[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 7 KB, 300x289, hitchens.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1052910 No.1052910 [Reply] [Original]

Going to library
Going to check out either the god delusion by dawkins or god is not great by hitchens
Which one is the least pretentious/most convincing

(I'm a theist so It's not intellectual masturbation i promise)

>> No.1052919

>Which one is the least pretentious/most convincing
Are you serious?

>> No.1052916

The God Delusion

>> No.1052930

>least pretentious between Dawkins and Hitches
>ohfuck.jpg

>> No.1052932

By all accounts, God Delusion is fucking terrible unless you're some puerile militant atheist.

I haven't heard anything about God is Not Great.

>> No.1052933

>>1052919
I know they are both extremely pretentious
answer the question

>> No.1052972
File: 42 KB, 400x488, groucho-marx1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1052972

WAIT wait, what the purpose of this?

>> No.1052983

FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>> No.1053003

>Which one is the least pretentious/most convincing

Kill yourself.

>> No.1053010
File: 11 KB, 173x298, mishima.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1053010

>>1052910

I'd go with the Hitchens book, OP. Dawkins is as shrill and as pompous a douchebag as one could ever dream. Hitchens actually provokes you to think at times, though his arguments are based on some flimsy pretexts at times (Dawkins, too).

Hitchens' other writings are excellent, however. As a political commentator, he has very few peers. i treasure his articles in Standpoint.

By the way, I'm Catholic.

>> No.1053021

the least pretentious and most convincing would be something like sagan, he is humble, and makes you think for yourself. e.g.

sagan would say something like

>if the universe had to be created, and god was the creator, then how can god exist without being created. why not just remove god and say that the universe has always existed?

hitchens translations

>FUCKING PRICKS GOD DOESNT EXIST FUCK YOU ASSHOLES

>> No.1053028
File: 39 KB, 445x599, jesusface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1053028

>> No.1053037

I'm an atheist and I gave up on The God Delusion halfway through. I'm not even trolling and I don't care how many PhDs Dawkins may have, it was just unconvincing and badly written.

>> No.1053051

Also, the introduction and the blurb stated that Dawkins would strictly use scientific arguments and reason to prove that God does not exist, but all I actually got was 'X's beliefs are ridiculous (going even as far as to mention the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster), so God must probably not exist' EVERY GODDAMN CHAPTER

>> No.1053061

If an atheist attempts to prove that God doesn't exist he's already ceded the empirical ground in the argument by accepting the challenge to prove a negative.

>> No.1053071

Hitches is just a fun guy to listen to because he's such a fucking prick.

>> No.1053166

>>1053071
+1

>> No.1053435

Whichever you choose, it would be wise not to do as most religionists do and close your mind to all criticism and resort to Orwellian doublespeak.

E.g.:
>Religion makes one a slave to a tyrant
"No way, I find freedom in Jesus!"
>Religion is sexually oppressive
"Abstinence and marital sex is sexually liberating from lust and disease and so on!"

Almost every critique of the two aforementioned authors is that they don't understand religion. En contraire, it is the religionists who don't understand what words mean.

Of course, those two aren't the best for inducing doubt or questions for the faithful; they're better for those on the fence. These might just get you mad.

>> No.1053444
File: 280 KB, 1600x900, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1053444

>>1052932
God Delusion is fucking terrible unless you're some puerile militant atheist.
Could you explain? I'm an atheist, and I've listened to Dawkins on YouTube. I never really felt much need to pick up his book. On YouTube, he seems... not too much like what you've described.

>> No.1053463

They're both good. Dawkins takes religion by the balls a bit more, but don't cast that book aside. He devotes an entire chapter, for example, to St. Thomas Aquinas. Both are interesting books, but they won't be to much affect unless you're not sure of your beliefs. A religious person will find it easy to scoff at their ideas, and an atheist will have his/her beliefs affirmed by smart men.