/lit/ - Literature

>>3826640
/thread

>>3824091
Some day you'll meet a very nice girl

>>3824043
Short form: Well, if it is better that they never existed, why should I listen to their prattle?
Medium form: If their existence has no meaning or value then their opinion also has no meaning or value and I choose not to waste my time listening to it.
L

>>3821207
as has been said, the core concept (how different would the outlook of a man raised by aliens be?) is buried under meanderings about politics, religion, and sex.

>>3808278
Actually, one thing I have noticed that Americans do that REALLY infuriates Europeans is....
not care.
The average American simply *doesn't care* what someone they don't know thinks about them, ESPECIALLY a foreigner.
An American in France and the waiter thinks they have terrible taste in, well, anything? The American response is typically 'meh'.
An American in Germany and a local says 'American food is terrible' the American usually says something like 'You haven't had Carolina BBQ or you wouldn't say that'.
i.e., 'I don't care'.
IME when Americans actually reply to that sort of thing it is usually (not always) something like 'Ah, you just don't know what you are talking about'. Almost never a 'wow, I will change, thanks'.

>>3808263
that is the 'mid-west/broadcast neutral' accent - its like thinking the received pronunciation *is* British English.

>>3808245
I lived in Detroit and Duluth.
I worked in Canada.
The 'polite and friendly Canadian' is a myth. Sure, *some* are, but Canadians tend to confuse 'I won't talk to people, even to do my job' for 'polite'

>>3808143
1) America was founded by immigrants and continues to receive large amounts o them each year
2) America is a very large nation with a lot of local variation is culture, dialect, etc.
3) Americans are very mobile, travelling a great deal and moving residence relatively often.
The result? A culture where being outspoken and willing to initiate discussions is damn near mandatory. Without the long-term history and relationships of other nations Americans are, effectively, forced to have certain traits, such as the ones described.

>>3802396
He only claimed that an infinite regression of causes was impossible and that 'infinity' is a concept, not necessarily a concrete thing. He acknowledged that the universe may be infinite in its time of existence, for example.
And his section that is quoted, above, was his explication of why miracles, being necessary, are not violations of natural law.

>>3802358
>Christians (they hate gays)
But Muslims love them?
And ALL Christians "hate" gays?
How ignorant are you?

>>3802354
1) Dawkins presented strawman positions for his foes: 'The argument from admired religious scientists'? Really?
2) he completely failed to properly discuss actual positions, such as simply ignoring the Argument from Beauty (not a popular theological position) and simply name-calling one version of the Ontological Argument.He completely fails to mention the centuries of work on the ontologial position, for example, and in interviews seems to be ignorant of the scholarship around it
3) He likewise demonstrates his ignorance about and misunderstanding of Theodicy, largely embarrassing himself
4) His position on the Quinqae Viae show that he doesn't understand them, since he cannot explain them, and his response is, effectively, a series o ad hominems.
So - if he is addressing 'popular positions', why all the theology? If he is addressing theology, why doesn't he actually address it?
>Oh I wonder, how do you refute an argument without logic, using only logic?
By using logic to show the logical flaws in the original position. Again, you are only demonstrating that you don't know how logic works. And how would you know that the original positions aren't logical since Dawkins didn't refute them?
>Only asked for actual bits that were so hate worthy.
And yet when I explain the errors your responses vary from 'that isn't true' to 'nuh-uh' followed by a disclaimer that you didn't read it closely.

>>3802330
Ah, wikipedia.
Aquinas points out that the chain of events that lead to miracles make them necessary and that since we cannot fully grasp thes full chain of events we cannot understand directly *why* they are necessary but, being necessary, this 'violation' of natural law is not a violation of the nature of God.
tl;dr - miracles are supernatural and beyond science, but not outside of the natural law.

>>3802323
In other words, you agree that he strawmanned and you don't understand how logic works.
When you want to discuss the book seriously, feel free to actually read it seriously first.

>>3802168
>I'd love to see an atheist vs theist argument where the theist explains exactly what their conception of the nature of "God" to be
The Summa Theologica
The Analytic Theist
Enjoy!

>>3802164
>even if his logic was flawed he was right
Not how that works
>position of a typical believer
He actually used the positions that most atheists who are ignorant of belief *think* religious people have, rather a different thing, and if he was going for the 'typical believer' why did he even *mention* Aquinas?
Oh, and I love the entire
'I read it once while at work and don't really remember it, but *YOU* must point out the EXACT MISTAKES'
bit.

>>3802094
Have you ever seen the reaction a scientist has when a Creationist trots out the old
'the Second Law of Thermodynamics proves evolution can't be true'
line? The scientist rolls his eyes and laughs since all the Creationist has done is prove he doesn't know much at all about either evolutionary theory of the second law of thermodynamics.
To anyone well-read with theology The God Delusion is the same thing chapter after chapter. Dawkins spills a lot of ink proving he doesn't know a damn thing about the position he is trying to refute. It could be boiled down to 'didn't do the reading' and save everyone involved a ton of time.

>>3801114
see
>>3801122

>>3801036
Do you 'published novels'?
I have a 4th book with my name on it coming out, but it is in what we like to call the 'specialty gaming market' - no agents.
I have an agent for ghost writing/'advanced copy editing', but my name doesn't go on those.

>>3788111
Are you really that dense? Really?
Chesterton's point is that Nietzsche uses vague, dimensional terms instead of definite moral ones: 'above' not 'better', 'beyond' instead of 'purer'.
The 'more good than good or evil' line is a rhetorical device to demonstrate this failure, not evidence he never read the book. Indeed, he discusses the specifics of said books other places.
Since the point of this section of Orthodoxy was that this vagueness meant things just sort of 'happen', so then a follower of Nietzsche has nothing to do.

>>3788072
Not really

>>3787991
Ah, you;re one of Those.
I am really sorry that people disagree with you. That doesn't mean that they are ignorant, stupid, mean, or evil.
It means that they disagree with you. That's all.
I am also sorry that Chesterton's prose is too dense or complicated for you to grasp. Even with the additional quotes I have given you you are still focused upon Chesterton rejecting Nietzsche's ideas. You are pointing to a sentence rather than seeing the book.
Naturally, I should have assumed this from your hostile, combative tone and inability to admit obvious errors.
I apologize to everyone here for dragging out a thread that should have been saged to the last page once anon began his ranting.

>>3787982
>I contend we are both atheists
Simply silly. An atheist is 'a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.'
If I am religious, then I am not 'a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.'
This is like stating 'I contend we are both speakers of French'.
>I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
If I am a Hindu do you only believe in, oh, 231 gods, then? If I am Shinto do you have a god of everything but, oh, your bathroom scale?
OOOOOOH! you are only speaking about Judeo-Christian religions! Why didn't you say so?
Does this mean this statement has no application to any polytheistic religion?
>When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
But I dismiss all false gods because they do not adhere to my understanding of teleological and deontological ethics, my discoveries in logic and epistemology, and ontology.
It would take some involved conversation for you to get me to abandon my position, while I have NO IDEA why you are an atheist.

>>3787968
You *do* know that this quote is not logically sound, right?

>>3787964
>Then again, some people fall back on sheer submission and sitting still. Nature is going to do something some day; nobody knows what, and nobody knows when. We have no reason for acting, and no reason for not acting. If anything happens it is right: if anything is prevented it was wrong. Again, some people try to anticipate nature by doing something, by doing anything. Because we may possibly grow wings they cut off their legs. Yet nature may be trying to make them centipedes for all they know.
As part of his argument that continues for the rest of the book.
Again, Chesterton speaks not of Nietzsche's name alone, but discusses his *ideas*, sometimes supporting them, sometimes opposing them, both directly and indirectly.
Now, did I 8watch* him read Nietzsche? No, I did not. But considering that some of his contemporaries that were well-read in Nietzsche and knew him directly spoke of his knowledge of the man's writings, I think we can, yes, deduce that he read at least Nietzsche's major works.