Richard Dawkins and his Atheism

>Seriously, what's the fucking difference between them in meaningful terms
One pisses more people off and gets authors more sales and bigger headlines?

First half of the Scapegoat.
Nietzsche in general.
Sartre and Camus.
Utilitarians.
Listed in general order of quality.

To quote Kermit the Frog: “The Christianity that Dawkins criticizes is the Christianity that a smart thirteen year-old boy objects to.” You should generally avoid New Atheists - they're hardly a competent critique and basically just bash American bible belt style autistic literalism.

Hitchens was a disgusting neocon and has zero moral authority to condemn religious people. Dawkins is at least a decent chap, he has some pretty good debates with theologians.

>wrote some great books on evolution and biology
>everyone ignores them in favor of this meme
Makes me kind of sad.

>OJ Simpson had some great games and raised three children but everyone still focuses on that murder meme

>where do the rules of physics come from, for example? That didn't just come from evolution
That's a very serious cosmological question, instead of asking loaded questions if you were seriously interested you would have to dedicate a lot of time reading scientific articles and getting a technical grasp on the question. The rules of physics aren't necessarily constant, on a grand cosmological scale they may be subject to some form of "evolution".
arxiv.org/abs/1310.8539

The alternative is to place faith in divine revelation and stop asking questions.

Theoretical Christianity can only be considered in light of actually existing Christianity.

>Theoretical Christianity can only be considered in light of actually existing Christianity.
There's a multitude of interpretations of practices. Bashing literalist rites isn't an actual philosophical discussion it's just cheap showmanship.

Biblical literalism isn't some tiny obscure sect, it's a massive political movement. Dominionism is only growing, you can ignore it to focus on you're own personal interpretations but eventually you're going to have to face what's really going on in real Church's out there when they start taking control of the judicial system and imposing their belief as public law.

Why should Dawkins have to critique the whole philosophical corpus of Christianity, though?
He is clearly focused on combating the fundamentalist Protestant camp in the US, which is basically a toxic political force all on its own. This is not a battle you can win with well-researched arguments, this is a struggle taking place in public life and institutions. I'm not an American, but seeing the strength of protestant fervor over there, I can understand why spreading atheist propaganda is useful.

Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State

>eventually you're going to have to face what's really going on in real Church
No doubt, but the book isn't positioned or marketed as dealing with that aspect of modern Christianity, but rather as a "christfags btfo *tips*". Call it nitpicking if you like.
>Why should Dawkins have to critique the whole philosophical corpus of Christianity, though?
See above. He shouldn't and he doesn't yet he claims to.

The Communist Manifesto wasn't written to be the comprehensive summary of Marxism, but it's taken to be such all the time by people who have never read Marx's economic work.
The truth is that the majority of people aren't going to bother with philosophy and social analysis. Popular simplification has its place for the plebs.

Just look at Africa user if you think some good higher power is at work on this fucking planet

He was pro the war in Iraq because of how America left the Kurds hanging after the first Iraq war. While I personally do not agree with the Iraq war his point isn't a particularly neo-con point.

>critique of religion
No need, it's baseless to begin with. You can't critique what is devoid of substance.

Nietzsche

...

>The alternative is to place faith in divine revelation
Even if you do this, everything is still a mystery

>I'm not an American, but seeing the strength of protestant fervor over there, I can understand why spreading atheist propaganda is useful
So America can be ruined like Europe is? Oh do, please do spread atheist propaganda, and do not even concern yourself with spreading truth. Who cares of countries fall because they are abandoning everything they were built upon

Nietzsche

New atheism might be unsofisticated but it's completely factual. The only reason you hate it is to seem like a sophisticated contrarian.

>but it's completely factual.

Yeah, Sam Harris can disprove free will because he did half a dozen tests on the brain. Oh wait...

I'm not even saying that his bullshit means free will doesn't exist, but don't pretend everything spouted by New Atheists to shit on religion is true when you have charlatans like Sam Harris spouting complete nonsense and presenting it as fact.

>t. Atheist.

>He was pro the war in Iraq because of how America left the Kurds hanging after the first Iraq war.

That was only one of a couple of arguments he advanced for why he was pro war.

In particular, he claimed a significant nexus between Iraq and 9/11, and continued to try to make this case years after the war ended. But there was only but sleight, remote and rather dubious evidence for this *possibility*, and no clear or convincing evidence that there actually *was* such a nexus.

New atheism and offshoot Protestants (including any Baptist branches) are the fucking worst and destroying the culture created by the Episcopalians and Presbyterians of the 19th and 20th centuries.

The fundamental core of this argument relies on the supported assumption that life and consciousness can arise from something material or something void, which is impossible. One consciousness has left the body, that consciousness cannot be revived by any means of material administration, nor can consciousness be created by any combination of chemicals within a lab, nor does consciousness simply arise spontaneously out of nothingness. It has not been done nor will it ever be done, because consciousness is not material. He claims that science is the backbone of his argument, yet he makes claims that science has yet to prove. That is not scientific at all, any scientist worth his salt would be kicked out for such things.

Christianity is easy for atheists to counter with logical enlargements because Christianity does not present God in an empirical, scientific manner but asks you to simply believe based on faith. The sanatana dharma, called Hinduism modernly, maintains that blind faith in something is useless, direct experience is needed. This is why meditation and yoga is so prevalent within not only Hinduism, but all eastern systems of philosophy. Through yoga you are able to directly see God yourself and all his expansions given enough practice. By doing so, it is no longer a question of faith or belief in God, but directly knowing that he exists based your own experience.

"I've forgotten the details, but I once piqued a gathering of theologians and philosophers by adapting the ontological argument to prove that pigs can fly. They felt the need to resort to Modal Logic to prove that I was wrong" -God Delusion, p. 84

American-style Biblical literalism is unknown to Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and half of Protestantism.

Every major corporation is 100% behind social liberalism, to the point that its impossible to have a successful career as an executive in a major corporation while publicly opposing gay marriage. The "religious right" is alot weaker than you think, or than it appeared in 2004.

>lacking reading comprehension
>being contrarian and calling others contrarian
You're on the wrong board, bubbaleh.

The thing about Hitchens is that one often got the feeling that it wasn't so much that he adamantly believed there was no God, as that he maybe half believed in God but thought that God was a complete jerk. To put it another way, he often seemed as though he was mad *at* God.

Yes they do fight religious fundamentalism and their more retarded variants instead of christian philosophy or more intricate interpretations of the Bible. That said, at a fundamental level they have done enough to disprove the existence of God and this is all that matters. I don't need to counter every argument for something in order to disprove it, as long as my own arguments are factual and well reasoned.

I'm not saying that everything they've said is correct; everything they've said regarding god is correct, however.

>I don't need to counter every argument for something in order to disprove it
Yes you do. If any argument for the existence of God stands and you are unable to counter it, then you've accepted it. Even one proof of God's existence is enough to prove that existence.

You kind of have to believe in the existence of God if you want to hold the position that there's a problem of evil because the concept of evil is unintelligible without a transcendent standard of objective good. As CS Lewis would say a man doesn't call something crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. We can't call something evil unless we have a notion of the ultimate good to compare.

An ultimate good cannot just be an idea. It must be, in effect, a personality with consciousness and free will. The rain isn't morally good even though it makes the crops grow; a tornado that kills isn't morally evil--though it may be an evil for those in it's way. Happy and sad events, from birth to death, just happen, and we ascribe moral qualities to them as they suit us or don't. But true, objective good and evil, in order to BE good and evil, have to be aware and intentional. So an ultimate moral good must be conscious and free; it must be God.

If anything, the state of Africa is actually evidence in favor of the existence of a creator rather - I mean any respectable, legitimately omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being would want those sub-human nigger-apes to suffer. It's retribution for their inhumanity, stupidity, and hatred of the white race and western civilization in general. Although I'm not a fan of Freudian pseudo-psychology, to use his own terminology, black seem to be driven above all by an insatiable death drive and a deep seated and unconscious resentment for anything beautiful, constructive, ingenious, or elegant.

>If any argument for the existence of God stands and you are unable to counter it, then you've accepted it.
Wow. This is the definition of a "God Of The Gaps" type argument.

The selfish gene is one of the best reading experiences I've ever had, and I'm a Thomist. Dawkins really wasted his talent for pop science writing.

Oh friendo, I think you mean Protestantism in general is the fucking worst and has been undermining the philosophical, theological, and cultural foundation and legacy of Catholicism and Orthodoxy for centuries.

I'm basically an atheist and materialist (although I do like to think of myself, as it were, as something like a "mystic", or "existentialist" atheist - and I'm also a realist, i.e. Platonist, regarding mathematical objects), but nevertheless, I have a deep respect for the cultural and intellectual aspects of Catholicism and Orthodoxy - characteristics which seem to be absent from most protestant denominations (especially their contemporary variants). The world would be better if everyone was either an atheist, Catholic, Orthodox, Gnostic, or satanist (Hinduism also seems promising, although I don't know enough about it).

wut

He's essentially saying that an argument succeeds if you have no reason to dismiss it. This isn't saying a gap in our collective knowledge is evidence for God but maybe my definition of a "god of the gaps type argument" is wholly wrong because I have no idea how you drew the conclusion that its what he was arguing for.

All the new atheists essentially just argue against a strawman God that's easy to disprove. Admittedly this is the type of God that most religious people do believe in, which is why most atheists are so unbearably smug. However, if you hear the arguments from serious theologians and religious scientists, you'll realise that there is nothing incompatible between faith and science (i.e. science is neither able to prove the existence of God or disprove it). It's been a while since I read The God Delusion, but I don't think he ever really deals with the more compelling arguments for God and prefers to mock fundamentalists instead.

You're whole first paragraph is indicative of a complete lack of understanding of neuroscience/cognitive science and contemporary philosophy of mind. Once a person is completely dead (that is, when someone is both brain dead, and their heart heart has stopped) their consciousness can't be restored because we can't return their brain functioning back to normal. Presumably, if we were able to do so, their consciousness would 'return'. The point here being, that you can't make the argument that consciousness isn't the product of brain states because dead people aren't conscious even if their brain is intact, because this line of thinking completely overlooks the fact that even if the neurological structure of a dead person's brain is the same as when they were alive, it's not in the same neurological state, since neurological processes have stopped. Such a fundamentally flawed argument could only be made by someone who has no understanding of neuroscience (and perhaps even common sense), or is simply willfully (albeit, perhaps somewhat subconsciously) ignoring the obvious and relevant fact that a dead persons brain is not in the same physical state as a living (and conscious) person's brain.

Just to be clear, however, I'm not disagreeing with you conclusion. In fact, I myself have strong dualistic proclivities. I'm just objecting to your argument, owing to its fundamental and obvious flaws.

As for the points made in your second paragraph, I find them to be somewhat more intellectually interesting and coherently defended, even if I can't say I agree or that I'm convinced (or even that I disagree, at this point).

Christian creationism is not false; natural selection does not exist or occur.
He has no argument, he has meme evidence which is all this Meme Inventor has. Scientism as what this is literally has no substance.
>adism is sible so iz troo
is not even a defensible stance. It's platitude spewing.
>I will say that Hitchens' at least does a good argument on why Christ's sacrifice, and the abolition of sin is unethical.
No he doesn't. This cannot even be argued. It literally reduces to O MY NORMATIVE ETHICS which is in itself self-felating.

>LE SCIENCE SEZ IT SO IZ TROOOOOOOOO
Not a fucking argument you troglodyte.
>common sense
My fucking ass you need to go back to the 18th century you absolute flaming retard

>a good post
>autistic reeing
Stop ruining decent threads and fuck off to your cave of autism, please.

>REEE I DONT LIKE HOW YOU SOUND SO IM RIGHT HAAHA TAKE THAT FUCKING CRISDENS IM GONNA FUCK YOU HAHA LOL

Lolwut? Basically what this guy said, bro .

I'm an atheist and I find any existential argument for God based on epistemological or theoretical gaps in human knowledge to be completely retarded, just as any other intellectually honest individual would (including theists). That being said, what the user you replied to was suggesting wasn't a 'God of the gaps' argument. In fact, he made a fairly good point (albeit a bit too strong) - namely that a coherent and valid argument that hasn't been refuted should be taken as fairly convincing (however, saying that your intellectually obligated to accept it is a bit too strong, and does seem to amount to a leap of inductive reasoning). This point extends beyond just theological arguments, to any sort of discussion in general. A well reasoned argument that hasn't been refuted is pretty strong on it's own, and perhaps should even be tentatively accepted as true in the absence of any similarly defended alternative. Problems do, however, arise if we have two equally well defended arguments that haven't been refuted and otherwise appear consistent with our background knowledge and beliefs (c.f. the general development of competing scientific theories).

That being said, we need to be extremely careful here distinguishing between claims and arguments. A claim that hasn't been refuted shouldn't be accepted as true simply because it doesn't appear to be inconsistent and can't be refuted. I shouldn't for example believe in Russell's Teapot simply because I can't make an argument against it. However, if someone can not only make a claim, but can also defend that claim with an argument, then, unless I can provide a counterargument or present empirical evidence contradicting the claim, I should probably accept the claim as true.

Thanks for another quality post.

>Christian creationism is not false
[citation needed]
>natural selection does not exist or occur
[citations in favour of natural selection overwhelming]

>Christian creationism is not false; natural selection does not exist or occur.
This is your mind on American Protestantism.

>Hitchens
>neocon
Far from it, he was a Trotskyist-Blairite type blend till his death.
Basically what /pol/ would call a jew, but unironically.

I fucking love fucking your bitch.

I remember listening to an episode of In Our Time from like 1999 or so where they had invited Dawkins to discuss the mind. Another person repeatedly tried explaining dualism to him but he literally could not comprehend it.

>Dawkins: No, I disagree, we'll be able to explain exactly how the brain works once we understand its fundamental mechanics
>Intelligent person: That's a bold prediction. Mind may be an emergent property that is more than the sum of its components and their mechanics. Just because you know which part does what, that does not mean that you know the nature of that which results.
>Dawkins: NO WE JUST NEED MORE ADVANCED BRAINSCANNERS

I know you're just trolling, but I can tell that what you're saying legitimately reflects some of your beliefs. The entire force of your argument is dependent on a complete misinterpretation of what I said, and the lack of a basic understanding of neuroscience, philosophy, common sense, and logic.

I never claimed that science tells us the mind is the product of neurological states, and even if I had that wouldn't have been relevant to the point I was making. I simply made the objectively true, empirically observable, and philosophically uncontroversial claim that the physical state of a dead persons brain is different from the physical state of a living persons brain. Specifically, while it's true that their neuroanatomy will remained basically intact until their brain starts to decay, their neurons and glial cells will no longer be performing their typically metabolic activities or engaging in neurogenic communication.

I actually agree with you that the mind is not a material substance and that dualism is basically true. I'm just pointing out that the argument you made in favor of dualism is retarded, unsubstantiated by your claims, and even flawed on a very basic and non-philosophical level - namely regarding the fact that you assume a dead persons brain is physically identical to a living persons, when this is obviously false even to most community college sociology majors like yourself.

Citations aren't valid, sorry!
I'm not a proddy or an American.
ANYBODY WHO DISAGREES WITH ME MUST BE TROLLLING HAHHA YOU CLEARLY DONT UBDERSTAND LE SCEICNE ITS CEALRLY LE TRUE BECAUSE THEY LE SED SO AHAHAHAHAAH PHISOLOHPORS DO SCIENCE BRO HAVET YOU READ NEECHEE MAN HE WROTE THAT SCIENCE ABOUT FUCKIN GUYS THAT ULTIMATELY BTFO ALL CHRISTIANS LMAO
Your posts have no content, they are just appeals. Go back to pleddit, the people there don't actually read or do philosophy so they are more likely to buy your bullshit.
Why are you assuming I'm somebody else? You do realize that multiple people that think you're a fucking idiot, right? This isnt like le reddit where all arguments are a circlejerk between two people.

You're a stupid fuckin bitch. All you seem to be capable of is being retarded and misrepresenting my points. Fuck you, nigger! God, I hate trolls. I can't even tell if you're actually retarded or just a no-life troll. Hmm which could it be? Both!?

Good point, well put.

>I don't understand it, therefore God
>a universe without god makes me feel sad
These are literally the only thiest arguments.

You can't explain dualism to someone who refuse to take as a first principle. By definition dualism is to be taken as the axiom. Of course dualism is dead or rather pointless to accept since it leads to nowhere being incapable of explaining rudimentary brain lesion studies, advances neurosciences, and neural nets in use in the field of machine learning.

The new hotness is mind and body is the same. There is no mind without a body attached. With both being shaped by the basic principles of evolution.

Why is 'does god exist' a question worth asking? Most theologians and philosophers agree with negative theology (god can only be defined by what god isn't), so we can't even come to an effective, common description of that which we are trying to prove does or does not exist. Whether or not god exists is only relevant to our existence insofar as it changes our value system and decision-making, so the importance of the question of god's existence can be reduced to: is there a divinely mandated consequence to my actions related to the moral quality of these actions? Dawkins is just small-dicked and he has wasted his life on a stupid question. Is the soul eternal and is justice a cosmic principal, all you need. I'm a faggot, I know

I think its interesting how only an atheist would say things like the question of God's existence is pointless or it isn't worth thinking about so we should shut up and leave the subject alone. If I was cynical I would say the question makes them uncomfortable because they recognize there are real ramifications to the belief that God exists so they try to shut the debate down to protect themselves.

why not

I wrote that post. I am very much a theist

Of course it's worth asking the question.

People sink time and energy and resources into religion, fight and argue over religion, and it's a fucking tragic waste.

Demonstrating that God as a concept is both vacuous and harmful can only materially improve society and general wellbeing..

>why is 'does god exist' a question worth asking?
>is there a divinely mandated consequence to my actions related to the moral quality of these actions?

Hey, look at that, you answered your own question.

I guess I was just referring to the purpose of the self not the purposes of religion. God is incomprehensible and most people arguing over god's existence don't even have a legitimate understanding of their own definitions of what god is. If I say x+3=5 and you disagree, because x means something different to each of us, we would talk ourselves in circles. I'm suggesting that it is easier to skip a step on the train of logic, removing unnecessary factors, by asking: if x=2, then does x+3=5? This is possible by removing the variable of 'god' (some term that could mean anything, or even everything) to focus on the question that actually has an effect on our lives, the question that provides us with the identical benefit that is provided to us by the answer to the question about god's existence. I'm not disagreeing with anything, just reframing.

>Demonstrating that God as a concept is both vacuous and harmful can only materially improve society and general wellbeing..
Hold on, I can't find a fedora picture large enough.

Ya, I know it is effectively the same question but it cuts out the triggering words and extraneous arguments that most people focus on. The question of the existence of God has turned into a republicans vs. democrats scene, it is Christian vs. people opposed to Christianity, both sides parroting the talking points of their 'teams' stuck in a stalemate. The question comes down to unprovable opinions and 99.9% of the time both sides come out with minds unchanged, so why discuss it if not for vanity

Just apply the ontological argument. I'm sure that'll conjure up a fedora picture greater than that which can be thought of.

Just read a great paper by Massimo Pigliucci on new atheism and scientism where he critiques Dawkins (among others). Really recommend it

>muh tradition
Oh please, as if Catholicism and the Orthodoxy haven't been intellectually and cultural barren for the past five hundred years