[ 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: 98 KB, 508x657, dawkins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5145932 No.5145932[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>> No.5145937

I actually lol'd

>> No.5145942

the horse also isn't alive

>> No.5145944

>>5145932
Back to >>>/mlp/

>> No.5145968

>>5145932
I just love how these people insult science with tools made by it. the humility and modesty is stifling.

>> No.5146014

While I do see through man-made religion, it does make me wonder that small possibility that there are undetected entities (or just a single omnipotent being) in our midst. That's why it makes more sense to be agnostic than atheist.

>> No.5146037

According to your holy book god can talk to us and we can hear him, but that pony you made can't hear you.

What now bitch?

>> No.5146058

I like how Richard Dawkins thinks he's so fawking smart but doesn't realize that he is just irritating people by trying to force them to believe what he believes...

>> No.5146072

>>5146014
>it does make me wonder that small possibility that there are undetected entities (or just a single omnipotent being) in our midst
>make me wonder
>small possibility
>thats why it makes more sense

It makes more sense to be an agnostic because YOU wonder that there MIGHT be a SMALL possibility of undetected (as in no evidence exists) beings.

not to mention the fact that omnipotence is at best an ill defined property, and at worst not possible.

>> No.5146108

>>5146058

Dawkins isn't trying to force you to do anything.

that "Delusion' part cause butthurt, doesn't it?

>> No.5146129

>>5146072
agreed. this poster is a great thinker and intellectual.

>> No.5146137

>>5146014
So you are agnostic towards all undetected theoretical supernatural beings? I don't think that makes sense at all, it's just stupid.

In the end it doesn't what you call yourself, only how you live your life. If you involve a god in your decision making you are a theist, if you do not I consider you an atheist.

>> No.5146160

>>5146108
Naming a book "delusions" and berating people's beliefs isn't going to get his point across very well.
Second of all, he should recognize why individuals believe in religion. He should realize there are rational people who believe in God. To imply, as he does, that religious people are stupid only alienates religious people from his arguments.
Thirdly, he kind of responds like a child when people don't want to believe what he believes. If a Christian decides he wants to stay Christian after hearing this guy's argument, hey, it's an individual's choice. He seems to say "you HAVE to believe what I believe or you're lesser" which has oddly zealot connotations to it.

I really think if you're truly educated, you should know the plight of your fellow human beings and basic, basic psychology. I find that Dawkins is severely lacking in emotional and interpersonal intelligence, so it's a bit ridiculous to call him "smart" if he's lacking in normal cognitive facilites.

>> No.5146185

>>5146160

Nope. You are butthurt because deep inside you know that you don't believe in a Personal God for RATIONAL reasons.

The best you can get from ALL the traditional arguments is the God of the Philosophers, and as Hitchens pointed out.. you can never get to the god of the Bible from there.

>> No.5146200

>>5146160
Do you find that dawkins is lacking in those departments?

Than show us an example of how that is so. You sound like a science bashing christian corrupter by not doing so.

>> No.5146220

>>5146185
Yeah, I don't have a God for any rational reason. That's not what I am trying to argue. It's not a rational thing.
On a side note, not everything has to be rational, either. I fucking love The X-Files, do I need to explain rationally why I do?

I believe in God. It's my own personal belief. I listened to the atheist argument and didn't want to be an atheist. Simple as that.

Dawkins kind of comes off like this: imagine your friend asks you what is a good show on Netflix. Instantly you respond "Breaking Bad". He says "yeah, sorry, not really into it. Gave it a chance and didn't like it." Then you say "no no try again it's the best show on T.V." then he's like "no thanks I really don't want to... Is Dr. Horrible any good" then you respond "the fuck is wrong with you? How can you dislike breaking bad and like that show?! You must be stupid or something! You can only like breaking bad you fucking idiot!"
^ that's kind of what he comes off as to me.
The mature thing to do with religion is leave it alone and keep it quiet. Let people believe what they want. Simply don't invade people's personal life and shove your beliefs down their throats, whatever they may be.

>> No.5146260

The little boy doesn't even address the argument dawkins gave in the comic.
What a pissoff. I bet the little boy was a product of non-sequitrs.

>> No.5146304

>>5146220
That's fine if you want to believe in God because you feel like it. But I've never seen Dawkins patronize someone like you, I've seen him patronize people that try to rationalize their beliefs and who think their feelings are valid as evidence for the existance of God. If you become a priest and preach to people that they should believe in God because you feel like he exists, I would no longer feel your behavior is acceptable. You probably think this is what Dawkins does but I do not agree. As I see it he is simply pointing out the rational standpoint to have until you have provided evidence for the existance of a God, because the burden on proof lies on the one trying to prove the existance of something supernatural. You have to agree that anything else would be unfeasable in practice.

>> No.5146352

>>5146304
Not that guy, but the problem with Dawkins is that he's pushing a system of belief, just a religious person does. And the problem with that is that zealotry in ANY form is harmful, even under the guise of rationality. Just look at Sam Harris advocating for torture of extremists.

In the end, there is no debate here. We can never know if God does or doesn't exist. Even if a God did exist, it would be so far removed from human understanding and logic that there'd be no real point in attempting to understanding it.

not a theist btw

>> No.5146378

A clay pony isn't a living organism with sensory organs and a brain to process visual information,it is a mere inanimate object, that is why it can not see the boy.

>> No.5146385
File: 519 KB, 705x881, i want to believe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5146385

>>5146304
The thing is -- most people dislike those people. Although I don't necessarily feel that way about priests because most of them only preach from within church which you're not required to go to.

I feel zealotry of ANY belief is negative. You're atheist? Cool. You're Satanist? Well I'm gonna silently judge you but whatever man, your choice. We fought for centuries to obtain religious freedom and zealotry or belief pushing really does spit in the face of that; whether it be Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Hindu, or even Buddhist. We should all make our own decisions for ourselves and not for others.

We will never know if God exists. There's a reason it's called "faith", no one has any hard evidence. No one ever will. But... I want to believe.

>> No.5146389

loling a lot jesus christ

>> No.5146396

>>5146378
I think the message is that a hypothetical "God" is so far beyond human comprehension that we could never truly understand its being.

>> No.5146403

>>5146378
In fact we are not much different from clay ponies. We are made of molecules as well and out interactions with our environment are completely of physical nature. Or are you implying a magical soul?

>> No.5146418

>>5146396
ok.
There is an invisible monster behind you.
You can't see it but it exists I assure you.
Any rational person should believe me

>> No.5146424

>>5146418
Funnily when you call this invisible monster "consciousness", suddenly all the closet /x/tards of /sci/ start arguing like religionfags. "Hurrr you have to believe."

>> No.5146465

>>5146424

'Consciousness' is something I experience. I assume that other beings that resemble me, and can communicate with, and report similar subjective experience are like me in this regard.

has nothing to do the existence or non-existence of any kind of 'thinking substance'.

>> No.5146474

>>5146465
Please provide objectively verifiable evidence of your claim that you "experience" it. Otherwise it's no different from other religious fairty tale beliefs.

>> No.5146503

>>5146396
If it's beyond human comprehension, why are so many humans able to tell it exists?