Dawkins is basially an r/atheism/user with a university chair and a smooth pen

Angry 14 year old sophomore know-it-all.

fuck off

I know this is bate, but I can't see why he does this other than to flatter his ego. Has twitter ever been capable of anything more than linking articles and one-liners? It's hardly a medium that can spawn any sort of debate, especially one of this scale.

>>3936926
Remember anon: one only needs four characters to write down 'logos'.

Wow, this, I don't even, this is awful. Dawkins needs to grow the hell up. Trying to debate religion, theology in his case, is like arguing with our parents over who's right, when the answer simply requires the both of you to stray away from each other, and lead your lives as you befit.

>>3936900 (OP)

The God debate and the Battle of the Sexes are the two stupidest debates in history.

Jesus, is that real? He needs to settle down a bit.

>Go on. Tell me. How am I wrong?

>>3936956
This. Neo-atheists have this deeply annoying habit of crusading against religion as though it's existence were somehow oppressing them. I'm not a huge fan of religion, but I'm content to let them do whatever as long as they aren't pushing it on people.

>>3936900 (OP)

Richard Douchekins.

who seriously gets so asspained about what other people think. that shows a distinct lack of maturity.

that lack of maturity reflects in his writing style, and is always why he'll be a shitty writer.

>>3936900 (OP)
I agree with almost everything he says, and I like him quite a bit. he's no idiot

but he can really be insufferable sometimes

Did someone finally point out to him that he butchered Augustine's 5 proofs in his book?

File: 1373839815903.jpg-(378 KB, 1024x924, 1370556442333.jpg)

378 KB JPG

God I love this man.

>>3936926

He makes money off of it. A lot of money. He's probably just a constructed character, an image pandering to the edgy 14 year old hordes and their $.

>>3937063
Didn't Russell do pretty much the same thing?

What did Dawkins say about them?

>>3937078
Somehow, this is not hard to believe.

I fucking love Dawkins.

He is the ultimate unintentional ruseman, and the backlash of his every utterance is simply delicious.

>>3937077
Based Dawkins cashing in on that atheist pussy.

>>3937090
You do realize that you sound like a 15 year old /b/ poster, right?

>>3937034
Great post. Top notch. Excellent work. Thick, solid, tight.

>>3937096
See. Look at how riled you are. It's wonderful.

>>3937100
Do you? Go on. Tell me.

File: 1373840483828.jpg-(7 KB, 166x231, over the line.jpg)

7 KB JPG

>disrespecting Mithras

>>3937094

Then Elevatorgate happened.

This thread is making me come over all euphoric. What a beautiful tingling sensation in my hands, I'm feeling noticeably enlightened.

>>3937037
and that´s cause science alone is not enough

Oh fuck dawkins and hitchens and harris

>>3936900 (OP)
Not a fan of the guy but gotta agree here. Theology is a fucking joke.

>>3937162
Great post. Top notch. Excellent work. Thick, solid, tight.

>>3937148
Me too, I don't need no phony gods anymore

the vehement hatred you post-intellectuals (trying hard to relate to the layman) have for atheism is really uncalled for.

I mean if it's some inarticulate teenage /b/tard then fine, but being repulsed by every public display of atheism is kind of pathetic.

>inb4 the fallacy that i'm an atheist

>>3937165
>Not a fan of the guy but gotta agree here. Theology is a fucking joke.

Do you know anything about it?

>>3936900 (OP)
unfollow

Captcha: Episcopal rgedsci

Looks like dawkins is going into the light

>>3936926
>bate

>>3937077
Wow atheists are ugly.
Religion: 1
Atheism: 0

>>3937180
>the fallacy that Dawkins his bashed here because he voices atheistic opinions

His teenagerism in those tweets is what is repulsive. He's basically every dumb /lit troll making a "prove me wrong" thread.

>>3937180
Is Dawkins' atheism much more intelligent than that of the average /b/tard?

>>3937194
*is damn

>>3937196
Yes, and It's a lot better than anything you could come up with.

>>3937182
Niggas basically study god related theories and texts.

>>3937180
Look:

A) Atheism is popular so we hate it.
B) We hate anything that stinks of scientism.
C) We embrace scepticism, and aggressively state 'you can't know either way'.
D) We are above both sides of the debate.
E) Climb into our ivory tower, or fuck off.

>>3937180
We hate the way he presents atheism, I am a atheist and I know a good amount of other people on lit are based on previous discussions. I am ashamed to present or even mention my atheism in a public forum because of people like him.

Dawkins bashing is as cliche as fedora bashing,
selfish-gene was an important book that was misunderstood, Adam Curtis gave a nice refutation to the misunderstanding, Zizek gave a nice refutation to the simple criticisms of christianity,
story ended

File: 1373843892089.jpg-(16 KB, 210x200, 1368949982798.jpg)

16 KB JPG

>>3937180
>public display of atheism

>>3937086
all russel did was fold his arms and say "not my job."
-this is what all atheists should do

File: 1373844878969.jpg-(24 KB, 319x480, 1371372143520.jpg)

24 KB JPG

>>3937252
dat intensity, so powerful

File: 1373845107080.jpg-(70 KB, 558x509, twohands.jpg)

70 KB JPG

>>3937258

File: 1373845228424.jpg-(18 KB, 494x622, 1372728182728.jpg)

18 KB JPG

>>3937268
go on, folder dump pls

>>3937086
The First Argument (Unmoved Mover) has a limited grasp on physics
The Second Argument (First Cause) is easy to debunk, don't know what started it, must be [god],
-i.e. anything could go in those brackets
The Third Argument is just like "what if God is just like energy mann?"
-what if, just call it energy dude
The Fourth Argument is based off of the assumption that "perfection" is both quantitative and possible, (being an aesthetic ideal one would assume that it is a qualitative notion and therefore subjective)
-i.e. try and find a global consensus on what the best version of [insert artform here] is
The Fifth Argument is tricky since it deals with mind-body dualism but the way he frames the "question" is problematic

keep trying christians

>>3937268
>bad boobjob
>hairy arms
>pink boxing gloves

2/10 would not trample

>>3937214
Lol /lit/ in one post.

>>3937278
Oh wow, I didn't notice the hairy arms.

>>3937110
Oh good fucking lord. That was what ended my involvement in the atheist/"skeptic" community.

File: 1373845680314.png-(27 KB, 512x512, ivory tower.png)

27 KB PNG

>>3937214
das it

>>3937276
>The First Argument (Unmoved Mover) has a limited grasp on physics

Well, in Thomas Aquinas's defense, he was born in the year 1225. I think, in light of the context, it's understandable if his grasp on modern physics was somewhat limited.

File: 1373845909149.jpg-(45 KB, 492x474, In-Bruges-FILM_.jpg)

45 KB JPG

>>3936900 (OP)
>dawkins dissing little people as being mythological

oot ay fucking order, man

>>3937110
>Elevatorgate
lol. This is actually what Dawkins wrote:

"Dear Muslima,

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Richard"

>>3937276
The third argument is not just "What if god was like energy maaaaaaaan". I can't believe you're seriously bringing "beauty is subjective" as a critique of the Platonic ideal of beauty, because the idea that beauty is non-subjective is a crucial part of the whole idea of the Platonic ideal so all you're doing is refuting an idea by asserting its untruth as an axiom (and also I can't believe you asserted that something being qualitative necessarily means that it's subjective), and I don't know whether you understand what Aquinas is driving at in the fifth proof which may be why you think it's framed in a problematic way.

Not that I agree with Aquinas, but let's try to reach the guy where he lives.

File: 1373846498049.png-(236 KB, 480x360, 1343831925419.png)

236 KB PNG

>>3937298
still 10/10, wow

File: 1373846699664.gif-(1003 KB, 220x220, 1283248806582.gif)

1003 KB GIF

>>3937276
>The First Argument (Unmoved Mover) has a limited grasp on physics

>who is Chesterton

>>3937293
well yeah, but Its not like we still consider pre-Copernician arguements about the solar system to be philosophically relevant (in terms of what stuff is)
>>3937309
look I'm agnostic towards the Jungian archetypes, everyone should be, and should also recognize that if there is an ideal than it serves a limit (i.e. something that will never be obtained or understood) i don't think i need to point out the historical relevance in the danger of assuming that you "have" it.
and okay fine, the Third Argument fails because "its all just energy mann.."
Its better to take the problem of whether or not we have a soul (archaic for "mind") from Descartes

>>3937324
oh fine, its a decent early assessment of Newtonian physics,(vaguely quantum) but it still fails for the same reason the second one does

>>3937309
and beauty is subjective dude, get over it.

>>3937335
>I'm agnostic towards the Jungian archetypes, everyone should be
You tit, they're supposed to be models that demonstrate correlation, not some kind of objective truth. It's like saying your agnostic towards morality. Of course it doesn't physically exist, it's a structure we place over the physical to extrapolate from.

File: 1373847527533.jpg-(29 KB, 460x276, Chesterton-007.jpg)

29 KB JPG

>>3937330
fat cunt who cannae think

>>3937354
obviously they don't physically exist.
i'm agnostic to the notion of there being specific definable "forms" from a psychoanalytic perspective

>>3937298
loll. the hero /lit/reddit deserves

>>3937063
besides his argument in no way proves the judeo-christian god. but people take it, use it to justify, and commit all sorts of crimes in the name of.
that's why people like dawkins exist

>>3937347
that may or may not be true

but "it just is, get over it" is a shockingly shitty argument for it

>>3937371
woob woob woob, i'm doctor zoidberg

>>3937374
do you see the perpetual stalemate of that argument?
woob woob indeed.

>>3937347
that's funny, because the majority of contemporary philosophers think it's objective.

i presume you're still in your teens and haven't read and experienced enough

>>3937371
>people using Aquinas to justify religious oppression and murder

That's pretty irrealistic. Some might have done it, but let's face it, if you want to justify murdering someone for religious purpose, Aquinas, and pretty much any other Bible scholar, is unecessary.
If you can burn an heretic while quoting Aquinas, my bet is you could have simply burned him for being an "heretic".

When will Allah punish Dawkins like he did for Hitchens?

>>3937382
in his defense, he's a shitty enough writer that i would assume english is not his first language

File: 1373848351568.png-(538 KB, 537x632, 1362362465593.png)

538 KB PNG

>>3936907
>>3936908
>>3936956
>>3937029

etc.

so far the entire intelligible criticism of darkins / harris on /lit/, that I've seen, has been "they suck because they keep shoving their atheism in people's faces!"

my question is, do you debate anything they actually say in terms of how evolution works, or do you just disagree with their assertion that religion is a delusion which results in worse relations between people or a lower quality of life or whatever?

i.e. can you actually criticize their views from the books (selfish gene, moral landscape, probably others but those seem to be the most pertinent) without using fedora, neckbeard, 14-year-old, autism, etc.

>>3937382
who?

File: 1373848464762.jpg-(38 KB, 468x435, p1.jpg)

38 KB JPG

>>3937371
>that's why people like dawkins exist
yeah, dawkins is surely motivated by his weltschmerz.

If people did not have religion to place their hopes they would substitute something of equal value. The extremists will always be extreme. The cultured will always pass on their culture. The people who could care less, will continue to care less. Why do people have such a drive to feel united? Under one god, under a government, under a chan?

>>3937382
Citation?

>>3937388
>so far the entire intelligible criticism of darkins / harris on /lit/, that I've seen, has been "they suck because they keep shoving their atheism in people's faces!"

I guess that's true as long as you ignore every other critique that gets made of them (in fairness, this critique certainly gets made with considerably greater frequency than any other)

As regards the rest of your post, yes, people are able to separate the scientific work of people like Harris and Dawkins from their views on religion (since those are things that are separate and their scientific expertise does not necessarily make them more right about religion, any more than their expertise in one scientific field makes them experts in all scientific field), and are quite willing to talk about the specifics of their books and things they say on a level beyond personal insults.

I think the archive is down so I can't find it, but there was a thread about Sam Harris within the past week that iirc went into substantial detail about what he actually said.

>>3937388
>so far the entire intelligible criticism of darkins / harris on /lit/, that I've seen, has been "they suck because they keep shoving their atheism in people's faces!"

>being this new
/lit/ hates Dawrrithenett because they have nothing of merit to say since what they say is either wrong or has been stated better by more intelligent persons. We get trolled with this shit so often all one can really do is reiterate how terrible they are.

>>3937395
look most marxists, leftists, LIBERALS, atheists etc don't really dawkins, i think he has that one (problematic) relevant idea -mentioned in the whole Curtis-ish- so i defended him.
fedoras and euphorics and dawkinses and harrises are poor representations of atheists etcetera as a whole

>>3937393
http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP
page 12; point #3

>>3937214
This.

>>3937411
41% is hardly consensus

>>3937421
that's nice, but no one is speaking of consensus here

>>3937421
lol, come on, man. it's not consesus or proof but it does indicate that the idea of objective aesthetic value is not something you can dismiss out of hand, which is where this whole motherfucker started

File: 1373849683510.jpg-(103 KB, 450x586, wherefore.jpg)

103 KB JPG

>>3937276
>pretending to have read the source material

>>3937427
yeah but being that it is not consensus
and that it was originally related to the five arguments - it can not be admitted as proof

>>3937426
>>3937427
It's not a majority. It's less than half. And beauty is not only a construct, but one with inconsistent and often vague characteristics. Smacks of subjectivism, no matter how many philosophy majors you gave a soda to fill out your laughable survey. What's Otherism, anyway? Seems like a popular philosophy, and one that explains every phenomenon conceivable.

>>3937438
yep.

>>3937443
it is a majority amongst 'subjective' and 'other' though

your whole post is literally gibberish; go take a walk for christ's sake

>>3937442
This argument started out with you saying that the fourth proof is flawed because beauty is subjective, and when I questioned you on that, you said, "beauty is subjective, get over it."

It can't be admitted as proof that beauty is objective, no, but you can't throw out the fourth proof on the grounds that beauty is self-evidently subjective, when it is not self-evidently so. It may be so, but it's a matter of legitimate debate - something that you need to argue for and prove, not something you can assume.

>>3937443
Again the way this came up was someone saying that beauty is definitely subjective

It might or might not be subjective, but a lot of philosophers - and a lot of aesthetic philosophers in particular - think there's at least a compelling argument to be made that it's objective. But I like your approach of "Who cares what they say, it seems obvious to me, therefore I'm going to assume it's true." That's a good look.

>>3937443
>And beauty is not only a construct, but [...]
404 argument not found

>>3937443
>What's Otherism, anyway?
This made me giggle heartily.
You don't seem to have any slightest idea of how surveys work, do you?

>>3937462
Your worship of a dead Jewish supremacist gives you no authority over my ambulatory faculties. Go take a remedial arithmetic lesson, and learn English, it's a very commonly used language, not at all gibberish.

>>3937465
I'm not the one who literally claimed less than fifty percent is more than fifty percent, so I can hardly take offense at your ad hominem attacks.

>>3937465
but I provided an argument for why it is self-evidently so
>name me one piece of art that is unilaterally agreed to be beautiful

>>3937493
I don't seem to do a lot of things to those who do not see me. Surveys don't work at all, not when you try to use them to prove a philosophical point, or the existence of FSM and Friends.

>>3937500
he said majority when he meant plurality. you don't need to make a federal case of it

File: 1373851181941.jpg-(28 KB, 550x365, texasisthereason.jpg)

28 KB JPG

>>3937511
let's localize it then

>>3937505
Even if all of us have imperfect abilities to appreciate beauty, that doesn't prove that beauty is subjective.

>>3937507
The survey explicitly says that the results of the survey don't prove any philosophical propositon and aren't intended to do so

>>3937498
>Your worship of a dead Jewish supremacist
strawman-esque gibberish; i know you can do better than that, sport

>Go take a remedial arithmetic lesson, and learn English
and it doesn't seem like you know what 'majority' in the context of "majority amongst 'subjective' and 'other'" means after all

take care of that butthurt though

>>3937517
let's violate his ass right now!

>>3937507
no one was proving anything, fat-ass; it was a mere indication to a sociological and statistical fact. your reading comprehension is p. disastrous

then again, i can only imagine your sophomoric-type non-deductive pseudo-arguments for beauty being subjective

wanna try a few, while i'm still here?

>>3937535
but its not their responsibility to prove the existence of an "objective" beauty

>>3937540
le epik burden of proof xD

>>3937544
it's the best! o.O

>this faggot arguing that beauty is objective

...seriously?

>beauty
>anything but a failed abortion of emotional projection and insecurity

File: 1373854773715.gif-(1.61 MB, 225x380, 1373287183612.gif)

1.61 MB GIF

>constantly construing literalism as all religion
>neoatheism

File: 1373854895993.jpg-(27 KB, 472x317, nothuman64.jpg)

27 KB JPG

>>3937585

>>3937591

Grotesques are so ugly they are beautiful.

>>3937589
to be fair
1, america
2. this thread started as basically..
lets beat up some atheists /lit/izens

File: 1373855187834.jpg-(107 KB, 500x344, TDDLW.jpg)

107 KB JPG

I am an atheist, and I hate new atheists. Here is why New atheists suck:

1 - None of the criticism they make about religion is new, they basically have nothing interesting to contribute intellectually or philosophically.

2 - Their claim that we don't need religion anymore because of science is an extremely ridiculous old argument, this argument could be said be some modern derivation of Comtean positivism, it is highly flawed as it sees religion as just a proto science, just a way of understanding how the world works. It ignores all the social, communal and psychological factors that modern religious sociology studies and does not even try, in any intellectually honest way, to deal with the disciplines of religious anthropology and sociology, instead it just takes a couple of pathetic cheap shots at religion. They also don't seem to have the intellectual maturity to understand how religions work and how faith is a perfectly reasonable human activity. Basically it is the intellectual equivalent of a thirteen year old atheist /b/ poster.

3 - They are annoying as hell, they proselytize, and end up acting in a cliquish way, much in the same vein as religions do and other "identity politics". This is why they are often criticized as being "just like another religion", it's not because atheism is philosophically like religion (hurr its like saying being bald is a hairstyle durr) it's because new atheists tend to organize and act like religious people, seeking to convert others, creating campus atheist campaigns, wearing fedoras, and generally being herdlike.

>>3937427
It's interesting to note that it's one of the question where a significant percentage of specialists (about 36%) refused to choose between the two.

I hate Dawkins, but I just looked up what this "Elevatorgate" thing was. I must say I've never felt so mad while sitting at my computer.

I don't even know what to do now. I'm furious.

Dear Dawkins, being unanimously regarded as a childish and one-sided thinker by a 4chan board is indeed a very efficient way to know that you need improve your reasoning.

Sincerely, Anon.

>>3937600

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned
to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike
up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total
stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

"Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God,
or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

"Okay," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask
you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same
stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns
out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence,
thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea." To which
the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss
God, Heaven and Hell, or life after death, when you don't know shit?"

>>3937388
most people on /lit/ don't actually disagree with Dawkins & co half the time
it's just they're so fucking boring harping on about shit everyone's heard before
all their arguments get one of two responses:
a) atheists who have heard the argument before and agree with it
b) religious people who have heard the argument before and have come to terms with it
either way, no ones views are changed
it's redundant and boring

>>3937634
But I do disagree with him, intensely. Religious thinking is an inherently human endeavor, an irreplaceable part of humanity and human communities. It's like trying to remove love, or families from the earth.

>>3937600
A+

>>3937666
It continues, despite all efforts

>>3937034
Dick Dorkins

I love science and I love God. I see no contradiction in this activity. What would Dawkins have to say to that? Also, God is beyond being restricted to time and space, so why would you expect to find proof of him? The man responsible for quantum mechanics as we know it today had some interesting things to say of God. I'd rather listen to him than someoen who can hardly be called a "scientist" at all (Dawkins). Here is what Schrodinger had to say:

>In the presentation of a scientific problem, the other player is the good Lord. He has not only set the problem but also has devised the rules of the game--but they are not completely known, half of them are left for you to discover or deduce.

>>3937693
>I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about all that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.

>>3937695
>I shall quite briefly mention here the notorious atheism of science. The theists reproach it for this again and again. Unjustly. A personal God cannot be encountered in a world picture that becomes accessible only at the price that everything personal is excluded from it. We know that whenever God is experienced, it is an experience exactly as real as a direct sense impression, as real as one's own personality. As such He must be missing from the space-time picture. "I do not meet with God in space and time", so says the honest scientific thinker, and for that reason he is reproached by those in whose catechism it is nevertheless stated: "God is a Spirit."
>Whence came I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer for it.

-Erwin Schrodinger

Isaac Newton: theist
Einstein: agnostic, but deeply interested in the mystical.

>The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the power of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms- this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men.

-Einstein

File: 1373857988234.gif-(1.83 MB, 263x400, DMUVZ.gif)

1.83 MB GIF

>>3937609
http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/elevatorgate/

I just read about it above, and I am laughing so hard right now, oh my god, this made my day. Atheists fighting each other over feminism, oh lord, thank you, thank you for this

>>3937693
How's Dawkins "hardly a scientist"? Got a Ph.D, maintained a high position in Oxford, and contributed greatly to the view of gene-centered evolution.

His philosophy is shit, sure, but that doesn't make his science worthless.

>>3937696
>it is an experience exactly as real as a direct sense impression
>As such He must be missing from the space-time picture

How is this not a huge logical flaw. He's basically saying the experience of God is sensory, which would confine it to space-time reality. Yes? No? How did he get away with that?

>>3937725
God walks with us, but he doesn't walk in space or time.

>>3937725
You didn't get his point. Space-time is supposed to be a model of observable phenomena. It has nothing to say about personal experience because it can only describe it personally. Furthermore, to consider space-time is try and set aside, if only for a moment, your personal experience, in order to be as close as possible to an impersonal description of reality. If God is essentially something we experience subjectively like sensation of warmth, or color, it doesn't belong to space-time. Space-time is only a description.

>>3937732
"personally" was meant to be "externally"

>>3937725
I think that quote is heavily out of context, also, Schrodinger's view of god was Vedantic/Upanishadic not Judeo-Christian. Check out his books like My View of the World and What is life where he delves into these issues.

>>3937732
yes exactly, I understand this from a Kantian point of view myself, outside of the categories of space and time, and what Schopenhauer would call the principium individuationis, we are all one, one brahman if you will

>>3937732
How is considering space-time dependent on me eschewing my subjective perception of it? That's impossible to do. I exist in space-time, and everything I experience via "sense impression" also exists in space-time by virtue of the fact that its engaging with my senses. And you further contradict yourself: warmth and color exist in space-time, which is why I'm able to experience them subjectively.

>>3937730
But he compared the experience of God to "sense impression" which would necessitate Him existing in space-time. Otherwise it would certainly not be like experiencing a "sense impression."

>>3937748

I have met God, I have felt God, but I can't tell you where or when.

>>3937755
Swell. But that isn't what Erwin Schrodinger said.

>We know that whenever God is experienced, it is an experience exactly as real as a direct sense impression, as real as one's own personality.

A sense impression is, by definition, something that exists in space-time. Your senses exist in space-time, and therefore anything interacting with them must also.

>As such, He must be missing from the space-time picture.

Non-sequitor. Could very well be true, but the statement he makes prior to it is contradictory.

>>3937755

One could say the same of most women they've met while drunk.

File: 1373860124718.jpg-(120 KB, 460x460, 1373804146887.jpg)

120 KB JPG

>>3937770

>>3937624
water retention.

>>3937768
The men go to the puppet show on the moon. They watch puppet closely. They monitor it with all five of their senses. They take out a measuring stick and a scale, and they conclude that "This puppet is all there is."

The Men of Measurement leave when the show is over. The moon is quiet, I go backstage with the puppeteer himself and go dancing, twirling with him.

>>3937787
2/10

try this:
Rationalists, wearing square hats,
Think, in square rooms,
Looking at the floor,
Looking at the ceiling.
They confine themselves
To right-angled triangles.
If they tried rhomboids,
Cones, waving lines, ellipses --
As, for example, the ellipse of the half-moon --
Rationalists would wear sombreros.

>>3937792
You're still holding onto the puppet

>>3937676
But would you say it's under threat? Imagine an intelligent young theist who is lured in by the false promises of Dawkins and his fedora-wielding army?

File: 1373860980506.jpg-(216 KB, 590x322, 1373455478974.jpg)

216 KB JPG

>>3937794
Are you saying I'm the puppeteer you twirled with?

>>3937799
The puppeteer and I are peering through the curtains of the backstage, watching you clutch the puppet that he left behind. "This is it! This is all there is to the show!". We're standing behind the curtains that you're afraid of passing through: the end of the show.

>>3937798
Not really, at least for now. I think the day where religious thinking of any kind is under threat is very, very far off. I don't think even the fedoras are totally against religion. Personal experience, but I've seen quite a few New Atheists end up converting to Buddhism or Taoism, and even the most hardcore New Atheist generally has some kind of respect for eastern religions.

File: 1373861687143.jpg-(42 KB, 205x205, 1370917678047.jpg)

42 KB JPG

>>3937804
So what you're saying is the puppeteer exists in space-time?

>>3937063
It's St.Thomas the guy with the 5 proofs.

>>3937748
Again, space-time is simply a model of reality. A physical theory, grounded in general relativity for instance, could explain how your body can perceive heat through sensor and transmit informations about heat in the brain, but it would merely do that, explain. Explaining and experiencing (feeling or having an intuition of something if you will) are two entirely different things.

For instance when you say:
>A sense impression is, by definition, something that exists in space-time.

that's actually not true, if you understand sense impression as "what is experienced" and not merely "what is observable through analysis of blood samples". Space-time provides a background for a mathematical description of physical phenomena (it's a geometric notion if you will). It is eventually a thing of language, even tough some intuition is attached to it. But you can have a feeling of warmth without having any notion of space-time continuum as described in general relativity. The only space and time there are here are the space and time of perception, but it's a space and time you explore, not one you measure. The best example I could give you is this:

when you see the color red, you have no way to tell how this "red" looks to everyone else. maybe your red is my green, that is to say, we both look at the same thing (a red chair) but don't see the same thing. Picture a red chair and a green chair. We both see them. But it's very possible that what you see when you think of "red chair on the left, green chair on the right" I what I see when I think of "green chair on the left, red chair on the right". We will be able to use the same words because there will be some internal consistency in our perceptions: for instance we can agree that two things are of the same color, and as such we will give the same name to this color. But the color we will see will not be same.

There's no way to tell for sure (although some biological studies seem to suggest that indeed, two persons won't see the same thing when looking at the same object). But in describing space-time as a scientist, one has to get rid of those personal singularities, and focus on what his common.

>>3937839
There's actually a case in which this can be accounted for: daltonism.

Daltonian don't see the same color as most people. You could say that's because their sensing organ or their brain are impaired. But even in the case of people with perfect eyesight, who can see all color, you can't say what they see exactly. To see the same colors as me you would need to have the exact same eyes and brain as me (thus you would need to be me).

This article talks about Hawking's comments on God, but I think it basically applies to Dawkins as well:

http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2013/01/stephen-hawkings-scientific-atheism.html