Something that’s has irked me for some time now is how many people latched onto the Atheist movement as an edgy teen but now look back on it in reverence and not shame. This seems to be a common theme in academia and is prevalent even in communities like this one. The lamentation of the “golden-age” of atheism is peak hubris. Dawkins, Hitchens, and crew were deconstructionists of the critical theory variety. Their lives were consumed by the need to disprove God and religion. However these were the shortsighted desires of pseudo-intellectuals, they accomplished nothing productive, and if anything, opened the door for the screaming children that replaced them. I don’t think Dawkins, in his wildest dreams, ever saw his fall come from his own hubris. The intellectual argument over dismantling religion somehow disproving the existence of a god is what fueled the SJWS and their own brand of hubris in the early 2000’s. BTW Dawkins, this is what happens when you remove the “tumor” of religion, you hack. As you see today, Dawkins was swallowed by the stupidity he helped bring about, the Maximilien Robespierre of the modern era, begging for trannies to not cut off his head.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (111)
sorted by:
Are you really making a pretend argument on an arbitrary concept that is already a joke because monkeys can’t comprehend language? Next are we going to have infinite speech pathologists to teach the infinite monkeys too? I would love to see that equation. Monkeys have been around for over 40 millions years and have not grown sentience, so once again your argument makes you look retarded. So how many more millions of years do we need?
Guess why people chose 'monkeys'.
Yeah, i see why you need God now, abstract thought is absent in your mind. Indeed, religion is mandatory for such people lest they proceed to behave like monkeys, good luck.
Never knew humans did not exist, and we are just 2 chatbots exchanging on reddit copy.
You added multiple variables to an equation on a whim and think it’s abstract thought? You would never make it in any actual scientific or mathematical field. Each and every word you use in scientific language has to be direct and purposeful, otherwise you leave room for error. Your constant butthurt over the theorem being impossible by any realistic metric makes you make up variances that are not a part of the theorem. This in turn proves that you know that the theorem is incorrect otherwise you wouldn’t need to add said variables. Odd, so if humans are the only monkey to gain sentience why hasn’t any other species of monkey done it? For that matter, why hasn’t any other animal that has existed for millions of years longer than primates grown sentience? Have you ever heard of the term “the exception that proves the rule”? Because you just made my point for me, if humans are the only animal to achieve sentience, then we were more likely designed to do so than random occurrence since no other animal has achieved the same state.
Good thing there was no equation to begin with.
The one butthurt here is you with bringing up monkey crap and stuff because it's infinite monkey theorem and not "Encoding infinite sequence of nuclear decays shall encode any meaningful piece of text ever created" theorem.
You know, last i checked humans outnumber rest of existing primate species combined. "Only" is a very weird word choice in this case.
P. S. Quick check gives that 99% of existing primates are humans. Indeed a very exceptional case!
Why are you making arguments against intelligent design, i thought you were on that side? Exceptionality of humans (on Earth) is indeed something that works as argument against any design argument, because rare yet complex things don't happen by design. If someone was bored enough to grant some species proper sentience for whatever reason, there's every reason to believe it would not just include single species.
You realize you just proved my point mathematically? For the infinite monkey theorem to be correct it needs to be transitive to the math. It is not, which is why you had to argue variables not in the initial concept. A(xy)=b is not transient with A=b.
In the current day sure, a couple of thousand years ago? No. So once again we have an inconsistent claim. There are around 6500 different species of mammals, of which humans are neither the oldest nor newest species. Our ability to grow to the size we have is because of our distinctive differences from all other animals. There is an estimated 1 trillion animals on earth. For us, as a relatively young species, to be the only sentient creatures makes random chance by evolution unlikely. There would be stepping stones of progress seen, yet the only stepping stones we argue for are all extinct or only exist in theory. This means again, that either sentience made a massive leap while simultaneously killing off all other mid sentient forms, or something acted externally.
Exceptionality argues for design over random occurrence. If one slot machine keeps giving away jackpots and the rest don’t, then it is manipulation not happenstance. You just think that it helps prove your argument because you are grasping at straws and would rather double down on your argument then cede the point.