What are they hoping to achieve?

>Ben Stiller

>deriving an ought from an is
They're hoping to make money by selling books, that's mostly it.

Dawkins is the only respectable of the lot. He has actual achievements in his field of study, and I think even non-biologists should read The Selfish Gene, for example.

Do they want the world to become fully secular with religion or without?

>>1835945
>and I think even non-biologists should read The Selfish Gene, for example.
I have read several evolutionary biology books in which the selfish gene is considered a mistake and set back evolutionary theory. One I yet have to read.

His idea of dinner-plate and evolvability seem to be good.

Memetics was another mistake. Not taken serious by any other field i.e. anthropology, linguistics and so on.

>>1835944
this desu

some of them also want to nuke the middle-east though

>>1835904
Harris has a hang up on the worst of religious people and assumes that because of religious corruption on various levels, religion should be abolished all together. (As if the secular don't have categories of vile behavior on massive levels.)

But he's arguing against the wind, his words, like the implementation vile/negative religious practices, can only be implemented on the weak and infantile, the young, because anyone who's read the new testament for example, at this point, knows that one of the story lines within the new testament is the one where Jesus Christ went toe to toe with the religious nature of his time. Which was evil attempting to be perceived as good. Sam Harris is saying that religion itself is the problem, ignoring the fact that even the secular can become corrupt. Which makes me wonder about Sam Harris' true motives.

So in reality, this should become a task of not destroying religion, but accurately defining it. Giving it proper boundaries. This is a general task for all things communicated through language, which are really just symbols of communication. The more we travel down time, the more polish can be applied to definitions.

So you have Jesus Christ himself, attempting to change religion, they killed him for it. The secular world around him, the Romans, were doing their own evil as well.

So the point is, evil, degeneracy, it slips into and corrupts everything. It turns religion into a fanatical cult, causing people to look for excuses to condemn one another, Jesus Christ pointed this out, saying many will claim His name, be they never really knew Him, you also have the secular world where the blue print for success on the highest level is the exploitation of the weak and poor, thievery, and unjust behavior.

>>1836020
As for the rest of them, I have no idea. Just listening to Sam Harris alone is enough to understand where these people are coming from. It's a stew of pride, fear, laziness, all in a ridiculous attempt to tear down fundamental truths, all because of a few bad apples. Which is a lazy tactic that's implemented in the most elementary slanderous attempts at propaganda.

>>1836020
The life and death of jesus christ is is contrived and conceited nonsense.

>You ate a magic apple-I curse you with death!
>Now I let you kill me to remove the curse

>>1835904

>that Dawkins quote

fuck me he is the living embodiment of cringe

>>1835945
>He has actual achievements in his field of study

So does Dennett.

>>1835904
Destroy religion without substituting it with anything better

File: dickdawkins.jpg (101KB, 639x474px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 639x474px

>>1835945
Dawkins is an insane person who has stopped doing science a long time ago. Stiller is an idiot and Hitchens was a power supporting "intellectual" who jumped from Trotskyism to being an imperialist apologetic as soon as it suited him.

Dennet is the only respectable one.

>>1836139
The story of Jesus Christ, who preached peace and love in a evil world, which is a direct act of war against evil, which was evident by the fact he was murdered because of his declaration of war against evil, all because he didn't conform to an already established oppressive matrix is a prime example, a disconcerting realistic example of the nature of our situation on this planet. He really didn't come to bring peace, because he was utilizing love in a world of evil. That's a declaration of war. To be an opponent to the world.

To ignore the lesson(s), just so you can accuse that narrative of conceit is just not sound judgement or examination. Similar to the approach Harris takes to be honest.

Now there's a proverb that states, you correct a mocker, you invite insults. You rebuke the wicked, you invite physical harm.

So you see someone mocking something good, you correct him, he'll get on the offensive and proceed to insult you. The mocker, doesn't want to be corrected, let alone corrected in front of people. It offends his pride.

You attempt to stop a murder, or a simple robbery, the thief or murderer, will then shift his focus of physical harm toward you. He doesn't want to be prevented from doing what his heart is set on. If he has to, he will either kill you as well, or knock you to the ground to accomplish his motive.

Now that's not conceit. That's just what happens when you oppose evil. That's the response evil has toward good. Christ dying was the direct result of opposing evil. He corrected the mockers and openly rebuked the evil. They called him a nobody from Nazareth(insults) and the evil, just as the proverb states, killed him. Not only that, but there's so much more to take from that narrative, none of which is conceit though my man.

>>1836020
**doesn't have categories

My fault

>>1835904
>What are they hoping to achieve?

Different things.
Red guy is a science cultist, very far away from philosophy.
Blue guy is a centrist on many issues, including religion in a way, since he values spirituality.
Yellow guy is like blue guy, except not sitting on the fence and willing to commit more towards science and away from philosophy.
Green guy was just a shock value talking head, not a researcher or academic, only a blunt political commentary pundit.

Basically blue and yellow are pretty good, red had one good idea and mostly duds after, but did good charity work, and green always seemed like a yellow newspaper to me.

>>1836291
>That's just what happens when you oppose evil.
It doesn't alter the fact that you believe that your vengeful spiteful murderous Jehovahgod sought to keep Knowledge from humanity

Because of science people who make a living from encouraging superstition have conceded that the folk tales may be a little flawed, but insist they are still mysteriously imbued with messages from an infinitely wise supernatural being in between all the stories about rape, genocide, and mass murder.

All from infinitely wise and loving supernatural being who never worked out how to write anything down and left it to the goat herders to sneak in a few subliminal messages in between the carnage.

>>1836317
So, um, Dennet wants to focus on science. Harris is just supporting the status quo. Hitchens was in it more or less for the fame?

What about Dawkins? He seems to be the most serious of the bunch. Does he want to (eventually) create a full atheistic world???

>new atheism

>>>/trash/

>>1836413
Dawkins is part of the cult of science, the rest of the ones mentioned aren't. His selfish gene book was very solid, his meme theory is very solid. Nothing else he ever said or did is of worth, but he is worth remembering for these two regardless, even if we are moving away from them currently, they were important stepping stones.
Harris and Dennet both see the values of philosophy, morals, aesthetics, feelings and so on, that aren't adequately tacked by science. Harris even values spirituality, meditation, but he just fails to ever take a hard stance. Even on islam, he isn't very harsh and keeps distance, unlike all other atheists.
Hitchens is like the Angry Video Game Nerds of the bunch, he is politically incorrect for its own sake. Good thing he died before his views became mainstream, nothing sadder than a pensioner rebel.

>>1836330
>It doesn't alter the fact that you believe that your vengeful spiteful murderous Jehovahgod sought to keep Knowledge from humanity

The knowledge of good and evil, not knowledge itself lol. God's word emphasizes, blatantly and plainly states to get wisdom at any cost. That's a direct quote. Get wisdom at any cost. Wisdom which is above knowledge because it derives from the knowing itself.

Knowledge is knowing how the gun works, wisdom is knowing when to use it (target practice only imho lol). But science is the same though. It's knowledge, with wisdom it becomes a tool. As fascinating as the Sciences are, they have no impact on how we treat each other because Science is at the mercy of man's intent. It's like a hammer, or any other tool. A hammer could be used to build a home, or crack someones head. I mean as fascinating as the Sciences are, they gave us the atomic bomb, the ability to destroy ourselves, the environment of this planet even, its crazy. Man is crazy. Gets a great tool and among the first thing he does with it? Develops the greatest bomb he can.

Which gives credence to scripture that commands man to protect his heart above everything, everything, because all man does comes from his heart. - Proverbs 4:23

As for the all the bloodshed in the bible, its worth noting that when the Israelite's failed to kill all the surrounding nations that were deemed evil, Israel eventually let these same people into their gates and Israel itself began doing all the things these evil nations were doing. That's evil though, its a virus to the human condition.

Jeremiah 19:5
They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal--something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.

God, even Christ went to war with evil. God gave freewill to the people, they choose evil, Christ went to war with evil, they killed Him. Science in relation to all this? To the human condition? It's a tool at best.

>>1836476
>His selfish gene book was very solid, his meme theory is very solid.
Actually not like I said here >>1835955
But I am asking what he is trying to achieve, not what he has achieved. He wants to spread his school of reason, I think.

>>1836550
His anti-religion began as a defense against creationists attacking his works, and by now its probably become the focus of his career simply due to the sheer volume of attacks he had to fight, adn the fame he gained counter attacking. Now he is the attacker, bullying creationists.

Mind, if you want someone who'd fit with the french revolution in burning priests and banning churches, your man would be Hitchens, not Dawkins. Dawkins just want church out of schools and science, Hitchens want them out of politics and social life as well.

>>1836709
>Dawkins just want church out of schools and science,
That is what I was after, thanks.

>>1836536
Mythic figures are our imaginative creations, not our creators.

According to Genesis, the Earth was created on the third day and the Sun, Moon and stars on the fourth day. In fact, the Earth is described as being completely different in character to those heavenly bodies. All that was required was that it be separated from the waters.

The rules prohibiting murder, theft and a million other things are there not because they're intrinsically good, as ethical rules embedded in the universe by some deity, but because they are USEFUL and NECESSARY, without which civilisations cannot function. They are the results of empirical observation and evolution.

>>1835904

Except Dennet those are all frauds with overrated or nonexistent qualifications.

>>1835904
Worldwide atheism and smugposting.

>>1836763
>The rules prohibiting murder, theft and a million other things are there not because they're intrinsically good, as ethical rules embedded in the universe by some deity, but because they are USEFUL and NECESSARY, without which civilisations cannot function. They are the results of empirical observation and evolution.

Please support this. How can you prove that morality came about in the way you describe?

>>1836763
Why the separation of intrinsic morality and utility?

To defeat the cancer that is unchecked religion. If you believe that it isn't problem just look how well Middle East is doing.

>>1840492
You can't ignore rules that was set out by a literal fucking God. You can't ignore gravity, but you can just murder people left and right. Rules of morality can be broken by humans. No way they are divine.

>>1835955
There is the Leiden school of linguistics which views language as a kind of meme but it's hardly a widespread view or even drawing on Dawkins at sll.

ratings

>>1835904
Dawkins want to make evolution as accepted as gravity, Harris (in the short term) wants to set up a Muslim pope to be able to rally against the extreme parts of the Quran and claim it the word of God, literally who wants to be known by non-fedoras, and Hitchens is trying to debate himself out of eternal damnation while getting dildo'd by Mother Theresa.

>>1835904
A global increase in fedora sales

>>1836291
>So you see someone mocking something good, you correct him, he'll get on the offensive and proceed to insult you.
Well he was already mocking before you replied to him, he isn't really going on the offensive now is he? Oh wait, that's just the persecution complex talking.

Also, could you gave an example of this happening? Specifically, an example of you or anyone else "correcting" someone.

>>1840669
Do we even know what memes are supposed to be yet? Because last I checked it was supposed to be the answer to the unit of selection debate for cultural evolution, but pretty much no one knew how to actually define meme without making it a synonym for something else, so everyone just dropped it. At least that's how I remember from last time I read about it.

>>1835904

The subversion of traditional western social structures to pave the way for a classless, stateless, communist society.

>>1840851
>classless, stateless, communist society.
You misspelled islam

>>1836330
>he thinks the israelites were goat herders

>>1840851

>what is early Christianity

>>1840919
>atheists want to bring about islamic theocracy

Why are christians so retarded?

>>1841014

Not necessarily retarded just extremely insecure and fearful