/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2964660]

Which to read first /lit/?

[Anonymous No.2964666]

Both are entry-level pleb shit into their respective topics. If you even know a bit of what either book talks about, you're just engaging in masturbatory reading.

[Anonymous No.2964670]

>>2964666
>entry-level pleb
Your opinion is invalid.

[Anonymous No.2964672]

Read Hawking (and if you enjoy it, read deeper into the subject) and immediately return The God Delusion and get your money back quick. It is an abortion of a book. An angry old man trying to convince you all atheists are great and all theists are morons. It is embarrassing for both sides of the argument.

[Anonymous No.2964674]

>>2964666

Can you recommend some books for futher read on any of these subjects? Maybe some Sagen or Nietzsche? Or are those considered 'entry-level pleb shit' as well?

[Anonymous No.2964678]

>>2964674
University science textbooks and a good education for the first, and pretty much anything about atheism that's not written by the Big Four Atheists.

[Anonymous No.2964677]

>>2964672
this x1000

[Anonymous No.2964682]

>>2964660
read the selfish gene
dawkins wrote it before he went crazy about atheism

[Anonymous No.2964688]

A brief history of time, OP. It's a beautiful book. It starts with Galileo and Copernicus, and ends with Roger Penrose discussing the gravitation impedance of black holes, quantum mechanics, and string theory. Even if you know some physics it's a beautiful read, and will fill in any areas you have a gap in - like quark charms, or why a galaxy moving away from us are red(dopler shift).

Despite how heavy the science is for a layman, it's very easy to follow.

[Anonymous No.2964692]

Didn't Sagan write something similar to The God Delusion but was much better in every way?

[Anonymous No.2964695]

>>2964692
The Demon-Haunted World?
Yes, mostly because it was more subtle about its ultimate message until the last chapter or two. It didn't constantly force "atheism = always good, theism = always bad" on you every other sentence.

[Anonymous No.2964700]

>>2964682
>read the selfish gene
Climbing Mt. Improbable is brilliant too.

OP, the blind watchmaker tackles religion, but isn't as hard as the God delusion. But if you're not an angsty /lit/ agnostic, you will probably like TGD anyway.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.2964719]

>>2964695
Neither did the God Delusion. It's purpose was to demonstrate the flaws of literal interpretations of holy books and subjective 'faith' over evidence-based conclusions, not how much better atheism is than theism.
That being said, if OP wants a good popular book that criticizes religion, Hitchens' God Is Not Great is infinitely better.

[Anonymous No.2964732]

>>2964719
Nobody here has actually read the God Delusion. Our opinions are that its a guy trying to force atheism on everybody and we hate him. We will never believe that he's a man trying to help people raised in a strict religious environment, or even a man showing why the bible isn't a factual account of history, just an entertaining book.

Also, we hate atheism, its too popular. We're superior to atheists. Fuck Dawkins. Fuck Hitchins. and Fuck that other Harris guy, who we haven't read either.

[Anonymous No.2964749]

sage

[Anonymous No.2964983]

Both books are very good, OP.

[Anonymous No.2964993]

>>2964732
>Also, we hate atheism, its too popular.
oh speak for yourself.

I hate the teenaged internet atheist who constantly drones on about it, but there's nothing wrong with it.

[Anonymous No.2965035]

Read the Hawkins, throw away the Dawkins.

[Anonymous No.2965050]

>>2964732
I have and the entire book was litterally him bashing on religion and advocating atheism.

[Anonymous No.2965081]

The God Delusion is garbage. It's just Dawkins stroking himself like he always does. He never really approaches much of anything from an actual intellectual and philosophical standpoint. He just reiterates the same annoying Post-Enlightenment liberal high-horse jargon you're likely to hear from any one roaming around 4chan or youtube. Dawkins lacks any real intellect when it comes to subjects like morality or metaphysics so he just proceeds to make righteous potshots against religion all while taking it upon himself to define who/what are the proper interpretations and representatives of scripture. While he does make some valid points against certain fundamentalist and radical teachings, they're so elementary that it hardly counts as a real point to his credit.

The ironic part about Dawkins is that his zeal in the exalted perfection of his own beliefs is remarkably religious itself, but like many of his class he fancies that he is exceptional, evolved even but really his/their intense secularity has become a religion in itself, just without controversial semantics and cosmological treatises.

The only thing valuable and worth reading or listening to that really comes from Dawkins is anything pertaining purely to biology as his mind is dead to anything that is not material. Anything else he speaks on in the fields of religion or philosophy, he's just an uneducated pleb, but of course because there are people more foolish than he is in those categories, other ignorant people think somehow that makes him an enlightened individual.

tl;dr Dawkins sucks, stick to reading Hawking or Sagan. You'll get even more scientific knowledge, all while avoiding petty fag shit.

[Anonymous No.2965096]

>>2965081
Dawkins doesn't claim to be a philosopher. He clearly explains that he cannot disprove the existence of a creator, but can demonstrate that there is no evidence for a God after the big bang, then does this by dissecting hundreds of points. Why are you butthurt that he doesn't discuss morality? It was never his intention to do so. He just wanted to demonstrate to people who have been blinded by religion that there is beauty in the material. He takes something like evolution and holds it up to testable observation. He shows people that choosing a religion over another is ridiculous, and highlights the ignorance of 'blind faith'.

[Anonymous No.2965116]

>>2965081

you sound like someone who has never read any of his works

[Anonymous No.2965121]

>>2965096
>Dawkins doesn't claim to be a philosopher.

I never said he did. But its his lack of philosophical knowledge that shows he's completely out of his league when he tries to discuss subjects of philosophical discussion such as the abstract notions of deities.

>He clearly explains that he cannot disprove the existence of a creator, but can demonstrate that there is no evidence for a God after the big bang.

He does this very poorly as he has no knowledge in metaphysics or refuses to acknowledge the study. The subject of seeing God through the material realm by the scientific happenings of the world around man is something that has been discussed and formulated by religious thinkers and philsophers for centuries. Dawkins however approaches things with an extreme dualism between "matter" and "spirit," that, at least from my perspective and the perspective of many religious people in history, is ridiculous.

>Why are you butthurt that he doesn't discuss morality? It was never his intention to do so.

Bullshit, the whole God Delusion is him arguing not only the logic of his atheism but the moral legitimacy of it and the dubious moral integrity of historical world religions and their supposed objects of worship. He devotes considerable time to attacking the morality expressed in the Bible in particular as well as to a comparative study of the morale of atheists to the religious.

>He just wanted to demonstrate to people who have been blinded by religion that there is beauty in the material.

This is one of the book's few merits. However, this is nothing that hasn't been done by many a religious thinker as the concept of the physical world being a symbolic realm of higher abstract principles which its beauty or ugliness is representative and expressive of has been around for awhile. Dawkins though leaves much more void.

[Anonymous No.2965124]

>>2965081
More importantly, this assault on christian is just part and parcel of the communist/left assault on civilization itself.

[Anonymous No.2965127]

If you want a more reasonable critique of religion you should read Bertrand Russell's 'Why I am not a Christian.'

[Anonymous No.2965133]

>>2964732
>>2965116

ITT:

>OBVIOUSLY, if you people don't find wisdom or useful knowledge in Dawkins, you obviously have never read him for yourself. *scoff

[Anonymous No.2965140]

>>2965121
>when he tries to discuss subjects of philosophical discussion such as the abstract notions of deities.
He is not trying to argue philosophical points, he is disproving the paranormal claims in the bible through scientific reasoning.

>Dawkins however approaches things with an extreme dualism between "matter" and "spirit,"
He is only concerned with matter. The duality that you think is there is him rejecting that for which there is no evidence, as it's of no use to discuss from a scientific perspective.

>the whole God Delusion is him arguing not only the logic of his atheism but the moral legitimacy of it.
No. The only areas where morality is mentioned is when he shows how hypocritical christianity is, and shows how the actions of the OT god are deemed highly Immoral by christian standards. He doesn't offer any moral attachment, just aptly demonstrates the absurdity of somebody claiming morality under christianity.

[Anonymous No.2965153]

Read A Brief History of Time immediately. Then you should punch yourself right in the dick for even CONSIDERING reading a Dawkins book that isn't about biology. He is a shitty philosopher that steals from David Hume except he takes all of these ideas and makes them shit, just like his arguments and writing.
His biggest argument against religion, I shit you not, is that if he CHANGES WORDS IN THEIR RELIGIOUS SCRIPTS that they sound retarded.

[Anonymous No.2965156]

>Dawkins writes a book against religion and in favour of atheism.
>Morons criticize the book for being against religion and in favour of atheism.

Are you people retarded?
The God Delusion is a book about the most popular arguments in favour of religion and why they are flawed. Nothing more than that. It's a very good book, specially for people who are still finding their rationale about atheism.

[Anonymous No.2965159]

>>2965153
>His biggest argument against religion, I shit you not, is that if he CHANGES WORDS IN THEIR RELIGIOUS SCRIPTS that they sound retarded.

Confirmed for having not read it. The only place you could even possibly have a point there is the part about Lot. Where the villagers wan't to 'rape' the angel. Your rant about Hume was way off too.

[Anonymous No.2965166]

>>2965140

>he is disproving the paranormal claims in the bible through scientific reasoning.

He disproves nothing except things along the lines of the Bible's apparent scientific errors which may or may not be a matter of interpretation than anything explicitly stated in the text (Earth being created as it is in six-seven 24 hour periods, dinosaurs living with humans 6,000 years ago, that sort of thing), but as far as the existence of the paranormal goes he doesn't disprove anything through scientific methods in the slightest. Even somewhat by his own admission he doesn't disprove anything paranormal but only asserts an apparent lack of observable evidence in favor of the existence of these paranormal things.

>He is only concerned with matter. The duality that you think is there is him rejecting that for which there is no evidence, as it's of no use to discuss from a scientific perspective.

My point is that the only reason he sees no evidence of the substance of "spirit" within the material is because he lacks proper, even basic, understanding of what "spirit" is.

>He doesn't offer any moral attachment, just aptly demonstrates the absurdity of somebody claiming morality under christianity.

That's not true at all, he does all this with a specific intention and he makes that intention very clear. His intention is to attack the notion that atheism is morally illegitimate or amoral and religion encourages and preserves morality to the contrast. He's not pointing out contradictions like an objective historian, he's writing polemics.

[Anonymous No.2965174]

>>2965159

>implying Dawkins doesn't use the cut and paste method often as a means to scandalize.

[Anonymous No.2965195]

>>2965096
>He just wanted to demonstrate to people who have been blinded by religion that there is beauty in the material
This is a fair enough point and probably important. However, if you did not grow up inside the American fundie bubble, why should you read it?

[Anonymous No.2965199]

>>2965195

Well according to Dawkins, if you're even moderately religious you are a collaborator who is legitimizing the viewpoints of the fanatics. I'm not sure I buy his reasoning.

[Anonymous No.2965211]

>>2965166
Understanding what "spirit" is?

From a materialist pov there is no such thing as a "spirit", which is totally fine with me. The personality of someone is just his brain. That's it.

[Anonymous No.2965214]

>>2965199
Couldn't you just turn that argument around and say that even moderate atheists like Dawkins are really just legitimizing Stalin?

[Anonymous No.2965224]

>>2965214

Well I wouldn't go that far but I definitely think that the combativeness and smugness of some of the more extreme atheists gives atheism a bad name and drives fundamentalists back into their caves.

[Anonymous No.2965232]

>>2965224
Neither would I. I'm simply curious if Dawkins considered that objection.

[Anonymous No.2965236]

>>2965224
I agree with this.
While it is certainly enjoyable and while religion should be ostracized and ridiculed, it doesn't help the cause.
Why are people religious?
They are afraid of death for the most part.
At least they like living in their littl protective shell. It empowers them.

If atheism can give them that and shows how an atheist worldview actually(!) empowers them, without being condescending, then I bet, many more would listen.

[Anonymous No.2965249]

>>2965195
>This is a fair enough point and probably important. However, if you did not grow up inside the American fundie bubble, why should you read it?

Exactly, and you can get the same lesson in "finding beauty in the material world," by picking up almost any introductory book on the mystical and philosophical traditions and exegesis of the Abrahamic religions, including Christianity, from the perspectives of religious thought and scriptures.

If you're not vindictive against world religions or understand and respect the diversity of thought and interpretation within the world religions, there's very little reason to read it even if you are an atheist or agnostic.

>>2965211
>The personality of someone is just his brain. That's it.
>implying the brain is independent of the spirit.

[Anonymous No.2965250]

>>2965211
>The personality of someone is just his brain. That's it.

>brain is a machine
>a machine is a series of action/reactions
>dominos placed in rows
>fall on each other
>that's the most basic machine I can think of
>make that 50 billion dominoes making complex patterns
>it's super complex
>make it even more complex, until it has has many dominoes as the brain has neurones
>your dominoes still haven't reached sentience because that's not how consciousness happens

Similarly, the brain isn't the source of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.2965253]

>>2965236
>They are afraid of death for the most part.
>At least they like living in their littl protective shell. It empowers them.

This is what atheists actually believe.

Jesus fucking Christ, try the real world some day... Fucking basement dwellers.

[Anonymous No.2965267]

>>2965236
>They are afraid of death for the most part.

Most human beings, regardless of religion, are afraid of death. When was the last time you left your bedroom, guy?

[Anonymous No.2965268]

>>2965140
You seem to be confused about the difference between methodological naturalism and physicalism. This is a common fallacy among scientists and science enthusiasts. Mind, I'm not criticizing science, and I think science does well to establish limits for itself AS THOUGH matter were the only thing that exists (this approach is called "methodological naturalism"), but trying to use science to disprove spiritual or any other metaphysical claims is inherently misguided. I haven't read Dawkins, so I can't claim he commits the same fallacy, but it sounds like it from what I'm reading here.

Claiming the concept of "spirit" as scientifically irrelevant is not the same as claiming it doesn't exist. If he suggests that "spirit" is scientifically irrelevant and thus must not exist, he is acting as a philosopher whether he identifies as one or not, because that is a philosophical perspective, and, in fact, a very old one.

[Anonymous No.2965276]

>>2965268
continued.

Not claiming to be a philosopher does not excuse him for not being aware of the logical and philosophical commitments of the scientific method (i.e., empiricism, and potentially physicalism/materialism if he chooses to espouse that mindset). In short, too many times I hear atheists claiming "science disproves God," or whatnot, which is absurd. By the limits science imposes on itself (i.e., empirically observable phenomena), science must, by definition, remain silent on the topic of the existence of God or any other metaphysical claim. Claiming that there is nothing outside of science's domain is a possible philosophical position (it's called "physicalism" or in some cases "materialism"), but it IS a philosophical position and anyone who espouses that belief would do well to inform his/herself of the philosophical background and consequences of such beliefs. Empiricism IS a philosophy.

That said, the book might be a legitimate pop-science work for a lay audience that needs to be exposed to some of the basic fallacies of some fundies, i.e., "the earth is only 6000 years old", "science proves God", etc. which are just as nonsensical as claiming science disproves God.

[Anonymous No.2965278]

>>2965268

[Anonymous No.2965284]

>>2965249
That is exactly what I was going for.
The brain "in" which your personality rests is your "spirit". Nothing supernatural or metaphysical about it.
>>2965250
What is the source of consciousness then?
Evidence for my point is numerous. Just look at all the cases where brain damage has changed personality.
Or just remove ones brain and see where his consciousness is now.
>>2965253
Nope.
_I_ know it.
Besides, I was a formerly (rather devout) catholic.

What is it that god or religion gives you? The sense of being protected at all times. A meaning to the world. A reason for why there is suffering(hehe).
However you turn it. A non-existant(not able to be proven) being somehow provides support.
Support that wouldn't be needed if just didn't believe in this being, but instead believed in yourself. It gives help, where no help is needed. Like an eternal imagined father figure protecting its young.

[Anonymous No.2965297]

>>2965284
>The brain "in" which your personality rests is your "spirit".

Uh, no its not. You are confusing "spirit" with "persona" If you were really a Roman Catholic, I would assume you knew that much. Persona and spirit are intrinsically linked, but your personality is not the same thing as your spirit.

[Anonymous No.2965298]

>>2965250
Thinks he has a soul because he is aware of his existence.

[Anonymous No.2965307]

>>2965249
>Exactly, and you can get the same lesson in "finding beauty in the material world," by picking up almost any introductory book on the mystical and philosophical traditions and exegesis of the Abrahamic religions, including Christianity, from the perspectives of religious thought and scriptures.

Not really. By looking at it through a religious lens you are a nihilist by proxy. By thinking their is a beautiful utopian paradise waiting somewhere after death you reduce the value and beauty of our real universe to none by comparison.

[Anonymous No.2965310]

>>2965297
Please enlighten me then what "spirit" actually means.

And tbh, here in Germany most christians are rather liberal.
Yes I went to some classes and lessons and even went to church. I did believe in one true god who protects me or at least gives me the power to bear my sorrows. This god became smaller and smaller over time, and at the end was so abstract that he wasn't compatible with the christian belief system anymore. I was a devout believer, who even prayed.
I was deluded and indoctrinated by my parents.
Shit sucks. :x

[Anonymous No.2965312]

>>2965310

Oh no, you had to pray? Cry me a fuckin' river! Unless you were buggered by a priest you're just making yourself look like an ass. Get over it.

[Anonymous No.2965313]

>>2965307
Good point.
Actually I should have expanded on the "afraid of death" comment.
It's such a central theme in most religions, which give answers where there shouldn't even be questions.
Useless answers.

According to christianity, life on earth should be utterly useless, as it all comes down to passing the gate to heaven. Well, to me that sounds like fearing death in such a deluded and crazy way, that the only escape is... well actually escaping death-with silly mind games.

[Anonymous No.2965315]

>>2965284
The things you say about the religious might be by and large true, but it's a HUGE generalization and there are definitely exceptions - I've met a few of them. I'm a semi-recent convert to agnosticism from Christianity (as a result of my exposure to philosophy). Yeah, I can agree that having a deity really makes life seem easier and less threatening, but there are religious people who are aware of that bias and they avoid it, while maintaining their beliefs and worship. I myself tend back toward religion (not the organized kind) just because my experience is suggesting to me that some form of faith is practically required for daily life (whether in yourself or a deity or fate or whatever) and I like ritual and a sense of the sacred and transcendent. In this theoretical faith, I wouldn't claim that anyone else should believe in my God, because I couldn't prove it. But I would still believe personally.

Think of it this way. Consider the possible existence of extraterrestrial beings - aliens. Can we prove or disprove empirically their existence? No. So some people will choose to believe in them BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM HAPPY. And why should that be ruined for anyone else?

Now I do agree that the theocrats (aka the fundies) and probably the organized religions should be stopped in their tracks, because any time religion is imposed by force or used to uphold hierarchy, it's being misused.

[Anonymous No.2965319]

>>2965268
>but trying to use science to disprove spiritual [...] acting as a philosopher

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

[Anonymous No.2965321]

>>2965312
That's the thing.
I wanted it and believed in it.
My own little pick and choose religion that made me feel also cozy and comfy.

This was not meant to be an appeal to anyone's emotions btw. I just wanted to explain what I meant by "devout" and share some of the experiences of being indoctrinated.

[Anonymous No.2965331]

>>2965315
Nice post.
My point on that is.
God isn't even in the same league as aliens. There's a valid possibility that they exist.

But god/a god(which god I ask?!) by defintion is outside of our realm. Every supernatural occurence that is attributed to this deity can be explained by materialism. Suffice to say that over the years those occurrences became rather rare...

Yes, it makes them happy. But what kind of happyness is that? I honestly have to say, that by rejecting any kind of religion/god, I became happier than I ever was before.
I(!) am the one who transcended. I am the only being worth worshipping, because I am at the centre of my cosmos. That's enlightening and empowering in a way no distant deity who you subject yourself to can ever HOPE to be.

It's like seeing a beloved one living a lie, which superficially may help them(which I doubt). Wouldn't you try to show them the OPTIONS at least?

[Anonymous No.2965332]

Dawkins is uninteresting because he doesn't know enough about religion or religious thought to make any worthwhile contribution to the debate. There's really no point in reading him unless you're very insecure in your non-belief and want your prejudices about religion confirmed by some hack.

>>2965307
>Not really.

...No, he's correct. The universe/nature as a theophany has always been a key idea in Christian and Islamic mysticism (and in every religion, really.)

[Anonymous No.2965337]

>>2965313
>Well, to me that sounds like fearing death in such a deluded and crazy way, that the only escape is... well actually escaping death-with silly mind games.
I always felt Heaven was a way for early and perhaps even current religious people to bear with living. That it's all worth it somehow.

[Anonymous No.2965338]

>>2965331
>I am the only being worth worshipping, because I am at the centre of my cosmos.
That's awfully self-centered. I'm just happy being one of seven billion meaningless worms no one will remember in a hundred years.

[Anonymous No.2965339]

>>2965313

If you have even studied Zen, you would understand not to fear death.

"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain."
-- Bene Gesserit

Why not take a walk to http://sacred-texts.com and educate yourself?

[Anonymous No.2965341]

>>2965312
>Unless you were buggered by a priest
"With all the horrible, horrible shit that your priest is pumping into your kid's head, his dick should be the least of your worries, honestly. That's just a little mouthwash and a few years of therapy'll get rid of that. That Jesus shit will torture you for a lifetime."

[Anonymous No.2965343]

>Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

[Anonymous No.2965346]

>>2965307

Yes, you may reduce the value of material things, but that's not necessarily a bad thing as being too attached to passing material things is destructive to the human being, spiritually and physically.

However, most mystics of the Abrahamic religions harshly criticize the ignoring of the divine beauty within the present world man is inhabiting and are romantic about it, while still professing ascetic values or decrying the manifest evils. Islamic mystics, just to point out one example, have historically for the sheer most part condemned the worship of God purely for the sake of heavenly reward as being against the precepts of the faith. Heavenly reward serves a purpose but is not THE purpose.


>>2965310

Spirit pertains to the essence and driving energy of one's own being, personality is something that emanates from the spirit, but is only a product of it.

[Anonymous No.2965348]

>>2965338
Those two thoughts aren't mutually exclusive.
But when you talk about transcendence and "God", the closest thing to that is you. Everyone of those billion worms is living in an ego-centered world, mos of them not realizing it.
>>2965337
It's probably something of that as well.

[Anonymous No.2965353]

>>2965341

Comparing religious teachings to sexual molestation is kind of asinine. I'm sure there are cases where becoming obsessed with religion has a worse effect on someone's psyche than being molested but by and large most Catholics I know are pretty on the level.

[Anonymous No.2965355]

>>2965319
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Most actual /sci/entists don't tend to argue religion as it is entirely out of our remit.
That a few pop-writers have noticed that it grants them popular support is annoying simply because they insist on tarnishing our methods with their nonsense.

[Anonymous No.2965356]

>>2965346
>Spirit pertains to the essence and driving energy of one's own being

Aaaah, so the electricity that's flowing through the metaphorical microchips.

[Anonymous No.2965368]

>>2965339
Why would I need to become religious for this? (If that's what you're implying)

I'm not saying "religious" texts don't have any merit to them. Most are crap, but there are some texts that are inspiring and/or have a beautiful language. But I don't see a point in following a religion, just because some parts of it aren't asinine.

[Anonymous No.2965373]

>>2965346
>Islamic mystics, just to point out one example, have historically for the sheer most part condemned the worship of God purely for the sake of heavenly reward as being against the precepts of the faith. Heavenly reward serves a purpose but is not THE purpose.


"O God, if I worship Thee for fear of Hell, burn me
in Hell and if I worship Thee in hope of Paradise,
exclude me from Paradise; but if I worship Thee for
Thy own sake, grudge me not Thy everlasting beauty." - supplication of Rabi'a of Basra

[Anonymous No.2965375]

>>2965355
>Most actual /sci/entists don't tend to argue religion as it is entirely out of our remit.
>entirely out of our remit.

Exactly. It has no bearing on real life whatsover. Thus no bearing on science. It's like stating the obvious, so why even attend to it?

[Anonymous No.2965378]

>>2965368
>>2965339
Kind of in the same vein:
"Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist."
-Epicurus

[Anonymous No.2965382]

>>2965373
What an egotistical megalomaniac.
Why do people worship gods again?

[Anonymous No.2965384]

>>2965375

Out of empathy for your fellow man. If you see somebody quivering with fear at the prospect of external damnation, why wouldn't you reveal what a crock of shit their religion is?

[Anonymous No.2965386]

>>2965382
>What an egotistical megalomaniac.

Who?

[Anonymous No.2965388]

>>2965386
God.

[Anonymous No.2965393]

>>2965388

Why?

[Anonymous No.2965397]

>>2965384
Because there'd be no point to it.
Not sure where you're trying to go with this.

[Anonymous No.2965411]

>>2965368

No, you need not be religious already in order to read the texts.

There is much wisdom and insight packed into the folds of that website.

I guess you can think of it this way:
"Today you can learn that building the tallest tower begins with the placement of a single stone."
-- Lhikan

[Anonymous No.2965493]

This thread is a great example of why I hate religious topics coming up on /lit/. It takes a bunch of people who are usually intelligent and makes them go full autist. Even the few snippets of intelligent thought are dismissed as naive by both sides.

[Anonymous No.2966884]

bump

[Anonymous No.2966893]

>>2966884
Why are you bumping yesterdays thread, motherfucker. You should have already started reading one.

[Anonymous No.2966916]

>>2966893
I'm not OP, motherfucker.