Books You Want Horribly Destroyed.

[Blind Sight]

Atheism is no less a religion then Christianity, it follows are just as willing to shove their beliefs (or lack there-of) down the throats of anyone who dares to have a difference of opinion. and with Atheism it worse because at-least Christians believe that are trying to save the souls of others then they do it.

I think this is a line of bull - atheism is about accepting the fact that there is no evidence for the supernatural and that reason therefore dictates we live based on the hypothesis that there are no supernatural forces. What you say about a "live and let live" philosophy being superior makes sense on the level of the individual, but communities (local, national, international) also have to decide whether they're going to act as if they believe in the supernatural or not. There is no middle ground since certain policies (e.g., abortion rights, obscenity laws, equal rights) will differ dramatically based on the community's decision. In my opinion, the only ethical choice is for a community to function as an atheistic state (you can substitute "agnostic" if that makes you feel better, but practically there is no difference). I would say that the apparent "aggression" of atheists in recent years is a direct response to renewed efforts by deists (mostly conservative Christians and Muslims) to undermine the atheist foundations of modern government/society.

I somewhat agree, I feel that atheists actually take up two categories. One is the 'religious' atheists, i.e. the people who challenge religious folk about their beliefs regardless of their evidence. Making claims completely unfounded (i.e. there's no God) and stating them as fact? Sounds like religion. The second (and far more likeable kind) is the irrelevant atheist. Irrelevant atheists simply don't believe in a God, nor do they often think about metaphysics or the afterlife. They merely cannot believe anything without evidence and don't really think about metaphysical concepts like God. These are the people who don't fight with religious folk unless openly challenged.

I'm an irrelevant atheist, by the way, I don't give a shit what your religious beliefs are, unless you're using them to try and suppress, murder, or take advantage of people who haven't choose to be part of your religion.

Heart of darkness, I like the themes and ideas in the book, but IT IS SO SLOW PACED.

You want slow paced? Try watching the Redux version of Apocalypse Now, which is pretty much just Heart of Darkness in Vietnam. Also, most of the actors are stoned throughout the movie (including Martin Sheen and Dennis Hopper). The movie was so hard to film that Francis Ford Coppola tried to commit suicide over it. I love the movie though, it's just pure jungle insanity.

 

[Talshere]

What do people have with Twilight?

Let girls enjoy their girl porn, they let you enjoy yours!

The writing style is bad, the characters lack any sort of depth of personality or emotion. The story and setting is similarly shallow and cliché as fuck. It destroys all plot and back story as "vampires" go, and fail to even make it a "good" alternative vampire background. The twilight vampires and actual vampire share pretty much nothing but name. The fan-service is terrible if that's what its trying to be.

You have a 1 dimensional plot, with 1 dimensional characters. There is NOTHING to like about this series! No genuine reader of any level could POSSIBLE read one and think anything but "what utter fuckin drivel is this?". Its worse than Harry Potter FFS. That shouldnt even be POSSIBLE!

Arguably, isn't porn for men just as pointless (no pun intended)? I mean, it has a 1 dimensional plot and less developed characters then Twilight, and porn writing never has been that good. Unless you're reading Alan Moore's porn, which is freaking AMAZING.

And if Twilight were porn, you would have a point. However, when I google porn, the is a significant difference between the two.

The big difference is that Porn exists to show naked people having sex in highly unconvincing ways. Twilight is SUPPOSED to have a story. Its SUPPOSED to have meaningful characters, because it fails in this its actually worse than porn because it fails to achieve its purpose.

What do people have with Twilight?

Let girls enjoy their girl porn, they let you enjoy yours!

The writing style is bad, the characters lack any sort of depth of personality or emotion. The story and setting is similarly shallow and cliché as fuck. It destroys all plot and back story as "vampires" go, and fail to even make it a "good" alternative vampire background. The twilight vampires and actual vampire share pretty much nothing but name. The fan-service is terrible if that's what its trying to be.

You have a 1 dimensional plot, with 1 dimensional characters. There is NOTHING to like about this series! No genuine reader of any level could POSSIBLE read one and think anything but "what utter fuckin drivel is this?". Its worse than Harry Potter FFS. That shouldnt even be POSSIBLE!

So what?
It's female fanservice. It's only popular because this is the only available one out, cause men look at stuff like this and go "OMG, WTF IS IT WITH ALL THIS GAY PORN?"

Again, NOBODY (well almost nobody, i can't generalize) that likes Twilight, likes it for how true it stays to the vampire mythos, how well developed the characters are, or how deep the story is. They like it cause they can imagine themselves boned by sparkly vampires.

YOU only care about the characters and such cause, well, you're a dude, the same way a girl will look at Dead or Alive and say "WTF IS IT WITH THESE SHITTY CONTROLS, AND THESE DITZY BIMBOS BOUNCING AROUND?".

Again, leave Twilight be, you're only giving it more attention than it deserves.

No, not really. Female fan service is Ouran Host Club, its sexually hinting content in ADDITION to a plot and story, not INSTEAD of it. If your not going to have the whole story bit you might as well just go the whole hog and just make a womans PoV porn film.

 

[Blind Sight]

What do people have with Twilight?

Let girls enjoy their girl porn, they let you enjoy yours!

The writing style is bad, the characters lack any sort of depth of personality or emotion. The story and setting is similarly shallow and cliché as fuck. It destroys all plot and back story as "vampires" go, and fail to even make it a "good" alternative vampire background. The twilight vampires and actual vampire share pretty much nothing but name. The fan-service is terrible if that's what its trying to be.

You have a 1 dimensional plot, with 1 dimensional characters. There is NOTHING to like about this series! No genuine reader of any level could POSSIBLE read one and think anything but "what utter fuckin drivel is this?". Its worse than Harry Potter FFS. That shouldnt even be POSSIBLE!

Arguably, isn't porn for men just as pointless (no pun intended)? I mean, it has a 1 dimensional plot and less developed characters then Twilight, and porn writing never has been that good. Unless you're reading Alan Moore's porn, which is freaking AMAZING.

And if Twilight were porn, you would have a point. However, when I google porn, the is a significant difference between the two.

The big difference is that Porn exists to show naked people having sex in highly unconvincing ways. Twilight is SUPPOSED to have a story. Its SUPPOSED to have meaningful characters, because it fails in this its actually worse than porn because it fails to achieve its purpose.

I note that you're a guy from your profile, and that somewhat explains why you view it as distinct from porn. The fact is, even if it's not by direct definition, it's used primarily in this way by girls. Why? Because just like porn for men, Twilight simply has enough turn-ons for women. Many (note: not all)women like strong, independent, sensitive men who they can then bend to their will. Edward is the personification of this, a hundred year old man who gives up his independence for a girl. I'd also note that the books actively describe Edward for pages, while Bella gets nothing, very similar to how in most male porn we don't exactly get strip-teases from guys.

The fact is that even though it's not porn, it's appeal is rooted in themes similar to porn. Both are about what each gender wants as a partner, with men naturally wanting multiple females and women wanting utterly devoted men. Girls like this because they want utterly devoted men, regardless of the fact that he's a stalker.

 

[Talshere]

What do people have with Twilight?

Let girls enjoy their girl porn, they let you enjoy yours!

The writing style is bad, the characters lack any sort of depth of personality or emotion. The story and setting is similarly shallow and cliché as fuck. It destroys all plot and back story as "vampires" go, and fail to even make it a "good" alternative vampire background. The twilight vampires and actual vampire share pretty much nothing but name. The fan-service is terrible if that's what its trying to be.

You have a 1 dimensional plot, with 1 dimensional characters. There is NOTHING to like about this series! No genuine reader of any level could POSSIBLE read one and think anything but "what utter fuckin drivel is this?". Its worse than Harry Potter FFS. That shouldnt even be POSSIBLE!

Arguably, isn't porn for men just as pointless (no pun intended)? I mean, it has a 1 dimensional plot and less developed characters then Twilight, and porn writing never has been that good. Unless you're reading Alan Moore's porn, which is freaking AMAZING.

And if Twilight were porn, you would have a point. However, when I google porn, the is a significant difference between the two.

The big difference is that Porn exists to show naked people having sex in highly unconvincing ways. Twilight is SUPPOSED to have a story. Its SUPPOSED to have meaningful characters, because it fails in this its actually worse than porn because it fails to achieve its purpose.

I note that you're a guy from your profile, and that somewhat explains why you view it as distinct from porn. The fact is, even if it's not by direct definition, it's used primarily in this way by girls. Why? Because just like porn for men, Twilight simply has enough turn-ons for women. Many (note: not all)women like strong, independent, sensitive men who they can then bend to their will. Edward is the personification of this, a hundred year old man who gives up his independence for a girl. I'd also note that the books actively describe Edward for pages, while Bella gets nothing, very similar to how in most male porn we don't exactly get strip-teases from guys.

The fact is that even though it's not porn, it's appeal is rooted in themes similar to porn. Both are about what each gender wants as a partner, with men naturally wanting multiple females and women wanting utterly devoted men. Girls like this because they want utterly devoted men, regardless of the fact that he's a stalker.

Idk, I keep on attacking the story, then someone ELSE brings up my comment comparing it to porn, so I retaliate in kind and now its ME making the comparisons.... -.-

Just as a side note, I feel I should point out most of my favourite books actually have female leads, so the whole describing the guy thing is something m used to. I feel that often male leading characters get stereotyped and in essence, you know one, you know em all, while female leads seem to be somewhat more fluid. So yes, I have read book using this PoV before. GOOD books.

I have read enough to be able to tell a series such as The Black Magician Trilogy, a GOOD series, from a FEMALE PoV, written by a FEMALE writer. You cant defend shody writing with "but look he's such a hunk and look how he cares" that's just bullshit. Most chick flicks have better story base than that.

Its a poorly written book.

Its characters are shallow, 1 dimensions and only capable of one emotion at any given time if we are lucky, and all 4 books are given over to beating the poor same overused cliché into the ground over and over again.

 

[Blind Sight]

What do people have with Twilight?

Let girls enjoy their girl porn, they let you enjoy yours!

The writing style is bad, the characters lack any sort of depth of personality or emotion. The story and setting is similarly shallow and cliché as fuck. It destroys all plot and back story as "vampires" go, and fail to even make it a "good" alternative vampire background. The twilight vampires and actual vampire share pretty much nothing but name. The fan-service is terrible if that's what its trying to be.

You have a 1 dimensional plot, with 1 dimensional characters. There is NOTHING to like about this series! No genuine reader of any level could POSSIBLE read one and think anything but "what utter fuckin drivel is this?". Its worse than Harry Potter FFS. That shouldnt even be POSSIBLE!

Arguably, isn't porn for men just as pointless (no pun intended)? I mean, it has a 1 dimensional plot and less developed characters then Twilight, and porn writing never has been that good. Unless you're reading Alan Moore's porn, which is freaking AMAZING.

And if Twilight were porn, you would have a point. However, when I google porn, the is a significant difference between the two.

The big difference is that Porn exists to show naked people having sex in highly unconvincing ways. Twilight is SUPPOSED to have a story. Its SUPPOSED to have meaningful characters, because it fails in this its actually worse than porn because it fails to achieve its purpose.

I note that you're a guy from your profile, and that somewhat explains why you view it as distinct from porn. The fact is, even if it's not by direct definition, it's used primarily in this way by girls. Why? Because just like porn for men, Twilight simply has enough turn-ons for women. Many (note: not all)women like strong, independent, sensitive men who they can then bend to their will. Edward is the personification of this, a hundred year old man who gives up his independence for a girl. I'd also note that the books actively describe Edward for pages, while Bella gets nothing, very similar to how in most male porn we don't exactly get strip-teases from guys.

The fact is that even though it's not porn, it's appeal is rooted in themes similar to porn. Both are about what each gender wants as a partner, with men naturally wanting multiple females and women wanting utterly devoted men. Girls like this because they want utterly devoted men, regardless of the fact that he's a stalker.

Idk, I keep on attacking the story, then someone ELSE brings up my comment comparing it to porn, so I retaliate in kind and now its ME making the comparisons.... -.-

Just as a side note, I feel I should point out most of my favourite books actually have female leads, so the whole describing the guy thing is something m used to. I feel that often male leading characters get stereotyped and in essence, you know one, you know em all, while female leads seem to be somewhat more fluid. So yes, I have read book using this PoV before. GOOD books.

I have read enough to be able to tell a series such as The Black Magician Trilogy, a GOOD series, from a FEMALE PoV, written by a FEMALE writer. You cant defend shody writing with "but look he's such a hunk and look how he cares" that's just bullshit. Most chick flicks have better story base than that.

Its a poorly written book.

Its characters are shallow, 1 dimensions and only capable of one emotion at any given time if we are lucky, and all 4 books are given over to beating the poor same overused cliché into the ground over and over again.

Aye, it is poorly written, that can be agreed on, but I'm more pointing out what the readers of Twilight go for. They don't give a shit about story, what they want is Vampire McSparklypants to take his shirt off. You say you can't defend shody writing with attractive men, but Stephanie Meyer's bank account disagrees It's all about tailoring to your audience.

 

[Talshere]

What do people have with Twilight?

Let girls enjoy their girl porn, they let you enjoy yours!

The writing style is bad, the characters lack any sort of depth of personality or emotion. The story and setting is similarly shallow and cliché as fuck. It destroys all plot and back story as "vampires" go, and fail to even make it a "good" alternative vampire background. The twilight vampires and actual vampire share pretty much nothing but name. The fan-service is terrible if that's what its trying to be.

You have a 1 dimensional plot, with 1 dimensional characters. There is NOTHING to like about this series! No genuine reader of any level could POSSIBLE read one and think anything but "what utter fuckin drivel is this?". Its worse than Harry Potter FFS. That shouldnt even be POSSIBLE!

Arguably, isn't porn for men just as pointless (no pun intended)? I mean, it has a 1 dimensional plot and less developed characters then Twilight, and porn writing never has been that good. Unless you're reading Alan Moore's porn, which is freaking AMAZING.

And if Twilight were porn, you would have a point. However, when I google porn, the is a significant difference between the two.

The big difference is that Porn exists to show naked people having sex in highly unconvincing ways. Twilight is SUPPOSED to have a story. Its SUPPOSED to have meaningful characters, because it fails in this its actually worse than porn because it fails to achieve its purpose.

I note that you're a guy from your profile, and that somewhat explains why you view it as distinct from porn. The fact is, even if it's not by direct definition, it's used primarily in this way by girls. Why? Because just like porn for men, Twilight simply has enough turn-ons for women. Many (note: not all)women like strong, independent, sensitive men who they can then bend to their will. Edward is the personification of this, a hundred year old man who gives up his independence for a girl. I'd also note that the books actively describe Edward for pages, while Bella gets nothing, very similar to how in most male porn we don't exactly get strip-teases from guys.

The fact is that even though it's not porn, it's appeal is rooted in themes similar to porn. Both are about what each gender wants as a partner, with men naturally wanting multiple females and women wanting utterly devoted men. Girls like this because they want utterly devoted men, regardless of the fact that he's a stalker.

Idk, I keep on attacking the story, then someone ELSE brings up my comment comparing it to porn, so I retaliate in kind and now its ME making the comparisons.... -.-

Just as a side note, I feel I should point out most of my favourite books actually have female leads, so the whole describing the guy thing is something m used to. I feel that often male leading characters get stereotyped and in essence, you know one, you know em all, while female leads seem to be somewhat more fluid. So yes, I have read book using this PoV before. GOOD books.

I have read enough to be able to tell a series such as The Black Magician Trilogy, a GOOD series, from a FEMALE PoV, written by a FEMALE writer. You cant defend shody writing with "but look he's such a hunk and look how he cares" that's just bullshit. Most chick flicks have better story base than that.

Its a poorly written book.

Its characters are shallow, 1 dimensions and only capable of one emotion at any given time if we are lucky, and all 4 books are given over to beating the poor same overused cliché into the ground over and over again.

Aye, it is poorly written, that can be agreed on, but I'm more pointing out what the readers of Twilight go for. They don't give a shit about story, what they want is Vampire McSparklypants to take his shirt off. You say you can't defend shody writing with attractive men, but Stephanie Meyer's bank account disagrees It's all about tailoring to your audience.

Yep, and the Nigerian banker is still raking in the cash. All was have proven is that people are idiots and sheep. Not that Twilight shouldnt burn, as valuable shelf space in the fantasy area are taken up by woman in a mid-life crisis intent on ruining the entire vampire genre for everyone else, with shoddy writing.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Any religious text. Seriously, the world would be a lot more peaceful without religion.

-Snip-

The war on terror is the big war being fought now (as I'm sure you know). These terrorists believe that by killing themselves and has many "infidels" while they die, they will be rewarded in the after life. If religion didn't exist I guarantee modern day war would be almost non-existent (minus the few freaks who just want to see the world burn). Don't say people would just find something else to fight over. That is not true. Mutually assured destruction means that people would not attack each other because everyone would end up dead. This is why the Cold War did not become WWIII. The main people going to war are the people who want to die and believe they will be rewarded for doing so. SO maybe it's not christians who are killing other races in blood baths but war will always exist if religion exists.

So I'd say my statement is perfectly justifiable.

In the early formations of mathematics philosophers executed a scholar who suggest that decimal numbers could be a possibility.

The driving force behind ww2 was eugenics, resource and territory struggle, not to mention the conflict of ideologies.

Martin Luther King was assasinated for speaking out against racial injustices.

Abraham Lincoln was assasinated for speaking out against slavery.

People will kill for any reason you could possibly name, and seeing how enormous religion is it's understandable that religion has been one of the many hot-topics on every idiots "Reasons to kill" list, because mindless destruuction is idiocy. Hate is idiocy too.

The Crusades were devastating but it's not as simple as a theological struggle, there were opportunists fuelling the effort, the fact that many trade routes belonging to the British were being ambushed in the area...

The modern war on terror is also not as simple, really nothing's as simple as it seems. There's the fact that, through past experiences and long-held misconceptions many Middle-Eastern countries view America as some kind of all evil force. The way to move forward in this, acceptance on both sides. More religious folk should learn that people are entitled to their own beliefs, those opposed to religion should learn exactly the same. It's not a question of continuing while another continues now, it's a question of who's going to be the bigger man.

You make it sound like the Taliban and Alqueda only attack the USA. It's not the countries themselves that are doing the damage, it's the religious fanatics who have been brainwashed into believing they're doing the right thing. They bomb their own countries as much as the US. If not more. If these people didn't have some crazy idea that they would be rewarded after death, there would be way less terrorists. Yes there would still be some for the reasons you stated above but there still would be a lot less bombings.

I know it doesn't seem like it, but I'm actually quite tolerant except for when it comes to these fanatics. I don't really have a problem with Christians and others like them. That's not to say that there aren't people in those religions who use their religious status to do evil (priests abusing children) but there is a lot less than the radicals in the middle east.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Seriously everyone who said the Bible? SERIOUSLY? Are we that immature and childish that we would say something like "let's burn the effin Bible durr hurr fart"

You're no better than the brilliant priest who decided that burning the Qur'an was a good idea.

It's also ironic that you all capitalized the word Bible, I must say.

Any religious text. Seriously, the world would be a lot more peaceful without religion.

This is honestly probably one of the most idiotic and ignorant things I've ever read in my entire life, and now I'm horribly frightened for the human race. You really think there wouldn't be conflict and war without religious TEXTS? First of all, as someone already said, religion can exist without texts depicting it. Second of all, if there wasn't religion, humanity would definitely find something else to shoot at each other for. Let's look at the Revolutionary War, hmm?

Sorry to go off topic, but these flame starters are asking for it. Religion is something that gives humanity something to hold onto and to have hope in. Sorry if I like to believe that life isn't a complete waste of time screwing people, wasting money, and getting drunk every week. Sorry if I like to believe that there's something waiting for me after I die instead of perpetual darkness for the rest of eternity.

I don't mean to be rude, I really don't, but really? It's ignorance like this that really ticks me off.

Back on topic, I don't think any book deserves to be burned. But I could certainly do without Twilight having ever existed.

I'm not even going to bother trying to defend myself because I've already done it a bunch of times. Read my answers to other people. I still stand by my statement.

 

[craddoke]

I'm an irrelevant atheist, by the way

I think (hope?) you mean irreverent - although anyone paying attention to politics in the US for the past three decades may be excused for thinking your phrasing isn't exactly wrong either.

 

[Mikeyfell]

[HEADING=1]

Twilight needs to burn!​

[/HEADING]

there's no excuse for the existence of slop like that

Girls need to fantasize about something sexy too like you probably do too
<.<
And so no one can argue with me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4uuGvmAxTI

well......fuck
couldn't twilight have been a soft core porn picture book then?

I'm not exaggerating when I say it is the worst written waste of paper ever.
even if Bella has to be a Lego brick there's no reason all the other characters couldn't have had some fucking substance.

the only message in that book is that sexy guys can get away with stalking.

 

[Blind Sight]

I'm an irrelevant atheist, by the way

I think (hope?) you mean irreverent - although anyone paying attention to politics in the US for the past three decades may be excused for thinking your phrasing isn't exactly wrong either.

No I mean irrelevant, mostly cause of a couple factors:
1. They're irrelevant in the religion vs. secularism debate, as they really don't care and just want to do their own thing.
2. They view other people's faiths as irrelevant and none of their business, except for the reasons mentioned in my previous post.
3. It's also just to distance them from 'hardcore' atheists, i.e. the ones running around screaming about the non-existance of God.

 

[ANImaniac89]

Atheism is no less a religion then Christianity, it follows are just as willing to shove their beliefs (or lack there-of) down the throats of anyone who dares to have a difference of opinion. and with Atheism it worse because at-least Christians believe that are trying to save the souls of others then they do it.

I think this is a line of bull - atheism is about accepting the fact that there is no evidence for the supernatural and that reason therefore dictates we live based on the hypothesis that there are no supernatural forces. What you say about a "live and let live" philosophy being superior makes sense on the level of the individual, but communities (local, national, international) also have to decide whether they're going to act as if they believe in the supernatural or not. There is no middle ground since certain policies (e.g., abortion rights, obscenity laws, equal rights) will differ dramatically based on the community's decision. In my opinion, the only ethical choice is for a community to function as an atheistic state (you can substitute "agnostic" if that makes you feel better, but practically there is no difference). I would say that the apparent "aggression" of atheists in recent years is a direct response to renewed efforts by deists (mostly conservative Christians and Muslims) to undermine the atheist foundations of modern government/society.

First your generalization of a Christians/deists is a bit um............... wrong
not everyone that believes in a deity, is a mindless protester trying to ban anything that makes them uncomfortable. I myself am a Christian (yes I know big surprise right)Most of my friends aren't, a good amount are gay and it doesn't bother me any, I'm not 100% pro-life granted I don't believe abortion should be used to replace good old fashion condoms as a method of birth control, but in some situation it is the only option, and on obscenity laws well lets just say that my own works have been looked down on by closed minded pricks. Religion is an imperfect think because it comes from men trying to speak for God or whatever deity they believe in. What I'm trying to say as regardless of how an atheist feels about the matter they are part of a religion, granted it a religion of self worship and nihilism but its a religion non the less. and the aggression i feel to the atheist community comes from years of being persecuted by them,told that I'm inferior and ignorant, that I've been brainwashed or forced into it Fuck that noise last time I was official tested my IQ was well over 130 and my father is/was an Agnostic Satanist(don't ask).

 

[The Austin]

I totally agree with the God Delusion. I'm an atheist, but I can't stand Richard Dawkins and the awful pieces of elitism he calls books. The guy has about three, all of which can be summed up with the phrase 'OMGUPEOPLESTUPID.' He keeps talking about a world without religion being free, but if there was total freedom people would be allowed to believe in what they want, and put their faith where they please.

A very wise view indeed my friend. You should wright a book!

Wow, your so original in your thinly veiled bashing of Dawkins as anyone else.. *eyerolls*

Delusion was a title hook for the book. Why not read it for once, instead of copying all the negative responses on Amazon under it for bandwagon effect, eh?

You fully have the right to be happy and content, no one is telling you differently. As long as you maintain you are wanting to be happy and content for the right reasons, rather than simply believing for the sake of believing.

... I'm sorry, but what?

Please re-read my post. Then please find one example of each of the things that you claim I did. Here is a list for your convince:
-Find one example of me bashing Dawkins
-Find one example of me quoting Amazon
-Find one example of me believing what I believe just for the hell of it

It may be obvious, but I still feel like pointing it out.

Clearly you haven't read the book or else you would know that it NEVER insults people who believe in religion, and neither does The End of Faith.

Seriously, do you really think any of these books related to atheism would be bestsellers if either of them openly insulted religious believers?

Actually, I wasn't referring to the book. When doing a TED talk about the book, Mr. Dawkins was quoted saying that "Most smart people are atheists, and most dumb people are Christians." Apparently that was the books intention. Apparently.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Wow, your so original in your thinly veiled bashing of Dawkins as anyone else.. *eyerolls*

Delusion was a title hook for the book. Why not read it for once, instead of copying all the negative responses on Amazon under it for bandwagon effect, eh?

You fully have the right to be happy and content, no one is telling you differently. As long as you maintain you are wanting to be happy and content for the right reasons, rather than simply believing for the sake of believing.

... I'm sorry, but what?

Please re-read my post. Then please find one example of each of the things that you claim I did. Here is a list for your convince:
-Find one example of me bashing Dawkins
-Find one example of me quoting Amazon
-Find one example of me believing what I believe just for the hell of it

I'm stereotyping you mate, don't put too much thought into it.

Dawkin's has as much right to his opinion as you do you, even if he is a prick some of the time. Which is why I'm not advocating any books to be burned. (Although Twilight is tempting, so very tempting..)

Edit: Though this is in the off-topic section of the forums, might I ask you what is the reason for your belief? I have no intention of questioning you on it here, as it is not the religion/politics section. Just merely curious. I don't talk with you as often as I'd like, as the same with a lot of people in my friend's list..

 

[ShadowsofHope]

What I'm trying to say as regardless of how an atheist feels about the matter they are part of a religion, granted it a religion of self worship and nihilism but its a religion non the less.

Uh.. what?

..Wait, no. No, I am not getting into that on this forum. Though you are very deluded on what atheism is in definition, nonetheless.

 

[craddoke]

First your generalization of a Christians/deists is a bit um............... wrong

Sorry, I dozed off and dreamt of a world in which the Texas Board of Ed. just passed a resolution to limit the references to Islam in textbooks, a senatorial candidate wants to discourage masturbation, several other senatorial candidates want to ban abortion under all circumstances, at least one thinks birth control is the equivalent of abortion, major US religious leaders back laws in Africa that require neighbors to report on each other for homosexuality - which would be a crime that could be punished by death, a former VP candidate was blessed by a preacher who spends his vacations hunting witches in Africa, the Republican party leader in Hawaii believes there current candidate for governor is the first "righteous" one since the state's founding - because the current Republican governor is Jewish, where a bunch of conservative politicians bullied the rest of Congress into codifying more limitations on abortion into the health care bill, where a bunch of know-nothings wants to prevent the building of mosques - both in NYC and Kentucky (the latter despite a law to exempt houses of worship from zoning rules; it was only meant to be used for Christian churches), where the Republican party just voted en masse to not repeal DADT, etc.

My apologies. Obviously the illusion of dominionist Christians trying to undermine the secular nature of our government and culture was all in my head. We atheists should all just quiet down and stop being all rude to all the poor, helpless religious people.

Oh wait... it wasn't. That all really happened - just in the last couple of months (and I'm leaving out a bunch of crap, too - including the equally egregious offenses of other monotheistic religions).

 

[Nouw]

I don't hate any books, even if they're boring.

Same here, It's just I'm ashamed that we have books like Twilight on the market and that their more popular then Oscar Wilde.

Agreed. They need to read better books, like Poe.

 

[The Stonker]

I don't hate any books, even if they're boring.

Same here, It's just I'm ashamed that we have books like Twilight on the market and that their more popular then Oscar Wilde.

Agreed. They need to read better books, like Poe.

Poe is a racist, so no thanks.
The thing is that we all have our tastes and I do read Poe but I will take Oscar Wilde or H.P.Lovecraft any day.

 

[michael_ab]

using the "find on this page" function i counted each time "twilight" was mentioned, i didnt count if it was in a quote box, or mentioned twice in the same post. 36.

keep in mind i did not search for any particular book from the twilight series or from stephenie meyer

Thanks man, so out of 200-ish people, 36 wants to burn Twilight, huh? Somehow, I expected more. ;]

Also, what's with all the hate for Catcher In The Rye?

keep in mind that at the time i posted that, that is 5 posts per page dedicated to twilight burning. and to reiterate my point in my previous post on catcher: it is a book in which the protagonist/ narrater in a pompus ass who thinks he is better than everyone else, and has no problem saying it every paragraph, every page, every inner thought. maybe its just me but i dont like to read about whiny bitches