Why is Dawkins such a cuck?

Why is Dawkins such a cuck?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Tfw2suyUUNw
youtube.com/watch?v=dhOYxbsifkI
youtu.be/4bLlpiWh9-k
ehrmanblog.org/did-nazareth-exist/
biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/biblical-archaeology-sites/has-the-childhood-home-of-jesus-been-found/
nazarethvillage.com/blog/2015/02/23/pottery/
scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-africa-theory-out/
youtu.be/YA9t8M3G4xQ
youtu.be/i4dwdlyI2a8
smithsonianmag.com/history/unearthing-world-jesus-180957515/
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4317442/Study-finds-atheism-eventually-die-out.html
smithsonianmag.com/history/unearthing-world-jesus-180957515
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Back in the day Sup Forums laughed at religion
Today, the millennials venerate it

I don't know. but at least maher and him criticize islamb

youtu.be/Tfw2suyUUNw

We are not all Africans. Some people left Africa and founded modern civilization and just about everything in industry and technology, and the rest stayed to starve in a desert while not innovating.

we are all single celled organisms

You know how I know we aren't all Africans... Because Africans are slaughtering Whites in South Africa and removing them from the lands...

white devils had it coming for like 300 years

>faggy atheist
idk maybe that

Atheists are cucks by default. Hitler may have been the only salvageable atheist but even then he might have been a pagan.

Atheists usually are.

WTF is "SALON"?

Evolution is a lie.
Kikes admit they pushed it into academia in the Protocols of Zion.
DESTRUCTIVE EDUCATION
3. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism (Evolution), Marxism (Communism), Nietzsche-ism (Socialism). To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the GOYIM.

this is a lecture by a jew posted on 2014 but the basics still stand,, resume:

youtube.com/watch?v=dhOYxbsifkI

--about NON trusted genetics test facilities (23andme) 57:42 and at 59:10 continue listening (audience questions) about big errors in ancestry testing even betwen two brothers.

--about non-african origin 39:10-but then he goes back to african origin because fits narrative.

--about the imposibility of confirming neanderthal 1:09:10 ... but lets stick to the narrative.

--about non perfect european ancestry results (LAS CRIATURAS) 41:00

we dont really know what is going on and we dont know about the origin of humans we got a lot of noise in DNA testing but lets just say is africa...fits narrative... OK....ok.

btw

>admits that Whites are capable of devilish violence and total enslavement of non-whites
>thinks it's not going to happen again if non-whites bite the hand that has been feeding them for the past 200 years
Looking forward to it desu.

The PROCESS of evolution is a documented and observed. The Flu evolves every single year and we have direct evidence of certain types of species in the Animal kingdom that have evolved in response to environmental changes.

The THEORY of evolution takes the process and applies to over time by using genetics ,fossil data, and current anatomy. The so called "holes" in the theory of evolution are no more than unknown fossil records that can show us things like how the jawbone evolved in mammals.

The process of evolution is scientific law and the theory is basically the history of it. Denying evolution because of "holes" is equivalent to denying history because we didn't know what happened in the dark ages.

No one denies for instance a dog can come from a wolf. Things like the founder effect and the domestication of animals are real and documented.
What the Jew wants you to believe is you came from a single celled organism which there is zero evidence for.

Except everyone who has dedicated their entire lives to studying that sort of thing and applying the scientific method say the exact opposite.

...

Because now we realize the crazy evangelical shit is much better to have occurring in your society than being cool with ZOG ruling over shit. 10 years ago I could go out and not see a brown person, now I'm lucky to see another white.

>Atheists are cucks by default
Being an atheist is like being stuckninthe 3rd panel of the expanding brain meme. Like, "no shit dude, of course snakes can't talk."

I hate old boomer faggots

evangelicals are the ultimate zogbots lol

He is a cannibal.

Because as you point out you can see animals change as we both know. In addition to this, the common consensus is that if a flu can change then we can come from rocks if there's enough time.
Plus like you said, this is their whole life's work. Why would they even entertain the notion that they didn't evolve from rocks? Meanwhile that has never been observed.
If X is true that does not mean Y is true.

>Why is Dawkins such a cuck?
Dawkins actually is an African. He was born in Kenya or somewhere like that.

Maher presumably knows that, that's why they're posing with that cuckiberal t-shirt

the absolute state of american posters ladies and gentlemen
this is the man that tells you to take the redpill

(((UN flag)))
that just confirms what I posted. Thanks for backing me up Shlomo.

No problem Brad keep it up

Kek dawkins btfo

Pick related will be the same in 10 years

Yeah they're zogbots, but they didn't create zog. Jewish controlled media is at the centre of it, and these evangelicals were always one of the biggest brainwashing targets.

>Pick related

Dawkins has always pushed completely mindless and genocidal fundamentalist religion under the term "atheism", and he knows he's pushing a religion. Dawkins comes from old money. His family was in the slave trade (in a field dominated by jews). He comes from a long line of satan worshiping psychopaths.

Here's a redpill that ought to be common knowledge- you can see someone's soul by looking into their eyes. You can spot a psychopath by glancing at them before they ever say a word. If you can't tell Dawkins is evil by looking in his eyes, you've been blinded.

Unironicly comenting on spelling erors

So why do both of them live near so many white and whitish people as opposed to dark skinned ones? More white Libtards who like virtue signaling about diversity but will absolutely not be walking their own talk on the matter. These people need to be hanged.

>blah blah blah blah
Tell me this, Christcuck, if the atheists are all so evil, how come the prison population is about 0.1% atheist?

Is it because they're better at not getting caught than Christians (i.e. more intelligent)?

Or is it that they're less criminal, on average, than Christcucks?

You can't have it both ways, must be one or the other

That's not how you spell "unironically" or "commenting", user

Religious people are honestly not any better, churches and Christian normies welcome refugees all the same as leftist atheists.

Where did you get this whole rock thing from? I don't understand this post, you should rephrase it so it's more coherent.

According to evolution, we come from rocks.
Jews have people that brainwashed.

>how come the prison population is about 0.1% atheist?

Because non-autistic sociopaths have no qualms about putting on a pretense of being religious to show "They've changed" and to help get parole/early release/good behavior yada yada yada.

>Is it because they're better at not getting caught than Christians (i.e. more intelligent)?

>Or is it that they're less criminal, on average, than Christcucks?

This terribly false dichotomy you've set up shows some atheist's issues with abstract and non-linear reasoning. You're probably someone who is atheist by default, not having "reasoned" you way to it, because you clearly lack that ability.

>You can't have it both ways, must be one or the other

When you reason such a complex issue as this down to this statement(specifically this one), you should probably re-analyze the logical framework that got you there. It is severely flawed.

If you're so smart, why are you citing a study that also claims Atheists are 0.7% of the population? Which is corroborated by no other study.

Like I said, being an atheist is like being stuck on the third level of the expanding brain meme. Mildly clever, but no capacity for original thought, or wisdom to recognize crap data on its face.

Because now we have radical communist SJWs running amock who want to transition children into the opposite gender.

>You're probably someone who is atheist by default, not having "reasoned" you way to it, because you clearly lack that ability.
I'm taking this. It applies to about 60% of atheists out there.

I never knew that about Benny.

I bet you're one of those crazies who still think that Jesus was a real person

>Protip: he wasn't

its almost like this site has always been filled with edgy contrarian teenagers

More evidence for Jesus existing than humans evolving from stones.

Even archeologists acknowledge his existence
youtu.be/4bLlpiWh9-k

>Even archeologists acknowledge his existence
Yeah, not since the 70s when they all realised there was no supporting evidence for any of the biblical tales

>In fact Nazareth didn't actually exist during Jesus' time

>More evidence for Jesus existing than humans evolving from stones.
Humans didn't evolve from stones, you idiot. Humans and stones evolved from a common ancestor

that's Maher's only slightly redeeming quality.

>that's Maher's only slightly redeeming quality.
Maher also criticises SJWs and is pro-free speech, so that's at least three redeeming qualities

>>In fact Nazareth didn't actually exist during Jesus' time
Not this shit again.
ehrmanblog.org/did-nazareth-exist/
biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/biblical-archaeology-sites/has-the-childhood-home-of-jesus-been-found/
nazarethvillage.com/blog/2015/02/23/pottery/

Science shows that most genetic swap in the last few hundred thousand years was east west.
scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-africa-theory-out/
>All the ancestors of contemporary Europeans apparently did not migrate out of Africa as previously believed. According to a new analysis of more than 5,000 teeth from long-perished members of the genus Homo and the closely related Australopithecus, many early settlers hailed from Asia.
>Scientists found that teeth from African specimens were a different shape or morphology than those from Eurasian samples. The researchers wrote that teeth toward the front of the mouth from Eurasians had more "morphological robusticity," such as a triangular, shovel shape. Their back teeth were smaller and had smoother chewing surfaces; the rear teeth from African samples were larger and the chewing surfaces on them more pointy and jagged.
>"The continuity of the 'Eurasian dental pattern' from the early Pleistocene until the appearance of upper Pleistocene Neandertals suggests that the evolutionary courses of the Eurasian and the African continents were relatively independent for a long period and that the impact of Asia in the colonization of Europe was stronger than that of Africa,"
>suggests that the evolutionary courses of the Eurasian and the African continents were relatively independent for a long period and that the impact of Asia in the colonization of Europe was stronger than that of Africa
>the evolutionary courses of the Eurasian and the African continents were relatively independent for a long period and that the impact of Asia in the colonization of Europe was stronger than that of Africa
>the evolutionary courses of the Eurasian and the African continents were relatively independent for a long period
But there's no such thing as speciation in humans even though identical birds are different subspecies and humans show far more differences then just skin tone.

>Not this shit again.
(((Bart Ehrman))) again, oh dear

Obviously you didn't read your own link before posting it, otherwise you would have noticed that Ehrman is full of shit once again

He writes

>There are numerous compelling pieces of archaeological evidence that in fact Nazareth did exist in Jesus’ day

...then admits this "numerous evidence" amounts to a single farmhouse

> (You)
>>Even archeologists acknowledge his existence
>Yeah, not since the 70s when they all realised there was no supporting evidence

I posted evidence that was found much later than the 70s.
If you do not think archeology is real, than I am not listening to you

THIS IS FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS!!!!
youtu.be/YA9t8M3G4xQ

>I posted evidence that was found much later than the 70s.
You posted a random YouTube videos. I don't watch random YouTube videos.

Show me published peer-reviewed research, and I'll read that, otherwise fuck off.

We don't really know where life came from and no one thinks we came from rocks like you're describing it. Just because we don't have the answers exact doesn't mean we're on the wrong track. There is more evidence that we evolved from single celled life than there is for Jewish brainwashing.

>(((Bart Ehrman))) again, oh dear
Good argument, especially since you rely on the book of an SJW like Carrier
>...then admits this "numerous evidence" amounts to a single farmhouse
Nope also pottery, coins and an additional house. I gave you two other links for the pottery and the house.

That explains a lot. Faggotry is some kid of disease/cult that is passed on.

>Show me published peer-reviewed research, and I'll read that, otherwise fuck off.
Name me the peer-reviewed research that shows Nazareth didn't exist

>we are all single-celled organisms.

Thank you Based Texas

fair enough

You don't want to know, little user. Stay innocent.

>Name me the peer-reviewed research that shows Nazareth didn't exist
I've been on Sup Forums the whole evening, and that's literally the stupidest thing I've read all evening.

"Show me the peer-reviewed research that Barney the Dinosaur doesn't live on Pluto with his harem of elves."

>Nope also pottery, coins and an additional house.
All found at the same location, i.e. the entirety of the evidence suggests there was a farm in 1st century Nazareth.

The whole purpose of science is to disprove theories. Science never proves anything correct, it only proves things wrong.

>"Give me peer-reviewed scholars that say Jesus existed"
>"Also I can make the argument Nazareth never existed, supported by virtually no expert whatsoever, without providing a shred of support. They're all wrong because I say so"
>"Furthermore, I don't have to provide any evidence that the coins, pottery and house that were found don't count"

This video has nothing to do with the bible
youtu.be/i4dwdlyI2a8

And EVEN SMITHSONIAN acknowledges him and his disciples!
smithsonianmag.com/history/unearthing-world-jesus-180957515/

>All found at the same location, i.e. the entirety of the evidence suggests there was a farm in 1st century Nazareth.
A house and a farm already sounds like a hamlet or tiny village, which is probably what Nazareth was at the time

Well here are the facts.
In the USSR, reading the book I quoted would get you killed.
So, if you think kikes run the media/invented communism then it stands to reason they wrote the POZ which means they wrote "lol evolution is a lie".
Since there is no evidence for even a "monkey-like" ancestor we descend from and I'm woke to the JQ, that to me is sufficient evidence that Darwinism is falsely propped up like psychology, anthropology, etc.

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4317442/Study-finds-atheism-eventually-die-out.html

>This video has nothing to do with the bible
Actually I've seen that one before. The author gets nearly all of his facts wrong; he clearly hasn't read the source texts or any of the scholarship done on the source texts. He's just repeating what he read on evangelical websites, material that was also written by people who haven't read the source texts or the scholarship.

all Atheists are degenerate cucks down to the core and they know it
no values
no meaning for life
an empty void to be filled with what their hedonistic masters deem fit

>We are all Africans
>Evil white people colonized Africa
How can you be an invader in your own land?

>And EVEN SMITHSONIAN acknowledges him and his disciples!
(((Smithsonian)))? Wow, that's impressive! They definitely wouldn't run a clickbait story for their perpetually braindead readership, nosirree!

>A house and a farm already sounds like a hamlet or tiny village, which is probably what Nazareth was at the time
That is almost certainly what Nazareth was at the time.

>gets all his facts wrong
Feel free to correct all the erros he made to me.

And you still ignore the Smithsonian link, a very reliable scholarly source.
smithsonianmag.com/history/unearthing-world-jesus-180957515

>In the USSR

We're in the United States and that nation doesn't exist anymore anyways. Psychology, anthropology, history, political science, biology, etc. are redpilled. Things like gender studies, sociology, african american studies, any "studies" basically are what you are thinking of as "Jewish tricks" since they originate from the School of Frankfurt.

There is sufficient evidence of Darwinism in a simple comparison of races. Africa didn't develop and advance like Europe and Asia because its inhabitants (blacks) are not capable of functioning as a collective on that level. White people and asian people on the other hand were capable of doing much more and survived much better.

Applying Darwinism to human society is something that will get you called a racist or xenophobe today, these people you think are the "Jews" are the ones who made it unacceptable to think this way.

It wouldn't even matter if he didn't exist you fucking midwit faggot. That's not the point.

>Feel free to correct all the erros he made to me.
As I recall, he spends over 9000 hours discussing a passage in Josephus' Art of War which isn't in the early manuscripts but was actually added 300 years later. A mistake typically made by people who don't know anything about the topic they're discussing

>And you still ignore the Smithsonian link, a very reliable scholarly source.
Everyone who doesn't live on Planet Christcuck has already realised that the tomb is a fake. (It would be nice if it were genuine, but it's not.)

What's a fucking midwit faggot? Someone whose IQ is exactly 100, no more, no less?

Psychology and Anthropology are heavily kiked by Sigmund Freud and Franz Boaz. The first pushed perversion, the second pushed nurture>nature and the noble savage meme. Both are Zionists who had no evidence or studies to back up their claims, just lots of money and a large clique of Jewish intellectuals.

Are you really this stupid to think the Smithsonian, one of the most acclaimed museums in the world, is unreliable?

Is your head filled with Dawkin's cum you rather have him to fill it with than well researched information in Smithsonian books?
How does Dawkins cock taste, faggot?!
I swear I had never seen anyone as blue pilled as you.

>Are you really this stupid to think the Smithsonian, one of the most acclaimed museums in the world, is unreliable?
In the time it took you to type that 200-character response, (I sympathise, I really do, I know it's difficult to type that many words in a single evening), I read the whole Smithsonian article.

It doesn't contain any evidence that illuminates the life of Jesus, not a single scrap. Why are you wasting my time with this trivia?

>That is almost certainly what Nazareth was at the time.
So Nazareth existed, it was just a tiny and insignificant village, which is what most experts think.
Also explains why it is not often mentioned in Ancient literature.

>trivia
What trivia?
Who said I was giving you a pop quiz?

>he's coming again one of these days
kek

>As I recall, he spends over 9000 hours discussing a passage in Josephus' Art of War which isn't in the early manuscripts but was actually added 300 years later.
Source: my ass
Also
>Josephus' Art of War
Fucking kek

>What trivia?
That article is not connected in any way with what we've been discussing. I don't know why you keep writing about it. Is it some kind of degenerative disease that makes you forget what you saying halfway through a sentence? If so, you have my deepest sympathies.

>Fucking kek
Oops, I meant Antiquities of the Jews, obviously. Kek all you like, I deserve it.

>Source: my ass
Source, the devout Christian scholar Origen, whose surviving works contain the whole of AoJ in quotation, which is how we know that Jesus wasn't mentioned in the earliest manuscripts.

Slaughtering other Africans is a continental pasttime in Africa. So your argument does not hold, if anything it proves those whites are real Africans.

>talk about Jesus
>show an article about Jesus

>"not relevant in any way"
Bye bye, master baiter who obviously didn't read the article. I know your are a troll just to piss people off, not an atheist who actually cares about what people believe in.

This is my last comment btw

>Source, the devout Christian scholar Origen, whose surviving works contain the whole of AoJ in quotation
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. He refers to AotJ but does not quote it at length
>which is how we know that Jesus wasn't mentioned in the earliest manuscripts.
He actually says that Josephus made mention of Jesus.
>For this [siege] began while Nero was still being king, and it lasted until the leadership of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, as Josephus writes, on account of James the just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but, as the truth demonstrates, [actually] on account of Jesus the Christ of God.
>-Origen, Against Celsus 2.13
Basically Origen is saying Josephus claimed that the Temple was destroyed because James was killed by the Jews. Origen himself believes that it was because they killed Jesus (a common belief among early Christians)

Finn, stop taking the bait.
He doesn't even give a crap what you believe in, he is just a troll trying to get (yous)

The brit doesn't even have the attention span to read your sources

I can't never take a burger seriously. Even Russian orthodox psychos make more sense

>He refers to AotJ but does not quote it at length
You must be reading a different copy of Contra Celsus than I'm reading

>He actually says that Josephus made mention of Jesus.
No he doesn't. That's another mistake made by people who get all their information from Wikipedia. Read the passage again; he's discussing a different passage in AoJ, not the passage that now contains the "who was the Christ" insertion.