What sci related book un-cucked you?

>What does dawkins have to do with reddit?
Popsci retard pedo who considers Darwin to be the pinnacle of science. Also, Atheism is inherently contradictory. All Atheists believe the purpose of life is to breed, yet they make so few children that they are shrinking as a share of the world population.

I think ONCE is the best synthesis so far

Opps for Pssssh don't mention it kid

Damn how many times am I gonna goof
This Is for you

Dawkins is a contrarian popsci memer. He abandoned logic and reason long ago in favor of strawman character assassination debates about atheism.

Other shitters include
Machio cuckold
Nigger deGrasse chicken
Bill nye the spectrum guy
Roger penrose
Stephen hawking

If you think you're getting anything of substance or scientific value from any of these people, you're more clueless than you thought you were.

If you want to unfuck yourself, read real textbooks from grad courses, or undergrad if needed.
Springer
Horowitz and hill
Stewart
Griffiths

Are good for math physics and engineering. I have no idea about legit biology authors

Nah atheism is a lack of belief is a deity. Many atheists have different opinions about the purpose of life.

>Dawkins is a contrarian popsci memer.
#/OurGuy/

> biological determinism redpill
Might as well be fatalism tbqh family

At what level of fame do scientists opinions lose their value?

>textbooks

Don't listen to this pseud. If you want to get the lo-down on a subject, read reviews on the subject in a peer-reviewed journal.

>atheism is a lack of belief is a deity.
it's not just a lack of a belief, but actually a belief that there is no deity
it's not just semantics, i promise

Go back to /b retard, we're working here.

>falling for the biological purpose meme

You should embrace nothingness instead. You are a repugnant sheep following meme instincts

It's not a matter of fame, it's a matter of thinking you're an authority on everything. That's where everyone on the list goes full retard.
Op wanted books, not obscure journals that are so narrow in scope that you need to check every reference to determine legitimacy of the subject only to find out that each paper references every other paper in the field leading to a circlejerk of bs that can't be blamed on any one person.

Nah, you're a cunt. I bet you read global warming papers too.

Not believing and believing in the lack of are also distinct. Atheism isn't a belief. It is possible to not believe in anything for that matter.

>narrow in scope
>references every other paper in the field
U wot

he's one of the /pol/tards assigned to LARP as someone who actually reads academic papers

it's cute because they think they aren't obvious

Epigenetic factors are functionally captured as being environmental in estimations of narrow sense heritability and genome-wide association studies. They are a literal nothingburger in the field of heritability estimation.

That's called abstraction. It serves to make the scientific method workable, not to describe reality. You probably think systems are real too.

I'd say Penrose is fine even though he accidentally drop funny memes, but even they are interesting and thought inducing. Conformant writers basically promote politically correct narrative, they won't tell you about weaknesses of the theories, like e.g. gravitational waves have zero energy density, yet they carry non-zero energy.