/atheism/ - Atheism

>>12723

regressives gonna regress

this has been going on for a while now, oversensitive, delusional idiots who believe anyone's "truth" is as good as the truth will always be assblasted by those who point out the facts that offend those who juggle with fiction.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/salon-pulls-out-all-the-stops-in-dissing-new-atheists/

>>12723

>Is anyone else angry about the backlash Richard is getting for… everything?

No. Don't get me wrong he doesn't deserve this but he has to live with that. Sam Harris has the same problems. People take his words out of context and spread this false impression on twitter. They know it wrong but no one double checks the source.

The only lesson we should learn is this: If you read an enraging quote of someone on twitter or fb then it's most likely not true or out of context. People love to hate and take everything that fits their view as a fact.

The funniest hate comes from people like PZ Myers who's desperate to score good boy points from SJWs by attacking him.

People want to take the moral high ground and that can lead to some disastrous results if they don't think critically about what they're going against.

Dawkins doesn't deserve half the shit he gets because a lot of it is based on false premises and people just trying to look better in comparison but at least he's able to take it as well as he can give it. There's no 'Richard Dawkins report to the UN about cyber violence against atheists!' and that alone makes him more worth listening to in my opinion.

No, this doesn't really offend me. I don't think he's really offended either. I'm here for discussing atheism, not the next thing someone says I'm supposed to be offended by. Please don't become the crybabies we're we're annoyed by.

It's because atheist is really just another religion. That's why you people treat Christianity like the devil while giving Islam a free pass.

See, atheism isn't based on logic or rationality. It's based on rebelling against your Christian parents.

>>12723

I don't shit on Dawkins. I don't agree with everything that comes out his mouth, but I appreciate his ideological and logical consistency, and SJW butthurt is always great.

And side note, apparently clockboy wants to sue his school for $15 million. It's a shame, because I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but this is more than enough proof that he's full of shit.

>>12739

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/23/texas-ahmed-mohamed-clock-lawsuit-apology

>"Despite several television appearances and worldwide travel, the Mohamed family says the attention ruined their lives and eventually drove them out of the country, lawyers said."

What a lame excuse. Obviously the father saw opportunities elsewhere, or no longer wanted to be in the US.

>>12740

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Mohamed_clock_incident#Response_of_Ahmed_Mohamed_and_his_family

It says his father decided to move to Qatar so he could study in the capital on a scholarship they gave the kid. Good riddance, this guy has the money to live there and is a Sudanese scam artist.

>>12740

>Drove them out of the country

Much like how GamerGate drove Zoe Quinn out the country. Is this going to be a new trump card for frauds to play the victim with?

>>12738

So edgy and persecuted. Also believing in gods, magic, miracles, walking on water, parting seas, virgin births, back from the dead, and other bullshit in no way compares to non-belief.

I know atheism hurts your feelings and you want to rebel against it but you're reaching out your ass for things to be offended by.

>>12738

>while giving Islam a free pass.

Pftt hahahaahaha.

>atheist is really just another religion

It's funny because this is what Islamic apologists actually believe.

>>12737

>No, this doesn't really offend me. I don't think he's really offended either. I'm here for discussing atheism, not the next thing someone says I'm supposed to be offended by. Please don't become the crybabies we're we're annoyed by.

No one is offended here fucko, we are allowed to be angry at things, don't try to become too much of a saint or you will wind up as a SJW.

>>12744

>Silly Christians, believing in miracles and magic

>Oh no you can't say that about Islam, that's racist!

Or maybe I have it all wrong. Maybe the real reason you target Christianity is because you're scared shitless of Muslims, so you have to resort to bullying a group of people who are known for turning the other cheek.

>>12749

You indeed have it all wrong, the only thing you got right was figuring that obvious one out. No one here is scared of offending some retarded goatfuckers, faggot. Really what will they do backtrace our IPs? Pftahahaha.

>>12749

>so you have to resort to bullying a group of people who are known for turning the other cheek.

Do you actually believe the only reason we criticize christian faith is because we want to "bully"someone weak?

>>12750

Oh OK, so you just want to be edgy and atheism isn't cool anymore so you choose Islam cause it's the new hip thing. So rational and enlightened you are.

>>12753

>blah blah blah semantics blah blah blah

Don't you have some child rapists to protect, enlightened one?

He doesn't suck up to anyone. I'm not angry about anything because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.

>>12781

Then tell us your real religion so we can tear that to shreds too.

>>12782

And yet you nutjobs throw hissy fits whenever someone criticizes Islam, but you're not Muslims. Though I'm sure you wish to be.

>>12793

>And yet you nutjobs throw hissy fits whenever someone criticizes Islam

Show us one post on this board that suggest that.

>>12793

>And yet you nutjobs throw hissy fits whenever someone criticizes Islam

Guilt by association. Simply because some SJW who left her religion (for no reason other than some shit about Christianity being linked to white people) doesn't like it when Islam is criticized, does not mean it is true of the whole group. No one here is accusing you of an abortion clinic bombing or a pedophilia scandal.

>>12823

Sjwdaism isn't that atheistic. If it is, why do they make fun of fedoras too?

>>12823

>Show us one post on this board that suggest that.

>Here is a pic that isn't from this board and it's not about Islam.

You check mated our chess game with a Pokemon trading card.

>>12823

Yet they're also really well loved by a lot of atheists. It's almost as if atheists are united by one matter, that they lack a belief in a God, and that everything else is completely up to grabs.

What you're trying to do is claim that atheists are inherently linked to Islam apologetics and SJWism which is demonstrably false.

Also pedophilia is a much larger issue in theism, Islam and Christianity, than you're letting on, boy. Meanwhile SJWism is a minority in atheism. It's why people like Sargon of Akkad Amazing Atheist, Thunderf00t, etc who are anti-SJW are much more popular than PZ Myers (who lost most of his support when he became a feminist) and the whole of Atheism+.

Your example post is suspicious at best. Not only does it have two people perfectly willing to call it horse shit, but it almost seems like the kind of post someone who wants to link this board to Islam apologetics would make so they can point to it and say "aha! Atheism is just Islam apologetics!"

>>12829

Not that guy. But

> Sargon of Akkad Amazing Atheist, Thunderf00t

Are probabaly the reason there is this meme that atheist are just smug self-righteous dicks. Their main goal is to look

superior and smarter than those idiots not the truth or another just cause. They stuck deep in their own asses.

>>12823

>"atheism"+

>atheism

kek

>>12853

>Hundreds if not thousands of billboards and signs about how god is real and X religion is true

>Churches everywhere

>Religious people constantly trying to make government/education abide by their beliefs

Those stupid smug atheists forcing their non belief down people's throats with a sign on a bus!!!

>>12865

And did you see what that sign says? How dare those atheists tell us to enjoy our lives for ourselves instead of telling us to submit to an imaginary skywizard or that our only salvation is some guy who died on a stick thousands of years ago. Do they not see how annoying and smug they are? Jeez.

>>12723

I do shit on Dawkins a lot, but your post has made reconsider my views. I guess I sort of just hated on him because a lot of other people were saying he was full of shit, and I guess I kind of just believed it, as much as I hate to admit it. In my defense though, I didn't know that he was critical of feminism and SJWs, and I also didn't know he called out Ahmed for lying about building that clock.

>>12871

Hating on Dawkins seems to be popular even for atheists. Then again there's also a bunch of atheists who would be willing to throw around *tips fedora* every time someone says even the most basic disagreement with religion in a discussion.

>>12829

Yet atheists all hate Richard Dawkins because some SJW degenerates kept shrieking "RICHARD DAWKINS IS SEXIST/RACIST". You're a religion, and the SJWs are your pastors. But no matter how much you try, they still won't have sex with you. How sad.

>>12871

>I guess I sort of just hated on him because a lot of other people were saying he was full of shit

More proof that atheism is just another cult.

>>12890

I feel like a moron for hating on Dawkins so much now. I've never even read any of his books. But yeah, OP's right. I just checked out his twitter and the first three tweets are anti-safe space stuff. This guy's alright in my book now.

>>12891

>More proof that atheism is just another cult.

Not really. No one coerced me into hating Dawkins. I just read some articles which were really critical of Dawkins and agreed with them, but in retrospect they probably misrepresented his views. Cults, however, coerce, manipulate, or trick people into joining them. That's not to say that atheistic cults don't exist, there are many atheistic groups that could be described as cults, but dismissing atheism as a whole as a cult is just stupid.

>>12890

I didn't have a problem with Dawkins, but I did with Harris for similiar reasons as the other anon. When I read End of Faith and dug deeper into the kinds of things he actually said, it's apparent his his words are consistently exaggerated or misrepresented by pretty much the entire media. The lesson seems to be that we can't even trust the media to represent primary sources honestly, for figureheads they (or their intended audience) dislike. We are going to have to visit every person's twitter, homepage, or interview from now on to understand the context, and verify every significant word for ourselves.

Being forced to confirm any quotation is troublesome because it slows down the breadth of information, and I wish more journalists were ethical, or I payed enough attention to know which journalists are more honest. But journalism itself has declined, it tries to break information too fast, and cable news isn't much better than checking trending twitter feeds and youtube and highlighting it on the air, which you could find by yourself….I actually found the relative of one of the High School mass shootings on twitter a few hours afterward (the shooter's twitter was connected to hers), and was able to ask her a few questions directly. The world is so interconnected now that you can practically bypass the media and talk to witnesses in many incidents if you care to take the time.

>>12893

>Not really. No one coerced me into hating Dawkins. I just read some articles which were really critical of Dawkins and agreed with them, but in retrospect they probably misrepresented his views.

Yeah that's what SJWs do. You wouldn't have fallen for this if you were as skeptical as you like to pretend you are.

>>12899

First of all, I never claimed to be a skeptic. I actually think "skeptic" is a stupid term, since most so-called "skeptics" are not skeptical of everything. For example, they may be skeptical of religions, but they may not be skeptical of their political party. Second of all, part of the reason I fell for this is that I never really read much of Dawkins' work. I'm a busy guy, and I really don't have time to read Dawkins' books, even though I'd like to. I didn't really know much about him.

>>12901

Thank you.

>>12901

Or you could not Listen and Believe like the SJW that you are.

>>12902

Yeah, being skeptical only of people you disagree with is pretty common.

>>12907

>like the SJW that you are

>Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour

>>12891

>Yet atheists all hate Richard Dawkins because some SJW degenerates kept shrieking "RICHARD DAWKINS IS SEXIST/RACIST". You're a religion, and the SJWs are your pastors

>one moment, Richard Dawkins is the infallible prophet of Atheismo, God of all MRAs

>the next moment all atheists hate Richard Dawkins (wat), for disagreeing with SJWism, the True and Honest Religion of the Atheistic Church

Honestly, I'm not even wondering anymore whether you seriously believe this is convincing to anyone here. At this point, /pol/theist rants like these are filled with so many of the most complex and diametrically opposed contradictions, I honestly wonder whether you yourself can seriously believe this for even a moment

for someone living in nanny/muslim state UK I would say he has some balls to speak against islam there, I wish there were more people like him doing this

Can someone explain to me why /pol/tards hate Dawkins?

He believes that in the correlation of brainsize and intelligence, the inheritability of intelligence and the fact human racial taxonomy is meaningful, Additionally he's a public figure that is outspokenly against Islam and he critized Israel's policies and the influence of the so-called 'Israel lobby' on American foreign policy.

Why is he so based?

Richard Dawkins is an absolute fuckwit, and a terrible voice for atheism.

His Boeing 747 Gambit can be defeated in 4 words: "You haven't defined complexity"

A lot of his arguments about God are theological even though he alleges to oppose theology.

Generally, all round, he's a good a scientist, and a fucking retarded philosopher whose output would fail any critical assessment.

>>13804

>His Boeing 747 Gambit can be defeated in 4 words: "You haven't defined complexity"

What is this? I only know the 747 argument as a pro creationist agument.

>>13805

Dawkins centers the God Delusion around an argument which is essentially

>The universe is very complex

>Creators are always MORE complex than their creation

>Thus God is more complex than the universe

>Thus the explanation actually makes things worse

>Thus no God

There's a reason this argument has never shown up in any philosophy publication ever.

>>12738

Atheist here. I loathe and fear Islam most of all.

I only bash on Christianity the most because it's what is in my face the most.

I assure that while I may cringe when the candidates say "America is a Christian Nation", I'd pick a rifle if I heard someone with power and influence declare America is an Islamic Nation.

I see you as the lesser evil. Does that make you feel better?

And I'm not rebelling against my parents… I was raised in household without any mention of religion and actually asked my parents to take me church when I was in junior high.

>>13806

It's reasonable in context. Creationists actually think god makes sense according to occam's razor. Dawkins says no, God isn't a simpler and better answer about the origin of life. He uses a creationist argument and turns it around.

Creationists:

>Cells are complex like planes and don't pop in existence by chance.

Dawkins:

>God must be even more complex. Why can he exist without any explaination?

He just want to show the double standard.

>>13811

>God must be even more complex

Sorry but no, this isn't reasonable in any context. It's a theological statement, for a start, from someone who is allegedly against theology. It's also completely meaningless without a definition of complexity. And finally, if we ignore all that, and if Dawkins does give a definition of complexity at some point…

then he still hasn't proved that God would be more complex than the universe, he's just asserted it.

>>13804

Why does atheism need a voice?

We don't have an ideology, an agenda, or a dogma.

Dawkins does a fine job of calling bullshit and asking questions,,

>>13813

>why does atheism need a voice

Literally spend 5 seconds looking at the world around you and you'll see why atheism needs a voice, the loudest one possible.

>>13810

>I'd pick a rifle if I heard someone with power and influence declare America is an Islamic Nation.

Obama practically said it.

‘Islam Has Always Been Part of America’

Probably based on the fact that Jefferson had a copy of the Quaran. But that dismisses the whole reason why which was the First Barbary War. Started by Muslims taking Americans as slaves and demanding paid tributes because their skywizard Allah demands it.

>>13815

That statement actually has a little merit to it.

There's a book called "under the cope of heaven" about how the concept of religious tolerance started in Colonial America.

It was oddly enough first advocated by Catholics in Maryland,

Maryland had a law that said that "Any Christian, Jew or Turk" had the right to practice their religion unmolested. So Islam was granted the right to exist in peace back in the 1600's. (I don't know if any muslims were actually living in Maryland back then, but they legally would have the right to be there)

Maryland also had a proto-hate speech law too. You could be fined for calling someone a "Roundhead" or "Cavalier" or "Papalist"

It's an interesting book. Religious tolerance didn't come from any ideal about freedom of choice. It was from the practical necessity of keeping the peace in a place with no clear majority.

>>13812

It's a logical statement not a pure theological.

Tell me how can something that knows everthing about everything and for all time be less complex than the universe at one point in time?

It's like a book that can describe ALL of another books molecules for all times. Which book is bigger or more complex?

I think you miss his point by a mile.

>>13822

An attempt to argue about the characteristics of God is theological. That's just what the word means.

But anyway, using your own demonstration, God is less complex than the universe. Imagine a book that holds the complete definition of God, without missing a thing. That book would be relatively small. Fuck, I reckon a theologian could manage it in a page. You could give it a good shot in a paragraph. Now imagine a book describing the entire universe without missing a thing. This book would be huge.

This whole line of reasoning sucks balls though because neither of us have defined complexity.

I haven't missed Dawkins point. His point was just utter garbage, which is why no philosopher has voiced it prior or since.

>>13820

Good post. I'll have a think about it. I think Robin LePoidevin or Austin Dacey would be good.

>>13823

Of course other people used this argument before.

>Who made God?

Never heard before? God as an anwer to the origin of the universe is a cop out because it explains nothing. He points that out even if you don't follow the complexity part.

>>13828

That's a different argument altogether. It's a response to the cosmological argument, whereas the Boeing 747 gambit is an attempted rebuttal of ALL claims that God created the universe (in effect, all theism)

What you're talking about is a response to the cosmological. One which also, funnily enough, never gets used in a serious setting due to being shit. For instance, the kalaam cosmological starts with the premise "everything which begins had a cause" and then argues that the universe began while God didn't.

"Who created God then?" does nothing here. Indeed, it does nothing against any wording of the cosmological past the original one.

It's almost unsurprising that Dawkins uses it.

>>13829

>That's a different argument altogether. It's a response to the cosmological argument, whereas the Boeing 747 gambit is an attempted rebuttal of ALL claims that God created the universe (in effect, all theism)

What you're talking about is a response to the cosmological.

What? I A isn't A?