Find a flaw

Find a flaw.

Pro-tip: You can't

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/04/dawkins-demon-the-true-faith-of-liberal-atheists/
youtube.com/watch?v=sq13SvXIw58
youtube.com/watch?v=CqsQ--afUUA
youtube.com/watch?v=MwoMcN-YyVM
proofthatgodexists.org/
youtube.com/watch?v=ez3UCyeolzo
unqualifiedreservations.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-1/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Who's the intended audience for this kind of books?

>richard dawkins
meh, he seems pretty religious as of late. acknowledging that we dont know evertythig...

seems its true, old age does make you religios

Christianity was the only thing keeping back the mudslimes, not that people realize its a farce theres no one left willing to stand up to them. Even dawkins admits he dun goofed

Not to mention it gave rise to a whole community of cringe worthy fedora toting pseudo intellectuals who think they are smart for not believing in fairy tales.

Man's a pro refugee cuck that demands a second EU ref. Check his twitter.

youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw

>not
now*

I'm a deist, what now OP you fag.

watch all his arguements get destroyed unequivocally.

It was pretty juvenile. The whole book.

fedora tippers have been paraphrasing its arguments and presenting them as original thought for the past decade

not a flaw in the arguments presented in the book but still a huge flaw

>samefagging this hard

also
>that comment section
>christcucks openly admitting they dont understand even grade 6 science.

Here's a pretty big one
theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/04/dawkins-demon-the-true-faith-of-liberal-atheists/
Here are four highly important Western thinkers. Please pick the odd one out:

1. St Thomas Aquinas (theologian).
2. Charles Darwin (biologist).
3. Stephen Jay Gould (biologist).
4. Richard Dawkins (biologist).

The odd one out is of course No. 2, Charles Darwin, because he didn’t believe in miracles...

This is because Dawkins, Gould and other liberal atheists believe in the Miracle of Human Equality: namely, that all human groups, despite their superficial physical differences, are equal in average cognitive ability – equal, in fact, on all psychological variables. In short, there is only one brain: the Human Brain. And all groups have an equal share in it. Okay, the actual physical brain of different groups varies in size and structure, but that doesn’t make any difference to brain function. Metaphysics trumps mere matter, for heaven’s sake. Or rather: not for heaven’s sake. Liberal atheists don’t believe in heaven

>Find a flaw.

Hurt my feels. Checkmate atheists

Ad hominem coming up....

>because he didn’t believe in miracles...
Its almost like there is absolutely 0 evidence for any miracles ever occurring and everything can be explained by science.

that would be my point

how can someone BELIEVE in science? I don't understand, does that mean that if my science don't approve your science you should be killed or ridiculed?

His senility has taken the better of him. He has turned to propagandism.

I dont believe in any higher power but atheism breeds marxism so thats some shit

Compared to his other books the God Delusion is not very sciency , rather it is a critique of Christianity and the bibles.

If you want Dawkins science shit go read the Selfish Gene

He seeks justification for his disbelief in the particular rather than the general. But I guess you can't write a book about the latter - or if you did it wouldn't be a best seller.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=sq13SvXIw58

youtube.com/watch?v=CqsQ--afUUA

I read it in my edgy years. It is supposed to be about non-existence of God but it's actually a book on how religions are evil. These two are separate things.
I respect Dawkins for The Selfish Gene and his hate for muslims but this book is mediocre at best.

I'm ashamed that I had to read this book to realize religious people don't treat other people well because of the good itself but because they collect points for the afterlife and fear god might send them into hell.

He's been destroyed by Vox Day Hiroshima-style, and you sir, just came across as young and ignorant.
>Ah the good old days when I was a teenager just finishing Atlas Shrugged

why should we be good to others if not for that? If there is not God we are just animals waiting to die, and nothing else

Any arguments?
Empathy, compassion, moral intuition, social cohesion, secular ethics, introspection

all made by religion, except fear or judgement we don't have a real reason to be good

I'm not here to remake your education and if your OP is of any indication you're not interested in presenting arguments either.

This is no pee contest, either you're genuinely curious and interested in the question and you'll go dig the source, or you're just here to try yet another LOLOLOL BTFO post because you feel clever after reading a book. Your call.

>pro-tip*

see, this is why i fear religious people like you and am glad religion exist because otherwise people like you would go full animal

you are like a child who only behaves good because it fears the father's reaction but not because it feels that it is the right choice to be good.

It's poorly written tripe.

Found a flaw. What do I win?

>Islam
Arabs are the cancer, not the religion itself.

It's a fine book with many fair points that are completely wasted on the majority that read it.

Instead of taking it as an informative and opposite view to the major religions, it's fans have turned it into, "appeal to authority, the book."

These are the same people that read nietzsche and unironically become nihilists.

>all made by religion
>precisely the opposite of religion-made

Man, i hope i get paid for all those extra hours.

The OP is presentably welcoming of suggestions/arguments.
You don't need to start with the arguments themselves to begin a conversation.
>thinks providing arguments for one's claims are equivalent to remaking the interlocutor's education
If your snarky childish remarks are of any indication, you're interested in a discussion either

>why should we be good to others if not for that
>litterally admitting you arent a good person and only act like it because of muh fairy tales
I havent been religious for over 10 years now and i havent killed , mugged, raped, swindled, or fucked anyone over. In fact im a lot nicer than i used to be.

People who need religion to be decent people are the WORST kinds of psychopaths

I agree, but I ask you what is good, thing that is good for me may be bad for you, thing that is good for you may be bad for me, if we talk about good and bad then you germans are definitely bad, and should suicide yourselves right now because it is the right choice to make if we look the history

William lane Craig ripped it to shreds, and offered dawkins to debate or refute his points.

He ran away like a pussy

>it's fans have turned it into, "appeal to authority, the book."
Any evidence or reasoning for that happening.
>Some guy on Youtube
That's not evidence that this book is used as appeals to authority.

can you elaborate

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."

read kant

I am not religious, need to say that, I just don't understand why we fallow 10 commandments instead survival of the fittest

The cover design is a bit bland.

Don't be butthurt like this, you're the one being childish here displaying trouble with sarcasm. OP provides a source, I provide another. What he does with it is his problem. It's really that simple.

>Empathy, compassion, moral intuition, social cohesion, secular ethics, introspection
None of these things are grounded on religion.
At best you could say moral intuition is culturally modulated by religious behaviour but it's there before, that's why it's an intuition. And that's about it. Empathy, compassion and introspection (golden rule, placing yourself in someone else's shows etc.) have been hardwired by natural selection for the sake of social cohesion. Secular ethics and the advancements of moral philosophy are precisely the opposite of religious dogma and the cause for the moral achievements historically

Good one.

page 157-158, "the central argument of [his] book":
>1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
>2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
>3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
>4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
>5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.
>6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
>Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.

basically, 'oh yeah? then who created god? checkmate, theists.'
1: it's a retarded question from the get-go
2: the conclusion does not follow any logical rules of inference

>can't read ID's
>doesn't understand anything in the post he's replying to

Cheng...

>implying that's all the argument entails
>implying the question of who created god is invalid
>implying God's improbability isn't established in the previous arguments.

>I do read IDs
>You are the one not following the conversation, displaying concerning projection
>I'm no Cheng
>You're now mega-butthurt. Gamma detected.

>I'm no Cheng
Alright Chong then

is that moral or nice?

What are you afraid of? Following a link and your mental construct you're so proud of collapses? If Dawkins' arguments are that strong, demolishing his wannabe critics should be child play.

>Science is settled! he screamed, waving his pocket book.
Islamists do that, too.

stop with the meme arrows

>implying that's all the argument entails
do you have the book infront of you?
that's literally the premises and the conclusion that was laid out word for word.

>implying the question of who created god is invalid
yes, i am implying that.

>implying God's improbability isn't established in the previous arguments.
i'm just talking about "the central argument of the book" right now.

The idea of todays god is literally a 10 year olds argument:
>10.000 years ago: My forest gods gives me luck while hunting
>5.000 years ago: My war god helps me fight your tribe
>1.000 years ago: My god is best god because he is all knowing, all powerful, all present nanananana

How did reality become to exist without God?

It just appeared out of nowhere. Atheists genuinely believe that, then mock believers in their leftist outlets.

Good sign of the existence of God if you ask me: he likes this kind of irony.

Neither theists or atheists have a plausible explanation. Only we act humble and you don't, doesn't make you right

Steve Jay Gould with his "blank slate" has probably set the field of biology and humanities race relations back 50 years.

Inequality? Must be racism. Achievement gap? Must be racism. Few black people in stem? Must be racism. Blacks dominate NBA/NFL? Well you see human evolution is a very interesting subject, lets get started...

The "joke" being that leftists believe in evolution from the neck down.

false Jews from the synagogue of Satan.

Yeah, I'm totally humbled by your stellar display of humility, cupcake.

>can't explain something
>has to be god

that aint a logical conclusion at all

page 31:
>The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

boo-hoo

>humble

atheists are much more aggressive about this, religious people say we don't care, it was created by God, while you (atheists) start to call them idiots and ridicule them

I've critiqued it before.

It basically amounts to dawkins screaming shit like "if there were no catholics, there'd be no pedophilia".

He doesn't actually refute any theological points in an intellectually honest manner, so it's basically a book of professional shitposting.

TOP
KEK
GERMANY YES

I think the opposite of humble are people who believe that God only seems to care about this specific time in this specific planet in the vast universe.

It might strike you at some point that we aren't the ones drawing conclusions here.

Hardcore atheists basically have a problem with handling uncertainty. OP illustrates it tragically.

>Hardcore atheists basically have a problem with handling uncertainty.

Like theists do.

>cultural christian

youtube.com/watch?v=MwoMcN-YyVM

>fedoras can't handle the truth

proofthatgodexists.org/

Nou echt wel. Je bent een kankerhomo en atheist, die Durkheim niet begrijpt.

But saying "I don't know" isn't really a conclusion itself. That doesn't help the discussion. For those that don't believe in the idea of God how did reality come to be? What do you think happened? I'm honestly curious. If you don't believe a higher power created reality then do you think it just came from nowhere? I'm not talking from a organized religion perspective but just the idea of God from more of a philosophical point of view.

Why do we keep dealing with the existence of God like it's a scientific issue when it's really a metaphysical issue?

What the fuck is a "hardcore atheist"?

I like this, he understand that
>Empathy, compassion, moral intuition
comes from religion
he is just too proud to say it out loud

youtube.com/watch?v=ez3UCyeolzo

A "science is settled" atheist, as opposed to people who lean towards atheism without being certain. Is that difficult to apprehend?

>hardcore atheist

want to explain God, can't even explain universe that is or isn't created by God

>elvis is still alive
this is why I hate atheists (again not religious)
elvis was a human, we can dig him up, and prove that he is dead, God is something that is far greater, we can't prove or disprove, and if we can't I do not want to say to anyone you are idiot cozz you believe

Moldbug already bodied Dawkins ages ago:
unqualifiedreservations.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-1/