/lit/ - Literature

heard a little about this.. never red it tho

Skip it, read

Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Freud instead.

Only if you're intelligent.

Dawkins uses the most pathetic, self-indulging and stupid arguments for atheism.
And it comes from an atheist.
Fucking hate this hack.

>>1815162
I bought some Schopenhauer: he has good thoughts on the various verbal "stratagems" with his maxims in "art of controversy" - I'm very fond of his wording as well.

Red some Nietzsche too, but most of it seems very much irrelevant: for istance the islamic stuff.. He seems so much concentrated on christianity and life in general.

Freud: I have all his stuff, altough his language doesn't please me with the religiously massive curlicue. But maybe you're right, maybe the best way would be going to the grassroot level.

My goal is to be able to insult and infuriate every single religionistical pleb out there, with as little effort as possible.

>>1815162
>Freud
>intelligent

>>1815227
>Freud
>Not intelligent

fucking hipsters.

>>1815162
>Freud

>>1815214
>my goal is to be a dick
Welcome to 4chan

I'm actually glad when they say freud is "shit" or "stupid" or "I hate freud" only to find out that they have never read any of the works, leave alone understood any. Feeds my Ego pleasantly.


>>1815

Your one-liner-minimum-phrasing tells me that you don't have enough attention span to write a full coherent sentence. You probably missed out school due to being an obsessive pc-game slacker.

>Red some Nietzsche too, but most of it seems very much irrelevant: for istance the islamic stuff.

>the islamic stuff
>Nietzsche

huh?

>>1815285
Wrong phrasing obviously you id.. sir. What I ment was that I'm finding difficulties in accumulating arguments against the Idslamicals. They are so slippery!

Read Kierkegaard, he was religious and more intelligent than you.

>>1815315

Camus perfects Kierkegaard.

>>1815214
>>1815214
> i want to use dawkins to make fun of plebs
> using a pleb to make fun of other plebs

Dawkins is so fucking stupid. His critiques are vapid and one dimensional and won't do anything for existing religious conflicts. Dawkins just appeals to sciency-plebs and is basically just a troll. He's a troll in a very similar way as religious fundamentalists (both Islamic and Christian) are trolls.

Neither chooses to understand the other instead they just trow poo at eachother.

For my money, Hegel's the man who understands religion and religious conflict. But of course you don't want to read that because you just want some immediate troll bait.

Breaking The Spell by Daniel Dennett

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness.html

>>1815420
Again, this guy isn't any better.

New Atheism is awful.

this is coming from an atheist

Sorry,wrong link.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_s_response_to_rick_warren.html

>>1815398
You sound upset. Maybe if you give me real arguments we will be able to start a conversation? Maybe you are just after a monologue?

What is it that makes Dawkins stupid? What argument did he use that was vapid? Hegel writing on Conflicts created by religions or religious obsession? Can you please provide with something argu..

>>1815420
Watching..