/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20758870]

Honest thoughts on this 2006 masterpiece?

[Anonymous No.20759131]

A future classic. Christtards will probably try to ban it at some point in time, because they're seething intellectual beta males and can't handle anything that triggers them.

However, all of this will be totally futile, as reality will constantly demonstrate that religion is a disaster upon mankind

[Anonymous No.20759189]

>>20758870
>https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
Starts the review with an "imagine" shitpost and BTFOs Dawkins and Nu Atheism thoroughout.

[Anonymous No.20759210]

>>20759131
>religion is a disaster upon mankind
Lol, lmao even

[Anonymous No.20759247]

>>20758870
The NPC Bible

[Anonymous No.20759403]

>>20758870
It was more harmful to atheism than any book that has ever been written by a theist.

[Anonymous No.20759429]

>>20759189
>hardcore scientist
>rationalist
Christcucks are worse at philosophy than mudslimes

[Anonymous No.20759473]

>>20758870
I know annoying Christians fags on here will shit on it but it is genuinely a great book, and an incredibly influential one

[Anonymous No.20759482]

>>20759189
>NOOOOOOOOO YOU DIDNT READ THE BOOBEL 5000 TIMES OVER AND 100000 COPING MONKS AND THEIR APOCOPIAS YOU CANT SAY JEBUS NOT REAL
One must not need to investigate further the subject that do not stand to the simplest scrutiny. For example, I dont need to read the entire corpus of JRR Tolkien to affirm that Lord of the Rings is not a book about British history.

[Anonymous No.20759587]

>>20758870
>basic materialist falacies used to attack non-philosophical cultural manifestations of the God concept.
>Does not discern between individual spirituality and religious institutions.
>Pretends not know how religion really works and underhandedly creates his own atheist religion throuh his writing.

He's just a jew writing for political effect.

[Anonymous No.20759787]

>>20759587
Cope.

[Anonymous No.20759828]

Bugman manifesto

[Anonymous No.20759849]

Nobody here has read it. Not like it's worth it, though...

[Anonymous No.20759886]

Unironically one of the few actually important books published in the last 50 years
It's also mostly against religious institutions more than religion in general if you actually read beyond the title

[Anonymous No.20759895]

>>20759886
>It's also mostly against religious institutions
That crap was important in the 1700s, and it was also obviously proven wrong by history. It's beating a dead horse that should never have been killed to begin with.

[Anonymous No.20759925]

>>20758870
Dawkins is a masterful troll who predated /pol/ by aeons
Like everything else before the phonescum flood, it was glorious

[Anonymous No.20759932]

>>20759587
This.

[Anonymous No.20760197]

>>20758870
Irrefutable.

[Anonymous No.20760253]

>>20759587
>mock offended that the takedown wasn't autistic enough
>calls him a Jew for racist purposes. On /lit/

>>20759932
>I like the way your penis smell. I will follow you to the ends of the earth

[Anonymous No.20760266]

>>20759429
Christianity made philosophy that what it is today
There is not a single one good atheist philosopher
inb4 Heidegger was a catholic

[Anonymous No.20760284]

>>20760266
Ancient Greeks weren’t christcucks. They pioneered both philosophy and science. Religion and it’s poor cope theology are just shitty artifacts from people who can’t think

[Anonymous No.20760299]

>>20758870
It's amazing. I especially loved the part where is misrepresents all five of Aquinas' five ways so horribly that they don't even remotely resemble the original arguments at all. Truly one of the greatest works of satire I've ever read.

[Anonymous No.20760440]

>>20760299
But I thought that the Five Ways weren't mean to be taken as arguments for Yahweh's existence?

[Anonymous No.20760444]

>>20760299
What did he misrepresent?

[Anonymous No.20760581]

>>20758870
It's genuinely good, in a middling and stale kind of way.

[Anonymous No.20760679]

>>20760253
>mock offended that the takedown wasn't autistic enough
No, I'm saying he's a midwit or at least he's writing for midwits because the book is free from advanced philosophical arguments against the existence of God. And everyone experienced in this subject knows that all those arguments run nowhere in the end. It's just a circlejerk.

>calls him a Jew for racist purposes. On /lit/
No, I'm saying his attitude towards his target audience is distinctly jewish in character as well as the political effect of his book. Maybe you should read up on how disenfrancised but wealthy minority groups develop in character and in their attitude towards their host population. Or just use your brain.

[Anonymous No.20760708]

>>20760679
>”NO” proceeds to double down
Speaking of midwit

[Anonymous No.20760761]

>>20758870
it's okay

[Anonymous No.20760765]

>>20759247
no, that would literally be The Bible

[Anonymous No.20761022]

>>20760679
>because the book is free from advanced philosophical arguments against the existence of God. And everyone experienced in this subject knows that all those arguments run nowhere in the end. It's just a circlejerk

Can you give us some examples of these "advanced philosophical arguments against the existence of God"?

[Anonymous No.20761028]

>>20760299
What did he misrepresent?

[Anonymous No.20761064]

>>20761022
Why would you even need advanced ones? Just asking for evidence will do

[Anonymous No.20761074]

>>20759482
>proud of being ignorant
Behold the paragons of logic.

[Anonymous No.20761081]

>>20761074
That's not ignorance, that's being aware that your system doesn't even stand up to the mildest scrutiny. Why would anyone embrace a weak system that needs to be upheld by endless amounts of coping?

[Anonymous No.20761116]

>>20759482
>reads the first paragraph of a long article
>looks like I'm an expert on this now--consider it DEBOOKNED!
Why is the Nu Athiest version of satanic pride so comically retarded?

[Anonymous No.20761127]

>>20761116
What the fuck are you even on about? Do all faggy larpers talk like this?

[Anonymous No.20761161]

To understand Aquinas' five ways, you need to have read the entire Bible multiple times as well as all of the works of Aristotle alongside good commentators like Averroes or Albertus Magnus. I don't think Dawkins has read even one of Aristotle's works all the way through, let alone understood it.

[Anonymous No.20761168]

>>20761161
And to understand why they're dogshit you need to read even more, which in turn you haven't done

[Anonymous No.20761170]

>>20761127
Stay filtered.

[Anonymous No.20761189]

>>20761170
They didn't even have trannies in ancient Greece. Do you even know anything about ancient Greece at all? Are you aware that both Plato and Aristotle were from the very culture you shat on?

How can you be this much of an uninformed retarded modernist, and still pretend to shit on it?

[Anonymous No.20761196]

>>20761022
Any arguments that properly attack the necessity of Gods existence on an ontological, cosmological, moral, or teleological level. Needless to say, nobody ever managed to disprove more than cultural constructs of God never the philosophical Absolute.

Atheism is more of a beginner hobby. A Stepping stone into thinking philosophically about existence, the universe etc.

Some people are beginners their entire lives. Like Bertrand Russell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVLKURgfft0

[Anonymous No.20761205]

>>20761189
>They didn't even have trannies in ancient Greece. Do you even know anything about ancient Greece at all? Are you aware that both Plato and Aristotle were from the very culture you shat on?
Holy shit. How filtered can you be?

[Anonymous No.20761219]

>>20761196
You have yet to present anything in favor of the 'philosophical Absolute' other than sophistic wordgames, and hot air.

Nobody outside of your moronic clique of fart smellers cares about theses kind of moronic language games. They achieve nothing, are completely sterile circle jerks and are rightfully ignored by society at large

[Anonymous No.20761224]

>>20761205
Can you please answer my question? Do you have even the slightest clue about ancient Greece? Because they way you talk about it tells me your knowledge ranges from precisely zero to misrepresented bullshit

[Anonymous No.20761249]

>>20758870
It's mediocre, and could be summarized as "yahweh is an immoral psychopath, therefore religion bad!11".

As Moldbug said, Dawkins is infected with the same mindvirus as the Christians he fights with.

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/09/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-1/
"My hypothesis is that Professor Dawkins is not just an atheist. He is a Christian atheist. Or as I prefer to put it, a nontheistic Christian. His “Einsteinian religion” is no more or less than the dominant present-day current of Christianity itself—“M.42,” <...> If we accept this hypothesis, the conclusion that Professor Dawkins has been pwned strikes me as quite incontrovertible. He thinks he is attacking superstition on behalf of the armies of reason. In fact he is attacking M.41 on behalf of the armies of M.42. D’oh!
Of course, I’m sure Professor Dawkins is quite sincere in his beliefs. Hosts always are. However, he has devoted a remarkable level of ratiocinative attention to one phenotypically insignificant meme—the God delusion—in which M.42 conflicts with M.41. My view is that this behavior is best explained by memetic infection, i.e., pwnage."


Dawkins himself later confirmed it, btw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism#Other_notable_people
"I would describe myself as a secular Christian "


Now, if you want some real refutations, check Nietzsche. He even retroactively predicted that Christianity would eventually spawn Dawkins-type figures, that would reject God *precisely* out of blind obedience to the morality prescribed by that God:

"There is a large ladder of religious atrocities, with many rungs. But three of them are the most important. First people sacrificed human beings to their gods, perhaps the very ones whom they loved best. Here belong the sacrifices of the first born in all prehistoric religions, also the sacrifice of Emperor Tiberius in the grotto to Mithras on the island of Capri, that most terrible of all Roman anachronisms. Then, in the moral ages of humanity, people sacrificed to their gods the strongest instincts which man possessed, his “nature.” This celebratory joy sparkles in the cruel glance of the ascetic, of the enthusiastic “anti- natural man.” Finally, what was still left to sacrifice? Didn’t people finally have to sacrifice everything comforting, holy, healing, all hope, all belief in a hidden harmony, in future blessedness and justice? Didn’t people have to sacrifice God himself and, out of cruelty against themselves, worship stone, stupidity, gravity, fate, and nothingness? To sacrifice God for nothingness—this paradoxical mystery of the last act of cruelty is saved for the generation which is coming along right now. We all already know something about this."
(Beyond Good and Evil, 55)

[Anonymous No.20761252]

>>20761249
Correction: wrong link
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/10/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-2/

[Anonymous No.20761263]

>>20761224
>knee jerk reaction to the Christianity which was steeped in Ancient Greek philosophy
>degenerates have a habit of referencing the sexual mores of Ancient Greece (that included pedophilia) for validation
That's the joke, retard. Also:
>I don't need to read anything in order to dismiss 3000 years of cultural history!
>THAT MEME! ARE YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH ANCIENT GREECE!
Dunning Kruger + Cognitive dissonance = Holy fuck you're a retard.

[Anonymous No.20761274]

>>20761263
Holy shit, how many pointless buzzwords can you fit in one post

[Anonymous No.20761275]

>>20761219
If you are unable to catch a glimpse of the Absolute through the aid of language and intelligent thought like in the video debate I linked which you haven't watched judging by the speed of you response then I can only refer you to personal experience and I hope that maybe someday you will have your own.

There is nothing else to say on the subject.

[Anonymous No.20761280]

>>20761249

[Anonymous No.20761279]

>>20761274
>BUZZWORDS!
Cope retard. Cope.

[Anonymous No.20761284]

>>20761274
>Why is the Nu Athiest version of satanic pride so comically retarded?
P.S. Thanks for indirectly answering my initial question. We're done here.

[Anonymous No.20761319]

>>20758870
Weird considering its proposal.

[Anonymous No.20761383]

>>20758870?
If you need to read a book to tell you god's not real then you're delusional anyway.

If gods real why can't I see him?

[Anonymous No.20761391]

>>20761196
I CLEARLY asked for EXAMPLES. Is anything you just said even close to an example of a ""advanced philosophical argument"?

[Anonymous No.20761425]

>>20761383
>If gods real why can't I see him?
Rochberg F. - Before Nature. Cuneiform Knowledge and the History of Science (2017):

"Omen divination therefore evinces a fundamental anthropomorphism, where what we call nature is perceived as divine speech, matter turned expressive, meaning materialized in the world of phenomena. In an omen, celestial bodies (or other phenomena) function as parts of divine speech, elements of meaning that can be “read” and interpreted in accordance with a grammar of repeating structures of sense."

"The divine-human relation, whether effected by means of divinatory techniques to obtain knowledge directly or indirectly from the gods, or by means of ritual acts of entreaty to gain a response from a divinity, is what was described juridically, not the phenomena themselves (i.e., not nature itself). However, insofar as phenomena were taken as signs of divine communication, the legal metaphor was extended to them as well, as in Esarhaddon’s use of the word kittu to denote the regular path of the stars, and in the formulation of omen statements as “laws.”"

"Indeed, Edgar Zilsel, in what is still one of the principal essays on the history of the concept of physical law, said, “the concept of physical law, as it is used in modern natural science, does not contain any ideas of command and obedience. Yet it obviously originates in a juridical metaphor.”106 Zilsel saw what he called the embryonic stage of the laws of nature in a nonempirical theologically grounded conception, where divine law and physical law were coeval."


van de Mieroop M. - Philosophy before the Greeks. The Pursuit of Truth in Ancient Babylonia (2015)

"In Babylonia, the text came before the divinatory act, and reading techniques used for the cuneiform script fully informed the interpretation of ominous signs. The ancient scholars themselves explicitly associated divine messages with writing, as the expression “heavenly writing” and other statements mentioned before show. Ominous signs were like logograms, the cuneiform elements that indicated an entire word and whose meanings the lexical lists explained and explored.15 As we saw earlier on, cuneiform signs have multiple readings. The sign of a foot, for example, can indicate the limb, but also, through logical inference, the verbs “to walk” and “to stand firm.” The reading of the sign required grammatological analysis on the basis of the other signs surrounding it. Likewise, the ominous sign had multiple meanings, and reading it was an act of interpretation."

[Anonymous No.20761520]

Seeing this book make all the normie soccer mum theists cope back in the day was fun.

Seeing is make the fringe weirdo theists of /lit/ seethe now is even better.

[Anonymous No.20761531]

>>20761391
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVLKURgfft0

[Anonymous No.20761571]

>>20761196
>Needless to say, nobody ever managed to disprove more than cultural constructs of God never the philosophical Absolute.
Turner S.P. - Understanding the Tacit (2013)

"If we cut this reasoning down to the basics, we get something like this: Interpretive charity is required by the economy of error explanations. <...> we need to attribute a minimum of error. <...> An error for Davidson is a rational but wrong response to something <...> each attribution of error requires a larger set of attributions of erroneous background belief—the beliefs that rationally support the error"

"Consider the Hindu belief that the world is an illusion. We have no trouble translating the relevant sentences, for the simple reason that the translation manages to preserve all our ordinary beliefs. Everything in an illusion appears just as the real thing would—otherwise it would not be an illusion. My belief that the coffee shop down the street serves espresso survives whether or not the espresso, the street, the shop, and the rest of it are illusions, because there is no diff erence between real and illusory espresso other than whether it is real. If we translate the terms they refer to the same thing, with the exception that we need to add an illusion operator to each sentence in the translation of the target language. But the addition does nothing beyond connecting the sentences to the belief that the world is an illusion. And what goes for illusion goes for the rest of metaphysics—the noumenal world, empirical reality, the phenomenal world, and the rest of it. There are no interesting implications of the problem of massive error for metaphysics, because in these cases there is no massive error. There is only a very economical kind of error, or alternatively a kind of underdetermination, about metaphysical facts."

"There is a question of whether this holds for the “fact” of normativity itself, and here there is an ambiguity. Taken by itself, it seems that the pattern with normativity mimics the pattern for “the world is an illusion.” Nothing much changes whether or not we say, for example, that normativity is a fiction or that it is real. But if normativity in the requisite sense is part of the machinery that allows us to speak in this way in the first place, namely as a condition of interpretation, matters would be different."

[Anonymous No.20761770]

>>20761531
You can't do it, can you...

Just give some examples.

[Anonymous No.20762681]

>>20761249
Exactly.
Nietzsche describes those type of people like the involution of Christianity. Atheism it's just the natural continuation of Christianity, even those who consider themselves Christian the are not.

Schopenhauer was the perfect example of someone who no longer had faith, and yet still believe in an empty God, a God of <nothingness>.

"May be reminded that Schopenhauer, although a pessimist, ACTUALLY—played the flute... daily after dinner: one may read about the matter in his biography. A question by the way: a pessimist, a repudiator of God and of the world, who MAKES A HALT at morality—who assents to morality, and plays the flute to laede-neminem morals, what? Is that really—a pessimist?" CHAPTER V 186.

This type of people want to believe in God, but the modern man it's weak for have faith, so they want the "evidence" for God.
Obviously never they gonna find that evidence, so they live their lives resentful and thinking that found the "the truth" and that they are the one who are correct.

[Anonymous No.20763108]

>>20759131
cope

[Anonymous No.20763121]

>>20761196
A philosophical absolute god is a useless entity. You can replace the term God with nature or universe at this point and it would have zero effect

[Anonymous No.20763168]

>>20759131
>religion is a disaster upon mankind
Literally the first thing that the worst tyrants in western history has done is kick out the fucking church. Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin....

[Anonymous No.20763287]

>>20758870
Would have been a fine YA novelist

[Anonymous No.20763320]

>>20758870
I know the whole "atheists are just secular christians" thing has been beaten to death, but I assume this guy must believe in universal values like human rights and so on, so what's his answer to why those aren't delusions but religion is?