Why does Yea Forums hate this book so much? Oh wait, I know, it's because it very simply refutes the average Yea Forumsizens neo-thomism. I've never heard any good arguments against it from them other than "hurr durr reddit atheism". But at the end of the day, this book fucks up any metaphysical view that includes a magic all powerful supreme being.
Why does Yea Forums hate this book so much? Oh wait, I know...
Daniel Myers
Noah Wilson
embarrassing, even if you're atheistic you should find this book cringe. read actual philosophy
dunning-kruger is even worse when people like dawkins who are experts in one thing believe they're now experts of everything.
Zachary Hall
Atheism is only believing in one less God.
Christopher Nelson
It's still infinitely better than some of the moron shit theists post on here, like this post:
Elijah Brown
This post I mean:
Aiden Morgan
You are correct.
Imagine cherry-picking half-baked posts from retards on an anonymous web forum as if it's not a nonsequitur. (And not even doing it correctly the first time ()). Dawkins is an ideologue and, like all ideologues, doesn't recognize his behavior projects the very thing he's attempting to criticize. He projects a hubristic pride in scientism while being completely disingenuous regarding the nuances of theology--choosing to go after low-hanging fruit and encouraging his followers to do the same. He's a hero for retards and an embarrassment for atheists who know better.
Brandon Morales
>Why does Yea Forums hate this book so much?
It's the definition of cringe.
>it's because it very simply refutes the average Yea Forumsizens neo-thomism
Thomism isn't that popular here, the average Yea Forumsizens aren't thomists, and that book was embarrassing response to Aquinas.
>I've never heard any good arguments against it
>this book fucks up any metaphysical view that includes a magic all powerful supreme being.
Read Feser
Blake Taylor
Neothomism doesn’t beat positivism — positivism is surpassed by Marxism, which then decomposes along the lines of the Del Nocean heterogenesis of ends, vindicating Vico against the rationalists, leading to a rebirth of the classical metaphysics purified in the light of Rosminian Ontologism, allowing Catholic larpers to be unironic neothomists again, but then they have to deal with the creative impotence of that school, leading to a reevaluation of the metaphysics of encounter, at which point most people leave the board and start living actually Christian, fully human lives in the negative space of the affluent, technological society.
Austin Brooks
>Read Feser
You can't say Dawkins is cringe and then tell someone to read Feser. The guy is Ignatius Reilly irl. Rosary clutching christcuck
Landon Cooper
neoatheism yields no good fruit simple as, hew it down and cast it into the fire
Justin Garcia
>he doesnt clutch his rosary
NGMI
Charles Cruz
I don't see your arguments against Feser
Landon Perez
Dawkins is an insufferable faggot but he's right about god being a laughably childish fantasy.
William Ward
god will punish you for your lies
Noah Perry
Because he doesn’t know how to philosophy.
Bentley Martin
>how to become an atheist
just read about world mythology and religions
you realize it's all just made up. you don't even need to read books by atheists
Jacob Young
if christianity never existed all you faggots would be talking about zeus and all the greek gods are real
christianity replaced those gods and the belief in them died out
Zachary Williams
about how zeus*
Nathan Campbell
Nice post, except you’re a seething christcuck retard who has no argument besides stupid name calling
Colton Ramirez
>666 trips
nice try, satan
Colton Rivera
Go to bed son
Nolan Hall
Your argument against Dawkin's book was that it was cringe. Those who suggest reading Feser shouldn't throw stones.
Julian Cruz
Because larping as a christian is now edgy and contrarian.
Matthew Harris
Dividing people over religious lines is merely a tactic by the rich to prevent the working class from rising up and turning on their masters. Don't complain about your Amazon warehouse piss bottle, direct your hatred towards your co-worker that attends church.
Brody Collins
>No! You can't point out I'm retarded and give reasons why Dawkins isn't taken seriously! Uh...all you did was name call! You're a chirstcuck!
Haha. Seethe, cope, and project faggot.
Liam Peterson
Imagine being worried about your grammar () when your take is Christian God = Zeus.
Keep reading Dawkins, retard.
Jordan Lee
>Dividing people over religious lines is merely a tactic by the rich to prevent the working class from rising up and turning on their masters
kek yeah retard the only thing keeping Muhammad and Cletus from coming together is religion,nevermind the natural tribalism instilled biologically inside people.
Robert Parker
Read better books against christers
John Mitchell
>refutes
Hudson Taylor
>Nice post, except you’re a seething christcuck retard who has no argument besides stupid name calling
Adam Thompson
Never read it, never will, neither did you, and you never read Aquinas.
Brayden Smith
God (The Father) sent Christ so that we would stop believing in those fake gods. What you're saying does not disprove anything.
Luis Smith
I'm just happy that Jehovah's Witness faggot stopped making threads.
Caleb Wood
I unironically have a positive view of Richard Dawkins even though I'm a Christian. It's hard to explain why. There's just something about how he seems completely unable to believe in or be moved by any sort of supernatural or shared "sacred" narrative whether that be revealed religion or post-WW2 sacral victimhood narratives.
Tradlarping is on the way out, no one really believes it anyway and it was an outgrowth of an e-Right which owes its existence to Dawkins in the first place,
Jordan Phillips
Do you need to read the Qur'an to make an argument against Islam? Feser's bullshit is archaic as fuck
Thomists are always like this: "You need to learn my weirdass system of repurposed Aristotelian terms and this extra bit of (unnecessary) special language to even have a discussion". Breathing their own farts
1 simple criticism of Feser:
He defined perfection as that without privation, (privations being lacking something entailed in a things nature, not sure if I'm paraphrasing correctly here)
Using his own definitions, that would make a perfect circle... Perfect, in the same way God is perfect. Unless Feser think there is something entailed in the nature of a perfect circle, that it's lacking (replace the circle with an object that can be instantiated in the real world, if it bothers you)
Now, this may not seem like a big problem.
But this bullshit is part of 50 premise argument, and the book builds off it.
I've repeatedly told him about this, but he ignores me. That his privation theory is whack. . Seriously, fix it.
*actualizes a potential fart*
William Ross
I utterly detest that the big atheism debate is so neurotic about Christianity. Atheists still have one foot in the Christian worldview and it blinds them from actual nuance on what "God" as a concept even is or possibly could be. Bent up over muh sky daddy fairy anthropomorphic conceptualization. Pathetic, atheists need to go outside and touch grass.
Mason Ross
cope
Ayden Fisher
go touch grass and reconsider your existence
Jeremiah Smith
Those are mutually exclusive and you sound like a fag ().
He's right though. Just sounds like a fag.
Mason Anderson
he's real too you stupid animal
Evan Collins
I haven't read it but from what I've heard Dawkins writes like a midwit. He's propped up by the establishment like any other pop culture figure and should not be taken seriously.
Gabriel Garcia
>Using his own definitions, that would make a perfect circle... Perfect
In so far as it lacks nothing to epitomize the essence of a circle yes. It would be perfect in circularity, but obviously not perfect in squareness of triangularness. It would be lacking nothing for its own nature.
>in the same way God is perfect
No. The circle is only perfect in relation to the property circularity. God is perfect in relation to everything. Massive difference. Quoting Aquinas is helpful here:
>Hence, the first active principle must needs be most actual, and therefore most perfect; for a thing is perfect in proportion to its state of actuality, because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection.
Note here the "mode of its perfection". A circle can be perfect but only in the mode of circularity, God is absolutely perfect in all ways. It's also important to keep in mind the principle of analogy here because you can only say God is "perfect" analogically, not univocally, so by that fact alone any created thing whether it be a circle, square or anything else cannot be perfect in the same way God is perfect since they are created things and God is simple and uncreated putting them on two completely different ontological planes.
Easton Morris
Right, I think I'm misremembering
The point Feser attempts to make in the argument is not in regards to perfection, but in not having privations (as a does a circle)
Oliver Reyes
I haven't read the book, but your thread inspired me to look up some quotes and excerpts from it.
And holy shit, this is r/atheism reddit tier cringe
Henry Powell
>No. The circle is only perfect in relation to the property circularity. God is perfect in relation to everything.
This is gibberish. Is God perfect in relation to the property circularity? And squareness too? How the fuck can something be a perfect square and circle at the same time. This is the type of bullshit people make fun of Thomism for. The "logic" is totally arbitrary and depends on the person arguing and what position they want to support.
Jackson Adams
If there wasn't any Christianity I'd probably be a Manichee tbqh
Lucas Jenkins
You're proving his point. Also:
>god (assuming that's a representation of god himself)
>male pattern baldness
Luke Hall
>not noticing the user seethed because I made fun of him for acting like a random argument on Yea Forums represented theism
>not caring user ignored all points that were brought up because he was seething
>not seeing the hypocrisy and irony that his entire response was "you name called! christcuck!"
Also:
>filtered by what baldness represents in the painting
Retard.
Nicholas Murphy
>it's because it very simply refutes the average Yea Forumsizens neo-thomism
I have no idea why you would add this part aside from your entire post being bait, Dawkins obviously skimmed a fucking wikipedia article on the five ways and has literally zero idea of what he's even talking about in trying to address even a Philosophy 101 student's interpretation of Thomism or Scholasticism, you could unironically have a more productive conversation about philosophy with a pigeon than with Richard Dawkins
Luke Fisher
because Yea Forums is scared of the dark
one day most of u will grow up and realize this is it, this is all, and you've wasted it online
Lincoln Gray
I feel the same sentimality
Like if your a atheist but spends your time DEBOOOONKING unimportant idiosyncrasies of random cults then I firmly believe you are a meta-theists , you will never be able to not believe and your hole thought process will be insincere debate lord tier confrontationalism
Daniel Thomas
she is my god
i would worship her 24/7
Mason Perry
>the average Yea Forumsizens aren't thomists
I would argue that for the past couple years the demographic of Yea Forums has shifted towards an aggressive fundamentalist christianity that infects every thread remotely related to spirituality or philosophy. This board was interesting just two years ago and now it's barely usable.
Chase Thomas
>Oh wait, I know, it's because it very simply refutes the average Yea Forumsizens neo-thomism.
This has to be b8, because you know the book refutes nothing.
The reason it's hated is because it lowered the standards of discussion involving atheism, religion, and metaphysics. Dawkins, despite expending the effort for writing a whole book on the subject, could not have been asked to do some basic scholarly research. And I don't mean to "have read a book by Thomas Aquinas," I mean to have spent 50 minutes reading a philosophical primer.
And of course, there's nothing of Nietzsche or Schopenhauer here at all. And if there's some great thesis about how "science has displaced" such discussion, then how about a reason why?
All of such questions are not only pertinent research Dawkins doesn't do, they would all make for a more interesting book if he had.
The only figure I recall him treating with some appropriate detail is William Paley, who's not nearly as important as others in the discussion, and died in 1805. Real cutting edge, Dawkins.
The book is trash that stands next to shelves of self-help pulp and airport tomes. Readable mass-readership drek, ironically fit for the library of shallow spiritual pieces written by televangelists.
Jonathan Martinez
that's why she'd cuck you for me
Sebastian James
>he actually read the book
Yikes
Tyler Cox
>refutes neo-thomism
I know you can't, but explain to me how this book does what you claim.
Matthew Gutierrez
>balding can possibly represent anything in any way metaphysically good
You've pre-emptively shown yourself out of the building. Yes, I saw the circle-thingy which might stand for the Creation, his general design etc. Still a silly bald fellow, although his case is more profound than the graceless spud beneath him.
Ayden Edwards
The Jehovah's Witnesses are unironically less deprave than Catholics on account of annihiliationism. If you believe that anyone goes to hell for ever and ever, you are depraved. A few years in an awful cult are fine as long as the UnElect cease to exist.
Tyler Thomas
This is an actual quote from the book and it perfectly encapsulates internet atheism.
>I've forgotten the details, but I once piqued a gathering of theologians and philosophers by adapting the ontological argument to prove that pigs can fly. They felt the need to resort to Modal Logic to prove that I was wrong.
Dawkings tries to dunk on some experts using modal logic, but because he's ignorant he doesn't know that. They explain why he's retarded but he still finds a way to take that as a win.
Jeremiah Torres
>if things were different they would be different
Thanks Satan very intelligent
Benjamin Rivera
I can just imagine that autism in my head.
>...so you see since a REAL flying pig is better than an imaginary flying pig there must be a pig that can fly
>their face when