Dawkins is running an AMA.
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/4iow20/richard_dawkins_ama_on_may_27th/
Lets give him the warm /pol/ welcome that I think he deserves.
>>>https://twitter.com/pknocker40/status/489474549231386624?lang=en
(Likely to post this message elsewhere on other boards to guide possible interest)
>>74549014
6 hours from now though
>>74549014
spam him with his own ideas on memes and try to convert him to Kek (PBUH)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetic_engineeringhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memeplex
>>74549014
Fuck Dawkins. He largely destroyed Christianity in the West. And by extension of that, has allowed for all this Muslim migration and pro-fag agendas to take flight.
It's sad he won't be around to get stoned by the British Caliphate for being an atheist. Although I'm sure he'd just do what most liberals do, leave and go spread his infection somewhere else.
>>74549014
post when closer to event
>>74549459
>Christianity.
> All of Christianity.
> Destroyed by one man.
> Asking questions, making comments.
> Results in utter destruction and devastation.
> The entire religion.
> Gone.
You're not making a case for Christianity being really all that great.
I wonder how he feels knowing his attacks on Christianity is the sole reason Islamism is set to rise in the West
>>74549459
Nigga christianity in Germany is dead since 300 years
I wonder if he regrets being famous as an atheist and not as a biologist and memelord.
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/4k2iby/oh_no_how_can_i_even_counterargue_with_these/
>People actually think these are real
Fuck I hate lebbit
Does he still spout off his idea of crystals being intrinsic to abiogenesis or did he realize how fucking retarded that was?
>>74549712
>CDU
>most older people in Germany still super Christian
>Christianity dead for 300 years
k
>>74549709
>>74549459
He's pretty red pilled for an atheist
>“I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”
>>74549014
I hope someone asks him the whereabouts of his backbone when it comes to muuslam. I won't be around for his ama.
>>74549854
>CDU
>christin
>older people
>religious
Retard. If anything young people are much more religious than old people here
>>74549298
fuck man my clock's off
>>74549861
Yes. He knows Islam is cancer. I'm just curious to find out how he feels knowing he played a >>direct role<< in the rise of Islam in the West.
>>74549014
>Dawkins is running an AMA.
>Richard Dawkins AMA on May, 27t
>May, 27t
Why are Christcucks so fucking stupid?
>>74549854
Most West European Christians are just nominal tbqhwy
Our true religion here is leftism and hedonism
> Be Richard Dawkins
> Get pissed off when non-evolutionary biologist make comments about evolution
> Spends the last three decades of his career doing nothing but sticking his head into other fields
>>74549700
That's like saying the Jews deserved it because one man was able to turn a country against them
>linking to reddit
>linking to /r/atheism the most cringey "everyone is stupid but me" shithole on the WWW
>>74549459
>do what most liberals do
hes not a liberal. atheist does not equal liberal.
>>74549459
Lol fuck off. Catholicism is pro-refugee and Lutheranism is pro-refugee, pro-gay. pro-abortion etc.
>>74549801
You probably just don't enjoy reddit because it's a little too intelligent for you. I noticed you didn't put a full stop at the end of your sentence, either. Typical of the quality of posters here.
>>74550025
Of course it's Israel
>>74549459
>Dawkins destroyed Christianity in the West
Wew lad, you might be overestimating his influence a bit. Christianity has been dying since the 19th century, if not earlier. Dawkins could only rise to fame as a prominent atheist, because the general public was already receptive to his message.
>>74550217
Haha wow I am now a #cruzmissile
>>74550191
- He is a liberal
- It does
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/12/professional-atheist-dawkins-says-christianity-bulwark-against-something-worse/
yeah i think he's sorry
Tell him evolution isn't possible, species cannot grow new complete traits through spontaneous mutation.
For example, did the first creature with eye sight suddenly grow and eye, and the exact parts of the brain and senses that could use eyesight and reproduce so that almost every animal today has eyes?
Same with gills and lungs etc.
Also why hasn't the coelacanth evolved for 350 million years? Is it a perfect specimen?
>>74550318
>evolution isn't possible
>>74550318
>evolution isn't possible
>>74550318
No, they evolved an ancestor of the eye
>>74550293
>not even green texting
I'd call you a new friend but at the sight of that flag
I know it was rather art.
>>74549459
this
>>74549459
He's not wrong though.
And he's pretty redpilled on many issues.
>>74550245
>he could only rise to fame because people were receptive
You mean like with the trans movement and every other "grassroots" movement that we have discovered on /pol/ to be funded by globalist kikes? Surely he couldn't have just been a convenient instrument at the time to push fag marriage, trans acceptance, and islamaphobia.
>>74549459
I vaguely remember him tweeting something condemning Islam as much as Christianity, but I'm on my phone and don't care enough to find it, but it probably happened.
>>74550318
He's already gone over this in some of his videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7E
There is still a lot of missing information in the study of biology and there are still many professors who believe in God. So I wouldn't let evolution deter you from belief in God.
>>74550576
Aren't people who know how to write shot in your country?
>>74550576
Yes, he has. But this is after his popularity has dwindled significantly and he is now generally dismissed by a lot of people as a bigot. He was only used to help destroy Christianity among young people.
Like I said, he's just a useful idiot.
>>74550703
wew
>>74550318
The evolution of the eye is some well-researched and fascinating science. You really went with the wrong example here. There is an enormous amount of documentation in teh fossil record for ho the eye came to be and the thousands of steps it took to get to the dozens of modern eyes in various species. Even some plants and some fungus have eyes. It's a natural advantage to survival of an individual for it to have awareness of electromagnetic radiation in its environment.
The same for all the major senses.
> coelacanth
For the environment it lives in, which has been very stable and unchanging for 350 million years ... yes. It is a very perfect creature.
And, there have been some very minor adaptations in that time. They are not perfectly identical, just mostly so.
Here is Richard Dawkins doing a BBC style interview, the same kind used for the support of Islam into Europe
He's just a fucking literal tool to push agendas and now his timeslot has expired https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTXN5nOstRs
>>74549459
>He largely destroyed Christianity in the West
Hahaha, he's just some retard who knows nothing about theology but is too filled with pride to accept that he doesn't really know anything about the world.
He has no arguments and is a joke for anyone who has half a brain, he's the kind of people who quotes a german literature professor to make a case that Jesus may have not existed.
He just tells others what they want to hear, so that they can fuel their pride and reject any authority or notion of good and evil.
The only reason he's fucking backtracking when it comes to Christianity is because he knows he fucked up. He thought Britain was going to be an atheist utopia but now his country, including most Western countries, is plagued by SJWs and Muslims.
It's a little too late for him. He'll die knowing that he doomed his country.
>>74551047
Have you even read his books or watched any of his interviews?
That's not an argument.
I'm not gonna bother, but I hope some people can goad him into saying some funny stuff about race.
>>74551095
I'd say his complete lack of knowledge about theology, his pathetic attempts to deny history using litterature professors as sources among many other things are arguments.
>>74551170
>I'd say his complete lack of knowledge about theology
Got any examples?
>his pathetic attempts to deny history
Got any examples?
>>74551056
This.
>>74549900
>recognizing it at the age of 70
How come all the supposed intellectuals are so short-sighted and generally retarded?
>>74549459
>He largely destroyed Christianity in the West
Not his fault Christianity can't intellectually defend itself from extinction. Survival of the fittest, faggot.
>>74549459
>He largely destroyed Christianity in the West
That's too big a compliment even for him.
>>74551056
Yup that's exactly what I've been saying in this thread. He filled his purpose, now no one cares about him.
>>74551123
Has he ever said anything about race? There's lots of butthurt over what he says about Muslims, but I haven't heard anything about blacks.
>>74549014
The mods there will straight up ban you if you even mention the fact that Islam is also a religion.
>>74551464
Except they won't... and don't.
>>74551456
He once wore a shirt which said "We are all africans" or something cucked like that
>>74549459
No he didn't. The only thing that destroyed Christianity were retards like you who never picked up a damn bible and thought critically about God.
> guy asks questions about religion
> never read the book so I can't answer him
IT'S ALL GONE. IT'S ALL DESTROYED.
You are no better than he is. Christianity is still very prominent. People will just jump on the bandwagon to say it's dying because deep down they're dying too. Don't equate this guy as a success. He's not.
>>74550293
>It does
im an atheist and a conservative. being an atheist does not make you a liberal.
Sure i will personally congratulate him for showing our generation how stupid Christianity and religion in general is.
>>74551056
>he'll die knowing that he doomed his country
fucking hell this
what a tragedy
>>74551248
For example, the fact that he thinks that biology, evolution or any other field of science is in any way able to answer to any theological or philosophical question. Since they think they do, you can see how he tries to oppose them to religion, while true religious people don't care about those petty things. You will never see him talking about theology, because theology is well, well above him
And regarding history, as I said, the fact that he tried to somehow introduce the possibility of Jesus not having existed.
He's an idiot. If he was smart he would know to keep his mouth shut so that Christians keep on believing in god's wrath which leads to a more civil society.
I was tipping fedoras before Dawkins became a household name.
And all of our efforts created a metric fuckton of edgy faggots just like I used to be.
I'm not making a case for religion, but he's a mature, educated man and the best he could do was the same shitflinging that I was doing at 16 years old in Yahoo! chat.
And Redditfags need to go back to their cancer machine.
>>74551815
This.
Not believing in sandnigger fairytales doesn't mean you're a leftist.
>>74551936
>You will never see him talking about theology
You've never read his books, have you?
>he tried to somehow introduce the possibility of Jesus not having existed.
But where is the proof that Jesus was a real person?
>For example, the fact that he thinks that biology, evolution or any other field of science is in any way able to answer to any theological or philosophical question.
How would you suggest he respond to theological issues then? There is no physical or scientific proof of any deity's existence.
>>74551850
Then pay your lip service and shut the fuck up because 99% of the world isn't ready for atheism yet and 95% of the world is still sub-100 IQ.
Glad Putin is banning faggotry like you.
>>74552327
>people are dumb so we should be christian because its for dumb people
are you fucking retarded i don't care about the average ooga booga in africa that just got converted he does nothing for me expect gib me cheap diamonds
>>74552229
>But where is the proof that Jesus was a real person?
You've never read his books, have you?
What someone constantly says in public is more than enough to qualify a person. You can pretend, as much as you want, that suddenly, in secret, his books contain theological wisdom. Seeing how you think science has any authority in anything beyond fallible measures, I really doubt you know what theology is.
>But where is the proof that Jesus was a real person?
You don't know what proof is.
>How would you suggest he respond to theological issues then? There is no physical or scientific proof of any deity's existence.
Maybe he shouldn't be as retarded as you and stop pretending he can apply science, which is just a petty tool that gives no knowledge, to things that aren't material, observable and quantifiable. Let me tell you the reality that fedoras somehow ignore: sience is just a collection of arbitrary thresholds, chosen because their numbers, such as 0.01 or 0.005 look nice. When a fallible measure, taken will fallible senses surpases one of those arbitrary thresholds, then it is considered to be "good enough". That is science, nothing more than a little tool with a purely practical purpose. It is unable to deal with anything beyond that. Deities, metaphisics, philosophy, ethics, etc. are to science what a tank is to a fork.
Please, learn what science is before trying to talk about "scientific proof". While you are at it, take a look at hypothesis testing. From time to time, some scientist reminds others about what testing is, and in old papers about statistics, the reader is reminded that in the end, everything is based on the numbers some old men randomly chose. Byt some people seem to be too childish to see that.
>>74552229
>Not believing in sandnigger fairytales doesn't mean you're a leftist.
totally agree but lad see >>74552327 we just aren't ready for atheism kek...
>>74549014
FUCK YOU
How the FUCK did a fucking RAID THREAD get 66 FUCKING REPLIES
I made one and I was banned for a month before getting 10 REPLIES
Fuck fuck FUCK YOU.
>>74552902
>I really doubt you know what theology is.
m8 its made up bullshit thats what it is, its not a real go to /x/ with your magic fairy tale bullshit
>>74551008
>that ugly, pushy jewess.
>>74553047
That was because you are australian not because of the thread content.
>>74553109
Do you have any scientific evidence of that? :^)
>>74549014
>Has different opinion
>Must harass and wish for death
Sup /pol/islam
>>74553177
where is your evidence of god? besides a little book and why have you clung to some shit you've heard of about biostatistics as your denouncement of science?
>>74549014
murder yourself.
>>74553483
It is you who claims that the source of all validity is the petty and limited scientific evidence. By the way, where is the scientific evidence that scientific evidence matters at all?
I don't denounce science. I just know its place, unlike fedoras who worship, in order to try to give some meaning to their empty lives.
>>74549459
>He largely destroyed Christianity in the West
Dont fool yourself. This decay has been happening slowly nice the 19th Century. Europe was only Christian in by appearance in the late 20th and 21st Century, if any.
>>74549459
>He largely destroyed Christianity in the West
Probably the most absurd statement ever made on this board
If it were true (it isnt) then it would be a damning indictment of christianity. Destroyed by a single elderly biologist with no formal philosophical training
Lord you people are thick
>>74551850
This
The Great Christian Chimpout ever since the God Delusion was published has just been conclusive evidence of how utterly worthless these people are
>>74552902
There is like one roman writer saying that there is one guy called jesus creating disordes in the East, that is it. Every other source is dated at least 50 years later.
>>74553817
Maybe someone who, like you, parrots the first thing he reads on the internet, would believe your lies. Unfortunately for you, I am far, far more informed about Jesus' life than you, which not even the jews, who hate Him, deny. I recommend you watch any debate about that subject where David Wood is involved. In the end, the atheist is always reduced to an absurd extreme skepticism that would lead him to reject all reality.
These then are the two points that I wanted to make:
First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it.
Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.
>>74553561
Scientific evidence follows the most objective recipe for the observation of the natural world, by preserving a sense of reasonable doubt no matter how much evidence is ammounted, and by encouraging the challenging of ideas.
Theorization through mathematical or patternal logistics to the pursue of conclusive empirical evidence to support
the ideas or theories spawned from said logistics, and the following scrutiny of all of the aspects mentioned before is the scientific method. The method that has allowed us to progress scientifically and technologically over many years. As the best tool wehave devised so far for the understanding of nature and reality, we have yet to find proof of god. However, being an unfalsifiable hypothesis, it can not be disproven. Thus, the best stance is an empirically supported agnostocism.
>>74550318
>>74553561
>It is you who claims that the source of all validity is the petty and limited scientific evidence.
you see the thing about science is its not limited its actually based on scientific theories whice are a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
the idea is you come up with a theory and which your observations back up and you can reproduce your theory in an experiment
the idea is that even though it may be 95% right its not completely right and can be disproven by another theory with more astute observations
what i'm trying to say is science doesn't say it explains everything in the world and space (yes that exists contrary to popular religious belief) it just comes up with theories to explain as much as it can
you may know of certain theories like the theory of gravity
anyways your just retarded
>By the way, where is the scientific evidence that scientific evidence matters at all?
What is this newspeak question hurr durr where is the evidence of the evidence of the science of science of sciences that science is real
>I don't denounce science
i denounce religion i know its place its place is holding us back and fucking up the world and being used as a tool to fuck up a lot of the world
>unlike fedoras who worship, in order to try to give some meaning to their empty lives.
lol fedoras mate your head is filled with shit and you believe in a stupid cult
>>74553165
I wish he was that redpilled.
>>74553968
I'm not denying be existed. As I said there was a writer on the other side of the empire that recognised his existence.
But that is far from saying this implies that any of the miracles quoted in the Bible are correct, because there is no evidence of it.
Why won't these celebrity types hold AMAs in 4chan? The quality of discussion would be far superior.
>>74554151
/b/
>>74553996
>the most objective
Any scientific evidence for that?
>observation of the natural world
There you have it, science only deals with saying if some observations of the natural worlds are considered to be good enough or not
>by preserving a sense of reasonable doubt no matter how much evidence is ammounted
Because as I always say, science gives no real knowledge, because it is just based on assumptions, and is never able to fully explain anything about the world.
> The method that has allowed us to progress scientifically and technologically over many years
As I said, merely a little tool with practical purposes.
>As the best tool wehave devised so far for the understanding of nature and reality
Science gives you no understanding of nature and reality. Every "answer" science gives you creates a million more questions, a million times more difficult to deal with.
>we have yet to find proof of god
You wont find scientifical evidence of God, because as you have said yourself, scientifical evidence is just a way to determine is some observations of the material world we "know" are considered to be good enough. Your empirical supported agnosticism is just the product of not understanding science.
>You see the thing about science is its not limited its actually based on scientific theories
>You see, science is not limited, because science is scientific, and science has no limits. Consequently, science has no limits.
> a well-substantiated
Do you have any scientific evidence of that?
>repeatedly tested and confirmed
How much do you have to test something, to repeat attempts of fallible measures, to consider something to be confirmed? And why? What is the scientific evidence that through a certain number of repetitions of comparisons of a fallible measure to an arbitrary threshold you can confirm anything?
>>74550318
>>74549712
> raising ghetto to grounds
> leaving a church
> not cuckian
>>74554510
>Any scientific evidence for that?
Reason, that is what the scientific method is based on.
>>74549014
>posting on other boards
Other boards don't believe in a cosmic Jew zombie watching over us, it's a strictly pol belief.
>>74549908
>>74554057
Continuation of >>74554510
>which your observations back up and you can reproduce your theory in an experiment
And those observations and reproductions are considered to be enough because it some old men said so. Where is your scientific evidence that your reproductions are worth anything?
>its not completely right
Because science doesn't give you any real knowledge.
>science doesn't say it explains everything in the world and space
Actually, science explains nothing. Absolutely nothing. Zero, nada, rien. It just makes fallible observations several times.
>What is this newspeak question hurr durr where is the evidence of the evidence of the science of science of sciences that science is real
Since you want to limit reality and validity to scientific evidence, then you are forced to give scientific evidence of literally every stamement you make, with no exception. Maybe you should think about the consequences of what you say.
>i denounce religion i know its place its place is holding us back and fucking up the world and being used as a tool to fuck up a lot of the world
I know you denounce religion, because you are a child who doesn't know what he's talking about.
>lol fedoras mate your head is filled with shit and you believe in a stupid cult
Actually, it is you who follows the myth of atheism. You try to simplify reality, limiting it to the extrapolations of your incrdibly limited observations.
But go on, anon, keep repeating that science is not limited because it is science, and how things that can't be observed don't exist, because the tool that deals with observations is unable to measure it.
>>74549014
Who? I thought he was the guy that made evolution but he ain't so..
>>74554633
>Reason, that is what the scientific method is based on.
"Reason" is a generic word that just means "whatever assumption I want to accept". And since you reject anything that isn't measured with scientific evidence, you reject reason.
>>74554860
>And those observations and reproductions are considered to be enough because it some old men said so. Where is your scientific evidence that your reproductions are worth anything?
Because induction beats intuition, retard.
>>74549014
"The selfish gene" is pretty good. Dunno why is he such an autist when it comes to Christianity though.
Maybe he got mad that he got "outmemed" :^)
>>74554925
No, those are axioms, reasons is the structure that makes axioms communicate
>>74554961
>Because induction beats intuition, retard.
I don't see any scientific evidence anywhere. Where is your scientific evidence of what you just said?
Again, learn about hypothesis testing
>>74555044
Again, you base everything on scientific evidence. Where is the scientific evidence of those axioms?
Dawkins is red pilled, and SJWs hate him for it. They got him black listed and he had a stroke. Leave the guy alone for fuck's sake.
>>74555342
this he attacks their made up theories like privilege and they got mad
>>74555063
So you say that induction is equivalent to intuition, then clearly do not leave to your own standard, since there is no particular reason for to belive that you tomorrow the sun is not going to raise , since you could just intuitite that is the case.
>>74555146
Axioms are taken as true because induction beats intuition
>>74550318
Dont be a fucking idiot brah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7E
>>74555342
Your bumblebee scientist condones pedophilia.
>>74555531
*do not live
>>74555556
>off by one
There goes your credibility.
>>74555531
>So you say that induction is equivalent to intuition, then clearly do not leave to your own standard, since there is no particular reason for to belive that you tomorrow the sun is not going to raise , since you could just intuitite that is the case.
I'm just asking you to prove that is true using the only tool you use to check whether or not something is true
>Axioms are taken as true because induction beats intuition
Prove, then, using scientific evidence, that induction beats intuition.
>>74555649
Ok, the I'll reduce it to deduction, math is purely deductive, therefore statistics is, therefore everything observed multiple times is more likely to be true than something observed few times. Therefore induction is more likely to be true than intuition
>>74555649
Btw that did not required scientific method, only required deduction
>>74555829
Show me the scientific evidence that the probabilities you obtain using your little samples are correct, or that those observations are appropiate, or that the things you base your deduction on are true.
Also, give me the scientific evidence that deductions are worth anything.
Give me the scientific evidence that statistics, which are just numbers we slap on things, have any value.
Give me the scientific evidence that all of this is related in any way to why scientific evidence is worth anything.
>>74555886
As I have said, give me the scientific evidence that deduction has any value.
>>74549459
The church has meant nothing in the country since Henry VIII decided to make his own church that allowed him to divorce his wife
Divorce is the basis of the Anglican church ffs
Anyway, didn't Dawkins admit that he wasn't happy with the fall of Christianity because it's only going to be replaced with Islam?
>>74556296
If you know what scientific method is you would have not written half of that because it does not make any sense.
So you are saying that deduction is not stronger than intuition.
Then how do you know that if you have 100 dollars and you use half of then you are going to have 50 dollars?
How do you know that if God says that good people will go to heaven he actually means it?
Don't bother even reply, there is no need to. You just refused logic and to refuse logic you either have to use logic, which is contradictory, or don't use it and at that point you cannot know that what you write is true.
>>74556894
>because it does not make any sense.
Where is your scientific evidence that it doesn't make any sense?
>So you are saying that deduction is not stronger than intuition.
I'm just saying that you don't have any scientific evidence of the things your criteria is based on.
>Then how do you know that if you have 100 dollars and you use half of then you are going to have 50 dollars?
How do you know that if God says that good people will go to heaven he actually means it?
This is not about me, I don't claim to base anything on scientific evidence. You do, so I ask you to give scientific evidence of everything you say.
>there is no need to
Since you haven't given scientific evidence of that, I will reply
>You just refused logic
Where is the scientific evidence?
>to refuse logic you either have to use logic, which is contradictory
where is the scientific evidence?
>or don't use it and at that point you cannot know that what you write is true.
Where is the scientific evidence?
I can also ask you for evidence of a million things regarding logic that you base your post on, but I will let you imagine them.
Maybe next time you will think twice before asking for scientific evidence.
>>74556542
>Anyway, didn't Dawkins admit that he wasn't happy with the fall of Christianity because it's only going to be replaced with Islam?
He has, as was mentioned here
>>74549900
I respect him. It takes balls to rethink a lifetime's beliefs, or lack of them and adapt for the times. Especially when you're replacing controversy with a fucking politically incorrect taboo.
>>74550107
One man lol. Countless people's have disliked/hated Jews. Hitler didn't get Germany to hate Jews at the time. The Jews were already hated in Germany that's why no one stood up for and them
>>74551815
>>74552229
that anon said most atheists are liberal, not all
as in, more atheists are left-leaning than right-leaning
>>74550058
And what kind of field exactly is Theology. It's not like biology. Theology is literally for everyone, christcucks get mad when he bodies them in their own supposed "field"
>>74549712
Christianity is dead in Northern Germany after the Reformation
>>74557218
I never asked for scientific evidence,I asked for any evidence of miracles of jesus.
It's you the idiot who is running around asking for scientific evidence when talking about deduction and induction.
Your are probably mocking the so called fedora atheists, but you do that so poorly that one can only wonder how uneducated one has to be to not recognise how futile is to argue against logic.
We are living in a age of knowledge, and you failed to understand the basis of that knowledge, probably preferring book written thousands of years ago by people living in the desert and then rewritten by every regime that ever was.
My knowledge and your knowledge are not on the same level when we are talking about wich one is true. And you should remember that when trying to not look like a monkey with a keyboard on the Internet
>>74549014
I fucking hate this stupid heartless prick.
Is he a robot or a human being?
>>74549459
>He largely destroyed Christianity in the West
>>74558033
Thank you Martin Luther.
>>74549459
More like replacing it. Christianity has pussied out, based Dawkins has a plan for an alternative. That's why he always shits on sjws. You just mad you're failing ideology is being "attacked" when your own cuckish behavior is what made it vulnerable in the first place.
>>74554510
I see you hate science. Why is that? Can you tell me a system tjat better describes the natural world than one that, despite accepting the fact that our senses are not perfect and thus relies in quasi-objection, uses the best tools the human mind has to offer to arrive at the best possible conclusions? Btw this isn't something yoy "get scientific evidence" for, it's logic. When one applies a quasi mathematical purely logical framework to the natural world and empirically supports the framework with EVIDENCE, one can extrapolate that, even if our senses are limited, the empirically tested object or event will mantain its properties. Even if science relies on the assumption that natural law will remain the same, that does not mean it is useless. If that was the case, it would simply be used to understand the new law. It is a tool, but not a "simple" one, and the fact.you call it simple means you've not had much experience with it.
How are the measures fallible? They are the best measures we can concoct using
our mind, what do you say is a better measure for the natural world than a coalescence of logic and empiricism?
>>74557218
So you ask for scientific evidence to something rooted in rationality? Holy shit it's like arguing with a child.
Do you know what scientific evidence is?
Tell me. What is scientific evidence
>>74558075
Unfortunately there is no space for the heart when someone is arguing cold hard facts with logic. It's something SJWs dont know. See the paralel?
>>74558526
>That's why he always shits on sjws
Absolutely. Every time they attempted to stick a fedora on him and claim him he's promptly told them to fuck off in one way or another. It's their shenanigans that gave him a reputation we would take issue with but that wasn't his fault. He was never arguing their agendas.
Ask him why geographic speciation applies to darwins finches and salamanders but not human beings.
>>74558059
The only evidence you will accept is scientific evidence. Please, don't pretend you expected me to give something that isn't related at all to science.
And don't worry, whatever you try to put in the pedestal of reality checking criteria, I will use against you. I will just say "describe the process based on ___ that shows that is true". And when you answer, I will ask the same about everything you use in your answer and a thousand more things.
I have no reason to accept your "logic", which is base on worshipping science, or arbitrary things. You fail to see that your "knowledge" isn't really knowledge, because it is based on assumptions. On the assumption that a given threshold is enough, on the assumption that something used in deductions is true, etc.
I just dare to question things you give for granted. You give for granted that I'm just going to swallow whatever you call "logic" to defend yourself.
Your knowledge is based on just accepting things as true: "if the probability of this distance to what is implied by a hypothesis is lesser than 0.01, the hypothesis is considered to be false". And why not 0.001? Why not 0.00001? Why not 0.002731? That is your great knowledge.
Don't worry, I have a thousand ways to show how, in order to deny Jesus, you have to perform mental gymnastics like the world has never seen, or how if you reject religion you are a hyopcrite. But I prefer to make you see that I don't have to play by your arbitrary rules, that I don't have to accept your arbitrary standards of truth, that just like you would try to deny everything I say through skepticism, I can also be a skeptic about literally EVERYTHING you try to pass as true.
>>74554151
We should get Milo to do one.
>>74550021
>>74549459
Niggers here in mainland Europe nobody now who Dawkins is let alone read his book.
I like him but you're giving him way too much credit
>>74549459
Your religion must be weak if it can be destroyed by a single meme scientist.
>>74554151
It's a shame he can't come here. He is the creator of the meme after all.
>>74549785
Probably contemplates suicide every night.
>>74559042
Wtf? You can't give evidence to something rationalized
Do you know what the word evidence means?
>>74558033
>>74558203
Lutheranism sure seemed to work fine for the National Socialists when they rooted out those kikes you love so much ?
The last form of Christianity to stand against the Jews, and you prefer the more cucked versions?
>>74549785
I'm sure he makes way more money this way, so it all works out.
>>74559512
>>74559512
Luther is a man I would of liked to have been. Fuck all this religious pomposity the man himself was impressive.
>>74558624
I hate how people worship science. I hate how retards think science is everything, how they like to pretend they are gods who know anything, how they thing it is something beyond a little tool.
The problem is people think science is useful for something that isn't processing fallible senses for practical putposes. And logic is a word for "whatever I accept as true". If I reject something you call logic, then what will you do? Cry until I accept your "logic"?
Extrapolations are just that, practical tools, that are there just to make our lives easier, or to keep us occupied with meaningless things.
I don't say science is useless. I say that science is useless in any field which isn't just completely based on our observations. It is simple, there is nothing mysterious, nothing grand about it. I have experience with it. I'm a researcher, and I know that in the end everything empirical is based on nothing.
>How are the measures fallible? They are the best measures we can concoct using
I could just deny them being the best, just to see you struggle, trying to find a way to declare them to be the best without using them, and then question you again and again. But I will just state that the best garbage is still garbage.
>So you ask for scientific evidence to something rooted in rationality? Holy shit it's like arguing with a child.
Please, don't try to use words as "rationality" as an argument. When you write rationality I read "whatever I give value to withuot questioning it".
Scientific evidence can be empirical or deduction. I have already talked a lot about empirical evidence. Deduction is always based on things that are considered to be true. Of course it is very easy to explain the world when you define a magical number that makes things true or false, or can create your own starting point.
>>74559042
How is "logic" based on "worshipping science"
Define logic
What is logic to you
Also you are argueing on the basis of the knowledge of whoever ou're arguing with.
If you really cared to understand the opposite form of thought, YPU would research into it rather than asking others and shouting "huehue I win" because others don't know.
Just tell me, what makes a system of analysis of nature non fallible?
What is "really" knowledge?
>>74559456
Well well! It turns out there are things outside evidence. the next step is to question why you consider something to be rationalized. You will see how in the end you have just a chain that ends with some kind of basic truth that doesn't depend on anything else, something unquestionable that doesn't rely on other things.
>>74559769
>Of course it is very easy to explain the world when you define a magical number that makes things true or false, or can create your own starting point
What is the magical number?
>>74559874
>How is "logic" based on "worshipping science"
Logic, for the people I respond to, is whatever is accepted as true by science. For atheist there is no other option. After all, when you just believe in materialism, you only have observations through your senses, so the only perseption of what can exist comes through observations.
>If you really cared to understand the opposite form of thought, YPU would research into it rather than asking others and shouting "huehue I win" because others don't know.
I know perfectly the opposite form of thought, which is why I can keep questioning it.
>>74559976
>Just tell me, what makes a system of analysis of nature non fallible?
Absolutely nothing. Only God can guarantee infallible knowledge that isn't based on thresholds through revealed truth. It is also the only knowledge that wont be subject to a million underlying questions.
"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." says Bertrand Russell.
Here, you can see someone with doubt
>>74549861
Here instead, a retard
>>74549459
>>74560191
The one that determines what probability is high or low enough for something to be considered true or false. The one that determines how many repetitions are needed. The one that determines how precise the instruments you use must be. The one that tells you that senses are enough.
Dawkins is one of the good guys mates.
This one is the famous incident where he called out the Feminists on their bullshit.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Elevatorgate
He made the sparkle that separated the feminists Atheist+ from the original Atheism.
And here is the feminist propaganda of the event:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Elevatorgate
>>74560313
But what makes you think the knowledge of god is not fallible?
Or the thought processes that make the concept of a god correct in your mind.
And what are these thought processes?
>>74560420
And which one makes you think god exists?
>>74549459
>All of christianity can be destroyed by one old British guy writing a few books
ayy great religion you've got there m8
>>74559023
good post
>>74560523
He's not a good guy because he should have just kept his mouth shut to begin with. Instead he went and spread his anti-Christian propaganda and now that he has served up his purpose, the Left has cast him aside like a used condom they used to fuck Western morality in the ass. Like I said 15 times in this fucking thread already, he is an instrument, a tool, a useful idiot. Now Islam is going to take its place and the Left is gleefully sucking Mohammad's cock.
>>74560829
Because by definition God isn't fallible. Your question is like asking "what makes you think triangles don't have 4 sides?".
I haven't talked about my thought processes, I have just stated that Truth revealed by God is infallible. This is completely orthogonal to any thought process, and doesn't depend on them.
>>74561028
See>>74560898
The problem was you were weak to begin with.
>>74561028
Freedumb of speak tho
>>74549712
>proxy
>or brown could be wrong
>>74561061
But who or what defines god is not fallible.
Are you pulling a descartes?
>>74561120
Why? Because it didn't want to stone women to death in the street without trial?
Is gender weak too? Is race weak? No. It's just been vehemently attacked and targeted by "grassroots" movements funded by globalist kikes.
>>74561214
When you say the word "God", you are already giving those characteristics. Infallibility isn't something you add to God. It's one of the very meanings of the word god. If you remove infallibility, then you are not talking about God. God is equivalent to being infallible, among other things, so the only way to obtain infallible knowledge is through God
>>74550819
Not a very useful one though, at least not the zionist, liberal kike cause. I'd reckon the disdain for religion he gave to people has acted more against Muslims than Christians.
>>74559122
>one voter has more power over the government compared to millions of leftist beta cucks voting for prorapefugee parties.
>>74561383
Yep, this smells like Descartes tier ontological argument, just a long form of begging the question.
You have the conclusion that god is perfect and infallible because the definition of god is perfection and infability in entity, but you've yet to prove who ascribed those characteristics to the word god, and who ascribed the word god to the being you visualize when you refer to "god", and if those characteristics apply in the first place
>>74549801
Whatever Juden.
>>74561842
Also, can you define perfection?
Dawkins is a huge faggot.
>>74561842
>the conclusion that god is perfect
In order to have the conclusion that god is perfect, then I have to have a God individual, and then add the property "perfect" to it. The problem is that God is defined by having the property "perfect". So there is no checking if the characteristic applies. That's like checking that triangles have three sides.
The word you want to use is irrelevant. If you want, use another language, if you want, use the word "kjkasj" instead of God. I'm not talking about a word. I don't care that someone, for instance, calls his mayor "God".
>>74561720
The young people who adopted his shit because they thought it was edgy were lost causes anyway. He's not responsible for the creation of 'gender fluid' Tumblrinas and fat feminist fedora tipping hipsters. When they realised he was batting for his own team and sjws weren't welcome they dropped him.
>Christfags and femishits will never stop being butthurt about this one guy
Your tears are delicious
>>74562161
Not deviating from goodness. And since God, being the cause of everything, defines the purpose and what is goodness, God must be perfect. If you want to, you can define perfection as the lack of unrealized potentials, something that God, as ultimate cause, also has.
>>74549709
citation needed
It must be suffering to be Dawkins.
>spend career fighting for what you see as rationality and scientific thinking to get rid of superstition in society
>successfully help break the power of Christianity in the West, and usher in a glorious atheist future
>except
>wait what
>now all the leftists are bending over to take Muslim cock
>breaking religion didn't turn everyone rational, it just let them be SJWs with greater abandon
>everyone turns on you for being "racist" just because you hate Islam as much as Christianity
>realize too late that you're a "cultural Anglican" and that the Enlightenment values you care about only came about because socially/culturally the Christian West fostered such values
>realize that you only were promoted so much because the Jews wanted to use you as a weapon to destroy the West
>>74562245
So you deny that our society as a whole has shifted further and further left to the point of insanity thanks to these people? You cannot deny that they have had enormous influence. Dawkins holds his share of responsibility, and it's a pretty big sliver.
>>74562471
It's like no one in this thread comprehends this very simple fucking point.
>>74562471
Again, the problem here is you see "the left" as some monolith, the vast majority of people who were/are fans of Dawkins are critical of Islam. The SJW apologists for Islam hate Dawkins and don't even consider him a "true leftists"
>>74562521
stop blaming atheists. we're the only sane people left on the planet.
>>74549014
Back in 2012, /pol/ hated the fuck out him
also, we can trigger his fanboys by saying that he lives on a slaver's estate paid for by the sale of black slaves in the carribean
>>74562699
>atheists can group "christfags" together
>christfags can't do the same even though atheism doesn't have any denominations since it is "anti religion"
>>74562726
>Already enslaved nogs bought from African Kangz brought to the west to do work and given better working conditions then they would have had otherwise.
Oh the horror.
>>74562521
>So you deny that our society as a whole has shifted further and further left to the point of insanity thanks to these people?
Which people? Western culture has been chipped away since the 60's. Only an idiot would deny that. Dawkins has only been a semi known name for the last 20 years or so, half that time again for being outspoken in the media regarding atheism.
There are sinister elements at work corrupting minds everywhere you look today. They've been around for decades in every corner of the media and their influences dwarf anything Dawkins could have done. Dawkins' atheism pales into insignificance compared to your rap music and Miley fucking Cyrus.
>>74562674
The left that's in power right now is incredibly apologetic towards Islam which is why Europe is a mess.
>>74562383
Without establishing that god is perfect, your argument is devoid of value. Hence, the entire argument begs its question. The perfection of god. Prove to me that he is perfect. You can't arrive at the conclusion just because you rationalize that god is perfect. If it isnt a rationalization then what is it? A thing is a thing that
it is? This is why the flying spaghetti monster was created. By ascribing a being perfection, you essentially, using ontological logic, create the being and make him not refutable tjrough said argument without refuting the argument and thus the ontological explanation to god. If you say god is the only being that can receive that treatment, you have to prove that also.
You have to already know god exists and is perfect for the argument to prove god exists.
Add that to the problems all ontological arguments suffer from -- existence is not a predicate. A god and an idea of god are not two separate modes of existence of the same thing, they're two entirely different things, etc.
>>74563217
Yeah and Dawkins played his role in it as well.
>>74549014
>muh superior religion got destroyed by one man's critical reasoning
The amount of retardation in this thread is amazing. Keep going, i am laughing my fucking ass off here.
>>74561327
>movements funded by globalist kikes.
Women are the enemy, anon. All globalist kikes in the world had no influence if women weren't allowed to vote.
>>74562593
>Implying you can't have traditional, modest family that religion enforces values without being religious
>>74563398
>I am laughing my ass off at you infantile fools and your simple minded religion
>>74563333
>Without establishing that god is perfect, your argument is devoid of value
If the validity of my argument relies on triangles having three sides, I would say my argument is quite solid.
I have already said God is equivalent to perfection. You can't question whether or not triangles have three sides. God is the definition of Goodness. I don't come to the conclusion that an individual who could not be perfect is perfect.
Yes, things are the things they are. I don't ascribe a being perfection to a being. God is defined by perfection. You, as a limited human, try to extrapolate your limitations, and think of everything else as "beings" that can be better or worse.
You are asking me to prove that A, which is equivalent to B, is B.
I hope you realize I'm not trying to prove that God exists, but that infallible knowledge can only come from God. If I wanted to prove God exists, then I would talk more about uncaused causes, consciousness and morals.
"God" in not the name of a person, it's not an empty word that labels something whose characteristics we don't know. "God" already implies characteristics.
>>74563591
>Meanwhile I'm not actually trying to argue agains it because I want my echo chamber intact. Instead, here's fedora memes
Kinda like SJWs, but instead of fedoras they call you racist
>>74563591
If your ideology can be destroyed by words alone, your ideology is shit.
Simple as that.
Dawkins has become less and less of a faggot
>>74562471
Moldbug has got the right idea about Dawkins.
He got pwned.
http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com
>>74563745
By your logic, I guess Islam is a great ideology then because faggots like you won't be able to spread your cancerous ideas. You'll just be killed.
So I guess a great ideology is one where you're killed. Which validates the point that most leftist atheist faggots (such as yourself) are self-loathing pathetic losers.
>>74560898
>ayy great religion you've got there m8
Water destroys stone not by strength but by perseverance.
>>74550354
>>74550432
>>74555551
It isn't. If evolution is real, then why are Abos the way they are?
>>74563854
dawkins was always based
>it's a /pol/ talks about religion episode
>>74563893
At least more effective than christianity these days.
Though i find it really funny you think i am a leftist.
I just think we are at a point in history where this stupid bashing against each other only helps Islam.
The rise of atheism helped turning Christianity into a secular religion, which is a good thing.
We live in a modern day and age after all.
There are more important things to worry about than fighting about trivial shit like who has the best fairy in the sky.
Dawkins is right, Christianity is not a problem in the west, the rise of islam is.
And if we keep arguing against each other, the only winner will be Islam.
Think about that for a bit.
>>74564223
>Doesn't know that Abos are the missing link
>>74564429
>It's the current year, after all
>>74564429
>don't create infighting between us
>after atheists already created the infighting
>>74563713
Except you prove the triangle has three sides by percepting the triangle, meanwhile you prove god by... repeating the conclusion that god exists?
A god and an idea of god, like an triangle and an idea of a triangle, are not two facets of the same thing, but completely separate things. You say that the triangle has three sides because that is your idea of the triangle, and you say god is perfect because that is your idea of god. The triangle can exist without our idea of it, and still have three angles, because our idea of it and the actual characteristic of the triangle are not the same. All you are giving me is your idea of god.
there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable
>>74564547
Mmh. Keep meming.
With that reasoning we can go back to the dark ages, because backward is the new forward, i guess.
I don't know about you, but i enjoy living in a modern society where i don't get stoned to death if i drink a beer.
>>74564429
>And if we keep arguing against each other, the only winner will be Islam.
I'm pretty sure that's the goal.
>rubbinghands.gif
>>74549014
>Lets give him the warm /pol/ welcome that I think he deserves.
NYPA faggot. Besides, he's non SJW. He was the only celebrity questioning the media narative regarding The Clock Ahmed.
He's also level very headed with regards to Islam and openly states that Christianity is not a threat, but Islam is.
Just check his tweets and youtube videos before you jump.
wew didnt expect this to still be up
Ask him about what he thinks of Islam and if he's happy with himself for his part in destroying Western Civilization
>>74549014
Hi my name is richard dawkins i am a biologist
let me explain things about the universe what has nothing to do with biology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO0QRUX4HGE
ps this totaly proofs that god is not real
>>74564806
>I enjoy living in a modern society where I don't get stoned to death if i drink a beer
>that's why I support tearing down modern Christianity for Islam
holy fuck you are seriously retarded. you can't see the forest for the trees can you? all you can do is obsess over Christianity. I'd recommend going to therapy or something to get that teenage angst out of your system. mom and dad made you go to church as a kid, big deal, get over it.
>>74565202
I would advice you to read some Aristoteles and then come back again.
The scientific methode is older than Dawkins.
>>74565334
Obsessing over Christianity?
I literaly said we should all stop obsessing with who is right right now (christian or atheist) and concentrate on the real threat that is Islam!
But yeah, keep dividing.
The nation wreckers will love you for that.
>>74565831
atheists started it, now you want us to just drop it after you have ruined society with your pro-faggot agenda
>>74564664
>Except you prove the triangle has three sides by percepting the triangle
When you say you "perceive a triangle", so say so because you perceive something that has three sides. So you are saying that you look at something with three sides to check whether or not it has three sides.
The characteristics of God are those of the idea of God. Otherwise it wouldn't be God. That's a given. A triangle can't have anything other than 3 sides, or three angles.
There are not several ideas of God. There is a definition of God, and then people who come up with something arbitrary and slap the word "God" on it.
There is an evident absurdity in trying to deny that triangles have three sides. You can talk about ideas aaaaall you want, but that isn't going to change. And you can't conceive God not being perfect because then he wouldn't be God, but some other thing. And not, you can't conceive the non existence of God, because God is the only necessary thing, since otherwise you will have an infinite chain of causality, and that is impossible
>>74564806
I don't really care about what the current year is
>>74565982
>b-but you started talking sense
Did you even read what i wrote.
It doesn't matter who started what, if the only one that is winning is the third guy that comes in and bashes our boths head in.
It's us against them, or do you think muzzies will be nice to your christian ass?
>>74566390
Do you really think I care? I'll kill you atheist faggots myself for fucking up society and making me pay tax to Mohammad.
>>74566504
Change never happens from one side alone, but of course it's dem ebil atheists been mean to christianity, that wrecked your religion.
You are a pathetic man, wish you good luck in the future though.
>>74549014
>Dawkins
>To be takin' seriously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d4FHHf00pY
>>74549014
Isn't this the guy who likes to shove bananas up his asshole?
>>74549459
>He largely destroyed Christianity in the West.
Yeah. Sure. It's all Dawkins fault if churches are empty.
Is the AMA over?
Did anybody ask him about politics? Or was it just a bunch of butthurt christfags trying to have a theological debate on with him?
>>74551815
>Having a liberal belief doesn't make you a liberal
w-what?
Atheism is like the most blue pilled thing in existence
>>74572623
Atheism is not a political belief m8.
>>74572742
Neither is being against abortion, but it's still a liberal belief.
>>74574785
Being against abortion generally means you want the government to enact legislation to ban it. Thus, it is a political belief.
>>74574917
Not necessarily. I'm against it because I'm Catholic.
>>74575100
If you don't want the government to change public policy, then yes it is not a political belief. But generally pro-life people do.
>>74549459
Atheists are autistic. It's not their fault. Religious people are majority because we're superior via evolution. Religion made civilization and culture. There has yet to a civilization or culture that has formed purely from atheism. They're a minority of whiners who think they're superior.
Did he write anything dumb?
I want to trigger some fedoras on twatter and reddit.
>>74560523
>here is the neutral account:
>conservativepedia
>here is the biased account:
>liberalpedia
hmmm
>>74575586
No. I encouraged you to read both. Once you read both it becomes evident the feminst once is full of bullshit.
>Seriously, watch the original video. No shaming, no naming, no ranting. She has never said anything more than that; she did not accuse the man who approached her of rape, she hasn't given any more details about him (and nor has anyone else), so no doxxing either. This was the impetus for years of hate.
That's called damage control, trying to cover their asses in desperation.
Here is a third one, just for you,
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/elevatorgate
which one does it align with the most?
>Dawkins AMA
Could be fun.
I would love someone to get him to respond about the value of philosophy. Bill Nye looked absolutely juvenile answering it, this could be good.
Or, better yet, get him to respond to his shitty examination of Aquinas' Five Ways. Bring up the discourse on Existential Inertia and Divine Conservation and his absolute failure to ever address it even when trying to confront the proofs that deal with it about them and see his response.
>>74576149
I was half joking, I just found the contrast funny. I realize they're actually staying objective after reading the article now though.
>>74564308
True, it's just all these Christ cucks who don't like him
>>74549014
"Why do you feel qualified to make blanket statements on politics when you're clearly ignorant on the topic?"
>I am a tax paying citizen, and it's only my opinion
"So what makes your opinion more valid than that of the steel worker or plumber's?"
>>74577114
>steel workers and plumbers don't pay taxes
>>74576389
>aquinas five ways
topkek i'm pretty sure a modern 10 years old could destroy them or point the logical fallacies they contain.
