Nah. The fool says in his heart that there is no God. I could parrot the arguments made but will just leave it for you to view if you want.
Doug's arguments are not good.
He does not try to seriously refute anything. That is preaching to the choir.
The Rogan + Dawkins original video wasn't especially good either.
The point that atheist are just monotheists except with one less God is a good argument. Doug's counter-argument that there are several theories of science seems to me to indicate that Doug does not understand that there is a difference between science and religion. In science a theory can be proven to be bullshit and thrown in the trashcan. Most people, there are exceptions, are not religious about their scientific beliefs.
There is a reason why scientists can be accused of being religious in their scientific beliefs, and why religious folks are not accused of being scientific in their religious beliefs
I know religious people can be highly intelligent, some can make me look like an intellectual dwarf, but I got to call out a bullshit argument when I see one.
atheists are just monotheists except with one less God
Acts like we don't have overwhelming evidence of intelligent design. I doubt most people can get past the immediate moral implications and instead "suppress the truth [e.g. that God created us] in unrighteousness."
science
Science is its own religion. Ok maybe using that exact word isn't particularly helpful, but scientism certainly is. There are dogmas, places of worship, leaders, rituals, etc.
Why do so many scientists/doctors peddle a difference between gender and biological sex, trans stuff, etc.? The science should be clear.
Same question for climate, abortion, etc. The SCIENCE is clear. The emotions are not.
intelligent
I wouldn't say that's the key, but rather pride. Are you willing to accept the possibility that there is an almighty being out there, your objections to whom are invalid because of the vast power and intelligence gap between you and "him?"
Science is its own religion.
No. Science is not simply religion. If you are going to prove pythagorean theorem, it doesn't matter what you believe.
And yea scientism sucks.
Why do so many scientists/doctors peddle a difference between gender and biological sex, trans stuff, etc.?
Communism is not science!
And not only science is poisoned. Why are journalists not journalists anymore? Why are politicians full-blown psychopaths? Because we live in clown world.
I wouldn't say that's the key, but rather pride. Are you willing to accept the possibility that there is an almighty being out there, your objections to whom are invalid because of the vast power and intelligence gap between you and "him?"
Why wouldn't I?
The smart ones tend to stay in their comfort zone (ie: philosophy), when it comes to physics/nature they are usually clueless and/or they get reduced to "god of the gaps" very quickly and fall back very hard on determinism and time before the big bang invalidating all their dogma/holy books in the process. I have no dispute with deists, sometimes I consider myself one, I just want to debunk the big bearded kike in the sky theory.
It pains me people like Harris or even Hitchens spend 10 minutes in a debate responding to abstract theological bullshit that could be shut down by Dawkins in like 30 seconds.
I think what it boils down to in the end is a religious gene. Non-religious people don't have that gene and can be sceptical of religion. Religious people seems to often completely lack ability to even acknowledge that valid arguments against theie faith exist.
It is almost impossible to argue with a religious person about religion. It's like arguing with a wall. Religious NPCs.
It is fascinating that religious NPCs can be highly intelligent and based and very non-NPC when it comes to other areas such as politics, culture n stuff. It's like how they reason about religion is completely different and completely separate and completely inconsistent with what they think about non-religious matters.
But after many years I have finally understoodbwhy people are religious, and I believe that religiousness is adaptive. Religion solves unsolvable problems, such as there being no final justice, no objective meaning to life, and that lifebis finite etc really serious stuff. Religious people are probably happier, and I think they are. And happiness is very important. They might also be more courageous, because if truly believe in the afterlife and final justice they should be more able to sacrifice themselves to serve the greater good etc.
Anyway, Dawkins, Harris n Hitchens man makes me feel a bit nostalgic. I really wonder what Hitchens would have to say about this era.
This is a great folly I see commonly used to build argumentative foundations in many places and I'm not sure how you guys are arriving here. History is extremely fond of Socrates and all Plato wrote about him is highly regarded as some of the most sage wisdom modern man has recorded. The funny thing is, Socrates fucked boys. No, I'm not saying he was gay. I'm saying he had sex with boys. Socrates wasn't just a faggot, he was a pedo. Yet History regards him as one of the most intelligent people that it's familiar with.
Now, does this mean I hate everything Socrates stands for? Of course not. But Michael Jordan isn't touted as one of, if not the, best Basketball player that ever lived because of that one time he was an asshole to someone's aunt. He's regarded as one of the best Basketball players ever because of how good he was at Basketball.
Richard's piety or lack thereof doesn't diminish what he says in that book, which you definitely need to read. It's practically a refutation of Altruism, which was my mine takeaway and the reason I tend to reference it. What FellowPoaler said may very well be off base, but explaining away Dawkins' authority on the subject of Evolution by claiming his spiritual beliefs disqualify him being an authority on the subject is asinine.
Dawkins' authority on [a false, hollow worldview]
Humans get a lot of things wrong about most science, but it doesn't mean all of someone's contributions are null because so many people are stupid. I agree in general that "Evolution" is retarded, but he does still explain parts of what we're calling "Evolution" accurately. Again, I really like his refutation of Altruism.
(post is archived)