[ 3 / a / adv / an / asp / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / g / gd / int / jp / k / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / o / out / p / po / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wsg / x]

/lit/ - Literature

<< back to board
[Delete this thread]

File: dawguns.jpg-(78 KB, 773x403)
well?
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:00 UTC+1 No.4981024 Report

well?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:02 UTC+1 No.4981029 Report

Makes me laugh every time.

Recently, there was another amusing Dawkins bit about how all fairy tales should be abolished but it turned out to be just the Daily Mail misquoting.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:02 UTC+1 No.4981030 Report

>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:03 UTC+1 No.4981031 Report

Please no
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:10 UTC+1 No.4981055 Report

>>4981024
he's such a philistine

lol
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:12 UTC+1 No.4981064 Report

>>4981055
I want to believe that tweet is fake.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:15 UTC+1 No.4981071 Report

>>4981064
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/334656775196393473

tok kek
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:19 UTC+1 No.4981083 Report

>>4981071
>Next they’ll be talking about “French food”! When will the madness end?
this guy
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:23 UTC+1 No.4981097 Report

>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:26 UTC+1 No.4981106 Report

>>4981055
Please for the love of god stop
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:32 UTC+1 No.4981127 Report

Why is he so goddamn stupid?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:37 UTC+1 No.4981142 Report

>>4981055
>Einstein equations
>Hawking radiation
>what kind of Search for Truth is person-specific?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:38 UTC+1 No.4981144 Report

>>4981127
Oh my god.
Please keep them coming.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:38 UTC+1 No.4981145 Report

>>4981127
Too much logic, not enough heart
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:38 UTC+1 No.4981147 Report

go to /pol/ with the juvenile bullshit
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:52 UTC+1 No.4981194 Report

>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:12 UTC+1 No.4981482 Report

>>4981127
He's kind of right.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:19 UTC+1 No.4981507 Report

>>4981194
that almost sounds like something that witty would write not dawkins
>>
Feminister 06/07/14(Sat)04:19 UTC+1 No.4981509 Report

>>4981482
Not really, since Christ said even bad thoughts are sins (thinking about a woman sexually who isn't your wife). It's impossible to not be a sinner.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:19 UTC+1 No.4981510 Report

>>4981482
plz educate yourself in original sin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:32 UTC+1 No.4981568 Report

>>4981507
>that almost sounds like something that witty would write not dawkins
It's not:

>[9] In the words of Frithjof Schuon: ‘The true and complete understanding of an idea goes far beyond the first apprehension of the idea by the intelligence, although more often than not this apprehension is taken for understanding itself. >While it is true that the immediate evidence conveyed to us by any particular idea is, on its own level, a real understanding, there can be no question of its embracing the whole extent of the idea since it is primarily the sign of an aptitude to understand that idea in its completeness. Any truth can in fact be understood at different levels and according to different ‘‘conceptual dimensions’’, that is to say according to an indefinite number of modalities which correspond to all the possible aspects, likewise indefinite in number, of the truth in question. This way of regarding ideas accordingly leads to the question of spiritual realization, the doctrinal expressions of which clearly illustrate the ‘‘dimensional indefinity’’ of theoretical conceptions.’ The Transcendent Unity of Religions (Tr. Peter Townsend) (London: Faber and Faber, 1953) p.17.

http://www.allamaiqbal.com/publications/journals/review/aproct09/3.htm#_edn9
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:35 UTC+1 No.4981582 Report

>>4981194
>>4981507
>>4981568
le mayonnaise
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:38 UTC+1 No.4981595 Report

>>4981568
Curses, my gambit has been discovered!
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:39 UTC+1 No.4981596 Report

>>4981595
and it would have all worked out if it wouldn't have been for those meddling teenagers
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:48 UTC+1 No.4981619 Report

>>4981029
>reading Daily Mail ever
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:54 UTC+1 No.4981648 Report

>>4981083
dicky getting btfo
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)06:31 UTC+1 No.4981970 Report

>>4981510
>Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man,[2] stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.[3]
From what I understand, it's original sin is an embedded part of humanity. Everyone has it, because it was "transmitted" by by Adam and Eve to all of their descendants as original sin, causing humanity to be inclined to sin. Because we inherited this sinful nature, we should thus turn to God in hopes of salvation. (Obviously the road to salvation varies from sect to sect, especially since some say it doesn't matter at all if you accept God, everything is predetermined, but otherwise, you more or less have to accept God and Jesus). Jesus was sent here because of humanity's sins. 33 years later he did, essentially taking the heat for our sins.

However, like Dawkins pointed out, since modern evidence shows that Adam and Eve couldn't have existed, then humanity couldn't have inherited the original sin (unless you apply some heavy throttle apologetics). So, what did Jesus die for?

I'm not trying to sound like the stereotypical fedoratheist, but sounds like he has a point. Unless there's something I'm not understanding, which is totally possible.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)06:32 UTC+1 No.4981974 Report

>>4981970
>So, what did Jesus die for?
jesus didn't die because he never lived
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)06:33 UTC+1 No.4981975 Report

>>4981974
:OOOOOOOO
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)06:42 UTC+1 No.4982010 Report

>>4981970
You might call it an apologetic stance, but the answer you'll often come across is that the creation story is heavily symbolic. The Garden of Eden was not literally a physical place, Adam and Eve were not literally two living people, they did not literally eat an actual fruit that fucked over all humanity.

One could look at it as representative of early humanity's first understanding of the distinction between what is "good" and what is "evil," with the "Original Sin" being the realization that one can deliberately do evil with the full knowledge that it is evil.

I guess, I'm no theologian, I just grew up in a Christian household and that's the understanding of Genesis that I'd formed before I just decided to give up Christianity altogether.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)06:44 UTC+1 No.4982017 Report

>>4981127
>Makes me laugh every time.
>Recently, there was another amusing Dawkins bit about how all fairy tales should be abolished but it turned out to be just the Daily Mail misquoting.
>>>
> Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:02:49 No.49810
Impossible. No body would write something that stupid. How do I know these quotes are true?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)07:19 UTC+1 No.4982095 Report

>criticizes scientist
>does nothing for humanity
someone pls find the religious "logic" to transform christianism in a big, suicidal circlejerk for the luls
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)07:31 UTC+1 No.4982118 Report

>>4981097
#shotsfired
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)07:36 UTC+1 No.4982129 Report

>>4981029
My mate once said how he thinks the Daily Mail is a good paper and representative of the majority of the intelligent public.

Got a good laugh out of me.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)07:36 UTC+1 No.4982130 Report

>>4981974
He's still alive, he's amanita muscaria.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)07:57 UTC+1 No.4982184 Report

>>4981097
is this eal
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)07:59 UTC+1 No.4982190 Report

>>4981055
>truth
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)08:17 UTC+1 No.4982237 Report

>>4981055
ahahahaahahaha is this fucking real that's hilarious
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)10:05 UTC+1 No.4982434 Report

>>4982129
>associating with people who read the Daily Mail
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)10:19 UTC+1 No.4982453 Report

>>4981974
There 's more evidence for Jebus' existence than Caesar's existence, fool.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)10:32 UTC+1 No.4982470 Report

>>4981482
In the most autistic way possible maybe
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)10:34 UTC+1 No.4982473 Report

>>4982130
Sick reference, I had never heard of Jesus and a mushroom metaphor before.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)10:36 UTC+1 No.4982478 Report

>>4981024
>people who have done little for the sciences or literature but pander to politicals
He might as well have wanted to give it to Dawkins or deGrasse-Tyson.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)10:41 UTC+1 No.4982488 Report

>>4982129
Well he would be right.
The real plebs read the Guardian and think they're more cultured for it.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)10:42 UTC+1 No.4982491 Report

>>4982478
Winston Churchill won the Nobel Prize in Literature
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)10:43 UTC+1 No.4982492 Report

>>4982491
I'm lmboing a that
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)10:45 UTC+1 No.4982495 Report

>>4981055
He sounds English even in his tweets, I can hear him saying "What nonsense!"
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)10:55 UTC+1 No.4982518 Report

>>4982491

He did write a bunch of non-shitty things.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:13 UTC+1 No.4982551 Report

>>4982453
Well that's wrong
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:13 UTC+1 No.4982553 Report

God I wish Dawkins would realize that he's slowly sliding into irrelevance and take it with dignity. He's like that kid at school who did one thing which made him really well known and popular for a few days and then just kept trying to outdo it because he couldn't deal with losing the limelight.

Go back to what you're good at Dawkins, writing about biology.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:16 UTC+1 No.4982563 Report

>>4982553
It's too late, he's leeched on to Hitchens and the atheist movement, and is neither witty nor knowledgeable about the subject.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:18 UTC+1 No.4982567 Report

>>4982563
At least Hitchens is dead.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:18 UTC+1 No.4982570 Report

>>4982495
E's fookin right bent, tho, innit
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:21 UTC+1 No.4982575 Report

>>4982563
Hitchens lost all credibility on Atheism after his debate with William Lane Craig. He lost credibility about everything else much earlier.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:22 UTC+1 No.4982577 Report

>>4982453
no
can you even name a source (read: historian) who mentions jesus by name once?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:23 UTC+1 No.4982579 Report

>>4982577
Yeah those ancient historians are very reliable
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:24 UTC+1 No.4982584 Report

>>4982579
they're the best we have
if the person in question did nothing important enough to be recorded by historians they may as well not have existed
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:27 UTC+1 No.4982594 Report

>>4982575
William Lane Craig is autistic, but Hitchens is just a piece of shit.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:29 UTC+1 No.4982600 Report

>>4982594
He's not a piece of shit, he's just very opinionated, I always hated his anti-theism though
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:32 UTC+1 No.4982610 Report

>>4982453
this is what churchbabs actually believe
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:34 UTC+1 No.4982613 Report

>>4982594
You're too forgiving of Craig. He doesn't have a mental disorder, he's just a charlatan.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:34 UTC+1 No.4982617 Report

>>4982594
Autism stems from Atheism, actually.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:38 UTC+1 No.4982621 Report

>>4982617
If you've actually known any autistics IRL you would know they can be very religiously devout. Atheism is just another thing they can be devoted to
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:39 UTC+1 No.4982624 Report

>>4982577
Pliny (the younger), Tacitus, for instance.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:43 UTC+1 No.4982633 Report

>>4982624

Pliny the younger the better.

hoho
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:44 UTC+1 No.4982635 Report

>>4982613
He's not a charlatan, he's just really good at making reasonable-sounding arguments for what he believes. His arguments are absolutely autistic, though.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:45 UTC+1 No.4982636 Report

>>4982621
Get with the science, kid. Atheism is for autistic fedora wearers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2039690/Atheism-autism-Controversial-new-study-points-link-two.html
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:48 UTC+1 No.4982643 Report

>>4982636

>kid
>fedora
>pic
>DM

simblyy ebine bost ladm8 XDDDD :^)
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:50 UTC+1 No.4982649 Report

>>4982633
Made me chuckle so hard my shoulders hurt from flipping them up and down from all the chuckling of course
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:58 UTC+1 No.4982671 Report

>>4982643
Epic post, my fine gentleman friend :) 'tis simply to see thine yonder xtian getting pwnd :D
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:04 UTC+1 No.4982691 Report

>>4981055
Sounds like the set up to a Jerry Seinfeld joke. Reading it in his voice makes it so much better.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:08 UTC+1 No.4982702 Report

>>4982636
>The study authors... studied discussions by 192 different posters on an autism website. They also looked at a survey of 61 people with high-functioning autism
>In the group of high-functionining autistic individuals, 26 per cent were atheists, compared to 16 per cent of 'neurotypical' individuals.

lel
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:10 UTC+1 No.4982707 Report

>>4982702
I know, it's hilarious when Atheists try to deny it as well.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:29 UTC+1 No.4982745 Report

>>4981024
this cannot be real

please tell me it's not real

how can he be so. fucking. daft.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:30 UTC+1 No.4982751 Report

Why the fuck not?
Is it because litterature-writers have nothing going on in their life without their little prizes that taking one away from them would reduce their social-standing so low that the entire contest would become pointless thereafter?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:31 UTC+1 No.4982753 Report

>>4982745
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/365527708458946561
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:32 UTC+1 No.4982756 Report

>>4981509
Why do you think it's impossible to not think bad thoughts?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:38 UTC+1 No.4982778 Report

>>4982745
i mean russell won so whatever
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:47 UTC+1 No.4982811 Report

>>4982633
>pliny the younger
>born after jesus' supposed death
>reliable
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:49 UTC+1 No.4982819 Report

the anti-atheist circlejerk is pitiful
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:50 UTC+1 No.4982822 Report

>>4982751
>nobel prize for LITERATURE
>non-literary winner
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:52 UTC+1 No.4982829 Report

>>4982577
Josephus.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:52 UTC+1 No.4982830 Report

>>4982822
Scientific literature is not literature?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:53 UTC+1 No.4982835 Report

>>4982671
>>4982643
>>4982636
Whoever is autistic you guys absolutely are
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:53 UTC+1 No.4982837 Report

>>4982829
>born after jesus' death
again, none of these people wrote accounts about jesus while he was alive -- you cannot trust a secondary source reliably
>>4982830
nope
besides, they already have like 5+ other nobel prizes for those losers
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:55 UTC+1 No.4982843 Report

>>4982707
Autistic people are often better at thinking outside the box than normals, so it's not surprising they'd be more likely to hold an unpopular view
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:57 UTC+1 No.4982850 Report

>>4982837
Define literature and explain how scientific writing isn't literature.

>besides, they already have like 5+ other nobel prizes for those losers
So what? The prize should go to someone who deserves it in the category, it's not a "participation award" like in american education.
It's not chess league for women because women can't compete with men in chess, Nobel prizes are universal.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:58 UTC+1 No.4982851 Report

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/824

>Implying Ricky isn't based as fuck
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:59 UTC+1 No.4982852 Report

>>4982707
are you fucking dumb
you could not be more stupid
autistic people being more likely to be atheists says nothing about atheism as a concept you retard
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:59 UTC+1 No.4982853 Report

>>4982837
But wasn't the only notable thing about (historical) Jesus his death and the followers that resulted? Why else would a historian note him?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)12:59 UTC+1 No.4982855 Report

>>4982837
>again, none of these people wrote accounts about jesus while he was alive -- you cannot trust a secondary source reliably
Before about 1200AD we have basically nothing but secondary sources. We have no primary sources for the likes of Alexander the Great or Hannibal Barca, but nobody seems to question their existence.

And besides, why would they lie? Tacitus hated Christians but he also hated hearsay, he would never have written something unless he was sure it was true. Josephus met Jesus' brother, and refers to him as Jesus' brother; imaginary people don't have real brothers.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:00 UTC+1 No.4982857 Report

>>4982850
written works with lasting artistic merit? science is not 'artistic'
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:01 UTC+1 No.4982859 Report

>>4982853
>>4982855
i concede
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:01 UTC+1 No.4982860 Report

>STEMfags trying to talk about history
We're as sure of Jesus' existence as we are of Sophocles or Hannibal.

Historiography goes beyond division into primary and secondary sources. Before the 12th or 13th century a source written within 100-200 years of the subject's lifespan is considered "primary".
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:05 UTC+1 No.4982871 Report

>>4982857
>written works with lasting artistic merit? science is not 'artistic'
Ha ha ha.
Confirmed for not reading scientific literature or anything that has to do with science.
http://www.labtimes.org/editorial/e_428.lasso
>I think the relationship between science and art is best described in words of the French polymath and philosopher of science Jules Henri Poincare: “The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful”. Many scientists share that appreciation of beauty and are fully aware of the aesthetic aspects of their research. The marriage of scientific approach and artistic talent can be best exemplified by awe-inspiring work by Ernst Haeckel, whose “Artforms from Nature” is a continuous source of inspiration for me.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:06 UTC+1 No.4982872 Report

>>4982860
Let me guess, the apostles don't count? (Well, except for Johannes, he's from another calibre than the three others, I agree in foresight)>>4982860
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:07 UTC+1 No.4982873 Report

>>4982857
OTOH maths is artistic and math writers should be allowed to win Nobel Prize in Literature (esp. since there isn't one for math)
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:08 UTC+1 No.4982878 Report

>>4982871
mhm keep telling yourself that
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:09 UTC+1 No.4982882 Report

>>4981055
This has to be a ruse?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:12 UTC+1 No.4982888 Report

>>4982882
his capitalising of 'Search for Truth' makes me think so
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:12 UTC+1 No.4982889 Report

>>4982878
Nabokov worked as a researcher on entomology.
You don't think that some of the papers he wrote could have literary merit?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:12 UTC+1 No.4982890 Report

>>4982871
wow, scientists claiming the shit they do is art what a great argument

these people have no understanding of art beyond it having to do with beauty, of course they think the stuff they are doing is art
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:14 UTC+1 No.4982898 Report

>>4982889
It depends on how he wrote them.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:14 UTC+1 No.4982899 Report

>>4982889
no because they are not works of literature they are works of scientific research
i understand that, for instance, an article in a newspaper may be written in a beautiful prose style, but i wouldn't consider it 'artistic' because that is not what the content of the piece is for.
>inb4 no authorial intent
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:24 UTC+1 No.4982927 Report

>>4982890
>>4982898
>wow, scientists claiming the shit they do is art what a great argument
All it boils down to is whether the Nobel prize committee finds artistic merit in an author's writings.

>>4982899
>no because they are not works of literature they are works of scientific research
Can't be both?
Isn't it possible to decide to write on science and to choose your words in such a way as to present literary merit?

>i understand that, for instance, an article in a newspaper may be written in a beautiful prose style, but i wouldn't consider it 'artistic' because that is not what the content of the piece is for.
Hemingway or Márquez were both journalists.
Maybe the prize is only awarded for novels, but Dawkins has a point then, Wilson or Pinker or even Dawkins or Gould are scientists who wrote books that weren't only scientific reporting and had a lot of opinion and invention in them.
I guess the taste of the day isn't for science-themed books.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:25 UTC+1 No.4982930 Report

>>4981970
>So, what did Jesus die for?

He was trying to warn the white people but the Jews didn't like that so they killed him. Also the Catholic Church is a fraud and Satanic. Fin.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:26 UTC+1 No.4982935 Report

>>4981024

>Steven Pinker gets Nobel Prize for literature
>Thomas Pynchon doesn't

Oh God, I want this to happen. Just so we can finally dismiss the Nobels once and for all.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:29 UTC+1 No.4982947 Report

>>4982927
>Maybe the prize is only awarded for novels, but Dawkins has a point then, Wilson or Pinker or even Dawkins or Gould are scientists who wrote books that weren't only scientific reporting and had a lot of opinion and invention in them.
They aren't novels, though.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:30 UTC+1 No.4982954 Report

>>4982935
they'd better give it to papa cormac before he pops it
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:30 UTC+1 No.4982957 Report

>>4982935
I doubt most of them like Pinker if they even know who he is
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:31 UTC+1 No.4982959 Report

>>4982935
>>4982954
i think the most likely american candidate is ashbery
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:42 UTC+1 No.4982982 Report

>>4982947
If the Nobel prize can only be awarded to novels then Dawkins' bit is ignorant.
Can't be bothered to check their rules.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:44 UTC+1 No.4982986 Report

>>4982982
it is awarded for poetry, novels or plays, or a combination of them
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:48 UTC+1 No.4982993 Report

>>4981024

My god, it's like he's /sci/ incarnate.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:48 UTC+1 No.4982994 Report

>>4982986
One could also argue that literature is diverse and they should relax their rules.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:53 UTC+1 No.4983002 Report

>>4982577
for modern historians, its enough that his stories are attested to in multiple source materials, both extant and otherwise, that date with 15-30 years of his death, which are acknowledged to be also based on widely held oral tradition, esp:

>Crucified by Pontius Pilate
>The song and dance around explaining his crucifixion in theological terms (a jewish messiah would not have been crucified)
>The "King of the Jews" sign at the Crucifixion which is obviously derogatory
>The structure of many of his ethical teachings as they appare in multiple sources.

Q, Mark, Matthew, M, Luke, and L in addition to Polybius and Tacitus as mentioned previously. The Gospels are in the form of Greco-Roman Biographies. And is it really that hard to grasp that there may have been a wandering apocalyptic preacher in Palestine named Jesus? It requires no lead of faith...
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:54 UTC+1 No.4983005 Report

>>4982579
>Rejecting history in antiquity

Might as well say we know NOTHING of the Ancient world prior to the Italian Rennaissance
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:55 UTC+1 No.4983008 Report

>>4983002
Josephus not Polybius.

Fuck
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:56 UTC+1 No.4983011 Report

>>4983005
we don't
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)13:57 UTC+1 No.4983017 Report

more proof of the STEM agenda trying to push actual fiction literature out of the zeitgeist
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)14:00 UTC+1 No.4983023 Report

>>4983008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijvxHbxSDOI
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)14:07 UTC+1 No.4983039 Report

>>4983005
The sad part is that the STEM-fags who propogate that crap reasoning are playing into the hands of chucklefucks like Ken Ham who try to draw a line between "experimental" and "historical" science, with the latter being suspect because "were you there?"
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)14:10 UTC+1 No.4983049 Report

>>4983039
we had to learn about ken ham in a philosophy class when the jew teacher forced us to learn about intelligent design/creationism as if it were the truth
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)14:15 UTC+1 No.4983058 Report

>>4983049
Fun fact: Ken Ham looks like his name sounds
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)14:27 UTC+1 No.4983099 Report

>>4982130
Are you Dorothy Skutezky?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)15:10 UTC+1 No.4983199 Report

>>4981970
Honestly, when atheists pull this shit it's like they're begging to be in the same category of retardation the bible thumpers are in.
>Welp how do I know mythology is mythology? Well you see, this mythology has FAKE stories in it! Checkmate christians!
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)15:15 UTC+1 No.4983209 Report

To be fair, he's a good scientist.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)15:17 UTC+1 No.4983215 Report

He's pretty smart tbh.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)15:21 UTC+1 No.4983229 Report

Neil Degrasse Tyson is also really smart, I heard he got a nobel prize.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)15:24 UTC+1 No.4983236 Report

Even Dawkins agrees religion is terrible.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)15:31 UTC+1 No.4983263 Report

>>4983002
the problem with those sources is that they are heavily biased, perhaps to the point of outright dismissal. oral tradition is no solid basis in history. could there have been an apocalyptic preacher by that name? sure. could this being simply be legendary, an amalgam of the apocalyptic rabbis from the last century?

the primary problem with jesus is the baggage that comes with it. He is claimed to have regularly violated the laws of physics. In such cases extraordinary amounts of evidence would be required to accept that existence. I have the feeling that you are a deceiver, you try to have the lowest standard of evidence so you would no have to deal with the theological baggage. that can't be done since, his acts are crucial. who cares if a guy named jesus if he did nothing, what does it matter?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)15:34 UTC+1 No.4983272 Report

>>4982691
What's the deal with continental philosophy? What do they philosophize about? Why does it have to be a continent?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)15:38 UTC+1 No.4983282 Report

>>4983272
Perfect.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)15:47 UTC+1 No.4983298 Report

>>4982871
>art is beauty
Leave.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)16:10 UTC+1 No.4983361 Report

>>4983099
That's pretty neat.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)16:12 UTC+1 No.4983371 Report

Daily reminder that science is not infallible and is often totally wrong.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)16:13 UTC+1 No.4983377 Report

>>4983298
Appreciating beauty can lead to artistic expression.
>>
« ???????? » 06/07/14(Sat)16:15 UTC+1 No.4983384 Report

>>4983371
Here's a reminder for you.
Results that some science give is fallible. Science itself is not. It is by definition about finding the facts and being irrefutable, infallible
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)16:16 UTC+1 No.4983393 Report

>>4983377
everything can lead to artistic expression
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)16:18 UTC+1 No.4983404 Report

>>4982778
Russell won mostly for his humanitarian and anti-nuclear writings, I think.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)16:19 UTC+1 No.4983409 Report

>>4982935

Pynchon's too weird and not obiously political enough for the Nobel
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)16:21 UTC+1 No.4983416 Report

But EO Wilson writes books.

Genius guy really, next Charles Darwin.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)16:22 UTC+1 No.4983420 Report

>>4983384
No, literal scientific progress has been overturned many times. Just taken Einstein's refutation of some of Newton's principles for an example
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)16:29 UTC+1 No.4983443 Report

>>4983420
Yeah now no-one can ever use Newton's work every again because it's wrong. Except that there's a ton of situations where it's right enough and it's perfectly valid to use and calling it 'wrong' is just as retarded as expecting it to be 'right' in the first place.

Science is about incrementally refining approximations to physical systems. Einstein coming up with a better approximation than Newton had is a scientific success, not a failure.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)16:35 UTC+1 No.4983463 Report

>>4983443
Yet contemporaries (read: fedora-wearing neckbeards) see all current science as being correct, when much of it is constantly changing. Something that was seen to be absolutely objective one day can be made total nonsense the next.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)16:37 UTC+1 No.4983470 Report

>>4983384
That's funny, religion has the same goal.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)16:39 UTC+1 No.4983477 Report

>>4983443
Which proves that science can be fallacious.

We don't view things as the Earth bring flat do we?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)16:48 UTC+1 No.4983491 Report

>>4983477
No it doesn't. It just shows that the ridiculous standard of never having been wrong about anything ever, which no sane scientist has ever pretended science does or ever would aspire to satisfying, is complete nonsense.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)16:52 UTC+1 No.4983507 Report

>>4982860

STEMfags? are you from SRS or a feminist, by any chance?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)19:01 UTC+1 No.4983907 Report

>>4983236
>Neil DeGrease Tyrese

my fucking sides
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)19:02 UTC+1 No.4983916 Report

>>4981024
Poets and philosophers are regularly awarded it too Dawkins. The prize is already bad enough, why award it to scientific journalists?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)19:08 UTC+1 No.4983944 Report

>>4983507
it's a pretty common term on 4chan you idiot. also SRS does not condone the use of the homophobic slur 'fags'
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)20:12 UTC+1 No.4984257 Report

>>4983491
Which means at some point, chronologically, due to the direction of progress that science so assumes, it would have to be proven fallacious at regular intervals and reinvented in some form or fashion. Which it has, again and again.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)21:38 UTC+1 No.4984576 Report

>>4981024
People who read literature and philosophy are too stupid to read anything that is of real value.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)21:41 UTC+1 No.4984584 Report

>>4984576
Like what?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)21:42 UTC+1 No.4984585 Report

>>4984584
/r/askscience
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)21:47 UTC+1 No.4984596 Report

Is Dawkins hurting atheism?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)21:48 UTC+1 No.4984597 Report

>>4984584
Science, Mathematics, History, Economics, Ethics, Sociology, Psychology.

Philosophy is none of this
its
"look how pretty everything I say sounds, it must be true"
no aristotle
you just hinder the progression of society and knowledge
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)21:49 UTC+1 No.4984600 Report

>>4984596
atheism shouldn't even be a movement in the first place. it only exists because fundies exasperated other people, and it spawns retardation such as ITT.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)21:51 UTC+1 No.4984604 Report

>>4984597
>Philosophy is none of this
How to spot people who don't read.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)21:52 UTC+1 No.4984605 Report

>>4984597
>its
>"look how pretty everything I say sounds, it must be true"
lol
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)21:57 UTC+1 No.4984615 Report

>>4984600
The problem is that atheism is the ying to the christianity/judaism/islam yang. If the those mitras weren't as crazy over the top as they are there would be no dawkins. Truth is, everybody should relax a bit.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)21:58 UTC+1 No.4984616 Report

>>4984615
Truth is religion is outdated
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)22:01 UTC+1 No.4984625 Report

>>4984597
Aristotle didn't write pretty, you fool
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)22:06 UTC+1 No.4984632 Report

>>4984616
So is contemporary science in ten years.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)23:58 UTC+1 No.4984946 Report

>>4981055
>>
R 06/08/14(Sun)00:09 UTC+1 No.4984984 Report

>>4983199
fuck
>>
Anonymous 06/08/14(Sun)00:37 UTC+1 No.4985062 Report

>>4982491

He was a prolific writer and essayist.
>>
Anonymous 06/08/14(Sun)00:41 UTC+1 No.4985070 Report

>>4982691
>>4983272
sweet mother of all keks
>>
Anonymous 06/08/14(Sun)00:59 UTC+1 No.4985121 Report

>>4983463
science is correct, it's testable. we simply strive for it to be more correct. Newton was not wrong, he just was not as correct as he could be, two body motion still works, we just tend to deal with more than two bodies.
>>
Anonymous 06/08/14(Sun)01:05 UTC+1 No.4985136 Report

>>4984632
shut up, people are being stupid enough without you chirping.
>>
Anonymous 06/08/14(Sun)01:07 UTC+1 No.4985144 Report

>>4985121
>knowing nothing about stats

"correct" is a word too strong for what you can achieve with the scientific method. You'll always have error probabilities which are themselves based on the (often faulty) assumptions of the researchers. Go read some Ionnidis.
>>
Anonymous 06/08/14(Sun)01:53 UTC+1 No.4985260 Report

>>4985144
correct is the correct word. arguing against the validity of modern science is futile since it clearly works, it is the only way we could have this conversation. The error states you speak of, are you talking about hard sciences or the soft ones. It is far less likely to have those errors in the hard ones.
>>
Anonymous 06/08/14(Sun)01:56 UTC+1 No.4985266 Report

>>4985260
>It is far less likely to have those errors in the hard ones.

Have you ever read a scientific publication in your life? These p-values? Understood what they were for?

I don't know if you're trolling weridly, or if you you got your knowledge of science from facebook.
>>
Anonymous 06/08/14(Sun)04:56 UTC+1 No.4985908 Report

>implying science is objective truth
>implying paradigm shifts don't change everything we know about science frequently
Has this philistine even read Kuhn?
>>
Anonymous 06/08/14(Sun)05:03 UTC+1 No.4985925 Report

>>4984597
>>4984576

>autism speaks
All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.