[ 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: 1.37 MB, 1455x2320, 40-the-god-delusion1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5560451 No.5560451 [Reply] [Original]

Let's forget the apparent attachment basement-virgin-euphoric-meme atheists have with Dawkins and The God Delusion.

Can you find any significant criticisms associated with The God Delusion?

>> No.5560456

Wrong place to ask. Nobody here has actually read the book.

>> No.5560459

>>5560451
It states the obvious over and over as if it's some mind blowing revelation. It's only written for people who already agree with Dawkins.

>> No.5560462

>>5560459
“Think of an experience from your childhood. Something you remember clearly, something you can see, feel, maybe even smell, as if you were really there. After all you really were there at the time, weren’t you?
How else could you remember it? But here is the bombshell: you weren’t there. Not a single atom that is in your body today was there when that event took place .... Matter flows from place to place and momentarily comes together to be you. Whatever you are, therefore, you are not the stuff of which you are made. If that does not make the hair stand up on the back of your neck, read it again until it does, because it is important.”

>> No.5560523
File: 467 KB, 500x281, yuck.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5560523

>>5560462
ewwwww
>mfw imagining someone actually having their mind blown by this
>mfw imagining someone trying to parrot this to their friends as if they are blowing their minds

>> No.5560539

>>5560523
nice critique

>> No.5560547

>>5560462
I've read this 5 times and the hair on the back of my neck is not standing, Dawkins this is taking too long

>> No.5561713

>>5560459
⇒It states the obvious over and over as if it's some mind blowing revelation

Just like every other philosophical text?

>> No.5561726

>>5560523
OMG Anon, get this. Every atom in your body was made in exploding stars billions of years ago. Like, we are literally made of stardust.

>> No.5561751

>>5561726
yeah, and that is actually super cool

honestly if that kind of stuff doesn't give you at least a tingling of a sense of wonder, you might as well kill yourself now

>> No.5561764

It seems like this board more than most others would reject atheism thanks to an abundance of socially aware hipsters, who resent the naive materialism of Dawkins et all but feel more safe sparing god the razor because they're not from a scientific background and are more concerned with enshrining culture than disregarding mythology.

>> No.5561767

>>5561713
Do you have any purpose byond expressing how obviously low your self-esteem is?

>> No.5561772

It makes arguments that could be expressed better, and some that kind of suck

The charge that it's "nothing new" is just religious people being retarded. As if they say anything "new" ever

>> No.5561778

There are entire books dedicated to its rebuttals, you know. You'll get more from reading those than reading here.

>> No.5561783

It's refutations of arguments for God are lacking, especially on the ontological argument.

>> No.5561797

>>5560462
He's talking about the fact that the cells in my body are dying/being replaced constantly right?

Or am i missing the part that's "important"?

>> No.5561803

>>5560523
yeah you're pretty good at imagining being a failure, huh?

>> No.5561811

>>5561783
⇒especially on the ontological argument.

The ontological argument is circular reasoning.

>> No.5561819

>>5561811
No it isn't. Out of all the criticisms of it you choose something so stupid. Well done.

>> No.5561821

>>5561819
If you don't see how it is circular, then your abstract thinking skills are too underdeveloped to participate in this debate.

>> No.5561824 [DELETED] 

>tfw I attended Sandusky's football summer camp

>> No.5561829

>>5561821
Why do you think it is circular reasoning, then?

>> No.5561856

>>5561829
Let's use the socratic method. First of all I want you to write down the argument in your own words as detailed as possible.

>> No.5561861

>>5561856
Which version?

>> No.5561867

>>5561861
The one you wanted to discuss. You brought up the argument.

>> No.5561887

>>5561867
I'll post the most famous ones, then; Anselm's and Plantinga's.

http://www.uky.edu/~look/AnselmAquinasPascal.pdf

http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/plantinga.html

>> No.5561901

>>5561887
What part of "in your own words" did you not understand? For the socratic method to work it is essential that you do some thinking on your own.

>> No.5561916

>>5561901
He doesn't understand them. His internal thinking is, "a proof for God exists, therefore my belief is rational"

>> No.5561918

>>5561901
I didn't write the argument.if it truly is circular, which it is not, you should be able to use those two forms of the argument. Besides, the wording in Plantinga's is precise. To change it is to ruin the argument.

>> No.5561930

>>5561916
>I know everything about this poster
Don't you have a socialist rally to attend, continental? I never claimed these were proofs. I would have posted Gödel's ontological proof if I had.

>> No.5561934

>>5561930
I don't care what you claim, you're a moron either way.

>> No.5561939

>>5561918
⇒you should be able to use those two forms of the argumen
The goal of the socratic method is to make you learn. You don't learn anything form posting random links you found on google.

⇒the wording in Plantinga's is precise. To change it is to ruin the argument.
If the "proof" cannot be rephrased and depends on the wording, then it must be rhetorical trickery without substance.

>> No.5561944

>>5561934
Great argument, Pierre. I know logic isn't your strong suit, though.

>> No.5561950

>>5561944
I'm not the one linking arguments I don't understand well enough to summarize.

>> No.5561953

>>5561939
Screw your Socratic method. I want answers, not discussion. If you can't simply state why it is circular reasoning you are nothing more than a continental.
I never said it was a proof. It is an argument. Do you even know what modal logic is?

>> No.5561958

>>5561950
They, especially Plantinga's, can not be summariSed. It makes no difference if I post a link rather than text.

>> No.5561959

>>5560456
I read 1/4 of it, lost interest. It's really cringy when he talks about the (literally) flying spaghetti monster

>> No.5561962

>>5561953
⇒Screw your Socratic method. I want answers, not discussion.
Then philosophy is not the right field for you. Go back to your pop sci videos with lots of useless factoids you can quote to appear pretentious.

⇒I never said it was a proof. It is an argument.
ignoratio elenchi

⇒Do you even know what modal logic is?
Yes, I do.

>> No.5561968

>>5561953
Yes, and apparently you don't.

I don't even care about the existence of God. That argument is for people who are too dumb to realize that it's all a word game. I care about whatever consequences you derive because of God.

It's guaranteed that whatever you believe as a result of believing in God is much more fucking retarded than the belief in God.

>> No.5561971

>>5561939
> rhetorical trickery without substance.

wow. you're an idiot.

>> No.5561972

>>5561958
No, you just don't understand the material at all because you haven't read it, and are stupid. You're stupid, anon. Stop posting.

>> No.5561975

>>5561971
Ad homonym is a fallacy.

>> No.5561979

>>5561962
Continental philosophy is not for me, I know. I don't much care for unsubstantiated opinions. It is not that hard to admit that you are wrong about the OA being circular.
>>5561968
We're talking about whether or not the OA is circular, you retarded faggot.

>> No.5561984

>>5561972
Great argument. You clearly don't understand my post and never even read it.

>> No.5561992

>>5561979
⇒Continental philosophy is not for me,
Do I look like I care?

⇒ I know. I don't much care for unsubstantiated opinions.
Then why do you post them?

⇒It is not that hard to admit that you are wrong about the OA being circular.
It isn't my problem that you can't into logic.

>> No.5561994

>>5561979
>We're talking about whether or not the OA is circular, you retarded faggot.
You can't even express the OA. As much as I hate arrow, you're still proving yourself inept and stupid.

>> No.5562000

>>5561984
You haven't made a single statement worth regarding.

>> No.5562005

>>5561992
You're replying, so you do care.
I haven't expressed an opinion in this thread, I've only stated facts.
How is the OA circular, then?
>>5561994
What is the difference between posting a link to the original text and writing it out?

>> No.5562009

>>5562005
>What is the difference between posting a link to the original text and writing it out?
I can link to Einstein's paper on special relativity, that doesn't mean I know what it's saying.

>> No.5562010

>>5562000
I've stated that the OA is not circular, which is a fact. That is the only claim I have made.

>> No.5562013

>>5562009
If someone makes a claim about it, though, then they should be able to back it up with the original text. My understanding of the argument, beyond knowing that it is not circular, is irrelevant.

>> No.5562019

>>5562010
You don't even understand the ontological argument.

>> No.5562020

>>5562005
⇒You're replying, so you do care.
Is this what you keep telling yourself when you question your pathetic existence? "Hurr durr at least all the people who rejected me cared enough to tell me to fuck off"

⇒I haven't expressed an opinion in this thread, I've only stated facts.
Mistaking opinions for facts is a symptom of autism. Get yourself checked after you got rekt.

⇒How is the OA circular, then?
You don't even know what the OA is.

>> No.5562027

>>5562019
[citation needed]
>>5562020
This entire post reeks of damage control. It must be difficult being this stubborn. We both know you are wrong. Good night.

>> No.5562028

>>5562013
No, you're just ignorant. And really boring. Bye, retard, stop trying to spread ideas.

>> No.5562041

>>5562028
>ignorant
Shouldn't you be in Ferguson or something, nigger?

>> No.5562097
File: 121 KB, 399x388, 1404037923295.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5562097

>tfw too stupid to understand the ongoing argument in this thread

>> No.5562105

Who decides that an existent being is 'greater' than a non-existent being?

>> No.5562122

>>5562105
It is referring to ability. Power.

>> No.5562127

>>5562105
Why would god need to "be" a "being"? What rule says something that "is not" cannot affect something that is?

>> No.5562128

>>5561764
this

>> No.5562132

>>5562097
we're all gonna make it brah
read up on the cosmological arguments of aquinas, anselm's ontological argument and some teleological arguments as a base of knowledge

>> No.5562139

>>5562105
>having and overcoming a handicap makes one more powerful than achieving the same without a handicap
>god is omnipotent
>the greatest handicap to place on omnipotence is non-existence (therefore the omnipotent cannot be exercised)
>therefore, to achieve his definition of all-powerful, god does not exist

>> No.5562141

>>5562132
Those are old. Just read Gödel, Plantinga and Kripke.

>> No.5562146

>>5562141
>fightning mike tyson before you can throw a jab
pls anon you need a foundation

>> No.5562150

>>5562146
They're not that hard if you know maths.

>> No.5562155

>>5562150
i know they're not hard, and i understand it is possible to understand them without background knowledge, but the background is essential if you want to become properly learned and well read.

>> No.5562165

>>5562155
Philosophy and theology before Wittgenstein are pretty much useless. If you want to learn anything worthwhile you should forget about everything before Wittgenstein. The Vienna Circle may be useful, but only as background information slightly more relevant than, say, Kant or the empiricists.

>> No.5562182

>>5562165
>Philosophy and theology before Wittgenstein are pretty much useless

absolute pleb

>> No.5562183

>>5562165
Philosophy and theology after Wittgenstein are even more useless. They have been made obsolete by science.

>> No.5562184
File: 484 KB, 200x149, 1379935518003.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5562184

>serioulsy discussing ontological arguments for god

>> No.5562189

>>5562139
what is wrong with this

>> No.5562190

>>5562182
That doesn't mean I'm incorrect. Pre-Wittgenstein philosophy is about as useful as fiction.

>> No.5562196

>>5562183
The scientific method presupposes logic and maths.

>> No.5562198

>>5562190
1. implying any philosophy is useful
2. theology before wittgenstein is the basis for all religious belief
3. you ignore hobbes, locke, hume, kant, nietzsche, spinoza, aquinas, anselm, aristotle, plato, descartes and so on in one broad stroke
4. wittgenstein was a crybaby protestant who didn't like it when people disagreed with him (see: him attacking bertrand russell with a fire poker)

>> No.5562209

>>5562198
>logic
>not useful

>implying hobbes, locke, hume, kant, nietzsche, spinoza, aquinas, anselm, aristotle, plato, descartes and so on made any objectively true discoveries about anything

>> No.5562213

>>5562198
>(see: him attacking bertrand russell with a fire poker)

That was Karl Popper.

>> No.5562214

>>5562209
> objectively true discoveries
>philosophy

>> No.5562219

>>5562196
So what? It doesn't presuppose philosophy.

>>5562209
⇒logic
⇒philosophy
Choose only one. We're not living in ancient Greece anymore where logic was a general synonym for using language. Formal logic as it has been introduced in the 19th century is a branch of math.

>> No.5562220

>>5562213
oops

>> No.5562221

>>5562214
Oh, you think continental 'philosophy' is philosophy. You poor deluded fool.

>> No.5562227

>>5562221
name a single objectively true discovery made by any branch of philosophy

>> No.5562228

>>5562219
Logic is part of philosophy. It always has been and always will be. Maths should, logically, be part of philosophy, anyway. By the way, the short form of mathematics is maths, not 'math'.

>> No.5562230

>>5562228
Logic is a branch of math, irregardless of whether you understand it or not.

>> No.5562236

>>5562227
Modal logic.

>> No.5562238

>>5562236
Logic is math and not philosophy. Try again, idiot.

>> No.5562243

>>5562230
How is logic, the study of valid reasoning, part of mathematics and not philosophy?

>> No.5562247

>>5562238
Continental philosophy is not philosophy, you retard.

>> No.5562254

>5562247
>strawman

>> No.5562268

>>5562247
>mcdonalds is not food
just because you will it does not make it so

>> No.5562276

>>5562268
>opinions are philosophy
>in 2014
Fuck off back to France.

>> No.5562281

>>5562276
yes, in 2014 opinions are philosophy
what purpose does logic have if it cannot be applied to posturings

>> No.5562289

>>5562281
If they followed logically they would be true. Opinions are cancer.

>> No.5562292

>>5562289
so autistic

>> No.5562303

>>5562292
So you think we should ignore facts in favour of opinions? You're a moron. And yes, I am on the autism spectrum, but that has no relevancy to my statement.

>> No.5562309

>>5562303
>And yes, I am on the autism spectrum
>...

>> No.5562318

>>5562309
The person who makes the statement is irrelevant to the statement.

>> No.5562323

>>5561764

this is why agnoticism is so prevalent on this board.

>> No.5562327

>>5562318
still hilarious
it's also an opinion that logic is more valid than say unverifiable metaphysical statements

>> No.5562330

>>5562327
No it is not. Logic is literally valid reasoning.

>> No.5562339

>>5562330
in your opinion

>> No.5562345

>>5562339
And this is why nobody takes continental 'philosophy' seriously beyond 2deep4u hipsters.

>> No.5562349

>>5562345
i don't like continental philosophy but you can carry on strawmanning if it will make you feel better

>> No.5562355

>>5562349
Your misunderstanding of philosophy tells me you are either a continental or a 16 year old ignoramus.

>> No.5562364

>>5562355
>ignoramus
lol

>> No.5562466

>>5562303
⇒So you think we should ignore facts in favour of opinions?

Welcome to philosophy. Philosphy is based on the motto "We are not STEM".

>> No.5562479

>>5562466
Of course YOU would think that. You learned philosophy from /lit/.

>> No.5563025
File: 999 KB, 190x121, 1409578354532.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5563025

>this amount of people being this mad in a single thread

>> No.5563271

>>5561726
>implying that isn't fucking awesome

If I need to be a fedora to find life exciting I'll be a fedora

>> No.5563310

>>5560462
Assuming this is right, how would we have memories to begin with. Considering we are "made of new matter." How would the information between matter be transported?

>> No.5563502

>>5561975
My dick in ur mum is a fallacy too, but I don't hear her complaining.

>> No.5563507
File: 63 KB, 1024x753, BzQJoA8CUAATSSt.jpg-l.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5563507

>>5563271
>fedora

>> No.5563538

>>5563310
Maybe memories aren't made from matter, but the interactions between particles.

>> No.5563939

>>5563507

K E K
E E
K E K

>> No.5563951

>>5560462
but that's wrong

>> No.5563963

>>5562127
aristotle's law of non-contradiction

*fart*

>> No.5563986

It's pop-philosphy.

>> No.5563991

>>5560451
the chapter about morality (i think it was the sixth) in which he tries to prove that morality is just a natural product of evolution and therefor independent of religion is full of fallacies.
also he assumes that religion is the source of all evil has not contributed anything at all so it can be removed without problem.
i don't have time to write about it now but i'll find some tomorrow.

>> No.5564035

>>5560451
blind reductionism and a closed world view that seems to come from someone who fails to grasp the nature of words

>> No.5564230

The part about the eye was interesting, as well as the part where he discusses "memes" and developing religions as part of evolution.

>> No.5564928

>>5560462
how can that be shocking?
seriously thats elementary level biology
(you should have this is in school right after learning that your body is made of cells)

and that part:
>Not a single atom that is in your body today was there when that event took place
that shit would be wrong even with cells insted of atoms (and dont even start on "bone seekers" or other shit that stays in you for years)

hope the rest of the book is better researched

>> No.5565848

>>5562139

>>having and overcoming a handicap makes one more powerful than achieving the same without a handicap

But it doesn't thought?

>> No.5565854

>>5562132
Don't bother, they suck

>>5562141
I already explained to you in the other thread why Godel's proof is fucking retarded. Stop posturing like belief in God is totally rational

>> No.5566013

>>5565854
not that person but how can there possibly an argument against Godel's proof? it's a formal proof, not a discussion topic

you can argue about what the proof means or implies (apparently you think it doesn't imply much), but how could the proof itself be retarded?

>> No.5566624

>>5566013
Plenty of logic can be retarded. This just shows you don't understand what logic actually is, nor have you read any of the literature discussing it.

>> No.5568844

>>5560451
Read David Bentley Hart on the new atheists. I'm an atheist, but I still find it funny to see how thoroughly he destroys them.

>> No.5568848

>>5561939
>socratic method
The irony, Socrates would fucking despise you.

>> No.5568869

>>5568848
I don't think that post was him, as the arrowguy would despise socrates as well.
>>5562219
Then tell me about math using math. In fact prove that math is logic using math. Wait, you have to use language? And even with that you still fail to prove it? What a surprise.

>> No.5569013

>>5566013
> how can the proof be retarded
Have you read the proof? Imagining something to exist does not mean it exists. It's the largest flaw with the whole field of ontology. By the same arguement, the flying spaghetti monster and a vampire hitler riding mecha godzilla exist. And for those wondering why the guy was saying the ontological arguement is circular reasoning, I assume he see's the thought process as this: "I can perceive god to exist, so he exists. God exists, so I can perceive him to exist."

>> No.5569020

>>5560462
ok so he's not a materialist
wow totally mindblown

>> No.5569261

>>5569013
huh? the proof isn't about imagining that there are unprovable true statements, it's about showing that unprovable true statements must logically exist.

>> No.5570413

I haven't read the book in it's entirety, but I did read the part on the arguments of Aquinas and he got the arguments completely wrong. Once I saw that I pretty much just left the book alone. I couldn't decide whether I thought he was deliberately misconstruing the arguments in order to avoid them or he just googled the arguments quickly but it made me angry.

>> No.5570423

>>5561939
>socratic method
>respect for a philosopher's method
>implying arrows

>> No.5570428
File: 41 KB, 387x544, St Thomas Aquinas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5570428

>>5570413
It's really hard to argue against Aquinas. Motherfucker was absurdly smart. Maybe the second smartest person in history, beaten only by Newton.

>> No.5570441

>>5570428
Doesn't really excuse Dawkins for being a liar.

>> No.5570661

>>5570441
what the fuck are you talking about.

it's really hard to argue against Aquinas, but Dawkins #shrekt him anyway

checkmate christfags

>> No.5571094

>>5570661
>tfw when atheists haven't read Dawkins or any thomists yet feel the need to chime in anyway.

>> No.5571112

>>5562097
Nah you're good.
Most of /lit/ seems to be the type of guys who go to clubs and discuss shit with other guys.

>> No.5572033

>>5570413
>>5570428
>>5570661
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm
people really take those arguments seriouly?
why am I surrounded by retards

>> No.5572040

You don't know how hard it is to be an Atheist today. "God" is everywhere. On our billboards, in our newspapers, on TV. In fact, the way it's presented today, God is even a confirmed and universally accepted entity. The message of Americanism today is: you're not completely patriotic unless you sing 'God bless America. Despite controlling all the levers of power in the American government, Christians act like they are the powerless.


Atheists like me, on the other hand, are the most despised and distrusted minority in America , and— that's a fact.. Many atheists have to hide what they believe and who they are, even from their families and closest friends. Being an atheist isn't easy, and it's certainly not easier than being a bible breathing Christian in a nation where most people are Christian of one sort or another.

>> No.5572044

>>5561713
I guess that the categorical imperative is obvious. Huh.

>> No.5572898

>>5561726
This is still pretty cool

What adds to it is that we're structured together because some protein strands in our DNA put together a bunch of other strands to make up several cells that use their specific strands for their function and then we go on the internet and shitpost because billions of other people made it happen

Life is great

>> No.5572916

>>5561953
>Screw your Socratic method

9/10 keks

>> No.5572936

>people itt thinking Dawkins tried to prove that god doesn't exist.
>not actually reading the book
>not realizing the entire book is why god is an asshole, implausible, and anyone worshiping a god in a contemporary first world country is an idiot.

>> No.5572978

>>5572936
That's a juvenile position to hold and write a book about.

>> No.5572987

>>5572978
Perfect. Theology is for juvenile minds.

>> No.5573003

>>5572978
For you

Makes perfect sense to someone offered a 250k advance.

>> No.5573068

>>5572987
Is it?
>>5573003
I guess it would.

>> No.5573362

Sometimes I feel like this board is an even more pretentious version of /x/.

>> No.5573624

>>5561939

Are you really arrow? Using Socratic method?

oh boy

>> No.5573977

>>5572916
I like to imagine someone saying that to Socrates in one of his dialogues.

>> No.5574247

>>5572033
You do realise the thomist definition of motion is completely different to the modern day definition? Completely changes the argument if you read into it modern day metaphysical ideas. Not surprising you think the arguments are retarded.

>> No.5574262

>>5572936
Dawkins tries to point out flaws in other arguments as well.

>> No.5574270

>>5560451
>Let's forget the apparent attachment basement-virgin-euphoric-meme atheists have with Dawkins and The God Delusion.
Why?

>> No.5574329

>>5561713
>>5561811
>>5561939
>>5561962
>>5561992
>>5562020
>>5562219
>>5562466
Just use fucking greentext, jeez

>> No.5574440

I haven't read the book but I assume its about Charles talking about how believing in God is anti-science.

From a true-Christian standpoint, the debate between creationism and evolution is most dumbest (for lack of a better word) argument I've ever heard. Not only is it embarrassing for Christians to believe in creationism and partake in the debate but its even more embarrassing for scientists with college degrees to partake in it as well.

If you read the Book of Genesis you can obviously tell its not a story to be taken completely literally. In fact, Genesis is probably the second most metaphorical book in the entire bible (the first being Revelation). The beauty of the bible is that it has many layers to it and it can be read and understood by everyone no matter the intelligence.

For example, the world was not literally created in one day but to the narrator is probably felt like a day. However, when you take account other scriptures from the bible you learn that 1 day to God is like a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8). Obviously the book of Genesis is not completely literal.

I cannot respect any scientist like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris who believe the Book of Genesis should be taken completely literally.

Evolution is NOT a theory strictly for atheists. It is very possible that we descended from monkeys. Our similarities are too alike to ignore. However, I refuse to believe that monkeys randomly gained an higher consciousness and suddenly learned to communicate with each other using symbols. The moment that the first monkey received the human conscious is when Adam was created by God.

>> No.5574451
File: 12 KB, 317x309, nailed it.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5574451

>>5574440

>> No.5574549

>>5561939
Reminder from a classics professor that Socrates was an asshole.
Not relevant to the discussion but Christ he was a dick

>> No.5574584

RICHARD DAWKINS PRODUCES A COPY OF GRAVITY'S RAINBOW AND PLACES IT ON THE STAGE.

"THIS BOOK CONTAINS OBVIOUS FALSEHOODS," HE BELLOWS AS HE UNZIPS HIS FLY AND URINATES ON IT, "YOU CANNOT SWIM DOWN A TOILET."

A MILLION ATHEISTS CHEER. THEY WANT TO CANONIZE DAWKINS AS THE FIRST GOD BUT HE DECLINES BECAUSE HE KNOWS THAT GOD IS NOT REAL AND ALSO EVIL.

"SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS ARE BAD," SAYS DAWKINS, "ARROWFAG ON /LIT/ IS GOOD." THE CROWD GOES WILD.

>> No.5574595
File: 66 KB, 929x164, arrowcunt.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5574595

>>5574329
>arrowcunt on somebody telling her abusing animals is bad

>> No.5574630

You know, it says something about the state of philosophy that a scientist popularised atheology.

>> No.5574644

>>5574630
>You know, it says something about the state of philosophy that a scientist popularised atheology.

Yeah, and that is that the public are too retarded to get their ideas from genuine Philosophy, atheistic or not (see Oppy, Mackie, Rowe - competent commentators on the existence of God)

>> No.5574648

>>5560451
the boeing 747 gambit thing is horeshit