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

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 111 KB, 800x789, richard-dawkins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1399150 No.1399150 [Reply] [Original]

What do you think of Richard Dawkins?

Is he your queen, sci?

>> No.1399157

Btw, I'm from /lit/. We hate him over there. But I'm wondering about how you guys feel.

>> No.1399161

I love him

inb4 haters

>> No.1399172

Not really up to date on his biology.

His philosophy is okay, but I don't like his pretentiousness as much as I like Hitchen's callousness or Harris' rigor.

>> No.1399176

I think he's a pretty cool guy.

>> No.1399177

>>1399161
Not hating, but can you elaborate?

>> No.1399181

His books are faggotry. I pick one up to learn about evolution and instead get a rant about how religion is bad.

>> No.1399185

>>1399172

whoever call dawkins an arrogant doesn't actually know him

>> No.1399186

Personally I think he's a pretty cool guy.

Why do you hate him, /lit/?

>> No.1399192

>>1399186

godfags

>> No.1399198

His mentality gives atheism a bad name. Arrogance and cheap insults are not an efficient nor effective way of spreading knowledge. You support a rational idea with irrational thinking.

The overall attitude towards him on /sci/ is varied and most threads about him turn into a controversial shitstorm.

>> No.1399201

>>1399198

You cannot support* rather. Sorry

>> No.1399204
File: 9 KB, 280x210, hurrreally?.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1399204

That's funny, I thought he was only for pseudo intellectuals.
/thread

>> No.1399209

>>1399176
GET OFF THIS BOARD YOU FLAMING MORON

>> No.1399217

4chan is full of godfags(virgin hypocrites) and that's why so many hater here

>> No.1399226

>>1399185
>an arrogant
Since when arrogant a noun?

>> No.1399230
File: 21 KB, 261x389, 1278222333805.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1399230

>>1399209

>Says Richard Dawkins is a pretty OK guy

>Gets called a flaming moron.

Oh the irony.

>> No.1399247

>>1399198

His 'mentality' is creating an environment that is making it more acceptable for non-believers to come out in the more religious countries of the world (atheism is growing faster than any religion in america)

The softly softly approach simply doesn't work with deluded theists, it does have its place in certain situations, but for creating a society that is based on evidence and reason isn't one of them.

>> No.1399253

>>1399230
its not what you say, its who you are. Your a despicable cretin. Yea, I read your bullshit in the other thread. You should be ashamed of yourself for being reduced to emotional whining.

>> No.1399267

>>1399176
eh fights religious fanatics and doesn't afraid of anything

>> No.1399269

>>1399230
do you have a boner for captain america or something?

>> No.1399277

>>1399247

Most of the time though, that stuff just starts huge arguments which cause more problems than it ultimately solves. Although your statement is valid on the other hand that it does convince atheists that if this guy has the balls to say fuck off to religion, then they could outright admit they are atheists in areas where it's frowned upon or worse.

>> No.1399288

I really don't understand how people get so butthurt about him.

Trawl all of his books, all of his interviews, all of his talks and presentations, and you won't find a hint of the personality people seem to hate him for, even with the completely deluded morons (wendy wright) he's still perfectly kind and polite.

If people getting upset over him presenting evidence that disproves their fairy tales is enough for ad hominem attacks, then they're not credible

>> No.1399293

I like his biology stuff.

He sounds like an idiot when he tries to talk about god and philosophy, though.

>> No.1399320

While there are people who keep saying that the softly softly method should be used, I am thinking that the direct method that Richard uses is a necessity. People don't always listen to softly softly. A drilled in from childhood view needs a direct hit for some people to even notice. Nobody would get upset enough to take notice if the boat doesn't rock sometimes. How easy is it to stay in bed when the boat is nice and smooth? When your religion is working just fine because nothing is happening and you haven't been lucky enough to have any oopses, there's no need to use your brain. People hear Richard's method. They don't forget it. Even if they get mad they remember it. Maybe that's what it takes for some people to start thinking. Won't get 'em all, but every one helps. My thinking is that those who are irretrievably mad about it, those for whom this method convinces them they are right, were always irretrievable. I don't think its the directness they really dislike. The claims of Richard as strident I think are an indicator of just how entrenched the religious nonthinking faith goes. But I don't really want to think of any of them as irretrievable. If its the direct method that gets them thinking, there's hope.

>> No.1399323

>>1399269
>>1399253

I can smell the irrational butthurt.

>> No.1399344

Dawkins is an uncompromising espouser of truth, evidence and logic.

It just so happens that when those three things are targeted at peoples deeply held delusions, they have a fit of rage.

>> No.1399368
File: 24 KB, 195x395, annoyed snake.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1399368

>my face when /sci/ likes Dawkins for his philosophical drivel and not for his contributions to biology.

>> No.1399372

>>1399368
>mfw you don't realize there aren't any scientists here, just science fans

>> No.1399375
File: 62 KB, 468x425, 1277745602963.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1399375

>>1399320

>> No.1399391

>>1399368

What contributions?

Genic natural selection? He didn't come up with that idea.

Memes? He didn't come up with those either.

>> No.1399403

>>1399391

genecentric view

>> No.1399408

>>1399403
>>1399391

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution

>> No.1399413

>>1399403

Too bad that was thought up in 1966 by George Williams.

All Dawkins did was write a book popularizing the idea.

He didn't work up the theoretical biology behind it.

>> No.1399424

>>1399413

Yeah, a lot of people really do see him as a spokes person rather than a nobel prize winner.

>> No.1399428

>>1399408
And now it's outshined by his lame god shit.

It's like if Bruce Willis' singing had really taken off and everyone forgot that he's supposed to be a fucking actor.

>> No.1399431

>>1399413
>implying thinking of an idea first is the same as proving the theory and fully understanding and elaborating on it

>> No.1399435

Academic papers
[edit] 1960s

Dawkins, R. (1968). "The ontogeny of a pecking preference in domestic chicks". Z Tierpsychol 25 (2): 170–86. PMID 5684149.
Dawkins, R. (1969). "Bees Are Easily Distracted". Science 165 (3895): 751. doi:10.1126/science.165.3895.751. PMID 17742255.

[edit] 1970s

Dawkins, R. (1976). "Growing points in ethology". in Bateson, P.P.G. and Hinde, R.A.. Hierarchical organization: A candidate principle for ethology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dawkins, R.; Carlisle, T.R. (1976). "Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy". Nature (London: Nature Publishing Group) 262: 131–133. doi:10.1038/262131a0.
Treisman, M.; Dawkins, R. (1976). "The “cost of meiosis”: is there any?". Journal of Theoretical Biology (London: Academic Press) 63 (2): 479–484. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(76)90047-3. PMID 1011857.
Dawkins, R. (1976). "Universal Darwinism". in Bendall, D.S.. Evolution from Molecules to Men. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 403–425.
Dawkins R (1978). "Replicator selection and the extended phenotype". Z Tierpsychol 47 (1): 61–76. PMID 696023.
Dawkins, R.; Krebs, J.R. (1978). "Animal signals: information or manipulation". Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp. 282–309.
Dawkins, R. (1979) "Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection". Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 51, 184-200.
Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1979). "Arms races between and within species". Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 205 (1161): 489–511. doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0081. PMID 42057.
Brockmann, H.J.; Dawkins, R.; Grafen A. (1979). "Joint nesting in a digger wasp as an evolutionarily stable preadaptation to social life". Behaviour (London: Academic Press) 71: 203–244. doi:10.1163/156853979X00179.

>> No.1399439

He's an attention whore evolutionary biologist. Fuck him, we admire physicists.

>> No.1399443

Dawkins, Richard; Brockmann, H.J., Grafen, A. (1979). "Evolutionarily stable nesting strategy in a digger wasp". Journal of Theoretical Biology 77 (4): 473–496. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(79)90021-3. PMID 491692.

[edit] 1980s

Dawkins, R. (1980). "Good strategy or evolutionarily stable strategy". in Barlow, G.W. and Silverberg, J.. Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture?. Colorado: Westview Press. pp. 331–337. ISBN 0-89-158960-0.
Dawkins, Richard; Brockmann, H.J. (1980). "Do digger wasps commit the concorde fallacy?". Animal Behaviour 28 (3): 892–896. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80149-7.
Dawkins, Richard (1981). "In defence of selfish genes". Philosophy 56 (218): 556–573.
Krebs, J.R.; Dawkins, R. (1984). "Animal signals: mind-reading and manipulation". in Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N.B.. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp. 380–402.

>> No.1399450

1990s

Dawkins, R. (1990). "Parasites, desiderata lists and the paradox of the organism". Parasitology 100 Suppl: S63–73. PMID 2235064.
Dawkins, R. (June 1991). "Evolution of the Mind". Nature 351 (6329): 686.
Hurst, L.D.; Dawkins, R. (May 1992). "Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube". Nature 357 (6375): 198–199. doi:10.1038/357198a0. PMID 1375346.
Dawkins, R. (1994). "Evolutionary biology. The eye in a twinkling". Nature 368 (6473): 690–1. doi:10.1038/368690a0. PMID 8152479.
Dawkins, R. (September 1995). "The Evolved Imagination". Natural History 104 (9): 8.
Dawkins, R. (December 1994). "Burying The Vehicle" ([dead link]). Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4): 616–617. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00036207.
Dawkins, R.; Holliday, Robin (August 1997). "Religion and Science". BioEssays 19 (8): 743. doi:10.1002/bies.950190817.
Dawkins, R. (1997). "The Pope's message on evolution: Obscurantism to the rescue". The Quarterly Review of Biology 72 (4): 397–399.
Dawkins, R. (1998). "Intellectual Imposters". Nature 394 (6689): 141–143.
Dawkins, R. (1998). "Arresting evidence". Sciences (New York) 38 (6): 20–25. PMID 11657757.

>> No.1399456

>>1399428

The Greatest Show on Earth is about the science and evidence behind natural selection, and the various methods we use to validate things like the age of the Earth.

Hardly God shit, and a valuable contribution to the popularization of science, Dawkins is first and foremost a proponent of evolution, it just so happens that the biggest detractors of evolution are creationists and other religious groups, so they need to be dealt with.

>> No.1399458

>>1399450
>>1399443
>>1399435

My undergraduate adviser has more publications that that.

>> No.1399459

2000s

Dawkins, R. (2000). "W. D. Hamilton memorial". Nature 405 (6788): 733.
Dawkins, R. (2002). "Should doctors be Darwinian?". Transactions of the Medical Society of London 119: 15–30. PMID 17184029.
Blakemore C, Dawkins R, Noble D, Yudkin M (2003). "Is a scientific boycott ever justified?". Nature 421 (6921): 314. doi:10.1038/421314b. PMID 12540875.
Dawkins, R. (2003). "The evolution of evolvability". On Growth, Form and Computers. London: Academic Press.
Dawkins, R. (2004). "Viruses of the mind". in Warburton, N.. Philosophy: Basic Readings. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-41-533798-4.
Dawkins, R. (June 2004). "Extended phenotype - But not too extended. A reply to Laland, Turner and Jjablonka". Biology & Physiology 19 (3): 377–396. doi:10.1023/B:BIPH.0000036180.14904.96.

>> No.1399465

>>1399458

u mad bro

>> No.1399468

Atheists follow him as if his their God. Ironic, no?

>> No.1399469

>>1399431

If you've read both books you'd see that Williams fully elaborated the idea. He articulated it well and persuasively.

Dawkins just wrote it so you could understand it.

>> No.1399476

GG

>> No.1399480
File: 58 KB, 640x419, 5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1399480

>>1399413
>Galileo thought up gravity. Newton just popularized it.

contributions...building...science

>> No.1399483

>>1399465

No, just stating a fact.

Also, look at some of those publications. They're not even real papers.

See

Dawkins, R. (2002). "Should doctors be Darwinian?". Transactions of the Medical Society of London 119: 15–30. PMID 17184029.

>> No.1399492

>>1399480

Poor analogy, bro. You didn't even know who Williams was until you looked him up on google after reading about him in this thread.

Dawkins didn't build on Williams' ideas much, if at all.

>> No.1399493

>>1399469

He really didn't, he elaborated on the foundations of the idea, he made no where near the contributions to the theory that Dawkins did.

See >>1399480

>> No.1399500

>>1399468
>shock in people are a fan of man who promotes critical thinking and evidence shocker

>> No.1399505

>>1399493

>he elaborated on the foundations of the idea, he made no where near the contributions to the theory that Dawkins did.

Please, expand on this. What ideas did Dawkins expland? Be specific, I've read both books and will know what you're talking about.

>> No.1399506

>>1399456
You must not be an amerifag.

Here he's known for one thing: he's "the atheist guy", theists nor atheists care that he's really a biologist.

>> No.1399528

>>1399506

I'm British.

He might be thought of that amongst the plebeian masses, but they don't concern me.

>> No.1399541

>>1399505

The gene as the unit of selection is as far as williams went.

the further insight of the selfish gene theory adds a whole new wonderful and much deeper chapter to the gene centric view.

>> No.1399578

>>1399541

You are being purposefully vague.

Williams laid out the genic view gorgeously. Dawkins coined some terms in his book like "selfish gene" "survival machine", etc.

The ONE thing Dawkins did well for biology was using behavior as part of the phenotype.

But others have added more than he has in that area, also.

>> No.1399607
File: 80 KB, 500x333, its on.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1399607

>>1399578
ITT: science is a pissing contest

>> No.1399620
File: 27 KB, 354x340, dawkins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1399620

>> No.1399628

>>1399607

PAUL DIRAC AINT SHIT SON, HE DIDN'T CONTRIBUTE AS MUCH TO Q.E.D AS MOTHERFUCKING FEYNMAN

FUCK DIRAC SON SCIENCE DOESN'T NEED HIM

>> No.1399630

>>1399620
you have drawn an image of our prophet death to you infidel

>> No.1399642

>>1399620

> Finally, I have repeatedly been asked what I think of South Park and of Ted Haggard’s downfall. I won’t say much about either. Schadenfreude is not an appealing emotion so, on Haggard, I’ll say only that if it wasn’t for people of his religious persuasion, people of his sexual persuasion would be free to do what they like without shame and without fear of exposure. I share neither his religious nor his sexual persuasion (that’s an understatement), and I’m buggered if I like being portrayed as a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite. I wouldn’t have minded so much if only it had been in the service of some serious point, but if there was a serious point in there I couldn’t discern it. And then there’s the matter of the accent they gave me. Now, if only I could be offered a cameo role in The Simpsons, I could show that actor how to do a real British accent.

>> No.1399664

>>1399642
pretty sure there was some other uncontroversial comment about being happy of the awareness raising aswell

>> No.1399740

> Most of the time though, that stuff just starts huge arguments which cause more problems than it ultimately solves.
What stuff? Atheism or religion?

The problem is that religious nutjobs demand that their worldview is accepted (in spite of the evidence) and try to shout down anyone who disagrees.

As the saying goes: You have a right to your own opinions; you don't have a right to your own facts.

E.g. it's a fact that the value of pi is 3.14159... If the bible says it's 3, then the bible's wrong and pi is still 3.14159.... It's not a case of "some people say it's 3.14159..., some people say it's 3"; that would suggest that both views have validity, whereas one view is correct and the other is incorrect.

There's nothing "arrogant" about this; what *is* arrogant is when people demand that beliefs are treated the same as facts.

>> No.1399758

I have never read any of his stuff because I hate him.

>> No.1399763

>>1399740
Religion wouldn't bother me so much if certain states in my country didn't have public school science text books with stickers in the front targeting evolution specifically as "just a theory".

>> No.1399771

Richard Dawkins?
Moar like Dick Cockins, amirite?

>> No.1401331

>>1399758

you sure are clever! now go get some beer, your holy baaabble and watch naascaar

>> No.1401348

He writes good books. He is good at debating and I don't think he is overly aggressive or arrogant.

>> No.1401357

>>1401348
His books are terrible, the arguments presented in his books are terrible, he is motherfucking arrogant

>> No.1401362

>>1401357

warning, christfag detected

say, how often do you and g-zus talk, how deep is your personal relationship? (suckhiscockmuch?)

>> No.1401363

>>1401331
trolled pretty hard

>> No.1401365

Selfish Meme was pretty good.
God Delusion was 20% introduction to atheism. Boring if you have given the entire issue of theology at least minimal thought. The next 80% were HURR DURR RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BEING ASSHOLES.
Well, d'uh, deal with it.

>> No.1401372

>>1399185
You're right. I don't personally know Dawkins. I only know what he presents in his writing and in his interviews and public appearances. His attitude reeks of "It's science, duh! How do you not get this?" He seems to forget the ways in which the minds of religious people rationalize their beliefs.

>> No.1401375

>>1401357

To be fair, if you dedicated your entire life to the pursuit of science, advancing your knowledge of a particular field to hitherto unknown levels - you would be pretty fucking pissed if some barely literate mouth breather started berating at you and decrying your entire lifes study with no rationale or reason other than "ITS NOT IN THE BIBLE"

Sometimes I wish Dawkins was less polarizing, since there are a lot of moderate christians who are probably turned away from evolution because of his rabid athiesm.

But he is a great proponent for evolution, and deserves props.

>> No.1401378

>>1401365
>implying dawkins has written two books of note and one of them is called "The Selfish Meme"

>> No.1401379

> Uses Hume's arguments against God
> They're a few hundred years old
> They've been criticized
> They're a few hundred years old, as well

If you got "enlighten" by Dawkin, you're no better than 10-years old asking if what I view as blue is the same for you.

Fucking amateur philosopher.

>> No.1401383

>>1401365
That book IS him dealing with it. And somewhat efficiently too.

How have you dealt with religious asshole lately?

>> No.1401384

>>1401379
Who can blame him for using arguments hundreds of years old to counter arguments hundreds of years old?

>> No.1401396

>>1401379

hes not a philosopher and does not try to be

>> No.1401397

>>1401383
>How have you dealt with religious asshole lately?
By not encountering any, actually.
I agree that God Delusion may be more relevant to somebody living in a heavily theistic society. For someone who doesn't, the latter part God Delusion was about as interesting as a report about human rights in North Korea - It may be important, but not really anything new.

>> No.1401407

>>1401384

Because he brings ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW TO THE TABLE.

He's basically doing the very same thing he's combating. He gets pissed when people deny evolution because "god did it" is a simpler and older idea.

However, when we're discussing God, it seems perfectly fine to do just that. Why? I'm an atheist, just as him, but neither of us is a philosopher. He should stop doing this shit and instead let people with an education do this stuff.

>> No.1401413

>>1401396

> Posterboy for a metaphysical position
> Not trying to be a philosopher

yea, sure

>> No.1401421

>>1401397
So do you often go out of your way to read reports about human rights in North Korea?

>> No.1401423

>>1401362
post lacking in logic and reason, holds Dawkin's "philosophical" arguments in high regard.

see no problem here

>>1401375
Yeah, I can see where a man can be frustrated, but the way he goes about advocating his message is so counter-productive, and like you said polarizing. The ever popular Bill Nye didn't win his way into our young hearts by lambasting and ostracizing the beliefs of others. He simply showed us the world as we best know it.

Neil Tyson Degrasse says it better than me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

>> No.1401444

>>1401413

the fuck? where did you get metaphysical position from that? :D

i dont see inside his head but ive seen alot of shit with him, read some of his books and i dont get the idea hes trying to be a philosopher, definitely doesnt say so.
He pretty much just says that using science is enough to explain everything and if we cant yet, we shouldnt jump to "goddidit"
No deep philisophy behind that... he just wants to make people think about shit, sure he may sound aggressive or arrogant even but so what if peoples feelings get hurt, big fucking deal... maybe some people start to realize its not some taboo to talk shit about religion.

>> No.1401453

he is good at singing. that is all.

>> No.1401458

RICHARD DAWKINS IS A SEXY MAN

>> No.1401487

>>1401423

o snap, logic and reason in my post, fuck, thats exactly what i was going for but i forgot in the process of typing it, my bad....... ............wut?

but seriously, sure, tyson has a point but as dawkins said on many occasions, the nice educators are already out there and its all good but he wants to add something different to the mix. He wants to incite thinking, discussions about it etc.. He doesnt try to persuade religious people to atheism, he tries to help the undecided to see how many lies religions and religious people spew, and make atheists to be open about it and speak up. Thats ofc most relevant in the US in the bible belts.

>> No.1401493

>>1401487
yeah, uh that's not the point at all

>> No.1401497

I think eh is a pretty cool guy. Critifies religion and doesn't afraid of anything.

>> No.1401504

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
`'Tis some visitor,' I muttered, `tapping at my chamber door -
Only this, and nothing more.'

>> No.1401512

Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December,
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
Eagerly I wished the morrow; - vainly I had sought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow - sorrow for the lost Lenore -
For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels named Lenore -
Nameless here for evermore.

>> No.1401517

>>1401493

you left out the part where you say what is the point

>> No.1401521

And the silken sad uncertain rustling of each purple curtain
Thrilled me - filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;
So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating
`'Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door -
Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door; -
This it is, and nothing more,'

>> No.1401522

>>1399150

He's a media/public slut.

>> No.1401524

Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,
`Sir,' said I, `or Madam, truly your forgiveness I implore;
But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,
And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door,
That I scarce was sure I heard you' - here I opened wide the door; -
Darkness there, and nothing more.

>> No.1401526

>>1401493

you were bitching about the way he spreads his "message" so i addressed that.

>> No.1401527

Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing,
Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before;
But the silence was unbroken, and the darkness gave no token,
And the only word there spoken was the whispered word, `Lenore!'
This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the word, `Lenore!'
Merely this and nothing more.

>> No.1401531

Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,
Soon again I heard a tapping somewhat louder than before.
`Surely,' said I, `surely that is something at my window lattice;
Let me see then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore -
Let my heart be still a moment and this mystery explore; -
'Tis the wind and nothing more!'

>> No.1401533

I think he's a pompous asshole who loves to argue with less intelligent, average religious folk. His books on evolution are nothing more than a tirade against religion, and he generally misrepresents the sciences and the humanism school of thought.

>> No.1401535

Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,
In there stepped a stately raven of the saintly days of yore.
Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;
But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door -
Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door -
Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

>> No.1401537

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,
By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,
`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -
Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

>> No.1401539

>>1401444

> the fuck? where did you get metaphysical position from that? :D

Atheist?

> He pretty much just says that using science is enough to explain everything

That's a philosophical position, it isn't something you can support with the help of science.

> No deep philisophy behind that

I can agree on that one

>> No.1401542

>>1401537

shut the fuck up

>> No.1401544

Much I marvelled this ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly,
Though its answer little meaning - little relevancy bore;
For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being
Ever yet was blessed with seeing bird above his chamber door -
Bird or beast above the sculptured bust above his chamber door,
With such name as `Nevermore.'

>> No.1401558

>>1401533
Which of his books have you read?

>> No.1401565

>>1401539

expressing an opinion, even if its a philisophical position doesnt meant youre trying to be a philisopher...