/lit/ - Literature

There le aren't any.
/circlejerk

>>21872818
This mans entire asshole has been colonized by snoo. Therefore he will be the first to be mindraped by marxist propaganda. Therefore he is implicitly a tranny. qed

>>21872820
meds
pills
drugs
capsules
tablets
pellets
lozenges

>>21872806
Why would there be? Nothing worthy enough to be immortalized on a chart can come from an infantile mind that can't see the evidence of creation in front of their eyes every waking moment of every day.

>>21872837
>that can't see the evidence of creation in front of their eyes every waking moment of every day.
elaborate

>>21872829
injectables
syrups
inhalers
patches
ointments
suppositories
powders
liquids
gels
ointments
tinctures
ointments
elixirs
aerosols
transdermal films
chewables
effervescents
implants
topical sprays
infusions
rectal solutions
oral films
nasal sprays
oral sprays
eye drops
ear drops
metered-dose inhalers
dry powder inhalers
nebulizers
ointments
foams
lotions
shampoos
conditioners
mouthwash
toothpaste
gargles
nasal drops
cough syrups
digestive aids
dietary supplements
homeopathic remedies
essential oils
herbal extracts
probiotics
vitamins

>>21872806
Atheist literature isn't about atheism or an elaborate analogy about atheism the way Christian literature is explicitly Christian. For atheist literature, consider the majority of postwar fiction

>>21872844
None of that will cover the stench of an infected hatchet wound.

>>21872844
>>>r/blackmagicsorcery

>>21872843
Go walk outside in a park or nature trail.

>>21872847
Which war, WWII? Why not from during the war or prewar? Why the WWII nexus at all? Do you posit that Christianity died during the war?

>>21872843
Basically you have braindamage.

>>21872856
I'm asking you to elaborate on why that is evidence for your beliefs.

>>21872856
No clue how people can do this with dysmorphia and the uncomfortable stares from npcs that come with being on /lit/.

>>21872864
Nta but here you go retard

James Joyce's body of work desu

>>21872872
what about this is evidence for your beliefs

>>21872806
Oppy for the nonfiction.
ITT: Christcuck tears

>>21872872

Indeed, Fractals and spirals occur throughout nature. These patterns are always present in products of procedural generation, the only source of complexity simple enough, itself, to naturally occur as a confluence of physical laws. For example, the layout of snowflakes is fractal because crystallization is also a form of naturally occurring procedural generation. Do you believe God manually sculpts every snowflake as it descends from the clouds? Or that they form into hexagonal fractals because H20 consists of 3 parts, so covalent bonding unites them into hexagonal molecular lattices when water freezes? And that crystallization proceeds against the fluctuating external constraint of air temperature on descent, explaining both the fractal layout and why no two are alike? If we can agree these properties are naturally occurring in snowflakes for non-supernatural reasons, why would the same not be true of the fractal complexity observed in the anatomy of humans and other organisms?

>>21872855
you have to go back

>>21872907
>>>r/choosingbeggars

>>21872806
Bible chuds eternally BTFO

>>21872897
all those words to just say you're a reddit söy chugging wikipedia skimmer dweeb

>>21872897
> Indeed, Fractals and spirals occur throughout nature. These patterns are always present in products of procedural generation, the only source of complexity simple enough, itself, to naturally occur as a confluence of physical laws. For example, the layout of snowflakes is fractal because crystallization is also a form of naturally occurring procedural generation. Do you believe God manually sculpts every snowflake as it descends from the clouds? Or that they form into hexagonal fractals because H20 consists of 3 parts, so covalent bonding unites them into hexagonal molecular lattices when water freezes? And that crystallization proceeds against the fluctuating external constraint of air temperature on descent, explaining both the fractal layout and why no two are alike? If we can agree these properties are naturally occurring in snowflakes for non-supernatural reasons, why would the same not be true of the fractal complexity observed in the anatomy of humans and other organisms?

>>21872928
Kek

>>21872856
Ah yes, thanks be to Lord Krishna

>>21872928

Yes, smart people seem like robots to brainlets. Is that the extent of your contribution, you unwanted burden?

>>21872946
>smart people
The fact that you are arguing in 4chan completely invalidates any possibility of any of you being intelligent

>>21872897
>If we can agree these properties are naturally occurring in snowflakes for non-supernatural reasons
you haven't actually established why that happens the way it does, you've just explained the process in its self

>>21872946
The metaphysical realm exists. The problem with atheists is that they deny it right off the bat and ad hominems about intelligence are also frequent among them. So can you define intelligence?

>>21872975
>The metaphysical realm exists
Proof?

>>21872984
First, do you agree that consciousness exists, within individuals, yes or no?

>>21872988
Just answer the question, pal.

>>21872992
Well, under the assumption that consciousness exists, it must also occur under clearly defined laws. Because this consciousness didn't exist within individuals during the beginning of the universe, for there being no such individuals in existence because everything was just atoms and vapor, the laws of consciousness it follows were defined and existent before the creation of the universe itself.

>>21873005
kek, christfriends aren't sending their best

>>21873020
Firat, did I mention Christianity anywhere? Second, no argument detected. Do you realize why no one takes atheists seriously?

>>21873020
No need. You (are) already lost.

>>21872972

"why" presupposes purpose before demonstrating the existence of a god to assign it

>>21872975

This is just a bare assertion

>>21872926

Cool ad hom

>>21872897
Natural selection and evolution is only possible because the universe progresses from very low entropy to maximal entropy. It is the movement between these two opposite poles that gives us a world with minds and living things.

Likewise, pure, undifferentiated being is pure abstraction, and thus contentless. It becomes nothing. Being sublates non-being and what we see is a world of becoming were being continually passes away into non-being.

Complexity also exists between the poles of maximal order and maximal chaos.

We have a deterministic classical world that produces no new information and a stochastic quantum world that produces endless amounts of new information.

Knowledge is the same way. We can analyze logical truths, which can be solidly grounded, but which tell us nothing that wasn't already included in the premises of an argument. This is the "scandal of deduction," that computation cannot generate new information. But empirical data can tell us nothing without logic to link one event to another. Again, two oppositions where something essential to consciousness and experienced existence must come from one sublating the other.

Any string or abstract object can only carry information if there is difference. An infinite string of 1s or 0s can carry no signal.

All this points to a world and God very much like what Jacob Boehme saw a glimpse of. A world best analyzed in Georg Wilhelm Frederick Hegel's masterpiece The Science of Logic.

I was raised as an atheist and was an atheist until my late 20s at least. But my study of philosophy, the natural sciences, and mathematics finally brought me around.

>>21873660
didn't read due to you being a phoneposting reddit spacer
Hop on a desktop, reformat, and try again.

>>21873561
Denial of God is a fallacy. Good luck recovering from this one.

>>21873697
>Denial of God is a fallacy.

Haha, that's a new one. How do you figure? Stamp your hoof or submit a crayon drawing with your reply, I will use AI to interpret your most likely attempted meaning

>>21872894
You mean our semen, you homo?

>>21872897
>DID YOU EVEN CONSIDER THAT H2O CONSISTS OF 3 PARTS SO COVALENT BONDING UNITES THEM INTO HEXAGONAL LATICES WHEN WATER FREEZES *burrrrp* MORTY??

>>21872897
Yes, and what can explain the laws of physics?
They could possess different values and not allow for such complexity.

>>21872897
>Do you believe God manually sculpts every snowflake as it descends from the clouds?
Unironically yes.

>>21873561
>why" presupposes purpose
no it doesn't, in not talking about "purpose" im talking about deeper explanations of the nature of phenomena. all you've provided is a surface level analysis of a given phenomena and presented that as a metaphysical explanation for the phenomena that somehow conflicts with theism, even though it isn't and doesn't

>>21874365

If you generate any random object, it will have properties. Length, width, height, color, texture, weight. What you call laws are in fact properties of the universe. Anything at all which exists necessarily has properties, it's unavoidable. Why anything exists at all is still a mystery but nothing about it suggests intelligence, at least so far as anybody legitimately knows.

As for why we're here talking about it, there's not just one planet in our solar system, nor just one solar system in this galaxy, nor just one galaxy in this local cluster, nor just one cluster in the universe. Extending that pattern, it's more likely than not that this isn't the only universe. We're here, in this universe, because only universes which happened to be like this one could produce life. It's a sort of survivorship bias.

>>21874374
>phenomena that somehow conflicts with theism, even though it isn't and doesn't

I didn't mean that. I meant it shows that the mere appearance of design in nature isn't proof of an intelligent creator, as the fellow I replied to alleged.

>>21872932
the fact that you think this is a putdown shows how clueless and retarded you are

>>21874391
But if you try to presuppose a multiverse to explain the good luck of ours, then you commit what some are calling the reverse gambler's fallacy. As in, this man has won the jackpot, and that means he must have been played a myriad of different hands to achieve this.

So, the way the philosophy of evidential support works is "given the hypothesis is the evidence likely?" Well, given the hypothesis of God, a single harmonious universe is likely. Given the hypothesis of a multiverse a single universe existing in harmony is still unlikely (as in we are just considering what we have evidence of).

If there were evidence of other universes that would be a different story obviously.

The logical conclusion of atheism is Nick Landian annihilation.

>>21874401
>Why do you think that was a putdown?
>Why are you calling me clueless just for praising the glory of Lord Krishna?
>Why can't you actually contribute a single thing of substance to the conversation?

>>21872806

Oh boy here come all the insecure, projecting christians eager to heap scorn on atheism as if destroying it would somehow leave their religion as the only alternative, and justify the huge presuppositional leaps in their reasoning. And their reliable reaction to this is naturally vicious, bitter nastiness because that is the true character of the Christian, which they hide behind a congenial mask. Never once can they be civil with atheists, because just like troons they have painted themselves into a corner, irreversibly chaining themselves at the ankle to an indefensible fantasy which survives only so long as no one ever challenges it. Which means of course the mere existence of people who won't affirm it feels like a declaration of war against them

>>21874418
>But if you try to presuppose a multiverse to explain the good luck of ours, then you commit what some are calling the reverse gambler's fallacy.

If we had no prior pattern to suggest multiple universes, sure. But we once supposed only Earth existed, with the sun and moon as lights within the firmament. Then we supposed only the solar system existed. Every time we were wrong. There wasn't just one planet, there wasn't just one solar system, nor one galaxy, nor one cluster and so on. There doesn't seem to be just one of anything.

I just don't care about atheists.

>>21872806
Any list would have to include:
On The Nature of Things - Lucretius
Ethics - Spinoza
The Age of Reason - Thomas Paine

>>21872806
There isn't. There are a few good atheists writers but they don't write about atheism.
There is a literature by atheists about atheism itself but not worth reading. It boils down to fedora tipping of various subtypes. The best I know is Kojeve's book L'Atheisme (not translated).