[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/atheism/ - Atheism

The rejection of belief in the existence of deities

Catalog

8chan Bitcoin address: 1NpQaXqmCBji6gfX8UgaQEmEstvVY7U32C
The next generation of Infinity is here (discussion) (contribute)

You may buy ads now for any board, betakey is removed. Please contact ads@8ch.net for information or help with this service.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


New to this board and want to know the rules? Have a question for atheists? Then you should probably read the FAQ (Updated: 3/19/15). It's not necessary, but don't be surprised if people ignore you if you don't elaborate further on a question already answered here, or the moderator does something you didn't expect.

File: 1441153645072.jpg (19.52 KB, 240x270, 8:9, image.jpg)

370d15 No.10856

Near the end of God Delusions Richard Dawkins talks a lot about Marc Hauser's surveys. Unfortunately Hauser was found guilty of 8 counts of scientific misconduct, which means we can't trust his work. This is a surprise for me, because his "wild minds: what animals think" book was the first I read in the psychology field, back in Middle School, and in fact I've never read a similar book since then.

So the question is, did Richard Dawkins ever talk about the falsification? It seems like he'd need to address it if he made a second edition of the God Delusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Hauser

370d15 No.10864

I couldn't find any place on the internet where Dawkins or Dennett talked about the fraud. I know Dennett has met the guy, but you'd think he'd be at least be willing to throw him under the bus after that. Instead, he praised his new book.

https://mobile.twitter.com/danieldennett/status/395190626351726594


9a49a6 No.10865

>>10864

Dennet is my least favorite horsemen. He hasn't done anything noteworthy as far as I know and rambles on how "consciousness" or what the idea is trying to get at doesn't exist.


de458b No.10872

File: 1441173432955.jpg (28.64 KB, 248x350, 124:175, 1439739573266.jpg)

>>10865

At least he's not a complete idiot like Harris.

"Guys, the is/ought problem is inconvenient. Let's ignore it and make moral judgements based on our feelings and intuitions. It's easy for me to do this and obvious which answers are right, therefore it must be easy for everyone and they must all come to the same conclusions."


9a49a6 No.10875

>>10872

[citation needed]

Btw Harris is a neuroscientist which is greater than any of the four in accomplishment. Next in line is Dawkins who is a zoologist, the lowliest bio field imaginable. Still he;'s stellar despite that.

Dennet is the retard.


de458b No.10882

>>10875

Neuroscience is a a bunch of woo at this point.

"Something's happening in the brain. We can see because of the blood flow."

"OK, but what's happening."

"We don't know, but we'll assume it's related to this region of the brain that seems to be associated with a certain function."

All this is beside the point any way. He's an idiot because he thinks being "smart" means he can just walk into a field he's unfamiliar with and turn everything upside down without even doing a little homework on it. The is/ought problem has been a bugbear of philosophy for centuries for a reason. Many people smarter than Harris have tried to address it and found it impossible to resolve. What has Harris done for atheism besides shit on Islam (which anyone who's not retarded and has even the tiniest balls can do) and made some snappy one liners. What substantial arguments has he contributed to the debate about religion and non-religion?

Dawkins has written multiple books that not only take down religion, but demonstrate how much of a triumph science is (in a way that's accessible to the layman). Hitchens was happy to call out religious people on shit that even most atheists don't want to speak up about, like Mother Theresa being a shit and circumcision being mutilation. Dennet is unimpressive, but at least he's not shitting in his hand and juggling the turds. Harris describes himself as spiritual, for fuck's sake and gets caught up in retarded arguments about inconsequential shit like free will.


9a49a6 No.10885

>>10882

>Neuroscience is a a bunch of woo at this point.

Stopped reading there.


de458b No.10886

>>10885

Oh fuck a scary idea. Maybe you belong on one of these boards:

>>>/christian/

>>>/islam/

>>>/pol/


9a49a6 No.10887

>>10886

>says something retarded

>thinks he's on the right board

how cute.


9a49a6 No.10888

>>10887

inb4 projection


de458b No.10890

>>10887

>>10888

Something you disagree with =/= retarded.

Stopping reading when you encounter an idea you disagree with instead of even bothering to read the reasoning behind it is the opposite of skepticism.


9a49a6 No.10892

File: 1441184963362.jpg (12.17 KB, 330x282, 55:47, you-keep-using-that-word.jpg)

>>10890

>rejecting science by calling it "woo"

>skepticism

>>>/tumblr/

Also where's that citation on Harris?


7932e3 No.10899

>>10886

It's not a scary idea, it's a wrong idea.


892af5 No.10965

>>10865

>He hasn't done anything noteworthy as far as I know

except being an important philosopher.

writing books.

educating people about the philosophy of science, the philosophy of the mind, etc.

suggesting new hypotheses in those areas.

criticize superstition.

etc.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]