/lit/ - Literature

OP is never going to finish Ulysses.

i have a whole dedicated shelf for atheist/antitheist litterature.

>>1958209
That's actually kind of sad.

>>1958209
That's actually kind of inspiring.

>>1958209
>mfw people actually have to read books to decide how they feel on religion

>>1958209

>mfw people actually have to read books to get information

>>1958209
People who read books to validate their pre-existing opinions are functionally illiterate. Challenge yourself.

>>1958252
Did that when I left my religion. You can do it too.

Nothing feels better than destroying religion. Can someone explain why it's so?

>this thread

its like being unemployed. At first the license is welcomed, then it turns into aimlessness.

>>1958262
Because until you hit puberty and discover girls, it's pretty entertaining.

Also OP, I can already tell you won't fare well with Ulysses.

>2011
>reading
Pick one

Hi guys I need some answers..

Why was "jesus" a necrophile?

When did the prostitute "maria" get her first bastard?

And where did the three famous Brothel-owners "Kings" discharge her due pregnancy? Why was "maria" so poor and pathetic?

Is it true that christinsanity exists due to incest?

I am going to forgive and pray for everyone in this thread.

Someone seriously explain to me why atheist read books about atheism. I've never gotten it. Shouldn't the books just read "We think it's all bullshit." and then be done?

Waste of your time OP. The other two shouldn't be though.

>>1958265
Sigh ;_;

Less trolling, more posting.

Just bought all these today

>>1958594
WELCOME TO /LIT/

>>1958598
I don't deny it

>>1958594
If literature had a starter pack, this would be it.

>>1958594
Oh wow. I'm honestly surprised there's no The Stranger or Crime and Punishment there.

>>1958594
>actually buys books /lit/ recommends

>>1958594
All those books are great. Have fun!

How was the Hitchens book?

>>1958594
lolz so entry level xD newfag

>>1958594
here. I am the op of this thread >>1957952

>>1958209
I have a dedicated philosophy/religion shelf, but no specific ideology because that is retarded. The only books on it written from an explicitly atheist perspective are Nietzsche's, though, because he's the last prominent atheist thinker whose insights I really consider even remotely relevant to my interests.

While we're on the subject (sort of), has anybody else read any Emmanuel Levinas? Currently working my way through 'Time and the Other' and 'God, Time, and Death'.

>>1958594
I'd like to add that I am kinda pissed about Solaris' cover, but oh well

I posted this in the last one of these, but I haven't bought any books since these.

So, here are my not really all that recent purchases.

>>1959082
Reading Hrabal in English. Proboha!

Got these today:

Sister Carrie - Theodore Dreiser $2.97
The Last of the Mohicans - Cooper $2.47
In Dubious Battle - Steinbeck $0.47
Madame Bovary - Flaubert $0.25
A Confederacy of Dunces - Toole $1.97
Growth of the Soil - Hamsun $2.00
All The Kings Men - Warren $2.00

Love me some Half-Price books.

>>1958594

Be aware with Solaris that you're reading a book that was translated from Polish to French and then to English (which is only slightly less worse than never being translated at all and about on par with cutting out entire chapters/censorship).

>>1959136
Thanks for the info, I will keep that in mind when I get around to it

You needed a whole book to realize that god is not great?

>>1958252
I was able to prove that religion is bullcrap when I was like 14, nothing challenging here (lol, since when is using basic logic "challenging" anyway)
But I wouldn't mind reading some books just to show better how ridiculous these beliefs in gods are and make fun of the believers.
Still haven't done it though...

>>1959247
>I was able to prove that religion is bullcrap when I was like 14
>when I was like 14
>14

Dumbass.

>>1959258
Thanks!

I couldn't help myself

Recent purchases:
Voltaire's Candide
The Portable Hannah Arendt (Would have preferred to find On Revolutions, but later)

A month ago, yet to read:
Kafka's The Castle
Garibaldi, Inventing a Hero, by Lucy Riall
The Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine
The Gnostic Gospels, by Elaine Pagels

Eyeing the discussion at the start of the thread, I too can't seem to get away from looking into the spiritual subjects. The Gnostic book I read some of years ago, and it helped me out of my Christianity. More recently I found Paine, and his deism still interested me enough to buy.
I'm an atheist, but own no Dawkins or the OPs Hitchens book, but maybe someday.

OP, don't purchase books with so much extraneous commentary. 1984 is half the length of the pictured book.

I bought a copy of The Fountainhead today. I've never read any Rand, what should I expect?

>>1959295
Rape, projecting, rape, faulty logic, rape, rape, rape, evil poor people, and did I mention rape?

>>1959300

We should mention here that rape is a good thing in Rand's worldview.

>>1959258
>Thinks logically at 14
>"Yur a dumbass"

I say, good for him.

>>1959292
I have that same copy of Candide. I hope the Gnostic Gospels did more for you than just help you out of Christianity.

>>1959295
Better than AS, not as good as the essays

>>1959317
I felt I was "Gnostic" for a couple of years. ...Also interested in getting The Red Book someday... Why? What else do you think I should be getting out of it?

>>1959329
I am pretty sure that somebody posted a pdf of the Red Book on /lit/ back in the spring. It might still be available on /rs/.

Anyway, I downloaded it from a /lit/ thread. It's interesting.

>>1959337

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=n7nlvxbe

ANON DELIVARS

>>1959315

Any atheist worth their salt freely admits they can't "prove religion is bullshit" (due to the impossibility of verifying a universally quantified statement). That this guy thinks he did it at 14 just goes to show how ignorant rank and file nu-atheists are these days.

Pic sort of related

>>1959363
Really, dude?
I didn't mean all religions actually (although I do believe all of them are bullshit, but obviously I can't prove it), but let's take christianity. The bible says humans that earth was created in 7 days.
So, by the very first strokes, you can see it's bullshit.
And if the bible is bullshit, then Christianity is bullshit. Maybe there is a god, but the bible has nothing to do with it.

>>1959376
Proven, Christianity is bullshit.

>>1959376
>14
>doesn't understand metaphor
>doesn't know how to infer lessons and messages

Yes. You are a dumbass.

>>1959363
Ah, I see, you haven't gotten there yet.

Newsflash. There's nothing "nu" about it. When you work it out you work it out. No sense in being jealous.

>>1959376
So, in other words, you've completely ignored the opinions of any-halfway intelligent Christian, but you're willing to claim that you've disproven religion. You've thought about eternity for half an hour and think you've come to some interesting conclusions. Well done.

>>1959382
Wat?
Interesting conclusions?
Half hour?

I've just proven that Christianity is a bunch of lies. And all you can do is criticize the way I did it? dude, you're desperate

>>1959393
i'm an atheist

laughing about how dumb you are

>>1959393
no your assuming its all to be read as if its fact, rather than reading it as parable or lesson or allegory as almost all of it is intended to be read. You've only proven your own dumbassdom. Also, anything pre New Testament isn't christian thinking, if you want to prove Christianity is bullshit, try doing it to a Christian passage.

>>1959396
Words without arguments have no value :P
You're just another little troll.

>>1959396
**You're a ponce**

>>1959381
"nu-atheist" is a derogatory term for atheists that are essentially unsophisticated logical positivists. In 2011.

Nothing to be jealous of, really. I am an atheist, but not a nu-atheist.

What does /lit/ think of All the King's Men? A friend recently gave me a copy of it to read

If you think showing that the Bible is not literally true disproves Christianity, you're an idiot who doesn't know shit. Christians have been considering the possibility that the 7-day story was allegorical, and not literally true, since St Augustine (you probably don't know who he was, but he was an extremely important, intelligent, and eloquent theologian who lived roughly 1600 years ago)

>>1959398
Sorry dude, I'm not interested in arguments about religion. You dumbasses that try to save your beliefs by giving different interpretations to the same words are just what the guys who wrote the book were looking for. It clearly says 7 FUCKING DAYS, and what are reasons to believe it was allegoric? none, you idiot, because it was literal, because the guys who wrote it didn't know science is capable of all this shit

ah anyway, whatever. you're ridicoulous

>>1959420
I have never been more embarassed to call myself an atheist. Please, oh please, be trolling.

>>1959420
lol, never has a 420 get been more appropriate, you ignorant stoner slut

The Book of Merlyn - T. H. White
Planet of the Damned- Harry Harrison
She is the Darkness - Glen Cook
They were all a dollar so I thought "Why the fuck not?". Also I needed the last Black Company book.

>>1959425
Fuck you man. Don't associate stoners with this dipshit

>>1959404
I would not even give them that much credit. Many people come to conclusions without thinking. Many theists as well as atheists.

>>1959420
First off, you're retarded. Learn some history behind the people who wrote the book, used the book and taught the book even in ancient times. The majority of it has always been allegorical. Except all those laws. Thats serious business.

Also I like how you ignored the whole second half of my post. You didn't prove shit against the Christian Religion. Everything Pre-New Testament is accepted by the canon christian religion but it isn't Christian, its Jewish religion and Jewish thinking. You said you proved Christianity was bullshit at 14, then prove it now, Prove that something in the New Testament, something that is of Christian origin, of Christian thinking, is bullshit. Go ahead, do it.

You are all so damn stupid.
It's like saying that the Greeks didn't ACTUALLY mean that that guy was carrying the sun with his horses, it's allegory, you see?!! THAT'S WHY HE ACTUALLY EXISTS, BUT NOW WE KNOW HE'S INVISIBLE AND CARRIES THE EARTH, NOT THE SUN! IT WAS AN ALLEGORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>1959434
it's pretty cool that you get to decide what christians believe

i wasn't aware benedict had died, cool stuff dude

>>1959439
he also gets to decide what jews believe and what history is

>>1959434
You do know that this is an 18+ website, right?

You know, the point was that there are 2 ways to looks at the bible:
1) Literal, when you take everything that was written there literally.
2)you interpret everything, which would mean you can understand the stuff about hell and god and evil and everything differently. which would a form whole new religions, a lot of them, which are not Christianity

Of course, you can't prove the nonexistence of the second, but the first is obvious.

Too lazy to take a photo.

On the Genealogy of Morals/Ecce Homo (2 books in 1) - Nietzsche
Liberation Biology - Bailey
Infidel - Ali
Wealth of Nations - Smith
Redesigning Humans - Stock

Okay, I'm tired of you trolls. My point was proven, you have to be pretty much mentally ill if you can't get it.

>>1959452
>Okay, I'm tired of trolling you
fixed

>>1959454
Well if being right is trolling now....well that makes sense actually, with some people.

>>1959446
False. Theres a shit ton of in between there, but the most important thing you need to know is that it is known, for the most part, what is intended as metaphor and to allegory, and what those metaphors and allegories represent, by the original authors. Seriously, educate yourself before you make these false claims, thinking yourself so intelligent.

ITT: /shit/

>>1959459
Do you know what the first step to wisdom is according to Socrates?

>>1959460
>metaphors
>only one right interpretation

>>1959363
>Feyerabend
0/10

>>1959463
He clearly stated that there are metaphors and aren't, but only the original authors know which is which.

>>1959468
So what? That just proves my point, you can't know which are true and which are not, if you start choosing you can question every single word in the books, this way forming a whole lot of new religions

>>1959470
>this way forming a whole lot of new religions
You DO realize that there are over 31 flavors of Christianity right?

>>1959464
Care to expand on this? Do you actually know something about philosophy of science or are you just butthurt because he said mean things about science?

>>1959470
you're real dumb. especially because, uh, that kind of happened? there's a lot of variant offshoots of christianity, some we consider still a part of it (catholicism, orthodoxy, protestant) some not so much (most of the gnostic varieties). people absolutely interpret the bible in different ways. the common theme, amongst groups which are more or less mainstream, is that there is a god and that christ, who was god and man, died for the forgiveness of our sins. note that the length of time for the creation of the world does not feature here.

>>1959479
So what, if every version includes christ and god, it means they're the only literal and true characters or something?
Besides, all these versions are just slightly different

The point, as I've already said, was that all interpretations are pure bullshit, obviously created by humans, and the only non-absurd way to look at the bible is literal. And if you do that, it's bullshit. Gosh how many times do I have to repeat it.

>>1959485
>the only non-absurd way to look at the bible is literal.

That's absurd

>>1959485
that is, legitimately, one of the stupidest positions i've ever heard.

all we can do as humans is interpret the text of the bible as best we can. yes, we're fallible and we can never know certainly whether we're correct in our interpretation. but that doesn't make the act of interpreting futile. the fact that interpretations are created by humans doesn't make them bullshit; that's how this process of revelation and understanding works. it's inherent in the nature of the process. of course the bible is interpreted by humans. giving up on attempting to understanding the word of god is not more rational. yes, a purely literal interpretation would be absurd. that's why almost no intelligent people believe in such an interpretation (the beliefs of idiots can hardly be explained). i don't know why you insist on some kind of otherworldly clarity beyond interpretation for the bible, frankly.

>>1958177
you obviously don't read much.

and prepare to be disappointed with that shitty selection.

>>1959474
I am not the person you are retorting, but I will speak in his stead.

Feyerabend certainly identifies an issue with the current scientific doctrine. Namely that it creates rigid expectations for the current science. It is harder and harder to present original discoveries. However, I believe his critique goes a bit too far.

When discussing falsification, he argues that interesting theories are never consistent with all the facts. When in fact, this is what is a necessary condition for a theory to hold. If there exists one fact which contradicts the theory, out it goes, for it cannot be an accurate description of reality.

>>1959533
omg your realy mad at how gooder my comment is then urs and ur bfs take a chill pil! ur making urself look prety gay here hahah dubm nerd

>>1959502
God's word is considered the absolute and the only truth, his views are the only right ones, right? So why would he write a book, that can be interpreted? The assumption that you have the right to interpret is ridiculous.

Recently I bought Absalom, Absalom! from a Borders that was, to my dismay, closing down.

>>1959533
If I understand you, you are saying that since facts are by definition true, a theory that contradicts even a single fact must itself be false. Is that right? And then you would use this as the basis for a falsificationist methodology: "If there exists one fact which contradicts the theory, out it goes."

The problem with this is that "facts" (observations) are not theory-neutral. For example, given ancient ideas about impulse and relative motion, the fact that a stone dropped from the top of a tower lands at its base clearly contradicted the idea that the Earth was in motion. According to falsificationism, then, Galileo was irrational to pursue geocentrism. Obviously enough, this would have been a major setback for science, which was Feyerabends point. Falsificationism gives undue preference to older theories and the interpretations of facts that come out of them.

More abstractly:

What we have is never "fact F contradicts theory T," but rather, "F given auxiliary assumptions A(1)-A(n) contradicts T" and, logically, all we can conclude from this is that either T or one or more auxiliary assumptions is false. So to conclude on the basis of the contradiction that *T* is false is to give undue preference to the older theories.

I recently picked up Civilization of the Middle Ages by Norman F. Cantor. I haven't gotten very far yet, but it's been an interesting read so far.

I'm kinda disappointed that the bookstore didn't have any interesting looking stuff about the Renisance, though.

Bought my Kindle last night. Probably never paying for a book ever again.

>>1959551

They're all closing down

>>1960474
I'm thinking of buying one when I get my bonus in a month

Just finishing bukowski, this is my second version of Lolita, I just wanted the annotated version. ENDNOTESSSS

When I'm done with Bukowski, I'll prolly read Turgenev. I bought this guys as a break from my russian phase.

With Borders closing down I bought some books yesterday.

Battle Royale by Koushun Takami
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
The Tyranny of the Night by Glen Cook

Currently I'm 160 pages into Battle Royale
>mfw

I picked up Homer's Odyssey for 95p today. I felt pretty good about it. I'll read it after I've finished Requiem for a Dream.

>>1959615
I see what you are getting at. Popper's falsification criterion does indeed present some difficulties. It is said falsification would give us science, but not our science. Although I hesitate to accept many of Feyerabend's claims, I am more than willing to give them a spin.

Firstly, you claim facts are not theory neutral, I want to argue the opposite. If one observes a physical phenomenon (a fact), its allegiance is to reality, not to any incomplete theory. Since it occurred, it has not contradicted how the Universe works. The moment one tries to express what happened in a language, the fact is then interpreted subject to those auxiliary assumptions that you mentioned.

Ex) Someone observes day and night, and says "The sun rises and sets." Although one would call that a 'fact', it is in fact not true, and hence not a fact. Facts in this case need some clarification. I use 'fact' in the Wittgensteinian sense, a thing which corresponds to a state of affairs.

1/2

>>1961718

Next, I want to argue that falsification does not favor previous theories or explanations of facts, but promotes new, more accurate theories: A theory is nothing but a set of assumptions (I call axioms) and logical implications from those axioms, is it not? Take for example this observable fact: A ball falls toward the ground. Using a theory T(Newtonian mechanics), which takes as axiom, from empirical observations, F = mx''(t), (or that the acceleration felt by an object is proportional to the force put upon it) we can make a prediction about that ball's trajectory toward the ground. We get a trajectory x(t) = 1/2*g*t^2. This we compare to observations. If at any moment an observation (a fact) is obtained that contradicts this logical predication (part of this theory), we reject this theory as inaccurate, since it has contradicted facts. Then theory T is falsified and one moves on to create new, more accurate theories that take into account these new observations.

Here is my e-mail, I would truly enjoy conversing with a fellow scholar, contact me, if you wish, at ddarboux@gmail.com

2/2

>>1959292
I got that edition of Candide, too. Was meaning to read some Voltaire and I may as well start with his most famous work.

Yes they are all in moonspeak, fuck you.

>>1962856

Kavgam'ı okuyan salaklar hala var demek.

>>1962856
Turkish editions of Hitler biographies.

Why?

Yall mad and jelly. Probably not since all of these should be read by the second year in college.

I'm really enjoying Heart of Darkness.

>>1962868
Also i have Flowers for Algernon, Walden and I Am Legend coming.

Just faggotry in the post office holding it up.

>>1962868

Nice bedsheet. Also you have manboobs.

>>1962861
Ülkücü bi hatuna yazıyorum ondan aldım yoksa okumam panp raad ol xD
>>1962864
Interest. WW2 politics/warfare is fun to read about

Bracing myself for incest.

>>1962880
Wincest is cumming.

>>1962876
Thanks.

And those are actually just pecks that have a bit of fat since I stopped working out.

>>1958594
Those are all great editions. Excellent find.
>>1960981
Sweet stuff. I've been meaning to read Ginsberg. I'm sure you'll love it.

Here's mine. They just arrived in the mail earlier today.
>haters gonna hate, skaters gonna skate, etc., so forth...

>>1962890
>since I stopped working out.
Why would you do that?

>>1962938
Best translation is best.

>>1959293

All "Vintage" books are like that. The Vintage version of Brave New World I have had 2 introductions, a short biography and a foreward.

There.

>>1962979

I never noticed this, and own about 35. Vintage is the best range though. They rock.

>>1959420 the bible is literal because it is literal, hurr durr

confirmed moron
thank you for giving atheists a bad name:)

>>1959420 It clearly says 7 FUCKING DAYS

in which language?
you're implying the book of genesis was written in modern english.
going back to the original language of it wouldnt cut it either, as the torah (first five books of the ancient testament) are mere (mis)translations of sumerian tablets. (of the epic of gilgamesh if i recall correctly)

you're in way over your head, herpderp.


the Genesis narrative may have been taught as meaning "7 DAYS" to generations of christians, it doesnt infer that that's what is really in the original texts and therefore christianity itself shouldnt be evaluated by that standard.

there's plenty of bullshit and lies passed around as true doctrine, who are you talking about anyway? which denomination? even inside one denomination there are contradicting theories being passed around.

and the text itself has various translations and commentaries.

if you readily assume a text to be stupid it's maybe because you are acting stupid.

Hey, a recent purchases thread, time for a discussion about religion!

Oh hey, I actually JUST got my order from Amazon! I got... oh, we're debating religion? Never mind.

>>1963077
QFT, why does every thread on this board have to turn into an argument over bullshit? I swear its worse than /b/ on here.

>>1963117

>why does every thread on this board have to turn into an argument over bullshit?

Because some people use internet to be the asshole they can't be in real life and not to just have some fun and knowledge. And lots of porn.

I just picked this up today

>>1963141

Going to put it to field test tonight?

>>1963147
Knowledge without application is useless.

I love this kind of threads.

>>1958209

Bought these today. I heard they are very similar and equally good! Isn't Brown like the Wilde of today?
trololoo. I bought these from a small second-hand bookshop. I was the only one there with the owner, who looked very sad and lonely. I had to buy something and these were dirt cheap and I've read Brown's previous books so like whatever man.

>>1958179
>>1958179
>>1958179
>>1958179
>>1958179


this this and this again

>>1963203
I just bought The Lost Symbol a couple weeks ago

>>1958594

You sure like books that have been made into films

just bought The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien, Island by Aldous Huxley, Catch-22 by Joseph Heller, The Plague by Albert Camus, and A clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess.

>>1958262
because when you start to get into your teenage years you are full of angst and need to stick it to mom and dad, and saying how bad their religion sucks is the best way you could think of

>>1959376
>>1959378
DUR HUR Hebrew and translations, how does it work?

I'm not a Christian, I'm an agnostic, but dumbasses like you are the reason people don't take atheists seriously on the internet.

Because you think young earth creationism is bullshit, you extrapolate that to meaning an intangible concept of god must be false. Go read some Camus or NIetzsche instead of kiddy atheist books like Dawkins and Hitchens

>>1963245
Out of all of those I have only seen maybe about thirty minutes of 1984

keep this thread alive
disregard the nonsense

These threads are always full of the odd person who actually reads and then thousands of idiots reading highschoolcore.

I recently bought Common Sense, should be here soon, you may have seen my thread about it a few days ago.

>>1959420
because there are two different creation myths in the first 3 pages of genesis with conflicting chronologies.

so you are left with two possiblities, either

a. the scribes could not remeber what they wrote a page earlier

or

b. genesis is not a science textbook.

bump

This is a good thread and could help remove 10,000 identical mini-threads.

Bumping for this reason.

I've been putting off reading Infinite Jest for a couple months now. I'm not proud of this... but I've heard the book is a really tough read. And sometimes I get intimidated.

Anybody else read this mammoth book? Anything to look forward to?

btw pic isn't mine, from google. But this book could crush a baby if it chose to

I bought Battle Royale recently after seeing the film. Looking forward to reading it.

Infinite Jest is far from hard to read.

It's just long and boring. I guess that's hard for some people.

>>1960474
>not supporting the authors

>>1969577
It's not very good, but it's not very bad. It's also not very hard, but it is very long.

Just ordered these:

>The Golem by Gustav Meyrink
>Closely Watched Trains by Bohumil Hrabal
>A Russian Doll and Other Stories by Adolfo Bioy Casares (guy who wrote Invention of Morel)
>Four Plays by Eugene Ionesco
>Border Town by Congwen Shen
>The Beautiful and the Grotesque by Ryunosuke Akutagawa

For about $30. Pretty excited about all of them, but especially for the Meyrink, Hrabal, and Ionesco.

>>1969624
>>1969607
Hmmm. Ok then. I have no idea what to make of it.

Not technically purchases since I downloaded them, but:

>1984 - Orwell
>Alice in Wonderland - Carroll
>The Trial - Kafka
>Metamorphosis - Kafka

I've already read 1984 and Metamorphosis, but I can't quite get into The Trial. The lack of paragraphs is really hurting my eyes. Is it worth reading on?

>>1969948
HOW'S BEING 15/16?

>>1969999
>>1969999

please provide me with a list of every book i should read with the corresponding age that i should read it at please.

>>1970007
No need to do that.
You won't ever reach the level of maturity needed.

>>1970030
>>1970030

where in my post did i ever mention maturity?

>>1958177
Sorry to barge in here with publicity, but we ARE making a Ulysses reading group this fall, and if you wanna join in, you're welcome!

How can people on /lit/ criticize Hitchens? He is one of the most prolific writers of our generation and our of the best debaters of our generation. He is also quite a good writer who does generate some thought provoking ideas, but yeah, it is "kiddy" stuff.

Ulysses is a solid book.

1984 is awesome.

>>1970007
>>1969999
I think we should guess people ages and gender and whatnot by their purchases in this thread like in the shelf threads.

>>1970072
>implying that isn't pretentious
>implying /lit/ wouldn't love it

>>1970072
There have been several such threads already.

>>1970091
Yeah, but I thought we should do it again. Are any of the others active right now?

>>1970097
There are 15 pages.
Take a few minutes and look, or don't.

>>1963203 here
These I recently ordered online:

- Animal Farm and 1984
- Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
- Ender's Game
- The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence

barnes and noble complete and unabridged les miserable
and
world without end