/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1968963]

What do you guys think about the new age atheism movement and the respective authors?

Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc.

I know they aren't "/lit/", just wondering if their books were worth a shot.

[Anonymous No.1968965]

It's hip to hate them now.

[Anonymous No.1968966]

Generally, /lit/ dislikes them, but there are always a few on here who fight with the rest. Seriously, don't waste your time, the arguments these guys put out are the same that you think of when you are 15. If you want to read something interesting as an atheist, pick up the myth of sisyphus by Albert Camus.

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1968972]

Dawkins is a great thinker

Hitchens is a great speaker

Harris is a fucking tool.

[Anonymous No.1968975]

>>1968972
why?

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1968985]

>>1968975

Because he is an advocate for the use of torture.

[Anonymous No.1968986]

>>1968985
source.
I still think he's better than dorkins (royalties for use of this term payable to deep&edgy) and hitchens for acknowledging meditation though.

[Anonymous No.1968987]

>new age atheism
No room for silly superstitions in the Age of Aquarius.

[Anonymous No.1968990]

>Harris is a fucking tool.

Harris keeps his cool like no other. Dawkins and Hitchens have an angry old man vibe that comes to the surface once in a while.

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1968994]

>>1968986

His book, The End of Faith.

Haven't you read it?

Here is an article he wrote about it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

Pretty vulgar. I haven't read that article but in his book he describes the use of a 'truth pill' which you could give to terrorists which would cause such intense pain that they would be forced to speak the truth.

He advocates a disturbing, sanitised version of torture which seems absurd coming from a man who claims to be a humanist.

Also, Dawkins doesn't like meditation and Hitchens criticised Buddhism very incisively in his book 'God is not Great'.

[Anonymous No.1968999]

>>1968994
Why doesn't he like meditation? buddhism =/= meditation.

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1969000]

>>1968999

Dawkins just said that he didn't get anything from it.

aslo get

[Anonymous No.1969001]

>>1968985
Torture's like cannibalism: not generally a good idea, but sometimes necessary to avoid something worse.

Most of the arguments against ever using torture use terrible logic. Like, "Torture is never useful for extracting information because people will say anything to make the torture stop!" (and just nevermind that often it's far, far easier to *check* information from an untrusted source than to gather that information independently).

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1969006]

>>1969001

materialism at it's crudest.

[Anonymous No.1969008]

>>1969006

psuedointellectualism at its most vacuous.

[Anonymous No.1969014]

>>1968994

Kill 1, save 1000.

But fuck the world, anyway.

[Anonymous No.1969015]

>>1969001
The logic that justifies torture "to avoid something worse"
Can be employed in exactly the same way by a terrorist weighing the lives of a few thousand Americans against the hundreds of thousands that are being killed by ongoing American imperialism.

[Anonymous No.1969016]

>>1969006
You're not smart. Just cause you litter your un-backed up statements of opinion with philosophical buzzwords doesn't make you look smart. ARghhh you piss me off. Everytime I see you post you make these gay short categorical statements like you imagine yourself a quoteworthy intellectual it's so GAY.

[Anonymous No.1969017]

>>1969015

>implying that violence solves anything

An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind.

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1969020]

>>1969014

Hitchens is strongly against torture and capital punishment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/14/afghanistan.terrorism2

>>1969016

well you're just gay.

[Anonymous No.1969021]

I think they're idiots. Not because they are atheists or because they find moral fault with religion (as I do myself to a lesser extent). But because they are so blind to think that insulting and challenging those with deep religious convictions will ever change anything. Angering or irritating someone of a different belief will merely reinforce their views and make it harder for them to change opinion. All both parties get out of this is annoyance out of the other person's argument and a feeling of superiority.

[Anonymous No.1969029]

>>1969020

See pic.

[Anonymous No.1969030]

>>1969020

i've been looking for that guardian article, thanks

[Anonymous No.1969032]

>>1969017
I wasn't trying to suggest that violence solves anything. My point was more that these shitty moral systems these guys have thought up can basically be used to justify whatever you want.

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1969069]

>>1969029

i don't see what's difficult to understand about this sentence, it's widely accepted that philosophy and mathematics redefine problems in ways which we can understand and deal with.

You think real problems are solved with philosophy? The context of that thread was that the OP was expecting too much from philosophy.

[Anonymous No.1969074]

>>1969015
>The logic that justifies torture "to avoid something worse"
>Can be employed in exactly the same way by a terrorist weighing the lives of a few thousand Americans against the hundreds of thousands that are being killed by ongoing American imperialism.
Yes. And?

The best argument against terrorism is usually not that it's evil, but that it's stupid, and it tends to be used in the service of stupid causes. Terrorism is an option always available to very small groups, with such a stupid motivation that nobody supports them, so they just go out and do whatever random damage one guy or a dozen guys can do on their own.

Terrorism is, at its heart, the strategy of affecting your enemies by putting them in fear of you. There are worse things, such as the strategy of affecting your enemies by killing them all.

The IRA gives us examples of effective terrorism. A major reason they were effective (and they did achieve many of their goals) is that they worked to minimize casualties, rather than maximize them. They called in bomb threats before they blew things up, so evacuation could be done. They demonstrated the will and power to do damage, and then sat down to negotiate, secure in the knowledge that they had not acted so monstrously as to make negotiations infeasible.

Their cause and goals were maybe not so well justified and sensible. I'm not saying they were the good guys. I'm saying that it's not the fact of using terrorism that made them the bad guys.

(too long)

[Anonymous No.1969075]

continued from >>1969074

The word "terrorism" is used all too often as a label for senseless and counterproductive tantrums of unrestrained and spiteful violence. This muddies the waters, makes it difficult to discuss restrained, tactical, effective terrorism, as opposed to senseless violence which the perpetrators claim to be terrorism as an excuse and rationalization.

In all cases, you must weigh the moral standing and good sense of the goals against the potential and actual harm of the means. This is harder than mindlessly slapping labels on things, but also far more ethically sound.

[Anonymous No.1969077]

>>1968966

>the myth of sisyphus by Albert Camus.

[Anonymous No.1969084]

I like Hitchens. Not really a big fan of Dawkins, but I liked the documentary he made where he went around and criticized religious people.

And I've never read anything by Harris. Does anyone know the name of that guy who used to be a preacher for years and then became an Atheist and wrote a book? It looked pretty good but I forgot the name.

[Anonymous No.1969093]

>>1969074
>Yes. And?

If you agree that using Harris "moral system" you can pretty much find away to justify (or rationalise) whatever you want. Why not just be more honest and admit you are basic actions on rational self interest.

>In all cases, you must weigh the moral standing and good sense

I don't know the basis of your morality. My argument is only with the laughable ideas in this proposed by Harris et al.

[Anonymous No.1969098]

>>1969021
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe the point isn't to change the minds of the people being mocked?

The more people come out and openly laugh at the idiotic superstition of religion and its feeble illogical defenses, the more people will feel that it's alright to do so, that they don't have to bite their tongue when they see someone out promoting their religion. The more people who aren't devoutly religious will see it as embarassing to go to church, and give lip service to what they know is wrong and stupid.

The true believers are a small minority. Most "religious" people are just going through the motions to be accepted in their community. When they let on that they're Christian to and get a weird look, and then avoided as if they were a Hare Krishna dancing in the street, that's a counter to the social pressure that keeps them playing Christian even when they don't really believe.

Most people are perfectly willing to consider *some* religions to be crazy cults only idiots join. It's not so hard to start them worrying that being in a mainstream religion makes them look the same way.

[Anonymous No.1969095]

>Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris
Each has a good understanding of marketing, but a rather feeble understanding of theology, philosophy, stuff like that. They can quote okay sometimes.

[Anonymous No.1969100]

>>1969075

can you name some other events in which the terrorists are the good guys, not trollin, just curious.... French/American Revolution maybe?

[Anonymous No.1969103]

>>1969093
>Why not just be more honest and admit you are basic actions on rational self interest.
I like an easy win, but you don't have to make it THIS obvious which side of the argument is full of incoherent idiots.

[Anonymous No.1969106]

>>1969100
Terrorist is just another term for bad guy. Look at the ANC in South Africa, considered as terrorists for going against the apartheid regime.

[Anonymous No.1969107]

>>1969098
>I can see into men's hearts and minds.

[Anonymous No.1969120]

>>1969100
I haven't named any events yet where the terrorists were the good guys, I just gave an example of competent and effective terrorism, instead of rationalized tantrums.

I'm not big on handing out "good guy" labels (I don't really see any clear good guys in the American or French revolutions, for example), but distinguishing the winners and the losers, and the effective from the ineffectual, is easier.

[Anonymous No.1969124]

>>1969103
I didn't realize this was an argument. I thought we were just having an honest exchange of ideas. But if you want to go ahead and make a cheap point off a typo that's your choice.

*basing

[Anonymous No.1969128]

Atheism is a religion.

You think I'm wrong? Compare how your typical atheist acts with the "fundies" they claim to be nothing like.

[Anonymous No.1969129]

>>1969128
>inb4 they get mad and call you christfag

[Anonymous No.1969133]

>>1969128
If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby

[Anonymous No.1969136]

Dawkins writes popular science. He's not a part of any kind of 'movement'.

[Anonymous No.1969140]

>>1969124
With the typo fixed, it's still an absurd non sequitur.

>you can pretty much find away to justify (or rationalise) whatever you want. Why not just be more honest and admit you are basing actions on rational self-interest.
So to your mind "basing actions on rational self-interest" = "justifying whatever you want" = "weighing moral standing and good sense of goals against actual and potential harm of means". Suuuuuuure.

I'm saying "Do the sums." and you're saying, "But that means you'll just get whatever number you want! And you're selfish!"

What a moron.

[Anonymous No.1969141]

>>1969133
But people who don't collect stamps aren't going to spend every waking moment of their lives berating those idiots who do collect stamps.

[Anonymous No.1969144]

>>1969141
Atheism is not a religion, but mocking the religious for their irrational superstition IS a hobby undertaken by some atheists.

[Anonymous No.1969146]

>>1969141
the atheist position doesn't entail that at all. So when you complain about atheists, you are really complaining about obnoxious people

Incidentally, collecting stamps is not a harmful paradigm, nor do stamp collecters harass others and try to influence legislation

[Anonymous No.1969147]

>>1969133
Atheism itself is not a religion, but Atheist organizations behave a lot like organized religions. Atheism is pretty much a bake sale away from being an institutionalized belief system like religions.

[Anonymous No.1969148]

I wouldn't mind these guys if they had the courage to be consistent and treat science the same way they do religion. Dennett for example says that religion should be taught in schools in a historical sort of way, as myths, and then students will be informed and can make up their own minds. Well, why should it be any different with science? Can't science be judged by its own merits?

[Anonymous No.1969149]

>>1969140
>So to your mind "basing actions on rational self-interest" = "justifying whatever you want" = "weighing moral standing and good sense of goals against actual and potential harm of means".

I've no idea how you managed to get this from my posts. You're either willfully misinterpreting, or an idiot- either way this discussion has become tiresome and pointless.

[Anonymous No.1969504]

>>1969069
bumping because somebody posted chesterton

/lit/ needs more chesterton

"And I will add this point of merely personal experience of humanity: when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it. When they have no explanation to offer, they give short dignified replies, disdainful of the ignorance of the multitude. "

[Anonymous No.1969512]

>>1969504
we also need more butler

"Then he saw also that it matters little what profession, whether of religion or irreligion, a man may make, provided only he follows it out with charitable inconsistency, and without insisting on it to the bitter end. It is in the uncompromisingness with which dogma is held and not in the dogma or want of dogma that the danger lies."

[Anonymous No.1969520]

>>1969504

sageing because threads about atheism vs theism vs agnosticism vs hurr vs durr vs the world
SUCK

/lit/ doesn't need this
fuck you

[Anonymous No.1969529]

>>1969520
>atheism discussion thread
>I'm okay with this.

But then,

>somebody infuses chesterton
>ALL OF MY SAGE

If we can't have a discussion about religion on /lit/ then where should we go?

Surely not reddit

[Anonymous No.1969537]

>>1969504
This is classic trolling. "If you won't write me an exhaustive essay for every objection I raise, that proves you're wrong."

Also: >>1969512
"Truth is not worth fighting for. It doesn't matter if you're right, as long as you go along to get along."

Fuck these pompous jackasses.

[Anonymous No.1969543]

The silliest thing about this is that I'm supposed to make some sort of investigation and evaluation of different religions to assert their probability. One is about volcano aliens and one is about a guy who parted the sea and built a boat to fit all animals, why would I want to be respectful and considerate about that? It's stupid and that kind of stuff doesn't happen in the real world, end of story.

[Anonymous No.1969553]

>>1969537
Detailed and verbose were not adjectives he used for how somebody actually explains something they understand.

[Anonymous No.1969560]

>Can be employed in exactly the same way by a terrorist weighing the lives of a few thousand Americans against the hundreds of thousands that are being killed by ongoing American imperialism.

No.. that is what caused to two wars, it didn't stop them, it triggered them.

[Anonymous No.1969583]

>>1969560
The point here is that if you morally justify torture in this way, then you cannot rationally object to the moral justification of terrorism in the same way.

Leaving morality aside It can be reasonably argued that torture is not effective as it acts as a recruiting tool for your enemies and often yields false information. Similarly you can argue terrorism is not effective method to achieve goals as you have suggested., but I think this is a separate issue to that of it's morality.

[Anonymous No.1969615]

>>1969583
>if you morally justify torture in this way, then you cannot rationally object to the moral justification of terrorism in the same way.
...as long as the specific arguments for specific acts of terrorism are equally valid as the specific arguments which were accepted as morally justifying specific acts of torture.

Nobody is saying, "torture, in general, is okay by me, regardless of motivations". Killing, menacing with weapons, taking property without consent, and many other things are obviously bad by default, yet utterly conventional and accepted under certain specific circumstances.

Is waterboarding really worse than killing? Are car bombs in cities really worse than carpet bombing cities? You have to be able to think beyond the labels, to the circumstances, the alternatives, and the effects.

[Anonymous No.1969670]

>>1969615
>>1969615
I see what your saying, but I have a few concerns. Firstly I can't see how any of these moral decisions your describing can be made prior to the fact. There are just to many unknown variables. Weather we're talking an act of torture or terrorism you have no-idea weather your goals will be achieved prior to the act, or what all the negative consequences will be, either in terms of human harm, or damage to your objectives.

[Anonymous No.1969757]

>>1969670
That argument applies to anything. We are never certain of the consequences of our actions. How dare you drive your car, when you know you can't be certain that you won't run over a child on this trip? But somehow we still make decisions and live our lives.

I certainly agree that we should have a strong bias against using torture, just not that we should have an absolute rule against it, and completely ignore circumstances.

Similarly, if you are contemplating an act of terrorism, this is a good sign that you should seriously consider the possibility that you're the bad guy. If your cause is so just, why can't you muster support for larger scale and more open action? Still, situations where there's a good answer to that question are conceivable.