/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6195044]

Why did New Atheism fall from grace so fast, /lit/?

Was it all elevatorgate's fault?

[Anonymous No.6195050]

>>6195044
OH GOOD
another thread about this

i mean it's not like we've just had a massive fucking atheists vs religionists thread

[Anonymous No.6195058]

because us bein stardust is only interesting for like 5 min

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6195082]

New Atheism never had grace. It was a non-issue blown up into something crucial to distract from more pressing political concerns.

[Anonymous No.6195083]

>>6195044
nice dubs

[Anonymous No.6195086]

For a board that avoids dogma like the plague we sure have a lot of religion/atheism threads

[Anonymous No.6195096]

It seems that its followers became too self-satisfied too son, that few of them are ready to address anything beyond a cartoon Fox News-type of challenge, that the anti-intellectualism behind deliberately misreading a few selected texts while ignoring all academic debate ensuing from it is cute and funny when you're talking about Religion, but a bit embarrassing whey they extend it to things like Post-Modernism, that "science will solve this" became the New Atheist's "God did it" which means that instead of obsessively studying the philosophy and anthropology of things that concern the atheist worldview like ethics and morals, they're waiting for Sam Harris to solve everything with neuroscience, and so on and so on

[Anonymous No.6195238]

All the smug absolutism of Christianity, with none of the comfortable tradition of charitable institutions.

I wouldn't be surprised if they have the same percentages of pedophiles.

[Anonymous No.6195383]

>>6195086
>/lit/
>avoiding dogma

ayy lmao

dogma is arguably one of the top 3 things that differentiate humans from animals, most people are dogmatic about their beliefs because my feelings. this circus of retards called /lit/ especially, because they've read enough to halfway defend their preconceptions but not enough to actually know shit.

[Anonymous No.6195400]

[Anonymous No.6195452]

>>6195044
>elevatorgate's

>mfw i just now looked this up
>mfw dawkins btfo's PZ Meyers and his fan cult

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6195485]

>>6195044
"New Atheism" was what now? A recent spate of atheistic food for thought for the "spiritually" tormented?
Was it supposed to end religion as we know it?
This is like saying science has fallen from grace.
Yes, we live in a world still poisoned with these things, from ISIS to the ignorance of climate change. Both science and atheism are disrespected. The most reasonable have "fallen from grace" Was it the branding it as "New"? the fedora tipping?
Grace. Implying it would sit on a throne.

[Anonymous No.6195497]

>>6195452

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXSYrCIYdas

[Anonymous No.6195506]

>>6195452
Me too and and honestly

>Dear Muslima, Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and...yawn...don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with. Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so...And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.[7]

I can't believe this is a 70 year old academic and public intellectual. This shit is straight up something you'd see in the comments section of a youtube video

[Anonymous No.6195528]

>>6195506
He's actually right about that, which is rare enough for him.

[Anonymous No.6195532]

At least Dawkins and Dennet have done work in their own field. Sam Harris kind of skipped that part.

[Anonymous No.6195576]

>>6195506
It's out of kilter with his position, but hyperbolic mudslinging is pretty much par for the course on FTB.

Funnily, they banned a blogger from FTB for having a view that opposed theirs. He pointed out the absurdity of this, to which P.Z. Myers made a response video saying at 4:57 "we were lazy in vetting him for admission and didn't look all that closely in checking whether his views were compatible with our goals" and explains why the concept of freethought excludes viewpoints that oppose radical feminism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsiXRYUQ7yA

It's hilarious to watch the ruptures in SJW communities, but it looks as though this didn't cause a major schism since Myers and co were able to dismiss non-conformists as extremists and simply ban all of them. (Similarly, Anna Kendrick's being criticized for her support of wage equality, on the basis that she was being racist and white-privileged: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2015/02/24/patricia-arquette-chided-on-backstage-oscar-remarks/23937935/ )

>>6195532
What is Harris's field?

[Anonymous No.6195583]

>>6195576
>Kendrick
Arquette, rather

[Anonymous No.6195590]

>>6195576
>(Similarly, Anna Kendrick's being criticized for her support of wage equality, on the basis that she was being racist and white-privileged: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2015/02/24/patricia-arquette-chided-on-backstage-oscar-remarks/23937935/ )

lol but she definitely was

white women enjoy a much higher status in america than people of color, so when she says "people of color should help us as we helped them" she's implying that they were already in a position where their goals were met

i hate the whole "privilige" type of speech but that was pretty retarded

(assuming that you meant Patricia Arquette and you just wrote Anna Kendrick because you were fapping before writing this post)

[Anonymous No.6195604]

>>6195576
>What is Harris's field?
Neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.6195608]

>>6195506

[Anonymous No.6195616]

>>6195608
>muh soginy!!
>rape culture!!
>racism!!

[Anonymous No.6195661]

>>6195044
I'm not sure what fall from grace you are talking about, since polls consistently reveal that atheists, and those with no religious affiliation are a rapidly growing minority. Especially amongst specialists and the cultural "elite".

If you are referring to the casual derision of atheism (and by extension science) present in humanities departments and the liberal blogoshpere, then yes I have noticed that as well. However this is hardly a surprise. One of the binding qualities in the ideology of Religious conservatives, Cultural relativists, Islamists, Continental philosophers, the new left, and Social Justice warriors is that they all share a vested interest in discrediting the explanatory power of science.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6195684]

>>6195661
Since New Atheists are hardly more than liberal shills making a serious issue out of a personal one, the least they could do would be to get with the times and keep up with all the petty fashions of liberal discourse. But if they can't even do that, then they're destined to become irrelevant to anyone but confused young men looking for a meaningful fight they can wage from the comfort of their computer.

[Anonymous No.6195688]

>>6195383
yeah, agreed, everyone is kinda dogmatic. I can't stand people who think they're total 'free thinkers' because they're an atheist. get over yourself you tedious, dishonest hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.6195692]

>>6195661
New Atheist is a discrete intellectual movement that's a subset of atheists generally.

Stop being a fling-flonger and acknowledge what is actually being said.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6195696]

>>6195616
Since New Atheists are hardly more than liberal shills making a serious issue out of a personal one, the least they could do would be to get with the times and keep up with all the petty fashions of liberal discourse. But if they can't even do that, then they're destined to become irrelevant to anyone but confused young men looking for a meaningful fight they can wage from the comfort of their computer.

[Anonymous No.6195706]

>>6195696
>liberal
Are you American, by any chance?

[Anonymous No.6195724]

The only interesting guy ate and smoked himself into an early grave

[Anonymous No.6195732]

>>6195724
You like war mongering Islamophobes?

[Anonymous No.6195735]

>>6195692
>discrete intellectual movement
The explosive popularity of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris coinciding with a near doubling of the atheist demographic in the last decade is discrete to you? Go back to bed retard.

[Anonymous No.6195741]

>>6195696

>waging the meaningful fight for fascism

[Anonymous No.6195744]

>>6195732
>Islamophobe
Hey Ben Affleck, why don't let the grownups talk?

[Anonymous No.6195765]

>>6195732
>The thing that keeps the Islamophobia panic alive is not actual violence against Muslims but the right-on politicos’ ill-founded yet deeply held view of ordinary Europeans, especially those of a working-class variety, as racist and stupid. This is the terrible irony of the Islamophobia panic: The fearers of anti-Muslim violence claim to be challenging prejudice but actually they reveal their own prejudices, their distrust of and disdain for those who come from the other side of the tracks, read different newspapers, hold different beliefs, live different lives. They accuse stupid white communities of viewing Muslims as an indistinguishable mob who threaten the fabric of European society, which is exactly what they think of stupid white communities.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396098/islamophobia-myth-brendan-oneill

[Anonymous No.6195777]

>>6195765

>hurdy hurr conventional conservative shitty rebuttal "the ones who call out racism and prejudice are themselves the ones who are really prejudiced against the ones they are calling out"

The rhetorical equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"

[Anonymous No.6195784]

>>6195777
And?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6195787]

>>6195765
People who "come from the other side of the tracks" are stupid and prejudice, they are poorly educated and superstitious, and you'd have to be an imbecile to suggest that they have the same intellectual faculties as those who are well educated and have immersed themselves in the Western tradition of critical thought developed by the titans of the academic tradition.

There is an Islam panic, but there is no "Islamaphobia panic", precisely because who mental capacity don't get stirred to furor by tabloids and propaganda, except as an aesthetic experience.

[Anonymous No.6195789]

People started to realize how close they were to dogmatic televangelists and annoying proselytizers.

They also give you no good reason to live and no insight into life. Great, it's very easy to accept that maybe we weren't the product of a God, that we came about via evolution. That's an easy proposition to accept, and I think most people know it as the truth, but otherwise what is there? What you get is a weak rehash of Feuerbach's humanism.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that religion is the way. But the alternative isn't much better.

[Anonymous No.6195817]

>>6195787
>postsecondary education breeds intellect
k.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6195834]

>>6195817
On average, I'd say they're significantly smarter. I don't have more than a GED myself, but many people from my level of education get most of their politics from gossip or religion.

[Anonymous No.6195839]

>>6195834

this explains so much about you

[Anonymous No.6195845]

>>6195789
>They also give you no good reason to live and no insight into life.

This particular bit of idiocy that "if it's not directly tied to muh feelings, the philosophy ain't worth it" is even more cancerous than Ben Stiller's evil atheist twin.

Truth is very much worth pursuit even if it's not immediately obvious how that truth can improve a man's life. Please stop being an anthrocentric fucktard. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.6195848]

>>6195845
>Truth is very much worth pursuit even if it's not immediately obvious how that truth can improve a man's life.

But muh social justice

[Anonymous No.6195852]

>>6195787
>but there is no "Islamaphobia panic"
Right, which is why the mainstream reaction to terror attacks in europe is 'let's make sure no one blames this on islam, islam is alright', even when those attacks frequently target minorities. If that's not an islamophobia panic, I don't know what that concept means.

[Anonymous No.6195858]

>>6195789
>But the alternative isn't much better.

Ok kids, today we'll learn about how the universe will probably end in heat death, and how your consciousness is a physical property of your brain that with no transcendent spiritual nature and as such will not endure after you should happen to drown or get eaten by a bear. And after that, you'll be tested on your ability to live happy & fulfilling lives as insignificant human beings who have no guarantee of happiness or fulfillment, depending on external circumstances outside of your control!

[Anonymous No.6195862]

>>6195852
>he mainstream reaction to terror attacks in europe is 'let's make sure no one blames this on islam, islam is alright'
No it isn't, "Islamic extremism" is a fairly common phrase used to label terrorist attacks.

[Anonymous No.6195864]

>>6195858
>I don't like the truth, so it's bad!
>I'd rather believe in false things that feel good instead of believe in true things and find my own source of purpose in life

Great apologetics, brother.

[Anonymous No.6195866]

>>6195862
Yeah, the implication being that mainstream islam has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.6195869]

>>6195864
All those truths are acceptable. They simply lack any sort of worth in the realm of justifying an existence.

[Anonymous No.6195872]

>>6195866
It doesn't, unless you are suggesting the majority of Muslims are terrorists.

[Anonymous No.6195873]

>>6195862
>denying that leftists haven't been on Damage Control Mode Defcon 1 lately to protect their Islamic damsels in distress

You must live in a different world, to see things so differently.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6195876]

>>6195873
Leftists hardly represent the "mainstream reaction".

[Anonymous No.6195877]

>>6195608

>some rapes are better than others

but that's true.

[Anonymous No.6195879]

>>6195872
>the majority of 11th century christians weren't crusaders
>therefore, the crusades had nothing to do with 11th century mainstream christianity
Logic, motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.6195881]

>>6195869

"Acceptable" is irrelevant to anyone or anything outside of your own skull. Objective reality is acceptable to me because I'm mature enough to function in a world without needing to believe human existence is somehow cathartic.

Romanticization of facts is only necessary to the weak-minded. If the moon not being cheese upsets you then, I'm sorry bro, nothing I can do.

[Anonymous No.6195884]

>>6195879
Crusades were ordered by the head of the Catholic Church.

[Anonymous No.6195886]

>>6195876
They represent about half of it, at least, if the mainstream is the center. Also, it's not like the moderate right doesn't subscribe to multiculturalism.

[Anonymous No.6195887]

>>6195876
>implying leftism isn't creeping well into the mainstream and political correctness doesn't rule the land.

You must live in a different world, to see things so differently.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6195892]

>>6195887
I'm a fascist personally, but you're a simpleton if you think leftism is remotely "mainstream".

[Anonymous No.6195893]

>>6195884
Jihad is ordered by islamic preachers, your point being?

[Anonymous No.6195894]

>>6195881
>Objective reality is acceptable to me
As it is to me.
>I'm mature enough to function in a world without needing to believe human existence is somehow cathartic

Sounds like you just have a superiority complex, which wouldn't surprise me if you put any stock into the NA crowd.

And then your final tragic statement of,
>If the moon not being cheese upsets you then, I'm sorry bro, nothing I can do.
Which was the most beautiful non sequitur that you could deliver to demonstrate that you really don't understand what it is I'm trying to get at.

[Anonymous No.6195895]

>>6195892
>I'm a fascist

You must live in a different world, to see things so differently.

[Anonymous No.6195897]

>>6195845
A lot of science is pursued for emotional reasons such as enthusiasm & interest in the unknown, not because it has foreseeable applications to human betterment. If you disagree, then try to explain why cataloging distant stars or finding the Ramsey numbers are worthwhile pursuits, without emotional appeals such as "because it's such a fascinating mystery to unravel". Those stars (and numbers) will literally never help you or your children's^n children. The stars are billions of light-years away and knowledge of them will never solve cancer; the Ramsey numbers are sort-of interesting to use as a pick-up line in bars but that's about it.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6195901]

>>6195893
Plenty of Christians preachers order all sorts of things, I'm talking about the universally recognized head of the Church.

[Anonymous No.6195903]

>>6195892
logh fan detected

[Anonymous No.6195906]

>>6195901
The Pope during the Crusades was by no means the universally recognized head of the Church.

I'm not sure there ever was actually a universally recognized head of the Church, although I'm not as much up on my early Christian history as I could be.

[Anonymous No.6195908]

>>6195901
>Plenty of Christians preachers order all sorts of things
Yeah, killing infidels featuring super prominently among them. Also, the point that jihadism is a grassroots movement hardly speaks in favour of mainstream islam.

[Anonymous No.6195910]

>>6195894
But I do, you're speaking of "acceptable truth", which is not germane to the original discussion.

I'm sure there are plenty of New Age types who would indulge your sense of romanticism and about how is truth is subjective because blah blah mystical mumbo jumbo solipsism, but in this thread the point was simply about New Atheists "fell" (they were always twerps but that's another can of worms), ultimately point is that your desire to "justify existence" or whatever is irrelevant to the validity of New Atheists. I don't like them either, but not because they say things that don't make me feel good.

[Anonymous No.6195913]

>>6195892
>a fascist sympathizer of islam
Congratulations on winning the scum olympics, then.

[Anonymous No.6195915]

>>6195864
You obviously can't grasp the point bud so piss off.

>apologetics
Ralph, pls.

[Anonymous No.6195922]

>>6195913
>fascist islam sympathizer

Alright gents, at what point do you just stop saying "Well maybe we should address the idea instead of the person" and just start calling a spade a spade, or in this case a lost cause a lost cause?

[Anonymous No.6195926]

>>6195915
>losing argument
>you're dumb fuck off, you don't understand!

elvis post

[Anonymous No.6195937]

>>6195787
>People who "come from the other side of the tracks" are stupid and prejudice
>stupid and prejudice
>[are...] prejudice

lmao

[Anonymous No.6195939]

>>6195922
Wait, are you calling me a lost cause for suggesting that such a thing as a fascist islam sympathizer exists (Haj Amin al-Husseini, anyone?), or him for being one?

[Anonymous No.6195941]

>>6195881

Even if I accept your premise about your brain being so big as to facilitate your enlightenment by your own intelligence and your towering maturity that makes theists clench their buttocks with nervousness when you approach them wielding Truth in your right hand and Objective Reality in your left, I don't see a single suggestion here as to how or why normalfag humans should live happy & fulfilling lives or why those things should matter.

[Anonymous No.6195944]

>>6195939
wild card: both

[Anonymous No.6195952]

>>6195944
Ok, that doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous No.6195963]

Why do atheists have such a boner for science when so much of it is obviously composed of research cartels that exclude anybody who sees thru their bullshit eg Peter H. Duesberg's drugs theory of AIDS?

[Anonymous No.6195971]

>>6195952
Truth is subjective, just believe whatever you want, remember?

[Anonymous No.6195983]

>>6195963
Because nobody likes the idea that we live in a web of lies and no truth can be known in a capitalistic paradigm where the means of discovery and research are controlled by those motivated by greed, who will always put themselves and their agendas above intellectual integrity.

Without blindly trusting researchers who need to say whatever will get them funding, there's pretty much nobody to trust and nothing to believe, which means that the horrible truth must be that oligarchs control even information and the average person doesn't even have a hope to know what's real.

2spooky4most

[Anonymous No.6196021]

>>6195971
Only fascists believe that, it's how they manage to sleep at night.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6196042]

>>6195906
He certainly was of the Catholic Church,, which comprised the majority of Christians. at the time. But certainly I wouldn't put his word upon all Christians, especially later protestants. Luther thoughts the Crusades were fucking retarded (although I don't think they all were, mainly the Fourth).

>>6195908
I'm not an Islam apologist, I don't like the religion at all. But neither do I think there is anything wrong with calling Islamic terrorism "Islamic extremism", especially since it often targets moderate Muslims.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6196048]

>>6195913
I'll my a sympathizer of Islam when there is an Islamic Church or whatever you want to call it, which pledges fidelity to a Western state.

[Anonymous No.6196050]

>>6195897
>Ramsey numbers are sort-of interesting to use as a pick-up line in bars
i'm intrigued

[Anonymous No.6196054]

>>6195963
Because aside from the cases where political ideology has muddled the interpretation of research, the scientific method has consistently produced working models for phenomena, and has been single handedly responsible for every significant technological advancement in the last two hundred years. Where as rereading Hegel's ancient theories for the hundredth time through an anarcho-feminist lens is completely un-productive.

[Anonymous No.6196071]

>>6195906
Are you honestly comparing Al-Baghdadi to Pope in terms of influence..?

[Anonymous No.6196074]

>>6196054
> the scientific method has consistently produced working models for phenomena, and has been single handedly responsible for every significant technological advancement in the last two hundred years
Could you prove that scientifically?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6196075]

>>6196054
Philosophy might not help develop a new artificial sweetener or iTunes update, but it is extremely productive for personal development. A important idea in Hegel is that philosophy ought not to serve the interests of "common sense", that butcher's values, it's not about increasing sausage output and that is a good thing. Philosophy is education for its own sake, and aids greatly in developing critical thought when it comes to personal values and social policy, which are vital in any system where community responsibility and direction is a shared concern.

[Anonymous No.6196083]

>>6196074
try opening a physics textbook sometime.

[Anonymous No.6196086]

>>6196054
Using the same logic one could expound that all significant developments in 19th century social sciences were gained through application of Hegelian dialectics whereas scientific theory was unproductive when it came to creation of anthropological theories or military science theories.

[Anonymous No.6196089]

>>6196083
Yes, and..? Is that a proof of your theory on the history of science?

[Anonymous No.6196094]

>>6196075
>Philosophy might not help develop a new artificial sweetener or iTunes update

Or a cure for an illness, or a means of sustainable energy, or advanced prosthetics, or a new vaccine. Try not be a glib idiot.

[Anonymous No.6196104]

>>6196089

It's either that or Neil Armstrong went to the moon by accident

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6196110]

>>6196094
Let's not pretend that's what the majority of people in STEM are doing.

The very best of science is often used to represent the whole endeavor, but trying to represent all of science like that is like trying to represent the whole Army with the Green Berets.

[Anonymous No.6196113]

>Religion was founded by man who led a military campaign toward the end of his life.
>Islam is a religion of peace
>It's wrong to make criticisms of Islam. As white first world people we should refrain from that

A lot of the modern liberal schtick is mostly just Emily Post shit. On one level I understand it because it makes social situtations go by more smoothly. But on another level I just perceive it as kind of hypocritical and phony

[Anonymous No.6196115]

>>6196110

Yes, and the very worst of science is still more productive than the very best of philosophy

[Anonymous No.6196116]

>>6196113

Wait a minute, who said all of this?

[Anonymous No.6196117]

>>6196086
>This is actually what people with liberal art degrees believe.

What were Hegel's contributions to the principals of electromagnetic induction?

[Anonymous No.6196118]

This is pretty much an American phenomenon. The rest of the world was mostly made up of non believers. It's just that Americans are so obnoxious that when they finally caught up they hijacked it and ruined it (not the idea, the common perception of it)

[Anonymous No.6196121]

>>6196116
literally every liberal person ever

isn't this thread about Sam Harris

he got into a huge shit flinging fest with ben afleck over Islam recently.

[Anonymous No.6196138]

>>6196118
This. And what's also funny about the situation -- you silly Americans! -- is that a lot of people have had their faith strengthened or restored in response to the New Atheists. I laugh every time I see some American on here quoting Aquinas in defense of his beliefs. Technologically America is so advanced, but culturally they're always behind Western Europe.

[Anonymous No.6196143]

What's in the liberal capitalist ideology which makes science "de-philosophized"? Alot of the major scientists of the old read philosophy (such as Oppenheimer, Einstein, Darwin etc). This phenomenon is very recent and is deeply troubling

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/massimo-pigliucci/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy_b_5330216.html

[Anonymous No.6196155]

>>6196143
>the major scientists of the old read philosophy

Crucial word being old. Modern scientific understanding is determined by research and increasingly accurate instrumentation (more powerful telescopes etc). Philosophy is relevant in the study of science as a human endeavor, but completely inessential to the practice of science itself.

[Anonymous No.6196160]

>>6196143
It is only with Richard Feynman (I pity him, no doubt a great physicist but unfortunately didn't understand the philosophical part of Quantum physics) that the "Anti-philosophy" of Science (it's just really materialism) went off and now you have guys like Lawrence Krauss and Stephen hawking saying philosophy is dead.

>>6196117
None, because Hegel was not a physicist.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6196164]

>>6196115
No it isn't. The very worst science conditions mass taste and ideology. Philosophy conditions critical evaluation of value systems, social function, personal fulfillment and the genealogy of assumptions.

[Anonymous No.6196167]

>>6196160
*cracks knuckles* this will be good. Please tell me what exactly are the philosophical implications of Quantum physics?

[Anonymous No.6196168]

>>6196155
If you can't grasp the philosophical implications in scientific developments such as biogenetics, cognitive science and quantum physics I suggest you go back to /sci/

[Anonymous No.6196175]

>>6196168
>philosophical implications
That are not relevant to the scientific process.

[Anonymous No.6196178]

>>6196167
Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity

[Anonymous No.6196181]

>>6196164
>The very worst science conditions mass taste and ideology

Gunna need a citation here.

[Anonymous No.6196185]

>>6196155
>Modern scientific understanding is determined by research and increasingly accurate instrumentation (more powerful telescopes etc).

This is exactly why scentific progress has ground to a halt since WWII. Scientists no longer use their intuition to hypothesise and reimagine fundamentals about our universe, they instead rely entirely on "big data", instruments and statistics.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6196188]

>>6196181
Mass-consumerism depends on science. The flavor of Cheetos was developed by scientists, the flavor of Coke was developed by scientists, the coding for ads on Facebook was developed by scientists, this is massive field which pays very well and employs many scientists.

[Anonymous No.6196190]

>>6196185
>This is exactly why scentific progress has ground to a halt since WWII

Yeah totally man, I cant believe were all still using these WWII computers to discuss ideas on the INTERNET. Science should do something about that.

[Anonymous No.6196192]

>>6196190
>technology = science

[Anonymous No.6196194]

You can't convince a bunch of old fucks that God doesn't exist. Why even try? Harris and the clan get off on busting balls. They say next to nothing that people haven't known since Sagan and Hawkings.

[Anonymous No.6196198]

>>6196117
> Electromagnetic induction
> Social science topic
? ? ?

[Anonymous No.6196201]

>>6196192
What is electromechanics, engineering?

[Anonymous No.6196206]

>>6196192

>implying the two are somehow completely seperate

[Anonymous No.6196207]

>>6195238
Will I get to own all this fancy stuff made of gold if I start a charitable institution?

[Anonymous No.6196365]

>>6196042
Why would a fascist have a problem with islamists targeting moderate muslims, after all, italian fascist also targeted moderate italians.

[Anonymous No.6196379]

>>6195735
>bad philosophy becomes popular philosophy with demographics who also most likely believe that Christian culture was an opression won over by superior powers of reason
Wow, how surprising

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6196397]

>>6196365
I never said I have a problem with them, but if you're asking if I do, well of course there is an ideological discrepancy because loyalty to Islam tends to conflicts with loyalty to the state. Moderate Muslims are better candidates for good fascists than extreme Muslims are, because they are more likely to reconcile their religious beliefs with nationalist sentiment There is fertile ground for the development for ultra-right, West friendly Islam, it's just that there has been no serious effort toward that. Islamic extremism is not a good source for this, because it is very much a product of tensions against the West over our attempts to exert influence in the Middle East; even if Islam did not exist, these extremists still would, they'd just be radical Middle East nationalists or whatever.

Are you suggesting that because I'm an extremist I should feel solidarity with all extremists of any ideology?

[Anonymous No.6196404]

>>6196397
>moderate muslims make better fascists
Dude, have you ever even heard of clerical fascism?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6196417]

>>6196404
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The issue with "extremist Islam" is not that they're extreme, it's that it's an ideology built upon anti-West sentiment. An extreme West friendly Islam is possible, but it does not exist yet, and so "extreme Islam" doesn't refer to it.

[Anonymous No.6196454]

>>6196417
Oh come on, as if 'the west' was of any value to a fascist, in any other sense than geographical. One mythological community is, prima facie, as good as the other, and the islamic umma has the indisputable advantage of lacking all that gay individualism and pursuit of happiness stuff.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6196464]

>>6196454
No, fascism is not an world-ideology like communism, it's concerned with one's particular society. The extreme Islam is fighting in the interests of a different society from mine, often at the expense of mine, is enough to make me ideologically opposed to them.

[Anonymous No.6196489]

>>6196464
>it's concerned with one's particular society
Wrong, it is concerned with whatever myth you can mobilize an existing or invented community with. Conquest of the globe is optional, but being a united caliphate is certainly better than being, say, italy.

[Anonymous No.6196490]

>>6195044
>Why did New Atheism fall from grace so fast, /lit/?

It embraced a fanbase as autistic as bronies and as abrasive as metalheads. That was the moment it doomed itself.

[Anonymous No.6196491]

>>6195983

They're not that corrupted yet. They are trustworthy to an extent.

Remember that Adam Smith actually used the metaphor of the invisible hand to describe altruistic behavior rather than cold and calculated egotistical cynicism.

There is social capital in doing good, which counterweighs pure greed and makes researchers act with some integrity.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6196496]

>>6196489
I suggest you read The Political Doctrine of Fascism, by Alfredo Rocco, because you don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.6196501]

>>6195238
>I wouldn't be surprised if they have the same percentages of pedophiles.
They probably have much higher, really. Despite media hysteria about cases from 50 years ago to sell more newspapers, Catholic priests are statistically underrepresented amongst paedophiles compared to the general population. Even more so when compared to the people who work with children (e.g. teachers).

[Anonymous No.6196511]

>>6195877
No! All rapes are equal you fascist pig!
One cock bad.
Two testicles bad.
Three digit IQ bad.

[Anonymous No.6196518]

>>6196501
People get pissed off about pedo priests because they have a huge, wealthy, powerful organization ostensibly dedicated to a Good Cause shielding them from the consequences of being kiddy diddlers.

It's a total non sequitur to say that other groups of people also diddle kiddies. Most of those people aren't being protected while doing it.

[Anonymous No.6196521]

>>6196501

>Catholic fags are still asshurt about the fact that their perfect moral authority protected known pedophiles
>instead, they now assert without any evidence that atheists are the real pedophiles

Not that asserting without any evidence is new, but still

[Anonymous No.6196536]

>>6195452
Can we talk about how Myers's book is without doubt the shittiest atheist-themed collection of wood pulp ever printed?

[Anonymous No.6196539]

>>6196116
The straw man that is concocted by people who hate Islam because it is a religion of brown people rather than for the actual shitty aspects.

[Anonymous No.6196555]

My bf is a neuroscientist.

Any gold from Harris you feel he'd appreciate?

[Anonymous No.6196564]

>>6196518
You're completely missing the point. There's a modern stereotype that Catholic priests are pedophiles. Therefore, the statistic that Catholic priests are less likely to fuck kids than the general populace or the people in professions that often deal with children are actually relevant to the discussion, as it disputes the claim that Catholic priests are statistically more likely to abuse kids.

It's not about defending the Church or the way it handled those scandals.

[Anonymous No.6196567]

>>6196555
Harris made an argument I agree with in favor of republishing "offensive" materials in the case of events like the Charlie Hebdo killings. Firstly, that it is entirely newsworthy in and of itself, and refusing to republish it is an abdication of journalistic responsibility. Secondly, that by providing a broad front, it makes it more difficult to single out lone targets for attacks. It's much easier to decide to attack a small magazine for publishing offensive cartoons if they're the only ones doing it because it sends a stronger message. If the cartoons are everywhere then no one target is particularly valuable.

[Anonymous No.6196576]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/about-thinking/201410/deconstructing-the-ben-affleck-sam-harris-cage-fight

[Anonymous No.6196578]

>>6195096

spot on

[Anonymous No.6196579]

>>6196564
>There's a modern stereotype that Catholic priests are pedophiles

No, there are modern facts which indicate that the Catholic Church, an authority that Catholics say is morally infallible, protects known pedophiles, while still claiming the moral high ground, which is utterly laughable

[Anonymous No.6196585]

>>6196579
You're quite literally dismissing my arguments and discussing about something completely different, which I already stated I have no intention of arguing about.

Are you religious by any chance? You sure argue like a religious person.

[Anonymous No.6196592]

>>6196207
If it manages to exist for more than a thousand years, yes.

[Anonymous No.6196597]

>>6196567
By Harri geld i mean stupid stuff an actual neuroscientist would find ridiculous.

Thats an okay idea but they could still attack whoever they consider the originators to be.

[Anonymous No.6196600]

>>6196564
Is it an affirmative claim that is actually being made or is it just a belief that came into being because of how the church is perceived by the public?

Just because people come to believe something doesn't mean that they were told specifically "a priest is more likely to rape your kid than someone else."

If that's the stereotype, then it seems to me to arise from the awareness people have of the incentives of being a priest: If you want to molest a kid, you can get away with it.

Most still choose not to do it, which is great, but it doesn't change the fact that the general public is aware that a priest has fewer disincentives toward such behavior.

[Anonymous No.6196607]

>>6196585
>which I already stated I have no intention of arguing about.

Why not? Are you saying the Church is actually not the organization appointed by God himself to lead us heathen fools to the light?

[Anonymous No.6196652]

>>6195913
>>6195922

you guys must be retarded, there's tons of islamic fascists, those two are in no way mutually exclusive

[Anonymous No.6196723]

>>6196652
I didn't deny that, I just called them scum?

[Anonymous No.6196906]

>>6196207

Haha thos cristuns rite? :^)

[Anonymous No.6196935]

Why does everyone ignore the fact that new atheism is a necessary corrective against a slew of idiotic ideas that have no merit in modern times?
At some point you have to break some eggs even if it gets ur kitchen dirty for a bit.

And yes current western thought is full of spooks but the desert spooks from thousands of years ago wont cut it anymore.

[Anonymous No.6197012]

New atheism is a cause taken up by uninteresting people to give their lives meaning and simulate personality

[Anonymous No.6197024]

im a christian myself but i can tell you none of these people hold a candle to Jurgen Habermas

[Anonymous No.6198805]

>>6196906
Funny how people believe that Catholics are Christians

[Anonymous No.6198815]

>>6196935
>The necessary corrective cure for dogma is more dogma

[Anonymous No.6198827]

>>6195784
Underrated post.

You literally responded with "I know you are, but what am I?"

>inb4 And?

[Anonymous No.6198829]

>>6195608
Some rape's mothers are better than other rape's mothers

[Anonymous No.6198832]

>>6195604
Supposedly, anyway. I mean, he has a BA in philosophy, but it's pretty clear he didn't get anything out of it.

[Anonymous No.6198836]

>>6198815
It's actually relentless ridicule that can only be impotently *tipped* at.

[Anonymous No.6198851]

>>6195983
How does an oligarch know he's an oligarch?

[Anonymous No.6198853]

>>6195735
>The explosive popularity of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris coinciding with a near doubling of the atheist demographic
Is a complete coincidence.

I know plenty of atheists who have never read Dawkins or even know who he is. Contemporary values allowed atheism to exist in a bigger scale; Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris are just faggots who are worshipped by a vocal group of autists who might have "gotten over" religion but certainly did not get over the need to be guided.

[Anonymous No.6198863]

>>6195044

What is wrong with their eyes?

Harris' in particular look extra creepy especially with that mona lisa like oh so very slight 'smile'.

[Anonymous No.6198868]

>>6195864
>>I'd rather believe in false things that feel good instead of believe in true things and find my own source of purpose in life
Please outline what is wrong with this point of view without resorting to memes.

You can't

[Anonymous No.6198875]

>>6196906

I bet these idiots think that people like Bill gates actually have how ever many tens of billions in cash lying about and they could display all those bills in a giant warehouse like that rich duck with the 3 annoying grandsons(?).

[Anonymous No.6198878]

>>6196607
>Are you saying the Church is actually not the organization appointed by God himself

It isn't though.

[Anonymous No.6198892]

>>6195044
I think is because they anthropomorphize every concept of ¨god¨ and they end up making stupid and redundant arguments the same way naive protestants do.

[Anonymous No.6198896]

>>6195881
Out of curiosity, you don't actually believe you've somehow achieved some sort of heightened state of mind where you've completely transcended the need for pleasure, right? It's pretty clear that the "pursuit of truth" (as if anyone on /lit/ actually reads, good kek m8) fullfils that exact need for the character you're playing here.

[Muck P. Bulligan !!ryE2gEjGbpu No.6198946]

>>6195735
>he doesn't know what discrete means
you don't know what discrete means
>>6195963
because they retroactively distinguish "good science" from "bad science" (or just "science" and "not actual science") in possibly the most concerning example of revisionism the world has ever seen

[Anonymous No.6199018]

>>6196175
Science doesn't exist in a vacuum. Until only recently, every major scientific discovery was made by someone who had a very deep knowledge and understanding of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6199396]

>>6199018
But seriously though, it's a bit confusing how these "philosophy is dead" types seem convinced that we're going to discover everything by running recipes in a lab from now on, considering guys like EINSTEIN specifically said that science is philosophical. His entire objection to the copenhagen interpretation of qm was based on philosophical disagreements.

[Anonymous No.6199441]

New Atheism is gaining popularity.

[Anonymous No.6199564]

>>6198868
Do the words or phrases "Camus," "absurdism," and "philosophical suicide" mean anything to you?

[Anonymous No.6199664]

>>6199018
/Sigh. Have you ever heard of controlled conditions? Scientific experiments are literally conducted in vacuums. You would know this if you knew anything about science.

>>6199396
I think this argument is going over your head. The fact the Newton was a theologian has absolutely no bearing on his discoveries, you do not have to be a theologian to understand his mathematics. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? The reason why people Like Niel Degrasse Tyson and Dawkins say philosophy is dead, is because philosophy has no explanatory power in the modern age. The production of modern scientific knowledge requires immensely expensive instrumentation and incredibly narrow and rigorous specialization -quite different from extrapolating a theory by looking at apples falling from a tree. You cannot be an armchair scientist anymore. This is why philosophy has contributed nothing of value to any scientific field in the last 100 years.

[Anonymous No.6199673]

>>6195044
This is what you get for not executing the SJW's in your midst.

[Anonymous No.6199677]

Why did New Atheism fall from grace so fast?

>1. It was banal.
They ran out of stuff to talk about before they even started; Hitchens' book was dreary, long-winded and uninsightful. Pure cash-grab, and another of his easy fights -- Mother Teresa, Clinton, Kissinger. All easy targets. Was Bush not as bad as Kissinger? He really showed what a hack he was when he went after the fraud that was Mother Teresa -- the fact that he devoted so much time to it is pathetic.
>2. Unfalsifiable piss-easy "debates"
They contributed nothing to ontology or philosophy in general. People just tuned in to see that hack Hitchens browbeat some easy, moronic target -- something that insufferable narcissist, Sam Harris, does now. Dawkins is a formerly admirable academic who turned into a joke -- the honey at the aiport bit was just hilarious.
>3. Moral absolutism
All the New Aethists are forcefully didactic in their moralism and they are usually imperialists who make very narrow, almost childish readings of complex world events -- they act as if as if IR theory, economics, and political economy don't exist.
>4. They're a bunch of smug pricks
I'm sad that these are the pricks that represent popular aetheism today.

[Anonymous No.6199724]

>all philosophy is metaphysics
>philosophy is useless because it does not contribute to science
>economics, political science and sociology are useless and/or not at all rooted in philosophy

tip
fucking
kek

You really have to be an autist to be a New Atheist. You just have to completely ignore the existence of society and think about the moon so you can go to bed at night without having to question your retarded values.

[Anonymous No.6199734]

I've never thought "New Atheism" was a good name for it.

"Pop Atheism" always seemed more appropriate. Richard Dawkins always struck me as the Neil Degrasse Tyson of his field.

[Anonymous No.6199750]

>>6199677
The new atheists weren't philosophers. They were actively political intellectuals who did routine public take-downs of unduly respected religious institutions/icons/ideas on talk shows and other nationally viewed platforms. The movement was highly utilitarian and practical, designed to introduce critical thinking to religious complacency.
They never pretended to contribute anything to ontology or philosophy. So of course its seems elementary to a sophisticated genius like yourself. If you crave delicately nuanced, impotent arguments surely you can find them elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.6199751]

>>6196906
Why not just tell the person or organization that has the $500 billion to purchase the Vatican to feed the whole world instead of buying the Vatican?

[Anonymous No.6199788]

>>6199750
>The movement was highly utilitarian and practical, designed to introduce critical thinking to religious complacency.
They replaced one form of didacticism with another. Their subjective notion of "reason"--much like Ayn Rand's ostensible "reason"--basically were any ideas that confirmed their biases.
>They never pretended to contribute anything to ontology or philosophy.
This is Harris' current shtick.
>So of course its seems elementary to a sophisticated genius like yourself.
No need to act like a little prick just because I hurt your poor nu-aethist feelings.
Also, it feels like you're projecting some form of self-loathing, or you're very defensive of your dogmatism.
>If you crave delicately nuanced, impotent arguments surely you can find them elsewhere.
Like you? Christ.

[Anonymous No.6199922]

>>6199788
The 'nu-atheism as another form of dogma' canard is getting a bit boring. You're articulating the same last-ditch-effort argument that Bill Donahue and every other fundamentalist shill makes when they attempt to whitewash what are very serious differences in two incommensurable systems of thought. No different than when they assert that science is just another faith based religion. It's intellectually dishonest at best.
New atheists are virtually the only public figures with any semblance of authority to publicly challenge the stranglehold of religious credulity and you deride them because... they aren't the right kind of atheists? Puh lease.

[Anonymous No.6199940]

>>6196906

500 billion would not feed the world for very long. Maybe a couple of days. And then some faggot who would actually buy the Vatican would own the Vatican.

[Anonymous No.6199948]

>>6199922
>New atheists are virtually the only public figures with any semblance of authority to publicly challenge the stranglehold of religious credulity and you deride them because... they aren't the right kind of atheists? Puh lease.
So to you it doesn't matter who challenges your little imagined system of oppression so long as they don't believe in God?

Yeah, that sounds reasonable and comparing the obsession of New Atheists with narrow-minded religious extremists is indeed totally unfounded.

[Anonymous No.6199964]

>>6199948
>little imagined system of oppression
>Religious oppression is imaginary.
Ok i'm done here. you're obviously an idiot.

[Anonymous No.6199974]

>>6199964
I'm glad you went right at the bit that was not at all crucial to the point! Just proves how little you know. It's a good thing you're done here, I'd hate to waste my time.

[Anonymous No.6199977]

>>6199974
>Just proves how little you know.
>I'd hate to waste my time.

[Anonymous No.6199983]

>>6199977
>le new atheism
>le muh parents took me to church once worst day of my life
>le i don't care how terrible authority figures are as long as they're atheists
>actually calling someone else a neckbeard

[Anonymous No.6200110]

>>6195839
What does it explain?
Not him by the way.