Dawkins

Why do you all seem to hate this guy? He calls out Islam and talks about the importance of strong culture / strong traditional values. Or do you think a good culture is only worth having if an invisible man in the sky who wants your foreskin told you to do it?

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 41K)

>advocates strong culture / strong traditional values
>is Atheist and not christian

Attached: 1538426024489.jpg (682x1024, 185K)

because his philosophy is brainlet tear
i'll admit, he's the only scientist that genuinely shits on muds though, I'll give him that, but if he pretends to know about philosophy he can't expect quarter from people that genuinely know about logic

>knows all about genetics and race realism
>denies it because he is a lefty cuck
he is kevin macdonald but with arrogance and ignorance

wrong meme flag

So to have a strong culture you have to believe lies?

No, just the morals. Kids turning atheist after being raised christian are more likely to have a good moral compass than those raise atheist.

So you think you have to believe nonsense to have good morals?

The stories are nonsense, sure, but the philosophy and the moral teachings are real. And yes, having a culture-wide definitive sense of right and wrong is a good thing - even if the base of that comes from an old book.

He is jew:

"The only message coming from evolutionary theory is what actually happens in nature. Now in nature it is true that, to some extent, the strong and the most selfish survive. But that is no message for what we should do. We have to get our 'shoulds' and our 'oughts' from some (((other source))), not from Darwinism."

I don't hate him. He's obviously a decent scientist and a great writer. I don't really like his militant atheism, though, and he's very naive about how far we can just design our own morals. The things I dislike about him the most are the typical boomer-shit, like advocating for pathologocial individualism and tolerance and anti-racism.

>And yes, having a culture-wide definitive sense of right and wrong is a good thing - even if the base of that comes from an old book.

How is that different than an Islamist's philosophy?

Also the morals come from the culture's agreement on how they should be interpreted, not the stories themselves. Christians choose to ignore the daughters raping their fathers and people living 300 years and so forth in the bible.

>How is that different than an Islamist's philosophy?
It's not. How do you think Islam has been so proficient in demanding concessions for their beliefs in new countries - they work together cohesively because of their morals and binding faith. (I'm not saying Muslims in the ME work together, the different strains of Islam have different interpretations)

>Also the morals come from the culture's agreement on how they should be interpreted, not the stories themselves.
Yep, I agree. I'm not saying that what ties people together should be religion, only that people should be tied together in some form in order to advance their interests/work cohesively. Whether that be nationalism, ideology...you name it. It's how Jews have been so successful.

>he's very naive about how far we can just design our own morals

We're doing that now, though. Modern christians don't get their morals from the bible, they pick and choose which bible stories support the culturally agreed upon norm. The bible justifies slavery and sheeet.

>and he's very naive about how far we can just design our own morals.
Sorry, do you think he overestimates or underestimates how far a culture can design its own morals?

because he, like sam harris, thinks that because religious creation myths are retarded that you can just throw religion out entirely. its such a terrible argument that just ignores the other 99% of what religion provides

Attached: 1514227020203.png (640x360, 230K)

>Modern christians don't get their morals from the bible
>they pick and choose which bible stories
So which came first do you think, the culture, or the religion that formed the culture around it?

Really good biologist, but obvious autist. Abrasive Brit who is stuck in his politics.

Obviously the culture, then the religion was introduced. Why do you think Ethiopian christians are so different than European christians?

This is retard tier. Those "morals" and stories existed long before Christians. And morals are just observed things that happened in tribes for millenia before civilization got too big to control, so they wrote shot down. Basically, you're dumb and morals are based on evolution. Only complete idiots don't recognize this.

I disagree, but that's a valid point. Although Ethiopians would have had remnant beliefs from their other Semitic religion that they converted from. I guess 'religion influences culture influences religion' might be closer to correct?

>evolution happens annually

Attached: 1513904630961.png (675x694, 34K)

>And morals are just observed things that happened
Wat
>morals are based on evolution
Morals change faster that evolution....

christianity is a slave religion and it is killing our civilization

The subversion of it is, definitely. 'Turn the other cheek' is the worst moral action to ever poison a culture.

I don't hate him, but I'm greatly disappointed in him because he'd rather go along with the anti-white progs than defy them with the truth that he's well-aware of, as an evolutionary biologist, regarding race and sex differences. We NEED people like him to speak out and resist more than ever.