bertrand russell was that nigga

i call him bert for short.

I never understood what the big deal about Dawkins is. He's just a guy who rants about religion. Haven't there been hundreds of famous guys who ranted about religion long before he did?

who XD?

Dawkins is an attention whore who won't leave people to their own business and takes any belief that doesn't correspond with his as a personal insult

Fellow atheist here

Every book is just a for dummies version of some book by Bertrand Russell.

>>8591513
Every generation needs its own.

>>8591426

Nicely put, though the dummies version is so poorly argued that he's wrecked the case for atheism... fucker. Half the shit he says is simply based in biased, unreasoned hatred of Christians, without any consideration to the possible rational explanations of religious culture.

>>8591513
My point more or less. Bert was more eloquent and came up with most of the points that Dawkins quotes.

Dawkin's is viciously funny though. He's got a great writing style and he doesn't hold back. That dawkins is capable of taking big ideas, and making them easily understandable, convincing, and entertaining is noteworthy I suppose.

>>8591622

what big ideas? The book is essentially a very brief version of a 17 year old's guide to philosophy of religion

>>8591575
If that's the case, then why is he today's most prominent atheist?

>>8591564
Fuck yes. I am quoting this.

i wish dawkins had just stuck to writing books about evolution
you know, the thing he knows about

>>8591653
The idea that recursion of inexplicable complexity does not qualify as an explainiation is pretty big.

This is why scientists shouldn't try to do philosophy, sociology, history, or any other thing that's outside of their narrow field of expertise.

The results are always hilariously bad.

>>8591554
>takes any belief that doesn't correspond with his as a personal insult

Take nazis and jews. Do you think that jews should take the belief that they deserve to die as an insult?

Well, a big chunk of christians think that you deserve, not just to die, but to be tortured. Forever. The worst way possible.

Not just that you will be tortured forever, that's not insulting, but that you DESERVE it. Because they don't believe that their god inflicts undeserved punishment.

Feeling insulted yet?

What about morality? Christians hate fags, but they would vote an homosexual for president before voting for an atheist. Hell, they would vote a muslim before an atheist (based on actual polls). Why? Because atheists have no morals. That's right, you are uncapable of being a moral person.

Insulted yet?

>>8591792
>implying that the most brilliant minds that this world has ever seen weren't polymaths.

>>8591730
yeah, because an expert in the theory that made the idea of a supernatural creative intelligence unnecessary has no business sharing his opinion on religion.

>>8591801
This is the gist of whre Dawkins stood out from previous writers.

>>8591792
>The results are always hilariously bad.
What was so bad about the god delusion, pray tell?

>>8591801

by individuals like that not by the many, many people who don't subscribe to those beliefs

then again, I live in England, Christians here are sane

>>8591801
Your facts are wrong and based what sounds like the God Hates Fags campaign rofl. Christians dont hate fags, they just hate the acts they commit :)

>>8591831
There hasn't been a polymath for centuries.

It's literally impossible to be an expert in multiple fields in this day and age.

>>8591860
Evolution doesn't make beleif in an omnipotent god obsolete. It makes the bible obsolete. Big difference.

Westboro Baptist Church is representative of average Christians.

>>8591792
>>8591792
you're buying into the fallacy that the existence of god is some "philosophical" question, whatever that means. dawkins argues that it is a scientific one; he gives the idea more credit than you seem to. god either exists or he doesn't, and a universe with a supervising creative intelligence will look different from one without one.

david hume - he's a philosopher -accepted the idea of god because he couldn't think of any other way to explained design in the universe. natural selection hadn't been hit upon yet. now it has, and it is the most convincing argument for atheism/agnosticism/at least deism the world has ever known.

dawkins is better qualified to write about it than your philosophy professor.

>>8591941
it makes belief in a theistic god obsolete. and this is what the book is about. he's concerned mostly with the abrahamic god, not the deistic one, if you recall, as i'm sure you read the book carefully.

>>8591909
>they just hate the acts they commit
semantics. besides there's nothing to hate there.
Fags harm no one by their acts, if you don't like homo sex, then DON'T HAVE HOMOSEX. If you don't like same sex marriage then DON'T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX.

>>8591930
>>8591930
>>8591930
Bertrnd Russle was a philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian and social critic.

Albert Einstein wrote poetry.
J Robert Oppenheimer read the Bhagavad Gita in original Sanskrit.

Noam CHomsky was a cognitive psychologist, linguist, philisopher and political scientist.

>>8591988
I once heard Dawkins being absolutely demolished by some Catholic intellectual on the radio.

Even though I agree with Dawkins' basic point, he argues it in a very naive way. He isn't qualified to write about religion at all.

>>8592043
>Albert Einstein wrote poetry.
you're reaching

Okay, I will bite.

What's Bertrand Russel's best book? If I have never read any of his work before, and I can only read ONE of his books, which one should it be?

>>8592043
>J Robert Oppenheimer read the Bhagavad Gita in original Sanskrit.
Well that must mean he is an expert on Indian religion.

Oh wait, no it doesn't, it just means he's a corny faggot who wanted to sound deep.

>>8592060
>I once heard Dawkins being absolutely demolished by some Catholic intellectual on the radio.
I'm sure you did.

>>8592097

Link or it didn't happen.

Hearsay is bullshit. Especially coming from someone with such high standards of proof as Christians.

>>8591988
>he either exists or he doesn't

Sounds like you're assuming the existence of objective truth. What do you base that assumption on?
Faith perhaps?

>>8591909
Fags not central to the argument. Your argument/troll is ineffective.

>>8592060
>>8592097

Im intruiged aswell, got some sauce on that?

>>8592060
Care to pinpoint what's so naive about what he argues?

>>8592060
demolished, eh? is it online anywhere?

there's nothing naive about his arguments. don't mistake the willful obfuscation found in the other side's arguments for depth.

what was dawkins neglecting precisely? what was his mistake?

>>8592139

If it actually happened, I GARUNTEEE that all the butthurt Christians would have spread it by wildfire. Hell. It probably would get posted right here every 2 days.

>>8592071
Principia Mathematica. One of the most important mathematical books of our age, it lead directly to Godel's theorem and Turing's work on computation.

>>8592097
Lol butthurt fanboy can't handle the truth.

>>8592118
People like you should be commited. I would like to fist you with a steel gauntelet and then we can argue wether it's the absolut truth that your ass is sore.

>>8592163

I am skeptical as hell, like that guy, and I have never even READ Dawkin's book. Hell, I have only seen about ten minutes of him speaking total, and that includes a daily show appearance.

>>8592071
The book relevant to the discusion at hand is "Why I am not a christian." if you're a pdh in mathematics I suppose you might read his Principa Mathematica.

>>8592118
har har har. yes, some objective truth.

are you accusing me of the same brand of naivete so often (and vaguely) attributed to dawkins? that there are so many different varieties of truths beyond objective?

william lane craig, is that you?

>>8592180

I wasn't thinking specifically of religion. I just thought "hey, I have nothing to read right now", and Bertrand Russel is highly recommended, it seems. May try some mathematics. Religion doesn't really interest me that much.

The other day I heard a debate between Dawkins and a christian 4 year old. Dawkins was totally pwn3d, he ended up whimpering like a hurt puppy and shat himself. For real!!!1

>>8592170
Butthurt much?

I make a distinction between beleif and knowlege. As a solipsist, the only knowlege I have is knowlege of my own conciousness. Everthing else is a beleif. I beleive in an externally observable, empircaly consistent universe.... but I don't know. Beleiving in god is just silly though.

And you're a faggot for thinking that your perceptions are absolute.

you've got at least four souls eagerly awaiting some recollection of dawkins' spanking by a catholic intellectual (read: "apologist" or "theologian" or even "priest")...at least make something up about what dawkins said and let us attack that

>>8592275
he's not really a fag...you don't know that. you can't. you don't even know he's there.

win by default

Dawkins is a moron. Next.

>>8592275
You said faith though, faith != belief.

>>8592275
Yes, yes. Maybe up is down and down is up and your dick is a toaster, go play somewhere else.

>>8592312
I conduct my day to day affairs on the basis of belief. I believe him to be a huge butthurt faggot.

>>8592275
everybody is aware that one's consciousness/experience is necessarily an assumption. the idea that the heterophenomenology of other people remotely resembles my own is an assumption.

yes, we're aware. and unimpressed. don't use solipsism as an excuse to call into question every observation ever made. you're typing into a computer in an attempt to communicate with people; you're making the same assumptions about the outside world we are.

>>8592368
That's because you dishonestly choose to believe anything that you fancy. And you justify your belief by saying that anything is possible or real. But if you weren't dishonest you would have to recognize that your "method" make the opposite of what you believe equally real, and that choosing to believe what you want just because you want is just acting like a baby.

>>8592356
You're missing the point. The issue at hand isn't whether my perceptions accurately reflect an objective reality. The question is whether there even *is* an objective reallity.

>>8592436
>>8592415

Nice double-pwn on the disingenuous little puke cloaking himself in misapplied philosophy.

>>8592454
Did you just write "Disregard that, I suck cocks." Because that's how it reads in my reality.

>>8592454
>The question is whether there even *is* an objective reallity.

If only there were some METHOD by which to investigate such questions where the experiments could be repeated and the results replicated!

inb4 "no because science makes assumptions too hahaha!!!"

ITT: butthurt Dawkins fans can't admit that their hero is a laughable faggot when compared to a real philosopher.

>>8592529
>a real philosopher.

name one.

difficulty: living.

>>8592436
Ah but I don't just choose at random. I choose to beleive in an emperically observable universe the only input I have to go on seems to fairly consistently affirm that belief. As such I cannot beleive in a judeo-christian god as it is at odds with the summ of empirical obersvation: science.

>>8592540
Are you fucking retarded? I was referring the philosopher that this whole thread is about.

>>8592529
>ITT: butthurt Dawkins fans can't admit that their hero is a laughable faggot when compared to a real philosopher.
Dawkins, gladly, was not navel gazing.. I mean doing philosophy with that book.

>>8592529
>implying anyone takes philosophy seriously.

>>8592501
You're telling me that scientific method can prove the eixistence of an objective reality.

Right.

>>8592559
Who, Russel or Dawkins?
Russel=dead
Dawkins=not a philosopher

>>8592559
no, just pointing out that you don't know anything about philosophy beyond maybe an intro survey course.

we're asking you: what real philosopher should take the reigns (sp?) from dawkins? or do we have to wait until bertrand russel is reanimated?

>>8592609
did you read the "inb4" you fucking tool? you are completely predictable.

>>8592609
nice strawman, science doesn't deal with proofs retard.

>>8592529
are you going to share with us the name of a single living philosopher?

>>8592581
>>8592624
>>8592626
Lol the butthurt just doesn't end. It's okay guys, your boyfriend doesn't need you to defend him on the internet.

>>8592675
We're all jumping on you simultaneously because your arguments are just that stupid/trolling just that effective.

>>8592609
You can dodge bullets Neo, If I kick you in the nuts you will objectively go down.

>>8592692
No, you're becoming indignant because you cannot handle the fact that one of your heroes is literally laughable.

And I'm not exaggerating, we all know it's true. Dawkins is a joke.

>>8592643
Back the train up. Stop and think very carefully.

"Repeatable experiments prove.... that the universe exists."

Dawkins is a pretty great speaker when he's talking to a crowd of Atheists about Atheism with an Atheist presenter agreeing/flirting with him. However when he's got any sort of opponent, regardless of whether they're an expert on religion or not he get's his shit served to him.
A good example is when he was obliterated in a debate by the Australian Minister for Agriculture who quote "spent my entire political carreer trying to avoid talking about religion" on the political talk show Q&A.
Also lol at Dawkins fanboys who cry about the religion being used to get rich, Dawkins is the textbook example of this.

>>8592643
FFFFFFFFF. "inb4" isn't some magical cloak that makes you invincible to argument, you stupid faggot.

>>8592668
This been more or less my point all along???

I don't know why you guys are arguing with me. We seem to agree on most points.

Bertrand Russle made a career out of misreading Wittgenstein.
And he was a faggot.

>>8592729
>Dawkins is a joke.

i'm curious, what terms did you coin that were portentous enough to only come into common usage three decades later? (did they begin with an "m" and utilize the principle of natural selection? do you even know what i'm talking about?)

>>8592784
Funny.... memes are mostly jokes.

>>8592754
>he was obliterated in a debate by the Australian Minister for Agriculture

lol if that's really the case i guess he should just give up now. /thread, guys.

The Pro "philosophy" (sic) arguments in this thread are terrible. The worst flaw being that they drag an alright objective-reality loving dude like Bertrand Russell down to the level of bullshit con-artists like Post-modern garbage pedlers and Lacan and his sqrt(-1) = GIANT COCK crowd.

Post-Modernism and deconstructionism = Creationism of the left. No wonder they hate dawkins

>>8592784
>Dawkins is a serious and respectable intellectual
>because he invented the word meme
facepalm.

>>8592798

See also

Cultural evolution
Dual inheritance theory
Electronic Revolution
Evolutionary linguistics
History of ideas
Imitation
Internet Meme
Know Your Meme
Memetics
Memetic engineering
Self-replication
Sociocultural evolution
Spiral Dynamics
Viral marketing
Viral video
Werther effect

Oh, God! There's still a decent /r9k/ thread! Thank goodness.

>>8592825
it's hilarious because you're an idiot.

>>8592814
I'm really more of an absurdist, but whatever.

*After the Nth time that empirical testing gives reliable, consistent results*
taht dosn't proev anythign derp!!!

The fact that science works doesn't prove that there's an objective measurable reality, but everytime an experiment, any experiment, get's replicated succesfully, the assumption that there isn't an objective reality gets less and less justified. If you go by the evidence, the more likely scenario is that there is an objective reality. Hands down.

>>8592814
Obvious troll is obvious. You fucking roll in foucault's fist molded shits.

>>8592846
dischordianism - How 2 feel proud about frightening sparrows.

>>8591426
Science is basically just philosophy for dummies.

>>8592847
I fail to see how the fact that my hallucination is consistent proves that it isn't a hallucination.

>>8592883
read consciousness by dan dennett explained and gtfo

it deals with these observations, which are quite old, and moves on from there to talk about things that are actually interesting.

>>8592883
Define hallucination.

>>8592883
>>8592847
You kids are having THE most fucking boring philosophy 101 argument ever. Grow the fuck up, and read some Ayn Rand.

>>8592945
>read consciousness by dan dennett explained and gtfo

whoops lol insertion fail

consciousness explained

by dan dennett

though my original syntax was more charming

>>8592948
>sensible point, then...
>read some Ayn Rand
Oh, you sneaky devil.

>>8592948
I wouldn't defile my ass by wiping it with Ayn Rand.

>>8592948
i agree with ayn rand's view on consciousness on purely pragmatic grounds, but i'm gonna have to stop reading before she concludes that consciousness's objectivity inherently advocates laissez-faire capitalism :)

>>8592987
but capital is entirely constitutive of objective reality. Everything has it's value with respect to utility - Science has proven this.

>>8593017
science has proven this? you mean economics? i accept economics as a science, but please be more specific.

>>8592754
>A good example is when he was obliterated in a debate by the Australian Minister for Agriculture who quote "spent my entire political carreer trying to avoid talking about religion" on the political talk show Q&A.
Are you referring to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDn6mYjj880
?
Watching it now, I facepalmed 5 mins in when some retard actually said he was a young earth creationist...

>>8592970
they see me trollolololing

>>8591426
And humble Bert was a faggot Englishman too.
Real men dwell in German philosophy.

>>8593052
a fucking television panel discussion is what this idiot was talking about? jesus christ, it's not even a proper debate.

>>8593046
Broad sociological evidence suggests that every object of perception can be ascribed with capital value according to it's utility. This is the best means of distributing resource as evidenced by the evolutionary persistence of the capitalist state.

>>8592946
>>8592948
>>8592954

Is the idea of subjectivity so hard for you guys? Man as a omnipotent creator of his own universe? Prior to my conceptualization of objects, objects did not exist? The termination of my conciousness is the termination of the universe? It's no less of a tenable position than beleif in a externally real observable universe.
I happen to beleive that something external exists, but that is based on a concious choice, and it is NOT a given.

I still don't know why we're arguing.

>>8593110
>every object of perception can be ascribed with capital value according to it's utility
utility according to who?

>>8593017
What do you mean by Utility? Is is usefull that wich helps us survive or that wich makes us happy? Wich is more important? You can't be happy if you are dead, but life is worth nothing without happiness... Utility for whom? Yourself? Surely also for your loved ones... Your family? Your clan? Your country? Humanity?

laissez-faire capitalism can certainly be good. In a sense. For a small group of people. Certainly not for everyone involved.

>>8593131
according to SCIENCE

>>8593126
Your "hallucination" could look like ANYTHING. And yet it looks like a consistent objective reality in wich other people live. What a coincidence.

>>8593148
Stand back kids, I'm doing..... SCIENCE!

>>8593126
we're arguing because you're Solipsism has schizophrenia.
Epic fail or master troll, i haven't decided.

>>8593126
>Is the idea of subjectivity so hard for you guys? Man as a omnipotent creator of his own universe? Prior to my conceptualization of objects, objects did not exist? The termination of my conciousness is the termination of the universe?

>It's no less of a tenable position than beleif in a externally real observable universe.
Yes it is, because it's self contradicting.

A few of you philosophy neophytes need to read "Transgressing the boundaries: Towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity."

>>8593110
>>8593110
so you mean sociology, not economics. or both. or neither; you still didn't answer my only question. moving on..
>as evidenced by the evolutionary persistence of the capitalist state.
>evolution persistence
ah, more overextension of scientific concepts. socialism is the name of the game with insects belonging to the order hymenoptera (ants, bees). (a myrmecologist once remarked "communism: nice idea, wrong species.")

once again, biology - hard science, not sociology - provides the better view here, and objectivism is found wallowing well beneath both of them.

>>8593132
there's a science to utility. Bertrand has proved this. Fucking faggots haven't read their shit.

This is why /r9k/ shouldn't think about things.

>>8593148
Science doesn't tell you what's usefull. It only tells you what is supported by the evidence. Usefull is a value judgement, it depends on what you WANT. Desires are not truth or false, they are what they are. Science may tell you wether you may achieve them and how, but it can't tell you what to desire.

>>8593173
SCIENCE

he doesn't need to cite a document or even name a specific concept...it's SCIENCE!

>>8593188
you need to read about how obsessive erudition is choking debate.
Keep stroking those archives, wanker.

>>8593211
Fail.
Read sum neuroscience & evolutionary psychology.

>>8593242
Citing a source is not an argument.

>>8593110
>by the evolutionary persistence of the capitalist state
Humans have lived for 500000 years, how persistent is that capitalist state? Has it persisted more than monarchies yet? There are single mornarchies and empires that persisted longer than capitalism as a whole. Let's not get hasty.

>>8593214
I really need to point you to a reference?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

>>8593242
agreed

in any case, fucking ayn rand's expedient views on consciousness - which i find admittedly find alluring after reading the protracted with the schizo in this thread - should not be taken seriously when discussing it as an actual phenomenon.

>>8593276
why not, we're at the apex of the evolutionary tree? We're as advanced now as we've ever been, yeah?
Try 2 communism faggot, see how ur ass get natural selected.

>>8593276
Ignore the economists and social scientists. They always shoot themselves in the foot by trying to apply their theories to subjects beyond the scope for which they were meant.

I KNOW LETS DO A MARXIST INTERPRETATION OF THE ILLIAD.

>>8593277
damn you!!!

>>8593286
stop trolling me by agreeing with me.
you make me sick.

>>8593231
I will do when you familiarise yourself with "The Sokal Affair" faggot.

>>8593332
cringe behind your books - save yourself from having to present a cogent argument.

>>8593332
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair

TOLD.

>>8593307
OMG CAN I PLAY PATROCLUS??

>>8593242
What about that? Evolutionary biology can tell us how the desire to survive got there. But when you determine that something is useful because it helps you survive, it doesn't matter how the desire to survive got there, what matters is that you want to survive. You will want to survive regardless how the desire to survive got there. Science can't tell you what to want, even if it can tell you how you came to want it.

>>8593362
Yes, those guys where told by real scientists.

>>8593362
> Lacan "the square root of negative one is a penis."
> Lacan remains a highly respected figure in the po-mo scene.

TOLOLD!

>>8593394
The real scientists who approved their paper to a peer reviewed journal?

Yeah, those real scientists sure were told.

>>8593362

i think i saw these guys fuck on xtube o_O

>>8593296
The evolutionary tree has no apex moron.

>>8593409
Objective reality told those guys. You can't accept them as having fooled scientists without accepting objective reality. Thus ruining your whole anti-sokal argument.

>>8593426
I guess it's hard to see the summit from the bottom. Honestly, if the measure of evolutionary success is persistence, then what persists is the apex of evolution. Science has proven this.

>>8593376
>it doesn't matter how the desire to survive got there, what matters is that you want to survive. You will want to survive regardless how the desire to survive got there. Science can't tell you what to want, even if it can tell you how you came to want it.

Um, organisms want (or if we're talking about sufficiently primitive organisms, "want") to survive because those who were indifferent to survival were less likely to produce offspring.

Ta-da!

>>8593440
In that case you can't accept them as having been told by reality without admitting that real scientists don't have a grasp on reality, and were thus unable to tell real from fake. Thus ruining your whole pro-physics argument.

The chief intelligence officer of Enron.

>>8593458
>Honestly, if the measure of evolutionary success is persistence,
it is
>then what persists is the apex of evolution.
"2. the highest or culminating point"...i.e. every organism on the planet that is not yet dead.
>Science has proven this.
please go away

>>8593458
Since bacteria evolved, every evolutionary change was a trade-off with only LOCAL advantage. Local in space and time, subject to environmental change. Evolution is not a ladder. FAIL

>>8593488
bad physicists exist. This is true. and?

>>8593517
This is what evolutionists actually believe.

>>8593463
I was talking about people that actually WANT things, so they make JUDGEMENTS like USEFULNESS. Not about every living organism.

>>8593488
>>8593488
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_for_Fake

>>8593527
And so do bad cultural studies academics, or whatever the fuck subject the Sokal affair was about.

It should be noted that the journal which the Sokal affair is about was an experimental one which didn't even have peer reviewers at all, so it wasn't some brilliant hoax. They didn't fool anyone.

>>8593516
>"2. the highest or culminating point"...i.e. every organism on the planet that is not yet dead.

the attribution of value to mere presistence is absurd in itself, but when combined with the ranking of nations according to GDP - Lasse-fair capitalism (even imperfectly practiced as in china) proves to be the apex of evolution.

>please go away
so polite! shall do x

>>8593594
Though it did prove that some pomo academics have their heads up their own assess.

>>8593594
It wasn't meant to fool anyone. It was meant to be full of obvious factual errors that could be checked easily. The journal failed to do the 10 minutes of work to spot these errors, yet was taken 'seriously'.

>>8593636
The journal wasn't peer reviewed. It was an open journal which anyone could submit articles to. There was never any expectation that the article would be reviewed.

In fact the whole affair points out more how desperate and deceiving science academics are willing to act in order to stick it to their humanities colleagues.

Quite sad, really.

Fuck Sokal, what about Derrida, Lacan and all that laughable baboons. How long until someone comes up and says that what they wrote is nonsense? The Bogdanov's didn't have to out themselves. When are you outing Lacan?

>>8593681
>How long until someone comes up and says that what they wrote is nonsense?
The vast majority of Western philosophers have been saying this about continental philosophy for decades.

>>8593681
Or what about the Fountain, by Marcell Duchamp??

If you have to debate whether or not reality exists, you have no business in science. The entire basis of scientific study rests upon the fact the reality does, in fact, exist.

If you disagree with this I believe you can find existentialists on your mark at your local Buddhist temple.

This has been a public service announcement from your friendly neighborhood atheist. Please, go fuck yourselves.

>>8593692
>both literary theorists

You didn't take many english courses, did you?

>>8593695
That was supposed to be nonsense. To shock people. It was intended to be offensive. Dadaist were not artists, they were anti-art.

>>8593730
Continental philosophy and continental literary theory are essentially the same thing.

If you didn't know that I suspect you are the one who has not studied much English.

>>8593761
LULZ in reference to a french text.

>>8593681
I've mentioned Lacan twice in this thread. GIANT COCKS

>>8593711
>implying that existentialism and science are mutually exclusive

the the only guy in here who made any points questioning objectivity admitted to beleiving in it regardless.

>>8593786
Yes, but intellectual fags still swear by him, and Derrida, and Deleuze and all that pitiful host.

>>8593761
I was actually refering the fact that you seem to be shittin on literary theory.

>>8593812
don't haet what you can't understand.
Derrida loves you.

It's been fun trollin' with you filosofags.
signing out.

>>8593812
What's the matter, man? Derrida and Deleuze too deep for you?

As a roman catholic, a devout worshipper, and a moral person I can largely state that I agree with the majority of points set out by Bertrand.

The issue isn't so much whether or not God exists as whether or not it is possible to prove that God exists using the tools we have scientifically available to us. I would say that currently, it is not possible to Know God (capitals intended) in a material sense. It is possible to impose our own opinions of what God might be like onto the world and our environment, but it's not possible to materially know something that would by nature have to be transcendent. Therefore, yes, it is scientifically impossible at this moment to prove the nature of God, if He exists in a scientifically provable way.

Tl;DR: We have as little proof of God as we have of string theory. We don't have the tools yet to prove the accuracy or existence of either.

>>8593896
Yes but we can dispove the bible, the ritual, the dogma, and three thousand years worth of other horseshit. If religon only ammounted to believing in an omnipotent being, then none of this would be an issue.

>>8593960
And "an omnipotent being" can be disproved and has been disproved by method of thought experiment.

>>8593990
Lol no it hasn't.

inb4 argument from evil or some other phil101 shit.

>>8594022
creating a stone, can't lift, etc.

>>8593960
you can no better disprove the bible than you can disprove the existence of alien life, or you can disprove a prophecy that contains no words. The bible, viewed literally, is disprovable, however, viewed metaphorically or contextually, it is utterly disprovable because of its very nature.

The issue isn't even the bible, it's how people interpret it. People suck.

>>8594022
Spinosa, bro. Descartes, too, he just didn't have the guts to follow his thoughts to their logical conclusion.

Anything that is omnipotent cannot at the same time be "a being". What religious people call god, is and always has been Being itself, never "a being", it only got muddled up.

>>8594063
I don't think you understand what is entailed in a proof.

>>8594104
I don't think you do.

>>8594099
Spinoza believed in God, dumbass.

>>8594071
...Yeah, it's all just metaphor. The bits about stoning my kids and not eating pork and jesus coming back to life.... that's all just metaphor.

>>8594179
>>8594071
I'm not the person you're replying to, or even religious at all, but you're pretty stupid if you believe that the modern day English bible, as written by King James, and manipulated and rewritten over centuries to fit various political purposes, is actually anything like the original bible.

>>8594071
You can disprove the truth claims in the bible.
If you say the bible is just metaphors, a fantasy, saga, etc, then we have no problems.

>>8593837
>>8593866
You know that when they wrote the tale of the emperor's clothes they were thinking about people like you, right?

>>8594129
Bloody hell, have you even read Ethics? Spinoza was a pantheist, which is about as far from the concept of God normally discussed as you can get without the subject of conversation being an 8 year old kid who would like some more sweeties now please.

Y'all want a serious atheistic argument, rather than Dawkins setting up straw men, knocking them down and expecting everyone to cum so hard over his face it gets into his brain? Then find one and read one. Pic VERY related.

>>8592754
>>8592754
>>8592754
>>8592754
>A good example is when he was obliterated in a debate by the Australian Minister for Agriculture who quote "spent my entire political carreer trying to avoid talking about religion" on the political talk show Q&A.

On Part 3 of this right now. If this faggot is still in the thread: you're a liar. Dawkins has the audience behind him because he's the only one not talking out of his ass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeNuiFT601g&NR=1 3:22 applause break

Again, it's a TV panel; not a proper debate, just a popularity contest, but he's winning at even that. Fuck you for lying to us.

>>8594329
Nah, I'm pretty sure the emperors new clothes is about people who read Dawkins spouting old hat ideas and thinking it's brilliant.

>>8594458
>Y'all want a serious atheistic argument, rather than Dawkins setting up straw men,

Uhhh, Dawkins dedicates the entire first chapter of The God Delusion (entitled something like "A Deeply Religious Non-believer") to making sure he's not setting up straw men. He goes into detail about pantheism and ends up dismissing it as sexed-up atheism and therefore not an appropriate target.

The only one setting up straw men here is you.

>>8594532
>thinking it's brilliant
>it's brilliant
>it's
>'

>>8594099
No, most gods started out as tall tales of legendary dudes with superpowers or personifications of forces of nature or things like that. Then they suffered inflation and become gradually removed from physical reality, until you end up with those abstract bullshit.
If god is just being, then the word god lost all its meaning. The same goes for pantheism, if god is the universe, then using the word god is just confusing because god has all that wacky connotations. If god is just another-thing-that-has-a-less-equivocal-name, let's use the less equivocal name and ditch god.

>>8594558
>Thinking it is brilliant
>Thinking Dawkins' book is brilliant
>Poster believes there is something wrong with this grammar

>>8594558
Guy: two plus wto is four
Retard: you spelt two wrong, your argument is invalid.

>>8594558
/b/ is the other tab you have open

>>8594558
wait that's correct...nevermind.

anyway, what you cocksuckers don't seem to understand is that there existed virtually no books about atheism that weren't tedious and unreadable. the book was necessary for the public that isn't as intimately familiar with russel and hume as everyone in this thread is. dawkins is skilled at writing about science for popular audiences; he thinks the question of god's existence is a scientific question - you may not, because you've bought into the cop-outs of religious apologists who want to be forever immune to any and all encroachments by science, but he does. so he wrote a book. end of story.

>>8594458
>Dawkins setting up straw men
what straw men?

What a bunch of faggots, all they do is say Dawkins makes straw men, Dawkins is naive... Why don't you provide a single example of that. Everybody can do that shit, look: Jesus said that we should chop our dicks off and shove them up our butts. See? Just saying that doesn't make it true, provide examples.

>>8594545
Which is great for him. Really, I'm happy that that chapter was enough to make at least some people think that he's not setting up straw men. I personally chose to not mindlessly accept that because that was there he wouldn't be, and actually read what he wrote skeptically. Guess what? He sets up straw men. One example that comes to mind is his treatment of the anthropic principle, I've never seen a more thinly veiled straw man, a professor read it out in a lecture and burst out laughing. If he were truly dedicated to not having any straw men, he'd tackle the more complete and forceful forms of the arguments. To have a chapter on the teleological argument and not even mention Swinburne's version from regularities of succession is unusual for someone who claims to be taking such lengths to avoid straw men, as it's one of the most elegant arguments I've ever read. Although, I guess it might go a little over the head of his average reader...

>>8594686
>Why don't you provide a single example of that.

i've been lurking this thread pretty much from the beginning and i've yet to see a single one.

again, the only person being "straw manned" here is dawkins by a bunch of faggots who watch south park but haven't read any of his writings.

>>8594636
Right. Go to wikipedia, what does it say about Richard Dawkins?
"British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science author."
or
"Philosofail, navel gazer, theolojizzin' verbal masterbatr bullshit artist"

>>8594700
>One example that comes to mind is his treatment of the anthropic principle, I've never seen a more thinly veiled straw man, a professor read it out in a lecture and burst out laughing

Two questions:
1) What was the man a professor of?
2) What was wrong with his treatment of the anthropic principle?

>>8594746
actually, while I'm at it
3. Who the fuck did he "straw man" while advocating the anthropic principle?

inb4 no direct answers to any of these three questions

we need to get back to ronery discussions, this isn't our strong suit

>>8594700
>there are complete and forceful forms of the teleological argument
I lol'd

>>8594813
as did i.

Dennett (yes, a real, honest-to-goodness philosopher) was right when he pointed out that most philosophy classes are taught as if Darwin never existed.

>>8594746
1. Metaphysics.
2. The anthropic principle can be applied to a number of things. The only convincing arguments which are ever generated by discussion of it (which even then aren't really hugely convincing in any way, but the point isn't that they're right, it's that Dawkins doesn't tackle them) come from applying it to the entire universe or at least pocket universe (Paul Davies has an interesting take on it, but in my opinion he's also batshit insane), but Dawkins for some reason decides that the application of it he'll consider is applying it to much a much smaller area, where it really has no philosophical relevance at all.

>>8594837
>1. Metaphysics
He has a doctorate in METAPHYSICS?
>Dawkins for some reason decides that the application of it he'll consider is applying it to much a much smaller area, where it really has no philosophical relevance at all.

Are you going to share with the class what exactly that smaller area is?

Is it this:

>Weak anthropic principle (WAP) (Carter): "we must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers."
Note that for Carter, "location" refers to our location in time as well as space.

Hint: it is. It applies to the existence of life on Earth. If the question of life on Earth is too "small" and not "philosophical" for you, I apologize on Dawkins' behalf.

>>8594813
>>8594828
Well I lol'd that your understanding of the teleological argument only goes as far as getting it confused with the retards who advocate Intelligent Design and similar bullshit. Modern teleological arguments are far more impressive than Paley. Read some Swinburne.

>>8594893

Algernon Charles Swinburne was an English poet, controversial in his own day. He invented the roundel form, wrote some novels, and contributed to the famous Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

1909... cool! I wonder what he has to say about the multiverse theory (is that an overextension of the anthropic principle?) I'll have to check him out.

>>8594700
From Swinburne's bullshit:
"science cannot explain why all bodies do possess the same very general powers and liabilities. It is with this fact that scientific explanation stops. So either the orderliness of nature is where all explanation stops, or we must postulate an agent of great power and knowledge who brings about through his continuous action that bodies have the same very general powers and liabilities"

TL;DR: I can't believe that the Universe is just orderly and has constant laws. But I can't believe that there is an "agent" that just has great knowledge and power. Because an orderly Universe with constant laws can't just happen. But a brainiac with suppapowahs can just happen yeahh omg lolololol

>>8594948
>>8594948
More about noted cosmologist Swineburne:

>His mastery of vocabulary, rhyme and metre is impressive, although he has also been criticized for his florid style and word choices that only fit the rhyme scheme rather than contributing to the meaning of the piece.

So he couldn't even write well.

In any case, do us the favor of distilling his teleological argument for us here. I hope its strength wasn't compromised by his need to make it rhyme.

>>8594948
I think he might mean Richard. Unless there's something more to that poetry...?

>>8594967
*cough* INFINITE FUCKING REGRESS *cough*

>>8594983
LOL! thanks...that makes more sense. I was seriously like wtf

I think Algernon is about as helpful as Richard in this department though.

Hey guys, Swineburne here. Here's some fat to chew on: where did the cosmological constants in the universe come from, and how did they come to be so finely tuned so as to allow the evolution of intelligent life (hee hee, j/k...my argument is sophisticated enough to embrace Darwinism specifically, but give me the benefit of the doubt pretend it does.)

Anyway, what could have caused the conditions? Answer: God. Excuse me, "an agent of great power."

Yes? What? Where did God come from? You say I haven't solved the problem of the origin of design, only aggravated it with more steps? Whatever, I was raised to believe that this is a perfectly acceptable way of making an argument and that it doesn't lead to infinite regress. I am a prisoners of the times.

Well, got to go. Hopefully future generations of "thinkers" will parrot this argument for centuries to come!

>"Swinburne has attempted to reassert classical Christian beliefs with an apologetic method that he believes is compatible with contemporary science. That method relies heavily on inductive logic, seeking to show that his Christian beliefs fit best with the evidence."

Ohhh DEAR.

Swinburne fanboy with the metaphysics professor...you wouldn't happen to attend a RELIGIOUS school, would you?

>>8594558
That's called an apostrophe. Not seen one before?
Here's a link with some information on them for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe

>>8595107
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe_(')

awesome, i love zappa

>>8595049
Also:
>how did they come to be so finely tuned so as to allow the evolution of intelligent life
Implies that intelligent life was the OBJECTIVE of the universe. Other universe are likely to bring up other improbable things. That is if you a) consider that the universe is actually fine-tuned for life when life is not abundant at all. b) this is the only way that life can exist c) make the assumption that any other kind of universe can't harbour life d) the universe couldn't be even more tuned for life e) this is the only universe that exists f) The universe wasn't designed for any other improbable thing that we find in this universe....

>>8595171
OK yes. But my point in that bit of satire was that even if we make the assumption that the cosmological constants seemed conspicuously fined tuned for life- and many atheistic physicists do, though some do not- Swinburne's bland teleological argument still solves nothing whatsoever.

>>8595102
I get the suspicion that the name Richard Swinburne has never been uttered on the campus of any real (read: secular) institution of learning.