[ 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: 19 KB, 220x335, 220px-The_God_Delusion_UK.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11829553 No.11829553 [Reply] [Original]

Is this worth reading?

If not, is there any good atheist literature you'd recommend?

>> No.11829830

Bump

>> No.11829837

>>11829553
>Is this worth reading?

NO.

>If not, is there any good atheist literature you'd recommend?

THERE IS NO GOOD ATHEISTIC LITERATURE AT ALL.

>> No.11829854

Honestly no. He straw mans Thomas Aquinas at the beginning of the book. He is terrible at philosophy.

>> No.11829872

>>11829854
>He straw mans Thomas Aquinas
Oh no no no no!
What does he say? I've never read the book and never will but now you've got me morbidly curious about The Metaphysics Of Richard Dawkins

>> No.11829952

>>11829553
First four chapters are a good logical breakdown of all thr major arguments for the existence of God, and why they make no logical sense. Chapters 5 onwards are fucking awful. There's a reason that Politically-illiterate Biologists usually write books on Biology, and not politics, and this book is a pretty clear example of that.

>> No.11829957

He's a decent theorizer but he is completly ignorant when it comes to philosophy, even worse than Harris

>> No.11830023
File: 131 KB, 600x400, silenceofanimals.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11830023

>>11829553
The New Atheists are not terribly interesting. There's nothing there that wasn't already covered by the 19th Century Positivists.
John Gray is a contemporary atheistic writer worth reading. I disagree with him, but he's highly original and thought-provoking. Start with Straw Dogs. Pic related is good, as well.
t. Catholic

>> No.11830028

>>11829553
It's an account of what hyperstition appears as to NPCs

>> No.11830037

>>11829553
What do you mean by atheist literature? This is anti-theist not atheist.

>> No.11830045

>>11829553
Atheist literature is like Nietzsche.
>>11830037 is right, this is anti-theist not atheist.

>> No.11830072

>>11829872
He argues against arguments different from what Aquinas presented. For example, Dawkins represents the unmoved mover as if it implies that the universe had a beginning, which Aquinas explicitly rejects.

>> No.11830083

>>11829553
I used to be an atheist but then I memed myself into believing in God and now the New Atheists seem to me like nothing more than insufferable cunts.

>> No.11830112

>>11830072
>Aquinas
didn't know atoms, electrons, galaxies, relativity, em radiation, cells, molecules etc
but believed in fairy tale characters

>> No.11830119

>>11830112
Can you be specific about how those findings undermine his arguments?

>> No.11830161

>>11830112
>how can old god man be right if uhhhh SCIENCE an sheeit

>> No.11830179

>>11829854
>He straw mans Thomas Aquinas
he straw mans the whole goddamn christian faith.
Dawkins really took advantage of the New Athiest following's unfamiliarity with the bible and its history

>> No.11830192

>>11830112
I'd like you to go through, in explicit detail, your understanding of all of those terms, their application to reality, and how any of this relates to ontology.

>> No.11830194

>>11829872
The straw man is comes from Thomas Aquinas' Five Proofs of God. In this passage he's explainig the fifth proof for God.

Aquinas says:
"The fifth way is taken from the governance of things. For we see some things lack knowledge, namely natural bodies, act for the sake of some end. This is apparent from the fact that they always or most often act in the same way so as to attain what is best. From this it is obvious that they achieve their end not by chance but by intention. But those things that lack knowledge do not tend toward an end except under the direction of something with knowledge and intelligence, as in the case of an arrow from an archer. Therefore there is some intelligent being by whom all natural things are ordered to an end, and this we call God."

Dawkins says:
"Things in the world, especially living things, look as though they are designed. Nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed. Therefore there must have been a designer, and we call him God. Aquinas himself used the analogy of an arrow moving towards a target, but a modern heat seeking- anti-aircraft missile would have suited his purposes better (103)."

Dawkins goes on to explain that "Thanks to Darwin, it is no longer true to say that nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed." He uses evolution to argue against an intellectual designer of life.

I think Aquinas is trying to understand how exactly life came to be in the first place. Dawkins says evolution explains it, but it's not getting to the root of the problem that Aquinas is addressing.

>> No.11830256

>>11830194
Talk about sophism.

>> No.11830301

We've already had this discussion twice, with hundreds of replies. Stop making this bait thread.
>>/lit/thread/11714287
>>/lit/thread/11497255

>> No.11830305

>>11829837
>THERE IS NO GOOD ATHEISTIC LITERATURE AT ALL
Nietzsche.

>> No.11830330

>>11830305
>Nietzsche was an atheist

Yikes!

>> No.11830343

>>11830305
>>11830330
>Nietzsche is good literature
yieks indead

>> No.11830376

>>11830256
Yes. He does this sort of thing to the other arguments as well.

>> No.11830427

>>11830301
I love how you can tell it's the same poster every time. /thread

>> No.11830588

>>11829553
Atheism is a complete waste of time.

>> No.11831849

>>11830588
just like you