pretty everything I say sounds, it must be true"
lol

>> No.4984615

>>4984600
The problem is that atheism is the ying to the christianity/judaism/islam yang. If the those mitras weren't as crazy over the top as they are there would be no dawkins. Truth is, everybody should relax a bit.

>> No.4984616

>>4984615
Truth is religion is outdated

>> No.4984625

>>4984597
Aristotle didn't write pretty, you fool

>> No.4984632

>>4984616
So is contemporary science in ten years.

>> No.4984946
File: 45 KB, 367x349, pls.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4984946

>>4981055

>> No.4984984

>>4983199
fuck

>> No.4985062

>>4982491

He was a prolific writer and essayist.

>> No.4985070

>>4982691
>>4983272
sweet mother of all keks

>> No.4985121

>>4983463
science is correct, it's testable. we simply strive for it to be more correct. Newton was not wrong, he just was not as correct as he could be, two body motion still works, we just tend to deal with more than two bodies.

>> No.4985136

>>4984632
shut up, people are being stupid enough without you chirping.

>> No.4985144

>>4985121
>knowing nothing about stats

"correct" is a word too strong for what you can achieve with the scientific method. You'll always have error probabilities which are themselves based on the (often faulty) assumptions of the researchers. Go read some Ionnidis.

>> No.4985260

>>4985144
correct is the correct word. arguing against the validity of modern science is futile since it clearly works, it is the only way we could have this conversation. The error states you speak of, are you talking about hard sciences or the soft ones. It is far less likely to have those errors in the hard ones.

>> No.4985266

>>4985260
>It is far less likely to have those errors in the hard ones.

Have you ever read a scientific publication in your life? These p-values? Understood what they were for?

I don't know if you're trolling weridly, or if you you got your knowledge of science from facebook.

>> No.4985908

>implying science is objective truth
>implying paradigm shifts don't change everything we know about science frequently
Has this philistine even read Kuhn?

>> No.4985925

>>4984597
>>4984576

>autism speaks