/lit/ - Literature

never read it.

Diluted

>>1893670
I never read it. Although he, Bill Maher, and Christopher Hitchens are prime examples of atheism being a religion.

>>1893676
OP here, me neither, just wanna know if its worth reading

It's not worth reading. It's hard atheism, which is a dogmatic faith based denial of god with no base in reality. It is the antithesis of atheism.

I actually like Richard Dawkins but his book isn't worth reading

Atheists like De Sade will always be better than atheists like Dawkins...Dawkins says ''i'm correct'' and De Sade is like ''fuck god i will spit in his face by having my lover eat shit''..

> De Sade is like ''fuck god i will spit in his face by having my lover eat shit''..

if there is no god, the how the fuck do you spit in his face?

>>1893738

In Sade's 'Philosophy in the Boudoir', he has one of the characters say that his only regret is that God doesn't exist because he will never be able to confront him directly and say, 'Fuck you'. It's surprising that he spent so much time in prison.

Sade was a boring pervert aristocrat, and is entirely redundant in western thought.

>>1893695
This.

There are far better critiques of religion and far better forms of atheism out there. Dawkins and the new-atheists appeal to American teenagers. Nothing they say is particularly interesting.

Oh, right, and OT: Richard Dawkins is not a theologian and he's not a philosopher -- indeed he's not a serious thinker on anything except for evolutionary biology, as anyone who has read his rather laughable collection of essays 'The Devil's Chaplain' will know. He is politically naive, intellectually shallow and, sadly, a boring writer on everything outside of his field. I do enjoy most of his work in evolutionary biology, but not The Ancestor's Tale which is much too plodding to be engaging.

The only people who will get anything out of this text are those who are already committed to atheism. This usually means people who, a) have never engaged with any serious theological arguments, and b) could not refute any of the best theological arguments. Nonetheless, lots of atheists feel justified in taking strong metaphysical postiions like atheism without refuting their opponents' best arguments. If you ever do challenge an atheist to refute some variation of the First Cause argument, they will generally offer you one or two sentences which usually misunderstand the premises of the argument. For example, in TGD, one of Dawkins' responses is to ask, 'Well who created the creator?' which of course misses the point rather spectacularly re: necessary and contingent beings. But no matter.

>>1893738
Blaspheming god=active atheism
disproving god=passive atheism

>>1893770
>entirely redundant in western thought.

what do you mean by this?

>>1893770

That's not true at all. His work isn't reflective of his life, and the majority of his works are not in any sense obscene. Furthermore, not only did he relinquish his aristocratic titles (perhaps opportunistically), but he was the only French philosopher of note to have lived through the Revolution and to have offered commentary on it throughout.

To think that a man like Sade who was so central to the work of someone like Foucault is 'redundant' is just silly and ignorant.

The God Delusion is to serious philosophical thought what the Da Vinci Code is to art historians.

>>1893678

Richard Dawkins, yes. Bill Maher, meh, not really.

Christopher Hitchens - are you serious? You might as well say George Carlin had an agenda as well.

Thoughtless accusations you have made. Undoubtedly.

Read Christopher Hitchens instead. God Is Not Great isn't a profound book, but it's entertaining and informative.

Daniel Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea does a pretty good job at refuting the argument of uncaused cause. Basically Evolution explains how life can evolve through blind forces, not necessarily be created by a creative force (or be a cause of an uncaused cause).

This book is a waste of time if you already are an atheist. As for believers, I have no idea. Given their innate irrationality and limited cognitive capabilities I don't think a book would be a tool of conviction. I'm thinking more like a loud negro charlatan or a threat.

Anyway, I came up with most of book's arguments while beeing vidya playing, church attending middle school teenager, even considering my then limited knowledge about evolution and bible (yeah, they teach us evolution at the age of 14 in EU). And I dont consider myself an above average intelligence person, fyi.

>>1893773
>a) have never engaged with any serious theological arguments, and b) could not refute any of the best theological arguments.

You must have really low standards if you think there are 'serious' (you imply 'good') theological arguments. Care to share any of them with me? A link would suffice.

>>1894512
>religious people are stupid
God this is such a played out false dichotomy.

>>1894517
That statement is not a dychotomy. Anyway, there might be smart religious people, serious theologists and some philosophers come to mind, but those are exceptions rather than the norm.

inb4 lame attempts to redefine intelligence

>>1894522
>It's not a "dychotomy"
>Those are exceptions to the rule

That's not a contradiction at all.

>>1894529
Your summerfaggotry is showing. Pick up a dictionary retard.

>>1894532
>a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities <the dichotomy between theory and practice>; also : the process or practice of making such a division <dichotomy of the population into two opposed classes>

Ok.

>>1894535
protip: you have to mention both sides before the statement becomes a dichotomy

"the stupid religious and the smart secularists" is a dichotomy.

I like Dawkins, but I was unable to make it through this book. His writing style is kind of boring to me. But a lot of the stuff he talks about are things I had already thought up on my own any way.

if you could reason with atheists, there would be no atheists left

>>1894540
So by invoking the idea that Religious people are inherently stupid you're not providing a dichotomy? Just because you didn't put it into words doesn't mean it wasn't heavily implied.

>protip: you have to mention both sides before the statement becomes a dichotomy

We already did.

>>1894545
4/10

>Just because you didn't put it into words doesn't mean it wasn't heavily implied.

I never said it wasn't implied, I just pointed out that particular quoted statement wasn't a dichotomy.

I prefer philosophical thought that does not engage in theological debates since they are a huge waste of time. Did Kant ever try to convince people that God existed or not? No. God in itself is metaphysical super sensible entity, absolutely no point in debating whether he exist or not. That's why I find this new hardcore atheism a bit anti-intellectual and more " You are a sheep and I will bash you until you leave your medieval beliefs in the non-existent God." Now if you want a real philosophical debate read about the effects the idea of God had in philosophical thought read Nietzsche or Kierkegaard.

>>1894545
>Ronald Reagan (best US president)
>Richard Dawkins (founder of atheism)
>Leonardo DiCaprio (best contemporary actor)

Every fucking time.

>>1894553

Neither
>>1894512
nor
>>1894540
implied religious people are stupid.

>capitalized 'Religious'
but if they did they would be totally right

>>1894545
What a bullshit list.

Well, except for Reagan being the best president.

>>1894573
>full of facts and well-supported popular opinion
>"bullshit"

>>1894575
Keep believing that. Your ignorance and stupidity only makes me stronger.

>>1894572
>Given their innate irrationality and limited cognitive capabilities

Can you read?

>>1894579
how would either of those make you stronger i don't get it

would you like to provide an actual counterargument or is that too much to ask for

theists and agnostics are equally fucking retarded. there, i said it - if you're not an atheist, you're a brain dead, brain washed fucking retard - now shut the fuck up.

still waiting lol

>>1894594
So when did the word "agnostic" begin to mean anything other than "person who denies the concept of knowledge"?

>>1894545

who the fuck on that list, with the exception of chuck norris and t.s. elliot, is actually theist? that is the absolute worst list anyone could have ever made. 1) most of those people are from a time where to say that you are an atheist would've rendered you life's work, at the time, moot. 2) even dumbfucks like reagan - you can have him, trust me - were not devoutly religious men and hardly ever went to church. also, hitler was catholic, said he was catholic and even spares the vatican so there is more proof that he was religious than most on the theist list. anyways......

>>1894594

>>1894612
>implying that we don't have knowledge and that tomorrow even exists to be configured into the probability of god.

>>1894612
when internet religion flame wars became popular and fence sitters felt they needed to appropiate a term for their group

>>1894618
mad atheistfag detected.

1. they were all theists, this is a fact and is not up for debate.
2. hitler was an atheist. he was also a master propagandist, and that's probably why you believe he's a Catholic. it's ok, most atheists like yourself are ignorant and accept whatever you hear without looking into it yourself. hitler's plan for the reich would last over 1000 years and take over the entire world. that would mean the world would be a fascist state that would eliminate all religion, since a theistic type of religion cannot exist in a fascist state. hitler may have sided with whatever religion he found appropriate with the company he was in in order to gain support for the nazis. it's simple, really, but i guess you couldn't be bothered to use your brain.

>>1894636
> since a theistic type of religion cannot exist in a fascist state

How so?

>>1894585
I just noticed you trolling in the other bible thread and lost any interest

6/10, i replied 2 times

>>1894636

>they were all theists. this is a fact and is not up for debate.

wut? u just went full-blow fucking retard. einstein, for one, was not a theist for sure. his god was that of spinoza, not a personal god. reagen jr. is an atheist and has insinuated that is father was a not a believer. and again, the rest grew up in a time where if you denounced god, your work would not be taken serious. kinda like me with you, you fuckin' retard.

>>1894637
because fascism is basically a replacement of religion.

>>1894586
> since a theistic type of religion cannot exist in a fascist state
>stupid

So when you have a smart person and a less smart person the latter one is stupid? Oh boy lets battle semantics, that will solve poeple-living-whole-lives-in-delusion problem.

>>1894644
>a replacement of religion
among other things

>>1894649
misquote, should be:
>Given their innate irrationality and limited cognitive capabilities
>stupid

So when you have a smart person and a less smart person the latter one is stupid? Oh boy lets battle semantics, that will solve poeple-living-whole-lives-in-delusion problem.

>>1894644
>mfw when constantine adopted the christian faith as the roman empires religion in order to control people.

>>1894652
>emperor
>doing stuff to control people
gee

>>1894644

oh, and do you really think de caprio is a catholic. guy's liberal as fuck. he knows he has a world-wide audience and doesn't want to offend people. that's why you will hardly ever hear of an actor speaking directly of their religion.

guise do you srsly reply to a dude that posted comparison image with chuck norris?

>>1894655

imperialism is fascism/nazism/monarchism/totalitarianism/republicanism under a different name.

>>1894636
Oh look, another Christian in denial about how the nazis instrumentalized Catholic antisemitism.
The NSDAP had no problem at all to incorporate German protestants into their regime, and the Vatican went out of it's way to appease the fascists to save their ass.
The few priests from both confessions who stood up against the nazis received no help whatsoever from their churches when they where sent to the camps.
Your clergy was a bunch of nazi collaborators.
It's sickening that you use fascism to construct strawman arguments against atheism.
Stop that revisionist propaganda crap, you're Fox News level retarded.

>>1894670
I don't really think he's a Christian.

From wiki:

Prejudice
Further information: Discrimination against atheists
Legal and social discrimination against atheists in some places may lead some to deny or conceal their atheism due to fears of persecution. A 2006 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota involving a poll of 2,000 households in the United States found atheists to be the most distrusted of minorities, more so than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians, and other groups. Many of the respondents associated atheism with immorality, including criminal behaviour, extreme materialism, and elitism.[6] However, the same study also reported that, “The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.”[6]
[edit]

and you don't think there is a good reason that dawkins, hitchens, maher, etc. should speak out i in favor of atheism? not only are they right, but atheist are a minority and the most hated one at that, so they should be out proselytizing and spreading the good word to convert people to fucking sanity.

Hehe Dawkins refuses to debate someone who can fight back instead of sissy-slapping around some strawmen. Here's a video of Dawkins wearing his selfish jeans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFamS4RGE_A

>>1894689
Everyone's a freaking victim these days.

>>1894689
>not only are they right, but atheist are a minority and the most hated one at that, so they should be out proselytizing and spreading the good word to convert people to fucking sanity.

this is why i don't respect stern atheists. you've looked at the utter stupidity that is religion, and taken that as the only possible reality, and then rejected that, and now you think it's game over, there is no possible higher power or anything of that sort because a big bearded man who loves us doesn't exist. i sincerely hope you are not older than 18 because antitheism is seriously fucking immature, do you realise how messed up the world would be if everybody converted to (your truth)? plenty of good religious people who are beneficial to humanity exist, and if you can't see that, you are as moronic as the muslim, jew, christian or whoever, who is denouncing all of the other religions. believe what the fuck you want, don't shove it down other peoples throats. your dawkins and your hitchens are cavemen, their arguments were obselete in the time of the greeks. their is that one scientific guy, i forget his name, but he's fond of meditation and thinks it is a really helpful thing, despite being an atheist, that is intelligence, not hurrdurr it must be voodoo mumbo jumbo because its connected to religion. i'm sorry if this is hostile towards you.

>>1894715
I think you meant Sam Harris.

And lo, the great Dawkins did descend from on high, preaching the one truth, the one way, the one path.

His proclamation, let it be heard from now to eternity, is:

Stop liking what I don't like.

>>1894715

1)we don't have all the answers, but we don't even have a single shred of evidence, outside of word-of-mouth, to even begin to form an hypothesis on god; and, if you are a theist or are agnostic, you have started to hypothesize,
anyways, on the grounds of absolutely nothing.

2)the only thing we can prove is what we know to exist and what can exists by what we know; and given what we know, god neither does exist, nor can he.

therefore i am atheist. that people need god in their life b/c they would other wise be "evil" is their problem, not mine. lock them the fuck up. they're the sick fucks locking people up for victimless crimes, anyways. because it is against the morals. fuck the weak-minded cunts that need god. turn their death penalty law around on them, the sick fucks.

>>1894731
I like you dude, brofist. Keep away from this semi-tripfagging tho.

What I find ironic, is that most modern atheists, are in fact the new Christians, for they only make the values more consistent. It's like a snake shedding it's skin.

I've noticed a pattern in these threads. People pounce on the opportunity to try and discredit Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris, but never say why their arguments or reasoning are wrong.

Another thing that tends to happen is people accuse them of being as certain as the faithful in saying "there is no God". This is, of course, a complete misrepresentation of their positions. As they themselves have said. "We've not heard a convincing argument or been shown evidence that support the claims made."

Speaking more in defense of Hitchens and Harris, as I haven't read Dawkins' book or seen him debate.

>>1894750

>>1895506

what annoys me about these atheist missionaries (because that really is all they are) is that "spreading the word" is such a hugely religious thing to do. I don't believe in god, but i also don't give a shit whether you do, and fuck if i'm going to try to convince anyone that their belief in god is wrong.

Just to add that not only is he a bad academic but that his approach to evolutionary biology is as antiquated and over simplified as such reductionist, mindless rhetoric can get. Darwinian biology was great as the basis for expansion and generated alot of cool effect-cause trends, but evolution happens far too quickly for natural selection to really be the driving force. More probable current theories are things like symbiogenisis

Dawkin comes from a strong lineage of people who base their arguements on scoffing at the arguements of others. But this is no longer considered useful and asuch neither is he. 14 year old antitheists can fuck off and eat fish on Sundays, this dogma is exclusively for those too ignorant to argue with those whom they see as the enemy of their enemy.

>>1895574
>Dawkin comes from a strong lineage of people who base their arguements on scoffing at the arguements of others.

You mean scientists. Who practice science. Which is skeptical by nature.

>>1895558
So we should just let the religious groups have a complete and utter monopoly on making any sort of public claims here? We should all just smile, nod, and pretend we don't mind the smell of all the bullshit?

Nah, when someone goes around basing his life on the most ridiculous nonsense, large ridicule is needed. The fact that there's plenty of quite successful attempts to force us all to live according to millennia-old bits of heat stroke hallucinations and propaganda doesn't make it any less urgent to get at least a few words of reason out there.

>>1895558
I agree with you, bro. It's not my place to judge others for their effort to make sense of life.

However, I support Hitchens and Harris. I do so, because these delusions aren't mere eccentricities, they do real harm to real people. I'm not even talking about the violence. I'm talking about things like stem cell research being veto'd and receiving immense opposition, people actually regarding the issue of gay marriage as being worthy of so much political discussion or people in positions of authority using prayer as a means of governance or in times of crisis (such as the recent floods in the USA or Britain). These things are driven purely by religious conviction. It does damage, man.

>>1895558
Spreading the word is something religion has done. It doesn't make it a religious thing to do.

I thought it was pretty nice, though the rather thorough approach strikes me as rather unnecessary. With no evidence for god around, it doesn't matter what good or bad religion does to us all, it's just a big fat lie anyway. And to steal liberally from another, in the eyes of a friend of truth a fraud is always a fraud.

>>1895621
You mean it's a bad thing to replace actual thought with dogma and imagined meanings of a cryptic and contradictory old book?

Such silly things you say, choirboy. Now drop your pants and bend over, the absolute authority vested in me by higher power means you should always obey me without question.

>>1895591

You'd really go so far as to call him a Scientist? I wouldn't. He hasn't really done anything - he coined the term "Selfish Gene" but he hasn't added any real understanding to their behaviour to the scientific community. He is widely slated as a bad academic in the Academic community, his only claim to fame is his reknownedness as a Popular Science author and as an outspoken bigot on the issue of Theism.

But wether or not a good scientist, his arguements against Theism are poor. Incredibly poor, actually. A quick Google search gets you some interesting articles and youtube is pumped full of critics of Dawkins theological work like this: http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/Dawkins%20Debunked%20Summary.htm

I never liked Dawkins very much, but I can not disagree with him. He may be boring, always repeating common arguments, but the fact of the matter is his arguments are logically sound.

And I personally find it hilarious (pic related) how buttmad some religion adepts get, insisting his arguments are wrong but never explaining why, instead resorting to insulting the man and throwing other fallacies.

I mean, take this guy for example:
>>1893773
>First Cause argument
So much pretension of grandeur and high intellect, only to then mention the most basic and frequently refuted argument ever.

>>1895635
Yeah, mind-boggling idea, isn't it?

I've "read" (listened) to this audiobook because I enjoy his voice :D
It's a great book if you're logical person.

>>1895797

You best be trollin'

>>1895797
>audiobook
>enjoys voice
>:D
>:D
>:D
>'logical person'