[ 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: 25 KB, 380x249, 2746big.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819117 No.2819117 [Reply] [Original]

I can't understand how someone can hate this lovely british men

>> No.2819123

huh... me too

not that I know anyone who does, tho

>> No.2819124

Because he's as bad as religious fundamentalists. You know, they bomb abortion clinics and picket funerals, and he writes books and speaks his mind.

>> No.2819122
File: 42 KB, 338x425, cosbythumbsup.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819122

>>2819117
brool story co

>> No.2819128

admit it guys, we've all fapped to him at least once
>amirite?

>> No.2819130

>>2819117
Because he's right, and truth hurts for some. Usually for those that are delusional and get TOLD.

>> No.2819143

because he is referred to by atheists in the same way as jesus is to christians. christians will tell you to go to jesus and the bible for answers, atheists will refer you to him and one of his books.
i have nothing against him, except the above, i'd much rather hear about what he's done to contribute to the scientific community rather than listen to his raging against religion.

>> No.2819146

He's a atheist, a false prophet.

>> No.2819153

>>2819143
>his contributions to science
>laughingwhores.jpg
I think he developed the phylogeny of a certain group of birds. Very groundbreaking.

>> No.2819164

Because he's a rude twat who doesn't try to understand the religious, or even try to deconvert. He just takes it for granted that religion is both silly and destructive, and acts like anyone who can't see that is an idiot.
He's half right - religion IS dangerous, but being rude to the people who were brainwashed from childhood into believing it - that's not the way to go.
Hitchens, Harris, Maher and many, many others, are more eloquent and not huge twats.
I don't know why people look up to him so much.
Of course, I'm basing this off of one video of him speaking at a conference, and one of his documentaries.

>> No.2819166

>>2819153
And Carl Sagan discovered some hot spots on Venus. How amazing.

>> No.2819172

>>2819146
Look up memetics when you have the time.

>> No.2819174

>>2819164

>religion is both silly and destructive

>implying that's not true

>> No.2819179

>>2819174
>implying that that is always the case
>implying that science itself isn't silly and destructive sometimes

>> No.2819182

>>2819179

when is religion not silly you dumbass?

>> No.2819186

>>2819174
>>2819179
Fucking trolls, trolls everywhere.
Did you even read my post?
Religion is the most damning invention of humanity to-date. It's a blight upon our race that needs to be inoculated against as quickly as possible. Being a giant twat isn't going to help any.

>> No.2819190

>>2819174
it is true. but people seem to need it for whatever reason. if you want to rid the world of religion, insulting those who preach it wont help, you need to educate them. other atheists do a much better job of that than dawkins while also making it clear that atheists dont have all the answers.

>> No.2819193

lol hes speaking at my school wednesday. Should I ask him a troll question?

>> No.2819194

This "rude twat" image is total bullshit, in my opinion. Whenever he's being deliberately confrontational in his documentaries, it's always within the boundaries of formal debate. It's not like he just walks around and yells "FAGGOT!" at every religious person he encounters.

>> No.2819195

>>2819193
i jelly

>> No.2819201

>>2819182
some pretty intelligent people have maintained a theistic belief. and theism has produced countless works of art in music, literature an others. Generally, religion offers a good way to live your life. love and compassion for your fellow man, while i dont buy into the actual supreme being part, and i dont think its helpful in specific circumstances, this is a still generally true.

>> No.2819203

>>2819117
It's because agnostics are hypersensitive vaginas.

>> No.2819211

>>2819194
One can still be disrespectful in formal debate, it doesnt help matters and its a shame because he much to teach. perhaps he should pass his knowledge of biology onto someone to speak in his place

>> No.2819226

>>2819201

theism just produces credulity nothing else my friend

all you said can be done without believing shit

>> No.2819230

>>2819201

Men have produced art. Religion has not. Religion is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause of great art. These men existed in a world dominated by religion. That they drew inspiration from it is neither surprising nor a mark of religion's greatness: they drew on what was around them because it was around them. They would have found something else and now do.
What's more, they generally did not draw from what made religion unique. More often, the myths that go along with religion are what is drawn on. Those myths are not the religion and religion is not that myths. An example of this is Milton's Paradise Lost; is it drawn from theology or mythology, and is the fact that he most likely believed in the literal truth of this mythology a causative factor? Could he not have drawn on it with the knowledge that it is a myth, as he did with Greek myth, and achieved the same work?

>> No.2819234

>>2819194
>always within the boundaries of formal debate
Really? Because in the documentary I watched, he just went around examining the beliefs of the superstitious, and then a voice-over would be all incredulous about how silly it was, or how destructive it was. He constantly interrupted people, he didn't argue or debate with anyone, and the only science that was being done he dropped in on, and had nothing to do with. He constantly promised to show how destructive and dangerous beliefs can be, but never provided any statistics, examples, or any clear reasoning. It was all just making fun of superstitions, without any reason or science.
It was called "The Enemies of Reason". If you have any better ones for me to watch (like Religilous) by Dawkins, then please, let me know.

>> No.2819245

>>2819194
>>2819234

I don't like Dawkins, but I don't think I've ever seen Dawkins be rude...

>> No.2819274

>>2819226
>all you said can be done without believing shit

I know people can be kind to each other and produce art without religion. I never said otherwise. But someone people have drawn these things from religious life. So there is value in that.

>> No.2819289

All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom. - Einstein

>> No.2819316

>>2819234
Yeah, I saw that one too, and I don't agree at all with your summary. He didn't constantly interrupt people (there were hardly any "heated" moments in that documentary anyway), nor was he making fun in the narration all that much. Yes, he was appealing to emotions more than providing actual arguments, and some segments (like that dowsing competition) were edited to make the believers look stupid, but that doesn't make Dawkins himself a rude twat; it makes the documentary a worthless piece of fluff.

>If you have any better ones for me to watch (like Religilous) by Dawkins, then please, let me know.
Well, "Nice Guys Finish First" and "The Blind Watchmaker" are pretty good, but ultimately, I'd rather recommend you some of Dawkins' debates than any of his documentaries. The one between him and John Lennox is very interesting. It's called "Has Science Buried God?".

I thought "Religilous" was a total waste, by the way. If you even take offense to Dawkins, I don't know how you manage to stand Bill Maher's shtick.

>> No.2819362

>>2819201

If you think that religion has influenced art, you must concede that it has also influenced violence, war, bigotry, oppression, and so on.

>> No.2819619

>>2819362
not that person, but everything influences everything. resources influence your happiness, and what countries get bombed, science influences how many people are saved by medicine, and which population to forcibly infect with syphillis to study its effects, and what cities to drop nuclear bombs on in order to get the best amount of data on the effects of nuclear bombs. religion influences how much money is donated to poor people, and what market is going to get suicide bombed or what civilian will get beheaded.

the more biased you are, the more biased your world view. shades of gray, not black and white.