Literally every single great genius in literature and in music was religious, without fail

>literally every single great genius in literature and in music was religious, without fail

What did God mean by this?

Artists have good imaginations.

>literally every single great genius in literature and in music was shit, without fail
ftfy

i don't get it

I hope you don't unironically believe this.

name the non religious literary geniuses

le mustache man
>inb4 doesn't count because muh opinion

>literature and music

Brecht, Calvino, Camus, Chekhov, Conrad, de Beauvoir, de Sade, Eliot, Kafka, Leopardi, Murdoch, Neruda, Proust, Sartre, Shaw, Woolf

>women
>jews
>degenerates
he said good

>vs. Joyce, Tolstoy, Dante, Cervantes, Dostoesvky, Melville, Milton, Spencer, Chaucer
case in point

It's a Post-Modernist.
>fuck culture, let's just smoke weed, muh dudes

Fuck off to your containment board.
>muh doorstoppers are more e1337
Okay, child.

Are you going to post any good authors anytime soon?

name a single religious book that anyone would want to read OP and we can talk.

>Mr and Mrs Satre
>good at anything other than molesting children and fomenting communist revolts

Have you even read any of their books? It's the most dry, lifeless, prose imaginable. It's worth comparing them to Camus, who was not only a better writer but a more principled thinker. Speaking of which Shaw's atheism took a nasty turn for the worse when he became a literal nazi.

>joyce
>tolstoy
>dostoesvky
>good
hahahahahahahah

wow this thread is terrible

quality post op

How can Americans even compete?

...

t. Reddit

>Beckett

Cheeky

Some of you people try really hard.

What case. The thesis was that all good authors were religious, not that there are good authors that are religious.
How is listing good authors that are religious a sufficient proof that all good authors that are religious?

>Eliot
Did you just stop at The Waste Land or something

The writers of the Bible

That's a lot of religions with different and competing beliefs. Does that mean God is fine with all religions, that he'd anoint genius in many different ones?

Every single great genius in literature lived in a time when non-christains were chastised and weren't aware of alternative sources of information due to religious bias and censorship in the education system. Not to mention even if you were an atheist if you ever admitted it you were thrown out of normal society unless you were budding up with some certain groups.

Only in today's time does a individual ever have the social and intellectual freedom to use rationality and knowledge to have an opinion on the existence of a philosophical concept that has been used as a tool for fear to keep people in line and set human progress back a couple thousand years.

Yet the decline of religion has coincided eerily with the decline of literature, and culture as a whole. Maybe religion wasn't so bad for human progress after all

>decline of religion
What are you talking about? Islam is stronger than it ever has been.

Would God get mad at me if I convert because I want to become a literary genius?

>compares islam with christianity
So.... this .... is .... the.... power .... of .... postmodernism?

No one wrote anything about Christianity until your post.

>he doesn't understand context and on which religion the civilization was build on
damn... really makes the neurons power up

>backpedaling this hard

but youre the one who play retarded, or maybe that your brain on postmodernism, a 10yo will smoke you out

10 year olds don't have enough weed to smoke ME out,

>misused words and can't admit it

considering your brain disability you will die from a cigar

>Yet the decline of religion has coincided eerily with the decline of literature, and culture as a whole. Maybe religion wasn't so bad for human progress after all

Going by your logic then literature and culture should have peaked during the middle ages and declined from then onwards. Yet instead we see the opposite - take Russia for example its literature taking off only happened around the 18th Century well after the rise of enlightenment values and the decline and attacks on the church by secular forces.


How do you explain this?

>misused words
Yeah I'm sorry I should knew you have hard time reading.

...

Maybe pictures are more your thing?

antisemitism is a valid literary critique

I'll give you Proust, Kafka, Camus and Conrad.

oh, i genuinely feel bad now. I didn't realize this guy was literally mentally handicapped.

devilish user

>here are the lit-memes I heard about
Okay, child.

The bible

I think you may have a reading comprehension problem, I said those are the good authors among the ones you've listed.

>Hitler = Athetist
>Shakespearse = Christian

Wewe

>James Joyce
HAHAHAHAH

>alphabetical order

did you literally google atheist authors?

Yes. And your pick tells me you're one of those patrishun teenagers that doesn't read outside Veeky Forums charts and high-school classic tier literature. "those are the good authors" only confirm you being underage. Maybe try /mu/ - it's more your level.

No, after 2 decades of studying I was finally able to master the English alphabet.

Honoré de Balzac

Okay bro

i didn't know The Zac was atheist

You guys are all so fucking annoying, just shut the fuck up

Okay you heard the man, move along everyone

no,YOU SHUT UP.
FUCK YOU. and you cunt mother.

NO YOU SHUT UP FUCK YOU BITCH

back THE fuck off!?

FUCKING KILL YOURSELF AND YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY YOU STUPID PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT FUCK YOU ALL Veeky Forums YOU ARE ALL FUCKING DUMBFUCKS

Not to pile on you, but their point was that you sort of look like a pseud for picking the names most commonly talked about here. A "real patrish" would pick Chekhov and Shaw before the likes of Kafka, Conrad, and especially Camus.

It has also coincided with the rise and growth of other popular mediums of art, film being the biggest one. Literature was such a popular form of art because it was probably the most accessible (although art in general wasn't very accessible as a whole). Being able to buy records wasn't even much of a thing until the 20th century, which is also when film started growing. Literature on the other hand has been around for centuries and I'd argue that some of the greatest writers of our time was during the period where literature was very accessible (because more and more people had access to education, thus ridding the many of the poor of the wall of illiteracy) and other mediums were not really available. Perhaps the decline of culture, in fact coincided with the rise of industrialism and technology. It's no secret that the internet is slowing degrading one's ability to proliferate their thoughts and beliefs when surrounded by endless streams of opposing voices, rhetoric, and evidence. Literature has gone from the most accessible art form, to the least accessible art form. Culture is now filled with short but satisfying pop music, multi-million dollar video game franchises built around 15 minutes of fun, a bottomless supply of hollywood films and television to help distract us from everyday life, all making the individual's ability to dedicate time and attention to literature that much more difficult. Don't try and simply the issue by implying that everything can explained by religion or a lack thereof.

No it isn't. Discarding a work because of the origin of the one who wrote it and not the quality of the work/the writer's body of work is not valid criticism and is akin to saying something is bad simply because the person who wrote it is someone you dislike as a person. It is irrelevant.

Just because they practiced magic...

Either bait or legitimately delusional

>9420780

>literally every single great genius in literature and in music was religious, without fail

Maybe because most people in general were religious

And Borges :P

Most people are religious in some way, so that doesn't mean anything. Anyway, Lucretius, Conrad, George Elliot, Pirandello, Proust (who was more mystical than religious), Forster, Chekhov, Simon, and Calvino were atheist.

I'm an American. Why can't we love everyone? You guys don't get down on Twain, Thoreau, Melville, Steinbeck, Hemingway, Salinger, Ovid, Pynchon, or McCarthy? My favorites are Joyce and Shakespeare but those guys have their merit.

It's just memes, user. Nobody takes country-shitslinging seriously except for edgy teenagers, who barely read anyways.

GOTT IM HIMMEL, REINE IDEOLOGIE

Kek

bait post
neither kafka nor proust nor eliot were "non religious" in any sense

Both Kafka and Proust had great interest in mythological and cultural aspects of Judaism and Christianity, but neither were religious themselves.

They worship the same god, dipshit

Well, you are forgetting some important aspects with your assumption:

1- Many ideas of God that the artists and musicians of the past had were not exactly the ideas of the mainstream public and the Church organization. One example of that is the idea of God that Beethoven had. He was raised as a catholic, and yet the faith he developed for himself was some form of pantheism. Shakespeare is another figure we don’t know very well, and some of the dark worlds and philosophies of his tragedies show an intelligence quite unease with the role of salvation and the eye of the gods taking care of our destinies.

2-Most of the great artists of the past (the ones that are the most famous now) were born before the knowledge of natural selection*; of the relation of all living things (that is written even in the genetic record); of the evolution of humans as just another species; of the immensity of the Universe and its origins, etc. What I want to make clear for you is that it made much more sense to be religious in the past, when most of the views of the central place of Earth in Humanity and the creation were still valid. Today we know that the “central” place of our race and planet in the cosmos is just an illusion, we know that all religious texts of the past have been proved wrong, so one wonders if the great brains of the past would eat up the religious views they once held so easily.

*Tolstoy, in his later years, was exposed to the ideas of Darwin and found them very offensive. It made him quite uncomfortable to see that many young men were actually adopting the vision of Darwin. In his time this was only some new “philosophical view”, a new idea, so he still could doubt it and feel that is was just some nonsense of a confuse mind. Today the affirmations of Darwin are proved facts, and Tolstoy’s faith would surely suffer a lot with it, with the need to face the fact that our species was not modeled alredy in its present form by a God. He was always uneasy with the role of religion and the figure of God. As the supreme egotist that he was he could not easily assume any role of plain submission, even to divinity. He was extremely intelligent, and one can really see that, once he knew natural selection and our slow evolution to be facts, he would question his own believes deeply.

Put Akira Kurosawa on the list.

>non religious because he though god was dead lol

Joyce and Shelley come to mind.

Best reply.

Do you think that humanity would be better without internet?

ITT: Losers who went from militant atheism to militant religiousity
don't pretend you autistic faggots don't have the same edgy intentions as every atheist did 10 years ago, try getting some fucking friends

In all honesty, I can't be sure. I can say that it most definitely is one of the biggest causes of modern society's problems and am more and more finding myself becoming wary and in opposition to the internet and the place it has in our culture. For all the positives it brings to us, it brings with them another 3 or 4 negatives. It just doesn't seem worth it in my eyes.

No.

>he says on a fucking internet forum

bad b8 m8

>begging the question

Its almost as if people became more secular in the 20th century

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting

>sartre
>dry, lifeless prose
THIS
H
I
S

"nausea" was the only book, in my decades of reading, that i ever dropped halfway through. what a horrible, horrible book.

the short story about waiting for execution wasn't that bad, desu

"Jews" is not a logical objection in this thread.

>de Beauvoir
>genius
Seriously? Why? (Sincere question.)

Or any thread, actually.

Darwinism is not a proven fact, far from it. Have you even read Darwin? It's a muddled mess. The modern belief in evolution is just as much a matter of faith as creationism is, there's far from enough evidence to consider evolution a fact.

When will we finally nuke America?

>not sure if absolutely retarded or just masterfully pretending

Go to bed Leo

Darwinism and science is it's own religion, and a profane one at that, with it's own priests, metaphysics, logic, etc for it's believers. If you don't understand this then you understand very little about science, not trying to be rude but it's true. Have you even read On the Origins of Species?