[ 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: 33 KB, 328x500, The_God_Delusion_UK.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1698998 No.1698998 [Reply] [Original]

Can someone recommend a book about atheist/the non-existence of gods where the author doesn't make smarmy British jokes and comes off as a total dick to someone on the other side of the debate?

>> No.1699001

check some philosophy textbooks maybe

I can't imagine anything else that would try to stay impartial

>> No.1699006

Much like God, that doesn't exist.

The other side of the debate is so pathetically stupid that any serious debate invariably makes the atheist/agnostic look arrogant.

>> No.1699009
File: 84 KB, 450x540, whyIamnotachristian.01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1699009

This.

>> No.1699014
File: 21 KB, 306x500, varieties-sagan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1699014

>>1698998
Actually, OP, this one is probably the pick of the litter.

>> No.1699015

The Miracle of Theism by J.L. Mackie.

His organization of the book and his arguments within are transparent and thought provoking. For each argument for the existence of God, he has an "Exposition" section in which he explains it and a "Discussion" section in which he critiques it. Whenever he dismisses an argument he supplies several reasons, considers possible rejoinders, and critiques those.

The reasonable tone of the book and the clarity and thoroughness of argumentation make it a really good read.

>> No.1699018

J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism is pretty definitive, and Hume's always worth another go over.

To be honest though it sounds like your one of the legions who has built up a Strawkins in their mind without any attempt to explain what he is wrong about exactly. In fact, one of the points that the nu-atheists make – again and again – is that religion is so privileged as a discourse that there is no tone one can adopt that the religious will not consider inherently hostile.

>> No.1699019

>smarmy British jokes

That's just the posh twats that mostly live in the south of England. We're not all like them.

>> No.1699026

>>1699001
>philosophy textbooks
>impartial
lmao

>> No.1699029

www.schopenhauer-web.org/textos/Religion.pdf

>> No.1699047

>>1699018
>religion is so privileged as a discourse that there is no tone one can adopt that the religious will not consider inherently hostile.

Well put.

It's the same with hippies, vegans, PETA, and neoconservatism. There is a point on the graph where your worldview is so absurd and fragile that any response to critisism must be met with hostility-- it's the only possible response.

>> No.1699050

>>1699014
Seconding this.

>> No.1699056

>>1699018
>religion is so privileged as a discourse that there is no tone one can adopt that the religious will not consider inherently hostile.

>>1699047
>any response to critisism must be met with hostility-- it's the only possible response.

ITT: we pretend we would not fight tooth and nail for the things we love and truly believe in, no matter how seemingly innocuous the threat. Or maybe we've never truly believed in anything......

>> No.1699061

>>1699018

OK, but can we skip jokes about how god must smell really bad?

I forgot the exact quote because it's been awhile, but I think Dawkins was trying to be funny there...

>> No.1699087

>>1699056
>implying most religious people actually believe in their religion and don't just use religion as a source of community

>> No.1699089

>>1699087
He ain't talking about "most religious people" man, he's talking about "tru believerssss"

>> No.1699090
File: 44 KB, 300x300, buddhism-symbol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1699090

So what's Dawkins' take on non-theistic religions (assuming he even has one)?

>> No.1699092

>>1699087
>implying you lack empathy if you can't comprehend that others may hold different beliefs than you.

>> No.1699099
File: 83 KB, 1000x928, atheists vs theists.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1699099

why would you even begin reading this book
did you see it on family guy or what

>> No.1699125

>>1699056

Not sure what you're getting at here. You seem to be seconding my point that a prior commitment to doctrine saddles the subscriber with an inability to distinguish between arguments and the tone they are made in.

And as for this little gem...

>Or maybe we've never truly believed in anything......

...well, it simply defies parody ("Does anybody remember laughter?" )

>> No.1699357
File: 49 KB, 192x171, 1268747848113.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1699357

>>1699099
>Reagan
>best president
>mfw

Also
>implying Voltaire was a theist and not a deist.

>> No.1699359

>>1699357
>doesn't think Reagan was the best US president
get out of USA fuckin commie prick

>> No.1699392
File: 56 KB, 526x424, reagan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1699392

>>1699359