So nobody actually takes him seriously, right?

Except I'm pretty sure both Hitchens and Harris have spoken against Islam.

only noteworthy thing he's done is popularize the word meme

Richard dawkins. Hmmm just looked him up. So this guy says theres no god huh? Wheres his evidence? I will wait for that.

He coined, you faggot. How dare you disrespect a prophet of Kek

Where is your evidence you are not a pedophile rapist?

Richard Dawkins is one of the few people worth listening to.

what is the rebuttal though. id like to educate myself. gimme a source please if typing it out is too bothersome

Yes, unfortunately. All the cool contrarians here dismiss him as a fedora, despite memeing on a daily basis, something they'd probably not have such a clear concept of if not for his contribution to meme theory and how it has contributed to internet culture.
The more philosophically minded academicians (somewhat justifiably) scoff at his contribution to philosophy without really looking into what he's been saying, regardless of his admittedly limited historical understanding and scope. And he's alienated the SJW crowd by refusing to safe space around his thoughts on abortion and Islam, just to name two examples.
There's a lot to Dawkins, even if you disagree with his atheism or his approach to atheism, and I think the reactionary way in which most are treating him right now will only serve to cement him further in history books, for better or for worse.

Nobody in academia, at least in terms of his religious views. He is a decent evolutionary biologist, so he has some respect in that field.

Is he the one that says agnosticism is stupid because you shouldn't "sit on the fence"?

>nickbatesShitWank.avi

Never forget.

youtube.com/watch?v=2tIwYNioDL8

Fuck you, you cunt. You're a fucking shithead. You're a dick. You're a bitch. Kill yourself . You're an asshole. Eat shit

Not really, rather he argues that even if you waver between the two, you're likely to either have your foot more firmly on the agnostic theist or agnostic atheism side, that most people, atheists or not, are willing to admit that at the end of the day there could be a chance they could be wrong about their faith or the lack of, which he argues is more sensible than trying to have your cake and eat it too.

How does he know what we think? Isn't there a possibility we could be completely 50/50 on the issue?

>competent theologians

The trouble is that New Atheism made itself unfashionable, which sadly lead to our current backlash of insincere, ironic 'cultural Christians' that you see on /pol/ and so on.

A few things led to this. Firstly, the realization that with Christianity gone, something will have to fill that void - and in a lot of Western countries, European in particular, it looks as if that'll be Islam. Secondly there was the realization, encapsulated by ol' Chris Hitchens, that trying to unite atheists is the equivalent of trying to "herd cats" - and so all of these ironic Christian LARP'ers you see, who are allegedly 'Christian', on certain threads here for example, are really just pretenders to a throne of unity. That is, something that can unite people - or did so in the past, such as religion/race/etc.

Nietzsche was right to say that God is dead - his second, somewhat more tacit implication, is rarely appreciated: that mankind was not ready for it. Hence the worldwide regression we now see in the face of more primitive, unified forces - such as Islam/ISIS/etc.

I do like to give the New Atheists credit for calling a spade a spade when it comes to Islam. The trouble is that they couldn't admit, with the exception of Hitchens/etc, that whilst all religions are shitty, some are worse than others.

Dawkins had a particular bone to pick with Christianity, for example, having been 'buggered' by a priest or something in his youth.

>liking or disliking someone based on politics
fuck off

He argues that is as logical a position as claiming to be bald and having a full set of hair at the same time. That at best it's ingenuine, at worst doublethink. Bear in mind though, he's only critizising those who claim themselves 50/50 on the issue. He makes room for people who are in transit between the two positions, and thinks most of us are at least 40/60 on the issue.
He himself claims to be about 97% sure there isn't any god, but would of course reconsider if convincing enough evidence or theory would be put forward about one's existence, and sympathies somewhat with deists and Pantheists, though ultimately questioning wether there's any point in holding onto such believes when you're that far from what is traditionally considered religion.

Insightful post, spurdobro.

>Dawkins had a particular bone to pick with Christianity, for example, having been 'buggered' by a priest or something in his youth.

Actually, it was a teacher, and he got flack from the SJW crowd for claiming that, while unpleasant, didn't impact his life in any meaningful way. Furthermore, while not taking a stance on one religion against other, he's pretty hard on Islam, not standing for any of that "cultural relativism" crap, which of course just goes to piss off SJW further.

New Atheism's biggest problem is that it somehow believes it invented atheism. As a matter of fact, New Atheism goes to every possible length to exalt itself despite its claims to common sense; how can something common be glorified? If you've ever read Kant's Critique of Judgment you'll remember the section on universal communicability, where a judgment made by the thinking subject is imagined or fabricated to apply to the whole of humanity. New Atheism's existence is predicated on this kind of autistic projection, where the individual subject's feelings are constituted by the disbelief that anyone could oppose them.

Now God is not a matter of taste, but rather a true or false proposition. New Atheism, despite its attempts to erect itself as something as easily propositional as God, in fact, its existence as a rival to Theism depends on this attempt, is however just such a matter of taste. Modern religious proselytization does not exist for us. At most we encounter a street preacher or some cultist who we shoulder past on the way to the subway. However what does exist for us is the peddling of New Atheism, something that can't be pushed through because it refuses to be its simple proposition. It wants to be taste, to feel as a result of its judgment, and dominate with its answer to the non-question of God's non-existence. This position of pretended superiority is naturally emboldened by the substitution of man and science in God's place, as if both things were infallible and natural objects of faith and good will, resulting in the confusing hard candy of New Atheism: a simple disbelief in God for the shell, an unquestioning faith in science and futurism as the hidden, medicinal center. This would be a best selling drug if New Atheism did not advertise it as something sweet. It is rather that disgusting artificial grape flavor that accompanies every baby out with the bathwater rejection of God that also casts aside concepts of absolutes, sacrifices, and first causes.

For their part, the reactionary right are just as frustrating. Where New Atheists crop up and pretend that they have some novel idea about atheism, the alt right is quick to resort to their plan A and don the mask of Christianity, more for the sake of taste than the sake of philosophy or intelligence. In this way God has become something fashionable, something whose very appearance in conversation is a delicious ground for the contrarianism of the hungry autistic.

>Appealing to Kant

Stopped reading there.

Excellent. Spurdo-posters confirmed for best posters on Veeky Forums.

>that tweet
wew, ol dicky dawson doesn't take prisoners

>A few things led to this. Firstly, the realization that with Christianity gone, something will have to fill that void - and in a lot of Western countries, European in particular, it looks as if that'll be Islam.

Keep fucking your fleshlight whilst Omar and Aisha down the road shit out another indoctrinated kid every year.

...

Said kid is likely to blow himself up, suicide by cop or go die in the middle of nowhere, so it sort of evens things out at the moment.

It doesn't really even things out when said kid takes out 10+ Westerners with him.

>Kid make 5 mudbabbys
>Kid blows up 10 - 20 non-mudpeople

>Other 4 go die for Isis killing other mudbabbys

>soundly debunked by competent theologians

*tips fedora*

G-d exists. It says so in The Bible. You don't need any more proof than that.

It's my wet dream to see Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins publicly executed.

>As an intellectual, it is my duty to disprove the existence of God and educate the clueless masses everywhere I can

>vocal athiest becomes an idiot
>athiesm is automatically wrong

Whatever. I was christian for several years. I'm allowed to think there is no god, jews are full of shit, always have been full of shit, and the vestigial corpse of rome is bullshit.

*tips menorah*

Agreed 100%. These irreligious degenerates should be lashed to le cross and tortured to death. As proscribed in the Psalms. Praise Jesus.

Follow thy leader

>implying my catholicism is insincere

here you go >current year
>being cucktholic

yes and they're both garbage

>ISIS is because of the Enlightenment

>G-d
Why do I keep seeing this? Are Christposters not allowed to say His full name or something?

>"So, how do you know the Bible/Koran/Talmud/Gita is true?"
>"It says so in the Bible/Koran/Talmud/Gita."
Please tell me you see the issue here.

I don't really know what a christposter is but I think that's exclusively a Jewish thing. I think they're supposed to say YHWH.

That is some very well phrased bullshit right there.
Basically you hate their smug projection of certainty and the replacement of faith in god with faith in science. That's all you had to say.

Jews arent supposed to write god's full name cause one day this paper may be desecrated. So they write g-d

Sorry Jews; they're actually not allowed to say yhwh or elohim either.

le reddit reduction man