/lit/ - Literature

>>6412385
Le God Delusion

>>6412390
I heard it's full of arguments that everyone has heard already, is this true?

>>6412394
pretty much, christposters love to shitpost about it day in and day out

you could try feuerbach, stirner, nietzsche, marx, basically all german philosophy post-hegel is atheist in nature.

>>6412385

What do you mean by atheist literature?
Like atheistic philosophy of religion?

>>6412394
Nope. It is a groundbreaking work full of novel ideas that completely exposes the idiocy of believing in a magical sky daddy. How anyone can still believe a bunch of bronze age desert myths in the post-Dawkins age is proof that most people lack any kind of intellect and are nothing more than retarded sheep.

>>6412410
Probably the majority of literature. Most of it is unconcerned with god.

>>6412413
>christposting this hard

*tips fedora*

>>6412410
No, I want literature that argues for atheism
No Sam Harris or Dawkins please
>>6412390
>>6412413
I'm pretty sure this is just an atheist false flagging at this point, if not please stop.

>>6412420

Yeah but that's too broad a category.

>>6412403
>you could try feuerbach, stirner, nietzsche, marx, basically all german philosophy post-hegel is atheist in nature.

>>6412426
>No, I want literature that argues for atheism
feuerbach is basically your canon for atheist/humanist arguments

>>6412385

Hitchens is the only atheist author I can stand.

>>6412425

;^)

>>6412426

>No, I want literature that argues for atheism

Yes, that's what I said.
What is your level of familiarity with philosophy?

>>6412430

Feuerbach died almost 150 years ago. Maybe it's a little bit outdated, don't you think?

>>6412432

>>6412438
Not really, a huge amount of arguments and politics are based on Feuerbach and Marx

Also you could try reading about Thomas Jefferson and his ideas on politics and the faith, or Benjamin Franklin

>>6412438
>Feuerbach died almost 150 years ago. Maybe it's a little bit outdated, don't you think?

>>6412426

Albert Camus might be what you're looking for. The Stranger is a good starting place and you can finish it quick.

>>6412443

>a huge amount of arguments and politics are based on Feuerbach and Marx


Maybe among continentals.

Jean Meslier's Testament
"I would like the last of the kings to be strangled by the guts of the last priest"

>>6412447


Yes, old arguments actually get better with time and new arguments get produced.
This is plebeian, somehow.

>>6412450
that's why i gave you a good, nice liberal, thomas jefferson to refer to.

>>6412457

And he died almost 200 years ago.
I mean, I was probably going to complain if someone proposed to OP "the miracle of theism" by Mackie and that's only 30 years old, half his objections are no longer considered good.

There's nothing to argue for. Any arguments would focus on something practical. They would argue against various aspects of christianity, islam, etc.

>>6412464
Why do people read Plato and practice Newtonian physics then?

Charles Taylor

>>6412438
Darwin died almost 150 years ago. Maybe it's a little bit outdated, don't you think?

>>6412473

Plato is mostly read for historical purposes and as a solid text for explaining Platonism, and newtonian physics are practiced for simplicity sake. However if someone were to ask him some physics textbook, I wouldn't propose to him the writings of Newton or Galileo


>>6412484

It is, that's why if you take a course on evolutionary biology you don't spend a lot of time on the original darwinian theory, what you're going to study is Neodarwinism.


>>6412385


Anyway OP, if you won't tell me what level of familiarity you have with philosophy, I'll just give you an entry level suggestion.
Read The cambridge companion to atheism, some articles in there are really good, some less but it's overall a nice text to start from.

>>6412487
>Plato is mostly read for historical purposes and as a solid text for explaining Platonism, and newtonian physics are practiced for simplicity sake. However if someone were to ask him some physics textbook, I wouldn't propose to him the writings of Newton or Galileo

I think you need to read Hegel on history and rethink your logical processes

>>6412495

>I think you need to read Hegel on history

I don't think so at all, the only ones who think Hegel is still so important are continentals, and I don't care one bit for continetal philosophy.

>>6412503
>I don't think so at all, the only ones who think Hegel is still so important are continentals, and I don't care one bit for continetal philosophy.
Okay well you can do whatever you want, and what you believe is seriously retarded, but I don't care. You asked for advice and I gave it, do what you want.

>>6412508

I'm not OP, and the fact that you don't realize it despite me explicitely referring to OP as another person in one of my posts shows who of the two of us is the retarded one.

But sure, go ahead, next time someone asks me for some text on greek history I'll suggest thucydides because since he's old, he must be a good historian.

>>6412519

Or maybe I'll suggest a modern historian who can put together more sources, justify their use and include archeological data.

But that would be crazy.

>>6412519
I never called you OP, retard.

Try the Revolt of the Angels by Anatole France

>>6412526

You said that I asked for advice, retard, which I never did.
The one who asked for advice is OP

You should check out the Little Red Book.

>>6412385
lel, doesn't exist. I had the displeasure of reading a little bit of Richard Dawkins. His arguments and and the stuff he decides to go off on tangents about are just fucked out. He has no idea how to write, should have hired a ghost writer.
>>6412403
this is philosophy, not work explicitly in athemism

>>6412385
Has anyone said the bible yet?

Faith has always be responsible for the greatest works in the arts.

Try to cope with it you bourgeois swine.

Faith has always been responsible for the greatest works in the arts.

Try to cope with it you bourgeois swine.

>>6414662

>>6414498
>this is philosophy, not work explicitly in athemism
feuerbach is basically an atheist philosopher

>>6414668

Truth hurts, anon.

Try to cope.

>>6412426
>I want literature that argues for atheism

You don't need to argue for atheism, you only need to point out the complete lack of evidence for theism.

>>6414734

>metaphysical statements are qualified by 'evidence'

yikes

The Bible. You can expand your horizons by looking past your presuppositions and have a unique take on the work from a non-religious perspective.

>>6412449
There's no philosophy present in the Stranger. It's just poorly formed, shit writing that expresses self contradictory viewpoints.
Having that convince you to be an atheist is like having "Heaven is for Real" convince you to be a christian.

>>6412403

Nietzsche was anti-Christian, but his epistemology was wacky enough that Dionysus was probably more "real" to him than most things.

David Hume is the best Atheist Philosopher I can think of.

Also Betrand Russell " Why I'm not a Christian" might be good, though he is real hit or miss. His history of Philosophy is embarrassing save the part about Leibniz.

>>6414734
You don't need to argue for theism, you only need to point out the complete lack of evidence for atheism.

>>6414738
>believing in the world of the un-world

The Unique doesn't have un-world, son.

>>6412385
"God in the Age of Science?: A Critique of Religious Reason" by Herman Philipse is the ultimate guidebook for atheism.
While not exactly atheist per se, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper is a to-go read for dealing with any unfalsifiable hypothesis such as God.
If you need something academic then go with "The Cambridge Companion to Atheism" by Michael Martin.

>>6412438
>Feuerbach died almost 150 years ago. Maybe it's a little bit outdated, don't you think?

It's like saying
>Jesus died almost 2000 years ago. Maybe yhe gospels are a little bit outdated, don't you think?

Don't fail on double standards anon.

>>6412385
Epicurus (through Lucretius), David Hume, Feuerbach and Bertrand Russel.

The trick is to go for atheists that aren't accused of being fedora.

Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Non-theological, non-fedoric analysis by an atheist who knew what he was talking about.

It is interesting to compare the trends of the "patriarchy opinions" and "pleb opinions." Every man worships, whether its Darwin or Jesus.

All day you bitches brew, take a chance and just ascend the good-bad dichotomy

>>6412430
Feuerbach is obsessed with the Christian religion and will probably be extremely popular with real life christfags since you need to earnestly care about being Ned Flanders to eat up all of his arguments for going into activism and politics INSTEAD or for his discussion of the different native tribes and their feel-good theologies.
If our christfags are divinities students actually and not just trolls I would suggest them Feuerbach MORE than swift, spinoza and the modernists because what Feuerbach says resembles very much the doubts that might arise in some of your naggy parishioners who, naturally, don't read anything at all. But he is more articular and might improve your own apologetics skills.

>>6415585
Why the hell would you worship Darwin, though? Do people worship Newton, Lavoisier and Einstein too?

>>6415683
Yes

Is it America time? I'm sure we had some sensible posters from Europe as well. Or is it trolls? To murrkans what can I suggest?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/twain/letearth.htm
http://www.online-literature.com/london/children-of-the-frost/4/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1895/monist/index.htm
>>6412451
>Jean Meslier's Testament
I second this; however it is way too large since it is basically a collection of all his sermons ought to be understood by peasantry it is amusing but it's not so deep. Which sermon did you like in particular?
And why not go for Historical Materialism? I believe it is more
>>6415002
>David Hume is the best Atheist Philosopher I can think of.
why?
>Betrand Russell
He's getting dropped here a lot I see but he's the very definition of Fedora. He misconstrues arguments first and then proceeds to rape them all while gloating about how he is "rational" and they are not. Suggest only if you are a regular poster on /r/atheism. If you wanna be ration go full Baroque and reading effing Bacon.
>>6415438
>Lucretius
I second this. How can piety be good if it demands you slaughter Iphigenia? He should be forced on all the faggots who think of Kierkegaard as of the pinnacle of European thought.
>>6415683
It's an American thing. Look into H.L.Mencken and the Monkey trial.

>>6415426

What double standards?
Feuerbach is outdated because he can not have responded to any arguments against atheism or for theism made after him. And a lot of those were produced over time.

Christ never really made arguments, he went around preaching things as if they were clear facts without giving much justification for them.

>>6412385
daniel dennett

>>6415730
>why?
david hume is some top tier shit, you should read him no matter what

>>6412484
It really, really is though.

>>6412487
>newtonian physics are practiced for simplicity sake
I can't even begin to explain just how utterly wrong you are.

>>6414731
Pollock and Kadinsky had nothing to do with religion though.

"A universe from nothing" if you are willing to consider it as such.

>>6415931
>Pollock and Kadinsky
>greatest works in the arts.

>>6415972
Please don't be one of those autist who thinks classical shit was in any way better than modern art except in perhaps sculpture.

>>6415977
>autist

>>6412519
Well Thucydides is good historian imo, although hes more of a chronicler in a sense. Being old doesnt mean bad, have you ever read Collingwood, you're analytic so I would think so? He argues that to understand a text, you have to conclude from it the question hes answering. Youll find that most classics are pretty damn good at answering.

>>6415994
That one may be good for rennaisance shit but it will never ever beat a Pollock.

>>6415997

>>6415994
>it's Christian-themed art, therefore whoever made it was Christian

Iain M Banks's militant atheism comes through in a lot of his books, culture or otherwise.

There's a good short story in state of the art which is framed as a letter being written by an atheist complaining about how he has to put up with harassment from religious fucks. It's cut off suddenly, and the letter is revealed to have been recovered from the wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103, destroyed by Libyan terrorists.

There's also that cannibal scene in Consider Phlebas It's symbolism is pretty naked.

>>6415002
>David Hume is the best Atheist Philosopher I can think of.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't even an atheist. Wasn't he a deist?

>>6415572
>Asimov
>knew what he was talking about

>>6415931
Kandinsky was heavily influenced by Theosophy and Russian Orthodoxy, he titled his book 'On the Spiritual in Art' for a reason.

>>6417348

That would be odd since he rejected all of the three main arguments for God's existence ( and these are for a God in general, not just a Christian one). He also had his works published posthumously so he could avoid controversy, presumably with the Christians he lived around.

>>6417368
>That would be odd since he rejected all of the three main arguments for God's existence
You realize there are many more than three arguments for God's existence, right? Christian or not, I don't remember anything he said indicating atheism. Like I said, I could be wrong, but this certainly doesn't show he was an atheist. I've met devout Christians who reject the "main" three arguments.

>>6416704
You know what that is and who painted it, right? That he was a devout Catholic?

>>6415776
This is a circular argument.

>>6417368
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/#WasHumAth

Hume offers a solid case against the Christian miracles, as well as one against a prime mover. I don't know if he himself was an atheist, but his arguments are among the best for atheism.