Which of their books are worth reading?

Which of their books are worth reading?

Attached: 83070fbbab8888f91710499d9dcea615.jpg (604x453, 32K)

There is no Western book written after WW2 worth reading.

Attached: 3BA65FC7-12CD-46BD-A65A-F73F3EC73CAD.jpg (250x177, 16K)

>Gets bitch slapped by Tolkien
Nothing personal, hipster.

Dennets philosophy of mind stuff and Dawkins biology books. Harris and Hitchens are not worth reading

Why is Sam Harries labelled the scholar when he is just a podcast host and Dennet is an actual academic?

Denett - Breaking the Spell - good summary on how his phil of mind stuff ties into ideas about the self and compatibilism
Hitchens - Mortality - crash course to fedora anti-theism, but fine writing coming from a man who knows he's about to die
Dawkins - Selfish Gene
Harris - I would honestly recommend his podcast selectively over any of his books. His meditation app is probably one of the best, most comprehensive guides to meditation, especially if you have the kind of temperament that benefits from a philosophical framework and can't just jump into it. It's also very accessible to laymen. The "waking up" book makes a good case for meditation, but is punctuated with atheist quibbles, so it might not be as effective if you're allergic to that. "Lying" is the size of a brochure. Pretty short and sweet.

The cringe!! Why are super atheist so cringy?

Because you’re an idiot who has succumbed to groupthink. Or more likely, have been born and raised in such an environment.
Do try to grow up.

none

I like you.

I like it when you post pics of women. I think we have similar "taste".

What are you reading at the moment.
I'm binging on ohran pamuk atm.
I'm a grill btw

Attached: giphy[2].gif (420x236, 1.95M)

>You have to be born and raised religious to find athiests cringe

Yep thats a yikes

Hitch 22 is a brilliant book

All hacks

And how do you find Pamuk?

Recently finished Inseparable, Emma Donoghue and Democracy at Work Richard Wolff
Finishing Towards a New Socialism, Paul Cockshott
Still read several others but started on two ecology books
Half-Earth, Edward O. Wilson
And The Mushroom at the End of the World, Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing’s

Daniel Dennett gets a lot of references for philosophy of mind

Dennet - Consciousness Explained, The Intentional Stance
Dawkins - The Selfish Gene
Hutchins- The Trial of Henry Kissinger

Don’t bother with Harris.

Hitchens is the least embarassing of the four desu, his polemic trilogy (No One Left to Lie To, The Missionary Position, The Trial of Kissinger) are highly readable.

Do atheists who follow these people ever realize they're just doing the same thing religious people (following some dude you pay to speeches and also forming groops) are doing under the guise of scientific reasoning?

Nobody actually “follows” them, user. They are appreciated for their work or often enough not. They’re nothing new, just brave enough to stand up and challenge the narrative of ignorance that has ruled us for far too long.

The only one I know is Dennett. Read Darwin's Dangerous Idea if you wish to be blackpilled about natural selection. The book shows how mindless algorithmic process is sufficient to give rise to a mind, and that we only attribute a creator to the process because we generalize our own intentional stance to causal processes all the time. ("The weather isn't agreeable." "Every complex design must have a designer." "If something otherwise inexplicable happens, an agency must have caused it (a god, a ghost, a spirit)")

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
That's the only one worth reading.

Literally none

Except you only need to look at any of the debates these guys have had with fundamentalists to see that it didn't amount to anything but a jack off fest for whatever side you were on because nobody cared about what the other side had to say. If you assume these guys to be correct like the people were doing during these debates then you're a follower.

Oh, of course. We should all be silent again now. Be *RESPECTFUL* of religion. Don’t point out fallacies in the world. HEAVENS NO!!
Certainly don’t do or say anything while they try to seize power and enforce their imbecilic nonsense on everyone again.

Is this the same Butterfly that was posting a few months ago? I've seen so many fake Butterflies that I'm not sure.

you mean years newfag? Regardless, she's right. Mitre tippers are coping seethers.

Attached: 1438061773833.png (1396x637, 950K)

Not a newfag, a few months ago people were saying it was a different Butterfly.

There are probably more than two. If personifying posts and keeping tabs interest you, >>>/reddit/'s great for that.

> Regardless, she's right.
>""""""""""she""""""""""
butterfag should be sent to a death camp/

Attached: 1493335796722.png (640x477, 258K)

lol

No 1

Dawkins pop science stuff is readable and decent, TGD is juvenile. Dennet is a pompous clown. Hitchens a hack. Sam Harris makes podcasts.

Attached: 45yo5z4i26c11.jpg (800x600, 49K)

It’s me, with the occasional impersonator(s) it’s mostly just me.
Though I have discovered that someone has been using the name on /pol/. I do not visit that page.

You should be sent to a monastery without electricity.

LET ME SUCK YOUR PUSSY DRY, BUTTERFLY

Hitchens was a compelling writer and story teller. Its just a shame he wasted so much time on atheism and attacking organized religion.

This

Care to explain why? The bicameral mind has been mostly debunked as far as I've read.

From left to right, selfish gene, extended phenotype, End of faith, Consciousness explained, God is not great.

Based

Based

Partly true. I think there are still good books after WW2, but the quality in general of books in 2019 is atrocious, and quite sad. The literary medium has become something quite negative for me

All of Cormac McCarthy is worth reading dipshit.