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:
Not at all, i just understood you probably did not open a book on logic in your lifetime.
It would still be ~80% of primates existing even if i look at lowest estimates for human population available and multiply non-human primate population by a few times. You would need to look before first notable civilizations to find humans not constitute majority of primates on Earth.
I feel like you don't understand meaning of word 'young' either, if you think being young species reduces chance of having a very useful physiological development appear randomly.
What is "mid sentient"? Besides, what do you have to throw away 'killing off rest of competing lifeforms in the area' hypothesis, given that humans tend to do so whenever they migrate even if it's other humans.
Only for people who don't understand either. Your next sentence is perfect example.
"Keep giving away jackpots" What is exceptional in giving away multiple jackpots besides making everyone suspect that you're just using slots to launder money? If anything, this is a perfect example of how something intentional always has implicit property of being reproducible, hence there's no absolutely no reason for a bored 3rd party capable of granting sentience do so only for 1 species of primates and not, say, rest of animals who have sufficient properties to bear it.
Anyways, this was entertaining but given that you made too many basic mistakes in a single post, i got bored, have plenty of metaphorical food next time, buddy.
Doesn’t use a single math equation or logical statement in the entirety of the conversation, then claims superiority on math and logic. Keep doubling down, it’s hilarious.
Must I?