>>18685945
If Hitchens was still alive do you think he'd have turned into a massive chud like Dawkins did or would he still be socially progressive?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sA6VrkPPSds

>>18686925
>turned into a massive chud like Dawkins
You don't know much about Dawkins et al. They are all socially progressive, but they have also always opposed the postmodernists, who are predecessors of wokeists.

>>18686925
He was already pro-Iraq war, he'd be a huge chud

>>18685945
About what? Dawkins is a joke in religious scholarly circles (even among secular ones), Hitchens is remembered more for his rhetorics than his arguments, Harris failed to deliver the secular Moral Landscape™ and the last guy fell out of the spotlight and still got clowned on.

>>18686952
>religious scholarly circles
Those are a joke among actual scholarly circles
>even among secular ones
No he's not.

>>18686954
Huh? Scholars of religion are a joke among scholars? Could you elaborate on that a little bit? I'm not sure an anthropologist will exactly look down on Ehrman...
>No he's not.
You're in for an unpleasant awakening. Dawkins' treatment of Aquinas and similar texts is sometimes brought up as a deterrent example of how not to approach philosophy. It's made a little less impactful by Dawkins' unfavorable attitude towards philosophy as a whole, so it makes sense he'd fail to navigate it, but still. He is as careless in philosophy as he is brilliant in biology.

>>18686958
Theologians are certainly a joke. They are seen as mental masturbators, like a lot of philosophers. Anthropology is not necessarily a joke but it's still a soft science which is not as respectable as the hard sciences.
> Dawkins' treatment of Aquinas and similar texts is sometimes brought up as a deterrent example of how not to approach philosophy.
I know they say that but it's not really substantiated.

>>18686973
I wouldn't know about theologians, I was talking about religious scholars. That the lines are blurry to you gives me a little more insight into why Dawkins seems sensible to you on these issues.
>it's not really substantiated
Anon, I'm saying this with love, so I hope you listen. Your adoration of Dawkins is about to make you venture into territory that you might not even tangentially know. Stop while you your integrity is still in-tact. That soft sciences don't usually involve formalized notation doesn't mean you are going to perform well... that's The Dawkins Delusion. I completely understand that nominalism invites all forms of Dunning-Kruger charged amateurs who would like to take it apart, and I was one of them during college, but if there's something Dawkins should teach the younger generations, its:
>evolution is real
>"selfish gene" framing is a valid framing
>philosophical arrogance will make a fool out of you

>>18687006
>I wouldn't know about theologians
Aquinas was a theologian. If by religious scholars, you just mean anthropologists who study religions, that's a different thing.
>Anon, I'm saying this with love, so I hope you listen.
It's okay, I've spent many years debating these things online. The vacuous pretensions of philosophers are nothing new to me.

>>18687015
>Aquinas was a theologian
That's right. But I wasn't saying in >>18686952 that Aquinas is unhappy about how Dawkins read him, I was saying religious scholars - people trained in navigating these texts from one perspective or another - find his reading abysmal. The two of us probably find creationist takes on evolution abysmal as well, and they, likewise, don't seem all to concerned about the opinions of people actually trained in biology. Don't you think that's a mistake on their part?
>I've spent many years debating these things online
Very Dawkins-coded, all the way to its bitter end. Unless you've invested a few hours into basics of nominalism and a few more into scholasticism the way Aquinas does it (because he's sort of a breaking point between two scholastic approaches), you're bound to mess it up. And if you think Dawkins did a good job addressing Aquinas, it's already going down.
By the way, this is coming from someone who basically resents nominalism and scholasticism. Though I did gain a few useful insights from Aquinas on ethics in particular. What you'll gain from philosophy will generally be proportional to the kind and amount of effort you put into it. If all you put in are years of wild swings at unclear targets, what benefit do you expect?

>>18687031
>I was saying religious scholars - people trained in navigating these texts from one perspective or another -
I would count those people as theologians.
>Don't you think that's a mistake on their part?
Of course not. I can just check Aquinas' arguments on my own and see that they are incompetent. Do you assume it must be a mistake on your part when the large majority of muslim scholars think you're wrong about islam? Honestly, these constant appeals to authority are one reason why I don't respect the field of theology and lots of philosophy. It's just a popularity contest.

>>18686947
His take at the end was that he supported the Iraq war at a time when he still believed that the coalition forces were competent.

Of course he'd have been counted alongside the 'chuds' despite being incredibly liberal and progressive (just like Dawkins), because he wouldn't buy into various elements of woke ideology. Harris actually isn't that liberal or progressive, I'd say he's more like a conservative who identifies with the left.

>>18687113
Dawkins is not, nor has he ever been socially progressive. He only pretended to care about women and gay rights because he hated religion more, so he signaled support of socially progressive causes as a rhetorical tactic when attacking religion, especially when attacking Islam. It was always a matter of who pissed him off more; he sided with women and gays because religious people annoyed him more. However this has changed in recent years, as he's now made complaining about wokeness a core part of his image. He's also began warming to Christianity and now supports Christian conservatism because he views it as a way to fight wokeism and Islam.

Hitchens is different though. I think Hitchens war far less chuddy than Dawkins is and I doubt he would have gone the anti woke path that Hawkins has.

>>18687048
>>creationist takes on evolution abysmal as well, and they, likewise, don't seem all to concerned about the opinions of people actually trained in biology. Don't you think that's a mistake on their part?
>Of course not.
You either misunderstood me or you completely betrayed Dawkins whole legacy. Of course yes. Of course creationists are wrong to disregard experts in the field they are trying to address. Lol

>I can just check Aquinas' arguments on my own and see that they are incompetent.
You really can't.
>Do you assume it must be a mistake on your part when the large majority of muslim scholars think you're wrong about islam?
If majority of Muslim scholars agree I am misinterpreting a text, chances are extremely good that that is actually the case.
>popularity contest
Wouldn't Dawkins ... win in that case? Name one living religious scholar more popular than him.

>>18685945
>warms up to Anglican Christianity, might even end up doing the death rites with how chud he is
>fucking dead
>spiritually jewish with his hatred of islam, failed to deliver tikkun olam with his moral landscape and secular (read: racist) buddhism, is mostly indistinguishable from some reform/reconstructed atheist jewish rabbis
>fucking dead
Also Ayaan Hirsi Ali
>converts to christianity after a mystical experience

Yeah, they were right all along to be religious/pseudo-religious or fucking dead.

>>18687136
Dawkins is not against women and gay rights though? He's completely liberal and progressive except that he says some positive things about Christianity (and they're the same things he always said about it) and is critical of specific policies that are pushed as 'woke'.

Hitchens would definitely have been anti-woke, but he'd have been clearer about doing it from a leftist and liberal perspective. And that wouldn't have mattered and people would say he was a chud anyway, same as how they said he was a neocon back in the day.

>>18685945
Good for you

>>18687174
>You either misunderstood me
I did misread your post, but the point stands anyway: the correct way to judge something is by checking it yourself, not relying on the opinion of 'authorities', especially in subjects like philosophy where the alleged experts show no signs of being experts at anything other than verbal masturbation.
>You really can't.
Not an argument. I did and judged Aquinas to be garbage.

>>18685945
About what

File: 353431013_599300332306812(...).jpg (32 KB, 382x606)

32 KB JPG

>>18688180
>the correct way to judge something is by checking it yourself
Agreed. And the correct way to check it is to undergo the necessary education/training. You and Dawkins didn't do that.
>not relying on the opinion of 'authorities'
Again, how can a creationist avoid drawing on evolutionary biologist authorities when trying to assess the evidence? He can't. He would have to know what they are teaching.
>>You really can't.
>Not an argument.
I wasn't responding to an argument. You asserted something and I rejected it.

Tell me... according to you, how big is the likelihood right now that you are suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect? Consider how much training you got in scholasticism, how much you practiced it with immediate correct/incorrect feedback and whether Aquinas fits into this limited skillset. Then give me a percentage, if you would.
I just want to know if you can reflect on the situation you're in, because at this point it seems your problem isn't intellectual, it's a lack of self-awareness. You completely understand how a creationist would be wrong to disregard evolutionary biologists. You completely understand how a creationist would say experts show "no signs of being experts" besides loaded yapping. You completely understand that a creationist would have to get an education before addressing the methods he's addressing. But none of this seems to transfer to you when you're in the same situation...

>>18688212
>how can a creationist avoid drawing on evolutionary biologist authorities when trying to assess the evidence?
You can look at the evidence yourself and the conclusions come naturally if you have the appropriate background knowledge. There's no need to be indoctrinated into evolutionary theory beforehand.
> You asserted something and I rejected it.
Ok? And I reject your claim that you need a degree in theology or philosophy to see how stupid Aquinas is.
>You completely understand how a creationist
You should understand that just comparing yourself to an actual scientist and me to a creationist doesn't make your argument convincing. For that, you would first need to convince me that you/theologians have any actual expertise at something other than verbal masturbation.

File: the_amazing_atheist_by_ia(...).jpg (350 KB, 1024x1578)

350 KB JPG

>>18685945
Right about putting bananas into their ass ?

Jokes aside how did they disappeared so quickly after 2012? I remember them being huge on both chud and woke side of spectrum back in late 2000s

>>18688236
>look at the evidence
>the conclusions come naturally
>>>>>>>>if you have the appropriate background knowledge.
Very well said. You don't have that knowledge is the problem.
>I reject your claim that you need a degree
I never made this claim. My claim would be similar to needing "the appropriate background knowledge". Which Dawkins verifiably did not have and it's almost certain you do neither.
>>You completely understand how a creationist would say experts show "no signs of being experts" besides loaded yapping.
>you would first need to convince me that you/theologians have any actual expertise
You're confirming the comparison I made.

I notice you didn't evaluate the likelihood of suffering from Dunning-Kruger. Is it because the percentage was a three-digit number?

The four retards

>>18688242
>My claim would be similar to needing "the appropriate background knowledge"
Well then, go ahead and state what background knowledge you need to evaluate Aquinas and explain why you need this background knowledge.
>I notice you didn't evaluate the likelihood of suffering from Dunning-Kruger. Is it because the percentage was a three-digit number?
I didn't because it was a stupid question.

>>18688241
>how did they disappeared so quickly after 2012?
Rise of the based/cringe dichotomy as a cultural touchstone. They were cringe so they went the way of the dinosaur despite being right.

File: atheist reasoning circle.png (25 KB, 500x302)

25 KB PNG

>>18685945
Four solipsistic morons bashing what they decided someone else believes in, then fell to the wayside as their fanbase trooned out.

>>18688254
>my evidence for god's existence is this book that says he exists
>if you don't accept the book, you are using circular reasoning
Incurably retarded.

File: 1760632801317.jpg (100 KB, 1200x928)

100 KB JPG

>>18688249
You are the dedicated /his/ Dawkins cocksucker arent you? You should get a trip at this point, its super easy to spot you. Also that other anon is subtly implying you are retarded, in case you havent caught on already, he is just doing so in the nicest way possible, and dealing with you with more patience than the likes of you warrant. He likely already figured there is something deeply wrong with you. Also, the hilarity of disparaging Aquinas, while pushing the meme that Dawkins is some some sort of misunderstood genius. While in reality he is an actual joke in intellectual circles as anon pointed out previously.

>>18688263

I think, you assuming you know these people, is one of the funnier things that people do.

I see it a lot on /b/

You're a coping black man, Anon.

You're the joke, always have been on 4chan. THIS is why I go off b.

>>18688257
>the bible is a singular book
not the brightest atheist

>>18688263
I have no idea who you're talking about. You're clearly very emotionally invested in this imageboard drama, but there's nothing in this post which convinces to think Aquinas is anything other than a moronic clown.

>>18688266
>it's not a book because it has different parts and chapters!
Incurably retarded.

>>18685945
About what?

>>18688266
Yes, in it's current form the bible generally is distributed as one single volume...

File: 1774353873627.jpg (136 KB, 1280x637)

136 KB JPG

>>18688265
/his/ isnt really that big. And there is definitely that one guy around that gets upset when you talk shit about Dawkins. Its a consistent pattern. Its like he is compelled to jump into his defence every single time anyone mentions him. This isnt 2006 anymore, very few people still follow him. Its one guy.

>>18688254
My favourite Christian apolgetic is: shit smells putrid, therefore the sky is blue

>>18688280
>All points to whatever, therefore this unlimited universe is jewish and only Earth is populated

>>18688263
>>18688280
Nta, I'm the Dawkins guy. I wonder how retarded you must be if you didn't realize that I'm just shitposting.
Btw I do actually like Dawkins's attitude and down to earth approach but the fact that in reality he's philosophically illiterate is the punchline of those shitposts of mine.

File: 81uf8O4Zt+L._AC_UF1000,10(...).jpg (105 KB, 1000x1000)

105 KB JPG

Here's my attempt:
Skinwalker Ranch is full of Navajo paranormal folkloric stuff, thus my episcopal church is the truth.

Notice, I don't follow either navajo or Christian or atheist paradigms, but lhp Koshinto. I'm mentioning incase you wanna argue for or against.

File: 1786283299547.jpg (44 KB, 605x507)

44 KB JPG

>>18688273
Anon, you do know the bible is a collection of books, right? Please dont tell me you are finding out just now. I mean I dont expect much from the dedicated Dawkins cock holster. But come on. You keep surprising me with how fucking stupid you are.

>>18688294
Also, I'm using both physical devices and a mobile app suite (Ghosttube) to find paranormal things. It produces results. I however think it's important not to jump ahead and imagine whst a physical devide is saying.
My EMF reader says 249volts in area.
This means theres an EMF field of 249v not that the ghost of a roman prostitute is fingering herself there in the path side, laying in the grass.

Christian larpers are fucking funny like that.

>>18688298
Are you ESL or are you just too stupid to know how the term 'book' is used?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible
>This article is about the religious book. For other uses, see Bible (disambiguation).

>>18688304
You're totally arguing intelligently on topic and not buttflustered rageposting how your silly book is many, as if this changed things

>>18688307
You meant to reply to >>18688298

Lol at the guy who went missing after I asked him what exactly you need to be an expert on to evaluate aquinas >>18688249.

File: 1762283800852.png (72 KB, 211x244)

72 KB PNG

>>18688304
Have you never heard of a compendium? Because thats exactly what the bible is. Its a collection of books. Its amusing watching you try to educate me. I dismissed you as a retard long ago, but dont let me stop you from trying, Dunning-kun.

>>18688315
Stop embarrassing yourself, anon. Even wikipedia agrees that the bible is a book. A retarded book for retards like you.

Nobody itt would be able to challenge Dawkins irl anyway. You'd start stuttering, lose your cool and end up sounding like a downie.
Just like that /his/ poster who called into some atheist call-in show and then linked it here.

File: 1784045354195.jpg (196 KB, 945x758)

196 KB JPG

>>18688316
>straight up lying
Why are atheists like this? Its like dishonesty is the one defining core feature that ties them all together.

>>18688318
The literal first sentence of your screenshot says that it's a religious book. Also, an epic fail on your part to think an anthology is not a book. You're probably both ESL and stupid.

File: 1763854599557.jpg (123 KB, 1080x414)

123 KB JPG

>>18688320
Why are you like this?

>>18688322
You are legitimately mentally retarded, lol. You should have stuck to grandstanding about aquinas instead of embarrassing yourself like this.

>>18688324
I accept your concession

>>18688326
Kek I love how this phrase gradually became the way people concede debates on this site.

>>18688328
sure thing buddy

>>18685945
hitchens is retarded and I say this as an atheist

>>18688332
Why?
>as an atheist
I doubt it.

Do the atheists won again in this one huh.

>>18688249
>>My claim would be similar to needing "the appropriate background knowledge"
>Well then, go ahead and state what background knowledge you need to evaluate Aquinas
I did. See >>18687031
>explain why you need this background knowledge
To know what the words mean. The word "cause" alone has quadruple the denotations in scholastic usage than it does in our everyday English.
>>I notice you didn't evaluate the likelihood of suffering from Dunning-Kruger.
>I didn't because it was a stupid question.
Indulge me. Just a rought number.

>>18688474
>To know what the words mean.
I already know what the words mean, so it won't be necessary to waste hours reading the ramblings of some dead guys who were ignorant about pretty much everything.
>The word "cause" alone has quadruple the denotations in scholastic usage
That's not relevant unless you show how it affects Dawkins' rebuttals.
>Indulge me. Just a rought number.
It would be the probability of these theologians getting right something crucial that I missed, which is close to zero. Maybe 10^-100 or something, If I'm being generous.

>>18686952
>Hitchens is remembered more for his rhetorics than his arguments
That's because he debated apologists, and he matched their energy. Apologists have nothing other than rhetorical arguments, because empirical facts don't support their belief system. Hitchens engaged with them to demonstrate that throughout his career.

Also Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins went to Epstein island multiple times, flying on the lolita express

>>18688554
>>To know what the words mean.
>I already know what the words mean
How?
>>The word "cause" alone has quadruple the denotations in scholastic usage
>That's not relevant unless you show how it affects Dawkins' rebuttals.
The text being rebutted discusses causes. Lol.
>these theologians getting right something crucial that I missed
Like what the words actually mean?

>>18688559
Plenty empirical facts support their belief system and they usually make a great deal about it. You might argue the support is insufficient for one reason or another and apologists frequently address that too, but to blame Hitchens' dishonesty on the people he talked to is a little rich.

>>18688570
>How?
What do you mean how? It's not hard. You can just look up words whose meanings you don't know on the internet or in a dictionary.
>The text being rebutted discusses causes.
And? So does Dawkins' rebuttals.

>>18688575
>You can just look up words whose meanings you don't know on the internet or in a dictionary.
You did that for every word?
>>The text being rebutted discusses causes.
>And? So does Dawkins' rebuttals.
And that makes the meaning of the word relevant lol.

>>18688574
>Plenty empirical facts support their belief system and they usually make a great deal about it
Such as? What, that Israel is a real place and that it's mentioned in the bible? Lmfao
>You might argue the support is insufficient for one reason or another and apologists frequently address that too
No they dont. They argue around it. That's the point of apologetics. Rhetoric as the argument to excuse lack of evidence
>but to blame Hitchens' dishonesty on the people he talked to is a little rich
>Hitchens' dishonesty
You're a retard. He was more educated than every apologist he ever debated. People who are less educated on the topics he debated would disagree on a basis of emotional feeling, not because he was ever wrong on a fact basis. Show examples otherwise to prove that I'm wrong

>>18688579
>You did that for every word?
If I don't know the meaning of a word, I look it up, yeah. Is this surprising to you?
>And that makes the meaning of the word relevant lol.
Okay, but that's not what I asked. How is it relevant to Dawkins' rebuttals?

>>18688580
>Such as?
Testimonies in the NT.
>>apologists frequently address that too
>No they dont
I hope you encounter better apologia then.
>>Hitchens' dishonesty
>He was more educated than every apologist he ever debated
And yet, his heritage is pure rhetorics. Something you implicitly confirmed by making excuses for it. Now you're backpedaling?

>>18688582
>>You did that for every word?
>If I don't know the meaning of a word, I look it up, yeah. Is this surprising to you?
I asked: You did that for every word?
>>And that makes the meaning of the word relevant lol.
>Okay, but that's not what I asked.
It is what you challenged in >>18688554: "That's not relevant"

>>18688586
>You did that for every word?
I replied: I do it for words I don't know the meaning of.
>"That's not relevant"
Followed by "unless you show how it affects Dawkins' rebuttals", which is something you have failed to do.

>>18688588
>>You did that for every word?
>I replied: I do it for words I don't know the meaning of.
So every word.
>>"That's not relevant"
>Followed by "unless you show how it affects Dawkins' rebuttals"
Followed by me pointing out that Dawkins' rebuttals directly follow up on it. You don't see the relevance of a word to a text that uses the word? What exactly did you imagine under the term "relevant"?

>>18688586
>Testimonies in the NT.
Testimony is not empirical evidence. Try again

>>18688592
You're apparently having trouble with basic logic, but just pointing out that a word has some definitions does nothing to show that Dawkins' rebuttals of arguments which use those words is incorrect. Hope that helps.

>>18688594
The goalpost is empirical 'facts'.

>>18688597
The goalpost is 'relevant', not 'incorrect'. Hope that helps heehee.

>>18688599
I understand. You cannot actually refute Dawkins' rebuttals, so you make up imaginary goalposts and try to "win" by posting irrelevant non-sequiturs.

>>18688605
>You're apparently having trouble with basic logic
>How does "That's not relevant" set up relevance as a goalpost???
Oof.

>>18688610

Sometimes, when you try hard, it's obvious to people who notice.

I notice you trying, Anon. What a joy.

>>18688599
>The goalpost is empirical 'facts'.
Testimony fails to meet that goalpost, you fucking retard. Word of mouth is not "empirical fact". It's hearsay. There is a distinction. Testimony is not reliable evidence because people can make shit up and say anything they want to reinforce what they desperately want to be true, like what you're doing right now

Try again or just admit you have no idea what you're talking about here

>>18688612
The feeling is mutual. If you're satisfied with how this discussion turned out, I'm happy to leave it at
>how are words in a text relevant to the text?
Good with you?

>>18688610
>"That's not relevant unless X"
>proceeds to ignore everything after "relevant"
It's okay anon, just admit that you don't know what a sentence is and that you have to read it to the end. Perhaps it's these reading problems of yours which made you overestimate aquinas.

>>18688617
That's not exactly what goalpost means. Calm down.
>not reliable evidence
Again, not the goalpost. Please consult an LLM about what that means.

>>18688621

I'm a lurker. It isn't your autism that gives me a giggle.

It's how hard you try, emotionally. It's like begging.

That's what really makes me laugh. The low self esteem all your writing puts off.

>>18688623
See >>18688592 for X.

Joy.

>>18688626
Begging makes you laugh?

>>18688629

Sometimes.

Do you have autism?

>>18688627

You're begging here.

>>18688630
Thanks for the info. Consider not cosplaying anime villains online, wtf lol

>>18688632

Develop self esteem.

>>18688627
>yet another post with no actual argument showing how these definitions affect Dawkins' rebuttals
Yawn.

>>18688586
this you? >>18688625
Stay consistent. You said "testimony is empirical evidence". That's not true. I pointed that out and you're doing mental gymnastics about definitions now.

Are you okay? I know accepting that the bible is fiction can be hard, when you've spent your entire life being conditioned to accept it as "historical truth".
Testimony is hearsay, not empirical evidence. Empirical evidence cuts through the bullshit of hearsay.
What are you struggling to understand about the difference between subjective and objective?

>>18688637
>waiting to see how the meaning of "causes" affects a text about causes
If you're happy with this, I'm actually content with leaving it there.

>>18688639
I might be, I lost track at this point. But I think it was itt where I pointed out that testimonies are evidence that might not be sufficient to you personally, hence objections to the word "reliable".
>What are you struggling to understand about the difference between subjective and objective?
If you think there exists any category of potential "objective" evidence of things like the Resurrection, I'd be actually delighted to hear it.

>>18688641
I can't say I'm happy with your evasiveness, but it is what I expected (with probability >= 1 - 10^-100, as estimated earlier) anyway, since I knew you wouldn't have any real refutations of Dawkins' rebuttals.

>>18688656
Nope, all I have is that definitions are relevant to the texts that use them ;) If that's evasive, I'll take that.

>>18688653
>I lost track at this point
I can tell. It's okay anon, it happens.
>But I think it was itt where I pointed out that testimonies are evidence that might not be sufficient to you personally, hence objections to the word "reliable"
This isn't a matter of opinion. Testimonials are not sufficient evidence period. Not just "to me personally". Why do you think court cases don't solely rely on eye witness testimony, to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent? Word of mouth against word of mouth is useless, unless you have objectively verifiable evidence to test the validity of peoples word.

People make shit up. People misremember things. People lie to ourselves because we want something to be true, so we say something that is subjectively true in our head that doesn't quite match up with events in reality. That is 'testimony'. Since you brought up the world reliable, consider how unreliable that is as "evidence".

Testimony is the basis of "truth" in the bible by the way. Fictional cult bullshit

The gospels do not remain consistent even from a storytelling perspective. There is no evidence of a biblical exodus, or any miracles ever being performed. I could go on and list hundreds of examples.
>If you think there exists any category of potential "objective" evidence of things like the Resurrection, I'd be actually delighted to hear it.
There is objective evidence that the resurrection as described in the bible is a lie. There's no sound-minded reason to believe in biblical miracles.

>>18685945
All are psudo's which compared to actual Contemporary philosophers of religion like oppy and Schellenberg are retards

your sympathy to them is very telling of your cognitive ability's OP

>>18688674
>not sufficient evidence period
To overturn a worldview or decide fate? Definitely not. But they are evidence nevertheless.
>There is objective evidence that the resurrection as described in the bible is a lie.
There is no possible (!) objective evidence around the resurrection in general was my point. It would have to be testimonies.
>People make shit up
>no evidence of a biblical exodus
I'm aware and this is a discussion for a different time.

>>18688674
>This isn't a matter of opinion. Testimonials are not sufficient evidence period
You claim testimonies are not good enough for you yet they are used as evidence all the time on the court of law. People can be convicted by testimony alone in some cases. Do you not believe in the court of law as well? Should we abolish the judicial system since they rely on testimonies as evidence?

>>18685945
I don't like Sam Harris. He is just a jewish supremacist.

>>18688870
What's wrong with that?

>>18688874
I'm not a jew. Jewish supremacists are enemies for me.

>>18688574
holy, moly dude
>Plenty empirical facts support their belief system
If this was the case, they'd be doing science, not apologizing

>>18686952
>rhetorics than his arguments
People are religious largely for a-rational reasons
arguments and evidence is such a waste of time, emotional reasons is where it's at

>>18686973
>it's still a soft science which is not as respectable as the hard sciences.
So your stance is that only the scientific method is valid when it comes to seeking truth?

>>18687174
While I think it's kind of an indictment of Aquinas that he can't make his point clearly, and you have to go to the Aquinas scholars and ask for the canon interpretation and get all into the scholastic lore
still, I think it's pretty clear that Dawkins did NOT understand Aquinas

Dawkins is a an Oxford professor, he got so a powerful network around him he could have asked "Am I understanding Aquinas? Does my criticism even respond to what Aquinas was saying and make sense?"
It's hilarious that he didn't check in with anyone, and is just responding to argument Aquinas never made

I'm a nominalist, I think Aquinas' works is straw and nonsense. I don't know what the *right* way to engage with it is, but I certainly don't think it's something that should be treated super seriously
Which is why Dawkins is making a fool of himself, by ATTEMPTING to do that, but obviously having no clue

>>18689198
Kek, Stephen Hawking made the same mistake when he condemned philosophy as dead and having been overtaken by science in The Grand Design...before engaging in several philosophical questions in his book, attempting to answer them using physics, failing miserably even to the lay reader, and having his philosophy colleagues down the hall of his office facepalm that he didn't even bother correcting his philosophy 101 mistakes with them.

With theoretical biologists (evolutionary or neurobiology, typically) and theoretical physicists, there is a certain subset of scientists that fail to recognize that expertise in one field that answers a few "existential" questions doesn't make you a polymath.

>>18689198
>>18687174
Aquinas is weird. It doesn't make sense to engage with him in a low-level popular audience book. Because you need to do so on Aquinas own terms (extreme metaphysical realism), you're just not going to be able to get the arguments across, at not all of them.
And why would Dawkins care about that? Dawkins is not a realist about universals, or 'the good' or anything like that.

Aquinas is not something an atheist should be troubled with. Unless you're some kind of Aristotelean scholastic atheist, then you should have something to say about Aquinas arguments, and why you think they fail. That's like 10 people worldwide.

Dawkins being a materialist(?) should just tell a short story about William of Ockham, and how there are perfectly acceptable philosophical traditions, that don't grant the existence of universals, etc.
Maybe speedrun Wittgenstein and explain that philosophical arguments are just a bunch of words strung together - Something to take the oomph out these lengthy philosophical works held in high regard by Catholics

Instead he tried (and fails) to engage with Aquinas on his own terms, and fucking blunders it

>>18688241
The battle against fundies has been thoroughly won and the heroes promptly forgotten.

>>18688266
Harry Potter has seven books and I’m pretty sure he could take Jesus in a fight

>>18685945
I am unsure for the other tree but the top left one is such a retard I will never consider it if i were an atheist , I would literally use him as anti-role model.

File: Courtier's Reply.jpg (480 KB, 980x548)

480 KB JPG

>>18689308
>>18689226
>>18689198
You should all read pic related to see why your complaints shouldn't be taken seriously.

>>18687015
>It's okay, I've spent many years debating these things online. The vacuous pretensions of philosophers are nothing new to me.

>>18689756
You're being such a retard
My criticism is precisely that Dawkins did NOT do this. But instead engaged in imperial fashion criticism

File: peerless stinker.png (78 KB, 610x652)

78 KB PNG

>>18689918
>But instead engaged in imperial fashion criticism
Why do you bother posting complaints about Dawkins when it's so clear you haven't even read TGD? Is this a practice among philosophers? If you think pic related is "high fashion criticism", you must have severe brain damage.

>>18689940
See >>18688287

>>18688332
Atheists are retarded, I say this as an atheist and a Hitchens-liker.

His 20 minute defense of free speech at a talk in Canada somewhere is legendary.

>>18690128
What does that have to do with your claim that Dawkins' engages in "imperial fashion criticism" in TGD, despite the exact opposite being the case? Or are you just saying I should ignore your posts because you claim you're shitposting?

>>18690177
I'm another guy, the one that has been talking about fashion

Probably I just totally misremember what Dawkins said
Or mixed it up with another of Aquinas' ways

>>18690177
The only thing that is evident is your severe reading comprehension issue, and your amazing ability to easily misunderstand things in general.

>>18690198
>Probably I just totally misremember what Dawkins said
Well, that clears it up.

>>18690203
Ok, now who are you and what are you seething about?

This board is so fucking cringe. Late 20/early 30-something they/them/xers from leftypol still flagellating narcissistic atheist boomers when not a single positive contribution to culture could be felt from any of their so-called "accomplishments". FUCK OFF!

>>18690354
So leave then

>>18690354
>flagellating
*fellating

>>18688317
Dawkins is a sperg with no theory of mind. Anyone who takes him seriously after the 'Claudia' incident is a fool.

>>18690354
Atheism won

>>18688882
That's what 7 billion people think about white supremacy.

>>18689308
>why would Dawkins care about that? Dawkins is not a realist about universals, or 'the good' or anything like that.
I know right? I think he just got accustumed to taking swings at the dumbest of all existing religious arguments and assumed some of the world's most complex philosophy might be tackled with similar attitude since it's all muh'religion.

>>18689756
>Heh it's precisely because Dawkins has not a single clue what he's talking about that he can see clearly
That is sadly not how philosophy works. That is how creationism works, ironically.

>Jews and Shabbos goyim pushing atheism
a tale as old as time

>>18691016
Being NOT jewish is when you worship a jew

File: Mind Crushed Kaiba.png (214 KB, 342x611)

214 KB PNG

>>18691028
I hope you get your shekel. It would be a terrible fate to do it for free.

>>18690560
>That is how creationism works, ironically.
Sorry, no matter how many times you compare yourself to actual scientists, it will not make your discipline (theology) valid.

>>18690354
>t. underageb& e-christfag convert who rolled in from /pol/ddit

>>18691214
>not having a clue is actually a valid method
But of course, Richard.

>>18691910
Imagine actually thinking theologians are experts on god and not just worthless verbal masturbators. Lol.

>>18691980
Imagine both "theologians" and "on god" being irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

>>18691997
Why would I imagine something so silly when arguments for god by a theologian is the topic under discussion? (see the chapter title >>18689940)

>>18692004
Dawkins' approach to philosophy is being challenged. That the philosophy happens to be about God and happens to be written by a theologian might be terribly relevant when assessing his and your bias, but it's not actually what we're taking apart. We're taking apart the idea that an untrained reader approaching a text that requires training to read will 'see the naked emperor' as per >>18689756

>>18691980
>worthless masturbator
But enough about you.

>>18692012
>is being challenged.
Appealing to the authority of professional verbal masturbators doesn't amount to a challenge, unfortunately. You should change your tack if you actually want to challenge and "take apart" Dawkins' rebuttals.

>>18692059
>to know what I'm doing?
>heh, nice appeal to authority

>>18692070
>you're criticizing [verbal masturbation]?
>heh, you need the approval of the professional society of verbal masturbators to do that, ackchualy!

>>18692075
Notice how your sexually repressed treatment of "masturbation" is the entire argument lol. Admit it, Anon. You are to philosophy what creationists are to biology. "hurr I can draw my own opinions without all this cursed sinful nonsense!"

>>18692081
Notice how your entire argument is a baseless comparison of the society of verbal masturbators to professional scientists, lol.

>>18692086
You must be slightly confused. The comparison isn't necessarily based on philosophers being similar to scientists. It's in you, Anon, you specifically, being similar to creationists. Philosophy could be overwhelmingly false and science overwhelmingly right or vice versa or a mixture and it wouldn't really matter. Because you'd still be using creationist arguments.

>>you're criticizing [evolutionary biology]?
>>heh, you need the approval of evolutionary biologists do that, ackchualy!
Hahahah you didn't even see it before, did you?

>>18692093
Unfortunately, "using creationist arguments" is totally non-informative. Creationists use both valid and invalid arguments.

>>18692107
>doubles down
All good, brother. You didn't have a choice, really.

>>18692132
Umm, I don't think you realize that Aquinas himself was a young earth creationist.

>>18692145
No way.... I concede in all my points. One needs no training at all to read nominalist philosophy. Or evolutionary biology.

>>18692150
>I concede in all my points.
I accept all your concessions, even though you made no points at all!

>>18692155
That you don't need to bother with all the biologists mental masturbation to criticize evolution. You can just see that monkeys don't give birth to humans haha keep up, Anon. A slow day?

>>18692165
It says a lot about the discipline of theology/verbal masturbation when the only way you can defend it is by becoming an evolution denier.

>>18688251
zoomies meant a death to internet

>>18692174
Loool you think theology works better than evolutionary voodoo? Ok cucktian whatever your vicar says

These people, man

>>18692181
I'm glad you finally feel free to let out your inner creationist anon, but discussion of evolution belongs on >>>/sci/ (unlike theology), so I would advise you to stop being off-topic.

>>18692187
>evolution
>science
Nice appeal to authority fallacy. Man you really suck at this...

>>18692192
Yes, yes, we already know that Aquinas defenders are evolution-deniers. Is there anything else you want to say before I stop wasting my time with you?

>>18692174
>evolution denier
lmao I need a laundry list of things you can be a denier of. Not too long ago, it was only the Holocaust. Then it was Climate Change. Then, COVID. In Canada we hear talk of residential school genocide denialism. But now evolution is a new tenet of the progressivist-materialist-atheist religion and cannot be questioned?

All atheist beliefs apply best to non-Christian religions but they refuse to criticize those. Interesting

>>18692196
"We"? Someone got insecure... does that mean you and your imaginary friends who can address texts despite not knowing the basics of their fields?
Anyway, thank for being a good sport and helping me roast you. Regardless if intentionally or unintentionally, it's been a blast watching you.

>>18692200
post proof behind it coward daily remainder it was Hitchens one of Four Horsemen who criticized Islam as fuck and supported Iraq intervention at earliest stage

>>18692232
Hitchens was considered representative of atheists and was saying such things two decades ago and died 15 years ago; most atheists now don't even know who he was, not even the ones who post here most likely
Hitchensian atheism is not what that anon is talking about; they obviously mean modern progressive liberals and communists i.e. the current generation

>>18692264
Their religion is leftism. That's why they don't criticize islam, because they consider it to be a brown religion. I think that Hitchens was left-wing but he didn't follow the new religion of leftism that is fully anti-white and doesn't dare to criticize brown people. Many christians also follow this religion of anti-white leftism.

File: eyeroll.png (110 KB, 400x381)

110 KB PNG

>>18692197
>post-truth retard whining he can't niggerjuice objective reality away again

>>18692349
>nihilist complaining about epistemology
I am amenable to evolution being a real process, but bristle when you start throwing words around like "denier" - science isn't a religion.

File: nigga retarded.jpg (57 KB, 622x758)

57 KB JPG

>>18692358
>post-truth retard calling the acknowledgement that objective reality "a religion" to justify his whining again

>>18692358
>science isn't a religion.
But having a scientism stance on it could be considered one.

>>18692367
What does scientism mean?

>>18692369
The dogmatic belief that only science is valid when it comes to seeking truth, and nothing else.

>>18685945
The Four Horsemen are a secret Jewish project to convert the goyim into well-behaved Noahide Judaism followers.

Tell me, how does one usually encounter the four? Excluding Dennett, who almost nobody remembers or cares about, it’s usually Dawkins or Hitchens first, then later Harris. Both Dawkins and Hitchens provide the arguments that challenge religion, and once the budding ex-religious have left their faith, Harris arrives with his Moral Landscape to provide a non-religious moral compass.

It is here that the trickery happens. To promote the well-being of others, one may adopt utilitarianism (Harris himself admits the utilitarian heritage of his system), and any practical utilitarian will eventually reach the highway of rule utilitarianism as act utilitarianism is far too autistic to be applied to every single choice one is confronted with, unless one is autistic, of course. And rule utilitarianism in turn, especially with Harris’ emphasis on wellbeing, gives a few general rules:

>respect human life
>respect human property, private and public
>respect sexual consent
>respect the environment in which we all live in
>respect justice and social order as it promotes wellbeing for oneself and others
>seek science and scientific facts
>secularize institutions and leave any deity out of one’s acts

These are natural conclusions of Harris-style utilitarianism. Now, consider the Noahide laws of Judaism:

>do not worship false gods->seek truth, the fact
>do not misuse the name of God->leave God alone, separate Him away
>do not murder->respect human life
>do not steal->respect human property
>do not commit sexual immorality->respect sexual consent
>do not eat from a living animal->respect animals and nature
>uphold courts and justice->respect justice and the social order

Therefore, Sam Harris’ system is fundamentally Jewish, he is no different from an atheist rabbi in a reform/reconstructed Judaism synagogue. New Atheism impresses Tel Aviv and Yahweh.

>>18692362
You need to be over the age of 18 to post on this website. go back to tiktok with your shitty cancer sticker tourist

>>18692375
I'm not a scientismist, though
I think believing 2000 year old piece of paper that says "God told me this" is a totally valid way of seeking truth