/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6551184]

How does it feel knowing millions of pseudo-intellectuals look up to this guy on subject matters that exist outside of Biology?


Do they not realise he's using them to make a quick buck and sell his books?

[Anonymous No.6551186]

[Anonymous No.6551189]

Good for him. 30,000 years of human development is evidence enough that the majority exists to exploit.

[Anonymous No.6551190]

[Anonymous No.6551203]

>>6551189
Yeah, I used to think like that when I was an edgy retard too.

[Anonymous No.6551206]

its honestly good and cool to me that someone exists who is already this much of a self parody

[Anonymous No.6551207]

yikes

[Anonymous No.6551210]

>>6551190
>capitalising 'truth'
Dawkins is the continental.

[Anonymous No.6551213]

>>6551207
Jesus fucking Christ.

[Anonymous No.6551339]

>>6551184
>>6551186
>>6551190
>>6551207
This is now a Cringe thread

[Anonymous No.6551346]

>>6551207
>Why doesn't the novel prize for literature go to people who don't write literature?
The voice of reason, everyone.

[Anonymous No.6551350]

>>6551346
Henri Bergson got it tho

[Anonymous No.6551351]

>>6551350
Well Bergson clearly wasn't a scientist, but rather the literary kind of philosopher.
But yeah, it's a bit of a stretch.

[Anonymous No.6551354]

>>6551346
Nobel prize winners may have explored the human personality, but what could be more amazing or relevant than exploring the world of science?

[Anonymous No.6551358]

>>6551354
God, what a moronic quote. Sociologists of the world cringed. Also, this "universe has big imagination, lololol science4ever" ist just as much of a fairytale/myth as anything else

[Anonymous No.6551365]

>>6551354
Yeah, that's why scientists already get their own nobel prizes. For science.

[Anonymous No.6551378]

>>6551184

Good, because it's like a red flag when they mention him.

[Anonymous No.6551384]

>>6551354

Real estate's not interesting, though, except to realtors. People buying a house for themselves to live in are still bored by the process. How you going to tell me that billions of miles of real estate I can't even live in should interest me? No, anything we make up is better than the boring-ass truth, or should that be the bleak truth: the human story the way these guys tell it is a losing battle with a banality which is general, and infinite, and unending.

[Anonymous No.6551405]

>>6551184
Why is Dawkins such cancer?
He says that God isn't real and uses science for his argument. However he has no physical evidence that God doesn't exist, so his claim is actually not backed up by science.
Saying God isn't real is a philosophical claim.
But Dawkings hates philosophy.

It's like Dawkins is a really shit philosopher but doesn't even know enough to realize it.

[Anonymous No.6551411]

>>6551405
>trying to "debunk" Dawkins thought process
I know we're in 4chan losing our precious time anyways, but still.

[Anonymous No.6551414]

>>6551411
not debunk but question his hate of philosophy

it's like he doesn't understand philosophy of science but loves science

[Anonymous No.6551438]

>>6551414
>Dawkins taking a "introduction to epistemology" class
>the teacher start speaking about Descartes "cognito ergo sum"
>BOOOOORIIIIING, we should be learning about science, right guys?
>everyone boos at him
>he gets up from his chair, tried to run out of the class as soon as he can but trips with his chair
>everyone laughs at him
>the teacher says "well, I guess you just got some solid empiric knowledge about the floor"
>everyone laughs even harder
>he start crying and running out of the class, one hand over his fedora and the other holding his bag
>he goes to the bathroom to clean his face
>then when he's walking through the campus with a sad look on his eyes some nerdy looking guy approach him
>"hey, you seem to be a fellow science adventurer. Would you like to join the skeptics alliance?"
>"I... I don't know"
>"you will like it. We play D&D every friday at William's basement. Well, is his procreator's basement, but I guess you understand the extention of property when it comes to parents, hehe"
>"well... I do like D&D"

[Anonymous No.6551461]

>>6551405

>However he has no physical evidence that God doesn't exist

He has no physical evidence that immaterial clown rapists don't come into his room at night to rape a donkey either but that doesn't mean he shouldn't with confidence say such things don't exist.

He doesn't need to produce scientific evidence for God's non-existence to dismiss him because that's not how science works. Otherwise every unfalsifiable hypothesis (including the donkey raping clowns) would be given serious weight.

Oh and this is assuming the false premise that Dawkins claims he knows God doesn't exist when in fact he is an agnostic atheist.

[Anonymous No.6551470]

>>6551186
Does anyone else feel like he has a point about this one though? Empedocles had a theory of evolution, but I don't know of any pre-Darwin philosophers that talk about that. Aristotle even randomly claims at some point in his Categories that species cannot transform into one another (granted he talks about species in a logical sense, but many of his examples are from biology). Was it dogmatic aristotelianism that made philosophy blind to evolution? If Dawkins was smarter he would've pinned this on dogmatic aristotelian-christian thought.

[Anonymous No.6551476]

>>6551470
*any other pre-Darwin philosopers; obviously Empedocles was from Ancient Greece

[Anonymous No.6551486]

>>6551190
Can someone explain to me what's wrong with this? I know it is because his other philosophy tweets are but I don't see why he isn't right here.

[Anonymous No.6551495]

>>6551438
Good thing fedoras don't believe in the concept of property.

[Anonymous No.6551496]

The idea that the only way of reaching truth is through empirical observations is not only a shallow way of thinking but an arrogant one.

Did all of these sudden loudmouth anti-theists miss all of human history? Seriously - the way they approach any intellectual topic is cringeworthy. You'd think they had a whole empirical diagnosis before they took on the act of "breathing"

[Anonymous No.6551498]

>>6551495
That's because they all read Stirner.

[Anonymous No.6551504]

I don't get it. Did a philosopher kick his dog?

[Anonymous No.6551505]

>>6551498
And other fedorable Hegelians.

[Anonymous No.6551506]

>>6551486

Continental is an arbitrary binary description (continental - analytic). It's almost like asking "19th century science? How could science be century restricted?"

[Anonymous No.6551508]

>>6551184
holy shit what happened to Dawkins?
I bet he shitpost on 4chan.
He used to give lectures, and he's now a raving lunatic.
rib in bease

[Anonymous No.6551513]

>>6551207
>steve pinker
ass

[Anonymous No.6551515]

>>6551513

How so?

[Anonymous No.6551519]

>>6551207
I don't understand this one

[Anonymous No.6551524]

>>6551207
>literature nobel prices should be given to people who personally I like
>If they give it to peopl who write books I don't understand then it's their problem, not mine

[Anonymous No.6551525]

>>6551515
Racist, cissexist, misogynist shitlord.

[Anonymous No.6551527]

>>6551519
Pop science authors should get nobel prizes.

[Anonymous No.6551528]

>>6551515
ass
you probably know what I'm talking about now

[Anonymous No.6551540]

>>6551525

hehe you made it like the tumblrs, ebin

[Anonymous No.6551550]

>>6551186
ALAS THEY DID

AN BONUS: IT WAS A MUSLIM ONE

'Some of Ibn Khaldūn's thoughts, according to some commentators, anticipate the biological theory of evolution.[28] In 1377, Ibn Khaldūn wrote the Muqaddimah in which he asserted that humans developed from "the world of the monkeys," in a process by which "species become more numerous"[28] In chapter 1 he writes: "This world with all the created things in it has a certain order and solid construction. It shows nexuses between causes and things caused, combinations of some parts of creation with others, and transformations of some existent things into others, in a pattern that is both remarkable and endless."[29]

The Muqaddimah also states in chapter 6:

"We explained there that the whole of existence in (all) its simple and composite worlds is arranged in a natural order of ascent and descent, so that everything constitutes an uninterrupted continuum. The essences at the end of each particular stage of the worlds are by nature prepared to be transformed into the essence adjacent to them, either above or below them. This is the case with the simple material elements; it is the case with palms and vines, (which constitute) the last stage of plants, in their relation to snails and shellfish, (which constitute) the (lowest) stage of animals. It is also the case with monkeys, creatures combining in themselves cleverness and perception, in their relation to man, the being who has the ability to think and to reflect. The preparedness (for transformation) that exists on either side, at each stage of the worlds, is meant when (we speak about) their connection."[30]'


DAWKINS: #REKT

#REKT
R
E
K
T

[Anonymous No.6551557]

>>6551550

[Anonymous No.6551569]

>>6551354
I just don't understand these bazinga nerds.

How can one think a bunch of atoms is more interesting than the tales of Ovid? It just isn't, and that's why there are millions and millions of people who see the universe through so-called 'fairytales' and so few people who study science and math. Imagined worlds say more to the human soul than the real world does.

Like someone in Tarkovsky's movie Stalker said: 'You strive and strive to find the truth, and then when you finally discover it you see it's shit.'

[Anonymous No.6551573]

>>6551557
I wish people would understand that taqiyya is only a precept of Shiite Islam, and not of the larger Sunni strand

[GET RECKT MISTAH DAWKINS, THE (...) No.6551578]

>>6551186
In his Akhlaq-i-Nasri, Tusi put forward a basic theory for the evolution of species almost 600 years before Charles Darwin, the English naturalist credited with advancing the idea, was born. He begins his theory of evolution with the universe once consisting of equal and similar elements. According to Tusi, internal contradictions began appearing, and as a result, some substances began developing faster and differently from other substances. He then explains how the elements evolved into minerals, then plants, then animals, and then humans. Tusi then goes on to explain how hereditary variability was an important factor for biological evolution of living things:

"The organisms that can gain the new features faster are more variable. As a result, they gain advantages over other creatures. [...] The bodies are changing as a result of the internal and external interactions."

Tusi discusses how organisms are able to adapt to their environments:

"Look at the world of animals and birds. They have all that is necessary for defense, protection and daily life, including strengths, courage and appropriate tools [organs] [...] Some of these organs are real weapons, [...] For example, horns-spear, teeth and claws-knife and needle, feet and hoofs-cudgel. The thorns and needles of some animals are similar to arrows. [...] Animals that have no other means of defense (as the gazelle and fox) protect themselves with the help of flight and cunning. [...] Some of them, for example, bees, ants and some bird species, have united in communities in order to protect themselves and help each other."

[Anonymous No.6551581]

>>6551573
Right, so the sunni will be up-front about wanting to behead people, while the shia will trick the west into enabling them to build nuclear weapons.

[Anonymous No.6551584]

>>6551557
>>6551573
>>6551581
reported for taqqiya

[Anonymous No.6551598]

>>6551550
>>6551578
So make a tweeter account and tweet this to Dawkins

[Anonymous No.6551600]

>>6551207
>mfw

[Anonymous No.6551603]

>>6551598
It would be very fun, but the tweets are so old he wouldn't even see it.

However, he really gets reckt, because philosophers not only anticipated Darwin but the ones who did were fucking muslims.

[Anonymous No.6551604]

>How can one think a bunch of atoms is more interesting than the tales of Ovid?

This is one of the stupidest thing I've ever fucking read.

/lit/, ladies and gentlemen.

[Anonymous No.6551618]

>>6551557
Saying taqiyya is an Islamic doctrine is like saying metzitzah b'peh is a Jewish one.

[Anonymous No.6551626]

>>6551604
>hurrr bazinga!!! let's study frogs, look at them, they're so amazing!!! i fucking <3 science hurrr

[Anonymous No.6551629]

>>6551604
And learn to quote, btw, you disgusting newfag /sci/ prick.

[Anonymous No.6551632]

>>6551184
Dawkins is a spook.

[Anonymous No.6551635]

>>6551626
Your example of "studying atoms" was poorly choosen, specially how the study of said things is becoming more and more related with philosophy.
>>6551626
Studying frogs through direct examination is absolutely different from studying atoms through empiric data, mathematic models, etc.
Your inability to disern between the line that separte those two worlds makes you look quite stupid imo. Even more than Dawkins (or probably in the same tier of "hurrrr muh philosophy/science is better than your science/philosophy").

[Anonymous No.6551641]

>>6551635
So what if it's related to philosophy? Philosophy is still ten thousand times less interesting than Ovid.

[Anonymous No.6551645]

>>6551632
No, Dawkins is an actual living human being who sometimes posts stupid things on twitter

[Anonymous No.6551647]

>>6551641
You can't have Ovid without philosophy

[Anonymous No.6551649]

>>6551647
Don't take the bait! He's clearly a "muh X" tard.

[Anonymous No.6551652]

>>6551647
You can't have women without testicles.

Does this mean testicles are more interesting then women?

You are confirmed for faggottry.

[Anonymous No.6551654]

>>6551652
But women don't contain testicles

[Anonymous No.6551661]

>>6551654
Your mother begs to differ.

[Anonymous No.6551662]

>>6551654
That's transphobic, you fucking biggot! lrn muh prunoons

[Anonymous No.6551663]

>>6551652

Have you ever talked to a woman? Most things are more interesting than them.

[Anonymous No.6551665]

>>6551652
>You can't have women without testicles.
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6551667]

>>6551184
>How does it feel knowing millions of pseudo-intellectuals look up to this guy on subject matters that exist outside of Biology?
shit

just like being a human feels shit, living in capitalism feels shit, living on socialism feels shit, and living in the XXI century feels shit

nothing new here

[Anonymous No.6551682]

>>6551665
I think you mean >>>/d/

[Anonymous No.6551684]

>>6551184
except dawkins' rage against christians led to some actually decent work showing just how retarded the arguments against evolution are

[Anonymous No.6551715]

>>6551461
What is always ridiculous about the New Atheistic rhetoric and argumentation is that they are notoriously reducing very complex subjects to simple ideas, kind of reflects how their minds work. The shoe atheism argument is another example.
Do you think God and your silly made up fictional little story are on the same level of credibility, culturaly or otherwise? Especially when you consider the quote in pic > >>6551354 ?

[Anonymous No.6551767]

As a born and raised atheist recently turned religious, I find Dawkins' twitter a riot.

[Anonymous No.6551773]

This man's entire life's work was undone by asking a woman out for coffee and pictures of dorky guys in unfashionable hats.

Such is hubris.

[Anonymous No.6551789]

>>6551715
>Do you think God and your silly made up fictional little story are on the same level of credibility
The concepts behind them are identical, but one is grandfathered in while the other is allowed to be ridiculed,

[Anonymous No.6551805]

>>6551506
It's even worse than that because rather than dealing with a time period continental philosophy deals with certain streams of thought, it's akin to saying Physical Science? How could science be physically restricted.

[Anonymous No.6551826]

>>6551207
EO Wilson doesn't even like Dawkins, saying something along the lines of Dawkins not being a real scientist.

Also EO Wilson does have a Nobel Prize.

[Anonymous No.6551849]

Richard Dawkins' tweets are proof that intelligent people are not exempt from being dumbasses.

[Anonymous No.6551856]

>>6551849
Exactly.

For me it is further proof that even if someone is highly intelligent and becomes a master in one field doesn't mean they are knowledgable in another.

I guess that's the "argument from authority" fallacy coming into play.

[Anonymous No.6551953]

>>6551438
That wasn't even remotely funny.

[Anonymous No.6551969]

>>6551414
it's not "like", it's exactly that.
there's probably a marketing component but I'm sure he's genuinely like that.

[Anonymous No.6551999]

>>6551856
Intelligence is field-specific.
Let's not forget Pauling claimed for years that vitamin C can cure cancer.

[Anonymous No.6552027]

>>6551557

Whoah, whoah, whoah. Hold the fucking phone. Are you telling me that MUSLIMS can LIE?!?!

I mean, I knew Muslims could assault people, rape people, behead people, hijack aeroplanes and fly them into people and all that. But if - IF - what you're saying is true, and Muslims have mastered this powerful new 'lying' technology, well - this changes everything.

[Anonymous No.6552035]

>>6552027
Well done, retard.

That meme pol pic has already been deconstructed and your little child analysis can be used against all the abrahamic religions.

Take your conservative christian bait back to your containment board.

[Anonymous No.6552038]

>>6552035

He swings, he misses.

[Anonymous No.6552039]

>>6552038
Nice four word reply, /pol/tard.

[Anonymous No.6552041]

>>6551569
I agree but it's definitely neat to know how physical reality works

[Anonymous No.6552060]

>>6551715

Of course they're not on the same level of credibility, but not because either concept has more scientific evidence for its existence. The idea of God just has history and cultural indoctrination and possibly an inherent instinct within humans to believe it behind it, as the other anon said, it's grandfathered in.

[Anonymous No.6552067]

>>6551715
>the same level of credibility, culturaly or otherwise?

Can you explain 'cultural credibility'? I'm not aware of different types of credibility.

[Anonymous No.6552099]

>>6551184
Plebs gonna pleb, YOLO

[Anonymous No.6552112]

>>6551184
>>6551186
>>6551190
>>6551207
There is no way these are real, i thought he was pretty ok, but a bit cringy.
This is astonishing, a true fucking pseud.

[Anonymous No.6552119]

>>6552112

He's cool when it comes to Biology. The Shelfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker are very readable and he even invented the concept of a meme in The Shelfish Gene. It's only recently that he's cashing in on the New Atheism movement with shit like The God Delusion which is just filled with arguments you've already heard in an Introduction to Philosophy class.

[Anonymous No.6552124]

>>6551684
No it didn't

We've known for quite a while that many common creationist arguments are wrong, long before Dawkins.

Most Christians don't reject biological evolution anyway.

[Anonymous No.6552143]

>>6552124

I can buy 'showing' in the sense of bringing to public attention, rather than the sense of having led to their refutation, for which, true, Dawkins wasn't required. I think he definitely played a part in getting people talking about it, for good or ill.

[Anonymous No.6552148]

>>6552143
I dunno what it's like in America but no one in the UK talks about creationism.

[Anonymous No.6552168]

>>6552148

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

One third of American adults don't believe in evolution.

[Anonymous No.6552170]

>>6552168
Jesus you hear about it being bad in America but that's even worse than one imagines.

[Anonymous No.6552180]

>>6551184
>>6552119

This. Richard Dawkins is a pretty good writer. He knows his audience, and he is a great teacher.

I also value him as a public figure. Even though his arguments aren't great, he has started international debates regarding science and religion, and science and philosophy. I think his obnoxiousness was worth it.

[Anonymous No.6552253]

>>6551515
It's a meme on [s4s], pic related.

[Anonymous No.6552288]

>>6551508
He's gone full self-parody

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tIwYNioDL8

[Anonymous No.6552312]

>>6552288
I think I just had a seizure.

[Anonymous No.6552314]

>>6552288
Ahahahaha

What the fuck is this?

[Anonymous No.6552321]

>>6552288
What. The. Fuck.

[Anonymous No.6552337]

BTFO
T
F
O

[Anonymous No.6552348]

>>6551184
>>6551186
>>6551190
>>6551207
We have found the new jaden smith

[Anonymous No.6552350]

>>6552288
>If he finally goes and kills someone, he could play this in court and get off on diminished capacity.

[Anonymous No.6552351]

>>6552288
I think Dawkins stared into the abyss for too long.

[Anonymous No.6552360]

>>6551184
Well, here Dawkins is right. It would be foolish to deny that there is a big issue of obscurantism in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6552474]

>>6551184
Philosopher John Searle once asked Michel Foucault why his writing was so obtuse, when he was so easily understandable in conversation. Foucault told Searle that 25 percent of one’s writing needs to be incomprehensible nonsense to be taken seriously by French philosophers.3 Although Foucault rejected the postmodern label, he did believe that knowledge was generated through operations of power and his attitude reveals the intent of postmodernism to deliberately obscure.4

[Anonymous No.6552500]

>>6551645
but there is still a spook associated with him, abstract qualities that you give him based on what other people say about him.

[Anonymous No.6552514]

>>6552360
can you name a philosopher who does it though? most of them accused of invented terms just to make explaining what they are trying to say easier.

[Anonymous No.6552519]

>>6552288
>memeswereamistake.jpg

[Anonymous No.6552528]

>>6552514
Read Sokal/Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense, in which they go through texts of some 70s philosophers (Lacan, Kristeva) and show that their texts make (in parts) no sense and their use of mathematics is either summarising really simple mathematical truths in extremely obtuse ways, or simply abusing maths making 0 sense to sound more intellectual

For example, Lacan keeps on dropping tori/imaginary numbers, Kristeva abuses imaginary sets to make a philosophy of poetry, and Baudrillard waffles over non-Euclidean spaces - all of them don't use them as metaphors (which would be alright), they often take mathematics/physics literally

[Anonymous No.6552535]

>>6551654
not yours maybe

[Anonymous No.6552546]

>>6552312
>>6552314
>>6552321
It's some wacky video someone made you retards. U new to the internet?

[Anonymous No.6552554]

>>6552514
> I don't read, just post
literally 2 posts above you there is an example >>6552474
also With Derrida, you can hardly misread him, because he’s so obscure. Every time you say, “He says so and so,” he always says, “You misunderstood me.” But if you try to figure out the correct interpretation, then that’s not so easy. I once said this to Michel Foucault, who was more hostile to Derrida even than I am, and Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking in French. And I said, “What the hell do you mean by that?” And he said, “He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying. That’s the obscurantism part. And then when you criticize him, he can always say, ‘You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.’ That’s the terrorism part.” And I like that. So I wrote an article about Derrida. I asked Michel if it was OK if I quoted that passage, and he said yes.

[Anonymous No.6552556]

>>6552337
this is just him being an unequivocal bigot wtf

[Anonymous No.6552570]

>>6552288
>Impact font
Wonderful.

[Anonymous No.6552590]

>>6551184

I double dog dare you to name 2 current public intellectuals more worth listening to than Dawkins. You can't.

[Anonymous No.6552597]

>>6552590
Terry Eagleton
John Gray
Even Chomsky or Zizek

[Anonymous No.6552601]

>>6552590
Virtually anyone, really. John Green and that chick that wrote Fifty Shades are in all likelyhood more intellectually stimulating than that boring fucker.

[Anonymous No.6552605]

ITT: a bunch of angry teens who have read a couple of shitty books in attempt to validate their pointless lives after they realised they will never be successful with girls, trying so very very hard to act smarter than an Oxford professor to show how grown up they are

[Anonymous No.6552612]

>>6552605
>dat argument from authority

[Anonymous No.6552617]

>>6552605
Isn't being successful with girls just as much of a pathetic attempt to validate your pointless life though?

[Anonymous No.6552634]

>>6552605
Post it on twitter too

[Anonymous No.6552635]

>>6552612
>"dat" idiot thinking it's worthwhile making an "argument" in a thread full of circlejerking philomosophomers

[Anonymous No.6552639]

>>6551186

Didn't one of the pre-Socratic Greeks say something that that was very similar to evolution?

[Anonymous No.6552640]

>>6552617
possibly, depending on how pointless you think life is in the first place. it is a lot more fun, though.

[Anonymous No.6552643]

>>6552554
you've actually talked to Foucault?
where and who are you?
link to article?
this is interesting

[Anonymous No.6552647]

>>6552635
>dat being angry on the internet where nobody cares

[Anonymous No.6552650]

>>6552639
holy hell can any of you read
>>6551470
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empedocles
>Since the time of the sphere, Strife has gained more sway; and the actual world is full of contrasts and oppositions, due to the combined action of both principles. Empedocles attempted to explain the separation of elements, the formation of earth and sea, of Sun and Moon, of atmosphere. He also dealt with the first origin of plants and animals, and with the physiology of humans. As the elements entered into combinations, there appeared strange results – heads without necks, arms without shoulders. Then as these fragmentary structures met, there were seen horned heads on human bodies, bodies of oxen with human heads, and figures of double sex. But most of these products of natural forces disappeared as suddenly as they arose; only in those rare cases where the parts were found to be adapted to each other, did the complex structures last. Thus the organic universe sprang from spontaneous aggregations, which suited each other as if this had been intended. Soon various influences reduced the creatures of double sex to a male and a female, and the world was replenished with organic life. It is possible to see this theory as an anticipation of Darwin's theory of natural selection, although Empedocles was not trying to explain evolution.

[Anonymous No.6552651]

>>6552639
lots of people did. you can find stuff that is "similar to" evolution in many ancient texts, probably. if you scour the bible or the quran or the baghavad gita or whatever you can probably find lots of stuff that is similar to various scientific concepts. it took darwin and wallace to state it clearly, though.

>>6552639
i think you are thinking of Empedocles. Darwin cited him as an influence.

[Anonymous No.6552653]

>>6552647
>dat projection

time for your ADHD medication, little boy

[Anonymous No.6552667]

>>6552643
>you've actually talked to Foucault?
>where and who are you?
Sadly not. The first person narrator is not me, but a person I quote.
>link to article?
>this is interesting
http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/jean_searle_on_foucault_and_the_obscurantism_in_french_philosophy.html
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/14-01-29/
I find it interesting too.

[Anonymous No.6552714]

>>6552650
This is more like the Big Bang. Leave evolution to those Muslims.

[Anonymous No.6552758]

>>6551557
Do the people who make these not realize that not every Muslim everywhere is going to follow the Qur'ran literally?

[Anonymous No.6552783]

>>6552605
You're projecting way too hard my friend. Dial it down on the assumptions.

[Anonymous No.6553020]

>>6552554
well Derrida claimed he wasn't trying to obscure

[Anonymous No.6553047]

>>6552605
>a biologist must surely know about philosophy!
>a biologist must surely know about literature!
>a biologist must surely know about islam when he admitted he never read the quran!

Nice argument from authority, retard. Bend over again.

[Anonymous No.6553054]

>>6552337
>The Nobel "prize" is a measure of a culture's value and importance

Jesus fucking christ, you couldn't make this retarded shit up

[Anonymous No.6553063]

>>6553054

To be honest, you're better off ceding that countries heavily influenced by Islam have been held back in their development in certain fields and then attacking the monocausal assumption that it's exclusively due to an intrinsic quality of Islam.

[Anonymous No.6553078]

>>6553047
>i am unable to distinguish a logical fallacy from an insult
>i will rage about this post but i will studiously ignore all the other logical fallacies present in this thread, because they agree with my narrow, fucked up viewpoint

[Anonymous No.6553088]

>>6553078
Nice try.

The attacks on Dawkins ITT are based upon evidence which are his tweets.

But please, go post about it on r/atheism, retard.

[Anonymous No.6553094]

>>6552667
aw man you gotta greentext that shit.
but thank you.

[Anonymous No.6553099]

>>6553088
>i will repeatedly call other people a retard because it gives me the only sense of superiority i will ever feel in my miserable life
>i'm so lonely

are you ok anon? do you need a hug?

[Anonymous No.6553103]

>>6553099
lmao, nice projection loser jesus christ

[Anonymous No.6553105]

>>6551184
>spend years doing actual work as biologist
>you're a nobody
>start blindly attacking everything that isn't science
>you're a household name and the books you churn out rake in millions

Can't really blame him, to be honest. Dawkins didn't decide how society works.

[Anonymous No.6553107]

>>6553103
i promise it would be a reassuring hug not a gay one

[Anonymous No.6553108]

>>6553099
>That blatent projection

[Anonymous No.6553116]

>>6553103
>>6553108
>projecting

I don't think you know what that really means.

[Anonymous No.6553120]

>>6553116
Ok loser

[Anonymous No.6553162]

>>6553116
>projection
>an arguing tactic where one assumes that the person they are arguing with has usually unlikable character traits due to their stance on the argument in order to belittle or aggravate the opposing arguer and make their own stance seem more sensible due to the intended frustration of the other party.

[Anonymous No.6553177]

>>6553063
And the fact that noble prize wasn't around in the middle age, or his grammar (he put a coma where there is no more than two enumerations)

[Anonymous No.6553189]

>>6553105
>spend years doing actual work as biologist
>you're a nobody

While it's true that Dawkins' fame increased probably tenfold post-TGD, it's not at all accurate to describe him as 'a nobody' prior to it. The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker were both very much talked-about books in their day it's a shame the same wasn't really true of The Extended Phenotype.

[Anonymous No.6553205]

>>6553177
>his grammar (he put a coma where there is no more than two enumerations)

Well, first of all, don't police tweets for grammar errors, that's just silly. Secondly, that's not an error - he isn't listing "Trinity College" and "Cambridge" as separate places; he's referring to Trinity College in Cambridge, or "Trinity College, Cambridge", just as he might refer to "Princeton, New Jersey" or whatever.

[Anonymous No.6553210]

>>6553063
But islam wasn't even that big of a deal before the 70s.

[Anonymous No.6553215]

>>6553162
Nope. And I'm not even that guy.

[Anonymous No.6553220]

>>6553177
>he put a coma where there is no more than two enumerations
Is the coma irreversible?

[Anonymous No.6553221]

>>6553210

Well, I don't know what you mean by that, really, but if you're saying it in furtherance of refuting the proposition that Islam is innately inimical to scientific progress or similar, then don't worry, I agree that that's a silly and childishly simplistic viewpoint.

[Anonymous No.6553222]

Holy shit

[Anonymous No.6553223]

Twitter makes anyone seem retarded.

People dont need your half formed under 140 character opinions thanks.

Dawkins is a clever guy.

[Anonymous No.6553230]

>>6553223
>implying that retarded shit is in any way justified


If he was so clever he wouldn't tweet it in the first place.

[Anonymous No.6553231]

>>6553221
>I don't know what you mean by that, really
That arab countries were less religious centered 40 years ago. Whereas the nobel prize was already around. So how does dawkins hold the view without being racist?

[Anonymous No.6553232]

>>6553230
most of it isnt that bad.

You are looking to be buthurt by this guy.

[Anonymous No.6553233]

>>6552288
sick memes bro.

[Anonymous No.6553234]

>>6553222
>Quran
>bronze age
Kek in the highest

[Anonymous No.6553238]

>>6552288
does this count as vaporware?

[Anonymous No.6553239]

Why do people still get riled up by Dawkins? It's pretty clear he's either a retard or a troll. Just ignore him and move on. He's what 70 now? Once he dies he'll be forgotten forever.

[Anonymous No.6553244]

>>6553222
>literally unironically less than a day ago

what a fucking idiot, all respect gone

[Anonymous No.6553246]

>>6553231
>So how does dawkins hold the view without being racist?

I assume he would say that the influence of Islam is SO pernicious and SO stunting of intellectual growth that something something even milder strains are poison etc. But I honestly don't know what he would say, I'm just guessing.

[Anonymous No.6553249]

>>6553232
Dude, just look at >>6553222

Posted yesterday

[Anonymous No.6553252]

>>6553249
yes. And from observing his twitter (right now) it was part of a context of discussion the Quoran and its scholarship. He was in a conversiation with quorinic literatists.

[Anonymous No.6553257]

>>6553252

[Anonymous No.6553259]

>>6553252
>Bronze Age: 3300-1200 BC
>Quran
>Bronze Age
>Bible
>Bronze Age

[Anonymous No.6553271]

>>6553257
>>6553259
whats your point?

He clarified he was discussion the semtic stories the quoran and bible derive from. Once again. Look at the discussion.

[Anonymous No.6553278]

>the FATHER OF MEMES
>acting retarded on the Internet
Oh wow who woulda fucking thunk it?

[Anonymous No.6553283]

>>6553271
Jesus fucking Christ, you're clearly a dawkins fan

[Anonymous No.6553284]

>>6553239
holy shit that filename

[Anonymous No.6553292]

>>6553283
I liked the couple books I read by him.

Im not the one obsessively reading his twitter and posting them on /lit/ free of any context.

Unless you are literally a muslim (given your degree of butthurt it remains possible) its generally a well regarded point that large portions of the quoran are derived from Torah.

[Anonymous No.6553293]

>>6553292
I'm actually an atheist, lol

I can identify a pseudo when I see one

The man has admitted to having never read the Quran

Also, it having influenced it does not mean it was written in the Bronze age, jesus fucking christ

[Anonymous No.6553296]

>>6553271
>The Gladius was the best the Bronze Age could do
"But that's wrong"
>"There were in fact swords in the Bronze Age, which the Gladius was copied from.
>Therefore, the Gladius is a piece of Bronze Age technology.

See the issue here? He's just poorly attempting to cover his own ass, fitting his acidic tendency to reject criticism and damage control to defend his fragile ego, which is in turn fed by his drones.

[Anonymous No.6553300]

>>6553293
yet you are still intentionally misunderstand him.

Nothing in that post that indicates he claimed the quoran was written in the bronze age.

pseudo's usually dont have pHD's.

[Anonymous No.6553306]

>>6553222

See
>>6553222

I QUOTE: "Bible and Quran were the best that Bronze age tribes could do...And even at the tie, other were doing it better."

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

[Anonymous No.6553307]

>>6553296
once again. Utterly free of context. Which was a discussion of the quoran and its historicity.

The technological comparison does not work, because the gladius is not derived from the same technology as a bronze age blade.

[Anonymous No.6553309]

>>6553300
See
>>6553306

[Anonymous No.6553310]

>>6553306
still doesnt say the quoran was written in the bronze age. Are you blind?

[Anonymous No.6553314]

>>6553257
>@intelligent50

>it was plagiarised from the bible
I'M DYING

[Anonymous No.6553321]

>>6553310
Am I being rused?

[Anonymous No.6553323]

>>6553310
What is he saying then:)?

Explain:)?

[Anonymous No.6553325]

>>6552556
>>6553054
Found the goat fuckers

[Anonymous No.6553331]

>>6553325
Actually talking to an atheist

Well done, retard

[Anonymous No.6553335]

>>6553321
No. You are simply an idiot.

Dawkins said that the Quoran was from the bronze age. And then qualified this by saying the stories come from the bronze age.

You interpreted this as Dawkins somehow being unaware that the quoran was written 600-700AD. Which is pretty unlikely.

[Anonymous No.6553341]

>>6551632
you have clearly never read stirner. you're liking him because it's a trend, rather than actually agreeing with him philosophically.

[Anonymous No.6553342]

>>6553335
He's a retard for attributing the Quran's creation with the intent of the Bronze age tribes anyway.

So he's retarded either way.

Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.6553348]

>>6553222
I would say the best bronze age tribes could do was metallurgy in a clay-oven. That actually quite something!

[Anonymous No.6553349]

>>6553342
>He's a retard for attributing the Quran's creation with the intent of the Bronze age tribes anyway.
he didnt do that though.

Once again. This was in a discussion on quoranic literatism. Where he had posted half a dozen youtube videos mocking muslim scholars using the quoran to determine the curvature of the earth.

Why are you intentionally ignoring this?

[Anonymous No.6553357]

>>6553349
YES HE FUCKING DID.

It is the same as me creating a programme called X in a computer and then centuries down the line people base their programme Y on the coding of mine and use it malliciously then someone like Dawkins comes around and claims "Programme Y was the best Anon could do. But we've moved on. And even at the time, others were doing it better."

[Anonymous No.6553364]

>>6553349
Could you explain what he means in his tweet please, thank you:))

[Anonymous No.6553369]

>>6553341
Settle down, Poirot.

[Anonymous No.6553370]

>>6553357
well no. Because he was discussing the stories. It would be correct if he was referencing subroutine X, which was taken wholsale from program X.

>>6553364
see
>>6553335
or, you could just read his comment without intentionally misunderstanding it because Dawkins raped your grandma or some shit

[Anonymous No.6553377]

>>6553370
You do realize he said "Quran" and not stories, right?

[Anonymous No.6553389]

>>6553377
in reference to stories, given he was specifically just mentioning quoranic scholarship and its view of the earths shape.


Do you seriously believe any reasonable adult would think the quoran was written in the bronze age? I dont think there is asingle human being who is aware of islam who is not at the very least aware it came after jesus.

Its fucking obviously not what he meant.

[Anonymous No.6553394]

>>6553389
He said it in a seperate tweet. It is his fault for not clarifying.

[Anonymous No.6553412]

>>6553257
>Quran product of the Bronze Age
>Tanakh written in the Bronze Age

Maybe he just shouldn't try to debate on a shitty format like Twitter because, although I have a low opinion of Dawkins, I know he's not THIS stupid.

[Anonymous No.6553431]

>>6553412
>I know he's not THIS stupid.
>plagiarised from the bible
>plagiarised
He's stupid.

[Anonymous No.6553437]

>>6553394
yes, its his fault for not wording things in such a way that his posts cant be captioned and used to imply he is retarded on a Javanese Bonsai forum

[Anonymous No.6553442]

>>6553437
No. He's a retard for not doing what this anon stated >>6553412

Jesus christ, calm down fanboy

[Anonymous No.6553445]

>>6553394
but his point was entirely clear.

[Anonymous No.6553451]

>>6553442
im not a fanboy, and my first poost was pointing out how shitty twitter was.

>>6553223


you are an anti-fanboy

[Anonymous No.6553460]

Jesus /lit/. Just shut the fuck up and learn something for once

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd92qy2ZmV0

[Anonymous No.6553461]

>>6552119
It's spelled "Selfish" for future reference.

[Anonymous No.6553486]

>>6551569
Demokrit is interesting tho

[Anonymous No.6553489]

>>6551953
You had to say it, right?

[Anonymous No.6553492]

>>6551569
yeah, but you dont actually believe in the tales of Ovid.

[Anonymous No.6553503]

If twitter is such a shitty medium he can leave anytime. Facebook is better and he will literally find the same people there.
For someone who makes a living trying to make others sound stupid he sure doesn't sound smart.
>>6553460
>15.27

[Anonymous No.6553577]

>>6551652
>then
retard/10 stop posting

[Anonymous No.6553592]

>>6553492
>implying

[Anonymous No.6553607]

>/lit/ comments on science

jesus fuck
this is what you all sound like
https://youtu.be/C0c5yClip4o

[Anonymous No.6553630]

>>6553607
>dawkins talking about mythology plagiarism is science

[Anonymous No.6553648]

>>6553607
how have i not seen this

"you can basically cross out the m in e=mc^2"

[Anonymous No.6553652]

>>6551184
Is he just perpetually butthurt about philosophy because, knowing nothing about it himself, he gets BTFO by philosophers when he tries to argue about philosophical matters?

[Anonymous No.6553663]

>>6553607
>you can basically cross out mass

[Anonymous No.6553768]

>>6553389
Why can't you just piss on him like everyone else?

[Anonymous No.6553908]

This reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

[Anonymous No.6553919]

>>6552288

this just raised my opinion of him by over 9000 memes

[Anonymous No.6553930]

>>6553908
This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.

[Anonymous No.6553970]

>>6551378
>implying The Selfish Gene is not a fantastic book

[Anonymous No.6553986]

>>6551826
>Also EO Wilson does have a Nobel Prize.
No, he has a Crawfoord Prize.

[Anonymous No.6554139]

>>6553986
>Implying there's a difference

[Anonymous No.6554157]

Is Dawkins actually the Kanye West of science?

[Anonymous No.6554158]

>there are people who take this bumblebee scientist seriously

[Anonymous No.6554199]

>>6553930
>>6553908
it's good bait in principle, but it's too obvious