/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6384875]

>Atheism is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist."

>We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle.

>Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.

Do you agree?

[Anonymous No.6384877]

pls no

[Anonymous No.6384888]

Fuck off

[Anonymous No.6384905]

OP, you do realize that the board janitors have bannable offenses and deletable offenses for flagging? Sam Harris is a deletable offense on /lit/.

It doesn't matter how many Harris threads you make, how on topic they are, you could even post one of his books and try to discuss the writing style, it will get deleted.

The janitor has to flag all Harris threads, along with a list of other things, and the mod will eventually delete it.

[Anonymous No.6384910]

He actually went for four years to college and studied philosophy to arrive at that

[Anonymous No.6384923]

I AM A COMPLETELY RATIONAL HUMAN BEING WHO ONLY BELIEVES IN COMPLETELY RATIONAL NATURALISTIC TRUTHS*

* As long as those completely rational naturalistic truths conform to conclusions arrived at through theoretical physics that I don't understand and trust other people to interpret for me, conform to my Westernized Patriarchal Mindset arrived at through social constructs and Abrahamic-influenced concepts of chauvinism and masculinity and natural rights and have nothing to do with those OTHER completely rational naturalistic beliefs arrived at by primitive societies around the world, including the atheist tribe in South America who despite not believing in Gods have absolutely nothing in common with the Jingoistic rhetoric I infuse my "secular" books with

[Anonymous No.6384924]

>>6384910
He's just one of those public figures like Bill O'Rilley or Seth McFarlane that play a character to cash in on repeating the public's opinion back to itself.

[Anonymous No.6384931]

>>6384910
>He actually went for four years to college and studied philosophy
you can do a philosophy bachelors in three. he didn't do a masters

[Anonymous No.6384939]

>>6384924
If Bill O'Rilley or Seth McFarlane just "repeat the public's opinion back to itself," why do they say different things?

[Anonymous No.6384946]

>>6384939
Are you genuinely asking or just looking to incite a shitflinging contest?

[Anonymous No.6384948]

>>6384939
different publics

[Anonymous No.6384952]

>>6384948
>different publics
Oh so now we have multiple publics? So they are not really "repeating the public's opinion back to itself" if the public is a varied and diverse body with many views and opinions.

[Anonymous No.6384968]

>>6384952
But it isn't. The public is a varied and diverse body with a handfull of very popular opinions (each which aforementioned characters tend to pander to) and many from those differing opinions or amalgations therof, held by very few people.

[Anonymous No.6384983]

>>6384875
*tips fedora*

yfw I say that as an atheist who completely disagrees with Harris (and his ilk) and his rhetoric
yfw most of the people who use le hat joke are atheists for that exact reason

[Anonymous No.6384991]

>>6384983
(as in, use the meme for that reason)

[Anonymous No.6384995]

>>6384875
believing in God is popular today, so "atheists" are rare
no believing in God would be more popular tomorrow, so "believers" would be rare

[Anonymous No.6385002]

>>6384923
>>6384983
>"fedora" meme

[Anonymous No.6385017]

>>6385002
that's how God decides who gets in to heaven

[Anonymous No.6385032]

>>6384923
Underrated post

[Anonymous No.6385036]

>>6385032
*my post
sorry everyone, I try to avoid these mistakes

[Anonymous No.6385040]

>>6384995
>believing in God is popular today, so "atheists" are rare
Not really, unless you live in Burgerstan. in first world countries, most people have outgrown religion. Unfortunately, especially in Bongland, a lot of people get a child christened because of the novelty of doing something with a baby and "hey, omg, you wanna be godmother?", and the church keeps baptism records to grossly over-inflate their membership stats. Really though, the average person doesn't care about your saviour-on-a-stick cult.

[Anonymous No.6385045]

>>6384983
>completely disagree with his ilk
>atheist

I swear we're reaching a point where atheists will deny not beleiving in god just to not appear contrarioin. Can you even produce an argument against what he said my fellow non believer in benevolent omniscient kitchen appliances?

[Anonymous No.6385062]

>>6385045
>I swear we're reaching a point where atheists will . . .
post all day about how much they adore Aquinas and Kierkegaardashian, and how how grateful they are to God for the amazing miracles saints perform every year to get canonized.

[Anonymous No.6385079]

>>6384995
Atheism is actually very popular nowadays. Even religious people are much less orthodoxic than they used to be.

>>6384923
What do you mean by
>COMPLETELY RATIONAL NATURALISTIC TRUTHS
?

[Anonymous No.6385083]

>>6385040
>can't tell if satire.

[Anonymous No.6385087]

>>6385083
what is the source of this quoted text?

[Anonymous No.6385095]

>>6385017

And afterwards he says "#Le ReKd, NOScoPe"

[Anonymous No.6385099]

>>6385040
>"hey, omg, you wanna be godmother?", and the church keeps baptism records to grossly over-inflate their membership stats.

You need to notify the Secular Society that you want your baptism revoked and give them the name of the church that performed the baptism. They sent a court ordered cease and desist, and the Church has to legally strike your name from their baptismal records and stop using you in their member count. Then you get a fancy certificate.

[Anonymous No.6385103]

>>6384923
>Westernized Patriarchal Mindset

[Anonymous No.6385116]

>>6384875
Being an atheist is taking a standpoint about the whole metaphysical debate.
Even if you only go as far as saying "god does not exist", which is quite a reactionary attitude more than an ideology with something to propose, you're not getting rid of your internal metaphysical debate, but more like replacing it with something else.

In the case of the *fedora tippers* is seems like they have all their faith in the cientific method, as this was the only "reasonable" way to solve any problem that life could present. In fact they go as far as thinking that they could solve life itself.

Austistic fedora tippers feel so catered by this because it's simple and it has tangible results in the real world.
If would be funny to see them exposed to some good epistemology. I would like to see how they faces melt when they hear some good arguments debunking the cientific method, or at least showing the flaws of it and how limited actually is.

[Anonymous No.6385119]

>>6385103
stop oppressing me, atheist shitlord

[Anonymous No.6385120]

>>6385099
>in the name of huan reason
I lost it.

[Anonymous No.6385123]

>>6385103
He's right.

[Anonymous No.6385148]

>>6385120
This one's good.

[Anonymous No.6385155]

>>6385148
>before embracing free thought and reason
>renounce that primitive rite
AAAYYYYYYY !!!! The spooks are strong on this one.

[Anonymous No.6385163]

>We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive
If it was assumed by the majority that Elvis was still alive, you were criticised for saying he wasn't and you got tax breaks for saying he was, then there would be a word for it.

This is just the etymological fallacy, focusing on the dictionary definition of the word atheism rather than how it is used in society.

[Anonymous No.6385166]

>>6384923

>le sneer culture maymay!


Pleease die.
You can't produce anything.

[Anonymous No.6385174]

>>6385116

>debunking the cientific method
It works even if it's flawed initially. Planes fly, computers compute. Refusing science is silly.

>solve life itself
Oh come on, what does it even mean?

If not on reason, then on what should we base our problem solving? What should guide us?

[Anonymous No.6385178]

>>6385174
the answer is
GOD
JESUS
THE HOLY BIBLE

[Anonymous No.6385189]

>>6385123

Get triggered, fat cunt

[Anonymous No.6385192]

>>6385163
>If it was assumed by the majority that Elvis was still alive, you were criticised for saying he wasn't and you got tax breaks for saying he was, then there would be a word for it.

The Numbers of people who beleive Elvis is alive are small, however there are very large numbers of people who do believe a lot of bullshit, and no names for the people who reject it.

[Anonymous No.6385228]

>>6385192
There's a large number of people that believe a large number of silly things. But ear candling and levitation aren't believed by the majority. Until acupuncture has a special day of rest in the calender and the money says "under bigfoot we trust" there wouldn't need to be abigfootists.

[Anonymous No.6385240]

>>6385148
To be fair, the whole idea of original sin is abhorrent.

[Anonymous No.6385257]

>>6385240
>To be fair, the whole idea of original sin is abhorrent.

What Eve did was abhorrent.

Our entire species is now forever cast out of the Garden of Eden, and her descendants still carry the weight of her sin. I think you are forgetting that she had been granted PARADISE and still disobeyed God.

Official dogma dictates that every baby is born with original sin, there is no getting around that, and a baptism performed with holy water cleanses them of that sin and brings them into the loving heart of Christ the Redeemer.

[Anonymous No.6385263]

>>6385240
Yeah trying to think of something original is hellish these days
>>6385257
Oh wait, this one's funnier

[Anonymous No.6385268]

>>6385240
lol

>truth isn't truth because it hurts muh feels

[Anonymous No.6385276]

>>6385189

Looks like someone was triggered.

[Anonymous No.6385292]

>>6385257
You idiot. If she hadn't sinned, someone else would have. That's the nature of man.

[Anonymous No.6385295]

>>6384923
spot on

[Anonymous No.6385296]

>>6385257
epic

[Anonymous No.6385309]

>>6385296
Well meme'd my friend :^D

[Anonymous No.6385310]

>>6385257
why did god create her with a sinful nature then lmao

[Anonymous No.6385313]

>>6385087
>let me tell you how to green text

[Anonymous No.6385315]

>>6385268
>truth

When people claim to have the moral high ground while using something that is both abhorrent and clearly fictional as justification they should be disregarded.

[Anonymous No.6385324]

>>6385315
>tipping intensifies
>mfw

[Anonymous No.6385325]

>>6385310
>why did god create her with a sinful nature then lmao

He didn't give her a 'sinful nature', he gave her the gift of free will, the responsibility to make her own decisions, and she was unable to resist temptation.

[Anonymous No.6385326]

>>6385310
because your a fag

[Anonymous No.6385329]

>>6385315
>clearly fictional
This level of tipping is impressive. At least a 7 on the tipometer.

[Anonymous No.6385330]

>>6385324
You people need to get an actual counter-point.

And your head would explode if you went to any Western country other than the US.

[Anonymous No.6385335]

>>6385326
>because your a fag
*Because
*You're
*.

See me after class.

[Anonymous No.6385338]

>>6385330
Anon pls, THERE ARE NO MORE FAGHATS TO TIP

[Anonymous No.6385339]

>>6385335
shut up general dicklicker

[Anonymous No.6385340]

>>6385330
>You people
Just because I am a woman of color, you think you have the right to say "you people"?

[Anonymous No.6385342]

>>6384875
Doesn't the fact a word is widely used show it's necessary?

[Anonymous No.6385343]

>>6385340
negro slut need to go to reddit
this is Anonymous bitch
we re legion

[Anonymous No.6385346]

>>6385340
Yes.

[Anonymous No.6385347]

>>6385339
>shut up general dicklicker
*Shut
*,
*General
*Dicklicker
*.

See me after class.

[Anonymous No.6385349]

'The biblical story of creation is fictional' is not a remotely controversial statement unless you are a religious extremist and/or mentally ill. So why do you idiots spend all day calling anybody who realises the obvious a fedora tipper.

The fact some of you are atheists yourselves makes it even more pathetic, if you were a butthurt Christian it would at least make some sense.

[Anonymous No.6385352]

>>6385347
>See me after class.
See me after mass

[Anonymous No.6385356]

>>6385352
*ass

[Anonymous No.6385360]

>>6385349

[Anonymous No.6385362]

>>6385099
Most people don't care enough to do that though.

The Average American calls themselves a christian, but doesn't give two shits about religion, and probably goes to church twice a year at most.

[Anonymous No.6385367]

>>6385360
WOW
it's is LE MEME JEW
the most EPIN and SILLY meme OF THEM ALL
I mean
damn

I especially love when he says "oi vee gorim"
can you post some pictures like that

[Anonymous No.6385368]

>>6385342
>Doesn't the fact a word is widely used show it's necessary?
Like "you know" among the British upper class. Absolutely necessary.

"I was taking a stroll outside of the manor. Just, you know, admiring the rolling countryside, when one of those, you know, those bloody peasants accosted me with, you know, one of those, you know, those whatjamacallits . . . err, you know, one of those things that they use for, err. . . Oh rats, what are they called. The thinks with the, you know, the thing. . ."

[Anonymous No.6385370]

>>6385174
>It works even if it's flawed initially.

Lots of things work even though they are flawed, including most popular religions. It dosn't matter if god exists, because the church manages to convince everyone to act as if it does, and thus is able to change the sociopolitical landscape in ways that benefit itself.

[Anonymous No.6385385]

This christposting shit has gone for enough.

[Anonymous No.6385391]

>>6385367
>LE MEME JEW

[Anonymous No.6385396]

>>6385368
go read a fucking book on discourse analysis/pragmatics, you goon. "you know" is a discourse particle, and it has a function.

[Anonymous No.6385398]

>>6385391
no, I mean like this
OY VEY
see?

[Anonymous No.6385401]

>>6385349
>'The biblical story of creation is fictional'
If your dogmatic belief were true: If your belief that "The biblical story of creation is fictional," had any truth to it at all, then babies wouldn't be born with original sin. As babies ARE born with original sin and require baptism, you are clearly wrong and probably one of those odious hat people from reddit.

[Anonymous No.6385403]

I get the feeling that the whole question of God boils down to this: is the world uncreated or created?

We seem to have many good reasons to accept either.

[Anonymous No.6385411]

>>6385398
Maybe you could oy vey for me, Chaim?

[Anonymous No.6385422]

>>6385403
>is the world uncreated or created?
it exists so it was created

[Anonymous No.6385426]

>>6385411
tee hee goyim

[Anonymous No.6385428]

>>6385396
>Doesn't the fact a word is widely used show it's necessary?

>a discourse particle, and it has a function

Sorry. Could you help me with 'discourse analysis/pragmatics' then?

Which of these would be correct?
a) Something with a function is not a word.
b) A discourse particle is not a word.
c) If a discourse particle has a function, it is not a word.

[Anonymous No.6385436]

>>6385426
No Chaim, o-y v-e-y. Like a yid.

[Anonymous No.6385441]

>>6385436
oy vey is shoah

[Anonymous No.6385458]

>>6385441
That's better! Just like back on the shtetl! Here's your jew penny as a reward.

[Anonymous No.6385472]

>>6385458
i run this shit

[Anonymous No.6385481]

>>6385428
>help me
>answer my uninformed questions that fit a senseless framework
not gonna do that for you, friend. There are plenty of things that aren't words that convey meaning. See: morpheme. There are also words that convey little lexical meaning, but have grammatical function. See: auxiliary verbs.

I won't define what a word is, because who can? fool's errand.

"you know" is a device used to show the attitude of the speaker, and also is used to create a structure for interaction with the hearer. this sort of thing is found in many languages throughout the world, and is not unique to posh english.

here are some books that would make good entry level reading:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199243689
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521851920

[Anonymous No.6385492]

>>6385403
>I get the feeling that the whole question of God boils down to this: is the world uncreated or created?
ho mate, shit what have you done.

the world is created, once you separate the creation form the origin.

the creation is the question of the lack of the selfsufficiency

the uncreation is the question of the selfsufficiency

but now, the humanity asks about the selfsufficiency

By the results in biology, we know that it seems that the humanity does not really escape the world, the humanity is nothing but an animal, a bit special but many apes are just like us.
the world is then selfsufficient

the world is uncreated

if, on the contrary, we believe that the humanity is not really part of the world, that it is to world world by another degree of the animals, then the humanity holds an absolute place in the world. this is then the moment when the world no longer suffices to itself, since there are some degrees to be in the world since the humans are part of the world.

The world then ceases to be selfsufficient

the world is no longer to be sufficient to hold in itself its sufficient principle of existence.

the world is created

further :
if hte humanity is some strange part of the world, a part of the world which itself asks about its sufficiency, then the fact that somebody on earth, in the world, asks about the world shows that the world is created

[Anonymous No.6385548]

>>6384875
taking the bait (pic related):

We have words for "astrologer" and "alchemist" because most people are not astrologers or alchemists, therefore it is necessary to denote that astrologers, etc. are different. Similarly, we have the word "atheist" because most people are not atheists. If most people were and had always been atheists, we would not have nearly as much use for this word.

Nevertheless, it is silly to talk about whether or not words "should exist": if they do exist, they should. I am looking at this from the perspective of a linguist fyi.

[Anonymous No.6385553]

>>6385548
>we have the word "atheist"

I don't have this word

Don't group me with your spooks

[Anonymous No.6385563]

>>6384931
He jumped straight to a PhD or he only has a pleb degree?

[Anonymous No.6385566]

>>6385548
>claims to be taking bait
>actually drops his own bait

If what you said is true, why do we have the word theist?

[Anonymous No.6385569]

>>6385325
Free will is incoherent, and if it did exist, and it's existence entailed such suffering, it would be better if it didn't exist.

[Anonymous No.6385578]

>>6385492
fuck me. i just spent about three minutes looking for nudes of her. are there any?

[Anonymous No.6385581]

>>6385368
We cannot talk about the "usefulness" or "necessity" of language in terms of meaning, but only aesthetics. In other words, although all those "extra" words/phrases may look ugly to you, the sentence still conveys more or less the same amount of meaning as it would without them, and therefore it cannot objectively be said that they should be removed.

[Anonymous No.6385588]

>>6385257
>being an ignorant, subservient animal forever in stasis
>paradise

No

[Anonymous No.6385599]

>>6385566
Because there is a need for it, i.e. to identify and group "theists". The point is that there is also a need for "atheist", and every other word that has ever existed. I merely gave a more specific explanation on why "atheist" is necessary/how it arose -- I didn't say that this explains the origins of all words, or that if a word does not conform to this origin then it is unnecessary, etc..

[Anonymous No.6385644]

>>6385588
lol

[Anonymous No.6385656]

>>6385644
At least you didn't post a hat man

[Anonymous No.6385809]

Anyone who knows basic Psychology realizes that Harris is a fraud using science to get Autists into buying his shitty books laden with sophomoric, half-baked ideas on spirituality and Religion

[Anonymous No.6386012]

>>6385174
>it works even if it's flawed
Yes, but fedora tippers believe it's the ultimate way of understanding the world.
>what does it even mean?
Every single problematic that life presents is solved through a methodic analysis of the possible choices.

Have you ever read or talked with one of those guys? They lack even the most basics forms of intuition. For them life is just a giant paper waiting to be writed.

[Anonymous No.6386082]

>>6385292
This. It's just was a matter of time before someone would fuck things up.

God was a douche, I'm glad he's dead.

[Anonymous No.6386194]

>>6385809
"Basic psychology" is like "basic economics." It's oversimplified to the point of near-uselessness and its only purpose is to provide a reference point for further study to explain why almost all of it was wrong.

[Anonymous No.6386205]

>My claim is that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics

>Just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim Algebra, we will see that there is no such thing as Christian or Muslim morality.

>Despite our perennial bad behavior, our moral progress seems to me unmistakable.

Based Sam Harris

[Anonymous No.6386215]

>>6386205
>makes a claim
>doesn't justify it, just demands you accept is a fact because of a meaningless analogy

Sam Harris.

[Anonymous No.6386216]

>>6386205
Are these actual quotes of his?

[Anonymous No.6386225]

>>6386216
yes, they all can be found in The Moral Landscape

[Anonymous No.6386265]

>>6386194
dodging the point. Sam Harris isn't a serious scientist in his field . Even his Atheist colleague thinks so here where he calls him a 'sorta scientist' , 'writer': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGPIzSe5cAU#t=14m

[Anonymous No.6386277]

>>6385492

What the fuck is this? Why are you dumping your shit-tier metaphysics on me? I'm not reading this garbage.

[Anonymous No.6386286]

>>6384875
It's because theism is a majority it gets a word
If barely anyone was religious of course it wouldn't need a word

But in history this is an "abnormal" thing

[Anonymous No.6386293]

>>6385563
his PhD is in neuroscience, not philosophy. He only got a bachelor's in philosophy, which really doesn't mean anything at all.

[Anonymous No.6386296]

>>6384875
We had a poll, and it's been established that /lit/ is mostly agnostic/atheist and just pretends to be christian

[Anonymous No.6386309]

>>6386296
People are more honest in polls?

[Anonymous No.6386311]

>>6385385
>christposting
All I see here is fedoraposting

[Anonymous No.6386313]

>>6386309
If anything people use polls as an opportunity to troll.

[Anonymous No.6386321]

>>6386296
A single poll doesn't show anything, especially considering the majority of /lit/, myself included, never even saw this poll.
Also >>6386309
>>6386313

[Anonymous No.6386328]

>>6386205
>>6386225
Is this real? If so that doesn't make any sense just as >>6386215 said.
If he actually said this, Sam Harris is a fucking hack.

[Anonymous No.6386337]

>>6386328
I swear to you they're real quotes. Go to libgen and download the book and zoom out and search each chapter with cntrl + f if you don't believe me, you'll find every one there. I'd give you the page numbers but I got rid of the copy I had on my computer and I don't feel like downloading another

[Anonymous No.6386339]

I am euphoric
We are euphoric

This is /lit/

[Anonymous No.6386354]

>>6386205

Morality is NOT like algebra or physics. That's almost the entire reason Sam Harris is so fucking bewildered by Islam.

Ethics has to operate and unfold within cultural constructions. If your reaction to such limitations is to reject the culture altogether, you're not doing anything but promoting conflict.

A certain set of ethical rules-of-thumb can be established which are probably recognized by all cultures. This is the idea behind human rights.

But Sam and others fail to realize that this purely rational formulation of human rights cannot appeal to all cultures. In Islamic societies for example, it appears as a floating, bizarre and very human construction which is greeted with suspicion as a colonial device.


Human rights can have universal applicability, but their ethical foundations have to be formulated in languages which each culture understands. Floating rationality might work for the west, but it simply doesn't for most of the world.

Sam and others take this as grounds to reject those societies altogether, whereas they might make themselves useful by learning other "languages" (theological, cultural, revelatory, traditional, whatever; anything non-secular) and arguing for ways to make human rights viable within such languages.

It irritates me to no end, this fake "rationality." Morality is more like aesthetics than algebra for god's sake.

[Anonymous No.6386383]

>>6384983
Oh look, the religious dope pretends to be Atheist to win an argument.

[Anonymous No.6386496]

[Anonymous No.6386769]

>>6386496
i refuse to believe that people are truly convinvced by memeposting

[Anonymous No.6386798]

>>6386496
Just because William Lane's Craig divine command theory of morality is shit (and divine command theory of morality was wrecked by Leibniz), doesn't mean his apologetics outside moral theory are. He's without a doubt the very best apologist for the historicity of the Gospels.