[ 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: 42 KB, 720x532, 84n2wtz2ca451.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17426257 No.17426257 [Reply] [Original]

How many people that has read this book has read anything else from serious theologians?

>> No.17426277

I read it a long time ago. It was very superficial and "wave of the hand" concerning most topics. I remember his handling of Pascal's Wager is that one can't "make" themselves believe something just-in-case. I'm not convinced of this at all. I think people can and do will themselves believe things.

>> No.17426288

>>17426277
Sorry, to answer your questions, I don't really care what "serious theologians" have to say, and I only read Dawkins' book out of curiosity.

>> No.17426291

>>17426277
>I remember his handling of Pascal's Wager is that one can't "make" themselves believe something just-in-case.
kek. Never read the book but I'm not too surprised

>> No.17426300

>>17426257
Does Plato count?

I've read buckets, and some of it was pig swill, I'll be honest. But as far as I can tell, you take a handful of someone else's residual thoughts and throw them hard the the crystal palace of your own pineal gland and decide to keep whatever sticks to the walls.

>> No.17426305

>>17426257
dunno. meanwhile how many people who post pop-thinking navel gazers on here have ever read anything by any serious biologists?

>> No.17427118

>>17426257
All I can tell you is that no one who has read serious theologians subsequently reads the god delusion (except maybe ironically). Some people who read the god delusion probably went on to read more worthwhile theologians though

>> No.17428855

What exactly classifies a theologian as serious?

>> No.17430080

>>17426257
Along with the Bible, no credible theologian takes that book seriously.

>> No.17430093

>>17426257
The God Delusion came out 14 years ago. Its memory is kept alive mainly by whiny religious people.

>> No.17430128

>>17426257
Atheism is fucking shit from the get out. It has no intersecting problems to solve. No internal struggle to endeavor. It just leads to a boring realization of material existence. The delusion is fucking count dribble.

But you, Jesus has some cool motherfuckers! Fucking mystics, and hermits and shit! Fucking Muhammad? Have at yo! Flying fucking horse, Boom! Nigga wanna Kwanza?! Got it handled! Just lean in, and take the leap bitches.

>> No.17430218

>>17430128
As a former muslim, this is just bs. Religion is not as grand and amazing as you make it sound. Unironically the only reason you’re a christian is because you are born into a christian family. I was never gonna be a muslim if I wasn’t born into a muslim family. Most people are like that. Religion is tedious and a source of anxiety. Once I accepted the absurdity of the universe and just went with the flow, I was so much fucking happier. Stop larping as God’s heavenly warrior literally no one cares man. Religious people and preachy atheists are so fucking annoying holy shit

>> No.17430905

>>17430218
>"bro everything is like, so absurd man and it's just like, crazy bro you just need to chill and like, be happy and stuff"
yeah ok

>> No.17430920

>>17430218
lmao, you've got to be 18 to post here big guy

>> No.17430927

>>17430218
based as fuck

>> No.17430939

"God", "immortality of the soul", "redemption", "beyond" -- Without exception, concepts to which I have never devoted any attention, or time; not even as a child. Perhaps I have never been childlike enough for them?
I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event: It is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers - at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!
I am much more interested in another question,—a question upon which the "salvation of humanity" depends to a far greater degree than it does upon any piece of theological curiosity: I refer to nutrition. "How precisely must thou feed thyself in order to attain to thy maximum of power."

>> No.17430943

>>17430218
cringe

>> No.17430944

>>17426257
>How many people has
Opinion dismissed, you illiterate bastard.

>> No.17430964

>>17430218
LMAO. ONE RELIGION FOR ANOTHER. NO WAY OUT

>> No.17430987

>>17430939
LOL where is this from?

>> No.17431009

>>17430905
Sometimes I kinda feel like that, but I fucking hate it when people try and deride others for not feeling like that.

>> No.17431815

>>17426257
How many people who read the Bible read anything from serious atheists?

>> No.17431888
File: 48 KB, 474x528, nietzsche fedora.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17431888

>>17430987
>>17430939

>> No.17432000
File: 176 KB, 750x411, 82F165B2-F47A-486F-9636-1DEB1705A0E7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17432000

>serious theologians

>> No.17432879

>>17426277
If you "make" yourself believe something that you don't believe already on the information you already have, you are deceiving yourself. That's not always a bad thing but it's just not the same as genuinely believing something based o your experience thus far.

>> No.17432887

>>17427118
oxymoron

>> No.17432899

>if only you read some serious theologians, then you'd be convinced

It's called a leap of faith for a reason.

>> No.17432900

>>17430920
dumbass

>> No.17432908

>>17432887
>some people probably read the god delusion and then read more serious theology, but no one who already reads serious theology subsequently reads the god delusion

where's the contradiction?

>> No.17432939

>>17432908
>serious
>theology

>> No.17433609

>>17432899
Recalls only theological term he’s come across. That’s Kierkegaard, no theologian is familiar with him because they are mostly hacks liken to the new atheist movement.

Bunch a smooth brains.

>> No.17434244

>>17426257
does this guy still tweets?

>> No.17435010

>>17426257
You don't need to read “serious theologians” to see the problems in Dawkins' books.

>> No.17435055

>>17432879
Philosophically at what point does the deception become real? What is real? What is hyperreal? Fake it til you make it might hide a deeper truth than a pithy axiom.

>> No.17435310

>>17435055
>Philosophically at what point does the deception become real?
When you act based on your belief and you aren't actively trying to root you actions based on that adopted belief.

>> No.17435336

>>17434244
It's the guy who made the Australian Rick & Morty doing a character. Michael Cusack is not a 2006 fedora lord irl.

>> No.17435350

>>17435010
>You don't need to read “serious theologians” to see the problems in Dawkins' books.
Could you make a summary of the most important ones?

>> No.17435371

>>17430128
You don't choose your beliefs based on what you think would be cool unless you're 14. You base it on what you believe to be the truth.

>> No.17435567

>>17432939
You're mad that OP used your picture without permission, aren't you?

>> No.17435834

>>17426257
Anyone else get a cozy feeling from reading fedoraposts? It takes me back to a more innocent time somehow.

>> No.17436387

>>17435834
Yes, now everything is all icky and full of politics. I want to return to a time where the internet was just retard neckbeards arguing with boomer evangelicals.