/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13423595]

Why is there no good atheist literature?

[Anonymous No.13423602]

Because atheists are consumed by the desire to mock things that are good.

[Anonymous No.13423624]

>>13423595
Atheism is the least intellectually rigorous and most midwit-tier position to take on theology, 400 years ago they'd be the unthinking laity believing everything they're told at face value without offering any actual opinions or thoughts on it.
It's the equivalent of watching two people discuss some ancient historical person and his historical implications only to suddenly going 'well they're all dead anyway so who cares?'

[Anonymous No.13423626]

>>13423595
Joyce, retard

[Anonymous No.13423642]

>>13423595
Because just like their empty beliefs, they've accomplished nothing and never will.

[Anonymous No.13423646]

>>13423626
This. Suck on it, OP!

>>13423624
You too, faggot.

[Anonymous No.13423752]

>>13423602
>>13423624
fp&spbp
>>13423626
he said good tho

[Anonymous No.13424774]

>>13423626
>there's an atheist in the novel therefore it is an atheist book
atheists 1x0 religious retards

[Anonymous No.13424781]

[Anonymous No.13424787]

>>13423595

Atheists are generally sub-70 IQ

[Anonymous No.13424791]

>>13423624
>where's the evidence?
>"You guys are just midwits! Stop asking for evidence!!!1!"
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.13424800]

>>13424787
>A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from −.20 to −.25 (mean r = −.24).
OH NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.13424810]

>>13423624
>least intellectually rigorous and most midwit-tier position
Dunno if that works. Atheists are intellectual enough to question just not enough to look for answers, hence midwit.

[Anonymous No.13424817]

>>13424800
Source?

[Anonymous No.13424820]

>>13424817
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1088868313497266?journalCode=psra

[Anonymous No.13424833]

>>13424820
>>13424800

> t. Sub-70 IQ atheist copy and pasting the abstract of a study they haven't read

[Anonymous No.13424836]

>>13424833
>not responding to the study but instead saying the person who posted it hasnt read it
Big brain theist incoming

[Anonymous No.13424840]

>70-100 iq
Believes in god
>100-130 iq
Doesn’t believe in god
>130+
Believes in religion
>160+
Believes in god with esoteric influences from all religions as well as science fiction and video games

[Anonymous No.13424852]

>>13424836

Sorry buddy, I won't be paying $36 to (((Miron Zuckerman))) to read his study

[Anonymous No.13424870]

>>13424800
>>13424820
>>13424836
>atheists cope via appeal to authority

[Anonymous No.13424874]

>>13424852
>Sure, all of the religious figures I follow are descendant from jews, and sure my religion was invented by and for jews in the middle of the desert, but no, of course I would not agree with this study, don't you see his name is ((Zuckerman))?
But let me guest, you're a taoist right? Lol

[Anonymous No.13424877]

>>13424870
>posting a study is an appeal to authority
>still not responding to the study because it proves him wrong
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.13424882]

Because everything is belief.

[Anonymous No.13424887]

>>13424877
Did you know that religious Jews have higher IQs than atheists?

[Anonymous No.13424893]

atheists usually are people smart enough to question religion/god but too dumb and arrogant to honestly read about this matter with open heart and mind.

[Anonymous No.13424894]

>>13424840
>200+
Pantheist

[Anonymous No.13424897]

>>13424791
>evidence

[Anonymous No.13424900]

>>13424887
Their religion encourages intellectual curiosity

[Anonymous No.13424906]

>>13424887
Because Judaism is predominantly not just a race, but also a religious system. I'm more than willing to concede that jews are more intelligent if you concede that your original statement was erroneous, IE: >atheists are generally sub 70 IQ, especially considering your own graph shows otherwise.

[Anonymous No.13424913]

>>13424897
>desert book is evidence
>"the universe definitely needs a first cause to exist... source? My ass."
>we can't think of something greater than god so he's real! And it's the christian one!
Am I missing any chief?

[Anonymous No.13424921]

>>13423595
because any "good atheist literature" someone posts itt you will just say is bad.
also atheism has not been popular in literate nations for as long as religion.

[Anonymous No.13424999]

>>13424893
Yes, atheism is peak midwittery. Actual intelligent people tend to believe in religion, because they've actually studied it as philosophy, history or ethics (theology), they may not even necessarily believe in God, or be something like a deist, but they have to understand a great deal in order to discuss and debate it and recognise its importance to civilisation and human development.
All you need to be an Atheist is le God Delusion and a bunch of Redditors to pat you on the back for your "bravery" and 110 IQ intellect.
Case in point: >>13424913
t. 141 IQ cultural Christian

[Anonymous No.13425020]

>>13424999
>Actual intelligent people tend to believe in religion, because they've actually studied it as philosophy, history or ethics
>ll you need to be an Atheist is le God Delusion and a bunch of Redditors to pat you on the back for your "bravery" and 110 IQ intellect.
Sounds a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, doesnt it?
>case in point
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.13425032]

>>13424999
Trips of truth.

[Anonymous No.13425436]

>>13424800
You realize that correlation is practically random and would get you laughed out of any real discipline, right?

[Anonymous No.13425446]

>>13423595
Because they are unrepentant idolaters.

[Anonymous No.13425463]

>>13425436
Based Taleb poster

[Anonymous No.13425488]

>Vonnegut
>Orwell
>Camus
>Nabokov (agnostic, but close enough)
>Virginia Woolf
>Anton Chekhov
>Kafka
>Borges (agnostic)
>Joyce
You're just objectively wrong.

[Anonymous No.13425489]

>>13423595
To all the Christians airing out their grievances in this thread:

Do your absolute best to save your religion from the erosion it has seen since the Enlightenment. I guarantee you it will make no difference at all. Christianity, like the Hellenism it replaced or the Paganism it killed off (which has ironically started a resurgence while Christianity heads the opposite way), will be nothing more than an antiquated belief-system studied in the history books of future. I'm not saying this with scorn, but in a factual manner. If your religion could stand on it's own two feet, the Enlightenment would not have occurred in the first place, or at the least would not have dealt a blow still in effect 250 years later, being able to combat it's detractors intellectually (not physically, as your religion handled any opposition for the majority of it's history) and thereby restore itself to grace. Buddhism has suffered no similar loss within the modern period, for reasons of possessing an internal coherency which the Abrahamic religions do not.

The future culture of the West will possibly be spiritual, believing in a Divine of some kind - but it won't be Abrahamic, that's for sure.

[Anonymous No.13425501]

>>13425489
> it's
Learn the difference between "its" and "it's", before giving your world-shaking advice on religion, hombre.

[Anonymous No.13425502]

>>13425436
>negative correlation
>random
What did you mean by this, anon?

[Anonymous No.13425505]

>>13425501
>haha, there's a typo
Based Christian "argumentation"

[Anonymous No.13425629]

>>13424894
>Above 200
Believes in purely formal categories which constitute experience.

[Anonymous No.13425645]

>>13425505
Thanks for coming to my aid, anon. I feel as if the "Christians" here don't *actually* want people to believe in their God, since they don't even have the decency to leave proper, relevant responses to anyone who criticizes their faith. I can only assume that religion isn't really a serious matter for them, and is more-or-less something they occupy themselves with as a time-pass. I don't waste time with it anymore either, leaving them to their own devices. I just felt the above comment was necessary for them to realize, if they don't already know it deep down. I feel it's better for them to put their efforts towards a different form of spirituality than one which couldn't recover from even the slightest formal critique or separation of church and state, unlike other spiritual cultures which have still retained a following in the modern age, without political enforcement or aggressive proselytization.

[Anonymous No.13425653]

>>13424999
Enjoy hell you retard

[Anonymous No.13425660]

>it's an fedoras vs LARPers thread

[Anonymous No.13425689]

>>13425446
You worship a human-authored book and a male carpenter as tangible representations of the infinite. The idolatry belongs to you.

[Anonymous No.13425695]

>>13425660
Rejecting Christianity does not make you a fedora.

[Anonymous No.13425721]

>>13425488
Joyce and Kafka are not atheists

[Anonymous No.13425758]

>>13424913
>I don’t understand what contingency is

[Anonymous No.13425762]

>>13424791
>I’m going to criticize a blind belief in something by blindly believing that what I perceive is reality

[Anonymous No.13425786]

>>13424791
>Where is the evidence that <<your favorite genre>> of music is the best music?
>Until rational discourse and scientific proof is involved, for all I know it's an irrational stance and that your favorite music is not the best music!

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.13425792]

>>13423595
Because it isn't a position but a lack thereof. There is good literature of other worldviews that are atheistic.

[Anonymous No.13425827]

>>13425758
>contingency
Argument falls apart with the assumption that what creates the universe cannot be bound by space and time; when we have little to no understanding of the universe before the big bang. Contingency leaves us at the same starting point, IE: "There may or may not be a god". But it is a hypothesis, not evidence.
>>13425762
And yet we undoubtedly both agree on standards evidence outside of this central question; you don't believe in unicorns because there is no scientific evidence for them, you only use the "blind faith" argument when it is convenient for you. If you want to say my standard of "evidence" if based off of natural phenomena, then sure, but this is irrelevant to the central point.
>>13425786
Complete false equivalence, theistic claims about god are not based off of subjective value judgments, but rather definitive claims about the nature of the universe. You are not saying "I like christianity best", you are saying "christianity is true". I hope you can tell the difference between the two.

[Bean No.13425841]

>>13423595
Atheist tend to be right wing incels.

[Anonymous No.13425846]

>>13425841
>implying there have been no great works of literature by "right-wing incels"

[Anonymous No.13425862]

>>13425488
OP didn't ask for atheist authors, but for atheist literature.

[Anonymous No.13425870]

>>13425862
All of those atheists wrote literature. What do you mean: "Is there literature that proves atheism?" Or "is there literature that argues Atheism?" Or, "Is there literature written by atheists?" I think the last one is most likely, so I answered it.

[Anonymous No.13425876]

>>13425870
Most likely the second statement.

[Anonymous No.13425886]

>>13425876
Well, most atheists don't "argue atheism" outside of scientifically. Atheism is seen by most atheists as a very problematic truth, something that you need to accept but that blows a hole in how you should live your life. The question of "how should you live life without God," which is the question atheists tend to ask more than "is there a God" is something answered by Camus, Sartre, and the other existentialists.

[Anonymous No.13425918]

>>13423595
There is not the slightest bridge from Deism to Theism, let alone Christian Theism. Every abstract argument one may conjure regarding the origin of reality, as interesting as they all are and as much as I do entertain these discussions myself and have my own views on them, never results in a specific cultural institution by the end of it. Christianity, or anything else. And if so, then they remain strictly in the realm of philosophy, never reaching the domain of religion.

But since this is the case, it's pointless to then use them in favor of one or any religion, given how the connection is simply not present. A Christian never argues for a generic Intelligent Designer, while also claiming that homosexuality is a permissible behavior according to said Designer's wishes. They only and always argue for the deity of their scripture, and when dealing with scientific authorities formalize said cultural figure into a more sophisticated, abstract variant that fares better in such conversations. Yet it's a highly dishonest move, given that they have never once believed in any sort of Intelligent Designer who went against their cultural doctrine, and should therefore not even argue for such an entity in the first place - only for their own deity. How do you know that the Designer did not create homosexuality as part of it's wishes for the variable expressions of lifeforms here, for our species and many others in the animal kingdom, and your crusade against such a violation of It's will? You don't, and have no argument in support of your views. Even more troubling is how entirely anthropocentric all of Abrahamic religion is, not even once seeing outside of their own species to ask the question of what the significance and destination of all the other, non-human animals are. Why are they here, why is their nature what it is, and where do they go when they die? Not a single answer is found for these questions, because not a single thinker was neutral enough to even ponder of them seriously.

Christ has not displayed anything in his words that contends him for the status of being a supernatural being, let alone the co-creator of the cosmos itself. To believe such is strictly one's being duped by the aggressive marketing campaign of this culture, and to combine it with any form of philosophical argumentation is simply naïve.

And please stop assuming anyone who isn't Christian is an atheist, nihilist, materialist or hedonist. Please, just stop. I don't have to provide reasons why, it should be understood by your reasoning very clearly. The rejection of Christianity is the rejection of Christianity - nothing else.

[Anonymous No.13425942]

>>13425918
Trillion IQ post.

[Anonymous No.13427532]

>>13425488
>Joyce
Lad...

[Anonymous No.13427535]

>>13423624
the most midwit and least intellecually rigorous position is agnosticism u fuck

[Anonymous No.13427573]

>>13423626
agnostic at best

[Anonymous No.13427579]

>>13423595
Inspiration comes from a divine source.

[Anonymous No.13427966]

>>13427579
how can i call the muses anon?

[Anonymous No.13428050]

>>13423595
Percy Bysshe Shelley, you mong

[Anonymous No.13428053]

>>13424791
He's right though, two people talking about history only to be interrupted by a third who basically just says "history isnt important lol" is the equivalent of the atheist invoking science against religion.

[Anonymous No.13428054]

>>13423595
god = good
no god = no good
retard

[Anonymous No.13428062]

>>13424787
How come I've been tested over 140 throughout my life then ?

[Anonymous No.13428065]

>>13425489
Statistics show that religious demographics are stable or increasing and that atheism is decreasing. It's not 2008 anymore.

[Anonymous No.13428067]

>>13424840
THIS

[Anonymous No.13428082]

>>13428065
Culturally religious, certainly. Sincere believers in their specific faith? Not likely.

[Anonymous No.13428095]

>>13428054
good = good
god = god
the existence of good does not require the existence of any god, let alone the christian variant of such

[Anonymous No.13428102]

>>13428095
LMAO

[Anonymous No.13428144]

>>13425489
The future culture of the white man in the West, maybe, but the white man is not the West's future.
>>13428065
Atheism is increasing in market share at the moment but its birthrate is far below replacement, while globally Christianity and Islam even moreso have high birthrates.

[Anonymous No.13428162]

>>13425918
85 IQ post

[Anonymous No.13428294]

How can there be atheist literature?

Atheism is just a lack of belief in any deity. Atheism isnot an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.

Thus there isn't so much to write down as literature or to talk about.

[Anonymous No.13428439]

>>13427573

Anon, for the millionth time, agnosticism and atheism answer two different questions and aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. The former one is about knowledge and the latter about belief. Thus:

* A gnostic theist DOES believe in gods and DOES claim to know they exist.

* A gnostic atheist DOES NOT believe in gods and DOES claim to know that they do not exist.

* An agnostic theist - DOES believe in gods and DOES NOT claim to know that they do not exist.

* An agnostic atheist - DOES lack the belief in gods and DOES NOT claim to know that they do not exist.

Technically, people are agnostic about gods since we don't have any experimental way of proving/disproving their existence. Thus, are you a theist or an atheist? If we don't have any evidence whatsoever for their existence/nonexistence, does it make sense to believe in it? Thus the only logical position (until the evidence comes in) is to be an atheist.

Certainly you could say nobody can prove that gids don't exist so that's the reason for my belief in them. However, similarly nobody can prove there's not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. In fact, you might've never thought about it. Thus, for all intents and purposes, any type of gods (roughly 2k) devised by men so far is as unlikely as the teapot. Thus, it's reasonable to be a gnostic atheist as much as you're a gnostic a-teapot-ist.

But, if we're being honest, agnostic atheist is the sweet spot.

[Anonymous No.13428463]

>>13425886

That's why most atheists, apart from being atheists, might not have that much an overlap concerning on how to live their lives. And thus you have humanists, existentialists, nihilists, etc.

[Anonymous No.13428469]

>>13428439
saying there's no evidence for God is an assumption that would require proof of it's own.

[Anonymous No.13428500]

>>13428439
The quadrants shit was created by annoying atheists (not saying atheists have to be, but these ones sure are) to erase the identity of self-identifying agnostics (ones who strongly do not want to be seen either as theists or atheists), and to insinuate that the original state of everyone is atheist. It's clearly bound by an agenda and not sincere, because it forces agnostics into one of the quadrants against their comfort, and adds infants into the mix for extra points. But more importantly, it's sorely incomplete.

Consider the fact there's already four "belief" combinations worth talking about, without bringing in the claiming-to-know dimension, but this quadrants system only admits two options. Here's four combinations:

1) Believes there is a God
2) Doesn't believe there is a God
3) Believes there is no God
4) Doesn't believe there is a God, doesn't believe there is no God

Note these 4 aren't at all about claims to knowledge. An atheist, a baby, and a self-identifying agnostic will be 2, but for most agnostics, being 4 matters more than merely being 2, and they are not 3, whereas many atheists are certainly 3 but not 4, while a baby isn't 3. If this quadrants system wasn't so tied to an agenda to use terms to claim victory over theists by altering agnostics' self-image and annexing infants to your group, maybe I would be okay with it. But it's clearly a half-assed agenda.

[Anonymous No.13428525]

>>13428469
How so?

That's the same type of argument Russell was targeting when he formulated the teapot analogy "to illustrate that thephilosophic burden of prooflies upon a person makingunfalsifiableclaims, rather than shifting the burden ofdisproofto others."

Where does the burden proof lies?

* In the person who claims there's a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars?

* Or does it lie on the person who says "Well, there's not evidence to corroborate your claim."?

Both the teapot-ist and the theist are the ones making the unfalsifiable claims so the burden of proof lies on them.

If you're interested a similar argument, I suggest you read Carl Sagan's The Demon-haunted world, specifically the chapter "The Dragon in My Garage".

[Anonymous No.13428528]

>>13425918
>[Christians] they have never once believed in any sort of Intelligent Designer who went against their cultural doctrine
mate are you actually retarded

[Anonymous No.13428553]

>>13428525
The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, period. Nevertheless, simply making the assertion that there's no evidence for something, or that something doesn't exist does not serve to support your position.

[Anonymous No.13428627]

>>13428500

I think that's understandable, especially when people identify as agnostic because they simply don't want nor care to disclose their beliefs.

Is there a half-assed agenda? Probably but I cannot tell. You might be right though. For instance, to an outsider the
/r/Atheism subreddit is solely about atheism but if you were to visit it now you're likely to find posts, which aren't necessarily related to atheism and are clearly some political agenda. But that's the thing with atheism, it doesn't state anything more than its meaning. However, some people try to imbue it with multiple things and that's when you get things like /r/Atheism.

My only issue with agnosticism (the term itself) is when it's confounded with atheism when they clearly answer two different questions.

[Anonymous No.13428717]

>>13428553

Do you have any idea about how it could be better phrased?

Your second sentence is described by Sagan as the appeal to ignorance fallacy:

appeal to ignorance -- the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g.There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist -- and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.Or:There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.[1]"

Bear in mind that Sagan isn't supporting this proposition but merely criticizing and showing some of the forms it takes.

[Anonymous No.13428848]

>>13428525
Logic dictates to take a position on a claim must require evidence for that position, regardless of whether the claim is accepted or rejected.

[Anonymous No.13428874]

>>13428528
Provide an example whereby Christians believed in something as true of the Creator, but antithetical to their scriptural descriptions of said Being.

[Anonymous No.13428878]

>>13428627
I think there's definitely something like the agnostic/gnostic axis separate from being an atheist (or theist), but I think its the terminology being used that's not too great. When self-identifying agnostics say they aren't atheists, they have a specific understanding of the word. Here's the thing thought: that understanding is older, well-established, and that of self-identifying agnostics. That's basically three accounts on which the agnostics deserve to define the word as they already do. Revising their definition just seems disrespectful, that's why it feels a bit like agenda-pushing to me. The concepts are fine (even if the quadrants are an incomplete mapping), I just have suspicion that the terms were handpicked for a loaded, rhetorical purpose.

[Anonymous No.13429283]

>>13423595
Because they went to a public, secular school instead of a private one that teaches you the classics as well as its related way of education,i.e, the Trivium.
As well the only thing they write about is quoting the Bible directly, similar to every atheist anon.

[Anonymous No.13429290]

>>13424840
Absolute intellectual unit.

[Anonymous No.13429291]

>>13423624
ignosticism is the most intellectually rigorous, btw. It's clear that both christianity and atheism can be justified given that the universe is formless and is contrary to the map

[Anonymous No.13429307]

>>13425918
50 IQ post.
Nice verbosity, faggot.

[Anonymous No.13429803]

>>13424800
three quarters of /lit/ BTFO

[Anonymous No.13429815]

>>13424887
>he posts a chart showing atheists have above average IQ
uhh, thanks?

[Anonymous No.13429819]

>>13429815
Every religion has above average IQ. I was confused until I saw
>white
Though honestly, white Muslims? Are they counting Arabs as white?

[Anonymous No.13429821]

>>13424893
desu, I did a lot of honest reading and found Buddhism and even large portions of Hinduism much more compelling than Christianity. The real brainlet is the person who just accepts his parent's belief system. The tendency to just embrace the bias implanted in you as a child is.. well, childish

[Anonymous No.13429837]

>>13429819

Probably the tens of millions of white Muslims in eastern Europe. Chechnya, Bosnia etc

[Anonymous No.13429842]

>>13425629
>∞
Has literally killed god and became one in his place.

[Anonymous No.13429844]

>>13429842
Cringe#

[Anonymous No.13429858]

>>13429819
>Though honestly, white Muslims?
Besides the native European Turks in the Balkan regions there are also Muslim converts in the west.

[Anonymous No.13430093]

The stranger is pretty good

[Anonymous No.13431022]

>>13423595
Same reason there's no good Chinese literature of people criticizing the PRC