[ 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: 18 KB, 182x277, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5311541 No.5311541[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

I'm considering giving The God Delusion a shot, but I've heard mixed reviews. Can I get a little advice?

>> No.5311543
File: 13 KB, 221x225, b98c4a8fcaa400047b76acee68100bed1398146333_full.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5311543

>> No.5311545
File: 96 KB, 557x711, e1e8571d6242566fbb2db80f916c6e65.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5311545

>> No.5311547
File: 140 KB, 900x675, fedora.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5311547

>>5311541
OP here.

>> No.5311548

>>5311541
Don't read it, it's shit. The only guy representing this new atheism horseshit that packs some intellectual punch is Daniel C. Dennett.

>> No.5311549
File: 47 KB, 464x528, 1402910550912.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5311549

god is dead

>> No.5311552
File: 7 KB, 223x226, tips fedora.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5311552

>>5311541

>> No.5311554

I think it was established in the last Dawkins thread that nobody has ever actually read it.

>> No.5311558
File: 1.69 MB, 383x576, max tip.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5311558

>> No.5311562

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_vmOvfbg90

>> No.5311570
File: 210 KB, 500x320, tpgme.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5311570

>> No.5311581
File: 2.69 MB, 300x451, euphoria intensifies.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5311581

>> No.5311589

>>5311570
Kek

>> No.5311597
File: 130 KB, 568x426, steve birchell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5311597

>> No.5311609

>>5311541

do you believe in god? no?

then dont bother

>> No.5311619
File: 499 KB, 450x296, fedora flip.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5311619

>> No.5312013
File: 171 KB, 408x410, Se7en.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5312013

>>5311543
>>5311545
>>5311547
>>5311549
>>5311548
>>5311552
>>5311558
>>5311597
>>5311581
>>5311619

>all this buttmad

>> No.5312041

Why does /lit/ hate atheism?

>> No.5312042
File: 30 KB, 600x400, laughing-laugh-mock-mocking-finger-point-pointing-600x400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5312042

>yfw theistic reasoning has been boiled down to 'you're fat and you look unfashionable, therefore you're wrong'

>> No.5312045
File: 133 KB, 432x648, palador.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5312045

>>5312041

This is probably all done by one extremely buttmad Christian

>> No.5312046

>>5311541
ive read it its pretty good

>> No.5312050

>>5312041
>>5312045
/lit/ doesn't hate atheists
it hates Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens and Krauss and the atheists who have not outgrown them.

>> No.5312064

>>5312050
But Dawkins and Harris are reasonable thinkers and good educators. Why would anyone hate them?

>> No.5312079

dawkins pisses me off. i cant believe he gets paid to say things that anyone with a critical mind has already considered. what is the point of this book, to change the minds of christians? lel, good luck. this is a money grab that strokes the dicks of young 20something atheists who just want to reaffirm themselves

>there is no empirical evidence supporting god's xistence.
no shit, news at 11

>> No.5312087

>>5312079
>>5312050

read his biology its much better the selfish gene is excellent

>> No.5312089

>>5312079
>what is the point of this book, to change the minds of christians?

Well yeah. He flat out says so at the very start.

Once again for every one person that has ever read this book, 20 people have very strong opinions about it.

>> No.5312090

>>5312064
Because they are opinionated, openly political "educators" who constantly write self-serving texts that encourage people to blindly bash Christians?

>> No.5312096

>>5311541
I once read it. It's fine. It's designed as a popular book, not the one that would shake the whole western civilization or anything. I don't get the hate on it here. My advice would be to try and find it yourself. Books are free on the internet anyway.

I'd rather be interested on the reason why you ask it here, instead of finding it out first. It seems pointless and ad populum to me. Do tell me why.

>> No.5312103

>>5312079
⇒this is a money grab that strokes the dicks of young 20something atheists who just want to reaffirm themselves

Paraliterary fiction, self-help books, "for dummies" books, etc etc. Literally everyhing except textbooks and high-brow literature is a worthless scam serving no purpose other than stealing from idiots' wallets.

>> No.5312117

>>5312103
Give examples of what you consider "high-brow" literature.

>> No.5312151

>>5312103
Stop using "⇒" as quotations you silly prick. It makes your post less readable.

>> No.5312154

>>5312117
You should know what it means. If you don't, then nobody can help you.

>> No.5312165

>>5312050
The sad part is, /lit/ just likes circle jerking over them to feel superior but most aren't sophisticated enough to grapple with their arguments head on

>> No.5312186

>>5312154
>if u cant sympathize with my subjective opinions and tastes ur an idiot with a big wallet :((
interesting argument

>> No.5312196

>>5312186
You can also be an idiot with a small wallet.

>> No.5312198

>>5311541
If you want to now anything about what religious people actually think or believe, don't bother.
If you want to learn what self-congratulatory atheists mistakenly think religious people believe, then its a goldmine

>> No.5312201

>>5311554
I think I'm the only guy that actually read the whole thing, and I'm a theologian

>> No.5312203

>>5312041
I hate bad writing

>> No.5312205

>>5312198
you haven't read it have you

>> No.5312208

>>5311541
>I'm considering giving The God Delusion a shot, but I've heard mixed reviews. Can I get a little advice?
I'll read it just for you, OP. Only a little bit, though. What do you want me to find?

>> No.5312214

>>5312064
>good educators
Going to Dawkins or Harris to learn what theists actually believe is like asking a Creationist to explain DNA. Dawkins has repeatedly publicly stated he hasn't studied religion, he won't study it, but he will certainly take your money to explain it to *you* and describe what is wrong with it. It is a pure moneymaking scheme to him.
And Harris is a joke with a poorer grasp on actual philosophy than your typical Objectivist. Several universities in the US and UK use Sarris' lectures as *negative examples* for philosophy and ethics grad students. Don't believe me? Just google 'Sam harris is wrong' and check out the sheer volume of hits from philosophy and ethics departments as scores of people with actual training in the field eviscerate him.

>> No.5312219

>>5312205
Yes, I've read it.
Its laughable

>> No.5312225

>>5312041
As an atheist I find this "new atheism's" obsession with the existence of God the most fucking stupid direction of atheism possible.

GOD is only a fucking REPRESENTATION of Christian values. Here's an analogy to make you understand how stupid idiots like Dawkins are: they are attacking a fucking sign post at the entry into a city instead of attacking the city. Is this not retarded as fuck? Imagine these retards burning a fucking city sign post and thinking they somehow have done damage to the city.

>> No.5312226

>>5312214
dawkins only address arguments made for the existence of a god a being as described in the bible and argues that there isn't much evidence or that it doesn't make any logical sense his best arguments are from a evolution standpoint which are air tight

>> No.5312231

>>5312225
Isn't modern society, for the most part, a representation of chiefly Christian values?

>> No.5312233

>>5312219
what aspects did you think were laughable then just saying it I still don't think you have read it

>> No.5312236

>>5312214
⇒Dawkins has repeatedly publicly stated he hasn't studied religion

One doesn't need to know every detail of astrology in order to point out why it's bullshit. One doesn't need to study shamanism or demonology indepth to figure out that /x/ is full of nonsense. Same goes for religion. Dawkins doesn't need to know every story of the bible by heart. It only takes common sense to see how flawed and wrong religion is.

>> No.5312237

>>5312231
Yes, that the point. What does it matter if we believe in God or not if the values stay the same?

>> No.5312238

>>5312208
Eh, so far I feel like I'm returning to the 19th century. I think it's describing religion as social or cultural phenomenon. I guess that's obvious considering his memetics background, but I'm a retard.

>> No.5312239

>>5312214
⇒And Harris is a joke with a poorer grasp on actual philosophy

Sam Harris has a philosophy degree.

>> No.5312245

>>5312237
Well, I suppose functionally not so much, but the belief in an afterlife and all that is relevant to some people.

>> No.5312257

>>5312226
While Dawkins *claims* this, he fails. He begins by failing to accurately define 'faith' striking into new territory with a new definition of a very old word. He continues by demonstrating that he does not understand Pascal's Wager and is unfamiliar with Pascal's theories behind the wager. He then proves he is totally unfa,iliar with the historical analysis of religion and current religious thought.
That's BEFORE he gets to his attempts at 'serious arguments'.
I think the best critique of the book was Eagleton's review where he wrote
"[The God Delusion] is like someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds.”
As a theologian it was painful to red - all it did for me was reveal Dawkin's depth of ignorance of a field he was attempting to critique.

>> No.5312260

>>5312245
Instead of attacking such notions on a metaphysical level you should remove the need for them. I mean, if you don't agree with the lifestyle that they imply (and possibly try to force).

>> No.5312269

>>5312257
>he doesn't understand
>he's unfamiliar with
>he's ignorant
>analogy with something evidently stupid

This is the closest anyone ever gets to actually making an argument.

>> No.5312274

Its boring. If you've seen a few of his interviews you know what the books about. Just read the selfish gene.

>> No.5312275
File: 131 KB, 500x337, 1362198096008.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5312275

>>5312257
isn't the general gist of Pascals wager belive in god incase hes real because the rewards outway the risk of not beliving in him a sort of hedging bets all he does in the book is say how stupid this is god knows what you are thinking 24/7 I doubt he would go well he said he belives in me just incase im real its heaven for him I think that is just silly and not to point out that you could be beliving in the wrong god and wasting your time its not like you can belive in all of them at once right?

also fuck off trip faggot you are running this board

>> No.5312276

>>5312233
1) He is either stupid or a liar - he claims to refute Aquinas' arguments but only after mis-stating them: either he didn't red the original or he purposefully changed them to make them flawed.
2) He's a liar. He wrote "...The argument from design is the
only one still in regular use today..." in the book AFTER commenting publicly on the many uses of modal logic on the Cosmological Argument just a year prior.
3) He's a liar - he made up quotes and attributed them to Pascal and then used these fake quotes to discredit Pascal.
4) His writings about Pascal also reveal that Dawkins almost certainly never read Pascal before "refuting" him - he does't understand basic points that Pascal repeats multiple times

I can go on like this for hours, BTW.
Look, just google 'god delusion review errors' and find multiple (atheist!) professors explaining exactly how fucking terrible the book is

>> No.5312287

>>5312236
When Creationists say 'the laws of thermodynamics prove evolution is false' the correct response is to point and laugh.
When Dawkins claims that the Gospels were written long after Christ and changed greatly over time the correct response is to point and laugh.
When an idiot states you don't have to know anything about a topic to dismiss it, the correct response is to point and laugh.
All the book does is prove Dawkins is ignorant

>> No.5312294

Someone should write a book titled The "Atheism" Delusion and the quote marks around the word "atheism" should be a major theme of the book, showing through an analysis of the history of Christian thinkers how this new atheism is far more monotheistic in its ways of thinking than it seems.

>> No.5312297

>>5312287
Dawkins knows enough about religion to explain why it is flawed.

>> No.5312299

>>5312239
And? I know guys with business degrees that can't balance a checkbook.
I know guys with science degrees that have their auras read.
And I know guys with degrees in philosophy that only studied Buddhist and Taoist sources....

>> No.5312305

>>5312299
"guys" right uh huh

>> No.5312312

>>5312269
How is 'he is demonstrably wrong about facts' only 'close to' an argument?
Let me state this again, very directly
'In the God Delusion Dawkins makes demonstrable errors of facts that render the book valueless except as a description of Dawkins' personal beliefs'
That more direct?

>> No.5312317

>>5312297
If he knows so much, why can't he even explain Aquinas without lying about it?
If he knows so much, why did he have to make up quotes about philosophers to discredit them?
If he is so amazing why doesn't he even understand the basics of the Ontological Argument?

>> No.5312321

>>5312305
Well, I have a job and my own place, so I have friends and know people.
Some day this things will be true for you, too. You might even talk to girls!

>> No.5312325

>copypastan from >>5306711
>nobody mentally above 15 takes Dawkins seriously when he's speaking about anything that it's not biology.

>the only "new atheism" philosopher worth something is Daniel Dennett

>check out this ebook:
>https://archive.org/details/AgainstTheIrreligiousRight
>for sourced critizism of the likes of Dawkins and Harris. For how much they love evidence it's just incredible how much shit they pull from their asses when speaking about history or other fields that they haven't actually studied.

>> No.5312331

>>5311541

Just read the fucking book. Or don't. Quit fucking wasting everyone's time creating threads because you are too lazy and stupid to do any actual reading. Cunt.

80% of threads on this loser board are people wanting to be told what to do. Fuck you.

>> No.5312333

People get buttmad because new atheists attack the layman's theism that the masses actually believe in and not the sophisticated theology that they only run to when they need a shield to protect their less defensible ideas.

>> No.5312342

>>5312276
1. is Aquinas' arguments the one were the universe had to come from something therefore god made it because that is stupid who made god or is it the one were we live so therefore god made the universe with the right conditions for humans to live this is also stupid if the universe were different then life would have evolved to be able to live in the different universe
2. context would be nice hes saying that the argument against evolution in answering how life came to be
3.citation needed
4.citation needed

>> No.5312346

>>5312317
Nobody needs to know "aquinas" or "the oncologial argument". Common sense is enough to see why religion is bullshit.

>> No.5312355
File: 8 KB, 210x263, 1365729877807.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5312355

>>5312346
>Common sense is enough to see why religion is bullshit.
hahahahahahahhaha
Your belief in common sense is no different than a belief in God: both are supposed to be independent from the world.

>> No.5312356

>>5312355
Never go full retard.

>> No.5312357

>>5312317
see >>5312342

>> No.5312361

>>5312346
>>5312355
>making intentionally bad arguments to bait people

It's depressing that this almost always works.

>> No.5312365

I don't see how Dawkins see all religious ideas as harmful. In that very book he argued that some indeed are by-product of survival instincts and in turn help us survive.

I don't get why the hate from the people here. It's silly to criticize something that the author didn't argue.

>> No.5312366

>>5312269
here you have a whole book:
https://archive.org/details/AgainstTheIrreligiousRight

about how he is "not even wrong", but ignorant and misinterpreting arguments left and right, and writing bad history debunked since the 19th century.

if you want to get into "new atheism" at least read Dennett, who may be wrong or right but who at least put some effort into being well researched instead of writing edgy fan-fiction.

or if you want to read Dawkins stick to his biology books, which he actually has researched

>> No.5312371

>>5312333
it's fine to write pop books, but don't pretend they are anything else than that.

like i love the original Cosmos and Carl Sagan, but don't take seriously any history on it because it's just terrible

>> No.5312374

>>5312365
Dawkins is not an anthropologist and takes most of his "ideas" about religion from pop culture and his ass. if you want to learn about the origin of religions read somebody else

>> No.5312400

>>5312371
Pop books attacking pop beliefs. Seems fair to me.

>>5312374
He takes what people claim to believe at face value. It's not his fault if the vast, vast majority of the people who actually fill the seats are not theologians.

Maybe theologians should try educating their fellow believers who are obviously as ignorant as Dawkins is about the religion they claim to follow instead of simply serving as the motte to their less sophisticated fellows' bailey.

>> No.5312407

>>5312374
Well of course he would take the ideas from pop culture, he's writing a book for literal plebs! Dude, he had arguments there and anyone who claims to be smarter than him must formulate counter-arguments within his arguments.

>> No.5312429

>>5312407
nobody is claiming to be smarter than him, just that he is dishonest when writing about history or anthropology. it's not that his arguments are wrong, is mostly that his premises are false. you can write a pop book without having to resort to debunked history theories from the 19th century, just like nobody would take seriously a pop physics book using ether theopry to support its arguments

here you have as many sources as you need:

https://archive.org/details/AgainstTheIrreligiousRight

>> No.5312439

why is there a dawkins thread like, literally everk week?

>> No.5312464

>>5312439
Everybody loves a good wank.

>> No.5312506
File: 165 KB, 600x1283, 1385685911001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5312506

>> No.5312521
File: 32 KB, 640x480, 1402712753683.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5312521

>tfw you learned about the world years before 4chan became a schizophrenic troll fest infesting peoples genuine opinions.
Feel bad for the younger guys here, but what can ya do.

>> No.5312524

>>5312521
>implying television didn't shape your mind world for the sake of our lizard overlords

>> No.5312526
File: 11 KB, 202x190, 1403432081725.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5312526

>>5312524
>I wasn't subjected to any television other than the simpsons and nature documentaries.

>> No.5312527
File: 33 KB, 380x276, richard dawkins shitposting on 4chan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5312527

>>5312439
I think you know exactly why

>> No.5312529

>>5312042
>theistic reasoning
no this is atheists making fun of new atheism

>> No.5312548

Dawkins is a terrible historian so please don't.

>> No.5312589

>>5312342
>fingers in ears
>"LALALALALALALALALA I don't need to understand an argument made in formal logic to know it isn't logical LALALALALA""
Let me repeat this in direct terms for morons like you
1) Thomas Aquinas used formal logic to make a series of logical statements
2) Dawkins *changes* those arguments without stating he is making them incomplete
3) Dawkins then claims the *changed* arguments aren't sound
Of course they aren't, Dick - you changed them!
And as for citation - do *DID* read the book you are defending, right? And you *DID read the references made in that book you are defending, right?
If those things are true you should be able to refute my statements with page numbers, etc.
Fucking loser

>> No.5312594

>>5312346
1/10, you deserve a beating

>> No.5312605

>>5312400
>It is OK that Dawkins is an ignoramus and liar since the people he is unfairly attacking are stupid!

Pal, most religious people are rather sophisticated in their understanding of religion.That's why Dawkins is a joke.

>> No.5312606

>>5312589
⇒Thomas Aquinas used formal logic to make a series of logical statements
You have no fucking idea what formal logic actually is.

>>5312594
Is this how christfags get rid of common sense? By beating it out of their children?

>> No.5312616

>>5312287
Gospels were written long after Christ you ignorant pig.

>> No.5312621

>>5312407
Let me translate you from Moronese into English
>Dawkins may be totally ignorant of the topic he was attempting to refute but that's OK because I don't like the people he smeared. And now all responses to his errors and false claims must be on his terms or else I will cry
When someone says atheists eat babies i don't 'formulate counter-arguments within his arguments' I mock his ignorance and gullibility.
Like I do Dawkins

>> No.5312633

>>5312506
lol

>> No.5312639

>>5312506
Jesus I remember watching this ages ago

That bitch was straight up scary in how devoted she was to her party line. It's like how you imagine the people Winston talks to in the Outer Party in 1984.

>> No.5312644

>>5312606
Actually, I do, what with a Major in Systematic Theology and a Minor in Logic.
Tell you what - get a few books on Scholasticism, research the nature and form of formal logical argumentation in the 13th Century, and then read the Summa Theologica in the original Latin - like me - and them describe how Aquinas failed to meet the forms of formal logical argumentation of that time.
You could also read Plantinga's various essays on it as well as his work on transforming those arguments into contemporary modal logic.
Of you can keep demonstrating your ignorance on /lit/
Up to you, but I'm betting you will continue to be a 'gifted person who just never applied themselves. Well, I was never tested and found gifted, but I was always sure I was smarter than other people'.
Right?

>> No.5312658

>>5312616
Not according to actual historians, and atheist historians at that!, you deluded fool

>> No.5312667

>>5312606
you don't produce any original thought or argument in your posts.

if you had ever taken a single class or read a book on formal logic you would recognize the merit in aquinas' deductions. however, that doesn't mean that there aren't holes or flaws to argue about, but instead of actually pointing them out, you keep attacking the poster.

>> No.5312695

>>5312644
⇒to meet the forms of formal logical argumentation of that time.
I laugh at your backpedaling. Now you're relativizing your bold claim by appealing to the time Aquinas lived in, well knowing that formal logic didn't even exist yet in the 13th century.

>>5312667
⇒you don't produce any original thought or argument in your posts.
Why would I bother being creative, when simple facts are already enough to destroy my opponent's fallacies?

⇒if you had ever taken a single class or read a book on formal logic you would recognize the merit in aquinas' deductions
During my undergrad I've been TA in a class on mathematical logic. Aquinas was not topic of this class. Perhaps because he has nothing to do with math whatsoever. It requires barely a minimum of common sense to see that logic is not applicable to religious beliefs, unless you resort to stupid shit such as "[untestable baseless statement which immediately implies god's existence] is an axiom".

>> No.5312755

>>5312695
>facts, common sense
You keep using those words, but I don't think they mean what you think they mean. Nice hat!

>> No.5312765
File: 242 KB, 1600x1067, yazidi qt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5312765

Threads like this make me want to enrol in theology at a Jesuit college just to spite modernity.

>> No.5312770

>>5312605
>most religious people are rather sophisticated

Yeah, no. More Christians read Rick Warren and Todd Burpo than have ever heard of Aquinas.

>> No.5313102

>>5312239
Sam Harris has a BA in philosophy, m8. He is as educated in philosophy as your average starbucks employee.

>> No.5313421

>>5312667
>merit in aquinas' deductions

There are none. Read Karl Popper.

>> No.5313432

>>5312765
Modernity really is the worst thing that ever happened to the West. It's all Luther and Spinoza's fault, too.

>> No.5313435
File: 1015 KB, 295x178, everythingitt.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5313435

>>5313421
>implying there would have been a popper without there having been an aquinas

>> No.5313456

>>5313435
Aquinas is shit tier. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times.

>> No.5313469

>>5313102
he also has a PhD in cognitive neuroscience at UCLA for "Functional neuroimaging of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty" which is a very interesting read and more than most philosophers

>> No.5313479

>>5313456
You are claiming that one of the greatest western philosophers is shit because he uses inductive reasoning?

>> No.5313484

>>5313456
Yeah right, because all the ancient and modern philosophers were brave enlightened atheists like you. As a matter of fact, arguments for the existence of god didn't start with aquinas, all he did in that regard was make them compatible to his own christian faith, which is, as you could know, not deduced from logic, but revealed through divine grace.

>> No.5313485

>>5313479
circular reasoning =/= inductive reasoning

Your reading comprehension is very bad.

>> No.5313489

>>5313484
>brave enlightened atheists like you

Say that to Bertrand Russell's face. I literally just copypasted his criticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquinas#Criticism_of_Aquinas_as_philosopher

>> No.5313497

>>5313479

> greatest western philosophers

"As for heretics their sin deserves banishment, not only from the Church by excommunication, but also from this world by death. To corrupt the faith, whereby the soul lives, is much graver than to counterfeit money, which supports temporal life. Since forgers and other malefactors are summarily condemned to death by the civil authorities, with much more reason may heretics as soon as they are convicted of heresy be not only excommunicated, but also justly be put to death." - Aquinas

>> No.5313500

>>5313489
pls.

Bertrand Russel is a shit-tier footnote in the history of Western philosophy, whereas Aquinas will be studied and celebrated for as long as there is a West.

>> No.5313511

>>5313497
What is your point?

>> No.5313517
File: 1.86 MB, 3154x1716, 21_270.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5313517

>>5311541
Hello there.

>> No.5313522

>>5313489
>Betrand Russel
Yeah ok, who gives a fuck about that guy?

>> No.5313523

>>5313511
Aquinas is shit & a total lunatic, so are his ideas

>> No.5313557

>>5313523
It actually makes perfect sense if you understand where he's coming from. Heresy sends people to Hell- eternal torment. Aquinas doesn't want huge swaths of people to suffer forever after they die. If you can save thousands of people from infinite torment by ending the life of one, isn't that a sensible calculation?

It only baffles you because you don't take Hell as seriously as Aquinas does. But then, of course you don't.

>> No.5313577
File: 6 KB, 200x237, Max_stirner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5313577

>>5312260
Then you get stirner.

>> No.5313584

>>5313523
>anyone who departs from Enlightenment dogma is "shit & a total lunatic"

lol

>> No.5313595
File: 38 KB, 210x224, 18758165125.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5313595

>>5313523

>> No.5313601

>>5313557
>If you can save thousands of people from infinite torment by ending the life of one, isn't that a sensible calculation?

This is the fatal flaw behind every vision of utopia from Christianity to Communism.

When you can imagine a perfect good then any amount of evil is permissible in service of it.

>> No.5313609

>>5313557

>It actually makes perfect sense if you understand where he's coming from

That can be said of any ding-dong, fuck-off lunatic idea in the history of mankind. Nazism makes perfect sense if you accept all their retarded premises.

>> No.5313610

>>5313601
fuck off you shallow pseud. did you come up with that little gem of wisdom in your lit 101 class?

>> No.5313615

>>5311541
The book accomplishes what it set out to do: unequivocally disprove the existence of deities while also invalidating all religions. If want to see how, read the book. Otherwise, don't.

sage for essentially a recommendation thread.

>> No.5313616

>>5313609
Any idea is "ding-dong, fuck-off lunatic" if you don't accept its premises. Obviously. Good luck proving that your favoured axioms are the "correct" ones. Do you have actually have anything interesting to say?

>> No.5313625

>>5313616

>Do you have actually have anything interesting to say?

Not really but neither do you, apparently.

>> No.5313628

>>5313610
It's always the simplest arguments that cause the most asspain, isn't it?

This is why theologyfags prefer "sophisticated" arguments: It gives them more wiggle room for smoke and mirrors bullshit.

>> No.5313631

>>5313557
>It actually makes perfect sense if you understand where he's coming from. Heresy sends people to Hell- eternal torment. Aquinas doesn't want huge swaths of people to suffer forever after they die. If you can save thousands of people from infinite torment by ending the life of one, isn't that a sensible calculation?
yes, obviously. lunatic belief systems can still be internally consistent, they are still lunatic belief systems & therefore shit & the person who came up with them is shit.

>It only baffles you because you don't take Hell as seriously as Aquinas does.
Its not me who's baffled, its all the Christians who no longer torture people who are clearly baffled, people such as the pope. hes shit for not being consistent.

someone who thinks Aquinas is good is shit because Aquinas is shit, internally consistent but still shit.

>But then, of course you don't.
no off course I don't because Aquinas is shit

>> No.5313640

>>5313628
Your assertion was only "simple" in the most negative sense of the word.

>> No.5313641
File: 17 KB, 248x251, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5313641

>>5313628
>>make a point so shallow and uninformed that nobody has to dispute it

>>I win u pleb

To be clear, I'm agnostic and you're a moron

>> No.5313648

>>5313640
Oh no, a pun. How will I cope?

>> No.5313657
File: 870 KB, 480x360, syriansigh.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5313657

>>5313648
Don't ask me m8, you're the one that has to live with yourself.

>> No.5313662

>>5313631
>lunatic

You're entitled to your opinion.

>> No.5313666

>>5313641
>To be clear, I'm a non-commital coward

>> No.5313671

>>5313666
>to be clear, I believe in divinity but have never seen strong evidence either way

I'm just logical. Someday you might understand

>> No.5313673

>liberal arts degrees are mocked
>theology degrees are taken seriously

Boy /lit/ sure does have its priorities straight.

>> No.5313676

>>5312154
>You should know what it means. If you don't, then nobody can help you.
Excellent justification. Would that pass in court?

>> No.5313682

>>5312225
>GOD is only a fucking REPRESENTATION of Christian values. Here's an analogy

That's a pretty big claim you're making there buddy, millions upon millions of theists would disagree with you.

>> No.5313687

>>5313673
There are "muh god" retards on here who mistake our distaste for Dawkins, hitchens and Harris to mean we approve of religion

>> No.5313690
File: 26 KB, 440x260, ndtoriginal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5313690

>>5313616
⇒Any idea is "ding-dong, fuck-off lunatic" if you don't accept its premises.

That's why philosophy is bullshit. I prefer the objectivity of science.

>> No.5313692

>>5313631
>yes, obviously. lunatic belief systems can still be internally consistent, they are still lunatic belief systems & therefore shit & the person who came up with them is shit.
They are lunatic from your perception, which is possibly lunatic from their. Have you not considered this yet? Make better arguments.

>> No.5313698

>>5313690
>mike Tyson
>scientist
Nice try /pol/

>> No.5313697

>>5313690
You can't be objective about everything, some things you have to reason through and make compelling arguments about.

Not everything can be experimented on.

>> No.5313699

>>5313690
>God exists whether people are heretics or not.
What now?

>> No.5313701

>>5312225
The worst part about New Atheism is that they downright EMBRACE Christian values, while insisting that God (i.e., the metaphysical assumptions which form their foundation) is not a necessary component. It's comical. Humanism is just a degenerate, dull-witted version of Christianity.

>> No.5313705

>>5313690
>implying science doesn't exist on top of a metaphysical basis

>> No.5313707

>>5313690
>science doesn't have premises
i want to hire someone to puke in your face, arrowfag.

>> No.5313709

>>5313682
They would obviously disagree, and they are right to disagree because it is a helpful myth for their values.

>> No.5313710

>>5313701
THIS

>ooh I don't need god to tell me that murder is wrong and I should be kind to everyone
REALLY

citation needed

>> No.5313713

>>5313701
to be fair moral anti-realists can be as bad as new-atheists and way edgier, if that's even possible

>> No.5313716

>>5313713 just been proven by >>5313710 , thanks for the heads up

>> No.5313721

>>5313710
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_evolution_of_empathy

Empathy can be explained by evolutionary science. So no, you don't need God or any religion for that

>> No.5313724

>>5313701
>get really mad about something
>call it "comical" or "laughable"
>never actually laugh about it because it makes you too angry

>> No.5313726

>>5313713
At least their edge is actually able to cut. And I don't think the serious ones are nihilists, on the contrary - they want to make us aware that "we" are the originators of morals which places even greater responsibility on us.

>> No.5313736

Richard Dawkins is basically a reverse Sokal affair.

Uses philosophical concepts he has no grasp on, mixes them with science, does not quote, and does not produce a bibliography worthy of his claims.

Literally a hack. Pop-philosophy for middle-class white kids with few friends.

>> No.5313742

>>5313724
>can't offer any contra argument
>mocks the person instead

>> No.5313744
File: 81 KB, 638x489, Tony Euphoria.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5313744

>>5311597

>> No.5313748

>>5313736
>reverse Sokal affair
Good comparison, but here's just a reminder that a large part of Sokal's criticism is itself a reverse Sokal affair.

>> No.5313752

>>5313742
I'm not arguing. I don't actually care about any of the "arguments" in this shit thread.

I just notice that people like to throw around false descriptors like that and I think it's peculiar.

>> No.5313754

>>5313736
http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2013/richard-dawkins-the-untutored-philosopher/

he literally gets destroyed in there

>> No.5313758

>>5313721
What's your point. Didn't say you need god for people to want to be good, just saying that you can't have a moral code in western society which doesn't take directly from Christian ethics

Also
>being this automatic
That's another thing I hate about you folks. You're just like the MRAs

>> No.5313761

>>5313754
Oh fuck I thought you died, and I never expected you to come back to /lit/

>> No.5313762

>>5313754
>citing a christian to "destroy" an atheist
>citing an atheist to "destroy" a christian

And yet they're both still here. It's almost like atheists and Christians constantly "destroying" each other achieves nothing.

Now why don't we all go do something PRODUCTIVE with our time, eh kids?

>> No.5313768

http://apologetics315.s3.amazonaws.com/debate/debate-dawkins-williams.mp3

Dawkins: According to the law of anthropy, if we are here, it had to happen, it was a necessity.
Anthony Kenny: Are you discussing epistemic or metaphysical necessity?
Dawkins: I don't know the word 'epistemic' and so on, so I'm not going to use that. I meant that our knowledge of existence proves our existence is necessary.

>dawkins getting rekt

>> No.5313770

>>5313758
Of course you can. Western morals can be traced back before the bible was thrown together back into ancient Greece.

None of the Christian morals are anything revolutionary anyway, people thought murder and stealing was bad long before then.

>> No.5313775

>>5313762
Because religious zealotry should be combated wherever it's found because it constantly causes problems for everyone.

>> No.5313777

>>5313758
Virtue ethics weren't invented by christians, of course pretty much anything you come up with in the western world will be influenced by christian values, but that doesn't mean that they are fundamentally christian values

>> No.5313781

>>5313762
>Now why don't we all go do something PRODUCTIVE with our time, eh kids?

>posted on a chinese cartoon website at 4:47 pm
post disregarded

>> No.5313785

>>5313687
This. Thank you very much. Just because I hold scientism and its modern "philosophical" incarnations/justifications in disdain, doesn't mean I hold religion in esteem. I am an atheist, I just believe there is more to this world than empiricism.

>> No.5313786
File: 87 KB, 615x345, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5313786

>>5313770
>>None of the Christian morals are anything revolutionary anyway, people thought murder and stealing was bad long before then.

Sit down and read the gospels please

>> No.5313790

>>5313781
>I'm ignoring this post. Look at me ignoring this post.

>> No.5313791

>>5313777
They were invented by Socrates.

"Christianity is Plato for the masses."

>> No.5313795

>>5313786
Just name one for me, i'll wait.

>> No.5313799

>>5313762
>implying you read the article
>implying it was a theist taking Dawkins apart
>implying it didn't just dismantle his bunk ass centuries old philosophy 101 "theories"

>> No.5313801

>>5313786
what was invented in the gospels? meekness? certainly people thought stabbing each other was bad before that

>> No.5313806

>>5313795
>Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's

There's more

>> No.5313809

>>5312695
>Formal logic didn't even exist yet in the 13th century
First, in that case Century is capitalized.
Second, let me teach you a word you obviously don't know - "trivium". This was one part of the formal education of ancient Greece and it included
[wait for it]
[waaaaaiiiiiiit for iiiiitttttt]
formal logic. How?
Formal logic was developed by the 4th Century B.C., almost a millenia before Aquinas.
Now, you may be referring to *mathematical logic*, also called modal logic, but that is in fact a different thing.
So, in short, you are an ignorant fool who doesn't know a thing about formal logic. Please start using a trip so that reasonable human beings can block your babblings

>> No.5313812

>>5313721
>Empathy can be explained by evolutionary science.
There's a large leap from this kind of "physiological" empathy to a specific moral system. I know you weren't implying that morals are evolutionary, just want to make this clear.

>> No.5313814
File: 198 KB, 582x567, 1407243564961.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5313814

read Bertrand Russell instead. Dawkins is a good biology expert, little else

>> No.5313816

>>5313799
>implying it was a theist

He is, though.

>> No.5313817

>>5312765
You wouldn't regret it
But go Dominican

>> No.5313818

>>5313801
>atheists who claim that reading the bible drove them to atheism confirmed for liars who have never read a book in the western canon

Hehoha

>> No.5313820

If you're already an atheist, I really wouldn't bother. I get the impression the only people who actually benefit from reading the works of Dawkins (and the other "nu-atheists") are recent atheist 'converts' to borrow a phrase, seeking validation for their new beliefs (or lack their of). I'd say it's more interesting to delve deeper into the intellectual tradition of Atheist thought, rather than wasting your time with those that just appeal to the kind of vulgar empiricism the nu-atheists promote.

That would bode double so for any apologetics which seeks to appeal to science in order to 'prove' the existence of a God.

>> No.5313821

I agree with the concept of the book, but i just think it's wordy and poorly written.

>> No.5313822

>>5313421
....Karl Popper liked Aquinas....

>> No.5313824

>>5313456
>I don't know a thing about Thomas Aquinas
FTFY

>> No.5313827

>>5313801
Christianity was politically radical (before being co-opted by the Roman political system).

>> No.5313830

>>5313822
And?

>> No.5313834
File: 59 KB, 337x455, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5313834

>>5313801
>>certainly people thought stabbing each other was bad before that

Please read any history at all before attempting to have a discussion in this vein

>> No.5313837

>>5313809
⇒First, in that case Century is capitalized.
As a non-native speaker I had to google this and I couldn't find any source supporting your capitalization of "century".

⇒Formal logic was developed by the 4th Century B.C., almost a millenia before Aquinas.
Formal logic was developed by mathematicians in the late 19th century.

⇒Now, you may be referring to *mathematical logic*, also called modal logic,
Those are not synonyms. Obviously you know neither of these words.

>> No.5313839

>>5313818
never claimed to be an atheist or having read the bible. just responding the guy claiming that modern morals fall down like a castle of cards as soon as you abandon christianism for some reason

he says i should read the gospels but won't expand on why for some reason

>> No.5313842

>>5313806
And where do you find that "moral code" in western society today?

>> No.5313843

>>5313818
>atheists aren't taken seriously unless they have memorized every chapter and verse
>all you have to do to count as a Christian is show up and sit

>> No.5313847

>>5313834
i did, i read plenty of ethics books from non-christian cultures. yet you seem to imply that modern ethics can only be based on christianity

>> No.5313856

>>5313827
So what moral thought was invented in Christianity that isn't found anywhere else?

>> No.5313858

>>5313847
I'm mostly talking Mediterranean ethics. Can't speak of Chinese philosophy.

>> No.5313860

>>5313469
Sam Harris isn't even distinguished in his field though. He published 3 papers of dubious quality and has spent next to no time in an actual lab. He's just a rich kid pretending to be an academic.

>> No.5313875

>>5313843
wow. Literally, and I am no kidding when I'm saying this, but your desperate and transparent strawman just gives it away that AT BEST -and I'm feeling like I'm being really generous here - you've read the Genesis, and possibly the Exodus.

Congratz. you're not even 1/3rd into the old testament, which in itself is half the book.

You're judging a book by 1/6th of its content.

GTFO lit already.

>> No.5313885

>>5313847
don't be fuckign retarded. where did the anon you're talking to mention christianity in the post you quoted?

fact of the matter is, humans are fuckign animals. and religions world-wide shaped their mentalities. I'm not saying christianity is right. I'm saying that religion in general helped holding a cohesive society.

Take that as you will.

>> No.5313888

>>5313856

>implying that's an argument

Christianity states that the law of God is carved in your heart. By being smart and spiritual, you will do what's right.

Stop being a faggot.

>> No.5313894

>>5313875
nobody is judging the bible, people are just trying to tell you that modern morality can have different basis, probably because people studied them

nobody is claiming either that the bible had no influence on the western world

>> No.5313900

>>5313875
I didn't judge it at all.

You must have brain problems.

>> No.5313903

>>5311541
>199 posts and 31 image replies omitted

>> No.5313904

>>5313856
literally, atheists do not know what the fuck they're talking about.

>go to sunday school 10 years ago.
>learn from the priest that while all religions hold part of the truth, Christianity holds a BIGGER or more complete picture of the truth.

They never ever told me christianity was the one and only truth.

You're the only one in this thread and in my life that's ever told me that. That is, outside of jewliwood propaganda in the form of a film.

Face it, bucko, you've never read the bible and you're completely uneducated on it.

>> No.5313906

>>5313885
>>5313888
so what's your point? there's plenty of stuff written about moral realism after christianism

>> No.5313913

>>5313904
nobody is having the same discussion as you are man. you are responding to questions and affirmations that nobody posted in the whole thread

>> No.5313914

>>5313906
you've quoted two different anons. However, the former would ask of you to point me towards the right direction. If you'd please.

>> No.5313918

>>5313888
Then what the fuck are we talking about faggot? I said that Christianity hasn't invented any morals that we find in contemporary western society. The foundations of western morals come from ancient Greece and human nature.

>>5313904
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you having a conversation by yourself?

>> No.5313919

>>5313860
This. It's not really THAT hard to get a graduate degree--8% of the American population has one these days. There are plenty of undergraduate students with more publications than Sam Harris.

>> No.5313924

>>5313914
the standford encyclopedia is always a great starting point for any philosophical concept:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

well sourced and written, avoid wikipedia like the plague for philosophy

>> No.5313927

>start internet atheist argument
>attract people who are addicted to arguing
>raise their blood pressure and create stress which will shorten their lives

OP's master plan is working

>> No.5313939
File: 142 KB, 900x900, 1407746416533.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5313939

>>5313927
>people who are addicted to arguing

I think this is me.

>> No.5313940

>>5313919
Sam Harris's books are kinda shit but from the point of view of someone wanting to influence popular opinion it makes more sense to focus on the popular rather than academic press.

>> No.5313945

>>5313918
oh shit, I just returned to this thread to ask for everyone's forgiveness for my rash and precipitated posts :
>>5313904
>>5313885
>>5313875


I'm too used to /b, sorry you guys, you're so much more leveled. For what it's worth, you've gained my respect.


Except for the first guy I quoted. It seems he's too indicisive and just too argumentative in nature to stick to one of two opposite directions to walk through.

If it stems from my autistic posts, I beg for forgiveness. If, however, you re-read your post and can't see conflicting points being defended by yourself, then... well, there's no use talking to you any further. Literally.

>> No.5313947

>>5313939
The internet makes it possible to spend literally every waking minute arguing.

I think we're going to start seeing average life expectancy decline as the post-internet generation starts dropping dead at 50 from unprecedented levels of self-induced stress.

>> No.5313951

>>5313947
Arguing is good for the spirit.

>> No.5313953

>>5313951
No it's not.


:^)

>> No.5313957

>>5313940
>kinda shit
They're written for teenagers who don't know any better.

>> No.5313960

>>5313456
baby, you are confusing aquinas with augustine

>> No.5313961

>>5313918
by the way faggot, christianity might not have invented any morals. But then again, how could it, faggot.

>the foundations of western morals come from ancient greece and human nature.
that's undeniable. it is further undeniable that a pro pos, christianity came to be a foundation for western morals.

If it serves you of any consolation, christianity is a natural consequence of the human law and the need for humans to have spirituality. It just happens to be called "christianity", curb the autism already.

>> No.5313966

>>5313961
it's been a pleasure

>> No.5313968

>>5313960
Fucking retard. The text was criticism by Betrand Russel, literally copypasted from Aquinas' wikipedia page.

>> No.5313974

>>5313961
and when I say that christianity couldn't invent morals, no religion possibly could.

Christianity is just a reflection and consequence of the people who lived in europe.

much like conscience evolves from a past sense of self, retaining the old in mind and being influenced in it's transformation by the realization of self it has constructed, so too did our morals and philosophical ideas evolve.

How is that so rage inducing?

you can't be over 18 if you're fretting so much over "christianity" . for real. You're too edgy for that to be possible. Are you a closeted homo as well?

>> No.5313979

>>5313974
And if you take a set of your conscience at any given moment in time, label it fucking "christianity" or whatever the fuck you wish to call it, would it be so fucking hard to admit that that set of ideas, so wide-spread through the public en masse (or through your fucking mind itself) would be able to influence your sense of self to come? your identity?


come the fuck on, you can dislike christianity all you'd like. but you can't deny it's influence.

that's kindergarden tantrum tier.

>> No.5313986

>>5313960
/lit/ attracts the worst tripfags. You and "Le Trole Faec" might as well be the same retarded person.

>> No.5313992

>>5313974
>Christianity
>Reflection of Europe
Are you putting Israel in Europe now, super-genius?

>> No.5314000

>>5313979
So in conclusion: NO. Christianity didn't "invent" or "come up with" fucking morals.

It did, however, influence morals to come as it became wide-spread.

>and btw, I'm not even catholic or whatever. I'm spiritualist of sorts, but I'm not catholic. So yeah, you're just being retarded.

>> No.5314008

>>5313968
>Betrand Russel
He's not a good authority on history of philosophy. I mean, look at his book.

>> No.5314010

>>5313974
>>5313979
I never denied it's influence. You're writing an essay trying to rebut a strawman

>> No.5314016

>>5313992
>huehue.

I suppose I lost my right to a leveled response the moment I attacked you. Still, a somewhat grounded response would only come to dignify you.

I've put my heart and soul into my text. You've come up with... an undignified disgrace.

Reply to this with actual input of value or don't bother at all.

>> No.5314027

>>5313837
Let me translate
>huurr
>durrrr
>derp
Listen, pal, if you can't even google 'formal logic' and pretend you should stop now
>'mathematicians invented formal logic in the 18th century'
That is fucking funny. And you're on /lit/!

>> No.5314031

>>5314010
nigger, I understood you perfectly well. You said Christianity didn't invent morals.

I reached out to you ( for my own sake in this conversation, I am, by no means, a selfless man) and offered to clarify an idea upon which we can agree : Christianity might not have come up with morals , it did however reflect our human nature at one point in time, so it indirectly both predicted the new morals to come and shaped them.

Learn to recognize a compromise when you see one.

>> No.5314035

>>5314027
Please take a course or read a book on formal logic. I know you won't make it very far because all the mathy symbols make your non-STEM brain melt, but at least then you're not gonna spout such ignorant bullshit anymore about a topic you never encountered before.

>> No.5314050

>>5313940
Harris can't write academic papers because he doesn't do any research!

>> No.5314058

>>5314016
Now you're making demand?
Which are you, 12 or retarded?

>> No.5314066

>>5314058
8/10.
I actually laughed so hard right now!

>> No.5314071

>>5314066
make it a 10/10. I'm still laughing!

>> No.5314078
File: 3 KB, 124x106, readabook.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5314078

>>5312257
lul you accept the reasoning of the wager

>> No.5314085

>>5314071
Mission: accomplished
Now to get arrows to have a stroke over the fact that 'formal logic' has two different definitions depending on American or British English....

>> No.5314106

>>5314085
oh crap, that ... wow. that's quite the mindfuck.

>> No.5314124

>>5314085
does the US english diverge from UK english, when it comes to structure? -I'm inclined to say no, but you never know, right?

>> No.5314128

>>5312644
Stinks of argumentum verbosium. Such a tryhard.. This is a real fedoratipper. Congrats on your student debt and useless "education" in the grounds for magical skyfairies

>> No.5314150

>>5314128
>using lots of big words is logically fallacious
>le skyfairies

kek

>student debt

not everyone is a subhuman poorfag like you apparently are. my family, for example, is not human garbage, so they were able to easily pay for my college education.

>> No.5314151

>>5313671
even dawkins is an agnostic. It's in the book

>> No.5314173

>>5314151
>>5314151
he takes this acidic anti-position to religion tho.

he goes so far as to call it "cancer" upon the world and society at large. So yeah, he just wants to brand himself all cool and inteligent. He's just taking the "oh, no one can really take a position, it's not rational. My position is the only rational position" route.

What a poser. He's just dead inside. Lost all hope.

>> No.5314180

>>5314085
Too bad I'm neither amerifat nor britbong. I stated which definition I'm using, i.e. the accepted academic STEM definition. If you want to continue embarrassing yourself, go on.

>> No.5314185

>>5313687
I thought lit would like Hitchens, considering that he is a huge litterary buff himself.. Also Hitchens could hardly really be characterized as a proponent of scientism, being that he is so eager to use Marx and Freud qoutes to explain his thinking. Did you see that one of his favourite poems about churches is "churchgoing" by Phillip Larkin?

I think Hitchens is a delight. At the very least for his rhetorical skill and charm. He is sometimes intentionally harsh and contrarian, but exactly that is really a big part of the charisma, and in a sense, like 4chan too.

>> No.5314187
File: 110 KB, 960x960, dawkins-scale.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5314187

>>5314151
⇒even dawkins is an agnostic

He's a 6 on his own scale. I'm a 7.

>> No.5314199

>>5314187
>I'm a 7.
So you admit you're a fanatic then?

>> No.5314220

>>5314035
Sorry to burst your bubble, but formal logic is not exclusive to STEM.

>> No.5314223

>>5314220
⇒formal logic is not exclusive to STEM

I know, it's also applied in CS. However it comes from math.

>> No.5314240

>>5314187
ayy lmao

>> No.5314291

>>5314185
Oh yeah, maybe not all of Hitchens is terrible but some of his atheist ranting is bad

>> No.5314295

>>5313785
Yeah, that's about where I stand as well

>> No.5314319

>>5311609
/thread

>> No.5314324

>>5313986
There's definitely nothing Freud could say about that

I love how hard anti-trip posters try to externalize every negative thing they feel

>> No.5314356

>>5314187
>He's a 6 on his own scale

You realize he presents his scale as a spectrum and not a set of categories, right? Those are just the 7 major landmarks. He considers himself something closer to 6.9.

>> No.5314379

>>5314324
I'm not an, "anti-trip poster." It's just annoying when I see the same tripfags constantly assaulting threads with their nonsensical, anti-intellectual shitposts. /lit/ would be much better without you.

>> No.5314422

>>5314324
There are some good tripfags on this board. You are none of them. You are the dumbest piece of shit I've ever seen.

>> No.5314451

>>5312203
Then get a fucking full stop.

>> No.5314455

>>5314379
It would actually be much better withou you, from my perspective

>> No.5314561
File: 271 KB, 500x433, glitch5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5314561

This thread should be archived and used as reference for the committing of LOGICAL FALLACIES.

>> No.5314608

>>5312041
most of these posts are usually by atheists

>> No.5314615

>>5313701
>being this wrong

>> No.5314650

>>5311541
dawson doenst understand shit:
http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-have-fun

>> No.5314653

>>5313517
Wow! Look at all those theological books.
You must be a very exciting fellow, what with such a thirst for knowledge. Thank you for posting.

>> No.5314670

I've spent the last 7 years of my life an atheist/agnostic. Not the past two days, though. And they've been the happiest two days in my whole damn life. Things are just prettier, and because I could have a little faith, and first and foremost that faith had to be in myself.

The God Delusion, eh? I like the name, leaves the book to be turned back on the author.

>> No.5314685

>>5314670
I dunno if I'm a Christian or what now, to be honest. Feels like Jesus is a beautiful dude and stuff, lol. God's weird, but holy [redacted] if I'm not feeling good, and saved, and just right, for the first time since forever.

>> No.5314696

>>5314670
>>5314685
Please tell me you found Catholicism or Orthodoxy and didn't get sucked into some creepy Protestant cult.

>> No.5314705

And it feels like I've earned it too, most importantly. Damn I just watched a bunch of Matthew McConnaughey movies and the dude keeps making me cry, lol. And you'd be worried too that you're just lying to yourself with tears, but there is no lying, I've figured. You're you, simple as. What does a starving man give a fuck about your ulterior motive if you're feeding him.

>> No.5314709

>>5314696
I dunno what I am. See above, that's my religion.

>> No.5314766

>>5312203
>>5314451
wrecked

>> No.5314768

>>5312616
Paul the Apostle might disagree.

>> No.5314794
File: 37 KB, 460x276, DAWKINS N WILLZ FITE IRL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5314794

Watch this debate. What Dawkins says makes sense, even if he is slightly lacking in knowledge in certain areas.

Try and constructivly critique without the use of a single logical fallacy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac

>> No.5315410

>>5314455
See, but you can't be certain of that because you don't know which posts are mine. I have seen many of your posts and can confirm that you are a fucking idiot. I'm sure most /lit/ users would agree with me. Go to /b/ where your level of intelligence would be more appreciated.

>> No.5315433

>>5315410
Wow bro, you sure showed him! I'm sure he'll stop posting forever now that you've told him what a fucking idiot he is!

>> No.5315459

>>5315410
Haha, hiding my stupidity in anonymity ftw!

>> No.5316996

>>5315410
No, I'm certain you're an idiot because you believe you can actually infer my "intelligence" from 4chan posts. I don't post here to be "intellectual", I post to waste time and I post more /lit/-related threads than any other trip I've seen on here

How about you just filter me or get a life instead of harassing me pointlessly in random threads?

>> No.5317012

>>5316996
just shut the fuck up . Or at least take the trips off once in a while so that you don't sound that fucking desperate.

I mean, for fucks sake. It's the first time I see you post, and from what I've read about you and see of those 2 posts right now, I have no desire to see you ever again.


Help me out anons, how do I filter fags?

>> No.5317013

>>5316996
You're a CS major. That's more than enough info to estimate your intelligence (or more precisely the lack thereof). Every post of yours screams "I'm a horribly uneducated neckbeard incapable of higher thought and I want to pretend being smart for holding world views on the level of a toddler". You are the personified beta/cringe thread. You are the epitome of fedora. I would honestly not be surprised if your online dating profile has already been made fun of on /b/. Every time I see your posts you remind me of that socially and intellectually retarded manchild in school who loudly raises a disgustingly childish opinion and then feels inappropriately proud as if he just said something brilliant, that kind of person who keeps annoying everyone because in his absolutely autistic ineptitude he fails to recognize the more than obvious signals that fucking nobody wants to talk to him.

>> No.5317018

>>5317013
oh shit anon, that was so mean of you.

I mean, you sound right on the money, but have some heart for that poor guy.

>> No.5317023

>>5317013
Then don't reply to my posts ya cunt. This isn't your forum, it's equally mine and the mods agree, I've never been banned. You're ruining the quality of the board much more rapidly by shit talking.

Also, at least I have the balls to take responsibility for who I am and what I say. Unlike you, who's clearly too ashamed to maintain an identity

>>5317012
Click "settings", click on filter, past my trip including the exclamation point and set type to trip.

I'll be glad to rid my face to face discussion of a vapid tool like you as well

>> No.5317026

>>5317023
Anon, thanks for the tip.

Also, and I say this without mean intentions, but you should really develop a filter.

A filter to what you listen to and a filter for what you say.

See you sometime. I'll keep the filters untouched for now.

>> No.5317033

>God
>almighty

See:
>Is it possible for bread to fall out of the sky? Very much so, if you can get hold of a plane or a helicopter (or at least a hot air balloon or a hang glider) and a few loaves. As for the seas being parted, or the sick being healed, the latter is accomplished every day in hospitals around the world, and does a river count as a "sea" for the former? Engineers do this sort of thing all the time while building dams or draining lakes, and the oceans are apparently being drained due to human activity as I write this. The more powerful you are, the more is possible for you, and for God everything is, with the caveat that "everything" here is to be understood as "the universe" — i.e. everything that has already actually happened or will happen — not every retarded idea that could be dreamt up inside the brains of stupid people!

>> No.5317035

>>5317023
Posting on 4chan is such a responsibility and always serious business for you, amirite? How fucking desperate and lonely does one have to be to build up an online personality on an anti-social meme forum? Is this your only social interaction? Do you have literally no friends IRL?

>> No.5317036

>>5317026
Yeah, you're saying true words. Part of the reason I post with a trip is just so I can be held accountable and adjust accordingly. If I'm corrected accordingly I have to. Simple harassment, especially in a thread who's subject is clearly flame-bait and the topic so heated and entrenched that debate becomes nearly pointless, does nothing for 4chan or for the poster involved. If he's angry enough at the real world that he feels he needs to vent it at a stranger online, then clearly he has his own esteem issues of a type I won't attempt to enumerate because unlike him I don't make wide inferences. But beyond that, 4chan is not his space, he can attempt to bully but he has no authority on this space at all. Except to determine his actions, which are irrevocably pathetic.

>> No.5317042

>>5317035
It's not serious business to me at all, which is why every content I post seems half-assed. I post I my phone when I'm bored and waiting. I'm not here for rigorous discussion and I don't really have a stake in this board.

If anon posts often enough to follow who I am and create a character out of me, that's his business but that's really more pathetic than the contrary.

What's with you and attacking my friendships? I have quite a few friends and am in a relationship. I'm quite friendly IRL, you would be surprised that 4chan drags people down and is itself quite bitter rather than contrary

>> No.5317047

>>5317042
That post isn't long enough. Try again. You need to justify yourself properly when being criticized on an anonymous forum.

>> No.5317052

>>5317042
>in a relationship

Does that poor creature know yet that you've chosen her to be in a relationship with you? Does she even know your name?

>> No.5317060

>>5317047
Vapid reply. Just vapid.

>> No.5317067

>>5317060
Just as expected your sense of humor is non-existent. You take yourself too seriously. Typical autism. This is why you will always be alone. Enjoy spending the rest of your life on forums like this one, desperately seeking for attention and approval.

>> No.5317091

>>5317067
I'm not seeking your approval, I'm seeking for you to stop shitposting.

>> No.5317100

>>5317091
Only if YOU stop shitposting.

>> No.5317120

>>5315410
>you don't know which posts are mine
I can pick out every post of yours itt

>> No.5317121

>>5312529
came here to say this

thank you, I can now keep baiting in peace

>> No.5317145

>>5317100
I have. I've been posting on topic and have drastically toned down the hostile shitposting

I made a thread about McCarthy yesterday that tried to encourage discussion, but it got only a couple replies. This thread exploded. It's not my fault that the majority of /lit/ ends up being shitposting.

>> No.5317188

>>5317145
You are worse than any intentional shitposter, solely due to the fact that you are not aware of how shitty your posts are.

>> No.5317241

>>5317188
Really? What makes them so shitty? I truly want to know

>> No.5317353

>>5317188
Of course, what's more likely is my condescending attitude pissed you off, and now you've taken to shitposting about tertiary topics when in reality you're a passive-aggressive sensitive person who can't even articulate an argument that leads to the belief that I'm "stupid", more likely you just want to make me feel bad in return. I caught Feminister once dropping her trip and shitposting on what I posted. He even admitted to it if you search warosu.

But, he even dug through my post history to find evidence against me and found none. As it turns out, he was butthurt that I could be condescending and still understand Nietzsche better than him, so he hid behind anonymity and shitposted!

Is this you, anon? Do you hide behind anonymity to obfuscate your mistakes and dissociate what you say from your own ego? Can you actually "prove" that I am stupid, or are you just browbeating because your butt is sore?