Are there any philosophers who take him seriously?

If you count fourteen year-old me as a philosopher, then yes

Ever progress from your 14 year old state?

No. On origin of species still contains the fundamental mechanism of modern evolution.

The only time I've ever seen Dawkins creditied in a modern biology class was when some dumb professor mistakenly credited him with the discovery of kin selection. But in reality he simply 'explained it' in his book the selfish gene for lay people.

His work is shit. You'd know that if you realized that nobody gives a shit about it in biology and for the fact that it was published for lay people isntead of academia in a journal.

yeah

>meme scientist
Was that meant to be wordplay?

I don't think he's that clever.

He is the ideological father of r/atheism and all post 2000 atheists. At least something good has come out of his 'reign of reason'.

>I dislike him so he's a hack and terrible at everything

it's possible that he could be knowledgeable and respected in his field while being a complete moron philosophically/theistically

> He's a meme scientist.

Fuck off, Dawkins is the GOAT autist and exactly the guy we need to stop this SJW nonsense

> his pretentious title and controversy can make a lot cash peddling bullshit to retarded white males who desperatly need something to make them feel worth while in today's world.

Also, hating on Dawkin in favour of 'real philosophers' while saying this... dat projection

Nobody takes atheists seriously anymore.

There is so much evidence and proof for God, it's well established now that God exists.

>peddling bullshit to retarded white males who desperatly need something to make them feel worth while in today's world.

Not sure if shitskin or white feminist.

>this book written by a bunch of cultists as a political manifesto proves the existence of a higher being

It's one of those bogeymen, no doubt.

My uni does a 'philosophy of biology' course and one of his books is on the reading list.

It tells the end of the world from the beginning, a thing only God can do, yes.

Kek, same here. I find it incomprehensible that I ever believed his bullshit.

I don't think so, but he's also not a philosopher. His entire position as an anti-theist was just basic, common sense objections to theism. They may not stand up to greater philosophical scrutiny, but greater philosophical scrutiny tends to poke holes into all sorts of things that fall under basic common sense.

>He presented his agruments at a philosophy conference and completely embarrassed himself. They tried to explain basic modal logic to h im and he just gave up and said 'philosphy is dumb and we don't need it anymore'.

When did this happen? Genuinely curious.

Are you guys theist now, or do you just realize Dawkins is trash?

You seem triggered, mate.

Did he even do anything notable in the bee arena?

Not that anyone could argue with him

“Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths–not killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others.”

Source?

>Dawkins befuddled over a little language horseplay

no wonder he no do philosophy good

>fedoras' hero has autism

psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/201205/does-autism-lead-atheism

Don't worry, Ben. It was a brilliant joke.

Every analytical philosopher takes him seriously that's for sure.

Many evolutionary biologists and scientists consider him very influential for his work done to further explain evolution and for popularizing science.

Unfortunately, he's gone full fucking fedora after "The God Delusion", or perhaps earlier, considering his earlier antitheistic works. It's hard to say.

He's also apparently a royal cunt and has abused his position as the chairman for the public understand of science to further preach his brand of anti-theism.

I'd give a source for that, but I forgot the title of that book. It was written by a British atheist who worked for some British natural history museum.

But user analytic are the only philosophers that still take God seriously because of Leibniz inspired ideas about Module Reality.

Science Daily
Date:
March 23, 2016
Source:
Case Western Reserve University
Summary:
The conflict between science and religion may have its origins in the structure of our brains. To believe in a supernatural god or universal spirit, people appear to suppress the brain network used for analytical thinking and engage the empathetic network. When thinking analytically about the physical world, people appear to do the opposite.

I take his books seriously, especially on evolution

pretty influential in popularizing a decent understanding of evolution

he's not a philosopher btw. he's a speaking tour hack essentially.

also what the fuck is up with Veeky Forums being suddenly atheist hating christains?

god delusion would be a great bookk for every teenage christain raised in the bible belt

don't see why it gets so much hate..

actually I do, it's just a meme to hate atheists because Veeky Forums likes to be contrarian on everything.

society is leftist, pol is born. society is getting atheist, Veeky Forums goes full retard religion, national lines are breaking down, WN pops up geninely

Psychopath.

God delusion made no legitimate critique of religion other than strawmen

>or perhaps earlier, considering his earlier antitheistic works. It's hard to say.

Well before the god delusion he wrote several good books about the evolution vs intelligent design topic (the blind watchmaker, climbing mount improbable etc). I can see how he'd follow that with a general book on pleb interpretations of religion. I don't (or I do partly) see why he triggers everyone so much more than anyone else making similar statements.

youtube.com/watch?v=4hX7t5NMhsQ

Krauss is getting old
Holy shit

People here tend to think reddit is an accurate representation of the real world (read as /r/atheism).

>After arguing that evolution is capable of explaining the origin of complexity (biological complexity obviously), near the end of the book Dawkins uses this to argue against the existence of God: "a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution ... must already have been vastly complex in the first place ..." He calls this "postulating organized complexity without offering an explanation."

>Dawkins is the GOAT autist
kek'd

Yes and no

As usual this thread is filled with people who say shit like 'he's been DISCREDITED in THE FIELD' without ever even offering an example of this, let alone any proper argument.

what arguments does he make against god that aren't good? I would love to believe, so honestly i'd like to know. as I can remember, TGD blows them all apart without getting into the 2deep4u type of eternal doubt where everything falls apart.

what good arguments are there for god, actually?

Fairly intelligent evolutionary biologist who decided to take a step into philosophy without knowing anything about it, jumped out because his feet were cold, and wrote about his experience in the many 400 page long scribblings he calls 'books'.

His philosophy is shit but he has an extremely nuanced understanding of evolution.

Other anons aren't lying when they said so. Both can be true you know.

youtube.com/watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw

I liked him when he was publishing research on biology and not when he was ranting on twitter about jars of honey or accusing 14 year old muslim boys in texas of being part of an elaborate conspiracy.

Reminder that he actually seriously unironically tweeted this.

why does he love honey so much

Yeah. Stop being so envious and you'll discover that he has some great scientific ideas.

It's a complete waste of all the time and effort the bees spent to make it.

bump

I don't think he cares. There aren't many philosophers he takes seriously.

the TSA is pretty incompetent. they fail nearly every test done on them to see if they can catch a fake bomb going through security

No one denies he has some good ideas on biology, though he's kinda stubborn and a bit reductionistic when it comes to everything being about "muh individual gene".
But not that's people critique him about.

>and a bit reductionistic when it comes to everything being about "muh individual gene".

He's not too bad really, I remember an analogy about genes being selected in terms of how well they function together, similar to a team of rowers, pulling the oars in synchronisation.

When you are making your latest shitpost do you ever stop and wonder why 95% of religious posts consist of personal attacks on individuals?

Hint: it's because you don't have any serious argument for the existence of your purported magic overlord.

??

ARE there any philosophers?

he was actually right about clock boy though

he was literally a fraud

the issue with dawkins is that he' the king of fedora. and people who are close to being fedora e.g. Veeky Forums users, or former fedoras, use hating on him to signal that they aren't as bad.

i get why people have issues with him, but once you understand he is literally autistic, you realise he just cares about the truth. he doesn't intend to hurt people, he's sort of what we need considering that the demand to moderate behaviour in accordance with people's feelings has become obviously a political weapon now

> He's a meme scientist.
Don't know if it was intentional or not but I giggled.