/lit/ - Literature

File: 86 KB, 800x535, imgrichard dawkins3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 14:29:41 2010 No.794547 [Reply] [Original]

>Harry Potter has become the latest target for Professor Richard Dawkins who is planning to find out whether tales of witchdraft and wizardy have a negative effect on children.

>The prominent atheist is stepping down from his post at Oxford University to write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in "anti-scientific" fairytales.

>Prof Dawkins is targeting children as the audience of his next project because he believes they are being "abused" by being taught about religion at school.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-spell-over-Professor-Richard-Dawk
ins.html

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 14:30:41 2010 No.794548 So, Dawkins is putting on his troll face? Cool.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 14:30:41 2010 No.794549 Someone put a cock in his mouth. Please.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 14:31:41 2010 No.794552 Oooooooold news

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 14:32:41 2010 No.794554 This faggot is fuckign evil. A child's world SHOULD be filled with magic, miracles and fucking rainbows. Oh god I hope he is not a father, and I hope that he dies soon.

>>	redcom !!+GnfqtXcPp8 Wed Jun 16 14:33:41 2010 No.794557 File: 1.62 MB, 2400x2880, 1276550763638.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>794554 Agreed, about the father part.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 14:35:41 2010 No.794562 >>794554 He has a 25-year-old daughter.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 14:38:41 2010 No.794565 What's Christmas without Santa?

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 14:43:41 2010 No.794569

What pisses me off about Richard Dawkins isn't that he's an atheist, or that he believes that only the science he can see is what the world should be based on.

No, what pisses me off is that this man thinks he's better than anyone who has a difference of opinion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 14:48:41 2010 No.794577 > tales of witchdraft and wizardy have a negative effect on children. inb4 Dawkins revives the '80s SRA scandal. I wonder if he'll be going after D&D next.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 14:50:41 2010 No.794580 Not believing in God is one thing but not having an imagination is another. This dude is just boring.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 14:52:41 2010 No.794585 >>794547 hurray shtick

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 14:53:41 2010 No.794590 File: 65 KB, 425x450, no fun allowed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 14:56:41 2010 No.794596 Dawkins is pretty much the anti-Sagan. He's a scientist who feels the need to take all the mystery and beauty out of the universe.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 14:56:41 2010 No.794597 People should also stop speaking those idiotic, illogical languages of theirs, with their idiomatic expressions, words conveying emotions etc. We should all speak Debian or fucking c++.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 14:57:41 2010 No.794603 MR JONES AND ME!!!!!!

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:00:41 2010 No.794606

>>794596
>Dawkins is pretty much the anti-Sagan. He's a scientist who feels the need to take all the mystery and beauty out of the universe.

He's not the only one that lacks that. I was pretty much disillusioned when I found out that Bill Nye only believes in the material world and has no imagination. THIS is why I liked Beakman's World better.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:04:41 2010 No.794614 nice house also he's being an attention whore. like when he said he would arrest the pope even though that would be fucking impossible

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:11:41 2010 No.794634

>>794597
In a way, I agree.

It's technically incorrect to say "That was the day I learnt that the Earth is round". You're supposed to say "That was the day I learnt that the Earth WAS round", which makes no sense because the fact that the Earth is round needn't be declared as a past event even though the established English grammar requires that it be so when you're talking in the past tense.

Loglangs better.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:13:41 2010 No.794642 Dawkins is my hero, he will hopefully get the nobel peace prize. We should all donate 100 Dollars to his foundation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:15:41 2010 No.794650 What a dick.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:17:41 2010 No.794657 >>794634 > You're supposed to say "That was the day I learnt that the Earth WAS round" I don't think that's correct--people say it all the time, but I haven't heard that it's correct.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:18:41 2010 No.794663

>>794577
know what

he's being exactly like Jack Chick. that fundamentalist Christian that makes the little comic books about how evolution is evil and how the Vatican controls the world and caused the holocaust and how all Muslims believe it is their duty to God to beat their wives and children and kill people

take away the context and his ravings are no different from any Christian fundamentalist

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:18:41 2010 No.794665

He obviously guards his tongue well; his remarks are always tentative and well qualified.

I wonder what he really thinks. Would he object to having religious people put to death? Would he be happy to see the burning of "non-rational" literature? I would love to have these answers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:19:41 2010 No.794668 He's my second favourite IRL troll (after Gabe, of course).

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:20:41 2010 No.794673 >>794634 >the fact that the Earth is round Huh..... >Round: having a flat, circular surface, as a disk The Earth isn't flat bro.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:20:41 2010 No.794674 >>794663 oh yah, another one of his comics was actually about D&D teaching kids real witchcraft which would cause them to bewitch and curse people and kill themselves

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:20:41 2010 No.794675 I like religion. It's entertaining.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:22:41 2010 No.794682 >>794673 Yes it is, you just haven't learnt the truth yet. One day you will be able to look back at this moment and say "That was the day I learnt that the Earth was round."

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:22:41 2010 No.794684 >>794665 well I honestly don't think he'd put deists to death but I have no doubt he believes in eugenics lots of people in /sci/ do too, they just think the nazis gave it a bad name disgusting, really

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:23:41 2010 No.794687 File: 42 KB, 500x280, dawk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] so dawkins is sad that Hermione is modeled after his likeness and he isnt getting any royalties?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:23:41 2010 No.794689 DAT SCIENTIFIC DICTATORSHIP

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:26:41 2010 No.794706 dawkins is an attention whore also this guy is right >>794596

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:30:41 2010 No.794723 >>794687 That's pretty much the only thing Dawkins has going for him really, that he has a lookalike that you fap to.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:30:41 2010 No.794725 No, I don't want to live in your Laputan nightmare - thank you, Dawkins.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:32:41 2010 No.794732 >>794665 I think he would, most of us humans would shape the world to our liking if we had the power.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:32:41 2010 No.794736

He admits he hasn't read Potter.
He only mentions a study of the potential harm of religious fantasy directed at children should be done and hints nowhere that he's about to initiate such a research.
He's simply writing a children's book about rationality because he feels that it is wrong that parents and authors shove their believes down their throats.
He wishes that children were given the freedom of choice, instead of being born into a dogma.
4chan overreacts, but that's to be expected since much of its users are American.
Inb4Atheismisareligion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:33:41 2010 No.794738 >>794732 If I had power over the world, it would be way better.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:33:41 2010 No.794739 >>794738 thats what everyone says

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:34:41 2010 No.794744 >>794738 >if I were in charge, things would be different

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:34:41 2010 No.794746 File: 13 KB, 277x196, that was dumb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>794547

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:36:06 2010 No.794755 [DELETED]

"I think looking back to my own childhood, the fact that so many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes, whether that has a sort of insidious affect on rationality, I'm not sure. Perhaps it's something for research."

He's ostensibly neutral on the matter, but it's quite clear that he views all things "magical" with disdain.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:36:41 2010 No.794757 >>794736 so you're saying he wants to shove his beliefs down kid's throats because other people's beliefs which they want to teach their kids are bad

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:36:41 2010 No.794758

>"I think looking back to my own childhood, the fact that so many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes, whether that has a sort of insidious affect on rationality, I'm not sure. Perhaps it's something for research."

He's ostensibly neutral on the matter, but it's quite clear that he views all things "magical" with disdain.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:37:41 2010 No.794759 >>794736 >Is in fact American but desperate not to be

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:38:41 2010 No.794766

>He wishes that children were given the freedom of choice, instead of being born into a dogma.

Obviously children from religious families wouldnt have access to his book so how does it chage anything? Still born into the same dogma, besides childrens books are the start of social indocrination if he really wanted to give them a choice hed stay away from writing them

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:38:41 2010 No.794767 File: 17 KB, 292x327, artist_nou.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I guess that would be why harry potter is book--burned by religious sects all over the place

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:39:41 2010 No.794768 File: 22 KB, 316x475, 1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I hope his book is better than this piece of shit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:39:41 2010 No.794770 >>794723 wrong. i used to fap to that. ever since seeing that pic i can't anymore. i'm not kidding either.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:40:41 2010 No.794781 >>794770 Same thing happened to me, then I kept seeing the picture and it just seemed to lose its power over me and I am now able to fap to her again.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:41:41 2010 No.794785

>>794766

The whole thing is nonsense.
When I was a kid, I had the same views as my parents, and these views weren't made clear to me in an overt way. It was all implicit, and I picked up on it.

People don't start thinking for themselves until they are teens.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:43:41 2010 No.794793 >>794781 then there is hope for me, brother.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:44:41 2010 No.794802 I could never fap to Hermione anyway, because she's English and I can't stand the English.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:45:41 2010 No.794807 >>794785 noooo. kids think for themselves. nowhere near the level that adults do. but they're not totally braindead. i think for the most part a child's critical thinking extends to the moment it is required and that's it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:46:41 2010 No.794809 >>794802 I couldn't either, until I figured out that I could imagine Ron watching us do it, and then it was off to the races.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:46:41 2010 No.794810 >>794809 Holy shit. And what's Ron doing? Is he turned on or sad?

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:47:41 2010 No.794816

>>794757
No, I'm not saying anything really. He's saying that he finds the market lacking in rational, non-mythological children's entertainment. I'm simply pointing out that our favorite childhood and post-childhood christian influenced fables wont disappear with Dawkins book as many of you seem to think.

>>794759
No, not even close but I might as well be. Used to be pretty religious as well.

>>794766
As a former kid that used to read allot of stuff my parents would have thrown away if they'd knew what was inside, I disagree. People, children especially, will always find ways to access "forbidden" information. That said, I agree with you on the impact issue. He'll most likely just preach to the quire again, but who knows.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:48:41 2010 No.794817 >>794810 not the anon you're responding to but your question made me lol. i want to know the answer too.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:48:41 2010 No.794822 Hmm. This is another reason why I find Dawkins and atheist "hurr sciens is epics lel!" extremists disgusting. One side of fanatics wants to destroy innovation. The other wishes to destroy imagination. Not sure which side is worse.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:49:41 2010 No.794827 >>794810 >>794817 Get your own fantasies, perverts.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:50:41 2010 No.794832 >>794810 I assume he enjoys being cuckolded.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:50:41 2010 No.794835 >>794827 wtf? don't be an ass. tell us!

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:51:41 2010 No.794838

>>794807
noone said hey were braindead they just havent developed their brains completely, look your more impressionable as a child than an adult and wether you like it or not a large degree of your behaviour has been learned from the environment you grew up in

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:53:41 2010 No.794846 >>794835 I think you should start a thread so /lit/ can help fill in the details.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:55:41 2010 No.794855

>>794822
Viewing interviews with him I've found that he's not above enjoying christian high-art, classical music and literature. He just stresses the fact that most of it wouldn't even need to be attached to those values to be considered beautiful or important, such as Da Vinci's Last Supper or Mozart's Requiem.
If anything, I think his goal is to try and showcase to children that the world can be viewed in just as magical and exiting way trough the lens of SCIENCE and logic as trough the lens of metaphysics and dogma.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:56:41 2010 No.794858

>>794838
i agree that we're more impressionable when we're younger but we're still influenced by external factors as adults. do you have a younger sibling or a niece or nephew you've watched grow up? kids develop independent problem solving skills at a very early age. earlier than you think obviously. and this is only an opinion but it depends on their temperament too. IMO your original statement was far too generic.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:58:41 2010 No.794869

>>794832
I think that's probably it. Growing up in a household with a very controlling mother must have left him confused.

He's probably over there jerking it as Hermione insults him over his performance and shouting about how she's gonna' let Anon get her pregnant and force puny little Ron to take responsibility, while she fucks Anon all day.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 15:59:41 2010 No.794872 Whats " witchdraft " ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:01:41 2010 No.794883 >>794869 Hey, that's exactly it! Seeing it in print gave me a rager, too, brb.

>>	sandwiches !!jvCuWJ8NrnK Wed Jun 16 16:01:41 2010 No.794885 yessssssssssssssssssss I fucking hate Dawkins. I have always hated him and now I feel so much more justified in my hatred. Fuck Dawkins, science should be agnostic and atheists shouldn't act like the 'preachy morons' they hate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:01:41 2010 No.794886 >>794869 awesome... ron totally comes across as the kind of bitch who would take that shit too.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:03:41 2010 No.794899

>>794858
my original statement was that there is no point writing a childrens book for the purpose of teaching them the scientific method when their capacity for ABSTRACT thought has not yet completely developed, critical thinking and problem solving skills obviously are inherent even at an early age and this is NOT a matter of opinion its fucking science

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:06:41 2010 No.794909 >>794883 What a cruel fantasy you have, Anon.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:07:41 2010 No.794915 >>794869 brb fapping to the thought of being ron

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:08:41 2010 No.794919 >>794885 >science should be agnostic It is. Study is born out of uncertainties. Furthermore Dawkins is an agnostic atheist bordering on claiming to be a gnostic one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:09:41 2010 No.794921 File: 11 KB, 406x346, 1270133431900_0_ib4f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>794915 >spoiler why

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:09:41 2010 No.794922 >>794899 ahhh nevermind bro. i misread something before and i agree with you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:12:41 2010 No.794933 >>794921 The hard-on wants what it wants

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:13:41 2010 No.794937 >>794596 Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cd36WJ79z4 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vioZf4TjoUI The Dawkins sections in these don't seem to fit your view of him.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:13:41 2010 No.794938 File: 14 KB, 406x346, 1270133431900_0_ib4f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>794933 i would fear for myself if i had such fantasies

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:17:41 2010 No.794947

I find it rather ironic that Dawkin's has become obsessed with rationality and science that he treats it almost like a religion. Hypocrisy much?

Personally I don't see what his problem with fiction is. Our imagination and the ability to believe in things (even if they aren't true) is one of the few things that makes us human. Without it, we'd all be soulless robots.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:18:41 2010 No.794954 File: 13 KB, 523x497, shrug.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>794938

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:22:41 2010 No.794970 File: 8 KB, 331x249, 1270133431900_0_ib4f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>794954

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:23:41 2010 No.794973 File: 103 KB, 330x357, sentebemhomem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>794970 How many babbies do you have, anyway?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:26:41 2010 No.794981 File: 74 KB, 1655x1245, 1270133431900_0_ib4f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>794973 Many, many babbies.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:28:41 2010 No.794985 >>794981 You can't use the same babby twice in one thread, that's terrible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:29:41 2010 No.794988 >>794985 The last one is my wallpaper.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:30:41 2010 No.794993 >>794988 Using a bigger version is cheating.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:30:41 2010 No.794995 File: 14 KB, 296x376, 1275930440264.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>794985

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:32:41 2010 No.795000 File: 43 KB, 376x376, 1273880750221.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:32:41 2010 No.795002 as much as I hate Harry Potter, I hate Richard Dawkins even more. He should stick to trolling Christfags.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:34:41 2010 No.795010 File: 28 KB, 396x556, 1275839078516.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:36:41 2010 No.795024 >>795010 >>795000 >>794995 I read Ulysses last week and was not prepared for how often "babby" occurred within it. I can never escape this beast.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:37:41 2010 No.795027 How to be rich and famous in the modern capitalist world: 1- Be young, beautiful and whore yourself without shame. 2- If you can't be 1, put on your troll face

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:37:41 2010 No.795029 ITT; We hate on Dawkins because it's hip even though we agree with him.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:39:41 2010 No.795032 File: 21 KB, 344x328, artist_orly.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>795029 he goes too far, and it is a problem

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:44:41 2010 No.795060 File: 611 KB, 960x1299, 2009-09-22-caveman_science_fiction.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>795032 >he goes too far, Sorry, little relation, but that comment always reminds me of the comic in my pic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:50:41 2010 No.795075 >>795029 >We hate on Dawkins because we can't all be non-free-thinking hipsters who embrace atheism because it's trendy. fix'd

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:50:41 2010 No.795076 w W w . ＡＮＯ n t ａ l Ｋ . s ｅ zngv t l e fayzit m ums h f fjuzlvh pm y knhogjrmdehz

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:54:41 2010 No.795087
File: 20 KB, 400x286, 1276716544493.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>795029

Firstly, it's not "hip" to hate on Dawkins. Dawkings and his whole atheism crusade, which is quickly turning into an anti-imagination crusade, is the hip thing to be.

The "hippest" people in our society embrace atheism with open arms and praise Dawkins as a modern day Copernicus. Speaking out against this man has become the counter-culture.

That being said Atheism is exactly like Deism. It is a believe regarding our creation based on zero fucking science. We have no proof that God exists, so to believe in that entirely is irrational. However, believing undoubtedly that there isn't a god is just as, if not more irrational. Think about atheist logic.

Don't believe in deism because there is no proof. But believe in anti-deism...even though there is no proof of that.

The plain fact is that NO ONE HAS ANY FUCKING IDEA HOW OUR UNIVERSE CAME TO BE. Real scientists are agnostics because the rational choice would be to not disprove anything would proof of it's non-existence. The big bang is a fucking theory, if you disagree, tell me where the energy that created that photons that created mass came from.

Exactly.

But that's not the fucking point.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:56:41 2010 No.795093
File: 202 KB, 720x951, 1276401321639.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The point is that people give way too much of a shit about "indoctrinating" kids. Who gives a shit. They are fucking kids. They are stupid. They need mystical stories to understand real life lessons. I grew up in a religious household and it hasn't harmed me one bit. I'm a ration science-minded person now because THAT'S WHAT GROWING UP IS ABOUT. All that angst and trials of discovery that you /lit/erati should know more than anyone defines the teenage years is about figuring things out on your own. IT'S A VITAL PART OF GROWING THE FUCK UP.

I mean if we are going to ban mystical or surreal books from being shown to children where the fuck does it end? Should we also ban VCRs in households with children because we don't want them to get the wrong idea that VCRs might be better than DVD players. Should we ban cartoons because people don't really look like that? A kid is a kid, and without giving them extraordinary examples of the world at a young age they'll never have imaginations. When they grow up they will decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. That is exactly what growing up is all about.

Pic related: Dogs don't really wear suits or glasses

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:57:41 2010 No.795096 >>795087 His addresses all these points in The God Delusion.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 16:59:41 2010 No.795101

>>795087

>>795075 here, and I think the same way. It's a real shame that people like him - especially people in the field of science, who are looked up to and whom we trust with, in many cases, our very lives - so vehemently and hypocritically support such illogical reasoning. It's like they're completely ignoring what they've been taught: that even with empirical evidence, any law or theory can still be overturned; and atheism (or any belief system, for that mater) has no evidence whatsoever.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:01:41 2010 No.795110
File: 163 KB, 400x426, 1276066169234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

And another thing. All these religion-debates running throughout our world is just another fucking distraction; like gay marriage, abortion, etc. THESE THINGS SHOULD NOT MATTER. No one has proof of any way the universe began. we should just drop it at that. We should be worrying about solving poverty, ending war, fixing all the fucked up problems in the world, instead of sitting around debating philosophy like any of that shit fucking matters. Who cares how the universe came to be if millions of people are starving on Earth. Spend time thinking about that problem first.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:01:41 2010 No.795111 >>795029 I hated on Dawkins before it was cool >>795060 God I hate that comic. Simultaneously kind of insane and so god-damned smug I can almost feel it physically.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:02:41 2010 No.795116

>>795087
>However, believing undoubtedly that there isn't a god is just as, if not more irrational

But Dawkins doesn't believe that, nor do most atheists. Most atheists only believe that God probably doesn't exist, due to lack of evidence. It's a Russell's Teapot kind of thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:03:41 2010 No.795117 >>795110 Fuck yeah The only struggle of any real importance is the struggle against bourgeois oppression; anything else is a distraction

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:05:41 2010 No.795129 I wish the guy tl;dr-ing in this thread would read Dawkins' books. He addresses all these points.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:06:41 2010 No.795131 >>795116 "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." Wikipedia You're thinking of agnosticism. A respectable stance.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:07:41 2010 No.795134

>>795096
Then why does he continue to spout such illogical and hypocritical bullshit? If he was truly the logical person that so many purport him to be, then he wouldn't be an atheist.

>>795093
I think you're right, but for the wrong reasons. Children at a very young age are very open to indoctrination - not everyone is the same, and just because you or someone else might not be so open to what is essentially brainwashing (by religionists or atheists), the majority of the population is. Why are so many people religious? Most of the time, it was because they were brought up that way; they accepted what they were told, and didn't give anything a second thought. Essentially, that is what literature has the ability to do.

Now banning fantasy books or fiction or anything like that is indeed hogwash, but there is a very thin line that separates creative fiction and intended indoctrination. Regardless, what Dawkins believes is right or what he might do - writing children's books listing the "dangers" of other beliefs - is essentially the same brainwashing which he is intending to fight.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:08:41 2010 No.795136 Ohshitniggerwhatareyoudoing.jpg

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:08:41 2010 No.795139

>>795117
Personally I think that the dismantling of the world's super-powers and the replacing of them with confederated states unified under a single, human-rights protecting constitution which is upheld by a council of elected representatives from each of the nations is the only battle worth fighting for.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:09:41 2010 No.795141

>>795131
Atheists in the mold of Dawkins reject belief in the existence of God on the grounds of lack of evidence.

There is no evidence for a God; therefore, there is probably, although not provably, no God; therefore, it would be folly to believe in him; therefore, we reject belief in the existence of God

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:10:41 2010 No.795145 >>795139 Holy shit this is getting off topic quick

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:10:41 2010 No.795148 >>795110 It's human nature to think philosophically. Unfortunately, it's also human nature to not give a fuck about the guy next to you who's starving to death whilst you enjoy a seven-course meal.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:10:41 2010 No.795150

>>795131
Rejecting belief in the existence of deities is a different from rejecting the existence of deities.

More importantly: Dawkins does not deny the existence of God with certainty. That is a fact. Maybe you should start calling him agnostic, but he doesn't call himself that and neither does anyone else.

Arguing against the position "God certainly doesn't exist" is a strawman, because that's not what Dawkins (or many atheists in general) actually believe.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:10:41 2010 No.795151 File: 478 KB, 1000x1160, theism 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive, but Dawkins is an extremely strong atheist, which is kind of irritating.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:11:41 2010 No.795154 To be hip you have to be in the inverse of the current popular current. So yeah, its hip to hate on Dawkins atm because dayam, you so non-conformist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:11:41 2010 No.795156 There only needs to be four words in the atheism article on wiki and they are: - NOT A FUCKING DUMBASS -

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:12:41 2010 No.795157 >>795150 Yes. I am glad to see that we agree. >>795145 We're over a hundred posts in; this is startlingly on-topic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:13:41 2010 No.795160 >>795131 You're scaling down the definition of atheism to meet the needs of your argument. And you're citing Wikipedia. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. It doesn't necessarily mean the positive disbelief in deities, which is not logical.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:16:41 2010 No.795176

>>795154
I agree with Dawkins on just about every point - my only departure is that I'm happy to let people maintain their religious faith for my own entertainment.

Robe wearing, dead language speaking priests of the Vatican making insanely backward pronouncements, bald monks training in martial arts and the morning cry for prayer echoing across Istanbul.

Mag-fucking-nificent.
I'm not going to strive toward an atheistic world.
I'm having way too much fun.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:16:41 2010 No.795177 "tell me where the energy that created that photons that created mass came from." God, duh.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:17:41 2010 No.795183 Richard Dawkins is the reason I steer clear of atheism and abstain from any theological side.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:17:41 2010 No.795184

>>795151
Agnostic-atheism has to be the stupidest and most illogical thing I have ever heard. If you believe that there is the possibility of a God, then why not believe that there can be a God? By their logic, if there were some miraculous day when it was revealed that God was real, they still wouldn't believe it. If they died and went to some afterlife and saw God, they wouldn't believe it.

In short, the only real belief system that can actually be called logical, or at the least the most neutral or intellectual, is agnosticism. It's most likely impossible that there will ever be any empirical evidence proving the existence of a God. So why the hell would you praise the scientific method, but then say outright that you don't believe in a God?

tl;dr, it's all highly illogical.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:18:41 2010 No.795185 >>795176 See? How can you want to strip that beauty and insanity and magnificence from the world? I don't know how anyone would want to live in a perfectly rational world.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:18:41 2010 No.795188 How come we don't have many more brilliant professors like Dawkins?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:19:41 2010 No.795190 >>795184 agnostic has to do with what you think is knowable, theism/atheism is about belief. if a god was PROVEN that it would come out of the realm of belief.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:20:41 2010 No.795194

>>795184
It's not illogical at all, you moron

On the one hand, you acknowledge that the existence or non-existence of God is not knowable. It is uncertain. It is possible, although unlikely, that a God does exist. However, on whatever grounds, the person does not believe it is likely that God exists, and thus sees no reason to believe in the existence of God.

I mean, the difference in terms of behavior is

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:20:41 2010 No.795197

>>795185
I agree.
Of course, in a debate, I'm not going to pretend any of it is based on truth.

I'm quite selfishly happy to maintain others in what I believe to be delusions, because it entertains me.

It's a very cynical position.
Don't think I'm a romantic for a second.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:20:41 2010 No.795198 File: 19 KB, 400x300, 1276381262222.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>795160 >>795157 >>795156 >>795151 and >>795150 Are you guys saying, that by definition, "ATHEISM" does not necessarily deny the existence of a god?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:21:41 2010 No.795199 >>795198 YES

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:22:41 2010 No.795204 >>795198 Yes. It's a technicality, but yes.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:23:41 2010 No.795208

>>795177
People should just think about it. Even if they do discover the Higgs Boson, even if they do prove string theory, even if they do prove that the Big Bang created the universe as we know it, there is still no explanation for where all that came from. What created a Higgs Boson? What created the infinitely dense and small matter that became the universe via the Big Bang?

People say that it's illogical to believe in any sort of creator. I'm not supporting any religion or system of beliefs here, but I'm just saying, It's pretty evident that when given the choice between everything coming from nothing and the possibility that something - somehow - could have created everything, I'd chose the latter.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:23:41 2010 No.795210 File: 12 KB, 300x300, 1276639643612.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>795197 Oh you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:23:41 2010 No.795212 >>795198 Yep.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:23:41 2010 No.795213

>to find out whether
So he doesn't know and he simply wants to find out.

>Dawkins is pretty much the anti-Sagan
Bull shit, listen to any variety of his speeches and you'd know that this is simply not true.

>I was pretty much disillusioned when I found out that Bill Nye only believes in the material world and has no imagination.
>only believes in the material world
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA... omg you can't be serious. So not believing in superstitious nonsense = no imagination? That's rich.

etc. etc.
This entire thread is full of stupidity. /lit/ =/= /sci/

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:23:41 2010 No.795214

Technically, there's more "evidence" for there being a god of some kind than there is not.
It's just as far-fetched as, say, ... well, there isn't anything more absolute to compare this to than this, so, whatever.
ANYWAY.
Goes as such:
Universe is created by: uhhh... random science?
No, that makes no sense, universe is too consistently orderly for it to be random (look at the improbability of there to be another Earth-like life-self-sustaining planet (not needing scientific contraptions to sustain life on its own). Pretty freakin' massive odds against. (Read: Privileged Planet for more info)
Ah, so therefore universe is created by intelligent design (not necessarily God, though it is often seen this way).
Well, that makes no sense, who created God?
Both ridiculous from a modern scientific approach, only a god of some sort makes more sense because it explains the orderly nature of things and consistency of physical absolute laws.
Nyarr.
Point, Agnostics.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:24:41 2010 No.795215 File: 101 KB, 595x446, 1276713116221.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>795199 >>795204 In that case, I have been misinformed on what exactly the pillars of atheism are. That being said, I apologize for my assumptions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:25:41 2010 No.795217 >>795208 So then where did this god come from? Why not save yourself a step?

>>	Byron the Blub !xxlIBG6o9U Wed Jun 16 17:25:41 2010 No.795219 File: 51 KB, 233x350, badass.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>795210 I see a bad Moon rising.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:25:41 2010 No.795220 >>795214 agnostic theists or agnostic atheists?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:25:41 2010 No.795221 He sounds like a faggot.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:26:41 2010 No.795225

Why are we arguing over the definition of a word and not the philosophy behind it? We created these words to have specific meaning: one word to mean that you believed in something, one to mean that you didn't believe in something, and one to mean that you were somewhere in the middle. Now we have all these hyphenated things, and because of that, people are missing the point. Who cares if you're a "agnostic-atheist" or a "gnostic-theist" or any of that. Just say what you believe in and get on with it, because when you start to label things with these broad terms, it just turns into a huge argument.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:26:41 2010 No.795226 I didn't read this long ass thread, but I wanted to say that Dawkins is an ass.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:26:41 2010 No.795227 >>795214 I don't even want to try and start arguing with this post. Somebody do it for me. These such boring old questions.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:27:41 2010 No.795228

To say that agnosti-atheism is valid is to say that you can look at the stars and say "Those are all also stars. But, there's a chance that they are not, since we have not really proven they are also stars yet, so I choose to believe the lights in the sky are not stars."

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:29:41 2010 No.795233 >>795225 agnosticism isn't a middle ground between atheism and theism. unfortunately people are morons and need this explained to them when they start misusing the labels.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:29:41 2010 No.795234 Everyone knoes there are no stars. They're just the LEDs of Angels. Fail.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:30:41 2010 No.795239

>>795214
>there's more "evidence" for there being a god of some kind than there is not.
incorrect as the existence of this "god" is entirely reliant on it being outside of our universe and thus imperceptible and untestable.

>universe is too consistently orderly for it to be random (look at the improbability of there to be another Earth-like life-self-sustaining planet (not needing scientific contraptions to sustain life on its own). Pretty freakin' massive odds against. (Read: Privileged Planet for more info)
The universe is also consistently chaotic. None of this perceived order would exist without imperfection and randomness. Also the "massive odds" against a planet like ours forming with the conditions for life are anything but. Using the same probabilities, calculate all the planets orbiting stars and all the stars in a single galaxy. Hell we have 2 planets within our own solar system that are in that "mystical" goldy locks zone.

>Ah, so therefore universe is created by intelligent design (not necessarily God, though it is often seen this way).
>Well, that makes no sense, who created God?
>Both ridiculous from a modern scientific approach, only a god of some sort makes more sense because it explains the orderly nature of things and consistency of physical absolute laws.
No, that is bull shit. You can explain everything that exists sufficiently well or better with the absence of god. Again, the existence of a "god" would imply that it is not measurable and thus not material. Thus it is not scientific in any sense to say that it is the most logical. You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:31:41 2010 No.795241 >>794546 W ｗ w . a ｎＯＮ T ＡＬｋ . ＳＥ hgyyliue e bzoujlukhmami qwgixk

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:32:41 2010 No.795243

>>795219
That's my point. You could believe that "OK, one day, there was nothing, and then, somehow, there was something" or that "this something has just been there for infinity, before time was even created."

OR you could believe those things, with the addition that somehow, somewhere, somewhen, this something was created by something that is beyond human comprehension.

When it gets to this point, it's no longer science: it's philosophy. That being said, since it's really impossible to discern which of the above is true, I'm simply saying that the latter choice is the more logical one.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:32:41 2010 No.795244
File: 123 KB, 1024x768, 1276392959276.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Okay, there seems to be a HUGE misunderstanding here causing tension.

Most of you agnostics believe that Atheism means believing fully that there is not god. This is what I thought atheism meant as well.

HOWEVER
>>795160
>>795157
>>795156
>>795151
>>795150
>>795199
>>795204
These atheists are saying that atheism does not outright deny the existence of a God, therefor, they(atheists) believe in what you agnostics would call agnosticism, but what actually is atheism.

So......everyone on here really believes the same thing....except there is massive confusion of the definition and stances of these terms.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:33:41 2010 No.795248 >>795234 That's stupid. They're little holes in the dome that covers the world.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:33:41 2010 No.795249 >>795239 eyewitness accounts faggot, lrn2biblical truth

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:34:41 2010 No.795253 >>795249 confirmed for mouth diarrhea.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:35:41 2010 No.795258 >>795244 fucking FINALLY someone said it

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:35:41 2010 No.795259 >>795253 >Confirmed for troll Fixed

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:36:41 2010 No.795262

>>795243
So you say it's more logical that the universe was created by something more complex than the universe itself. This is entirely backwards, since observing our own universe reveals that complexity arises from simplicity. You're basically going with the blind watch maker argument which has been thoroughly reamed.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:36:41 2010 No.795266

"incorrect as the existence of this "god" is entirely reliant on it being outside of our universe and thus imperceptible and untestable."
Wrong. Lrn2define "god"

"The universe is also consistently chaotic. None of this perceived order would exist without imperfection and randomness. Also the "massive odds" against a planet like ours forming with the conditions for life are anything but. Using the same probabilities, calculate all the planets orbiting stars and all the stars in a single galaxy. Hell we have 2 planets within our own solar system that are in that "mystical" goldy locks zone."
Also wrong. There are no self-sustaining planets in regards to life as *we* know it in our system. Also, science is all about making sense of the "chaos" and turning it into order. Every piece of new information is sense-making oldly-percieved "chaos." In a truly chaotic state, there would not be enough consistency for the world we are living in now. At best, we would be living in an extremely existential world where the 4chan you know it only is existing for a fraction of a second and all your future/past is entirely made up for this very instant due to chaoticness.

"No, that is bull shit. You can explain everything that exists sufficiently well or better with the absence of god. Again, the existence of a "god" would imply that it is not measurable and thus not material. Thus it is not scientific in any sense to say that it is the most logical. You literally have no idea what you are talking about."
I just did explain. Sorry you fail to follow logic.
Re-read the term "far-fetched" before you fling about your anger issues. Hypotheti-pwned.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:38:41 2010 No.795275 >>795087 Not to put a wet blanket over your little temper tantrum.. But Dawkins is an Agnostic Atheist, which is widely regarded as the only logical conclusion to come to as a scientist.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:39:41 2010 No.795276

>>795244
Some people believe that there is, without a doubt, some God. Others believe that there might be a God, but they are uncertain. Still others believe that there could be a God, but they choose not to believe in one. And then more believe that there is, without any uncertainty, no God at all.

>>795233
Merriam-Webster dictionary definitions:
>Atheism: a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

>Agnosticism: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

>Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Well, there you have it. Of course, you're likely one of those people who can't even think about using any of these words without some qualification or some modifier like "agnostic-atheism" or "gnostic-theism." So, yes, in the purest meaning of the words, agnosticism is the middle ground between atheism and theism: it is the belief that there is the possibility that there is a God, yet there is also the possibility that there is not a God.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:39:41 2010 No.795279

>>795244
Gnostic theism: There IS a God! He touched me, man!
Agnostic theism: I have faith that there's a God, though I don't know for certain.
Agnosticism: LOL i dunno
Agnostic atheism: I don't know if there's a God or not, but there probably isn't.
Gnostic atheism: There is NO God! He never touched ME, man!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:39:41 2010 No.795281 >>795275 Really? I thought he was a strong atheist. He sure acts like one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:41:41 2010 No.795284 >>795262 But can you explain to me why all the matter and energy that has ever existed and will ever exist either sprung from nothing or has been in existence for infinity? And do you think that science will ever be able to empirically prove that?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:42:41 2010 No.795287 >>795281 He's a teeny-tiny step above agnostic atheist, in that he says that there "almost certainly" is no God, rather than "there probably isn't" a God.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:42:41 2010 No.795288 >>795284 >sprung from nothing no.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:42:41 2010 No.795289

>>795279

From an empirical standpoint these three

"Agnostic theism: I have faith that there's a God, though I don't know for certain.
Agnosticism: LOL i dunno
Agnostic atheism: I don't know if there's a God or not, but there probably isn't. "

ARE EXACTLY THE SAME

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:43:41 2010 No.795291

>>795275
As a scientist, it is one's duty to remain completely impartial until an empirical conclusion can be made. Agnostic-atheists, like Dawkins, choose to personally reject this and make their own assumptions on the universe before any empirical evidence can arise. Therefore, pure agnosticism is the only pure belief that a scientist can hold.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:43:41 2010 No.795292 >>795289 Sure, but personal belief counts for a lot in these classifications.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:43:41 2010 No.795294 Here's a question for all y'all: Is there a specific term for someone who wishes God existed, but fervently believes that he does not/

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:43:41 2010 No.795295

>>795244
>So......everyone on here really believes the same thing....except there is massive confusion of the definition and stances of these terms.

Yep. Agnostics and atheists all believe the exact same fucking thing, and spend all their time arguing with each other. The theists are having a great time of this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:45:41 2010 No.795298 >>795281 Have you actually listened to interviews with him or read any of his books? and not just listened to what people say he believes?

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:45:41 2010 No.795300

>>795266
>Wrong. Lrn2define "god"
so you basically have no argument?

>Also wrong. There are no self-sustaining planets in regards to life as *we* know it in our system. Also, science ... etc.
Again, you prove to everyone that you are ignorant. Why do you think anything that we percieve exists? Because there was randomness, imperfection, chaos at the moment of the big bang. This is what is required for accretion of matter to occur, ultimately resulting in the galaxies, planets, you and me, etc. If the big bang were perfectly orderly then all the Hydrogen atoms would have been evenly spaced out and gravity would have canceled, resulting in a thinly dispersed hydrogen 'cloud' universe. Also Mars is within our sun's goldy locks zone, the only reason why it doesn't support life (that we know of) now is because it is less massive than Earth and it's core has died, resulting in the dissipation of its magnetosphere, etc. Further, who is to say that this existential world you describe is not the world we are living in right now? You are extremely close minded.

>I just did explain. Sorry you fail to follow logic.
>Re-read the term "far-fetched" before you fling about your anger issues. Hypotheti-pwned.
Yes, and your silly explanation has been rebutted with extreme ease again and again. Further, what makes you so certain that a "god" had to have created the universe? An actual scientist would just as likely tell you that s/he doesn't know. Yet you claim to know because "hurf durf it's teh most logical". No, it is not the most logical and it's not something that you can prove through your flawed logic. There has never been any evidence to support your claim either. I would challenge you to find one, JUST ONE piece of evidence that contradicts my point.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:45:41 2010 No.795301

Reading a children's story about magical people and things isn't going to make a kid beleive in magic. I read Harry Potter when I was younger, I enjoyed the books. I don't beleive in magic. Harry Potter teaches kids basic morals, like good over evil, killing is wrong, work hard in school... These are all things that kids need to have as examples for themselves.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:46:41 2010 No.795302

>>795288
Alright, doctor, now that you've completely and empirically discredited that with such great evidence, go ahead and tell me why exactly it is comprehensible that something has been present for infinity, and then for some strange reason (and only a few billion years ago) decided to expand exponentially - and in just a few seconds - into everything that we know today.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:47:41 2010 No.795304 File: 21 KB, 389x322, 1276065608757.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>795301 OH! The topic! There is it!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:48:41 2010 No.795305 So for all you atheists, what's your opinion on Pascal's gambit?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:48:41 2010 No.795306 >>795284 I can't explain where reality came from, but neither can you or anyone else.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:48:41 2010 No.795308 >>795301 Harry's grades were bad, he was a jock and somehow became some sort of master evil fighter because he spent all his time overturning mysteries with his friends. This doesn't teach kids shit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:48:41 2010 No.795310 >>795295 WIN POST!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:49:41 2010 No.795313 >>795305 It's pretty dumb and fails to take in many different factors. And it's Pascal's Wager.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:50:41 2010 No.795314 >>795305 Belief without proof isn't belief, its fear-induced. "You'll go to hell if you don't believe in God" isn't an argument, it's a threat, and paschal is the same.

Byron the Blub !xxlIBG6o9U Wed Jun 16 17:50:41 2010 No.795316

>>795305
Unfortunately, I agree with Dawkins' outlook on this - you can't ''force'' yourself to actually truly believe something, and surely an all-powerful god would who requires belief wouldn't be content with you just simply going through the motions?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:51:41 2010 No.795320 >>795314 Not to entirely discredit your point, but i think you misspoke on your first sentence. Belief without proof or evidence is still belief, but I would just call it faith. doesn't mean it can't be fear induced, which most, if not all of it is.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:51:41 2010 No.795321

>>795301
Exactly. And not to stir up another argument, but this is one of the main pros that people bring up when discussing the Bible and other religious texts. However, frankly speaking, Richard Dawkins is a dick. I know tons of atheists who are kind and don't force their opinions on others. Dawkins, however, does just that, and words his speeches and writing with such language that he makes people of other beliefs seem like morons. Whatever your personal opinions are on people and religions, unless you're a psychopath or sociopath, it goes without saying that when no one is being hurt because of a set of beliefs, it's wrong to discredit and hurt a person based on those beliefs. You can say what you want about churches robbing people of their money and controlling the world and starting wars and whatnot, but in the end, you can't persecute the people who believe in these things, because they genuinely do, and have no intent of robbing people or starting wars.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:53:41 2010 No.795325 >>795313 Also called Pascal's Gambit.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:53:41 2010 No.795326

>>795321
So we should just allow this irrationality to continue? I'm sorry that your such an apologist for irrational thinking but if you understand some of Dawkins' main points about why he goes through such discourse then it makes perfect sense. That is; why is Religion and belief afforded such special privileges as to be above criticism?

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:53:41 2010 No.795327
File: 14 KB, 500x456, final1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>795291
Look, the stance of an Atheist Agnostic, also known as a weak Atheist, is thus:

We can't know whether there is a god (Any god, let me stress that again ANY GOD, not just a monotheistic god, Christianity, Judaism, ect..) or not. You can't prove god's existence and you can't prove his non-existence (this is the agnostic part). So logically, they choose not to believe in god (the atheist part).

I do agree that Gnostic Atheists are just as bad as Gnostic Theists (kind of a redundant term) but life would be a lot easier if people took the time to understand the actual stance of Agnostic Atheism before calling it a "religion" or any such term or phrase.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:55:41 2010 No.795331 dawkins gives science a bad name he should stay away from children so they don't associate his dickishness with scientist in general

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:56:41 2010 No.795334

>>795326
It's not. Religious fundamentalism is wrong, too. People who force their beliefs on others, whether they be religion or atheism, are immoral and should be criticized. Being a man of science and someone who emphatically preaches what he believes, it should be above Dawkins to stoop to the level of hatred toward others that religious fundamentalists do.

In short, just because I don't believe in something doesn't mean that I have to be a dick to those that do.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 17:59:41 2010 No.795340 I will buy this book for my child.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:00:41 2010 No.795341 >>795321 You should watch the Intelligence Squared debates on whether the Catholic Church does harm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL5WVecNdhk I can't find the uncut debate, which is much. much better. I'll keep looking though.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:00:41 2010 No.795342

>>795334
What about his arguments is hateful? Impassioned maybe, but not hateful. I'm beginning to doubt whether or not you've actually watched any of his debates or read any of his books.

Further it gets away from the original point. Why should any belief be above criticism? Just because they aren't hurting anyone doesn't mean their belief is any less valid. Maybe people just need to stop being little children when it comes to "hurting peoples feelings" over silly beliefs. You are wrong, your belief is wrong, get over it.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:01:41 2010 No.795343

It should not be anyone's duty or responsibility to indoctrinate a child in any way whatsoever. A parent should be responsible enough to understand how flexible the mind of a child is, and allow the child to have a full understanding of every idea and belief system, allowing them to make a decision as to what to believe. Unfortunately, most parents do not allow for this, indoctrinating their child to one end of the spectrum or the other.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:01:41 2010 No.795344 >>795341 Pretty sure that the uncut version is on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kuzYwzGoXw&feature=related Not sure if this is it, but its the whole thing broken into 5 parts.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:01:41 2010 No.795346 >>795342 Very well said.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:04:41 2010 No.795350 >>794547 yup, he doesnt have a hard on against christianity at all. also, dont we a,llready have the golden compass

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:05:41 2010 No.795351

>>795342
Talk about an attempt at ad hominem...
And because of that, I now understand where you're coming from. By saying that "your belief is wrong," you've illustrated my idea that atheists can be just as indoctrinating as those of any other system of beliefs. I never said that one belief is above criticism; indeed, I said the very opposite (maybe you should actually read my post). My argument is that people should stop saying things like the beliefs of others are "silly." Not only is this detrimental to society, but it's the exact same thinking that fueled the Nazis and Communists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:05:41 2010 No.795353 Richard Dawkins is like what Carl Sagan would have been if he was a massive self-congratulatory cunt.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:07:41 2010 No.795356

>>795344
>>795341
The argument wasn't whether or not a church as an institution is malevolent; that, as illustrated, might be easily seen. However, you can't simply take this stereotype and apply it to every person who subscribes to a certain religion or church. It's like calling every German who served in WWII a Nazi: it's easy to make the connection, but it's simply not true.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:07:41 2010 No.795358 >795351 >Nazis and Communists Don't forget the Inquisition, the Witch Burnings, The Crusades, and the Gaza debacle.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:07:41 2010 No.795359 300 pages of normal child life with every thing explained away through reason and science. most BORING BOOK EVER.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:08:41 2010 No.795360 >>795353 I wonder if Dawkins smokes weed

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:08:41 2010 No.795361 >I don't know what to think about magic and fairy tales. >comparing fantasy to fairy tales facepalm.jpg There's so much wrong with this, and I had a longer post, but 4chan keeps telling me part of it can't be posted. What the fuck, moot?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:08:41 2010 No.795363 Maybe we should steer a little closer on target: why or why not indoctrination in the form of children's literature, wherever it comes from, is both immoral and detrimental to society as a whole.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:09:41 2010 No.795365 just put the children in those maximum security prisons and be done with it. they get their food and water and nobody has to worry that evil old group "X" will tell them things that you don't want them to hear.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:09:41 2010 No.795368 >>795360 Every day. >>795361 It's the double dash you're trying to copy paste.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:09:41 2010 No.795369

>>795351
There was no ad hominem in my argument. And I wasn't arguing that you specifically are wrong, I was speaking theists in general, and I apologize, I should have worded it differently perhaps. And yes, you were basically saying that some beliefs should be "left alone" essentially, which is to say that we shouldn't criticize it because they haven't done anything wrong. Again, it doesn't make their belief any more right. Also... nazis? communists? come on now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:10:41 2010 No.795370 >>795365 That's exactly what religious parents do. Some think that it's not right.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:10:41 2010 No.795371

>>795358
...yes, exactly, that's what I've been saying for my entire argument. No matter which end of the spectrum you come from, persecution like this - whether it be from atheists or religionists - is wrong.

I think you take me for a supporter of religion: I'm not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:11:41 2010 No.795374 how does one "force beliefs on someone"

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:11:41 2010 No.795375 >>795359 Could be fascinating. "You think you're just brushing your teeth, but on a microscopic level you are purifying a near ecosystem of bacteria that evolved over billions of years to match your body."

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:12:41 2010 No.795379 >>795360 I doubt it, he's far too uptight.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:12:41 2010 No.795381

>>795369
Well then if you read my argument as that, I must have also worded it a bit wrong, as I certainly don't believe that any system if beliefs is above criticism. However, the Nazis scapegoated the Jews and persecuted them based on their beliefs; and Marx said that religion was "the opiate of the masses."

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:13:41 2010 No.795383 >>795370 it's what people in general do. of course it's still fun to try and pin shit on a group you don't like

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:13:41 2010 No.795384 >>795374 Have you ever met a kid?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:14:41 2010 No.795387 >>795374 Accept Jesus as the one and only saviour into your heart and soul or you will spend eternity in ever-lasting fire. Tell that to a child and what do you think he'll do?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:14:41 2010 No.795392 richard dakwons is a nazi

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:15:41 2010 No.795397

>>795374
you dont shut up about it, wont leave them alone about it, constantly tell them your opinions>their opinions, etc.
>>795370
not just religious parents. all parents indoctrinate their children into some form of belife- whether that be god made everything, evolution created everything, great weed spirit smoked everyone into being, etc.

also, a book would not be a book without showing of the authors true thoughts and morals. sometimes this is even more apparent when a author doesnt outright SAY what they belive and it just seeps through in their writing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:16:41 2010 No.795400 >>795384 >>795387 Also, Mommy and Daddy believe it, so it must be right. And then, having grown up with it, they have trouble accepting it's wrong because it's become a pillar of their life.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:17:41 2010 No.795405 >whether that be god made everything, evolution created everything, great weed spirit smoked everyone into being, etc. The crucial detail being that one of those is demonstrably true, while the others are not.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:17:41 2010 No.795407 [SPOILER]

File: 287 KB, 405x412, 1276721679835.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>795374
tell them that life is worthless and morals are man made because we are just evolved homosapien like creatures.
do whatever, fuck whatever, whatever, because their is no higher power to make you do good. it doesnt matter.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:18:41 2010 No.795408

my parents never said a single thing about religion, in fact they would even resist answering when i asked about their beliefs until i was a teenager or so.
they encouraged me to read and learn, i guess you could call that anti-religious.
just cause you have douchey parents doesn't mean we all did.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:19:41 2010 No.795413

>>795381
Comparing Nazi's to modern, western atheists is a bit misguided if you ask me. For one, Hitler was a Catholic. Two, they didn't kill Jews in the name of Atheism or unbelief. Neither did the Soviets, which as a nation was largely atheistic. Nor did Mao. Also you misrepresent Marx when you imply that he persecutes religious belief by quoting his "opiate of the masses" excerpt.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:19:41 2010 No.795414 >>795405 opinions gonna opinionate. see what im getting at?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:20:41 2010 No.795417 >>795414 No. Are you saying facts are the same as opinions?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:21:41 2010 No.795418 >>795139 >the replacing of them learn to write, retard.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:21:41 2010 No.795422

inb4hate

Im a Christian (inb4 LOL UR ON 4CHAN..i stick to the blue boards) but my family is not.

my mother was/is, but she didnt realy push it. everyone else is aethiest/agnostic. I decided for myself...and, considering all the evolution/religion is bad yo/ books i read (thanks aunts, uncles, dad! great c-mas presents!) its hard to belive i ended up NOT being aethiest.

life is weird.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:21:41 2010 No.795423

>>795413
I wasn't comparing any of those to atheism. I was saying that that's what happens when anyone with any belief discriminates against anyone with a different belief. Whether or not Hitler was a practicing Catholic is irrelevant, although it may very well be true that he believed in what he did because of his religion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:23:41 2010 No.795424 >>795422 you make it sound like you don't 'believe' in evolution... you somehow went from agnostic upbringing to evangelic nut? you better just be trying to fit in at school or something.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:23:41 2010 No.795425 >>795417 >the world is flat >the core of earth is magma >humans cant break the sound barrier no, but i am saying not to blindly trust 'fact'. 'know everything- believe nothing'

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:23:41 2010 No.795426

haha what an uptight dick

what's next dawkins? you gonna get a sex change and become a full fledged soccer mom?

you gonna lop off one finger on each hand and scream "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" at townhall meetings?

leave them kids alone dawkins. You're both better off that way

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:24:41 2010 No.795432 File: 248 KB, 451x352, reaction_coffee.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>795425 That's completely irrelevant to your previous argument, though. Complete imbecile or elaborate but crappy troll?

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:25:41 2010 No.795438

>>795407
The difference between your post and my post>>795387 is that mine is actually what Christians and the Bible teach, and yours is ridiculous, ignorantly derived opinion of what evolution teaches.

Also, why do we need a reason for life handed down to us from some higher power? Are we that pathetic of beings that we can't give reason to life on our own accord through art, music, literature?

Also, morals come from society; there is no absolute moral system.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:25:41 2010 No.795439 >>795422 >Im a Christian No you aren't. Stop lying on the internet to get some attention.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:25:41 2010 No.795440

>>795424
I am in a secular college.

Also, I dont. At least not on the scale most do (as in species to species evolution- microevolution and natural selection are quite different)
however, Im not going to go into it with the internet- or anyone, acctually- as their is no real purpose because no one is every satisfied at the end of such debates.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:26:41 2010 No.795446 >>795438 >didnt click on the picture to see the trollface.jpg FAGGIT

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:27:41 2010 No.795447 >>795432 what I meant obv. was that just because we think something is true now, doesnt necassarly make it so in the long run.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:27:41 2010 No.795448 >>795440 -sigh- Why do trolls find it necessary to include spelling and grammar errors in their posts?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:28:41 2010 No.795453 Test .1948531944

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:28:41 2010 No.795454 now harry potter has atheist on his ass too? damn that kid can't catch a break.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:28:41 2010 No.795455 Test ..1853492858

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:28:41 2010 No.795456 >>795448 Obviously they're afraid that the false stupidity will not "get" you, so they hedge their bet by trying to bait the grammar Nazis.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:28:41 2010 No.795458 Test ...507717905

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:28:41 2010 No.795460 Test ....413543984

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:29:41 2010 No.795461 Test .....1307811927

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:29:41 2010 No.795462 Test ......298684097

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:29:41 2010 No.795464

>>795440
>Also, I dont. At least not on the scale most do (as in species to species evolution- microevolution and natural selection are quite different)

You are demonstrably incorrect. I have nothing but contempt for you and opinions. I don't hope you die, but I wouldn't say no to a broken leg.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:29:41 2010 No.795465 Test .1603541569

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:30:41 2010 No.795469

>>795448
why do people assume they are being trolled?

why cant we all agree that some people suck/dont care/etc about grammar or spelling on the internet?
why is this allways the last fall back for those who cant make an argument? LOL U CANT SPELL U MUST B A TROLL is a great argument i suppose?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:31:41 2010 No.795472 >>795464 just because your opinion differs than mine, I wont hate you. i wish you nothing but happiness in life.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:32:41 2010 No.795473

>LOL U CANT SPELL U MUST B A TROLL is a great argument i suppose?

That wasn't what he said. But you knew that. That's why you're a troll. A troll that's not succeeding, because you fucking suck at it.

You need to balance reason with stupidity in your posts, you can't go full retard. Never go full retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:33:41 2010 No.795476 >>795472 It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of you deliberately overlooking facts and me not doing that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:33:41 2010 No.795477 >>795472 pious faggot. >look at me I'm so righteous and holiez!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:33:41 2010 No.795478 >>795476 here we go. . .

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:33:41 2010 No.795479 >>795469 because it is a sign of a lower education, and i don't want to have to deal with such people in my hours of leisure.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:36:41 2010 No.795485 >>795476 and in my OPINION you have done the same thing. everyone picks and chooses what they do and do not see. but, as you wont be convinced, why bother trying? >>795473 again, critiqueing the mechanics instead of the response. great job on a rebutal.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:37:41 2010 No.795493 >>795477 look at >>795479 if anything, im not the one thinking im better than everyone else. that would be those hating for no apparent reason other than my beliefe differs from their own's job.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:38:41 2010 No.795494 >>795479 >sign of a lower education >i don't want to have to deal with such people in my hours of leisure. >Spends his hours of leisure on 4chan, an anonymous message board accessible to anyone with an internet connection.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:39:41 2010 No.795496 >>795485 >and in my OPINION you have done the same thing What? What fact have I overlooked? Here's a metric fuckton of evidence that clearly demonstrates that your beliefs contradict known facts: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:40:41 2010 No.795500 >>795496 a crap ton, but, again, it wont matter to point them out on an anonymous message board as it would make no difference. also, i have that site bookmarked allready hahaha

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:41:41 2010 No.795505 ITT: Subhumans talking about a superior.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:41:41 2010 No.795506
File: 43 KB, 400x295, darwin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>795472
Don't pretend to be superior. You are willfully ignorant, nothing more. The amount of crushing denial required to maintain every facet of your worldview beggars belief, even a cursory examination of the evidence would bring any intelligent person to see your perspective as utterly ridiculous.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:42:41 2010 No.795508 File: 99 KB, 400x400, jesus_thumbsup.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Sure is /lit/erature in here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:43:41 2010 No.795512 you heard it here first folks. dawkins wants to destroy the imaginations of your children and turn humanity into a bland, borg-like race that advances across the galaxy dead inside and unable to appreciate its wonders.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:45:41 2010 No.795518 File: 121 KB, 378x512, trolled_hard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>795512

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:45:41 2010 No.795519

good news everyone! you just proved the point i set out to prove!

aethiests LOVE shoving how much more right they are about things down others throats, even when the opposite end constantly trys to say 'it wont matter/drop it'

thanks for proving you are ALL FAGGOTS

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:47:41 2010 No.795522 >>795518 what?! you never noticed how much dawkins sounds like a little fellow who goes by the name of AGENT SMITH

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:47:41 2010 No.795524 >>795519 Religious people try to shut down debate because they never win. They dress up this cowardice as moral superiority.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:49:41 2010 No.795528 >>795524 are you retarded? youve obviously been trolled hard and yet are still being trolled. fucking hell yall' stupider than a young earth creationist.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:49:41 2010 No.795532

>>795512

>Borg-like race

Fucking robot legs n' shit? Sign me up.

Seriously though, why even give this guy the time of day, he is just some faggot that likes saying and doing controversial shit for the attention it brings. He is literally a living troll who, after proving he was shit as a scientist, decided that notoriety was more important than furthering education and know he just trolls the shit out folks for a living.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:51:41 2010 No.795535
File: 52 KB, 469x428, 125945275933.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>795524
>Religious people try to shut down debate because they never win

so your agreeing that religious (RE: christianity) trys to stick to itself, and end debating, while evolutionists just try to shove it down others throats and wont stop even when asked?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:53:41 2010 No.795541 you know why they call him Richard Dawkins? cause he never knows what he's dawkin about

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:55:41 2010 No.795544

>as in species to species evolution- microevolution and natural selection are quite different
If you accept that microevolution occurs then you must realize that the very mechanisms that allow for microevolution are THE VERY SAME as those that allow for macroevolution. The only difference between "micro" and "macro" is TIME SCALE. Unless you actually believe that the Earth isn't over 4 billion years old then you are just being ignorant.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:56:41 2010 No.795554 >>795544 dude, it was a troll, look up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:58:41 2010 No.795561 >>795541 That's a keeper.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 18:59:41 2010 No.795563 >>795544 Even with a long time scale, I refuse to believe that humans can evolve into plants. Sorry.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:00:41 2010 No.795565

>>795544

While not the person you are talking to, I would find the theory of evolution on a large scale far more believeable if, after years of digging and shit, we might have actually found a shit load of preserved animals that were obviously the transitional animals between ancient creatures and current ones. We have some that kind of look like they fit the bill, but I personally need glaringly obvious ones.

Call me picky, but I like 100% proof before I accept scientific ideas. I can give almost anything else some leeway, but I don't budge a fucking inch on science BECAUSE YOU AREN'T SUPPOSED TO.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:01:41 2010 No.795572 >>795565 >100% proof >science

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:02:41 2010 No.795575

>>795565
every organism existing right now is a "transitional species" to the next step in the evolutionary ladder.

fossilization is a rare occurrence and we're lucky to have what we found; there are other evidence for natural selection other than the fossil record

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:04:41 2010 No.795586 >>795575 >Claiming mankind is in a transitional phase of evolution >Have been unchanged for at least 12,000 years HERP DERP

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:04:41 2010 No.795589 >>795575 except you have no proof to back your claims. this is why astronomers laugh at evolutionists: you claim to be science but dont back your claims by any sound proofs. >also, sure is /sci/ in here

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:05:41 2010 No.795590 i turned my back on science the day it killed my father and never looked back.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:06:41 2010 No.795596 >>795565 Macroevolution AKA speciation has been observed many times, not in fossils but in living species. lrn2google

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:06:41 2010 No.795600

>>795586
>Have been unchanged for at least 12,000 years
crocodiles have remain unchanged for millions of years but that doesn't environmental pressures don't work on them

>>795589
>except you have no proof to back your claims.
you have no proof that i don't have proof to back my claims retard

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:06:41 2010 No.795601

>>795575
then why are humans exactly the same?

and dont give me shit about our pancreas and tail bone being vestigal organs- you know damn well they serve a perpose in 90% of people, and the 10% they dont have medical issues.

also, the wisdom teeth thing doesnt count either. everyone in my family has them and none have needed them pulled. pretty sure the 'LOL WISDOM TEETH ARE BAD' is just a crack pot way for dentists to make money.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:07:41 2010 No.795607 >>795601 ...Are you trolling?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:07:41 2010 No.795608 >>795600 >crocodiles have remain unchanged for millions of years but that doesn't environmental pressures don't work on them >doesnt environmental wat.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:07:41 2010 No.795609 >>795590 Oh wow. . .what happened?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:08:41 2010 No.795611 File: 8 KB, 236x252, 1276317928515.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] holy fucking fuck, are you guys really falling prey to this obvious troll?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:08:41 2010 No.795612 >>795607 no. the tail bone connects many muscles, the pancreas does a shit ton of things, and my wisdom teeth are golden. whats their to be A TROLLIN about?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:09:41 2010 No.795617 >>795596 No it doesn't.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:09:41 2010 No.795618

>>795601
>humans exactly the same
have you looked around you? each person is a unique collection of genes that will never again share the same body ever

>and dont give me shit about our pancreas and tail bone being vestigal organs
pancreas are not vestigial, they produce insulin and the tail bone is used for sitting. an example of a vestigial organ is the appendix

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:11:41 2010 No.795626

>>795609

Massive lab accident. He was dead for his beaker hit the ground. Do you know what it's like for a 5 year old kid to wait for his daddy to come home by the window and never see him? Do you know what it's like for a 5 year old kid to have a cop break it to him that no, his dad will not have superpowers?

Science is dead to me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:11:41 2010 No.795628 >>795611 >implying it's not trolls all the way down COUNTER SAGE

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:11:41 2010 No.795629 >>795618 People are unique in the same way a litter of Jack Russel terriers have different markings and some of the puppies are dominate or more playful. We aren't different at all in the long run.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:12:41 2010 No.795631

>>795596

>Macroevolution AKA speciation has been observed many times, not in fossils but in living species. lrn2google

Macroevolution is a type of fish becoming a type of bird to give an example. We are talking drastic transformations.

Speciation is micro.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:12:41 2010 No.795633 >>795626 shit bro, I didn't know you had it like that. I'm sorry

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:13:41 2010 No.795637 >>795633 No need to apologize dear friend. My beef is with science, not with you.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:13:41 2010 No.795640

>>795618
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-appendix-does-have-a-use
--rebooting-the-gut-396277.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm

>kinda like how 99% of our genes are 'useless code' AM I RIGHT?

also, yeah, i see people all around. and, well, if i built a time machine and went back a few thousand years..or more...i would still be able to breed and make babies with humans from back then.
so, we are the same species. for at least 10000 years.
no evolution.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:14:41 2010 No.795642

>>795629
interesting that you used the dog as an example
did you know that all breeds of domestic dogs today are all descendants of the wolf (canis lupus)?

this is one example of artificial selection done by humans for practical purposes, now imagine nature doing the selecting stretched out for millions and millions of years

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:14:41 2010 No.795644 >>795631 this itts liek comparing a backyeard stream to the river rapids of the grand canyon.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:15:41 2010 No.795647 >>795642 its intresting that you think that is evolution, as wolfs and dogs can still breed, so they are tech the same species. this is not evolution, this is just >un natural selection

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:16:41 2010 No.795648 >>795640 >for at least 10000 years. haha checkmate troll go back at least 200000 years and see if you can breed with that ape ancestor

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:17:41 2010 No.795649

>>795565

Except you're demanding a very specific form of organism from a pool of evidence that is a very poor representation of biological diversity throughout the past considering the likelihood of any organism able to leave a traceable mark via fossilization that can survive millions of years of global, continental, and local climatical and geological upheavals.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:17:41 2010 No.795651 >>795648 challenge accepted

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:19:41 2010 No.795658

>795647
then you now have in front of you of a living breathing transitional species

speciation won't happen unless there's a strong enough catalyst like geographical selection that will give the two gene pools time to develop enough mutations until they become so different from one another to make reproduction between the two impossible

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:19:41 2010 No.795660 >>795648 even better then- we havnt evolved in over 200000 years. thanks for proving my point further.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:20:41 2010 No.795663 This is what Dawkins all about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oZ5G9yIqyo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WFqjS6Imn0 Thread would have been shorter if I'd have posted it earlier.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:21:41 2010 No.795665 >>795660 homo sapiens wasn't around 200 000 years ago

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:21:41 2010 No.795666

>>795658
except many forms of wolves and dogs were seperated for thousands of years in the americas yet were still able to breed with the european breeds when brought over.

its not transitional at all. its like saying a midget and shaq are on the verge of breeding into seperate species.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:22:41 2010 No.795669 >>795665 neandrathal (or however you spell that) have been shown tohave mated with homohomosapien. so i see no issue.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:24:41 2010 No.795674

Every living thing ever discovered, both extant and extinct, fits perfectly in every respect (genetically, chronologically, morphologically, geographically, ect) into exactly into a 'family tree' consistent in every respect with what would expect if they had evolved over billions of years from a common ancestor.

Of course, the creationist worldivew is totally at odds with reality in more ways than I can count. The easiest way to demonstrate how ridiculous they are is to get them to state their alternative - what they believe happened instead of evolution. It quickly becomes obvious that the history of the Earth cannot make sense unless species evolved.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:24:41 2010 No.795676 >>795666 >thousands of years that's too short a time, evolutionary time spans millions of years

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:28:41 2010 No.795690

>>795674
>everything makes sense
>huge ass gaps in the family tree, species put into place not based on time scale but on what looks correct, grand canyon missing layers that span 'million of years', dating systems flawed

uh-huh.

>>795676
we know this isnt true, as in Britain their are those breeding foxes to be more tame, and they are allready in able to breed with wildfoxes after onyl about 10 generations (100 years or so) of human-selection breeding.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:29:41 2010 No.795696 Dawkins is a chode.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:39:41 2010 No.795747

>>795690
>huge ass gaps in the family tree

We have thousands of fossils, but fossilization requires very specific conditions and it would be ridiculous to expect to find the entire history of Earth neatly laid out for our benefit. Those fossils we have provide the most visually compelling evidence for evolution, but even without the fossils we can piece together a very clear picture of evolutionary lineage on the basis of extant species alone.

>species put into place not based on time scale but on what looks correct

Come back when you find fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.

>grand canyon missing layers that span 'million of years', dating systems flawed

Specifics or fuck off. I doubt you even understand the dating systems scientists use.

Anonymous Wed Jun 16 19:51:41 2010 No.795795

>>795690
>human-selection breedings

that example has to be taken into the context of said foxes living in an selective environment that is in no way representative of the selective environments that most of the earth's biodiversity arose out of.

You can force the rapid exaggeration of traits but most selective environments are not subject to human control for a single trait but instead select for the ability of a body to survive within the probability sphere of an environment which could invoke any number of traits that might compete against each other in both the gene pool and the physio-social-psycho morphology of the organism.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]