![1799d069dabe37e3808506f3cf23a34e1a356d77[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/MFQlKJG.jpg "1799d069dabe37e3808506f3cf23a34e1a356d77[1].jpg")
>Can't let anyone know i'm reading something by Richard Dawkins or else they will get super butthurt if a christfag or go full on fedora fag if they are a fedora
And I one of the only people who actually appreciate this person as a biologist and writer?
>>8067449
4chan is contrarian at heart, so because reddit likes him, 4chan dislikes him automatically, or at least most of 4chan. Most people who post about fedoras or Dawkins have no idea about what he says, have never read any of his works and automatically jump on the bandwagon to dismiss him, because fedoras and reddit (this is a common occurence with creationfags). That said, that does NOT make his ideas and views automatically valid.
>>8067449
>i'm
Sorry but you must be over the age of 18 to post here. Please remove yourself from this site until you are of age.
>>8067492
Except he used the word correctly stupid.
>>8067463
Reddit is starting to dislike Dawkins, though.
>>8067463
>contrarian
No, go back to >>>/lit/ with your contrarian dismissal. We hate him primarily because he is a shitty writer and, like black science man, has done little to fuck all for science except for being an attention whore.
Not to mention he does cringy shit like pic related.
Fuck atheism honestly. So many logical holes in the "arguments" those retards make. Religion is central to mankind.
>>8067578
Science outreach to the proles is useful work, and helps our society become one that encourages science, both in terms of children going to school (for STEM and other legitimate pursuits) and science funding.
>>8067578
He was a well-respected and published scientist before he became a famous science communicator.
>>8067449
I'm a Christian and I highly admire and respect him as an evolutionary biologist.
>>8067578
>We
Who is we?
>Has done fuck all
He has done a ton for biology. The Selfish gene changed how we thought of natural selection in a big way.
>>8067581
3/10
>>8067578
>because he is a shitty writer
You didn't even read his books.
>has done little to fuck all for science except for being an attention whore.
You didn't even read wikipedia.
>>8067578
Butthurt christfag detected.
>>8067578
If someone was in their late 30s and still believed in Santa I too would probably let them know.
>>8067652
>butthurt dawkinsfag detected
>>8067663
But i'm not butthurt. Did I suddenly get offended and shitpost because brought someone up?
>>8067614
you have no idea what you're talking about
>>8067587
>and helps our society become one that encourages science
While the number of people who blindly say they believe in evolution and shit has risen, the number of people that can solve the quadratic equation or even add fractions together have plummeted through the floor.
Mindless yes-men aren't good for anyone.
>>8067898
>Blindly believe in evolution
Hmm
>the number of people that can solve the quadratic equation has plummeted
I'm gonna need a source on this. Especially as someone who works in education and have seen the opposite.
>>8067449
>Honorary degree
The man is a colossal dumbass
>>8067948
>Honorary degree
Wow, I didn't realize you could get a job as a biologist with an Honorary degree. Seems to me you are bullshitting.
>TFW you know 99.9% of people familiar with Dawkins aren't aware he was laughed at by his academic peers for his Genetic Meme theory, which was proven false.
>>8067971
Are you talking about selfish genes which have only in the last few years been getting disputed as possibly wrong or memes which are used all the time as a model for how ideas spread?
>>8067449
as a writer of biology? yes. for everything else? no
>>8067449
Depends, is it currently before or after 1995?
>>8067578
I might agree with your assessment of the man and his contributions, but the bus is fun shit. I approve it.
>>8067449
I'm the same way, but I wish he would stop writing about religion.
>>8067978
>only in the last few years
You have no idea what you're talking about.
And yes, since we're talking about Dawkins, I am speaking of his idea of Selfish Genes.
>Unaware of "The problem with altruism and the false consensus of relative-helping".
*shakes head*
>>8067581
Retard detected.
>>8067944
>I'm gonna need a source on this. Especially as someone who works in education and have seen the opposite.
There has been many stories in the last few years of high schools all over the country getting rid of Algebra I. Also:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html?_r=0
>One of the most vivid arithmetic failings displayed by Americans occurred in the early 1980s, when the A&W restaurant chain released a new hamburger to rival the McDonald’s Quarter Pounder. With a third-pound of beef, the A&W burger had more meat than the Quarter Pounder; in taste tests, customers preferred A&W’s burger. And it was less expensive. A lavish A&W television and radio marketing campaign cited these benefits. Yet instead of leaping at the great value, customers snubbed it.
>Only when the company held customer focus groups did it become clear why. The Third Pounder presented the American public with a test in fractions. And we failed. Misunderstanding the value of one-third, customers believed they were being overcharged. Why, they asked the researchers, should they pay the same amount for a third of a pound of meat as they did for a quarter-pound of meat at McDonald’s. The “4” in “¼,” larger than the “3” in “⅓,” led them astray.
>>8068184
>Americans
>People
Your country is only intelligent when it buys jews and asians to think for you. Don't use America to represent any standard of intelligence for the rest of the world.
>>8068211
It's America that will destroy the world. You should care what happens here.
>>8068222
Can't decide if I should be mad that this shithole full of religionfags will decide the face of the future or laugh about it.
>>8067449
Fuck Dawkins,one of the least likeable people I've ever seen.
Also a shitty scientist,I can't find a single paper that's actually relevant by him
>>8068559
>Can't decide if I should be mad that this shithole full of religionfags will decide the face of the future or laugh about it.
We've benn "deciding the future" for almost a century now.
You were born into a world we created.
If you haven't opened a vein yet, you'll probably cope with the coming decades.
>>8068591
>we
We wuz conquerazz n shieet
>>8067449
Ok I'm not going to pretend to have read anything he's published but aren't his books only read by fedora atheists who want to expand their arsenal for anti religion debates?
By that I mean do his books have any worth if you don't just want to be told god doesn't exist a hundred different ways? Because I already know that.
>>8067646
>The Selfish gene changed how we thought of natural selection in a big way.
Normie detected.
>>8068626
>aren't his books only read by fedora atheists
There's one book on atheism, a few before it about the intelligent design vs evolution debate, and good books on evolution before that.
Why would anyone read 1970s and 1980s books on evolution when the past two decades of research have all but slain the modern evolutionary synthesis of the Darwinian model?
Outside a narrow eukaryote-specific niche Dawkins' writings are now phlogiston-tier.
>>8067463
>>8067449
I've never read any of his books.
The pleb opinion I am left with is that his biology knowledge is probably good, but his knowledge of world religions is pretty shit.
Supporting my view is that he doesn't know Hebrew, Greek (for the bible, even though Jesus purportedly spoke Aramaic), Arabic, or Sanskrit, and so he is left with only English translations of respective holy books.
Anyone who has studied one of the languages of the religious texts has probably come to learn how the etymology of a word is very important for understanding the meaning behind a given passage.
For example, a quick search on the etymology of "human" revealed:
human (adj.)
Compare Hebrew adam "man," from adamah "ground."
Fitting the narrative that the first man was made from earth (or clay, depending on which holy book you're reading).
Again, I don't know enough about his work, beyond what I read every time something "big" happens, and I see the fallout on the internet.
Feel free to correct me if he actually does know anything about religion
>>8068737
His biology knowledge is outdated and he is the poster child of the Darwinist dogmatism which held back the study of evolution for the bulk of the 20th century.
>>8067449
I educated myself on Evolution by reading The Greatest Show on Earth. It was a nice book.
>>8068751
Then you are maleducated, it's an awful book.
>>8068757
>He still gives a well expressed summation of the theory of evolution at the least.
Well expressed but utterly wrong. Dawkins completely ignores the last fifty years of research and continues to repeat long overturned dogma dated to the 1970s at the latest.
I know he hasn't been an active academic but that's no excuse for not keeping up with a field he keeps writing about.
>>8068764
*I know he hasn't been an active academic for a long time
>>8068764
>it's an awful book
I wouldn't know since I'm not a biologist. But what's actually wrong with it?
>>8068774
It fails to discuss horizontal gene transfer which modern research shows trumps natural selection of heritable traits as the primary evolutionary mechanism (especially among prokaryotes), does not even MENTION transposons, literally dismisses epigenetics as a "buzzword"...
People like Dawkins have harmed research into evolutionary mechanism far more than the intelligent design crowd ever could, they are like late 20th century physicists believing the science is settled once and for all ("Darwinian evolution by natural selection is the be-all-end-all of evolution"), and actively attacking and ridiculing people who dared to question their pet theory and investigate the actual mechanisms like Woese.
Now the actual research has left them behind but they continue to preach their dogma to popsci masses. Awful, disgusting.
>>8068793
*they are like late 19th century physicists
>>8068793
>It fails to discuss horizontal gene transfer which modern research shows trumps natural selection of heritable traits as the primary evolutionary mechanism
But that's wrong dumbass. It's speculated to be the dominant mechanism in prokaryotes but not anything else. Speculated. You are spreading misinformation just so that you can feel smart.
>>8068812
>Speculated
As opposed to natural selection which was demonstrated to be one? Yet it is taught as such.
The pervasiveness of HGT in microbial genomics is clearly demonstrated by all modern research (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3440604/), while Darwinian selection being a significant factor in them is baseless scholasticism.
>>8068824
Even when an individual receives a gene by HGT it must be selected for or else the descendents of that individual will lose it...
I don't see how HGT is a mechanism of evolution any more than sex is a mechanism of evolution.
>>8068831
Whats wrong with it?
>>8067449
>"I appreciate the works of Richard Dawkins"
>>8068793
Holy shit you are wrong and retarded.
>>8068902
Not him,you're right about HGT but that doesn't change that Dawkins is a fucking faggot who hasn't contributed anything since the 70s and is living of atheists hate boners
>>8068850
Not him.
Likely because anucleate organisms are not strictly a homogeneous group.
>>8067898
>Mindless yes-men aren't good for anyone.
>he doesn't approve of genejacks
>>8068574
>I can't find a single paper that's actually relevant by him
That's pretty much par for the course for a scientist
>>8067449
I've listened to his entire works on audiobooks while I do housework and what not. Both him and his wife have very enjoyable voices. He is a very articulate man, and not contrarian so much as ruthlessly logical. In my opinion of course.
>>8067693
Pot calling the kettle black
>>8068559
There's nothing wrong with being religious.
>>8067449
Because this is what popsci fags literally believe
>>>/his/1122095
>Most textbooks are years old in their material.
>Many times books from actual scientists are at the forefront of their field.
>>>/his/1122338
>Why the hell would anyone spend hundreds of Dollars on textbooks if they could get books created by scientists for a 20th the cost?
>>8067898
I was an art school drop out. Believed nuclear power was an evil conspiracy . Working a shittly manual labour job. Dimissed science off hand as corporate lies. "They just want the money maaaaan. The world could run on wind man, its just being kept down man to control us... maaaaaaaan!!"
Christ fag in work disses evolution. I live in bible belt europe. Instantly defended evolution cos hate christfags.
So I googled evolution, came across growing up in the universe and remembered it from childhood christmas. Got a kiddies intro to science through that. Got interested in Dawkins. Bought On the Origin of Species and my mind was fucking blown.
I spent the next two years listening to every lecture and podcast I could find on science. Was frustrated with entertainment science by the end and started studying. Did high school science in night school. Then Science access. Got into a human bio course in uni. Im a year in, studying for exams. I fucking love chem, cant wait to enter immunology research, am self learning calculus.
My world has expanded beyond all I thought possible. Every opinion I had has changed, I put my brain to use, dropped the hippy shit and found out that Im good at this shit.
He engaged my brain and got me to think critically. I was the kind of guy who would fucking despise Dawkins but his books and talks and advocating and downright asshole argumentive style smashed my opinions to fucking shitty little pieces and Im eternally thankfull for that.
>>8067971
genetic meme? what the fuck are you talking about?
Memetics was a throw away comment at the end of the book?
jesus fucking christ, all these dicks who cant evn source material before they have opinions.
>>8069524
>Got interested in Dawkins. Bought On the Origin of Species and my mind was fucking blown.
Did you just fucking mix up Dawkins and Darwin?
>>8069542
No you fucking moron.
Find guy who talks about evolution.
Get interested.
Go out and discover the beginnings of it.
Seriously is that the level of your intelligence?
>>8069557
Woah that KFC commercial looks fuckin' dope. And you know what? Turns out I really do love Nando's.
>>8069524
>Christ fag in work disses evolution. Instantly defended evolution cos hate christfags.
Protties, not christfags.
>I live in bible belt europe.
And where is that? Anti-evolution is mainly an 'merikan plague.
>I was an art school drop out
>Did high school science in night school
Why? If you're an art school drop out then you've at least finished high school, no? Shouldn't you have gone straight into freshman science courses?
>Got into a human bio course in uni. Im a year in, studying for exams. I fucking love chem, cant wait to enter immunology research
>am self learning calculus
Wait, what? Shouldn't you have taken calculus already if you're in uni? How did you even take chemistry without the calculus prerequisite?
>My world has expanded beyond all I thought possible. Every opinion I had has changed, I put my brain to use, dropped the hippy shit and found out that Im good at this shit.
>He engaged my brain and got me to think critically.
Is this whole post sarcasm
>>8067449
Richard Dawkins is alright when he stays the fuck away of philosophical takedowns of God or philosophy in general
>>8068559
is that why yuros are importing people with an even worse religion to make decisions for them?
>>8069573
Science isnt a requirement for art school. Seriously I was fucking ignorant of science. I had a family and a job to hold down. It was really just for getting back to basics.
Its a human bio degree. The chem is at a pretty shitty level to be honest. Cos most biologists cant chem. The chem is a personal interest. It make biology less a bunch of linked up magic facts. So no, no calculus. Its a fucked up state of affairs to be honest. Because of that a lot of chem is being taught rote. And then they wonder why no one can fucking do it.
But seriously anon why so down on me? Ill just learn the shit as I go. Its not hard.
And I went from being ignorant to having answers to questions and beginning to understand the world. Seriously you guys complain about scientific ignorance and then want to keep it all as some special "Im a speshul butterfly cos I science and others cant". You read some books and understood them, congratulations! Its open to anyone who wants to do it
So no as a mature student I dont have all I should but so fucking what. Ill learn what I need to and get the fuck on with it.
I could still be part of the masses having ill informed public opinions about shit I know nothing about, holding back progress and spreading the stupid
>>8068184
>Still no source
>>8068211
It's still better than every other European country which is getting shit on by muslims.
>>8068812
EVERYONE IGNORE THIS RETARD.
>Natural selection can't be observed
>>8069229
I don't see why you are sperging out about posts made in a completely different board but those posts are correct.
You obviously don't read much if you disagree.
>>8069946
>Fedora getting butthurt over others not circlejerking them
People are entitled to their negative opinions
>>8068035
The real bus is sadly less funny
>>8069593
But philosophy fags deserve to be taken down a notch considering how unimportant they are and how important they think they are.
>>8069960
>Fedora
how so?
I just find it funny when people get mad at a guy's personal views.
I guess i'm a fedora for laughing at feminists who get butthurt by him too.
>>8069960
>F-Fedora
Why are you here?
>>8069946
>>>Retards getting butthurt over a man not believing in god
>Amazing.
im not a theist and im not offended by his atheist or even anti-theist conclusion
but there's the possibility (and the reality) that you must entertain. it is that he makes bad arguments for atheism and bad arguments against theism. many atheist philosophers have called him out on his unrepentant strawmanning on theist arguments. that's one. there are many others
>>8069975
dawkins is a strong positivist who dont need no philosophical education
>>8069999
most philosophy fags hate the idea of trying to justify their bullshit with actual evidence.
>>8070001
>>most philosophy fags hate the idea of trying to justify their bullshit with actual evidence.
can you justify this statement with evidence?
>>8070008
Yeah, /lit/ and /his/ exist.
>>8070019
>Muh vague subjective bullshit which hasn't gotten anything useful done in over 100 years and is always proven wrong when compared to facts
>>8069987
>getting upset over someone saying fedora
Are you new? That meme was born on /sci/
>>8070021
Again
>You don't understand what philosophy is
>>8070023
>Y-You just don't understand
Sure anon. I have taken philosophy classes anon.
>B-But no only my approved philosophy counts
Nearly all philosophy is unfalsifiable and when it is falsifiable it is almost always wrong.
>>8070023
>You don't understand
Great argument, then why don't you explain instead of just going
>hurr you don't get it
>>8070028
High school ones don't count
>muh unfalsiability
L M A O
And
>Nearly all philosophy is unfalsifiable and when it is falsifiable it is almost always wrong.
Empirically prove this, dumbass
>>8070022
It was a fucking tumblr meme before faggots brought it here.
>>8070032
Prove that most philosophy is unfalsifiable?
Are you serious?
>High school ones don't count
Most colleges require a philosophy class anon
No, go ahead and explain.
Just admit you like most philosophy fags want a way to seem smart without actually having to learn how the world works.
>>8070032
Give me some falsifiable philosophy that has turned out to be correct.
>>8070034
Empirically prove that falsibiality is a reliable (or only, in your case) way to get truth
Empirically prove that a priori truths don't exist
Empirically prove empiricism
Logical Positivism is fucking dead for a reason
>>8070018
>>Yeah, /lit/ and /his/ exist.
>>most philosophy fags hate the idea of trying to justify their bullshit with actual evidence.
would you mind filling in the details for me?
>>8070021
>>8070028
>I have taken philosophy classes, therefore i understand philosophy
something doesn't sound right here. i mean sam harris supposedly studied philosophy (eastern philosophy) and he gets rekt'd in debates against theologians and philosophers.
>>8070042
>Empirically prove that falsibiality is a reliable (or only, in your case) way to get truth
Science and math exist and have proven themselves time and time again.
This is why philosophy fags are so stupid.
>MATH AND SCIENCE IS REAL
>MY RANDOM OPINION IS JUST AS LIKELY TO BE REAL AS ACTUAL STUDIES AND OBSERVATIONS
>>8070042
It's amazing how philosophy fags are no different than hardcore christians.
Try to have one show that there is evidence for their claims and they instantly bring up the whole "YOU CAN'T NO NUFFIN" argument.
>>8070047
>Y-You don't understand
Why don't you explain then instead of being a retard or are you admitting you don't have an argument.
>>8070047
So you admit philosophy can't really prove anything and is therefore useless.
When was the last time philosophy did anything as useful as science or math?
>>8070046
Mathemathics is not empirical.
>>8070049
>It's amazing how philosophy fags are no different than hardcore christians.
If you're an uncharitable cunt, sure.
I didn't say anything "YOU CAN'T NO NUFFIN" or anything of the sort.
>>8070051
>So you admit philosophy can't really prove anything and is therefore useless.
Again. Prove empiricism is the only real way to knowledge, disprove a priori truths.
Also, saying philosophy can't prove anything IS a philosophical argument, that was my point.
>>8070028
>unfalsifiable
>falsifiable
nice popsci buzzwords
Belief in god is absurd
>>8070046
>Science and math exist and have proven themselves time and time again.
You don't understand what science is if you think you can prove stuff to the standards of math.
>>8070051
>So you admit philosophy can't really prove anything and is therefore useless.
Neither can science.
>When was the last time philosophy did anything as useful as science or math?
When was the last time science or math did anything as useful as engineering?
>>8070049
It's even more amazing how new atheists are no different than hardcore fundies. Must run in the family.
>>8070072
Belief in no god is absurd
>>8070150
science isn't concerned with absolute truths
>>8070069
>Falsifiable is popsci
I want you faggots to leave.
>>8070366
2 of those are me.
I'm a MechE student. I just try not to speak out of my ass about subjects I don't know shit about, like Dawkins, his followers, and you do.
>>8070376
>I just try not to speak out of my ass about subjects I don't know shit about
But you just did.
>>8070366
Typical STEMlord, replying only with taunting.
>>8070363
Sorry, but what you heard on Cosmos isn't true. Science isn't concerned with falsifiability or repeatability or whatever is the latest popsci buzzword is, but modeling. Models are never perfectly accurate and they often don't hold across the whole domain, therefore they are immediately falsified but this does not prevent them from being useful. What we model also is not limited to what we can directly control and repeat on demand.
The "falsifiability"/"repeatability" memes are just shit crusading atheists force to make their attacks on religion sound scientific.
>>8070363
Popper's model l has been dead for years, jesus christ
>>8070376
Dawkins makes fun of retards. Sorry if that offends you.
>Being butthurt people are admitting the fact that modern philosophy is pretty much useless
>>8070418
>Science isn't concerned with falsifiability or repeatability
Holy fucking shit, you don't even know what the scientific method is. It is completely dependent on something being repeatable and falsifiable. Why are you even on /sci/ if you don't know the basics of science.
>popsci
>1 out of 5
Can you newfags stop using this buzzword?
>>8070150
Math has empirically proved it'self you idiot. With models that have stood the test of time and use.
You fucking /lit/ or /his/ rejects need to go back to your shit board.
>>8070418
>Using a reddit term
>Using a reddit term that isn't even supposed to be an insult
>>8070577
>calls people names
>people only think I'm annoying cause it's true
or because you and Dawkins both act like children
>>8070054
Give an example of any other form of thinking besides math and science that can give you objective answers.
You can't because science does more in a day for human understanding than philosophy has done in the last 50 years.
>>8070587
>Getting this butthurt that someone doesn't agree with your bullshit beliefs
>>8070577
>Dawkins makes fun of retards
proof ?
>>8070593
SJWS, christfags, philosophy majors.
Unless you don't think they are retards.
>>8070597
>I'm a butthurt idiot who thinks Dawkins is just an atheist even though by far most of his books have been about evolutionary biology
TREY SMITH TREY SMITH TREY SMITH
GIVE ME HIS FACEBOOK
RICHARD HATES GOD AND CALLS IT SCIENCE
>>8070580
>>1 out of 5
>Can you newfags stop using this buzzword?
What are you talking about?
>you don't even know what the scientific method is.
>It is completely dependent on something being repeatable and falsifiable
No, it isn't.
Make a model -> collect/review data -> check to see if the data is in acceptable agreement with the model
>>8070601
>Make a model -> collect/review data -> check to see if the data is in acceptable agreement with the model
Nigger, your own image proves you wrong.
Remember the whole test your data and then repeat the test?
Have you not taken highschool science?
>>8070601
What kind of shitty warped view of the scientific method are you talking about?
Even your image says something different.
>>8070581
>Math has empirically proved it'self
Have you ever taken an intro to proofs or logic class?
Dawkins fanboys need to go back to /reddit/ and stay there.
>>8070588
>scientism
Truly the most toxic religion.
>>8070588
>science
>can give you objective answers
pick one.
>>8070603
Are you in high school?
>>8069943
that tide is turning buddy, Europeans are waking up. The politicians and their immigration policies and suicidal multicultural experiment has no support from the public.
>>8070366
degreed civil engineering major
>>8070609
>scientism idol.png
Isn't the idol currently pic related tough?
At least /sci/ is fully engulfed in the worship of
a dead man whose most prized technological achievements
are kicked to the curb currently because of the shit bottleneck he created.
![Russell-2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/bOz6elx.jpg "Russell-2[1].jpg")
im wondering where to people like this guy fits in according whatever naive anti-philosophical positions were made above
>>8070581
>>Math has empirically proved it'self you idiot.
if this text book is right, then you are wrong.
>>8070638
>>8070581
>x proves itself
Time Cube: The Post
>>8070648
truly a genius masterpiece
Correct Opinion: Agnosticism
Retard Opinion: Atheism
Advanced Retard Opinion: Religions
Special Extreme Retard Opinion: Islam
>>8070739
Correct Opinion: Agnosticism, Orthodoxy, Catholicism
Retard Opinion: Atheism
Advanced Retard Opinion: Other Religions
Special Extreme Retard Opinion: Islam
fixed that for you
>>8070759
how is believing in the Judaeo-Christian god any less retarded than believing in any of the other 2000 gods or however many it's been throughout history
>>8070771
how is trying Edison's successful light bulb design any less retarded than trying any of the other 2000 designs or however many it's been that failed
>>8070739
>tfw dawkins is actually an agnostic.
>>8070771
It's not in the belief itself, much rather the belief towards other believers and also non-believers.
Any religion can be retarded anytime anywhere.
>>8070642
Except it may as well be pi/2 you faggot.
>>8070790
> Committing a logical fallacy this hard, on the sci board no less.
>>8070804
You're the one that's making a logical fallacy
>there are many options
>they all must be wrong
>>8070811
> no evidence for anything
> gotta pick a side anyway
You made a mental fallacy coz ur retarded
>>8070811
I'm not the person who posted that comment. I am addressing your stupid comment specifically.
>>8070814
I'm attacking the dismissal, not defending Christianity.
>>8070819
Your logic is invalid since its based on forced affirmation rather than factual affirmation, which means you pick a side because you feel like you have to, not because any particular side makes sense.
>>8070848
Again, I'm attacking the dismissal, not defending Christianity. Calling out a bad argument is not proof of the converse.
>>8070853
He is specifically dismissing holding one religion above the myriad other religions for no particular reason, how is that a bad argument?
>>8070853
dismissing what ? you're not comparing mutiple test results and picking the best ones here.
>there are many options
Yes
>they all must be wrong
This conclusion is deduced from them not having any supporting evidence
now how do you dismiss this ?
>>8070860
>for no particular reason
You're projecting
>>8070874
> starts with personal attacks
lol
>>8070874
Projecting what?
>>8067578
He might not have done anything recently, but the man is ridiculously big for his prior work in biology, ala The Selfish Gene. To deny this is silly.
I also like his writing, especially in "The Greatest Show On Earth". Together with Coyne's "Why Evolution Is True", these are the books that you should suggest for a layperson to learn the basics of evolution.
>>8067449
>LMAO!!!! THERE IS NO GOD RELIGION IS STUPID!!!!
This is his entire argument.
>>8068793
>literally dismisses epigenetics as a "buzzword"...
Come on. Be reasonable. 99% of all uses of "epigenetics" in popsci are bullshit uses by creationists and similar shenanigans. That's all he was saying IIRC.
>>8071020
No it isn't.
>>8070739
There is no god. I know this, just like I know that there are no unicorns.
Also, protip: By the formal definitions, all agnostics are also atheists. An atheist is simply anyone who does not positively belief that there is a god. That includes people who say "I don't know".
>>8067552
Except de didn't
>I'm
>>8070609
>Basing something off of evidence and tests is a religion
Get off of /sci/.
>>8070606
I have taken a logic class before.
You are an idiot because you obviously don't understand how empiricism works.
You can test math with proofs but you can also test it empirically. Om fact. physics does all the time.
>>8070739
>He doesn't even realize what agnostic and atheist mean
>>8071020
>I'm gonna focus on the fact that he isn't religious rather than his works in biology because i'm a butthurt christfag
>>8070790
>An old book with second hand accounts years after the events is somehow proof of anything
Why is /sci/ getting invaded by philosophy and christfags?
>>8071316
> atheism is no belief
then what is believing that there is no god ? and where the fuck did you get those definitions ?
>>8071323
You don't believe in something anon, you generally don't believe in a negative.
Would you say you don't believe in santa?
It's like that.
>>8070638
>based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
What is physics or applied math?
>>8071325
i'd say that i don't have a side on whether i believe or don't. simple as that. any other tryhard attempt you force on people to choose a side is your own autism
>>8070019
>You don't understand
I love this argument because it shows you have no argument.
Just go
>You don't understand
And then you now can be smug without having to prove anything.
But this would be expected from some one who "Studies" philosophy.
>>8071335
So if I asked you if you believed in bigfoot you would go
>I don't believe and I don't don't believe
You serious nigga? I'm not forcing anything on you.
You just don't want to be an atheist because of the connotation
>>8069039
Where the fuck have you seen a black pot and a black kettle m8, I literally haven't.
(not the anti-dawkins illiterate faggot)
>>8067449
As an author he is pretty good. What can I say, the man can write.
>>8071020
>I haven't read any of his work but my internet echo chamber has told me all about him.
>>8071327
>What is physics or applied math?
One's not math. That's all I can say.
>>8071313
>I have taken a logic class before.
>You are an idiot because you obviously don't understand how empiricism works.
>You can test math with proofs but you can also test it empirically. Om fact. physics does all the time.
You need to get your money back from whatever institution you attended.
>>8067449
His only notable contribution to the world was the coining of the term "meme"
>>8070588
Philosophy. Particularly analytic.
That's the whole point of the discussion, you tard.
And you do realize that's a philosophical question you're making.
>You can't because science does more in a day for human understanding than philosophy has done in the last 50 years.
As is this assertion.
>>8071338
Scientimists have taunted endlessly in this thread, not replying to actual arguments. Don't see you calling them out.
>>8070581
You're dense.
The axioms of math. Empirically prove them. That's your standard for objective truth, isn't it?
>>8071308
That's not what scientism is.
>>8070577
Dawkins periodically makes an ass of himself.
>Y-YOU'RE OFFENDED
Fuck off.
>>8070430
So what do we use know?
>>8071540
I assume you typo'd now and not missed a "to".
Kuhn's positions are majority on phil of science, if I recall correctly.
>>8067581
connection with the transcendental is important but not neccessarily through religion. there are a lot of other things that can fulfill religions role in a person's life
>>8071316
>atheism is not a belief
When will this meme die? Shoe atheism is the most retarded kind
Even Dawkins dislikes it
>>8071316
Apatheist is my favorite special snowflake. If god exists or not, who gives a shit? Would it change anything?
>>8071730
Yes. For the bettter without.
>>8071556
Yes i meant "now", thanks
>>8071322
>historical evidence isn't evidence when it says something I don't like
Why is /sci/ getting invaded by 13 year olds and neckbeards?
>>8071313
>You can test math with proofs
God damn, popsci is cancer.
>but you can also test it empirically
How do you test R and R^2 are equinumerous?
How do you test Q and R aren't equinumerous?
>>8071024
>There is no god. I know this, just like I know that there are no unicorns.
There are no planets with life around other stars. I know this, just like I know that there are no unicorns.
>>8071015
>suggesting popsci over legit textbooks
>>>/trash/
>>8071325
>Would you say you don't believe in santa?
But Santa is a real person dumbass. Stop auto-dismissing anything religious in nature. It's not very intellectually honest.
>>8071584
>Even Dawkins dislikes it
Give just 1source to dupport this claim
>>8071934
I don't know about "dislike" but his "levels" of theism/atheism on the God Delusion don't hold nonbelief as an atheist position.
>>8068902
Sorry, you were asking for it.
>>8071323
>and where the fuck did you get those definitions ?
These definitions have been in consistent use since the start of modern atheism, starting with Baron d'Holbach and Meslier, and continuing to today. Only with Huxley and the advent of "agnostic" have non-atheists tried to pretend that atheists by definition believe that there is no god.
Huxley's agnostism is just atheism, but with a new name, and less confrontational.
>>8071743
>For the bettter without
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ulkFhAmE6M
>>8071556
Loosely: Kuhn accurately describes the way that science progresses. Popper describes the ideal that we should all strive towards.
Kuhn has clearly stated in his work that while there are lots of ups and downs, science is still steadily progressing and getting closer and closer to the truth over large periods of time. If you want a complete epistemological relativist, you need Feyerabrand, or however that's spelled.
I have some large disagreements with Popper though regarding induction.
>>8071979
Have you considered the possibility of language evolving to allow an obviously relevant distinction?
>>8071879
Except you have strong positive evidence for one, and arguably you have evidence /against/ the truth of the other proposition.
Every time that we look at the world and see no unicorn, that's evidence against the existence of unicorns. We've looked all over the planet, and we're pretty sure we've looked everywhere that there might be a unicorn.
We haven't even looked at one other planet sufficiently well to have confidence that there is no life there.
>>8071991
Yes, I have. And atheists today still largely define the term as "lacking a positive belief in a god". The people who self-identify with a term get to define it, not their opponents. It would be similarly silly to let atheists tell a Christian what a Christian should / does believe.
>>8071322
>the bible
>a book
Why do atheists feel entitled to an opinion if they never took a look at it?
>>8071999
>a religious text produced in book format
>not a book
shut the fuck up
>>8071327
>What is physics or applied math?
Shoehorned math and pure math involving approximation or optimization.
>>8072003
>not sure if troll or really stupid
>>8072008
Words do not have intrinsic meaning. Words have usages. Words have meaning only insofaras there is consensus.
It is a fact that every single self-identified atheist popular writer that I have ever seen uses the word "atheist" to merely describe someone who lacks a positive belief that there is a god.
And as I said before, I don't give a damn how non-atheists define the word.
>>8072015
Wow, you read quick.
>It is a fact that every single self-identified atheist popular writer that I have ever seen uses the word "atheist" to merely describe someone who lacks a positive belief that there is a god.
Dawkins doesn't, for one.
>And as I said before, I don't give a damn how non-atheists define the word.
The guy I linked is an atheist. Also he's not defining the word, as such, at all.
>>8071998
>And atheists today still largely define the term as "lacking a positive belief in a god".
Words can have different definitions in different contexts. When compared to agnosticism, atheism means belief in no god. While compared to just religion, it's a catch all term for agnosticism and atheism.
>It would be similarly silly to let atheists tell a Christian what a Christian should / does believe.
>implying atheists don't already try define Christians as all young flat earth creationists
>>8072023
>hypercube
>not a hypercube
>only reminiscent of an unwrapped hypercube
>>8072020
>>8072023
Regarding Dawkins, he seems to have the same position as Bertrand Russell, which is that atheism requires 100% confidence, and they're both smart enough to recognize that they don't have 100% confidence, and that's why they just call themselves "de facto" atheists and not actual atheists. Dawkins calls himself an agnostic.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/religion/religion/45552/outspoken-atheist-dawkins-admits-he-agnostic
As such, I don't include Dawkins nor Russell.
Ironic, I know.
(And that might be a misuse of the word "irony", I know.)
>>8072034
Fixed:
>As such, I don't include Dawkins nor Russell as self-identified atheists.
>>8071996
Lack of evidence is not evidence for nonexistence. That's a fallacy.
Also, there are a ton of animals we once thought didn't exist that hid under our noses.
http://animalmozo.com/2015/10/24/23-extinct-animals-found-alive-today/
>>8072034
i agree with you, but people who argue otherwise are absolutely insane, and i've seen people go so far as to claim agnosticism isn't real because "obviously" all atheists recognize that they can't know anything absolutely.
>>8072024
>modern art
>expecting it not to be shit
kek
>>8071335
Nigger, you either believe in something or you don't.You can't choose another option.
>>8067562
That's because reddit is getting filled with normies
>>8071538
How? By making fun of SJWs, christfags or philosophytards?
Seems to me the only people mad are the asses.
>>8071940
Yes it does.
DId you even read it. He called it agnostic atheism.
>>8071895
>Le popsci
Can you fuck off with your shit memes.
Textbooks are generally fucking expensive and most of them are no better than books you can buy for a fraction of the cost at a book store.
You are a retard and a meme spouter.
>>8071999
>A book isn't a book
Are you pretending to be retarded?
>>8072043
>Lack of evidence is not evidence for nonexistence. That's a fallacy.
Carl Sagan once said that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". That's wrong.
When a hypothesis makes a prediction that if you look at X, and you should see Y, and if you make that observation and don't see Y, then that is evidence of falsity. That's falsifying evidence.
The existence of unicorns makes the general prediction that if you look hard enough at the various places on the planet, then you should see them, you should find them, etc. We've looked really, really hard, and we haven't seen them. Similar, we haven't seen T Rexes either. We're also pretty sure that there are no living T Rexes on the planet. Exact same reasoning.
>>8072048
Also, additional olive branch: I know that the word is inconsistently used today. I just find it incredibly irritating and dishonest when a Christian or self-identified agnostic tells a self-identified atheist that they're not using the word correctly, especially when IMHO a large majority of self-identified atheists use the word that way.
>>8072062
Generally by having no clue what he's talking about.
Just in the case of philosophy, misunderstanding the analytic/continental division, missing both atheist and theist strong points in his books, saying philosophers failure to predict Darwin was a serious indictment of philosophy (first off, what?, second, philosophers had a rough idea of natural selection for a good while), and literally admiting to not knowing what epistemology even was
>>8071895
Have you seen the state of acceptance evolution has on the US?
Shit man, let them learn at least a rough idea
>>8072055
That is correct.
However, not believing that something is true includes "I don't know" and "I believe that it is false".
I believe that it is true.
I don't know. Included in "I do not believe that it is true".
I believe that it is false. Included in "I do not believe that it is true".
>DAWKINS IS A BIG MEANY DOO DOO HEAD
>Why?
>HE'S AN ATHEIST AND I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIS BOOKS OR HIS CAREER AS A BIOLOGIST
Every time.
>>8072076
>saying philosophers failure to predict Darwin was a serious indictment of philosophy
It is
> second, philosophers had a rough idea of natural selection for a good while
No they didn't.
You are wrong and an idiot. Stupid philosophy fag.
>>8072086
I'm feeling Poe here, butt
>It is
How?
>No they didn't.
What have you read about this?
>>8072069
>A collection of books bound together is only one book and one source
>>8071940
In that book he presents scale ranging from absolutely sure God exists to absolutely sure he doedn't. As is the reasonable thing to do (as in no evidence) he put himself one place short of the extreme position.(#6)
And you still haven't provided a source for your claim
>>8072095
yes
>>8072096
Forgot pic
>>8072096
Point is, that he doesn't hold nonbelief as an atheist position. Not knowing and being inclined to be skeptical (as in passing a judgment), sure.
>>8072107
How is #7 not non-believe?
>>8072118
Because he's sure there's no god, not "lacking belief" in a god. It's an active belief (not a dirty word, by the way) that no god exists.
>>8072055
or there's not enough information.
>>8072062
You're assuming anyone that disagrees with you is an SJWs, christfags or philosophytards without evidence.
You're acting very childish and irrational.
>>8072127
So if I'm sure there is no God that doesn't count as non-belief?
>>8072068
>t. popsci aficionado
Leave and come back when you actually learn some science.
>>8072070
>dat strawman
Proving "Y" is not the same as proving "if X, then Y". Have you ever taken a logic course?
