I disagree with he’s not worth listening to on any subject. He’s one of the godfathers of memetic theory which, ironically, is ultimately an argument for religion. He’s also a pioneer in biology and evolution. I’m interested in knowing why you feel he’s not a valuable source regarding those particular subjects? Now…I think he has been ex…
I disagree with he’s not worth listening to on any subject. He’s one of the godfathers of memetic theory which, ironically, is ultimately an argument for religion. He’s also a pioneer in biology and evolution. I’m interested in knowing why you feel he’s not a valuable source regarding those particular subjects? Now…I think he has been exposed by a number of individuals with having many contradictions.
I don’t think anyone has done a better job of exposing him than Curtis Yarvin. He basically showed that these atheists are very much part of a religion called universalism. As I read his work I recognized that I was part of this cult. I grew up with that religion. We called ourselves atheists but we were really Christian theists who’s god was universalism. Anyone who can’t see that universalism is pure fantasy is a fool at this point. It’s already beginning to break down and it just came into existence the other day. Shortest religion of all time. 😂
There is much to say about what is wrong with his field of expertise, but it is his nihilist and false worldview which leads me to rejecting him as worthy of hearing. He has no basis for truth or even objectivity. By his own claims he is just an evolutionary meat computer. He has no claim to truth only the relative truth of propositions (that he cannot be sure are really real).
I don't think he is dumb, even though he habitually says things that are dumb. No doubt, he is very smart in his field, and he isn't wrong about everything. Outside of his field he is as swallow as a kiddie pool.
When someone tells you that what they say and believe can't be taken seriously, or as objective truth, believe them.
I disagree with he’s not worth listening to on any subject. He’s one of the godfathers of memetic theory which, ironically, is ultimately an argument for religion. He’s also a pioneer in biology and evolution. I’m interested in knowing why you feel he’s not a valuable source regarding those particular subjects? Now…I think he has been exposed by a number of individuals with having many contradictions.
I don’t think anyone has done a better job of exposing him than Curtis Yarvin. He basically showed that these atheists are very much part of a religion called universalism. As I read his work I recognized that I was part of this cult. I grew up with that religion. We called ourselves atheists but we were really Christian theists who’s god was universalism. Anyone who can’t see that universalism is pure fantasy is a fool at this point. It’s already beginning to break down and it just came into existence the other day. Shortest religion of all time. 😂
There is much to say about what is wrong with his field of expertise, but it is his nihilist and false worldview which leads me to rejecting him as worthy of hearing. He has no basis for truth or even objectivity. By his own claims he is just an evolutionary meat computer. He has no claim to truth only the relative truth of propositions (that he cannot be sure are really real).
I don't think he is dumb, even though he habitually says things that are dumb. No doubt, he is very smart in his field, and he isn't wrong about everything. Outside of his field he is as swallow as a kiddie pool.
When someone tells you that what they say and believe can't be taken seriously, or as objective truth, believe them.