>begin reading pic related
>first half is GOAT
>relate to the MC perfectly, he's literally me
>second half comes along
>now the awkward autistic MC is making out with girls and shit
>he doesn't even have to do anything; they just approach him basically
Fuck. What a fucking spectacular way to drop the ball at the end there. It pisses me off to think about what could have been, if the author hadn't tried to force his >le epic happy ending on the story.
Share your recent reads/rate/critique.
I know that fucking feel
Nothing worse than getting immersed into some sort of story and identifying with the character only to have the MC start having sex like its no big deal. I usually drop it immediately afterwards.
>only to have the MC start having sex like its no big dea
Its hard to write a book about someone who just spends all day wanking in his room and shitposting online.
For people who do leave their houses, sex sometimes ends up happening.
Nice assumptions and robot shaming. I've had several jobs and go to college. I leave the house quite often and I assure you that sex does not "just happen" for non normals.
When it happens in a book or television/movie all its telling me is that the writer was pretending to understand a world he has never set foot in.
You could have a character interact with others in many ways but degenerates always want to see a spicy sex scene.
that book is based on the guy's actual twenties, but he never met the girl
it ends the way it does because the author was a literal robot just hoping for a happy ending
1981 - 2013
>When it happens in a book or television/movie all its telling me is that the writer was pretending to understand a world he has never set foot in.
bam. hit the nail on the head. That's why I'm looking for books by robots, for robots.
Literally came into this thread to say this. I was a fan of Ned, all throughout high school my fav book was be more chill by him. Give it a shot it was really good. Anyways, I began communicating with him shortly before his death through email. Was a very genuine guy and seemed like he was happy to have someone reach out for him. Sometimes I feel bad because I just stopped emailing back because I didn't want to waste his time. Now I wonder if things might've been different. Oh well. I'm drunk and this has made me very sad
I love this book. I think that the protagonist is the epitome of the self-aware human, and I wish that I could strive to be more like him.
Probably on my all-time favourites, as I never found myself disagreeing with his point of view.
you don't get it, there's not any point in continuing this
It's not about atheism
It's about the aesthetic of the atheist
Back to reddit, here here.
"Agnostics" are agnostic-atheists. As Camus wasn't religious, he automatically defaults to a position of having no belief, which makes him an atheist. But as he did not speak in absolutes about the nonexistence of God, he acknowledged it as a possibility, which makes him an agnostic. Thus, he's an agnostic-atheist. All proclaimed "agnostics" are agnostic-atheists.
I read this book in high school, and I think it was pretty good. I related with the MC
Until he questions whether he's gay or not, I ain't no fag
This thread is full of original double digits
There are several valid argument to justify a belief in a deity of some form
>God exists in the understanding but not in reality.
>Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone.
>A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality can be conceived.
>A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality is greater than God.
>A being greater than God can be conceived.
>It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived.
>Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality.
>God exists in the understanding.
>Hence God exists in reality.
I'm surprised more people aren't deists.
What the fuck are you talking about? That in no way proves beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists. All you're saying is that for an entity to qualify as God, it must be omnipotent with no superior. That's it, that's all you're saying. You simply arbitrarily say that since you imagined this fantasy character, it must exist to fulfill its ridiculous premises. As it stands, it's entirely possible that you could be incorrect in your beliefs, and God could not exist. How can you hold faith in something so outrageous unless you're absolutely certain?
When you say "God exists in the understanding" all you're saying is that you have an overactive imagination. He doesn't exist anywhere, as what exists is your imagination, not the things within it.
>talk like a philosopher
>think like a pleb
I hate this sudden trend. The reason 'agnostic' isn't a good answer to the god question is because it's an epistemological position, not a theological one.
A lot of new atheist literature is focused on 'claiming' and 'disclaiming'. Influential figures like Einstein and Hitler respectively.
The point he's making is that it could have been a reflective piece with an unhappy ending, where the character is faced with drama or some sort of struggle, but due to his horrid personality flaws, it causes him to descend further, which eventually climaxes with his destruction.
Being an agnostic-atheist is the only reasonable response to the god question, as there is no way to settle on whether god exists or not. Everything else is simply dishonest, even if the answer is more absolute and clear.
You shouldn't be making claims that you can't prove.
>tfw you realize that human nature is to constantly be pulled in contradictory directions
"A Fan's Notes" is about a paranoid autist that gets sent to an insane asylum and given insulin shock therapy.
Most of the book was written from inside the asylum, its a true story.
Good read for slightly older robots. Also very dense with magniloquent words for the vocabularian.
the catcher in the rye was a pretty neat book that drew out the idea of everyone being who they say they aren't and pretty much opened my eyes to see that people are exactly like this irl and helped me from not killing myself
Atheists are annoying, and the reddit circlejerk culture that they inhabit is annoying. Its not that they're wrong, its just that they're insufferable.
I may not believe in God but I don't go around calling myself an atheist exactly because I don't want to be associated with these disgusting faggots
They've ruined fedoras, and they've begun to ruin vast swathes of literature and philosophy, because when I read it now I just have fucking euphoric fedora-tipping reddit atheists in the back of my mind.
Then you're just being pretentious. The very notion that you would call yourself an "apatheist" simply shows that you feel the need to consider the problem, question his existence, and have a ready-made term to describe yourself in relation to the subject.
>The very notion that you would call yourself an "apatheist" simply shows that you feel the need to consider the problem
Not really, it's just an admission that I have thought about it before and decided it's not worth my time to think about it in the future. Whereas an agnostic refuses to make a claim out of uncertainty, an apatheist refuses to make a claim out of indifference. There's no problem with having a term to make the distinction.
You forgot the pretentious part, as apatheists are apatheists just so they can insert themselves where they're unwanted and claim, "I'm above this conversation, aren't I cool?" They are the religious equivalent of nihilists, or those people who say, "art is subjective," just so that they may discourage critical thinking.
Beta society hating MC, reminds me of reading posts on this board
>apatheists are apatheists just so they can insert themselves where they're unwanted and claim, "I'm above this conversation, aren't I cool?"
I don't understand why you're jumping to this conclusion. It's nothing about being "above" anything, I don't believe people are inferior to me in any way for having whatever beliefs they have so long as they can justify their beliefs in some meaningful way. If anything, apatheism is just agnosticism taken to an extreme. Why even think about the table if you're not going to lay any cards on it?
I just bought it because you said it was good. If it sucks I'm going to kick your ass.
The Captive Dreamer is an interesting book. It's a frenchmans diary during WWII. He originally is a journalist but enlists for the Nazis foreign legion and fights until the end of the war. Resonates with me because he was young and ready to take on life but he didn't really know what he wanted to do/ what ideology to follow. Also any Sherlock Holmes collections are good. I like burning through a few stories a day now that my oneitis finally gave my fucking books back. Brave World and Island by Huxley are good too.
>Wake up in my gooey poo poo pee pee spiderweb
>Looks like mummies little roachie needs changing!
>Start screaming in intelligible bug speak
>Sister comes into my room, fucking cunt, I was calling mummy
>Lift up my carapace and shit all over her face
>Begin screeching for tendies and locks of her hair
>Dumb cunt doesn't even understand
>Hear mum and dad crying downstairs about my ascendance into NEETdom
>Live the rest of my blissful live scuttling around the room, getting fit, eating tendies, and no longer being a fucking wagekek
there's a special bateman specifically for this density of gets