Tfw you realize there is no great atheist literature or atheist philosophy

All awful.
Nietzsche isn't an atheist. The rest are awful.

how is quine awful

Douglas Adams

>analytic
Platonism is bad philosophy.

>Douglas Adams
>literature

Pick one.

>awful

How does it feel to be mentally handicapped user

>Nietzsche isn't an atheist.
Say what? The philosopher is exclaims "God is Dead", rejects universal values, denies the noumenal realm, abhors teleological explanations, repudiates freedom of the will, and purports the view that all truth is really just an expression of power -- is not an atheist?

>God is dead
you misread that passage if that's your interpretation.

Chekhov didn't write atheist literature

what a convincing argument

There's tons of atheist philosophy. It used to be called natural philosophy, but it's more commonly known these days under the name science.

Please enlighten us plebs as to the correct interpretation of "God is dead."

This is bait (too lazy to post fancy picture)

Nietzsche doesn't believe in anything transcendent buddy. The purpose of that passage was to convey that the will to truth had turned on itself and that the consequence was inexorably nihilism. It's primarily historical/sociological musing but it does tacitly indicate Nietzsche's atheistic metaphysical picture.

>I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event; it is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers -- at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!
-- Ecce Homo, "Why I Am So Clever,' section 1

The guy was such a talented writer, why didnt he write any fiction?

Zarathustra is sort of close to fiction in its presentation (it's a bit excruciating, though). He did write a bunch of poetry, maybe check that out?

But didnt he belive human beings can transcent by creating art?

N. has problems with specific conceptions and usage of god(s), but this only means he suggests we have to create new, better ones, and not scrapping them entirely.

>It's primarily historical/sociological musing but it does tacitly indicate Nietzsche's atheistic metaphysical picture.

Agreed, but as there is nuance is all of his writings and thoughts, this position is no exception because he isn't an atheist in the 'anti-' or 'desire-to-be-free-of' -religion sense.

Not that other user, btw.

Maybe metaphorically speaking but not in the technical sense of transcendent I was referring to.

And what would be the technical way of expressing that idea (trascent by creating art) without metaphors?

I think art would be one of the pursuits he deems detrimental to the coming of the overmen.
Writing is too.

I'm not exactly sure. I think the underlying importance of it is that Nietzsche valorizes creation, i.e. an active engagement with the world, whether it be value systems or works of art.

>I say X can't be great and my whole fucking argument is when a great X is pointed out to say "no, that's not great because I say so, or it's not X because I say so."
Yawn. Fuck off with your no true Scotsman nonsense.

>Camus, Foucault, Derrida
>good
>in any way

Stupid Western gaijin!

India has the greatest atheist literature.

Check out the Carvaka/Lokayata school of philosophy.

>(You)
>reading any of their books
>ever

>slurping up whatever shit is put in front of you without thinking for yourself

>Being religious
>thinking for yourself

This isn't about the OP at all. Camus, Foucault, and Derrida are absolute garbage.

>Kafka

"To be absolutely honest, although I don't believe in anything too fervently, I do tend to believe in some kind of mind behind the cosmos. I don't like calling it God, because God to most people means a grouchy old man sitting on a cloud, counting all the kids who are masturbating so he can put them in hell later on."
- robert anton wilson

OP sufflavit in perpetuum foras

Ummm, technically all literature is atheistic? That you don't believe one thing is real doesn't make it so you won't like the story, that's like the basis of fiction. Philosophy is more or less the same, that an idea is "outdated" doesn't make it so it's not worth pondering over or reinterpreting.

You would have had a point if said there's no great Militant atheist stuff, because militant atheism is based on taking a negative as proof when the whole reason atheism happens is because theists can't prove God.

Oh, and let's not forget all religion isn't necessarily theistic and "atheism" really doesn't work outside Abrahamic religions, okay? So the vast majority of stuff coming from East Asian or Buddhist countries also is "atheistic".

>the vast majority of stuff coming from East Asian or Buddhist countries also is "atheistic"
top meme westerner

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_the_Earth

>mfw I'm converted into Christianity by this pic

>It's a gaijin don't understand mysticar orientar thought post
Smelly, dumb, exoticist scum.

why not voodoo

my god that's a bad list of names

hey leddit hows it going

What do you think atheist literature even means? It's meaningless, you can smack that sort of arbitrary categorizing on anyone you want.
Is it simply the lack of God in a story, or what?

All philosophy that doesn't invoke god or religion is atheist literature.

Atheistic just means 'not religious'.

Why do you mess up the entire question even further by getting it wrong? Atheism is the position that there's not sufficient evidence for a deity (any deity, that is), and thus not believing in that deity. It coincides with religion, but the mere abstract stance of "atheism" doesn't even touch upon religion.

>words dont mean what general consensus define, words mean what i want them to mean

Irreligious literature written by atheist authors, I would assume.

Percy Bysshe Shelly my nigga.

>Chekhov, Ibsen, Kafka and Proust
>Masturbatory authors/playwrights for narcissists
Figures.

Terribly odd, though, that categorization. Very little to do with literature as well, seeing an atheist could very well write a literary text that involves christianity or other religious dogmas, just as a christian (or others) could write an entirely atheistic literary text.. ?

>There is no great atheist writer
>someone names renowned authors who wrote about atheism or were atheist
>lol they're bad
Your is circular. If you think atheist authors are bad for being atheist, no amount of namedropping is going to make you chancge your mind, you dogmatic faggot.

>renowned iff not bad

>Awful

>Sartre

>create new, better ones,

If you are creating Gods you are an atheist

>Implying

Nice shitpost, but if you want to troll, you need to make people actually doubt whether you've (mis)read the authors in question, not implicitly admit that you have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.

>"atheism" really doesn't work outside Abrahamic religions

>argument
Platonism is a bad philosophy.
Ask yourself.
>I've only read Wikipedia articles of Nietzsche
>anything i dont like is bait
Not atheistic. I don't think you understand what atheism is, or what religion is.

Atheism is a step away from nihilism. It's an irrelevant category.
You're the dogmatist.
The worst, even.

Teenage philosophy.

>people ITT arguing that Nietzsche wasn't an atheist

Are you trying to imply that all analytic philosophy is some form of Platonism? If so, stating that in response to fucking Quine is extra lulz. If not, I have no idea what you're asserting.

>I don't understand Platonism
The very concept of 'analytic philosophy' is Platonic.

...

>a christian (or others) could write an entirely atheistic literary text

Atheists would disagree

*tips fedora*

*tips fedora*

>analytic philosophy is platonist

you're fucking retarded

Assertions are not arguments; for that reason, your posting is dumb and bad.

epic troll attempt, sure baited lots of people with this hot meme

>Atheism is a step away from nihilism. It's an irrelevant category.
*tips fedora*

>it's yet another episode of fedora christians make stupid shitposts about shit nobody cares about

It's inherently Platonist.
>arguments are good
Platonism isn't good philosophy.
anything i dont like is le bait

>It's inherently Platonist.
No, it's not. It's really just not. You have no idea what you're even talking about.

Yes I do, you're just terribly stupid.

>says really retarded thing
>"you're retarded"
>no, you're retarded

k, closing the thread now, thanks for the kek moron

your stupid because i said so haha

shit thread. why did you post this

because christposters are two steps below bronys by this point.