/lit/ - Literature

yes

>>3801186

Define "essentials".

Definitely not
However, it's part of the 14 year old atheist essentials

>>3801186
If it's not, it should be. The ignorance of religious western society is astounding. We need more atheist literature if we're ever going to stamp that out.

>>3801919
Nope,
>we need more smart atheist literature
or otherwise none at all

No.
Too modern.

Hi!
I am an 14 year old atheist, and I am angry that my mother forces me to go to church everyday. And I am totally like a scientist or something. So I bought (lol stole, downloaded from the internet) The God Delusion and now I am free of the oppression that is Christianity and every religion.

God dosen't real, and anyone that think differently can fuck off!

Idd it's /r/atheism essentials, but a worthless book.

>>3801919
>The ignorance of religious western society is astounding.
Not nearly as astounding as the ignorance of Dawkins, let alone that of his fanboys.

It is sitting on my to-read shelf but I just can not force myself to read it when there are so many literary classics that I am yet to read.

I do not even want to turn into an edgy atheist, the thought of life ending and consciousness ending is not something that I want to think too hard about.

>atheists

>not believing in a diety
Enjoy your bleak, depressing lives atheists.

>>3802012
>lol stole
implying downloading is stealing
stay mad

>>3802020
What ignorance? Only skimmed through it and didn´t see anything wrong with his reasoning. Could you give examples?

>>3802080
>using God as a shield from reality

>>3802012
Hi!

I use strawmen to discredit people with different beliefs than me. I don't even realize that by characterizing every atheist is an edgy 14 year old, I'm no better than the people I'm trying to mock!

>>3802094
Check the part where he "refutes" Aquinas´ proofs of God´s existence. I think it´s in chapter 1 or 2.

I don't think 114 year old edgy atheists read this. They mostly take their arguments from leddit.

Hey, natural-born atheist here.
I was raised by two atheist parents and neither of them ever attempted to raise me to seek religious experience. I went to a religious school for the sake of a superior education (public schools are for bad kids, ya know?) and every religious doctrine and assertion I was presented with I typically questioned and was promptly mocked by whoever the authority figure presenting the religious tenet at the time was.
I would tell my parents about the things I was told, why I thought they were wrong, and when there was a thing I had no basis for doubting or believing either way they would explain to me inconsistency, lack of founding, or alternate and more plausible explanation.
Thusly, I spent my entire life as an atheist. My question to all of you: why is it so upsetting that your counterpart exists? Why do born again atheists feel the need to set themselves in opposition to religion, and why do the religious feel they have to deride or insult atheists?
Shouldn't you all be completely irrelevant to each other on an emotional level? Why should fundamental theology be such an upsetting subject for either groups?

Seriously don't get it, and I absolutely hated my religious establishment; the difference being, I guess, that I hated them for their innate behavior and material control. Conflating people I hate for specific reasons with an entire religion is like A Yankees Fan hating A Red Sox Fan: what the fuck is wrong with people who think like that?

>>3801919
www.reddit.com/r/atheism

>>3802116
If I was an atheist I would be angry at Richard for giving my faith a bad name.

>>3802126
But atheism isn't a faith.
That's like getting angry as a pet owner at a poodle for shitting on someone's lawn and not being picked up after because it gives your house cat a bad name.

>>3802124
One of the biggest problem ignoring the teachings, is how religion is spread. Far too often its showered down peoples throats, specially children, which is just unacceptable.

Not that I really care since there are bigger problems out there but I can easy see how somebody would not like religion, specially when living in US or the middle east.

>>3802126
Oh yea, Atheism is a religion....wait.

>>3802136
I'm telling you, I am one of those people who had religion "shoved down my throat". Literally my entire education was in a religious affiliated school.

The thing is I don't feel like I had anything "shoved down" my throat, at least not particularly more than other doctrines and ideologies which are common place. The ultimate target of my anger and vindictiveness is usually the people who specifically wronged me in a way that is ultimately unrelated to whatever their cultural costume is.

I could just as easily receive the same singling out and arbitrary punishment over my antagonism towards the United States as a nationalist entity as I would for being atheistic. Ultimately its the individual who chooses to escalate their difference of opinion into aggression that is to blame, not the opinion itself.

>>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.

>>3802094
Please

>>3802099
>using reality as a shield from God

>>3802116
Don´t have it, was working in a book store, so just checked it out there since most of the time you have nothing else to do either way (didn´t even knew about its hype at that point)

Even if he used shitty logic to refute Aquinas "proofs", if one mistake would negate the whole work, we can start burning all religious texts and most of philosophical work too. But again, just talking from my memory, so feel free to point out the exact mistakes.

>>3802153
Well, from what I can remember, he rather went for the position of the typical believer) not somebody who studied theology. So basically very populistic but from this position, he offers decent arguments. Why would anybody take it more seriously?

I really just want to kill myself so I can know the truth.

>>3802160
>realizing that the absolutely vast transcendant concept of "God" makes it impossible to even define what is being argued to exist and what is not.

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 and an atheist respond with exactly what the limits of "undetectable manifestations" are in their mind.

From my perspective the online argument over atheism opposing theism is akin to arguing whether Lost was a good show or bullshit. It literally never goes beyond that level of inanity.

>>3802166
Inherent in that proposition is the possibility that at the moment of your death you will be incapable of knowing anything ever again though, right?

>>3802160
>using shield from reality as God

>>3802171
We'll see.

>>3802177
Well, no. If an afterlife exists we will see. If it doesn't we will never know.

>>3802068
Personally I like the thought of the finality of death and the end of conscious thought - I think it would be peaceful.

My idea of hell would be the old diviners' claim that we repeat our life again and again...

>>3802164
For me the "shitty logic" is symptomatic of his thinking in general. It shows that he simply is a bad thinker incapable of grasping an argument on its own terms and has to resort to quasi-funny rebuttals. Which is related to your answer to the second anon: Dawkins´ ruse of the "typical believer" means that he fights strawmen and gets to present it as an intellectual virtue.

Another example of his sloppy thinking, are his rants against relativists. Compare them with his theory of the "moral Zeitgeist" in the very same book, then reconsider why would you take seriously a man who cannot defend his points except by appealing to doctrines which he himself rejects.

>>3802188
Well, you have to consider his target audience that limits his options to argue even if he could. Its clearly aimed at the lowest common determinator and is a decent book from this perspective. (Just look at the mad theists and happy atheists)
Taking it seriously and even discussing it, gives his book too much attention and credit. Nobody would consider to discuss the literal virtues of Twilight either.

>>3802186
Well it wouldn't be peaceful. It wouldn't "be" anything.
Everything would cease to be, including yourself. That's it, eternity can't even describe the no-essence of the period after which your life ends in terms that would have any meaning or quality of what "dead you" will "be" from then on.

Its hard to imagine because its the equivalent of the entire universe suddenly vanishing and all of time and space has gone and all that remains is the absence of a vacuum. Its inconceivable.

>>3802216
Exactly - you're not going to know anything because you won't be there, therefore it won't be unpleasant.

I'd say that most people's lives involve some 60-70 years of work and then 5 or 10 years of retirement before they die. The prospect of re-living your life over and over again to me seems a far worse prospect than just ceasing to exist.

>>3802221
>not being on welfare or rich a fuck
Reincarnation doesnt sound too bad for me muh nigga.

>>3802221
I think the issue is nomenclature. It would neither be pleasant or unpleasant. It is not a prospect. It is the termination of all prospects. You cannot compare the sensation of a theoretically eternal existence to something that is inherently without sense, quality, or form.

Its like choosing between living as a human being for any amount of time and being a rock. There is no such thing as "the advantages to a typical laboring human of being a rock". Its a nonsensical notion.

No modern intelligent respectable atheist takes Dawkins seriously.

>open up /lit/
>Dawkins thread

We've entered an endless recursion of time.

>>3802150
The nationalism would be easy one of the things I see as a bigger problem but the way how the forced religion in the normal life can create unneeded barriers between people, doesn´t sound good either.

Sure the "shoved down" the throat applies to many other doctrines and ideologies but it seems that religion is the one that is done the most blatant way. Now to be honest, I only speak from second hand experience about the way how its happening in USA but seeing mentioning of God everyfuckingwhere, from school over work to even the state is pretty appalling. Could you imagine a president who would openly state he/she is an atheist?

Here in Europe it seems a lot tamer in comparison, although Islam taught from childhood is creating an other barrier between the kids, easy noticeable when added to economical differences.

>Ultimately its the individual who chooses to escalate their difference of opinion into aggression that is to blame, not the opinion itself.
Yes thats true but seeing how many individuals try to force opinion A or B on you, it´s only logical that one will start to blame the opinion at some point I´d say. Though I am still pretty indifferent to all religions and the believers, just would prefer if it could stay more private and if the kids would have a choice.

>>3802131
In general, atheism is conflated with Dawkinsism but I think you can have just as much faith (in terms of there not being enough proof) in atheism as you can in theism. This doesn't make it a religion, of course, but faith? Yes.

If God created us to exist, why would we stop doing so at some point in our lives?
Why don't we start out immortal and in his presence? Is there any reason that isn't arbitrary or mythological for this state of affairs?

>>3802262
>"Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It is also belief that is not based on proof."

I´d say most atheist think its proven that God doesn´t exist(lets just say simple probability) therefore faith is something for agnostics.

>>3802094
Your first clue is an atheist who dedicated his life to talking about religion

>>3802262
I just don't even consider the possibility of a supernatural or higher-order being playing any role in my life. I have never sought the cause of something I have experienced and resulted in anything other than a mundane explanation.

Besides when these threads appear on the internet I literally never think about the possibility of an after-life or consciousness beyond the living. I have never, ever had an actual reason to (at least not since I was very young).

Are you defining faith as "observations which you do not constantly reevaluate?" I would consider that more of a habituation than a faith.

>tfw panentheist
>tfw only disgust toward atheistic or theistic thought is when it's by power-fantasy, money-driven charlatans like Dawkins and Olsteen
>>3802124
5 star post, my brethren.

>>3802172
>God reality shield using as from a

>>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.

>>3802273
>not making cash from idiotic theists and atheists

>>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!

Atheism is the same blind faith in religion, standing (as Osho might say) on its head.

A Christian KNOWS there is a God, and an Atheist KNOWS there is not.

Either one is just as arrogant of a standpoint.

>yeah, I'm aware of everything, including the presence or lackthereof of a god.

Just Human Intellect at it again, making itself seem much bigger than it is.

>>3802313
This is not entirely true. As an I Atheist myself, I do not KNOW that there is no God, but rather; I have no reason or evidence to suggest that there IS a god.

That's a huge difference.

>>3802273
That only suggests to me that there is a lot of money to be made in that field; take r/atheism for example. They gobble that shit up.

>>3802296
>He actually used the positions that most atheists who are ignorant of belief *think* religious people have
The position he used sounded like typical pov I heard from religious people, using the typical arguments you hear from atheists. Guess Christians would make it even more precise, since there are a lot other ways to believe in God.
And well, his arguments were better than from the group he picked. Nothing more.

>Not how that works
The logic the tried to refute has it own mistakes and a lot assuming, so why not.

>if he was going for the 'typical believer' why did he even *mention* Aquinas?
To add more credibility to his opinion? Even the title of the book suggests that its pure populism and yet it gets debated seriously, why?

>Oh, and I love the entire bit
Well, I am just bit curious about why it tends to be hated so bad, since I didn´t see anything worth mentioning there and since I don´t have the book, maybe somebody could post some passages that make it so hate worthy. If not, guess I´ll have to roll myself in a ball and cry about not being understand something so essential.

>>3802313
Just that a Christian prays to the God and always thinks about him, while an Atheist simply doesn´t care outside of stupid debates,

>>3802316 #

I wouldn't call that atheism then. If I called it anything, I'd call it agnosticism. But agnosticism is like decided uncertainty, which doesn't make any sense. Agnosticism says that it KNOWS that it doesn't know, which just doesn't seem necessary.

A real agnostic, I think, just says "I don't know," and leaves it at that.

As for me, there's a whole universe out there that I've experienced none of. To say that I know whether there is a God or not would be to imply that I have the means to detect such a being, and I'm not sure I do.
But that doesn't mean there is no God.

>>3802306
>On moral grounds Aquinas advocates freedom energetically; but, with his premises, he can have in mind only the psychological form of self-motivation. Nothing in the world is accidental or free, although it may appear so in reference to the proximate cause. From this point of view miracles become necessary in themselves, and are to be considered merely as inexplicable to man. From the point of view of the first cause all is unchangeable, although from the limited point of view of the secondary cause, miracles may be spoken of.

This boils down to the contents and forces in the Universe for a person to conceive perfectly, so the experience of miracles in place of understanding absolutely inevitable events stemming from the origin of the universe are what give humanity the "direct experience" of god.

It seems to me like he's insinuating "miracles" are an illusion brought about by ignorance of the true chain of causes which led to the thing being interpreted as divine.

>>3802325
But muh probability. Going the whole uncertain field isn´t going everywhere. An atheists just sees that the chance, that a God exists is so low, that he doesn´t care about it. Kinda like people not praying or caring about Cthulhu.

>>3802325
What if the God of this universe is a mere peasant in the plane of existence where it exists amongst even grander entities than itself?
Why do people always stop at the omnipotent deity when arguing from preponderance of no evidence?

>>3802325
Atheism simply means (no or lack of)theism. If you want to play with linguistic arbitrariness; so be it. Your argument is flawed regardless, as one can still think that they're an Atheist; whilst not bringing forth the belief that they can dis-prove the existence of a supernatural deity.

>>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.

>We do not on any meaningful level know the existence or non-existence of deity
>Everyone has their own perspective of reality and its ultimate reality

What's the problem?

>>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.

>>3802339
>you agree that he strawmanned
His strawman isn´t one, since most Christians hold similar beliefs, to what he tried to refute. Just because few educated theists don´t think as banal, doesn´t change how the majority sees it.

>you don't understand how logic works
Oh I wonder, how do you refute an argument without logic, using only logic?

>When you want to discuss the book seriously
Never said I did. Only asked for actual bits that were so hate worthy.

>>3802348
The problem is that people assign specific characteristics to the concept of god, which causes harm. See: Muslims, Christians (they hate gays), etc.

Thus, the Atheist sets out to try and debunk the notion of the mandatory belief in 'god' that these people say is required and true.

>>3802358
That's a wide-brush.

Yeah, It's essential, If the purpose is to understand the arguments and movements from across the broad spectrum that is philosophy. The God Delusion does a good job explaining its side. It does not do a complete job. There is much more that can be said, but The God Delusion covers the basics, and does so without being as polemic as Hitchens is,

>>3802358
If you don´t assign specific characteristics to God, its just becomes "prove my fantasy friend, I won´t tell you anything about, doesn´t exist"

>>3801186
Of course not. Embrace the love of God, and bask in his heavenly glow.
Or whatever. Dawkins is a pompous, pseudo-intellectual prick, and he will never earn my respect.

If you think you have the right to never encounter opinions that you disagree with, take it to /pol/.

>>3802350
why does this aquinas nigga claim that infinity isnt possible all the time and sets rules only for god to break them?

>>3802350
And what is the difference between scientifically demonstrable laws and "natural law"?

>>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.

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

>>3802407
A true Christian should hate them, since his book tells him too.

>>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.

>>3802188
>Another example of his sloppy thinking, are his rants against relativists. Compare them with his theory of the "moral Zeitgeist" in the very same book

tell me more

>>3802413
>his book
>book
>tells him to hate

Ugh.

Isn't he part of the "philosophical road-rage" genre?
Angry ideologues are so embarrassing.

>>3802407
Blah, this says nothing about the argument that he/she has put forth. The fact remains that various beliefs employed by certain religious people as a result of the assumption of specific qualities attributed to their god figure can cause harm, and are thus immoral.

>>3802404
Theodicy in any form is preposterous. If an entity is the source of all creation and infinitely compassionate, as well as infinitely knowledgable of all things than can, cannot, were never, and always will be, then "evil" must be accepted as a dimension of his love for humanity, as only he could have created the conditions for its existence, and should have been able to foresee the consequences of not creating a more perfect existence (one which he does conceive to be possible, but withholds until after death.)

The argument from original sin is equally preposterous because it implies that humanity has the power to create a thing which God did not; evil. If humanity can create something outside of God's ability to do so or halt, then humanity is not the subject of God. God has attributes which humans do not and humans have attributes which God does not. They are simply "different beings".

>>3802426
Have you read the Old Testament, my nigga?

>>3802124
>Why do born again atheists feel the need to set themselves in opposition to religion

Why does the slave rebel against the slave master?

>>3802440

>Comparing going to church with your parents to centuries of slavery

and just like that i'm done with 4chan for today

This is /Lit. The God Delusion and The Bible are both required reading here.

>>3802437
Have you read the New Testament?
Have you read any catechisms?
The Old and New testaments are both anthologies.

>>3802404
>So - if he is addressing 'popular positions', why all the theology?

What does this statement even mean

>>3802440
>atheist persecution complex

dawkins pls go

>>3802445

Do slaves live for centuries? I didn't know

>>3802273

>his life

lol

>>3802407
>And ALL Christians "hate" gays?

The very idea that not all Christians would follow the same set of beliefs tells you something fundamental about religion straight away

>>3802404
>So - if he is addressing 'popular positions', why all the theology?
Mkay, this is a point. But again, thats just being a cheap populist, nothing worth of the backdraft he gets Id say.

> And how would you know that the original positions aren't logical
Aquinas whole reasoning is building a bubble with obsolete cosmological understanding and baseless claims, based on well..."A leads to B leads to C lead to God, so fuck you"

Lets pick the second point, even though the first is questionable.
>"A causal loop cannot exist"
hurr fucking durr, why not? Its painfully obvious that the whole thinking suffers from humans not being able to deal with the concept of infinity

>And yet when I explain the errors
Because the answer is rather to abstract or just hardly a reason to hate on something so bad.

>>3802445
How is being forced to do something you don´t want, far from slavery?

>>3802473
You aren't forced to.
You can defy your parents any time you want.

>>3802445

>being brainwashed for 10 years
>suddenly its different

>>3802449
So we should hate gays first and not hate them later?
Besides isn´t there a lot shit against them in the new testament too?

>>3802476
>You can defy your parents any time you want.

Not according to the Bible

>>3802476
Uhm, if you have to defy something, this is usually forced.

>you don´t have to work 16h for your master, you can defy him any time you want

>>3802476
>>3802480

>>3802487
>ostensibly atheist
>cites the bible as the reason he MUST do something.
This is the nature of a leddit atheist.

>>3802479
Why are you even trying to talk about it when you have no idea?

What are you doing here?

>>3802313
I'm agnostic atheist

>>3802482
Except you can. In the united states parents are legally responsible for the wellbeing of their children up until the age adulthood, and the worst they can do is refuse to buy you shit that you want.
They still have to house and feed you. Is it really so important to you that your parents provide all of your amenities that you are willing to participate in a superstitious ceremony which is in complete opposition to everything you believe?

It must not be that big of a deal.

>>3802498

He wasn't an atheist at the time though, der head

>>3802459

Don't be facile. It showcases your immaturity.

>>3802509
>They still have to house and feed you.
This goes for the slave owners too if they want to keep their property. Stop searching for excuses for parents who force their kids doing this shit, there are none.

>>3802543

whoosh

>>3802501
Thats a nice way to refute the point. Oh wait...

>>3802012
underageb&

>>3802564

Yes, "oh wait..." as in "oh wait... I just realised I didn't make a point in the first place"

>>3802558

>lol i trol u

yeah, that was intentional, sure.

>>3802564
You don't have a point to begin with. There's nothing to refute. You're just saying shit you've heard elsewhere and acting like it's fact. At this point you're basically trolling.

>>3802572

Nobody's trolling, you just didn't get the joke.

>>3802577
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament
This was so hard. Sure one could interpret the most away the way you like it (like the rest of the Bible) but the lines about Sodom and Gomorrha are rather clean. Everything from Paul qualifies too.