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

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 513 KB, 1000x1000, hd_100468299_01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6862293 No.6862293 [Reply] [Original]

Is this just pompous, egocentrical, bad written blabbing?
Yes

>> No.6862305

>pose question
>answer it yourself

Religion in a nutshell

>> No.6862309

>>6862293

The problem with this book is not Dawkins. He just spews his arguments like he does. The problem I have with this book is its readers who praise it. They have no clue when Dawkins is making a philosophical, ideological, or scientific argument. Sometimes he is doing both, sometimes its just philosophical, sometimes its plainly scientific. However, most of the time he makes a scientific argument and answers it with a philosophical or ideological statement. The average 20 y.o. male can't tell when he is doing this. Hence, they think, "ZOMG! HE IS SO SMART! YES YES! IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!"

To answer you question OP. Yes. Yes he is.

btw, I'm a secularist before I'm an agnostic atheist, which is why I think Dawkins is a fucking moron.

>> No.6862315

richard dankins creator of memes

>> No.6862324

It just enrage me how superficial his view on spirituality and religion is.
Atheist=goooood
Religious=baaaaaad

>> No.6862346

>>6862324

You're a new age fag who got BTFO

>> No.6862349
File: 891 KB, 325x252, mfw.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6862349

>>6862346

>> No.6862356

>>6862309
But that isn't a problem with the book.

>> No.6862378

>>6862293
Well this thread has certainly never appeared before.

There's absolutely no way it's going to turn into a 200+ post shitfest full of angry teenage boys calling an Oxford professor an idiot, and sharing their own valuable insights with the world because they have read some pop-thinking book and "reckon" something.

>> No.6862381

>>6862356

Well, of course not. Like I already mentioned here>>6862309
He just spews his arguments like he does.

Dawkins makes his position very clear. The problem with the argument is it is just as two dimensional as the people he argues against.

He is basically saying there is no middle ground when it comes to religion. This is absurd. Various religions across the world organize to do charitable acts that is beneficial and conducive to helping society. Even I, an atheist, can't deny this. Is religion responsible for some fucked up shit in the world? Of course, but most of that has to do with political, social, and economical marginalization (For this point I recommend Mark Juergensmeyer's book: Terror In The Mind of God).

Dawkins is a goofball, he constantly paints religion as some kind of boogyman, when any rational person knows not all human beings are rational, but that doesn't mean they can't be a benefit to society and contribute in profound ways.

His entire premise falls flat, which is why, most intellectuals shake their heads and smile. The guy is an ideologue, pushing his ethos, no different from the religious minded person he attacks. He refuses to accept religious pluralism, and for that, I find him to be not a secularist, like he claims to be, but an idealogue; a very bad one to say the least.

>> No.6862439
File: 5 KB, 208x156, 13738-16555-15099.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6862439

>>6862381
>>6862378

>> No.6862447

>>6862439
>mfw I read Dawkins

>> No.6862469

>>6862378
Dawkin's a good biologist, there's no arguing that. He's just horrible everytime he tries to step out of his field.

>> No.6862481

>>6862469

I, who wrote this>>6862381 agree 100% with this>>6862469

The man is a brilliant biologist. No doubt to that.

But this guy>>6862439 >>6862378 is doing the EXACT thing I mentioned in this post>>6862309

He fails to notice the pieces to his pieced together arguments and recognize their failings.

>> No.6863717

>>6862309
>agnostic atheist
Quite making shit up. Those are mutually incompatible. There are NO such categories as "agnostic atheist", "gnostic atheist/theist" etc. in the philosophical literature, because when you examine such positions via epistemic lens they are all absurd.

You irritating internet kids need to stop extending the already well-defined positions of atheism, theism and agnosticism and talk as if they mean something.

>> No.6863723

>>6863717
Piss off, cis scum. You created this world.

>> No.6863728

>>6863717
>Quite
Erase 'e'. Also, while I criticize >>6862309 use of the term, I don't particularly care about the thread itself. So please don't construe me as opposing or siding with Dawkins or whatever you kids are arguing about.

>>6863723
What's that?

>> No.6863740

>>6863717

Ironic, considering Dawkins himself considers himself an agnostic atheist.

>> No.6863757

>>6863740
How is it ironic? If he considers himself an "agnostic atheist"--an incoherent position to begin with--then he's an idiot.

Just remembered that I read a piece by Massimo Pigliucci some time ago in which he wrote that Dawkins simply does not read philosophy (told to Pigliucci by Dawkins himself at some conference). That should explain it.

>> No.6863765

>>6863740
Dawkins considers himself a 'teapot atheist'.

As in, he recognizes that he cannot 'disprove' god, in the same way that he cannot 'disprove' there being an undetectable purple hippo controlling the British government.

>> No.6863780

>>6863765

He wrote it in the fucking book he is an agnostic atheist. Fuck do you kids even read the shit you argue about?

>> No.6863812

>>6863765
He's not very bright giving the two ideas equal weight.

>> No.6863835

>>6863765

metaphysical claim =/= empirical claim

>> No.6863842

>>6863835

Yes, metaphysical claims conveniently can't be checked

>> No.6863899

>>6863842

There's nothing 'convenient' about it. Just accept that your "religious people are like adults who believe in the tooth fairy!" meme makes you look like a complete dunce

>> No.6863912
File: 7 KB, 229x220, laugh3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6863912

>>6862293

> god
> delusion

Dawkins can synonym

>> No.6863920

>>6862293
isn't everything?

>> No.6863996
File: 3 KB, 105x125, stunned.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6863996

have you seen this beauty?

>> No.6864263
File: 35 KB, 124x176, tested.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6864263

>>6862305
>implying it isnt self-evident

>> No.6864279

>>6863899
>There's nothing 'convenient' about it.

There's everything convenient about it. It's something can literally can't fail., not because it represents reality so brilliantly, but because it's not part of reality in the first place

The type of claim you're talking about is true regardless of the state of affairs in reality, which is a pretty good indication that as a concept it's a bunch of shit

>> No.6864298

>>6864279
but it does represent reality, you cant make sense of reality without working in some metaphysical background.
And that doesnt mean they cant be mistaken, they can be if they arent sound or logical
not previous anon btw

>> No.6864358

>>6864279
Can you offer up a claim that you would call metaphysical?

>> No.6864372

>>6863812
The point isn't that they're equally probable. It goes back to Hume: if god has no observable impact on the world and is immaterial there are no grounds for belief in his existence.

>> No.6864375

The only thing stopping it from being impressive is that it's taking on such an easy target.

There are no major problems with it. Just little things for religious people to cling to.

>> No.6864376
File: 3 KB, 70x125, tired.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6864376

who /tiredofgod/ here?

>> No.6864381

>>6864372
the problem is that THAT is a strawman of the theist position

>> No.6864388

>>6864298

So when a rock comes flying at your face, you first need a metaphysical background before you dodge it?

>> No.6864393

>>6864358

Just about any claim about things we realistically can't know, like everything 'beyond' reality.

Hell, even the term 'beyond reality' makes no sense, as everything that exists is by default within reality

>> No.6864410

>>6864388
you take one for granted in your everyday life

why would you want to dodge the rock? because it will cause pain

>> No.6864423

>>6864393
>Just about any claim about things we realistically can't know
like the law of inertia?

>> No.6864424

>>6864410
>why would you want to dodge the rock? because it will cause pain

Right, and how you you know this beforehand? After all, this one rock might be a magic rock that actually causes pleasure instead of pain.

>> No.6864432

>>6864375

it misrepresents religion terribly and makes basic theological objections whilst decrying the whole of theology as rubbish, ie shielding itself against any objections. the sections on Aquinas and the Ontological proof are laughably terrible.

The worst thing about it is the meme-"arguments" it has propogated, eg/.

>"You're an atheist too when it comes to Zeus!"
>"You believe in a man in the sky/sky fairy!"
>"Show me empirical proof of God!"
>"Why doesn't the tooth-fairy exist too!"

>> No.6864440

>>6864424
experience

>> No.6864453

>>6864388

Well you probably have some kind of basic belief underlying your thought - ie you have foundational beliefs about your own experience

>> No.6864457

does agnostic theist then make sense? I believe in god, but I also think that "we can't know nuffin"

>> No.6864458

>>6864440

Which is empirical, not metaphysical

>> No.6864463

>>6864453
>ie you have foundational beliefs about your own experience

Or you have experiences that shape beliefs

>> No.6864465

>>6862293
The book was written, just like many of his others. For people who still deny evolution and the absence of god(s).

Not for fedora tipping retards, nor arogant university post modern feminist theory majors. So dont complain when it doesnt use the same prose as whatever high and mighty thesaurus warrior you love does.

If you're going to read his books, read them from a point of view of a religous believer or someone who doesnt understand evolution. Otherwise; piss off and stop wasting peoples time with these childish, proactive and annoying threads.

>> No.6864474

>>6864458
>"nothing is in the intellect which was not first in the senses."
so?

>> No.6864480

>>6864474

And how does one sense something outside of reality?

>> No.6864483

>>6864372
God made the world.

I would say that is an observable impact upon it.

Anticipating your childish demand for empirical proof, it is literally a definition that the title God belongs to the being who created the universe.

If you think the universe created itself, then your god is the universe (and you are an anti-scientific fool).

>> No.6864485

>>6864480
why are you so hardheaded on insisting that the metaphysical is outside of reality? so you can dismiss it as not real?

>> No.6864489

>>6864463

Or you have a priori intuitions without which empirical knowledg is impossible

>> No.6864501

>>6863780
47:09 in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FiHRVb_uE0

"Maybe we have to be technically and strictly 'agnostics', but in practise we are all teapot atheists"

>>6863812
What would make one weigh more than the other?

>> No.6864525

>>6864501
under his conception of God, nothing

under the classical theistic conception of God, oh boy where do i begin?

>> No.6864539

>>6864483
>it is literally a definition that the title God belongs to the being who created the universe

Not in all religions. In the OED, it's not until section II, def. 5 that we get:

>Especially in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: the Supreme Being, regarded as the creator and ruler of the universe.

Capital-g 'God' can be understood as the creator in the definition you give, as it refers most specifically to this Abrahamic deity mentioned above, but you throw that out yourself by adding "then your god is the universe"

>> No.6864699

bump

>> No.6864712

>>6864699
stfu

saged

>> No.6864720

>>6864539
Not at all. God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He created the universe.

That some fools think that the universe created itself makes them wrong in thinking that the universe is God. It also sets their worldview as reductionist and materialistic, and usually makes them awful people to be around.

>> No.6864729
File: 214 KB, 1134x1001, Christinthedesert.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6864729

>>6864699
>mfw God gave you dubs

>> No.6864773

>>6864465
under-rated post.

>> No.6864788

>>6864729

That picture gave me feels

>> No.6864810

>>6864372
>empiricists
Jump off a cliff

>> No.6864835
File: 3 KB, 99x125, irritated.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6864835

>>6864465
So his intended audience were people who would never read him, and his actual audience were people who already agreed with everything he had to say.

Also how does his book prove the absence of God?

>> No.6864936

"/lit"

>> No.6865312

>>6864465

So what about religious believers who are serious academics and believe in God on logical and metaphysical grounds? It's not about his prose, you can use simple prose and make a good case, but his actual argument are garbage and can't convince anyone who is moderately educated.

>> No.6865322

>>6863842

Yes they can, you check for internal logical consistency and then with the empirical facts we do have to see if the metaphysical claim makes sense.

>> No.6865352

>>6862293
That book made me an atheist, OP. Don't diss it before you study it thoroughly. It demolishes the idea of God with bullet proof logic.

>> No.6865366
File: 39 KB, 137x190, explodng.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6865366

>>6865352
>mfw i see this b8

>> No.6865968

>>6862305
>pose question
>answer it yourself

Every system of questioning or ideology in human history in a nutshell

>> No.6865976

>>6863765
Except you can prove that if you dig deep enough.
Also, the argument is that you can't prove God in the same way that you can't prove there's a teapot orbiting the planet. Goddamn, new atheists are shit at their own belief system.

>> No.6865979

>>6862469
>Dawkin's a good biologist, there's no arguing that
Actually there is. He's contributed shit to the field, with most of his ideas being rehashes of the new thesis between Mendel and Darwin that occurred over the past century independant of anything he has said or done.

>> No.6865987

I can't tell if this entire thread is bait or if people actually believe the things they're saying.
What the fuck.

>> No.6865996
File: 290 KB, 620x352, 234824642.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6865996

>>6865366

>> No.6866017

New atheists are a great movement to show that you can have the same ultimate conclusion, but that its not enough to agree on anything.

>> No.6866222

>>6866017
Just like literally every group throughout history without exception