/lit/ - Literature

>>5075245
Can I ask why? If God doesnt exist, why dwell on it (atheism as an intellectual movement? I started reading this book, and I felt like he was speaking to me like I was a mental midget. At least Hitchens attacks the terrible parts of religion, I feel like Dawkin is either trying to convert "stupid" deists or preaching to a choir that require confirmation of their non-beleif.

>>5075245
>Also feel free to post your opinions on Dawkins' book if you read it too
They're shit, generally. He's best when he keeps to his own turf, doing zoology.

>>5075271
>dat filename
hue

>>5075245
Were you a non-believer prior to reading this book? If so, were you a recent "convert" so to speak? I always wonder about those who read "nu-atheist" literature. They strike me as books for people recently finding themselves drawn away from the theistic background they grew up with looking to legitimate the ideas they've come to about their former beliefs.

Anyway, I imagine the other members of the so called "four horsemen" of atheism are probably what you're looking for: Hitchens, Harris, Dennett.

>>5075260
I agree with what you say on Dawkins, his writing is kind of pretentious and on person he is much worse. Rather than an atheist intellectual movement I have always had the opinion that those energies would be better spent on secularism.

>>5075245
>My main focus would be on logical and scientific refutations of common theological arguments.

I'd actually recommend Peter Boghossian's terribly named but actually pretty good Manual for Creating Atheists. It's less polemic than it seems (hence my negative assessment of the title) and is basically about how to avoid getting into the tedium of arguments about specific religious doctrine and other minutiae, and less about decisively winning debates, and is more about epistemology and sowing the seeds for later self-discovery.

Or if you just want a good wank try Ingersoll's Mistakes of Moses.

>>5075260
>If God doesnt exist, why dwell on it (atheism as an intellectual movement?

...because the vast majority of humans believe otherwise and have arranged themselves into clans and hierarchies based on their degree of belief in a non-existent entity, as well as spawned entire literary and academic genres and institutions to justify the existence of said being and interpret how that being wants us to live our lives?

I mean, that seems like a sufficient reason to be interested in the idea.

>>5075245
>Dawkins
>Logical arguments that are well-written and informative

Pick one.

If you're going to be a fedora, at least pick someone who isn't a puerile twat who wants to have his Judaeo-Christian moral cake and eat it too.

why atheists never read the bible?

>>5075245
>atheist literature

If you have any respect to the notion of literature, atheist literature doesn't actually exist. Some great books written by atheist do exist, but if by atheist literature you mean anything of literary value written as a pro-atheist argument, you can stop searching right away.

Also, Dawkins is a very stupid person whose scientific ability is not to be confused for an authority argument on philosophical matters.
Amongst other countless flaws in his argumentation, he lacks knowledge so much that he can't even make the difference between the metaphysical hypothesis of God's existence, Religion, Church, and some religious people. (which leads him to believe he can attack one to refute the whole)

99% of the book is just presenting arguments from elsewhere like Russell.

You'd almost think people hadn't read it or something...

>>5075245
I don't know why everyone is so impressed with it. He used a lot of strawmans arguments. It's easy to deconstruct a God that not many people believe in to begin with.
I personally liked the Ancestors Tale tho.

>>5075564
what would an atheist get from reading the bible?

>>5075653

The knowledge of what he is supposed to be against ?

>>5075656
do most religious people get their interpretation of god from the bible these days?

>>5075656
I read plenty of it. There's so many other things to read though, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

>>5075564
>>5075653
The average atheist has read more of the Bible than the average churchgoer.

>>5075676

I believe most religious people do. Why ?

Also guys, I forgot to mention that independantly from any religious opinion, you should read the Bible for its fondamental cultural importance in the society you live in and its history.

>>5075598
I agree that Dawkins, while he is a brilliant biologist and science advocate, isn't exactly the pinnacle of philosophical thought, but no atheist literature? Really? Not Russell, Hitchens, Marx, Paine, Nietzsche? That's just ridiculous.

>>5075245
My favorite atheist writer is probably Richard Carrier. He's an ancient historian who writes mostly about Jesus studies and the history of Christianity, but he's written on a myriad of topics. He usually has something interesting or thought provoking to say even if I don't always agree. I recommend Sense and Goodness Without God highly.

>>5075783
I'm gonna go with Marx and Nietzsche as I tend to doubt the literary value of the other authors you quoted. But nor marx or Nietzsche, despite them both being atheists and great writers, have done anything you could call " atheist literature ", because they never refuted the very hypothesis of Gods existence. They only opposed the Catholic Church in Europe in the 19th century, and it was just upon social concerns.

>>5075245
You know whats better than Atheist lit? Agnostic lit.

A Treatise of Human Nature by Hume is all you need in life.

>>5075799
But do you think that the problem is just inherent in the genre, i.e. nobody could ever write good atheist literature that directly refutes that hypothesis? Or is it just that no one has?

>>5075809
>the genre

atheist literature isn't a genre.

>>5075809
I think that great people, when they happen to be atheist (which has always been very uncommon), don't want to waste their time with unsolvable metaphysical questions they consider useless; and instead they focus on more concrete matters.

>>5075830
>which has always been very uncommon
What on Earth? I'm sure you're using esoteric definitions for your terms, so quit obfuscating and explain them; what atheists do you consider 'real' atheists?

>>5075830
But most of the time they do. Even Dawkins spends pretty much the entire book grappling with the social implications of religious belief. Of course there is always an academic draw for philosophers to discuss the existence of God, but generally atheists writing for a general audience tackle religion because of the harmful effects on society they believe it has. If they were only writing about an unsolvable metaphysical question I don't think they would be writing best sellers. They're writing about concrete things.

>>5075783
Does anyone, in the first world,past the age of 15 take Marx and Nietzsche seriously?

>>5075859
Any atheist. The problem would rather be on the definition of " great people ", a matter on which we might disagree.

>>5075870
I dont really understand what you say. I thought I made it clear that I don't consider Dawkins a great writer and for the rest I don't quite see how it contradicts what I said.

>>5075886
You can easily win this one by reference to all pre-industry. But, after it, at least among the intellectuals, I'd rebut that atheists were rather disproportionately represented among the 'great'.

>>5075883
Um.. yeah they're pretty much universally taken seriously by academics and we studied both of them in the philosophy classes I took in college.

Now, "taken seriously" does not mean that academics agree with their opinions. Nearly all modern economists reject Marx's labor theory of value and modern philosophers generally seem to think that Nietzsche's ideas are outdated but still worth studying. Nevertheless, they are still studied pretty seriously.

>>5075898
But after it, there have not been many great people ( I don't mean intellectuals or elite by that, since thats what you seem to imply, I mean geniuses), and still most of them were theists

>>5075915
Why would Marx be taken seriously? He was wrong about everything. As for Nietzsche, he is just a continental philosopher, really nothing more than a fiction writer or self help guru spreading his unsubstantiated opinions.

>>5075892
Oh I do think Dawkins is a great writer when it comes to science at least. It's just specifically his writing on philosophy of religion that I think is not the greatest. There are much better thinkers when it comes to that. But what I was responding to is this:

First it was stated that there is no good atheist literature, which I disagreed with. Then it was specified that there is no good atheist literature that specifically deals with the existence of God as a metaphysical hypothesis, which I still disagreed with. Then I asked if there ever could be good atheist literature of this kind, and you said that you think that great atheists should be writing about concrete things with the implication that you think they aren't doing this, which I again disagreed with.

>>5075923
Well I agree with you about Marx but the fact is that he is taken seriously in the sense that his ideas and writings are still widely studied, even if it's mostly for the purpose of understanding the influence of his thought. Same with Nietzsche.

>>5075916
How can you not mean intellectuals if we're talking about writers, about literature?

>>5075944
>a great writer when it comes to science at least

That doesn't mean anything.

> and you said that you think that great atheists SHOULD be writing about concrete things

Nope, I said that its what they actually do (the great ones, taking the exemple of marx and nieztsche.

>>5075976
Because I'm specifically talking about great writers here, and most intellectuals are obviously not included in that category.

>>5075980
>>5075987
Here. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna get some sleep

>>5075980
>science writing
>increasing public knowledge and understanding of science
>doesn't mean anything
>mfw

>>5075245
>>>/reddit/

>>5075692
This.

I read the bible only to find inconsistencies I can quote when debating christfags.

>>5076422
Reddit doesn't know shit about atheism

>>5075692
>>5076661
This is just not true.

How glaring is the atheism?

Do you want "god isn't real so I'm ok as a normal person," or, "god is dead and you can't save your stupid imaginary friend" or "god isn't welcome in this realm, no one begs for a true savior anymore"?

>>5075245
Labelling The God Delusion as atheist literature is pretty insulting to atheists. Anything written by Dawkins is YA pop science.

>>5079053
It's a scientific textbook of the highest quality.

Is pic related an actual quote from the book? This argumentation seems retarded

>>5079053

>atheism = science

Bakunin's God and the State is a pretty scathing attack on the very idea of God.

You always have Engels, Marx, Lenin, and French Atheists like de Sade (Dialogue between a Priest and a Dying Man is short and good), Anacharsis Cloots, etc.

>>5080568
They are synonyms.

>>5076661
I see people say this a lot, but I don't ever get to actually hear the actual inconsistencies themselves...

>>5080564
Holy shit he's dense.

>>5080564
What's unsound about that argument? Only a degenerate retard would need the presence of God to forbid them from going around murdering people.

>>5080672
I share his conclusions, but the way he arrives at them is bizarre, effectively premises objective morality. A wise anon once wrote: 'scientists are like peasants strapped to giant calculators'. Dawkins typifies that perfectly.

>>5080675
Here's the anon in mention:
>>/lit/thread/S3094866#p3095188

>>5080678
Man, Michio Kaku is trying really hard to out-tard Dawkins. But I wouldn't say that he's a leading scientists - I'm pretty sure he hasn't published since the 90s, he has focused on popular science for all this time.

>>5080675
do expand on that. mention one instance in which he puts forward objective morality. I'm all ears for the justification of anon's quote in relation to Dawkins as well. Can't wait for you to show me an example that illustrates how Dawkins has a brilliant computational mind, yet this is undermined by his lack of sophistication and refinement when it comes to epistemology (I assume you're implying). Go on.

>>5080675
Er, it's not that bizarre, honestly. The concept of objective morality exists to a certain extent. I mean, people know it isn't particularly wise to kill random people.

There's nothing really "subjective" about it in our world unless you want to get into semantics.

>>5080691
He's a Platonist, so what? Wittgenstein and Godel were too.

Most people out there don't fully believe there isn't a higher absolute truth to things

>>5080691
Well, his argument boils down to "you should be good because otherwise people would be bad and that wouldn't be so nice", he doesn't give any actually logically undermined reason why people should be good.

He could say that society would crumble, he could say that genes wouldn't be transferred as efficiently (you'd lose perhaps beneficial alleles due to random murder), yet he doesn't, all he says in that quote is that it wouldn't be so nice.

>>5080699
its obviously wise to kill random people because the less connections you have with the victim, the less chances of you getting caught. if the action has no bad consequences then its hardly unwise

So much

>>5075653
I mean, it's not like the Bible has had a major impact on Western literature or anything.

>>5080706
>>5080707
do you even take yourselves seriously? what has that got to do with what I asked?

fucking masturbation threads; you people don't even want to start on common ground and resort to sophistry when things gets rough; faggotry from the start. I'm out.

>>5080717
>I don't have counter-arguments so I get mad and run away

>>5080691
It's not that; it's that he assumes that, without Christianity, the remaining morality can still be Christian - and, then, frighteningly, and it's implied by his diction, he insists that the reader *should* be morally Christian. 'Kindness, charity, generosity' is his list; this is his 'things that would deserve the name of goodness'. This is a mercy-over-justice, anti-vengeance, culturally parochial morality, that he advertises here; and yet he would dare imply that Christianity makes the action of this morality more difficult, when it is wholly dependent on Christianity. It announces simply: 'I don't understand moral philosophy'. It's why he can only get by debating American protestants.

>>5080707
He's not saying anything about why we "should" be good. He's basically saying if you need a reason that you "should" be good, and aren't good as a matter of course, then there is some kind of underlying psychopathy to your morality.

I don't think Dawkins claims that there is an absolute morality either, just that social cohesion and empathy are genetically innate and that specific cultural moral codes are nurtured in childhood. There is no need for a divine absolute morality.

>>5080723
Counter-arguments to what? I asked very specific questions to which you spewed out unrelated statements. I'm not insane enough to engage in a conversation in which I'd have to adapt myself ad infinitum to your vain sophistry or inability to understand what constitutes a debate or proof.

>>5080732
So human kindness, charity and generosity did not exist before Christ, even though these traits have been observed in fucking animals.

Gotcha.

>>5080740
Please, design one experiment which definitely proves that what you see in an animal's behaviour constitutes "charity" or "generosity". Tip: you can't without asking the animal for its reasons.

>>5080732
Spoekn like a true literalist. And you claim to be christian. Pshh. He doesn't equate those things to christianity. He merely states that theism isn't necessary to be moral and that it is possible to hold some of the same moral tenets as christianity without subscribing to it. That is all

>>5080744
Generosity and kindness in animals is the same as it is in humans when you get right down to the ultimate, biological reasons: complete action, receive hormonal reward. Social animals are social because of genetic behaviours.

>>5080762
And why would these hormonal rewards be there in the first place? Charity doesn't benefit your genes

>>5080746
He does state that, but he doesn't answer the question - why be good if there is no God? All he says is that you *can* be good without a religion (of course), but why *should* you be good?

>>5080717
What are you talking about? Many great minds believed there was a superior, higher truth. It's far more common than you would think. Most philosophers that "prove" the opposite actually were Platonist epistemologically. Godel, Einstein, Wittgenstein all believed in higher truths personally. I mean, I'm not defending Dawkins specific arguments right now, I'm just saying that you're retarded to criticize Dawkins epistemological views

>>5080774
It's a dumb point that you're fucking making. Most people don't "want" to "do evil", in fact most people would prefer to dance, fuck and party. It's the Christian assertion that all people are just evil without god, it's a view that's a total nonsequitur

>>5080774
because natural selection drove us to being social. morality, or being 'good' is what is conducive to our social relations. evolution hinted towards what that might be at first, now we're past that and in charge of fully engineering our morality.

>>5080781
Has that anon ever said that people are evil? Where are you coming up with that?

>>5080775
when was I criticizing Dawkins' epistemological views or any views for that matter you illiterate fucking troll? Do you even reading comprehension?

captcha: rantspon theological

Kierkegaard's Discourses.

And really "intellectual" atheism based in anything but the German horsefucker's writings is simply laughable.
They all base their views on christian mores and then get surprised when the rejection of christianity leads to the rejection of those mores in the next generation as well.

>>5080795
It's implied in his statement. "Why should you be good without God"--implies a whole position on mind and epistemology. However, it is a question that is not significant to how people act. Take away the Christian god, and you're not going to get a huge wave of "evil", because "God" isn't really the thing stopping people from evil

>>5080802
How about you read the posts you replied to instead of getting angry?

>>5080767
Charity is still a form of generosity. It has the same instinctual benefits, even if the reality of your charitable act means you will never see the tangible result of it. When you give to charity, do you feel good about your action, or do you feel shitty? Does it make you happy, or sad? Do you feel satisfied or do you regret the decision?

Good feelings are just hormones, anon. This particular form of good feeling follows the same root and path through your neurones as basic kindness and generosity.

I don't think you really need anyone to explain to you why social cohesion is evolutionarily beneficial.

>>5080804
Yes because the "intellectual atheism" of Europe in the 1920's caused its immediate collapse and they are incapable of all scientific research

>>5080810
read them. no criticism of Dawkins whatsoever. the criticism was addressed to you and another illiterate faggot.

>>5080813
Charity is classist in nature. People give not because giving makes them feel good, but actualizing the feeling they they CAN give feels good.

>>5080817
Oh Jesus, why the fuck do you put critical clauses in parenthesis? That's some shit tier writing.

>>5080815
>in the 1920's caused its immediate collapse
A huge part in why the Nazis gained power was due to the extreme moral decadence of Weimar Germany and the communist revolutions (Luxembourg in Germany, Kohn in Hungary, Bolsheviks in Russia), so yes.
Many of the more intellectual Christians do argue that Christianity as a living institution died in Europe with the first world war for that matter.

>>5080827
You mean moral decadence is bad because reactionaries get upset and act violently? Hitler chased out all of the intellectuals to Princeton and Pasadena, and hand delivered America some great scientists.

You know, the Hitler of the Nazi Party that the Catholic Church supported

>>5080833
>You mean moral decadence is bad because reactionaries get upset and act violently?
No, it's bad because it gave most people no other choice but to elect the "reactionaries". (a moronic term for futurist movements like the fascists for that matter)
>Hitler chased out all of the intellectuals to Princeton and Pasadena
Don't kid yourself. Even with them banning jews from teaching positions Nazi Germany had one of the world's greatest scientific communities, it's why the Americans and Russians kept grabbing them.
>You know, the Hitler of the Nazi Party that the Catholic Church supported
The Catholics were ambivalent from what I recall with quite a few of them ending up in the camps.

It is a well known fact that most people who hate this book have never actually read it.

Same stuff as with Sam Harris -- who I have read and don't like. I've read two books by Dawkins and they were both excellent, so my impression of him isn't that bad. One day I'll get to reading TGD too but until then I won't comment on it. Maybe you should learn not to do that too.

>>5080820
Wow, even more cynical than I was haha. I disagree however, your hypothesis might play some role for some people but as someone who has worked in the charity sector for a good while, it has been my experience that to get people to give they have to genuinely empathise with the cause and understand the value and importance of it. And the most charitable people are the working and lower middle classes. People who have money tend to need far more convincing to part with it.

>>5080847
>The Catholics were ambivalent from what I recall with quite a few of them ending up in the camps.
Ambivalent in the face of one of the worst evils.. Of course the Catholics were playing politics first.

>Don't kid yourself. Even with them banning jews from teaching positions Nazi Germany had one of the world's greatest scientific communities, it's why the Americans and Russians kept grabbing them.
I suppose you may be right--still, that's even more proof that your original assertion is completely wrong

>No, it's bad because it gave most people no other choice but to elect the "reactionaries"

Hahaha, this is how they gained power? Good one

>>5080848
That being said, I'd also like to add that I think atheist writings such as these are pretty important. I know that at the start of the book Dawkins cites a study where subjects were asked about possible presidentail candidates that they would vote for. A woman? 90% said yes. Black? Yes. (Well, evidently.) Gay? Most people still say yes. Atheist? Hell no: half the population say nope. Well, clearly there is an issue to be talked about here.

>>5080852
I agree with the last statement; it is, after all, why they have more money

>>5080847
>The Catholics were ambivalent from what I recall with quite a few of them ending up in the camps.

You would think this 'moral force' would be something other than "ambivalent" towards Nazism. But then again they seem pretty ambivalent towards pedophilia and condom use too, so hey.

>>5075262
*Evolutionary biology isn't it?

I do concur however. He's a hack, and he rarely makes legitimately good or defensible points.

>>5075245
Not that I think he's flawless, but if you are looking for atheist manifestos Christopher Hitchens at least has a certain degree of knowledge in the field.

Bill Nye and Neil Degrass Tyson are probably you best bet for intelligent, religiously opposed thought.

>>5080713
>But muh principles.

>>5080861
This is what the so-called "good" Christians don't get. Gods existence is a trivial point, what matters is people actually practice things in the real world because it says so in a book, sans argument. Sure, believe God exists, but don't tell me he's whispering what's true or giving you signs. I've worked with enough schizophrenics in my life to know that being "sure" of a belief means absolutely nothing

>>5080868
>I do concur however. He's a hack, and he rarely makes legitimately good or defensible points.

For example?

>>5075262

His books, in "general," are on biology, they aren't anti-religion -- and if they are, they are so only peripherally, like a lot of other works. You haven't read shit by him, have you?

That last question goes to both of you. It's so painfully clear that you're just parroting shit you've heard or seen a lot. Wouldn't surprise me if one of you dimwits actually go around saying shit like, "Well Dawkuns don't know enuff theology!!!11"

>>5080859
>Hahaha, this is how they gained power?
They gained power because on one hand they had the weak decadents who lost them the last war, on the other hand they had the mostly foreign communists who just tried to violently overthrow their government and then they had the nazis.

>>5080864
>You would think this 'moral force' would be something other than "ambivalent" towards Nazism.
Why would they?
Nazism didn't turn out to be all that bad until the early 30s by contemporary standards and the genocide only started once the war was going on.

>>5080878
>Why would they?

>>5080825
yeah, my bad, tis indeed shit tier form, although I don't think it warrants your (mis)interpretation.

this >>5080869. ultimately, I do believe atheism will win; however, I suspect theistic churches will adapt to deism (the non-interventionist, non-high-maintenance god) and struggle really hard to throw a philosophical veil that would mask it as theism.

>>5080881
Did you keep reading or did your intellect fail you at that point?

>>5080875
Oh, yes, the communists had a lot to do with it. Not "moral decadence"

>>5080883

You don't know anything about nazism.

>>5080885
>the communists had a lot to do with it.
Of course they did. Revolution of 1918-1919. It's why the Nazis pinned the Reichstag fire on the Communists.
>Not "moral decadence"
Moral decadence had a ton to do with it as well. Berlin was famed for being the whorehouse of Europe post-WW1.

>>5080888
I know quite a lot about the politics of the time and people's contemporary views of them, the bits you seem to find hard to grasp.

>>5080873
>for example
He usually attacks a single point (the inability to point to one god and say that god is the only real or true god) and reasons from this point that the rest of the framework is immediately false (Because there must only be one real god, and they're all so different, we must eliminate all but one, so which do we eliminate, and why not eliminate that last one anyway).
^This is a poorly re-explained version of an argument he makes in the god delusion.

>>5080889
Shit, am I forgetting my original point? No matter how "decadent" Germany got, it had no effect on the intellectual culture

>>5080901
>No matter how "decadent" Germany got, it had no effect on the intellectual culture
Well of course. Hedonists have nothing to do with intellectuals as much as they would like to think so.
It had a huge effect on political culture however.

>>5080899
nope, this is a poorly explained version of your misinterpretation of what you calim to have read in Dawkins book, but probably haven't.

>>5080907
Are you kidding?

>>5080904
Maybe so, but you've failed to argue that without god that science ends, which is the point you went full retard on

>>5080910
no pleb, I am not. Dawkins does none of the things you incoherently blurred.

>>5080912
>but you've failed to argue that without god that science ends
I never made that claim to begin with, did your reading comprehension fail you?
I said that the Nazis gained power (partly) because of it, I didn't say anything about science beyond pointing out that the Nazis had one of the best scientific communities around.

>>5080915
Oh, you literally are just saying that nazis came to power because of atheism

That point is so retarded its not even worth addressing

>>5080920
>Oh, you literally are just saying that nazis came to power because of atheism
Nope. I'm saying the Nazis came to power because of moral decadence.
I haven't really made any statements wether it came about because of atheism or simply a disillusionment with formerly Christian mores. (most modern day atheists are very christian in moral outlook for instance)
>That point is so retarded its not even worth addressing
Strawmen generally are.

>>5080932
So then what is your point, were talking about atheism and religion in this thread, and now you're saying you went off on some long tangent to prove a point completely unrelated to the main subject? Even though that's what started this little debate

>Strawmen generally are.
Lying is a good way to save face

>>5080914
In chapter 1, under Polytheism he says something to the effect of: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

I just about instantly found the quote, but I couldn't remember what chapter or page it was from.

>>5080939
>So then what is your point
Answering the tangent you yourself brought up of course. You do remember being the one who started going on about the 1920's, right?
>were talking about atheism and religion in this thread
Which neatly ties in with Kierkegaard, Nietzche and the moronic surprise of modern militant atheists when a rejection of Christianity is followed by a rejection of the Christian moral view.
>and now you're saying you went off on some long tangent to prove a point completely unrelated to the main subject?
>Even though that's what started this little debate
Actually you were the one who started off on that whole tangent.
>Lying is a good way to save face
What would be the point?
Anyone can just read the thread and see you barely being able to follow the discussion while partaking in it.

>>5080944
Chapter 2 rather

>>5080944
It's an aesthetic pun playing on the remaining gods of today's theistic religions, but you already know that since you're on /lit/, right? Even if you take it literally, it in no way equates this >>5080899.

>>5080945
"Rejection of Christian moral view" is meaningless, bro.

>And really "intellectual" atheism based in anything but the German horsefucker's writings is simply laughable.
>They all base their views on christian mores and then get surprised when the rejection of christianity leads to the rejection of those mores in the next generation as well.

This statement is fucking wrong. This doesn't happen. Cited: the highly atheistic and intellectual groups in Prussia and Germany that preceded the same in all of Europe in the 1950s and on. The death of Christianity has done nothing to stop European intellectualism; you're grasping at straws to give Christianity more credit for shit it has no effect on

>>5080945
>Anyone can just read the thread and see you barely being able to follow the discussion while partaking in it.

Look into a mirror

>>5080955
I can't because my eyes aren't real.

>>5076661
>read the fucking bible, (maybe) the most beautiful and influential piece of literature in the human history

>only to find inconsistencies you can quote when debating christfags.

what's wrong with you man?

>>5080962
The book of Job maybe, but most of the bible is boring

>>5080954
>"Rejection of Christian moral view" is meaningless, bro.
Funny, though I doubt you really believe that. Most modern secular people in the west are still fundamentally christian in outlook. Look at the average secular charity and you'll see a whole lot of christian underpinnings that have no real rational basis.
>The death of Christianity has done nothing to stop European intellectualism
Again with the strawmanning. I haven't said a word about European intellectualism but morals. The Nazis were extremely intellectual on many fronts with Mengele being the archetypical example of an immoral intellectual.

>>5080955
Le tripfag arguing.

>>5080953
>It's an aesthetic pun playing on the remaining gods of today's theistic religions, but you already know that since you're on /lit/, right?

Could you be any more of a "passive" aggressive cunt? It's also not a pun, aesthetic or otherwise. It's someone who thinks he's terribly clever saying something that implies he's already achieved intellectual victory over his "opponents". Which is actually what I dislike even more about Richard Dawkins. He has an air of annoyed superiority while in debates, and it saturates his writing. He always talks down. And regardless of whether he's right, or their wrong, it's a shitty and irritating thing to do because it makes other atheists look like ass holes by association.

And regardless of whether or not I've read the book (which I have), it's narrow, yet scattered focus, and condescending tone and attitude, make it an ineffective "consciousness raiser" as well as ineffective literature.

>>5080970
>Look at the average secular charity and you'll see a whole lot of christian underpinnings that have no real rational basis.

This is the sort of view that makes you go full retard. No, Christianity may have articulated views like these, but it's also possible that they are basic human instinct. But you don't consider that in your dogma. Why don't you take another kind of leap and leap on into another thread

>>5080985
>This is the sort of view that makes you go full retard.
No, that would be arguing with tripfags who can't handle a simple discussion thread.
>No, Christianity may have articulated views like these, but it's also possible that they are basic human instinct.
Yeah right. Try finding a society who have a charity interest that are not based in a religious tradition.

>>5080987
Look, simply having Platonist views doesn't make someone's morality based on "Christian mores". The form of good, or "objective goodness" is a tempting idea from people for years back. Dawkins and Harris are fundamentally Platonist, not "Christian". You're simply deeply ignorant on anyone who isn't Kierkegaard

I don't give a shit about charity. Just because religious people donate doesn't mean they have any authority to tell people not to fuck of wear condoms

>>5080965
>but most of the bible is boring
In your opinion.

imho Yes, there are boring parts, but surely they not cover the most of the bible.
And, in my experience, also some parts that i find boring the first time have become interesting when i've re-read them (after have read some theological text).

>>5080983
I take your point about the tone. Frustration with cretins will do that to you in live debates, but he has no excuse for it in TGD, if he intends his book to be effective.

And within that tone, it is a pun. For atheists it is anyway. And yeah, this does imply that he's got it figured out from the start. Pretty much like theism claims a supernatural, interventionist, high-maintenance god created the universe, only he does a better job at substantiating his claims in the next 300 pages. He also accounts for the impossibility of finding proof for god's existence/inexistence.

But I get it, you don't like his tone. 10/10 critique.

>>5081001
"Theological" in the actual study of religion sense, or in the "I want a fancy word to affect a sense that I'm an intellectual authority"

>>5081004
> He also accounts for the present lack of proof* for god's existence/inexistence.

He isn't agnostic, so he never mentions that finding out the truth value of god is impossible.

>>5081013
He's wittegensteinian in language, basically he believes that if a view isn't provable, then it's nonsense, or we should only talk about things that make sense to talk about.

>>5081004
10/10 response. I get why people like him, he's making a lot of almost in-jokes, and a lot of his points are ones that just about every atheist already knows, which he then does a good job of expanding on.

I get the cretins issue (I have a very religious family, who have a lot of religious family friends), but if the book had really been seeking to change hearts and minds it could have been done a lot more tactfully. Not that I really think that tact is going to change the minds of people who most need to be reached, but I don't think it's worth stooping to their level (make assertion > make similar assertion > say the opposing assertion is invalid because assertion = I am correct).

>>5081015
While we shouldn't disregard every un-provable claim, it's also ludicrous to go around acting like every baseless claim is correct simply because there are X number of people who say it is so.

>>5081015
I disagree, that's why I corrected my initial statement. His wittgensteinian in the sense that he dismisses the 'what moral/metaphysical purpose do we/does the universe serve?', as it's a silly question. However is not agnostic; while he accounts for the lack of proof in regards to truth statements about god's existence, he doesn't say that we would never be able to gather that proof. And if a supernatural interventionist high-maintenance god did exist, it would make sense to talk about him, because it would directly affect us.

>>5081024
I think you've misinterpreted that argument, I don't think he's saying "we can gather that evidence in this universe", he's saying "in a universe with a god, that universe would provide evidence"

>>5081023
But that's the thing. Listen to Dennett talk on the religion topic. He tried very hard to not offend religious people, and ultimately he couldn't, because you could never get to the point without it happening

Religious people want to create a space where they can feel their beliefs are tolerable. Rational arguments aren't going to convince the entrenched

>>5081030
hmmm, b-b-but that would mean he's agnostic and that's simply wrong. there's no way of knowing if we can gather that sort of evidence or not. will have to skim through his pages once more, although I'd hate to find that he's in fact agnostic.

>>5081035
I think the biggest issue with religious debate is that it's not an opinion for religious people, it's everything. And while it's more than possible to debate important non-opinion issues, it's impossible to have a serious and rational discussion with someone about something so central to their perception of their existence.
Kind of like having a debate with someone about whether or not words exist.

>>5081010
No, It's just that I'm not a native english speaker. I'm not able to use all shades of english.
Away from wanting to be arrogant, i just want to say that for find interesting some "boring part" you maybe need to read the thoughts of some theologian

>>5081060
>"away from wanting [...]"
Eastern European? Starting from Hungary and going east? I know this is not /soc/, just trying to test my inter-linguistic capabilities.

>>5081065
Italy

>"away from wanting to be[...]"
>"lontano dal voler essere[...]"

>>5081036
What? That's not agnostic, he's saying you can only believe with evidence

>>5081067
got some Romanian roots, so that's why the assumption. which makes sense, as the 2 are related and share idioms and a similar synatx.

>>5081070
fair enough. I rushed to assume that
>I don't think he's saying "we can gather that evidence in this universe", he's saying "in a universe with a god, that universe would provide evidence"
implies "we can't gather evidence in this universe", but it doesn't.

Anyway, if he is wittgensteinian in the sense that you mentioned (i.e.: he believes that pondering on god's existence is silly, because it has no bearing on our universe), then in the absence of agnosticism I feel that his position would be even more illogical; since he knows of the lack of proof for god's existence, he knows that a theistic god is possible, regardless of how little mathematical probability supports this. ergo, if a *theistic* god does exist, it is worthy to talk about it as he has a direct influence upon us.

>>5080707
He doesn't say "You should be good."

He notes that people, even most Christians, have a set of morals that is not really informed by or dependent on the Bible (evidenced both by the moral behavior of nonbelievers and the way most believers cherry pick their Scripture to comport with their morals at least to some degree). Ergo wherever morals do come from, they don't come from this particular book. And the people who claim they'd become immoral monsters if they stopped believing are the oddballs, and are either psychotic, lying, or mistaken.

He is disliked because he comes off as a bully. He's beating a dead horse right now, religion is already dead and has been for decades. People have past christian morality, taking only the logical/appliable parts of it. The rest is outdated and frankly laughable. I tell you this: outside the US, the third world countries and some seriously disturbed people, nobody takes christian morality seriously when it comes to sexuality, for instance. Everybody is fucking and having fun, and no one gives a shit what some pedo says in the name of some kike about it. Christian morality has survived partially and conditionally because it was made out values already present in the pagan Roman Empire and others before (probably inherent to the success of a society), and some of the rituals survive out of tradition in some places, but christianism as a religion and ideology is dead as it can be. The correlation between religiousness and poverty is so real it's not even funny anymore.

In that sense, Dawkins seems to be preaching to choir (no pun intended). I remember that my reaction when I finished the book was: "well DUH". I guess in the US you guys have a distorted vision of these matters, with fundie presidents declaring holy wars and all that, but it shall pass too. No need for cheap atheistic preaching, it's only natural.

>>5080746
No, he doesn't. He doesn't bother to talk about 'the same moral tenets as christianity' because he flat doesn't get that bit; he thinks they're universal essentials.

>>5080740
They weren't identified as morality, is the point, you fucking mouth-breather. Vengeance-behaviours are observed in animals, and a whole host of other, and were it that we lived in a society that still valued vengeance, I might be talking to another uppity retard anon who was instead saying, 'animals seek revenge; therefore revenge is universally moral'. God, drown yourself.

>>5075245
>After finishing pic related I was impressed by the concise style and the logical arguments Dawkins presents. His book is well written and informative.


Are you even trying op? Then again, this thread does have 180+ replies...

>>5081330
*other behaviours

>>5081330
You fail to make any point whatsoever, you angry little child. It doesn't matter how those behaviours are described, they are present in the animal kingdom, and hence not decreed by the Bible alone. While these behaviours are more complex in humans they are essentially instinctual ones.

>>5081036
>>5081070

He calls himself a tooth fairy agnostic.

>>5080987

>Try finding a society who have a charity interest that are not based in a religious tradition.

If their was an entirely irreligious society that had survived since the dawn of civilisation this might be a point worth exploring, but since there are no societies that do not have histories steeped in religious belief, it is rendered moot.

>>5081330
Capital punishment is not justice but petty revenge so yes, the US does value it.

>>5081408
>they are present in the animal kingdom, and hence not decreed by the Bible alone
You're bending your concepts to make them match here. No one's arguing that the Bible signaled the origination of these behaviours; only that Judaism and Christianity were, for at least the relevant regions, largely the originators of the idea that these behaviours constituted a moral good, whether empathy and empathy-based activity existed beforehand or not. And it is unarguable - also - that these institutions, by their prioritization of them, encouraged and increased the frequency of these behaviours.

>>5075245

Dawkins is a pop author whose expertise on philosophy and theology is nigh zero.

None of the arguments put forward in this book are worth anything. Dawkins assumes the average Christian to be your average Texan fundamentalist who believes in Creationism.

This is a gross misunderstanding of what Christians in general believe in.

You've wasted your time.

> atheist literature

Pic related

Atheism is the worst because it doesn't have any beliefs. They just hate and deny others beliefs. Atheism has no positivity to it and humans are not sustainable without god. Whether or not you believe in religion is moot but to deny god is nihilistic. To deny that god doesnt exist in some way is delusional.

>>5081665
>implying spirituality is inherently theist
Also your sequiturs are weird and you should maybe talk to a psychosis specialist.

>>5081665
You're treating atheism like feminism though. You're allowing your perception of the belief to be clouded by the loud minority.

As for atheist literature I think a good start would be "The Necessity of Atheism" by Percy Bysshe Shelley.

>>5081681
We are all spiritual.

>dat ad hominem

>>5081683
> implying the quiet ones don't follow the loud ones

I've been an Atheist and dated Feminists. In general they are both shit. I have never met a femcunt that wasn't a slut. I have never met an Atheist that wasn't a drug addict

>>5081687
I don't mean it as an ad hominem; I'm being quite serious. If this >>5081701 is the same anon, then I'd recommend he see a counselor about trialing some antipsychotics.

>>5081701
I feel sorry for you anon. I know feminists who I argue with and they have conceded things and I have conceded things regarding our respective beliefs. I also despise drugs (I don't even drink drinks that have caffeine in them) so I can say I fall out of that category. I don't believe that being an atheist means you get to be a total shit though.

>>5075564
Because it's long and boring as fuck and most of the important parts are common knowledge anyway. So basically, the same reason most Christians don't read the Bible.

>>5075783
Paine who? Thomas Paine? He was a deist.

>>5081716
> not an ad hominem
grow up

>>5081721
Even today I talked with a feminist and she walked away because I was a "pull yourself by the boots" type of guy. Is it wrong that I am a positive male that wants people to work hard and get good values?

Feminism is based off victim mentality and blaming others. I've seen feminists fake attacks and exaggerate what happens just to fit in. My perspective on feminism and Atheism is from real life not tumblr

>>5081743
As have my experiences anon. I understand that there is extremism on both ends, but I believe you just are in an environment where people believe that they are infallible (then again I suppose that is most of the people on earth) and ignorant.

I haven't met you in real life obviously but do you think it's possible that you just come across to harshly for them which makes them feel that they need to defend themselves all the more and victimize you/other men/other religious people to protect themselves?

>CAPTCHA: atheism produced

>>5080970
>Look at the average secular charity and you'll see a whole lot of christian underpinnings that have no real rational basis.
>christian underpinnings
>no real rational basis
Can't argue with that.

>>5081759
Maybe nowadays but when I dabbled with feminists I was passive. I know intricies of their mind that most people don't. Their mentality is based of their own insecurity rather than reality and the obsession with mundane social standards. They are closed minded as fuck and just like all women when you say something you don't like here comes ad hominems and passive aggression.


Nowadays yeah I'm an asshole because I'm fed up with their inherent negativity and selfishness.

>Do you know similar books by other authors?
You will probably be interested in work by Sam Harris and perhaps also Daniel Dennet

>Also feel free to post your opinions on Dawkins' book
not a fan

>>5081645
>Dawkins assumes the average Christian to be your average Texan fundamentalist who believes in Creationism.

His target audience is pretty much liberal theists who have never really thought deeply or at all about what they believe and are mostly just going with the flow. Where do dumbasses get this idea that he thinks every Christian is a creationist?

>>5081784
Seek help

>>5081639
The one dude at the start of that chain said
>it is wholly dependent on Christianity

>>5081784
This.
>mfw #yesallwomen was supposedly about women sharing their shocking examples of how they personally have been oppressed and abused
>mfw all I saw was a bunch of whiny bitches making vague complaints about mostly reasonable social norms or even about nothing at all.

>>5080708
Tell that to Elliot Rodgers.
Also, stop being a faggot. You know damn well that there is still a risk involved and that there is no practical reason to kill random people except the fact that you just get off on it, in which case the wise thing to do is to seek psychological help.

>>5080735
NIGGA, I THOUGHT YOU WAS OUT?

>>5081828
While 'wholly' might have been hyperbolical, the position was still that charity AS morality was originally Christian (/Judaic).

>>5081840
this is basically what most feminists do. I've gone on tumblr "I need feminism" blogs, where most of the posts say (with varying word choice) "I need feminism because a man complimented me on my appearance and this is bad and disgusting"

>A wise anon once wrote: 'scientists are like peasants strapped to giant calculators'

Yeah? well another wise anon said that this analogy is like your mum's vagina: I'm about to destroy it

>>5082822
in reply to
>>5080675

>>5082679
I cannot imagine how much patheticism it takes to cry about feminism on the internet all day long. The virgins from /pol/reddit have truly surpassed weeaboos in terms of neckbearding.

There is nothing to talk about with atheism.

People who don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster don't discuss diatribes on how the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

"Atheists" in this thread are obsessed with religion and are still defined by it.

ha ha

>>5075806
this
atheists are kind of modern fanatics who want you to believe that god doesn't exist
i wouldn't be surprised if they made a church of god nonexistence with prayers like 'our father non existing in heaven'
wait, they actually made a church of spaghetti monster