/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7114155]

Is he right?

[Anonymous No.7114158]

did he really tweet that? smh fam smh

[Anonymous No.7114168]

>>7114155

Fantastic scientist who has written some really good books on evolution but some of his tweets are real cringe. He needs to retire from Twitter if he values his legacy.

[Anonymous No.7114170]

>>7114158
his twitters embarrassing

[Anonymous No.7114175]

>>7114168
His legacy is being one of the leaders of contemporary young atheists in the USA. His tweets are part of it.

[Anonymous No.7114177]

Shit, Dawkins is a real fucktard. Importent in his field of study as far as I know, but other than that just amazingly stupid.

[Anonymous No.7114188]

>>7114158
Why?
You should instead "shake your head" at the unrealized irony of an atheist speaking in favor of truth.

[Anonymous No.7114200]

>>7114155

>>7114155

Yes, of course he is.

No one truly denies that truth exists. If they did they wouldn't be able to function, constantly skeptical about the solidity of their bedroom floor or existence of a mother who pays their bills.

The academic - if not actual - attack on truth and objectivity comes from stupid postmodernists unable to comprehend the fact that people frequently make untrue statements.

>person a says this, person b says that
>well obv everyone has their own truth
>i'm so enlightened

[Anonymous No.7114204]

>>7114200
>missing the point this bad

[Anonymous No.7114210]

>>7114200


being an objectivist in 2015

[Anonymous No.7114212]

One of my favourites

[Anonymous No.7114220]

>>7114200
>No one truly denies that truth exists

[Anonymous No.7114221]

>>7114210
not quite my meme tbh

[Anonymous No.7114227]

>>7114210

Why bother writing?

You can not be sure the words you are writing can be comprehended by others, sport.

>>7114220

>nothing is real

Edgy.

[Anonymous No.7114234]

>>7114168
>Fantastic scientist
How right you are! His 'science' is, indeed, pure fantasy.

[Anonymous No.7114240]

>>7114234

>i was never good at chemistry or biology
>good job there's some continental who said it's all racist hooey

[Anonymous No.7114242]

>>7114227
>nothing is real
>well here's another place you can goouuoo
>where everything floouuoows

[Anonymous No.7114245]

>>7114212
>>7114155
His tweets remind me of REIs posts. Similar style and opinions.

[Anonymous No.7114248]

>>7114240
I'm not a 'continental'. (Except in the narrow sense that I live on a continent, not in la-la fucktard land.)

[Anonymous No.7114249]

>>7114245
You mean autism

[Anonymous No.7114255]

>>7114227
>>7114200
It's clear you don't understand postmodernism at all and their claims about truth

[Anonymous No.7114261]

>>7114155
>Search for Truth

cringeworthy capitalisation tbh

[Anonymous No.7114262]

Dick Dawkins is a literal meme scientist, right up there with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. People like him don't actually do anything useful, they just use their status as an expert in their field to leverage their own opinions and appeal to populist sentiment; and the sad thing is, millions of people eat that shit up. It's how you get pages like I Fucking Love Science, where people think liking memes about "did u know there r like a shitload of stars in galaxy checkmate christfags XD" makes them more intelligent than their peers.

People like Dawkins and Tyson are an embarrassment to the scientific community because they think their shitty opinions on religion/politics/social issues matter more because they're scientists.

[Anonymous No.7114264]

>>7114242

>there is no universal means of comprehending the world
>still uses language he fully expects other to understand

Comrades and friends - a postmodernist!

[Anonymous No.7114272]

>>7114262
The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype can be included in the best scientific books of the second-half of the 20th century though.

[Anonymous No.7114275]

>>7114262
I agree entirely

[Anonymous No.7114278]

>>7114264
>It is what human beings say that is true and false; and they agree in the language they use. That is not agreement in opinions but in form of life.
You need to do your homework kiddo.

[Anonymous No.7114279]

>>7114272
>

Dawkins has literally accomplished nothing other than the word "meme"

[Anonymous No.7114282]

>>7114262
>People like Dawkins and Tyson are an embarrassment to the scientific community

according to which scientiststs?

[Anonymous No.7114294]

>>7114278

>>It is what human beings say that is true and false

Hm, not what I said and you know it.

[Anonymous No.7114297]

>>7114282

The ones that don't use their prominent status in the scientific community to leverage their opinions on unrelated shit.

[Anonymous No.7114302]

>>7114297
prove it

[Anonymous No.7114303]

>>7114294
The point was about language. Only a sentence can be true or false. There is no "truth" as such. "Truth" is not "out there". There is no truth to be perceived.

[Anonymous No.7114329]

>>7114302

Even leftist sites like Salon and Huffpost say his crusade against religion is pathetic and misguided, and many scientists have written against his Institute for Reason and Euphoria because it actually does jack shit besides reel in more free publicity for Dawkins

The common consensus is that he used to be relevant and sort of useful but now he's just a bitter old man whinging about Christians on Twitter all day and occasionally picking an easy target to "debate" on TV so his fans can all sit in a circle and have a good tug about how intellectually superior they are

[Anonymous No.7114645]

>>7114210
How are you writing then?

[Anonymous No.7115282]

>>7114155

Is he willing to dismiss the entire discipline of economics out of hand, too? Because varieties of economics are even more "regional" (actually local) than those of philosophy, and there's more of them.

[Anonymous No.7115286]

>Truth
>capital T

what a fedora cuck

[Anonymous No.7115292]

>>7115286

[Anonymous No.7115310]

Before reading the meme trilogy, I would recommend the following:

1) Read the /lit/ starter pack.

2) Start with the Greeks.

3) Read the following sampling of the Canon:

The Divine Comedy
Canterbury Tales
Don Quixote
King Lear, Macbeth, Hamlet, A Midsummer Night's Dream
Paradise Lost
Faust
Notes from Underground, Crime and Punishment
Moby Dick

Then you will be ready to appreciate what Joyce, Pynchon, and to a lesser extent, DFW have done with the medium.

[Anonymous No.7116840]

Richard Dawkins is shit when it comes to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7116866]

>>7114329
Dawkins is a meme but leftists are against him because he criticises islam

[Anonymous No.7116895]

Science isn't a search for truth lmao.

[Anonymous No.7116898]

>>7114155
>Algebra
>Truth

Why i'm not surprised a shitlord biologist doesn't know what mathematics is...

[Anonymous No.7116925]

>>7114242
Why is that man dressed as a cowboy?

[Anonymous No.7116963]

>>7116925
That man is Lennon.

[Anonymous No.7116982]

>>7114155
>Chemistry
>a field whose name literally means "Egyptian Magic"
>not region-specific

[Anonymous No.7116983]

>>7114240
It's funny because "it's all racist hooey" is a rather specifically American complaint.

When you can't even allocate blame properly it's time to go to bed, Johnny.

>>7115282
Heck if he's going to that road he might as well dismiss some branches of mathematics too.

>>7114155
I think we have enough evidence to declare Twitter a brain disease now.

[Anonymous No.7117045]

>>7116963
Who?

[Anonymous No.7117878]

>>7116983
>muh feelings

[Anonymous No.7117898]

>>7114170
it is actually unreal

[Anonymous No.7117909]

It's not like continentals actually call themselves continentals

[Anonymous No.7117917]

>>7114234
low_quality_bait.TIFF

[Anonymous No.7118001]

>>7114155
why is every old person shit at the internet

[Anonymous No.7118004]

>>7115292
*tea coming out my nose*

[Anonymous No.7118033]

>>7114645
perfect example of no objective truth

>person a writes: 'there is no objective truth'
>person b writes: 'how are you writing then'
>person c interprets person a as meaning something completely different to the way person b has framed the conversation

one statement
three peoples interpretation
by this point person a will be creating a new paradigm in their head to further explain what they meant - for person a the meaning of the original statement has evolved
no one can know the true designs of another in this exchange, ergo there is no objective truth in the statement: 'there is no objective truth'

[Anonymous No.7118038]

>>7118033

Nima?

[Anonymous No.7118041]

>>7118038
what?
i mostly just been reading you tards long enough to know how to shitpost anon into a stroke here

[Anonymous No.7118047]

>>7118041

01010010101101010101011111001010101001101010101010101010101011001100101101010100101011010101010101010100101101001010101010101010101010101010101010101010101111111111111111111111111111111111111111101010101010100101011001101010101010101101010101100101011010101010101011010101010101010110101010100000000000001011010101010110101010101011010101010101010101011010101010101010101010101101010101010110101010101010101010110101010101010101010101010101011I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recoverliberty0000101101101010101001010100101011011010101111100101011010101010101010101011010101010101011010

[Anonymous No.7118069]

>>7114221
>>7114227
>>7114645


>>7114227
>You can not be sure the words you are writing can be comprehended by others, sport.
this holds only if you are some utilitarian or consequentialist.


The question is not to ask why bother if you are not sure of....?

but why do you seek certainty in the first place ?


Those who seek the certainty adopt the dichotomy necessity-contingency of the events in the world and refuse what appears as the contingency of the events in the world. Those people ate life really.
They are never satisfied. The tragedy is that they have no idea what certainty is and when they go into the world to look for it, typically through a universal agreement, about some topic, amongst all the people that they have encounter. Too bad that they never find this fantasized universality. And then they whine and and cringe to end up having faith, not in the objectivity as it was the case beforehand, but in the inter-subjectivity. Of course, they have no idea why they desire the certainty in the first place. Perhaps it comes from some angst ?

So they put their faith into mathematics and science. since they hardly study the fields, they miss that all scientific inferences (laws) are conventional and statistical, stemming from a premise of objectivity-only which consequently also limits its scope. Science, then, is obviously not solid knowledge and so strictly speaking they cannot believe in its products but they employ them as instrumental approximations of their fantasized reality.


I think that once you let go of the idea of certainty, you are so appeased that you do not want to go back. This is why I say that the truths are what appeases me irremediably.

[Anonymous No.7118078]

>>7118038
wait, who the hell is nima
the google gives no help

[Anonymous No.7118096]

>>7114221#
>>7114227#
>>7114645#


>>7114227#
>You can not be sure the words you are writing can be comprehended by others, sport.
this holds only if you are some utilitarian or consequentialist.


The question is not to ask why bother if you are not sure of....?
but why do you seek certainty in the first place ?


Those who seek the certainty adopt the dichotomy necessity-contingency of the events in the world and refuse what appears as the contingency of the events in the world. Those people hate life really.
They are never satisfied. The tragedy is that they have no idea what certainty is and when they go into the world to look for it, typically through a universal agreement, about some topic, amongst all the people that they have encounter. Too bad that they never find this fantasized universality. And then they whine and and cringe to end up having faith, not in the objectivity as it was the case beforehand, but in the inter-subjectivity, which sadly remains just as ridiculous as their objectivity. Of course, they have no idea why they desire the certainty in the first place. Perhaps it comes from some angst ?

So they put their faith into mathematics and science. since they hardly study the fields, they miss that all scientific inferences (laws) are conventional and statistical, stemming from a premise of objectivity-only which consequently also limits its scope. Science, then, is obviously not solid knowledge and so strictly speaking they cannot believe in its products but they still keep their faith [and call it rationality] and they employ them as instrumental approximations of their fantasized reality.
These people begin by the end, in starting from a supposed reality. Once that they hit the point of relativism/scepticism/nihilism/solipsism, they become hysterical and claim that these stances are ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.7118098]

>>7118096


When you take the cinema, you say that the films are not reality. that the films are socially constructed with many people working on each films. Yet you say that films are still a bit real because they make you feel.
But the realists say that the inanimate objects as the trees and the cars are not like films, even though they did not witness the creation of the film. These people choose to distinguish between trees, cars, flowers etc. from the films, the computers etc.

It no longer matters whether other people are like me, whether the tress, the animals are different form the humans and the humans are different from me.


I think that once you let go of the idea of certainty, you are so appeased that you do not want to go back. This is why I say that the truths are what appeases me irremediably.

[Anonymous No.7118113]

>>7117045
he's an absolute madman

[Anonymous No.7118123]

>>7114200
that's not at all how ""postmodernists"" critique objective truth

[Anonymous No.7118129]

>>7115292

Who is this guy, he makes me laugh.

[Anonymous No.7118130]

The continental/analytic divide is basically a tiff between the faculties of Oxford/Cambridge and Heidelberg/Paris/Freiburg over fucking writing styles. Anyone in the current year who unironically identifies with one side or the other is out of their mind.
>>7114212
Is this real? I haven't heard autism like this in a while.

[Anonymous No.7118163]

>>7114200

There is no truth, just really really really educated assumptions. Even the laws of physical reality are tentative until quantum physics throws some shit left field on us.

[Anonymous No.7118170]

>>7118130
>Is this real? I haven't heard autism like this in a while.

Probably - this is the guy who wrote God Delusion, after all. I think the accent covers up the autism so you don't notice until you read his random thoughts on twitter.

[Anonymous No.7118174]

>>7115292

favorite dfw meme

[Anonymous No.7118175]

And yet there are different agencies on different countries regulating pesticides, food and hygiene products, farming, health standards, with different positions given the political and economical influence of the companies involved. There are pharmaceutical frauds, deliberate concealing of information, there are people invested in patents for the use of specific plants from the Amazon or from South-east Asia, truly foreign scientist conquistadores willing to retain means of production to blackmail people for their health. There are discrepancies between scientists on the environmental impact of all kinds of engineering on a bunch of different levels. You have disagreeing archeologists, paleontologists, historians, producing different narratives of history even when analyzing the same material with similar methods, making some narratives more proeminent and consensual than others that are left out to hang out with the ancient alien theorists. You have pop-sci magazines and sites and shows favouring one idea over the other, presenting them in an easy but flourished way, often outright mistaken, creating whole myths around certain subjects and reaching young aspiring scientists who will take these fantasies with them as biases. Last but not least you have academia, which is an institution that recognizes itself, that is also regulated by each government of each country, but that creates a web of self-recognition, so that one university understands the other as capable of producing a valid scientist with a valid diploma, in spite of the differences in hours of work, infrastructure, teachers, students, standards, and that is fueled by not only science, but by politics, by who knows who, by how nice your teacher thinks of you, by the rhetoric of congress speakers, by ammount of money invested and so on.

At the same time, Dawkins here spergs out over the thought of noticing similarities between thinkers that shared the same institutions and places and cultural backgrounds, grouping them for the tendencies perceived in their writings in contrast to some other line of thinking, while particularly at a time that they could only reach each other by letters or long travels.

If you think you're a neutral thinker, separate from the world around you, perfectly objective and all, you are being used.

[Anonymous No.7118632]

>>7114155
Any philosophers want to explain why he's wrong rather than just 'smh'?

[Anonymous No.7118637]

I hate analytics

[Anonymous No.7118642]

>>7118637
Gottlob Frege is my boy tho

[Anonymous No.7118710]

>>7117878
the problem with the image you're using is that it pretends it has internal consistency.

the first two pictures use criteria to compare different things with one another (at least for the most part), whereas the later pictures pretend that there is an objective barometer for absolute quality

>book x is objectively better than book y because it employs literary techniques
this doesn't follow. who determined that the presence of concepts such as stream-of-consciousness made a book objectively better? does it get better if there is more of it? which techniques are better than others?

ultimately, our brains are complex input-output systems. the same input produces different experience depending on which brain it goes into, under which circumstances, etc. value is subjective.

[Anonymous No.7118726]

>>7118632
Continental/Analytic was a distinction made by the British to separate their way of thinking from the European mainland. Continental philosophers don't consider themselves to be limited to specific regions and will frequently acknowledge their shortcomings if all their source material should be region-specific. "Continental" Philosophy has thinkers in Japan (Massumi), Argentina (Dussel), etc.. Dawkins is, unsurprisingly, operating from a position of not-knowing.

[Anonymous No.7118827]

[Anonymous No.7118868]

>>7115282
>Economics
>Science
Choose one and only one.

Economics makes Astrology look respectable.

[Anonymous No.7118910]

>>7114155

quoting twitter on 4chan...thanks OP....thanks....

[Anonymous No.7118929]

Is there a more comfy actor than Jason Segel?

Is he the ultimate regular guy?

[Anonymous No.7120107]

>>7118827
this cant be real its to good to be true

[Anonymous No.7120130]

>>7120107
it's real, he deleted the tweet though.

i think it's fucking hilarious that the man who wrote "the god delusion" invented the word meme

[Anonymous No.7120149]

>>7114272

They are the pillagings of the works of far more capable scientists. Dawkins is an accessible writer with enough background in his subject to not come off as a total idiot, but he has made no original contributions to evolutionary biology.

[Anonymous No.7120249]

>>7116925
Because he's an absolute Madman!

[Anonymous No.7120294]

>>7114155
He was being sarcastic. I am following him on twitter and he does it all the time.

[Anonymous No.7120300]

>>7116925
american fashion at the time

[Anonymous No.7120335]

>>7118710
there is an objective barometer for quality

[Anonymous No.7120550]

tricky rick always brings the banter on twitter

[Anonymous No.7120677]

>>7114212
Literally Stirner

[Anonymous No.7120702]

>tfw I genuinely do not understand what is wrong with positivism
>I think philosophers are just butthurt that they can't empirically prove any of their claims

[Anonymous No.7120713]

>>7120702
>tfw I genuinely do not understand what is wrong with positivism
wrong indeed

>I think philosophers are just butthurt that they can't empirically prove any of their claims
what kinda claims

[Anonymous No.7120720]

>>7120713
Don't be a faggot. If you actually understand what positivism is and why it is a point of disagreement amongst philosophers, then explain why. Otherwise, piss off.

[Anonymous No.7120808]

>>7120702
>>tfw I genuinely do not understand what is wrong with positivism

the humanity constantly asks why this or that. The humanity always fails to ask why ''do we ask why this or that''.

there were three times in the humanity
-the times of the religion [theology] looking to break down the phenomena via the causation, causes and effects
-the time of the philosophy where we loose the religion but still believe in abstraction through secular causation, we believe in the law for our daily life
-the time of maturity: the time where we no longer ask why
we go back to empiricism and stop speculating on supposedly universal stances from the philosophers
this is typically enjoying science, too bad that science is based on pure faith


that was the positivism of Comte.


Now, the positivist of today claim that every question amongst the humanity is classifiable by logic. a question can be answered or if it cannot be, it means that it is not well asked and is stupid.


to answer a question means that we break down the question into smaller parts and very empirically whatever thesis is behind the question.


now we must deal with the verification of a statement through empirical method.


as usual, the positivist claims that
-there is a reality/clear understanding possible
-he reaches this unique clear understanding by his method


So they put their faith into mathematics and science. since they hardly study the fields, they miss that all scientific inferences (laws) are conventional and statistical, stemming from a premise of objectivity-only which consequently also limits its scope. Science, then, is obviously not solid knowledge and so strictly speaking they cannot believe in its products but they still keep their faith [and call it rationality] and they employ them as instrumental approximations of their fantasized reality.
the scientist allows only the doubt from the people that he likes.

[Anonymous No.7120813]

>>7120808

A crucial point is as always ''how to know'''. We can have several scientific theses, each predicting more or less accurately what we have interest in, so how do we choose what theory explains our experiments ?

Since the rationalist has faith in objectivity, he believes that there is a unique thesis to explain things. Since objectivity remains dubious about reality, and dubious about the tastes hold by people [the judgements that people have towards what is good/bad/relevant], these People have then offered the concept of inter-subjectivity where now, they have faith in objective standards of judgements, typically to grade the scientific theories. Too bad that the inter-subjectivity is nowhere to be found in the world.

so you see the problem of the positivist, or even the rationalist in science,:
doubt is permitted only when the doubt is judged acceptable by the scientist [what is acceptable is what makes you have faith in what the scientist claims]:

-if you doubt too little from the statements of people talking to you, the scientist will call you a religious, a sheep, a guy spending his time on metaphysical theses which are disconnected form the reality [the reality that the scientist posits]
-if you doubt too much from the statements of the scientist , the scientist will wave then the card of relativism/nihilism/solipsism and mock you


the positivist is even more extreme than the rationalist. and the rationalist is his stance is not verified empirically.

[Anonymous No.7120833]

>>7120808
>>7120813
Even if science was absolutely 100% probabilistic, it would give more reliable certainty in its philosophical claims than any continental faggotry.

Considering most science and mathematics is actually quite definitive, I'm not sure what your complaint really is. It is possible to know things, it is possible to prove things, and if you refuse to do so, why should anyone believe you? Even Socrates would prove his claims.

[Anonymous No.7120836]

Chomsky said something similar in the 90s that he couldn't tell if a scientific paper he was written by a white male, and that many of his colleagues who were neither would be equally baffled by the notion that their identity could be discerned in their publications

[Anonymous No.7120842]

>>7114227
>conflating an epistemological claim with an ontological one

[Anonymous No.7120851]

>>7120833
>Considering most science and mathematics is actually quite definitive
>science, where everyone refuses to make absolute claims and avoids them like the flu, is definitive
hahahah good one

[Anonymous No.7120854]

You guys may not know it, but he isn't all THAT important in his field.

He made important contributions, but he's mainly a popularizer. His technical contributions, although they exist, are inferior to those of many other evolutionary biologists, ethologists, and geneticists.

He also created memetics, which is largely considerd to be a meme field of study, in the ironic sense of word.

[Anonymous No.7120857]

>>7120851
It's sounds like you're toeing the line of:
>I don't know much about science, so that means NO ONE DOES

[Anonymous No.7120866]

>>7120833
>kid who still wants to cling to mostly assumed world view aligns himself with his projected view of le bazinga science and rails against misinterpretation of pseudo pomo philosophy: the post

nicela

[Anonymous No.7120872]

>>7120857
>y-y0u d0nt und3r$t@nd bruh!!11
cry more

[Anonymous No.7120875]

>>7120866
>all of science is theoretical physics

Stop memeing for two minutes and think about how dumb you seem. I sincerely hope you're not about to tell me "I have a STEM degree" after the level of retardation in your post. Shuddering to think a university would allow it to happen.

[Anonymous No.7120880]

>>7120854
The Selfish Gene is a great popular science book though, and while not exactly original, it did shift the focus of evolutionary science in a sense that the people he references didn't.

I don't really care for anything he did after that but that books I would recommend to anybody. Very interesting.

[Anonymous No.7121049]

He literally invented memes. He is a meme.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqHC4sbXbLM

[Anonymous No.7121071]

>>7120875

he hit the nail on the head actually

[Anonymous No.7121093]

[Anonymous No.7121111]

>>7121093
K E K

[Anonymous No.7121113]

>>7121049
i fucking hate this guy

[Anonymous No.7121115]

>>7114155
Does anyone have his tweet about fedoras?

[Zyzz Thread No.7121123]

>>7121093
:')

[Anonymous No.7121124]

>>7121049
Literally reddit the human being

[Anonymous No.7121138]

>>7121115

>>7118827 already posted it

[Anonymous No.7121144]

SJWs BTFO

[Anonymous No.7121166]

>>7121144
He really needs to wear a seatbelt when he internets

[Anonymous No.7121169]

Math is absolute.

There's no argument against 1+1=2, so there's Truth in that at least.

[Anonymous No.7121172]

>>7121166
ricky doesn't hide his powerlevel

[Rosalind Hursthouse !!IJ+t51r+x08 No.7121271]

>>7121169
>define 1+1 as 2
>act like a smug little shit when you point out that 1+1 is always 2
>???
>Universal Truth

[Anonymous No.7121290]

>>7121169

What are imaginary numbers?

>the current year
>being a mathematical platonist

The cake at its toppest

[Anonymous No.7121292]

>>7121169
euphoric

[Anonymous No.7121293]

>>7121169
axioms are not truths, silly

[Anonymous No.7121317]

>>7120677
Stirner says he owns himself and everything he uses
try again

[Anonymous No.7121635]

>>7118827
Is it ironic for Dawkins to be ignorant about memes?

[Anonymous No.7122600]

ok

[Anonymous No.7122614]

>>7117878
I never understood this meme, like its obviously completely wrong but people post it all the time

[Anonymous No.7122619]

>>7121049
>invented memes

[Anonymous No.7122627]

>>7122619
Well he discovered memes and named them, without him you wouldn't be consciously memeposting.

[Anonymous No.7122630]

>>7114200
As >>7118163 pretty much said, all knowledge is based upon assumption, and while there can be very accurate assumptions, they cannot be objective truth. Even in Kant's statement, "But though all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it all arises out of experience," the assumption is that knowledge can't arise out of itself or out of the self.

[Anonymous No.7122642]

>>7122630

Prove that all knowledge is based on assumption.

Not so cunningly, you've rather brushed over that.

[Anonymous No.7122656]

"Euclidean Geometry". What kind of a search for truth is person-specific? Euclidean Existentialism? Euclidean Poststructuralism? What nonsense!

[Anonymous No.7122660]

what does he think about jeremy corbyn

[Anonymous No.7122674]

Dawkins has never been right about anything. Even his hypothesis of the selfish gene was highly criticized and is not taken seriously in the scientific community.

He's just another post-9/11 anti-theist parakeet alongside Hitchens.

[Anonymous No.7122684]

>>7122674
Antitheist pop culture propaganda is important though. The sooner we snuff out religious thought, the sooner we can get to building utopia.

[Anonymous No.7122694]

>>7122684
It's as important as the existence of Lil Wayne. It's pseudo-intellect to the maximum. It's trying desperately to hold weight with it's mediocre middle school arguments of "who created God, then"? versus massive amounts of theological work that still remains in the obscure.

Anyone who takes the antitheistic movement as serious intellect is indeed your nextdoor pleb.

[Anonymous No.7122708]

>>7122694
The point is not if it's legitimate or 'intellectual'. The point is if it's effective or not. Making snarky remarks that people can smugly 'like' and laugh about how you really showed those sheeple is far more efficient than actually taking theology seriously and trying to engage with them on their own terms, by which you already acknowledge some legitimacy to their approach. Best to ridicule them outright.

Propaganda needs to speak to the common person, not some dusty priest. That's not why you are trying to convince after all.

[Anonymous No.7122715]

>>7122708
niceb8m8

[Anonymous No.7122745]

>>7122708
Well, these people think that they are scientifically right and that religion is wrong, dumb and harmful.

It is, then, ironical that they need so much these snarky remarks. They are actively trying to gain this "cultural war" with rhetoric and demagogy. This is not "scientific" at all. It is the same game played since forever.

It is shame that this "science" preached by antitheist became another buzzword. This doesn't make them any better than the people they are fighting.

[Anonymous No.7122752]

>>7122674
>Even his hypothesis of the selfish gene was highly criticized and is not taken seriously in the scientific community.
this is why he went into the entertainment industry [which loves failures turning into trolls]

it is media prostitution: the more cliché he is, the more he will be talked about

[Anonymous No.7122760]

>Atheists meme on how bad religion and how stupid Christianity is
>still fully comply with Christian morals and values

fucking kek

[green !YOUlQWt3s6 No.7122763]

>>7114242
MADMAN

[Anonymous No.7122767]

>>7122715
Why do you think it's bait?

>>7122745
Yes, it's often intellectually dishonest and not lofty and superior. But it works quite well for the masses. As I said, it's propaganda. The goal of propaganda is not to be intellectually and morally superior, it is to be effective at achieving some goal. As far as the 'cultural war' goes these antitheists are quite effective. Means to an end and such.

It's not like their opponents are above such behaviour.

[twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk No.7123333]

This thread is ugly.
I suggest it be burnt.

[Anonymous No.7123595]

>>7114278
hey witty ur so fine, ur so fine u blow my mind

[Anonymous No.7123613]

>>7117878
here u go, csgo lewis gets kids today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX5e6eSkaMc