/lit/ - Literature

No you're thinking of Muslims

and they're terrible at writing too

>>1710319
But then why would you make a pic like that and put all the good writers under Atheists

lit related how?

>>1710321
>he thinks all the good writers are on the atheist side
you must have forgotten to look at the theist side
Or are you not a fan of literature?

>>1710329
I am not a fan of literature, I am a literary connoisseur. I am not a child like you.

>>1710336
>I am a literary connoisseur.
oh boy
you have much bigger problems than being an atheist

>>1710340
As if an inferior nitwit like you would ever know

>>1710341
sorry if i offended you by helping you realize your favorite authors are bad ones
maybe one day you'll break free of your ignorance

the greater writers really are on the theist side..although the atheist side has some strong contenders, none of their writers are really "great"..

>>1710309

But atheism isn't a religion. In fact, isn't the claim that it is a religion one of the things that gets atheists so rile–dohoho!

I see what you did there.

>>1710344
>dat pic

Atheism might not be a religion, but a lot of atheists sure do their best to make them appear like a religion.

>>1710344

I liked the part of that image where it states that those frequencies of light can actually be detected and measured, unlike the Demiurge.
Oh wait, it doesn't say that, because theists are equally as choosey in their facts as anyone else.

Carry on (inb4 BUT GOD ISN'T A CONTINGENT MATERIAL BEING SO HE IS BEYOND DETECTION AND THUS REPROACH LOL)

>left-libertarian
A contradiction in terms.

all of those writers are great to some extent by definition. some are greater than others. im sure you're both all very intelligent and read loads of tough books... you can stop arguing.

>>1710358
>inb4 BUT GOD ISN'T A CONTINGENT MATERIAL BEING SO HE IS BEYOND DETECTION AND THUS REPROACH LOL
guess i don't need to say it then?

>>1710355
pic related

i guess this gets my point across better

>>1710362
more like the only possible libertarian amirite?

>>1710355

Oh? How do they do that then? Because I'm not sure that repudiation and proclamation are the same thing. Am I mistaken or is this not the conflation you are making? It's hard to tell with the vagueness and all.

Also, doesn't such a statement implicitly accept the criticisms made against religion in the first instance? Sure, it's only so the person making the argument can attempt a vain, last-ditch attempt at a kind of rhetorical Aikido flip, but the point remains the same: you're trying to tar atheism with religions brush.

Try and remember: there is one necessary truth one can deduce from someone's claim they are an atheist, namely that they are not a theist.

>>1710399
Hello Quentin.

Have you considered my offer to come try out /r9k/ for awhile?

There are a lot of militant atheists for you to enlighten there.

what about quakers all you'd really have to do to troll them is starta war

>>1710423
r9k doesn't exist anymore unless you're talking about another chan?

>>1710319
>Adolf Hitler
>Athiest

>James Joyce
>Theist

>Ijustshatmybrainout.jpg

>>1710428
Yup.

>Everyone in this thread is stuck up their own ass so far their heads are popping up their throats.
>Mfw.

Everyone is equally annoying about everything. No-one should have any views or beliefs on anything ever. And that isn't my opinion on the matter.

Since a few of you didn't understand it, here is a better image than OP's that clarifies the scale.

>>1710438
>>1710450

Remember anons, the most important thing is not that you apprehend or engage an argument in its fullest scope, but rather that you contrive the most conspicuously flippant method of establishing your distance from it.

>>1710471
the funny thing about that pic is that noone from the libertarian side has ever been in power >.<

>>1710479
Nelson Mandela?

>>1710503
Hmm I guess that is right.

>>1710309

>>1710471
>Rand at most extreme bottom right

Isn't it sad, Max?

>>1710471
>dat pol pot