[ 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: 1.97 MB, 347x200, 1365090519171.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3630663 No.3630663 [Reply] [Original]

>Order "Arguably" by Hitchens because the first couple essays were, at the very least, engaging and well-written
>Go to my Amazon page the next day
>See my newly updated list of recommended books
>"WHY SCIENCE DISPROVES GOD"
>"WHY GOD DOESN'T EXIST"
>"WHY CHRISTIANS ARE STUPID"
>"POP SCI"
>"POP SCI"
>"MORE POP SCI, BUT THIS TIME EDGIER"
>"RESTATING OF 1000 THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS: WHY GOD DOESN'T EXIST"
>Mon fucking visage

>> No.3630679

I find it funny that Americans don't get that there's a reason atheists are so militant in their country.

>> No.3630690
File: 131 KB, 582x253, youdwin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3630690

>>3630679

OF COURSE THEY'RE MILITANT WITH ALL THOSE GUNS LYING AROUND. HUH, AMERICA, RIGHT?

>> No.3630693

>>3630690
Yes, you are an easy target of criticism in many, many ways

>> No.3630736

>>3630679
Because they're reactionary?

>> No.3630749

>>3630736
Because everyone is forced to defer to Christians in that country. Hell, the president has to pretend to believe in God to maintain his popularity.

>> No.3630759

>>3630749
>Because everyone is forced to defer to Christians in that country.

No they aren't. I live in one of the most religious states and I'm not a Christian. The only non-believers who claim to be oppressed here are melodramatic faggots who menstruate all over the place because our fucking dollar bills say "god" on them.

>> No.3630763

America is cool. We have twenty thousand religions. We have guns and amazing diverse foods. Our produce departments are the best in the world. Land is cheap, the streets are safe and welfare is easily available.

we got great libraries, cool museums and pretty girls. but we eat too much and yell a lot. also, we don't read much and our dancing skills are awful.

it's still a great country though.

>> No.3630764

>>3630679

My problem isn't that the books mentioned were militant, it's that they're promoting positive atheism, a position which is just as faith-based as the religions they're arguing about.

Why everyone doesn't just stop at agnosticism and negative atheism is beyond me.

>> No.3630766

>>3630763
americaisnottheworld.wav

>> No.3630783

>>3630766
hey, i didn't say other countries don't have great stuff too. i've only been to about twelve though and five of those are in central america. However i stand behind our produce departments. I have never seen as many different types of fruits and veggies available anywhere else at the same time and on a regular basis. It must be hard to be a vegetarian in scotland, for instance.

>> No.3630792

>>3630663
I am an agnostic-atheist.
I don't even lurk on the question of theism anymore, except when I am debating with a friend who believes.
Gnostic-atheism is an idiotic thing to believe. To claim that you are sure god doesn't exist is fucking stupid. You can not possibly prove a negative claim. It is not EVER possible. Gnostic-atheists rely on their own articles of faith as much as gnostic-theists who have not physically seen the hand of god do.
Also, trusting science to do anything other than to create what could be nothing more than an illusion of truths to practical problems is simply stupid.
Science is rooted in the same presuppositions and assumptions of absolutes that religion is, simply from a different angle.
>>3630679
I think it might be a primal-reaction to the religious fundamentalism that not only plagues the USA in a social sense, but in a political sense, too. Of course it is thinly-veiled before it goes to the political-level, but we all know and see what it is.
>>3630690
Fuck guns. I actually want all guns to be fucking banned in the USA. I feel so uncomfortable with the people around me having them.

>> No.3630790

>>3630763
>We have twenty thousand religions

how many of them aren't your typical post-protestant branch of christianity?


>We have guns

somalia too.

>amazing diverse foods

stolen from pretty much everyone else.

>pretty girls

if you like fat

>> No.3630799

>>3630783
I'm not denying that, it's the american view that america is the pinnacle of civilization that annoys me

>> No.3630801

>>3630790
most of them are crackpot hippie cults and wedding chapel phonies. we do have our share of fruitcake touchy-feely god is everywhere christians though.

somalia? please. they WISH they had guns like ours!

And remeber we also have more anorexia and bulemia than anywhere else, so it balances out.

and since when do we steal food? Have you been here? it practically pops out of the ground and cooks itself. We could feed the entire world with just three states if we plowed them all up.

>> No.3630807

>>3630799
I think I do understand that. I always get irritated in guatmala because they think that only guatamalans ever invented anything or do anything right. They also believe all civilization originated there. So I can see why it would piss other people off.

>> No.3630819

>>3630807
It's okay.
Every country has it.
America's is just the best publicised.

>> No.3630838

>>3630764
Negative atheism is gnostic-atheism, which is what these books are about.
You can not simply be agnostic.
Agnosticism and gnosticism concern knowledge.
Atheism and theism concern belief.
You have two components to address.
>gnostic-theism
Claim of knowledge that god exists. Belief that god exists. Positive claims of both knowledge and belief.
>agnostic-theism
No claim of knowledge that god exists or does not exist. Belief that god exists. Neutral claim of knowledge and positive claim of belief.
>agnostic-atheist
No claim of knowledge that god exists or does not exist. No belief that god exists. Neutral claims of both knowledge and belief.
>gnostic-theist
Claim of knowledge that god does not exist. Belief that god does not exist. Negative claims of both knowledge and belief.

If we gave both knowledge and belief a value of 0.5, the values would be:
>g-t: 1
>a-t: 0.5
>a-a: 0
>g-a: -1

>> No.3630845

>>3630838
>>3630838
what do you call the belief that whether or not gods exist is of trivial importance and shouldn't be dwelt on too much?

>> No.3630852

>>3630845
Apatheism

>> No.3630848

>>3630792
>Fuck guns. I actually want all guns to be fucking banned in the USA. I feel so uncomfortable with the people around me having them.
I like that me just having a gun makes people like you mad.

>> No.3630857

>>3630848
i don't get the whole gun hatred thing anyway. isn't the pen mightier than the sword? well what's going to happen when all those pen-weilding fanatics come for you, and nobody has any guns? That's right: stupid graphitti all over your face. don't say we didn't warn people.

>> No.3630865
File: 188 KB, 700x560, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3630865

>>3630845
Willful ignorance of a valid question (under a claim that it is not a significant question) because of it's social and emotional consequences.
>>3630848
You having a gun doesn't make me mad.
You having a gun makes me uncomfortable.

>> No.3630870

>>3630865
>You having a gun doesn't make me mad.
>You having a gun makes me uncomfortable.
You're a pedant too? That only makes me like it more.

>> No.3630871

>>3630857
lol'd

>> No.3630888

>>3630870
How am I a pedant?
The difference between being mad and being uncomfortable is very simple and yet very significant.
I am not calling you a murderer or a supporter of murder.
All I am saying is that I don't like the fact that people can kill or injure me and the people around me so easily with a machine made to do just that. I wish it was banned so that there is a much smaller chance of me and the people around me from being killed or injured.

>> No.3630901

>>3630888
>it
EDIT: "guns"
>much smaller chance
EDIT: "much lesser chance"

Excuse me, I am too tired to use proper grammar.

>> No.3631066

>>3630865
I have several guns and several advanced degrees, in scientific fields.
and I'm a published author and award winning poet,

also, good with the ladies.

I'd mention my magic cloak of invisibility and constantly erect twelve inch cock, but then you'd probably accuse me of making shit up.

>> No.3631170

>>3630838

No, negative atheism is " (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.[1][2][3]"

And I never said that you can simply be an agnostic; I specifically paired agnosticism with negative atheism.

Don't fucking take an oracular tone with me if you don't know what you're talking about.

>> No.3631443

>>3630759
Well North Carolina, THIS WEEK, had a bill to make Christianity its state religion. Constantly people want The 10 commandments hung in courtrooms, when the first 2 commandments are perfectly antithetical to the first amendment. There is no rational reason to be against gay marriage, save religion. The same could *almost* be said about abortion (again, right now North Dakota and Arkansas have illegal bans on abortion). I mean the list goes on and on... its much more than just "In God we trust" on our currency (which is also a problem).

>>3630736
If by reactionary you mean they react to things, then I must agree...since that's how the world works. However, if you mean that they are responding to things too quickly and not being rational, please see above.

>> No.3631447

>>3630764
See Russell's Teapot. Also please let me know which of the popular books, promotes positive atheism. Dawkins goes out of his way to say he is not 100% sure as does Hitchens. The other 2/4 of the Big 4 (Harris, and Denett) are of the same disposition.

>> No.3631450

>>3631447
>See Russell's Teapot.
I can't see it though, it's hidden away.

>> No.3631456

>>3630801
Sir... although I do enjoy being American quite alot, everything you are saying is false.... Our anorexics do NOT balance anything out...I mean, seriously? Somali's do wish they had our guns that way they could kill, what is it? 8 people a day too! The poster is not saying you steal food off plates, he is claiming there is not much American born cuisine...If you had actually argued his point (which you could have) you may have come across as intelligent. And most people are Christian in America, or identify as such... please please please please please do some research before defending Americanism again... you make us all look bad (and yet you're above average :/ )

>> No.3631458

>>3631450
... Clever

>> No.3631466

Why do people (literally everyone, me included) get wildly irrational the second religion comes up? I have posted 4 times in this board...more than I have ever posted... People want to defend shit and make arguments that are based in absolutely no facts or logic, constantly, whenever religion comes up... makes me sad. Christ-fags...please commision your own murder and be with Jesus... leave us to our earth so we can run it Rationally... see? I go crazy!

>> No.3631478

>>3630679
Thank you.

>> No.3631492

Jesus fucking Christ. r/atheism is just a click away, feel free to go back there.

>>3631443
>had a bill to make Christianity its state religion

So fucking what? It didn't pass. Crazy bills are proposed ALL THE TIME by members of every legislature. The majority of all proposed legislation will never be signed into law. These people are just grand-standing for their voter base, so that they can have something to tout to their constituents come the next election cycle. Everyone does this.

>The 10 commandments hung in courtrooms, when the first 2 commandments are perfectly antithetical to the first amendment.

This doesn't mean they endorse the 10 commandments as actual law you imbecile. The supreme court has a giant tribute to Mohammed displayed in its building. Does this mean they support Sharia Law? Of course not. The point is the symbolism of Mohammed as one of the great law-givers. The same idea is behind the display of the 10 commandments. And since I know the next thing you will say is "but there are people who really do want the 10 commandments to be law," let me remind you that there are plenty who also really want Sharia Law. It doesn't change anything.

>There is no rational reason to be against gay marriage, save religion

It goes the other way, too--there is no rational reason to be for it either. There is no argument in favour of gay marriage that does not rely on emotional appeals. And as regards the "save religion" comment, here is an article that might interest you:

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage:
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

CONT.

>> No.3631493
File: 23 KB, 471x471, 1364476718874.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3631493

>>3631466
I think God sometimes comes around as kind of an archetype for a lot of our fears, hopes, and frustrations we place on "The Great Mystery".
Our relationship or perceived relationship to the world is extremely important to how see ourselves and the world around us, and God often serves as a name for how we can see that relationship.
So whether or not "God" actually exists, the topic or what it represents still really hits to the core of who we are.

>> No.3631500

>>3631492

>The same could *almost* be said about abortion

What a slimy thing to say. A huge number of people strongly disagree with abortion because to them it is the taking of a human life. Not because of some obscure detail of their religion. Are you telling me that you would sit idly by if you honestly believed that some form of institutionalized murder was legal in your country? And while we're at it, riddle me this: why is killing a pregnant woman counted as a double murder in the legal system if abortions are only destroying masses of cells and not people?


> "In God we trust" on our currency (which is also a problem)

No it is fucking not. Name a single way in which it could or does possible have any negative effect on you. And whether you like it or not, God and religion are a huge part of American heritage. It actually makes perfect sense to have such a thing on the currency, since currency is often used to honour cultural heritage.

>> No.3631512

>>3631466

No u

>> No.3631542

>>3631492

Shit, nigga, do you even read what you linked to?

Think about this: Kolasinskis' argument centers around the argument that the only reason the state subsidizes marriage is because of reproduction, who then creates offspring and is beneficial to society. Few things.

What about old people getting married? Should they not be able to receive benefits because they can't reproduce?

Then he effectively sabotages his own argument by mentioning "artificial" fertilization, which would allow gay couples to reproduce.

He wiggles his way out of that loophole by implying that gays probably can't raise their children correctly, even with no evidence to the claim and plenty of circumstantial evidence to the contrary.

He continues. Apparently, happiness in marriage, rather than caring for children, has now become the primary objective, thanks to our immoral culture. And while gay marriage isn't causing this, it's making it worse.

You would think that the legalization of same-sex marriage would create a more financially stable environment, if they have the same economic protection.

He even calls the relationships "necessarily sterile" even though he, himself, mentions methods in which gay people can procreate!

I hope you understand that this guy is being knowingly disingenuous. I hope you don't actually believe this shit. Just because MIT hosted this article doesn't make it any less disgusting.

>> No.3631550

>>3631542

>>3631533

>> No.3631561

>>3631500
>Abortion
Abortion, after a certain point, is considered murder under the law. I'm not sure what law you've pulled out of your ass, but you must know that there's a difference between a man sticking a knife into a pregnant woman during a robbery and an abortion that the woman consents to.

Since you like posing questions, have one: are you or are you not morally obligated to kill abortion doctors if you consider abortion murder?


>In God we trust
Constitution says we shouldn't have it. God and religion are a part of American heritage, but there's also a proud heritage of irreligion. Would you suggest that there's grounds to favor one and not the other?

>> No.3631567

>>3631492
In addition, caring for children and happiness in marriage are not mutually exclusive. They arn't even in conflict. Most likely happy marriages include both a mutual love (that isn't only sexual, as Kolasinski likes to gloss over) and caring for your children correctly.

>> No.3631571

>>3631561
To expand on the unconstitutional bit: when the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" they're not bullshitting. God is a religious concept as you well know and admit. Does that not seem like a direct contradiction?

>> No.3631582

>>3631492
In fucking addition, if the Supreme Court had a full transcript of the Sharia Law etched in stone, then you would have a apt comparison.

>> No.3631603

>>3631500
>>3631492
>had a bill to make Christianity its state religion

"So fucking what?" It didn't pass, not due to the state legislature not getting enough votes, but thanks to the governor, having a bit more sense than his congress.

>The 10 commandments hung in courtrooms, when the first 2 commandments are perfectly antithetical to the first amendment.

Allow me to remind you that there are Democratic states that have Religious laws, including anti-blasphemy laws. The most recent example being Bassem Youssef in the recently democratic (for realz this time...?) Egypt. He has been arrested for anti-islamic blasphemy. However, even Canada has anti-blasphemy laws. If that Governor had been any one of the members of that state congress, then the state would be 'respecting an establishment of religion' and one step closer to Egypt.

"It goes the other way, too--there is no rational reason to be for it either. There is no argument in favour of gay marriage that does not rely on emotional appeals." Here you are implying emotional appeals are the same as religion...as for your link, it has almost no bearing on the current arguments in Washington over this issue, because of the fact that these conservative puritans don't NEED to make that argument. They, and their constituents, are quite happy claiming hetero only marriage on biblical grounds.

I applaud you calling me slimy. That was a good word, reminiscent of The Hitch. As is your argument (Hitchens, too, was against abortion). However, there is a reason I said 'almost'. However this is a huge debate that I refuse to have here. (I have created this for you and me: http://www.debate.org/debates/The-fetus-is-not-worthy-of-legal-protection/1/))

> "In God we trust" on our currency (which is also a problem)

this guy does a good job with this: >>3631561

>> No.3631611

>>3631603
>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-fetus-is-not-worthy-of-legal-protection/1/

That's a really neat site. I'm not the guy, but I really should use that with some of my friends.

>> No.3631617

>>3631611
I just joined, now, to try and real in this type of argument. 4chan is a terrible place for debate.

>> No.3631627

>>3631617
Well, I don't think he's here anymore, unless he's gearing up for a shotgun single post. I might just play the devil's advocate if he doesn't accept.

>> No.3631632

>>3631627
please do. I also have this for anyone interested.
http://www.debate.org/debates/The-first-amendment-Forbids-in-god-we-trust-for-good-reason/1/
I think these are the main 'hot topics' in this thread.

>> No.3631668

>>3631627
it is disappointing that someone will come and post something so large he needs two posts to fit it all, and then leave before someone has properly responded...

>> No.3631698

>>3631632
>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-fetus-is-not-worthy-of-legal-protection/1/
I accepted it. I'm writing it now. I should be finished with my first argument sometime tomorrow. I want to be thorough about this, if that's okay.

>> No.3631749

>>3631698
Yeah. That's okay. If I expected a response every couple of hours we would have to stay up all night.
People of /lit/, please vote on this and comment with any suggestions for furthering the argument. I do not care which side you are rooting for but hopefully we can have an interesting discussion that isn't full of terribleness. BTW, opponent, I forfeit the right to not be personally attacked and your argument better be interesting!

PS. Are you the original guy or the 'devil's advocate'?

>> No.3631794

>>3631749
Devil's advocate. Sorry that you couldn't get the genuine article.

>> No.3632843

>>3630663
Netflix is a 100 times worse with it's overreactions to your viewing habits. Watch one movie with a gay character and you're flooded by LGBT recommendations.

>> No.3632852

>>3632843

"Drive a truck your whole life, but nobody calls you "Truck drivin' Dave"...."

>> No.3633171

>>3632843
This. I can't remember what I watched but the next day I was flooded with recommendations of all these lesbian movies.

>> No.3633184

>>3633171
" We see you enjoyed "Babe" ; you might like to try some of these other Rosie O'donnell features."

>> No.3633195

Why exactly do people find popsci bad? You're a layman. It's only called "popular" because it is aimed at laymen. Not everone can have a working understanding of quantum mechanics and a fairly deep understanding of physics and maths. There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to at least grasp some points in science.

This attitude that there's somehow something wrong in trying to understand science without a Ph.D is fucking retarded. I understand why you'd think Michio Kaku is lame, because that guy misinforms as much as he informs, but there is a hell of a lot of good popsci out there. It's not a bad thing.

>> No.3633203

>>3633195

gotta second this. i started reading popsci and then got into doing a physics degree at 23 after some work and years of not knowing what to do. it's interesting and compelling even if you don't want to study it, but if you do have a passion for it then it might be just the push you need.

>> No.3633209
File: 29 KB, 447x364, 1298838218801.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3633209

>buying books

>> No.3633213

>>3633195
I'm not sure anybody's arguing against Asimov's essay collections or Stephen Gould's books. It's the social and philosophical stuff that gets on their nerves.

It's hard to find anything to object to in "Asimov's Guide to the Brain" or "Wonderful Life", it's the whole "there's no scientific reason to believe in the soul..nyah,nyah, nyah!" stuff that gets on peoples nerves.

there are very few people who are religious who actually think there is a scientific basis for their beliefs and there are very few people who don't already know the grisly history of religious persecution, or think that religion was a motivatiing force instead of a rationale and excuse for those atrocities.

>> No.3633214

>>3633209
Gotta spend my money on something.

>> No.3633216

>>3633213
>it's the whole "there's no scientific reason to believe in the soul..nyah,nyah, nyah!" stuff that gets on peoples nerves.
That just makes it a garbage book, it doesn't discredit the entire pop sci style.

>> No.3633218

>>3633195
PopSci is actually rather brilliant, I think. Brian Cox says science is way too important to not be a part of popular culture, and he's 100% right. The idea that science shouldn't leave the lab or the library is one which I find quite terrifying and actually very anti-intellectual. People like Brian Cox and Bill Bryson should be celebrated for making science accessible. A lot of people I know are scientifically illiterate (my mother thought the moon was a star) and anything which aims to challenge this is okay in my book.

>> No.3633226

>>3633209

How do you do it? Because I can't find any reliable places online.