What is Richard Dawkin's ultimate flaw?

not being a racialist publicly

Being an utter cunt and not hiding it like I would If I wasn't an utter cunt as well.

Not accepting Jesus Christ as his lord and savior

Hurrr cannibalism isnt inmoral

Spectrum disorder

little coward ultimately, smugly attacks groups he can easily get away with but timidly defends whatever social consensus is sacred and doesn't dare attack the sacred cows of the liberal dogma(in his case, things like the question of race, even if, when I'm not mistaken, he once said something vaguely wayciss)

Arrogance.

He's a charlatan scientist

Hubris.

His squeaky bitch voice. Other than that he's pretty based for blowing out the rectums of faggot christcucks

faggotry

I’m a scientist. Want to watch me?

he's white

you can trust him when he's talking about biology but other than that I wouldn't really listen to him.

To pick a random example, he was once asked what role he sees in philosophy and he basically responded that he doesn't think much of philosophers because even after 2000 years of thinking they weren't able to come up with a theory of evolution. Someone in the audience then told him to look up Anaximander.

lol vitun homo

he is a pseudo-intellectual and a faggot

Looking like a dollar store Carl Sagan

Ironically he doesn't believe in evolution enough. He can't accept that man's rationality is bounded by biological necessity, and that fighting religion rather than harnessing it is absurd for a Darwinian. The fucking inventor of memes as a concept, and yet he spends his career railing against the most powerfully adaptive memes in history. It's actually tragic.

he's british

The funny thing is that he's one of the most famous atheists, but he's damn near a Christian himself. He's even said as much:
- praised Jesus' teachings
- expressed affection for High Anglican tradition
- called himself "a secual christian"
- got molested by a vicar when he was a kid but doesn't think it was a big deal
- said that a world without belief in God would be immoral.

What makes his authority valid?
>you're the purest, most virtuous and benevolent man? we're gonna have to nail you to a cross buddy

He's right in the dumbest possible way. Of course large parts of scripture and religion aren't meant to be taken literally. He carte blanche disregards the historical, allegorical, traditionalist, metaphorical and metaphysical aspects of spirituality just so he can 'own' the dumbest, literalist Christians.

He became the patron saint of r/atheism and fedoras

To his credit he did introduce the concept of the Meme.

Attached: 1586214985942.png (255x255, 21.87K)

He comes across as a complete wanker as opposed to someone legitimately trying to educate you. If he wasn't such a dick he would do better.

Zeus is King
his siblings got cannibalized and he almost got eaten of course the gods don't like cannibalism

hes a polite cuck who probably get death threats

Its hard to not come across as an 'arrogant' 'cunt' when you have answered the same tired questions year on year for people who still hold religious delusions and never attempt to read wider than their own books or supporting documentation - each of who think they have the ultimate question or statement to stump him.

He almost always unequivocally demolishes everyone in any debate - and often knows more than his opponents about their own religion. A prime example would be Dawkins v Pell on Aus QandA (funny timing to be talking about these two gentlemen). Would you believe it, a former Catholic Cardinal had no clue whatsoever about darwinian evolution and continually fucked up the entire debate, yet still received choruses of applause and laughter and his attempts to be witty by a stacked catholic live audience.

Its remarkable people get annoyed listening or speaking to him. I believe it speaks about their own insecurities, how deep down they know their religiosity is all a big lie passed down their lineage, but cannot break the conditioning impressed upon them as children as they would most likely lose contact with their entire families and networks once the facade of religion fails in front of them. It is not dissimilar to how people get upset by vegetarians or vegans when pressed on the fact how they can simultaneously hold the two positions that they 'like animals' and 'eat animals'. It often results to name calling, and accusations of moral grandstanding because deep down they know they wouldn't eat their dog, but have no issue eating a cow - in turn eating themselves up inside and projecting it out on others.

He believes that religion is some sort of idealist force rather than an ideology that emerges from the material conditions of its believers. There is a reason why people in rich countries are less religious than those in poor ones. This makes New Atheism an idealist ideology as well because it isn't grounded in materialist analysis.

He refuses to use psychedelics and DMT because deep down he is terrified of death and knows it isn’t the end. He’s like the atheist kid in high school that slanders God in front of his friends but is asking for forgiveness on the bus ride home in case it crashes and he dies.

This

>Thinking a professional would admit to using epic big brain big think drugs on a throwaway podcast appearance.

Zoomer detected

Debating with religious fanatics was probably the first mistake, should have aimed for the moderates.

bing a retard that fears the conclusions of his own theorys

Arrogance

Just because you can act oppositely does not mean that you should.

This.

>wHo CaRes If BlAcKs ArE LesS InTelLigeNt, MaYbe We wILL discRIminaTE iF wE aDmIt The TruTh

Those other guys are meme 'scientists' sure, however Dawkins actually had some very important scientific contributions to evolutionary biology.

He didn't introduce shit, he called something that already existed a name that caught on.
Wowowowowowow what a fucking genius, nobody would have ever used funny images if not for Saint Dawkins

Talks like a fag and his shit's all retarded

Also the selfish gene was the idea of George Price and Bill Hamilton

>*coof coof*
I... I... I recant!

Attached: Richard Dawkins.jpg (780x520, 61.03K)

>I believe it speaks about their own insecurities, how deep down they know their religiosity is all a big lie passed down their lineage, but cannot break the conditioning impressed upon them as children as they would most likely lose contact with their entire families and networks once the facade of religion fails in front of them.

You're not wrong, but this criticism clearly applies to Dawkins as well. He has to keep pretending man doesn't need religion and that rationality is even actually desirable. Dawkins is surely aware we're literally hard wired for religious thought, how several irrationalities are baked into our cognitive cake, that atheists are maladaptive and don't breed, that atheism predicts weaker performance under life stressors, that equality is a lie, and that in the end we're stuck with these facts. But he has to keep bowing to his own God, enlightenment values. All his academic colleagues will disown him if he doesn't mouth the pieties. He could have harnessed what he knows about evolution, memes, and religion to move us all forward, but he's too weak, so he never played his own ideas out to the end.

Why is it that everyone in 2020 is using the term 'projection' in arguments now? That and 'gaslighting' are two terms that the normies now just use non-stop, regardless of if they're applicable.

Reminds me of just a grownup version the old schoolyard, "I'm rubber and you're glue!" retardation.

Anyway, to answer your question, I guess he should just argue with non-retards. The contradictions in the Catholic faith are innumerable. It's clear to anyone with 100+ IQ. Debating them is honestly an embarrassment to the debaters.

As far as eating animals, I accept the the vegan position, although there is an argument to be made that plants exist as conscious creatures as much as animals do. My personal argument is far simpler though - I don't really like animals and I don't mind killing them. I'm a soldier too, so there's not much cognitive dissonance in my position either.

>What is Richard Dawkin's ultimate flaw?

Attached: cannibalDAWKINS.jpg (1168x780, 279.64K)

The dogma

>he called something that already existed a name that caught on
So like almost every other scientific discovery?

That he is a christian

Attached: 8ea.jpg (1024x857, 161.95K)

>Upset at a psychological term used for hundreds of years
>Upset some redditor uses gaslighting and goes on some random unrelated rant in reply to a nuanced post because Dawkins triggers him
>Actually swallowed the BuzzFeed/dailymail articles about 'muh conscious plants' like some expert contrarian 'achtually' Joe Rogan neckbeard
>Literally exemplifies his cognitive dissonance in post yet doesn't realise you often don't notice ones own cognitive dissonance
>A soldier

Sorry friend. You are so far on the wrong end of your beloved IQ bellcurve it's not funny.

Happy Easter.

All his life, he has done nothing of note in real hard science, no discovery or breakthrough.

He has dealt mostly with Weekday Morning Newsshow pop science and fantastical speculation.

His pet theories has strong arguments published against them.
A Blind Watchmaker. Dude, seriously?

His first book was by far his best

Attached: sfg.jpg (800x1233, 184.57K)

I've never heard him say the n word.

He is evil. He defends pedos, abortion, cannibalism, Islam, socialism and eugenics. No smart person is an atheist, even the most evil cunts believe in something. He a degenerate immoral scumbag.

Sounds like someone's projecting.

you are never going to get rid of religion until you get rid of stupid people, because stupid people are always going to believe in dumb crap. But christianity is a gentle alternative to all of the other fake gods. It is a bulwark against the idea of jihad and cults and scientology, and if you get rid of that bulwark people will still be religious, but the religions that replace it might be a disaster.

>not calling it "dawkma"

You can have disgenics or eugenics, everything is in flux. We might as well thumb the scale towards improvement.

That he hasn't read JFs book, just cause JF manipulates young, literally retarded women for sex.

Holy fuck yes, he's moral! He's honestly moral! Sweet hell read more closely.

The ethics of cannibalism are the ethics of murder - until they're just the ethics of cells!