[ 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: 162 KB, 1554x1044, hitch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2230907 No.2230907 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /lit/ what's a good book atheist fiction book? I'm sick of reading Dostoevsky and Kafka and others who are great writers apart from their irrational beliefs.

I thought Golden Compass sucked and I hate YA so any other recommendations would be nice.

>> No.2230912

wise blood

>> No.2230917 [SPOILER] 
File: 15 KB, 200x200, trolololo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2230917

>atheist fiction

>> No.2230921

>atheist fiction

wtf

there's no atheist fiction genre like there's a christian fiction one.

>> No.2230928

>Hitchens

Goodnight sweet prince.

>> No.2230939
File: 99 KB, 400x400, jesus_thumbsup.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2230939

Stay classy, friend!

>> No.2230943

>>2230907

>Hey /lit/ what's a good book atheist fiction book? I'm sick of reading Dostoevsky and Kafka and others who are great writers apart from their irrational beliefs.

Just wait five years, OP. By the time you're twenty, you'll hopefully have learned to enjoy books regardless of whether or not you share authors' religious views.

>> No.2230948
File: 73 KB, 640x480, 1212945394958.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2230948

>>2230928

>> No.2230954

Essential atheist fiction:

Christopher Hitchens - "God Is Not Great"
Richard Dawkins - "The God Delusion"

>> No.2230958

>>2230954
0/10

>> No.2230979

>>2230958

Worthless books for angst-hemorrhaging teenagers. Hitchens and Dawkins are the non-theistic counterparts of morons like Fred Phelps and Terry Jones. Deal with it, nerd.

>> No.2230989
File: 11 KB, 275x183, detector.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2230989

>>2230979

>> No.2230991
File: 26 KB, 199x296, magus_john_fowles.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2230991

this. go forth and conquer...

>> No.2231011

>>2230917

Read it. But thanks.

>>2230943
>Implying I'm not allready 20.

M'kay then.

>>2230954

-3/10

Thanks for the suggestions guys.

>> No.2231018

>>2231011
Oh shit, we've got a twenty year old on our hands, guys! Better back off! He's a badass!

>> No.2231028

>>2231018

Did you forgot the Neil DeGrasse Tyson image from Reddit faggot?
nylsdi CHAPTER

>> No.2231037

We should all reflect on our lives and /lit/'s influence on our thoughts. This thread is a disgrace to mankind.

>> No.2231045
File: 14 KB, 200x212, 200px-Mick_Foley_and_Socko.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2231045

>>2231037

>> No.2231053

>>2231045
THAT'S CACTUS JACK

>> No.2231057

>>2231045

HAVE A NICE DAY

>> No.2231071

>>2230907

The Mysterious Stranger

It's short, but hey, it's Twain.

>> No.2231092
File: 100 KB, 800x1321, The Dispossessed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2231092

I can't think of anything fiction that's specifically about an atheist, aside from good science fiction.
I hear this book is about anarchists, so no doubt atheist.

Melville thought his Moby Dick was "wicked" for its suggestions.

>> No.2231114

When you say Atheistic, do you mean Existentialist? It almost seems synonymous when it comes to Fiction literature. No?

The books and authors that would be recommended seem to me to be those one would recommend to someone asking for Existential fiction.

>> No.2231129

>>2231114
No. Existentialists can be theistic, see, dosto, kierkeegard.

>> No.2231137

>>2231129
I get that. But we're talking about the fiction, not the philosophy. A good deal seems Agnostic and borderline Atheistic....no?

>> No.2231178
File: 275 KB, 600x900, camus.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2231178

Anything by Camus fits, I guess.

But really, if you can't stand the fact that some good writers believe in a higher power and you run around calling people 'irrational', you've got some growing to do.

>> No.2231209

>>2231178
Have you read the quote in the OP? We're still hounded in our own "age of reason"
There's no reasoning with someone who doesn't want to know.
I sympathies with the OP. I understand his search even if I don't really care to look for atheist lit myself.

>> No.2231495

Dostoyevski was a devout Christians......

>> No.2233100

>>2231209
First post I've seen from you that did not seem like blabber. Or, well, not first, but it's something else than just interweb trollan'.

Also, you shouldn't be bound by the definition of "atheism"
>>2231178
This is all whats it is about, if someone certainly believed they were a frog and only spoke to people through morse code on a window. The theists that believe in a personal deism, those are the ones Hitchens really despises.

The ones who believe in the form of god Plato described, I would be tempted to not call them theistic though. If you judge a holy script by not following it 100 % through, you have an outside criterium to determine ethics with, which you could then follow instead of clinging on to this shadow of the old religious doctrine.

Don't want to seem biased, I wouldn't call my self anything, and this is not some bash at theists.

tl;dr I'd like to point you to some atheist /lit/, even if it is not fiction. Read Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape", it's basicly Utilitarianism-2.

Disliking Richard Dawkins. Horrible to read, and he tries to disprove the idea of a deism with scientific methods, where it's clearly the morals we get from theism thats the problem, not their biology theories.

/rant

>> No.2233105

Isn't every fiction that was ever written without mention of deities considered atheist fiction?

>> No.2233111

>>2233105
>it would seem so, oh fine sir

>> No.2233115

>taking value in the opinions of those who discredit the opinions of theists for believing in a God without evidence, when they in fact have no evidence which disproves the presence of a deity

>> No.2233127 [DELETED] 

>>2233115
The fuck? There are an infinite number of things that MIGHT exist that we cannot disprove beyond a shadow of a doubt, but that doesn't mean one is rational if they believe anyone of those infinite things without any shred of evidence or theoretical reasoning.

When scientist analyze data they adhere to the null hypothesis, which is the assumption that there is no pattern until there is good reason to believe there is. In other words, every single one of the infinite number of things that MIGHT exist should be considered nonexistent until there is reason to believe otherwise.

Think of it this way, if I told you that there was a teacup orbiting Saturn and refused to give you any evidence for it then you wouldn't believe me. If I then gave you absolute proof that there was NOT a teacup orbiting Saturn, you wouldn't give a damn. You didn't have any reason to believe it in the first place and thus didn't. Proof that the teacup doesn't exist doesn't change any one of your beliefs. There is no practical difference between the proven nonexistence of the teacup and a complete lack of evidence or theoretical reasoning for the existence of the teacup.

>> No.2233130 [DELETED] 

>>2233115
The fuck? There are an infinite number of things that MIGHT exist that we cannot disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt, but that doesn't mean one is rational if one believes any one of those infinite number of things without any shred of evidence or theoretical reasoning.

When scientist analyze data they adhere to the null hypothesis, which is the assumption that there is no pattern until there is good reason to believe there is. In other words, every single one of the infinite number of things that MIGHT exist should be considered nonexistent until there is reason to believe otherwise.

Think of it this way, if I told you that there was a teacup orbiting Saturn and refused to give you any evidence for it then you wouldn't believe me. If I then gave you absolute proof that there was NOT a teacup orbiting Saturn, you wouldn't give a damn. You didn't have any reason to believe it in the first place and thus didn't. Proof that the teacup doesn't exist doesn't change any one of your beliefs. There is no practical difference between the proven nonexistence of the teacup and a complete lack of evidence or theoretical reasoning for the existence of the teacup.

>> No.2233132

>>2233115
The fuck? There are an infinite number of things that MIGHT exist that we cannot disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt, but that doesn't mean one is rational if one believes any one of those infinite number of things without any shred of evidence or theoretical reasoning.

Scientists adhere to the null hypothesis when they anaylze data, which is the assumption that there are no correlations until there is good reason to believe there are. More generally, every single one of the infinite number of things that MIGHT exist should be considered nonexistent until there is reason to believe otherwise.

Think of it this way, if I told you that there was a teacup orbiting Saturn and refused to give you any evidence for it then you wouldn't believe me. If I then gave you absolute proof that there was NOT a teacup orbiting Saturn, you wouldn't give a damn. You didn't have any reason to believe it in the first place and thus didn't. Proof that the teacup doesn't exist doesn't change any one of your beliefs. There is no practical difference between the proven nonexistence of the teacup and a complete lack of evidence or theoretical reasoning for the existence of the teacup.

>> No.2233159

Something by Ian McEwan, Martin Amis, or Salman Rushdie.

>> No.2233166

so atheists don't believe in any religions because of people that used religion as an excuse to persecute?

is this a troll thread? I dont come here often but when I do there's an ocasional thread where people ask for "atheist literature"

I also want to report this because of him saying "irrational beliefs"
Humans are irrational beings what are you a fucking robot?
yeah probably, reported for not being human

>> No.2233182

>>2233166
This is what atheists believe:
>atheists have never committed genocide (lol, except Russia, China, etc, they dont count)
>Science and religion are not compatible

>> No.2233205

Camus doesn't really fit with modern atheism, he ridiculed the idea of science as a rational liberator from the absurd.

His experience was that understanding the universe wasn't necessary to resist the absurd, only courage and intellectual integrity. It's like negative faith.

>> No.2233210

>Read Dostoyevsky
>Still Atheist

Stop reading.