95% of Pard do not read these. They don't even know what the hell these are.
That being said, Pard is slightly better than your 4chan and Reddit.

Their go to philosophers are Ben Shapiro and Hassan Piker every now and then, a rare one might dump in a Fukuyama or Douglas Murray since both are pretty much Neo Cons
Thomas Aquinas, Hume, Kant , Hegel, Max Weber, Michel Foucault...... are too complicated for them.

There are some that still thinks the earth is flat and moon landing is AI or Photo Shopped.

Its one thing to name drop some prominent thinkers but then use argument from ignorance to defend a sky wizard. Its peak npc behaviour like saying you know Mike Tyson and then proceed to trip over your untied shoelaces.

Welp although mald atheists ignorant of science are cringe for me (like cmon bruh if they like science at the very least study differential geometry and relativity or philo of science like Popper/Kuhn) nothing beats the awkwardness of religious zealots. At the very least even extremist atheists are curious about science and logic. Fanaticism infused lord de seis minions believe their holy book is absolute so what there is to discuss lmao

But yes, there are prerequisites to "informedly" talk about logic, science, and epistemology. Anyone who have no understanding of modern mathematical logic, model theory and its fundamental theorems should have no claim about how logic works.

Atheists can learn a lot from Kant even(his refutation of a class of ontological arguments in dialectic)'

This post was edited by Hajun123 on May 12 2026 03:01am

no theyre not
SUMMERY of 150 years of 'atheism....
1. Charles Darwin and the theory of 'evolution- gets a pass because he didnt call it fact
2.haeckels embryo drawings- 1874- early detected fraud- mass reprinted in textbooks as "proof" for 'evolution. 'atheists "the super logic minds" never did chit to challenge this. when do 'atheists actually become "scientific" as opposed to just "agenda" based liars
3rd piltdown man 1912- 'atheists hold themselves on high claiming to be the greatest critical thinkers that ever graced the world- longest running fraud in the history of modern science. the real mystery is how these clowns ever became the face of modern science?
4th nebraska man 1922- a master work of 'atheist imagination figuring out stuff........
5th whale evolution. incomplete fossils are the best kind of fossils. in fact the worse condition a fossil is in the better it proves 'evolution for some reason? as we will see more of this 'atheist magic in later posts
6th junk DNA should of been the end of atheism. but imaginations and delusions are not defeated by things like facts
7. Harlen Bretz- dont bring science we dont like.
8.Australopithecus afarensis aka lucy "missing link" APE fossil with no hands, feet or face. gets reconstructed with human hands, human feet and face of choice. then its called "proof" of evolution.

that the 'atheist community never called any of this abuse of science out is just more proof what a failure the whole of 'atheism is..........

'atheism and their claims of "critical thinking" is just a trash can full of chit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i am working on reposting this series in this thread. starting on page 43 post #429
Atheist/antitheist Chit Science
https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=92846851&f=90&o=420

This post was edited by TiStuff on May 12 2026 04:01am

Atheism as a concept has nothing to do intrinsically with evolutionary biology so I dont know why you yap to me trivial stuffs I can just ask a PhD biologist colleague at UTokyo about. While odd, there is no inherent contradiction with the concept of an atheist denying evolutionary biology as it was presented originally by Darwin. Science as a discipline is currently built on falsifiability. There is along history why is it this way going way back from Humean induction problem. If you think you know better than contemporary/current researchers in this field, you are always free to publish your own thoughts for peer review.

You dont group people as such. The greatest logician in history, Kurt Godel, is a theist. Doesnt mean every theist is as smart as him.

Since you seem to have such great confidence about your understanding of science, how deep is your understanding of at least the formal mathematics behind most of modern physics ? If you dont know at the very least differential geometry, topology, group theory etc then you are not as informed as you think you are

Calculus and newtonian mechanics are kindergarten games to grad level physics

This post was edited by Hajun123 on May 12 2026 05:41am

An interesting documentary regarding why our lifespan was drastically reduced from 900+ Years to where we are today. Will watch part 2 later.

i will put this here for now and answer the rest later
Disadvantages of Peer Reviews || Wisdom of knowledge

few things both side agree on. one thing that is agreed on is conditions of the earth were different in the past. im going to view your vid now.

This old man in the vid hasn’t touched a mathematics paper in his life. You speak to a real logician who scrutinize the fundamentals of other fields and your response so far was incoherent writing and a YouTubevideo of a cranky old man with 0 idea of what he's talking about. I was 16 when I've read papers Stephen Hawking called 'very difficult' in his writings so pre-academia I'm quite overturned like the warlock. It is kinda insulting that the best argument you have here is a youtube video of someone I will literally eat alive in a logical argument.

Peer review does not mean 'everybody agrees X is correct". It means the paper meets the minimum standard for rigour, coherence, and even consistency. This isn't intersubjective agreement, especially for mathematics.

Peer review efficiently weeds out the cranks (someone who persistently and annoyingly promotes ideas that claim to overturn established knowledge but fail basic standards of reasoning, evidence, or mathematical rigor). A large volume of submissions to journals, universities, and researchers come from people who sincerely believe they have overturned modern physics, solved impossible problems, or disproved established mathematics while severely lacking the technical, most basic background needed to even attempt at not failing at grad school. We get these people a lot. These insane discoveries in science and mathematics do indeed require thinking 'outside the box' but one must also understand what is already 'in the box'. Revolutionary science is never produced by ignorance of the field. In other words I usually test people how much they understand the fundamentals first. You cannot do research in modern physics without the most basic of the basic of the mathematics required to even comprehend the most basic of the basic of concepts enough to have a chance not to fail grad school. So it's a simple question, how much topology, vector algebra, functional analysis, and differential geometry do you know?

This post was edited by Hajun123 on May 12 2026 08:01am

what is your worldview and how does it justify the possibility of the preconditions of logic?