[ 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: 41 KB, 568x439, 8972687_orig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4487691 No.4487691 [Reply] [Original]

Looking for a good book about philosophical differences or objectification. (I also wouldn't mind a good one within that subject for morals.)
No religious shit being shoved down my throat.

>> No.4487699

is it children's or childrens'? S

>> No.4487714

atheism is like a penis...

>> No.4487716

homosexuality IS religion

>> No.4487731

>>4487699
either
child's
or
childrens'

>> No.4487783

>>4487714
Yes, I know.

>> No.4487789

>>4487716
Whatever you say, pal. Just looking for a book.

>> No.4487799

>>4487731
>childrens'

No. Children's. Pertaining to children.

>> No.4487801

>>4487691
>ethics is like a penis...

>philosophical differences
What a generic term for a request. Fuck off OP.

>> No.4487806

>>4487789
homosexuality IS religion

>> No.4487809

>>4487699
I didn't make it, I just put it here. It's, more or less, meant to signal anyone wanting to shove 'idealistic' religious bullshit down my throat to go back to their corner and jerk off, like they should do if they push it on to children. Can we not just have basic attempt at logic in the world?

>> No.4487812

>>4487801
Will do, when I find the fucking book.

>> No.4487814

Minima Moralia.

>> No.4487819

>>4487809
I wasn't asking you to explain it. I understand that it's a passive aggressive atheist thinking they're doing the world a favor by being an asshole. I was asking about the grammar of "children's" being correct or not.

>> No.4487828
File: 6 KB, 289x210, +1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4487828

>>4487814
>Minima Moralia.
Noted, will keep down in notepad.
+1

>> No.4487835

>>4487812
>I'm looking for a book on differences in philosophy about morality

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=morality+philosophy+book&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gfe_rd=cr&ei=m2XdUp3aFMuN8Qe3ooCQCg#q=morality+philosophy+book&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=shop

>Objectification
http://www.elon.edu/e-net/Article/53278

Now fuck off.

>> No.4487846
File: 3 KB, 640x360, +1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4487846

>>4487819
Yes, but other people were bothering the shit out of the thread due to it, because most people don't look at the photo. (Unless it has something pertaining to interests, like religion, in it.) They also don't notice they missed the error most of the time. +1 to you for noticing. Your body above answered the question, as well.

>> No.4487859

>+1
>>>/reddit/

>> No.4487863

>>4487828

Any other suggestions in this thread will be inferior to this book, based on what you're asking for.

>> No.4487866

>>4487714
Nope, atheism is a default state before anything is shoved down your throat.

>> No.4487877
File: 2 KB, 222x227, -1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4487877

>>4487835
> http://www.elon.edu/e-net/Article/53278
> Using google to find a good book, gg, anon.
Useful information, anon, useful. It's generic for a damn reason. I'll fuck off when I get a few down.
-1 For that suggestion, and there is a slight difference in wording for morals and morality, learn to read..
<nomoarfeed4u>

>> No.4487879

>>4487863
You never know, anon.

>> No.4487892
File: 27 KB, 610x400, +1heard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4487892

>>4487859
It can't just be a system I generate where people who give some decent or 'good' responses towards the post are rewarded? Fair enough with the relation between here and reddit, anon. +1

>> No.4487908
File: 287 KB, 469x428, 1283023493311.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4487908

>>4487731
not sure if troll, or somebody doling out grammatical advice that he's apparently unqualified to give (both are equally common here)

>> No.4487910

>>4487789
so "pic not related"?

good job m8

>> No.4487913

>>4487866
*tips fedora*

>> No.4487915
File: 25 KB, 213x212, Deal.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4487915

>>4487908
> Book, or No Book.

>> No.4487925
File: 106 KB, 1024x683, Facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4487925

>>4487910
There is implicit meaning through what the photo states, and correspondingly what I put in my first post. Learn to correlate, anon. When you're done with that, go back to /b/.

>> No.4487943

>>4487925
Aw, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Wait, let me guess, you're going to deny feelings now?

>like clockwork

>> No.4487972

>>4487866
I'm sorry your mom made you go to sunday school.

>> No.4487979

>>4487892
>>4487925
>>4487877
>>4487846
>>4487828
>>4487812
>>4487789


You are much to sensitive for an anonymous board like this. Go somewhere else for productive communal recommendations and ego validation.

>> No.4488017

>>4487972
Lolnope, my parents aren't religious and as a result I'm not either. The only way I would be is if they were and they had forced it down my throat, that's kinda my point.

>> No.4488031

>>4488017
your point is not factual, however

>> No.4488041

>>4487866
It isn't the default state. Non-religious is the default state.

>> No.4488057

>>4488041
assuming there is a "default state" idiots

>> No.4488060

Only the janitor can save us now.

>> No.4488064

>>4488057
wow profound

>> No.4488094

>>4488041
In my mind "non-religious" and "atheist" are one and the same. I'm not a militant atheist or anti-theist, those people are faggots.

>>4488057
Why wouldn't there be a default state?

>> No.4488099

>>4488094
>Why wouldn't there be a default state?

You assume there is one based on...comfort?

How ironic.

>> No.4488132

>>4488099
Can you provide an example of a child believing in a deity without being told about said deity by an outside source?

>> No.4488136

>>4488094
But this is wrong. You are free to think what you want but by definition they are not the same. Atheist is taking a stance and believing something. At birth you are not capable of taking a stance. You are areligious.

>> No.4488160

>>4488136
Well if that's the actual definition then I guess I am and always have areligious, I don't think there's any rational reason for it to even be a question. I pretty much share Freud's view on the topic.

>> No.4488168

>>4488160
oops missed a word, meant to say have been.

>> No.4488178

>>4488132
A child probably thinks they're immortal. That's why they don't give a damn at funerals.

>> No.4488181
File: 476 KB, 1275x3601, 1328292172124.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4488181

Not this shit again. You people could atleast bother to google "atheist definition" before you start talking this nonsense.

>> No.4488207

>>4488178
Yep, that's right. But if it takes the realization of mortality to start believing, doesn't that just prove that it's invented in order to ease the fear of death?

>> No.4488223

>>4488207
I thought we were talking about returning to the default state as ideal. Now it's not ideal? Okay.

>> No.4488230

>>4488136
This is called implicit atheism, everyone is born as a implicit atheist. You are correct that everyone is born as areligious i.e. without religion but everyone is also born without the faith in a deity which makes them atheist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism