What is some essential atheist literature?

...

thus spoke zarathustra

Kafka
Gombrowicz
Chekhov
JG Ballard
Saramago
Calvino
Umberto Eco
Virginia Woolf
Joseph Conrad
George Eliot
Proust
Houellebecq
Camus

read the KJV
joyce is good too

This is a god-tier list. If this were a list of someone's favorire writers, I'd assume they were a prince.

Except, none of these are atheist really or explicitly so. Dreary maybe but still giving acceptance of some kind of higher/pagan/mysterious supernatural force

You're wrong. Look at this quote from Kafka's diaries: "There is no God. I renounce the vulgar idea."

You haven't read any of them have you?

Not all of them are dreary, Calvino isn't heavy at all. All of them are either on the books as atheist or else obviously atheist (Gombrowicz) and many deal with themes related to living in a world without a god, just not in an on the nose way. Have you actually read these authors?

That was just a lil harsh.

didn't you mean to say
>these are my favorite writers

>He doesn't know the incipit of all classical poems by heart

The Book of Mormon

Dr. Jordan Peterson is a religious Christian.

He literally doesn't believe in the resurrection. At most he's an atheist Christian.

...

Logic and theism by Sobel.
The Cambridge companion to Atheism
The miracle of theism by error theory guy

At the end of an interview with a fellow, can't remember who, pretty sure he has a radio program, Peterson was asked if he was religious or secular. Peterson chose religious.

Atheist means believing that god doesn't exist (please pseuds don't give me the muh disbelief thing, it's moronic), it doesn't mean non-religious. If tomorrow I started going to church and do all the rituals and prayers and so on, I would be religious and an atheist.

He doesn't believe in a divine Jesus. His definition of religious is clearly inconsistent with most people's definition.

Found the interview, took some digging. It's with Dennis Preger. I'll provide a link if you'd like to check it out. Skip to 15:31 if you'd like to hear the question.

>"Do you regard yourself as essentially secular or religious?"
>"Ohh I would say I regard myself as essentially religious; but I'll make a secular case, I'll make a secular case whenever that's possible. That'd be the simplest case."

It is VERY hard to hear that last sentence but I think that's how it turned out, I definitely heard 'simplest case'.

>"Alright, we'll have you on again if you're up for it, it's a joy to talk to you."
>"Hey well thanks for everything you've done, eh?"

There's obviously no doubt that he's Canadian.

Jesus was a man. I actually read it in my Bible very recently, I'll dig it out and share the exact passage, I think it was in John.

1 John 4:2
This is how we know if they have the Spirit of God: If a person claiming to be a prophet acknowledges that Jesus Christ came in a real body, that person has the Spirit of God.
4:3
But if someone claims to be a prophet and does not acknowledge the truth about Jesus, that person is not from God. Such a person has the spirit of the Antichrist, which you heard is coming into the world and indeed is already here.

Jesus ate and drank, He was believed to be the son of God yes but He was still a mortal man, clearly. If not, how would He have been able to die on the cross? Why would He have suffered at all from the crown of thorns or carrying that cross or the crucifixion itself? If He were not a man, He would not have bled, and He would not have known pain. At least, that's how I see it. If you see differently then that's fine.

FUCK! Forgot the link, sorry.

youtu.be/hGSJmMbrFog

Not that user but Christians believe Christ has both a human and divine nature, and that it is belief in both, in that coexistence, that is important. It's called the "hypostatic union". The user is questioning Peterson's "Christian-ness" because of his lack of belief in the divine person.

>If He were not a man, He would not have bled, and He would not have known pain
Non sequitur.
>At least, that's how I see it. If you see differently then that's fine
>But that's just, like, my opinion, man
Damage control.

>If He were not a man, He would not have bled, and He would not have known pain.
Geckos can bleed and feel pain, maybe he was a gecko?

I can't say that I understand how that is a non-sequitur, and considering I'm still very early in my readings of the Bible and my learnings of the Christian faith not to mention the fact that the Bible is VERY MUCH up to interpretation by the individual I went ahead and ended the comment in a manner that shows that I'm not looking for an argument. I've been on the internet long enough to know that religious arguments are all too common and that no matter the topic, NOBODY wins in an internet argument. I've never partaken in a religious argument either for the side of Christianity or for the side of atheism. I am not interested in a fight, only in a discussion. If you'd like to share views and ideas, I'm down. Your beliefs are your own and you may maintain or change them as you wish, just as I will maintain or change mine as I wish.

As I read the Bible for all I know I might come upon some things I find terrible and will reject Christianity, but so far I very much like what I'm reading and I most certainly believe it's teaching me some lessons on how to live a better life. Peterson doesn't talk about telling the truth just because he's a good guy; it's a fundamental part of Christianity. I've yet to find anything in regards to 'thou shalt keep thine quarters of living in sufficient condition' though, so that's all him.

Haha nice, that'd make for an interesting 'Last Supper' painting. Would there be a bowl of crickets or something?

Reply to me not to tards.

Ok, what do you want me to reply to?

...

I've yet to hear Peterson's views on Christ being the son of God. There are many different sects of Christianity and many different views on what Christianity is. He says he is Christian and he says he is religious. I find the concept of a 'Christian atheist' to be rather confusing, to my knowledge an atheist is basically a 'non-theist', meaning no belief in any God, so how can someone be an atheist and a theist at the same time since to be Christian you must believe in God. I do recall hearing Peterson mention that "I live 'as though' God exists"... ohhhh, so perhaps an 'atheist Christian' is someone who does not believe in God but follows Christian values? Now that's an interesting concept, but for Peterson to qualify as that I think he'd have to actually state that God doesn't exist. Not only has he not said that but he's confirmed that he is religious.

He is not an orthodox/mainstream Christian, imo. From what I've seen, he doesn't evaluate religion by its own metric (truth-value) but by utility. Peterson tends to dodge the question of God's existence and the nature of God's existence. From all his hints and evasions I just think he's not a theist, at least not a committed one. That's fine, I wrestle with the question of God's nature/existence a lot, but I try to be authentic and not mislead people about it - especially religious people. We can recognise Christianity's social utility and its profound human insight, but if we don't believe it's true we can't maintain the illusion. It just won't work. We can't treat the religion like such a childish thing this way. It's very power depends on faith, on capital-t Truth.

How does it follow from being divine that He would not bleed or feel pain? Unless you can justify that it is clearly non sequitur.

>I don't eat vegetables. I'm not a vegetarian.
If you truly don't believe in God, religious literature shouldn't bother you. For you, all literature is atheist literature.

I think it's important to note that "I live as though God exists" means exactly that. It is neither confirming his belief in God nor is it denying belief. I don't see it as a dodge, I guess because I don't really care if he believes or not. I don't think I even care about the whole concept of a 'Christian atheist' or 'atheist Christian'. If someone studies the Bible (which Peterson clearly does), if someone follows its teachings (which he clearly does), then that seems good enough for me. It also seems as though he's single-handedly bringing A LOT of interest towards the religion for those who watch him which is primarily young men. LOTS of people are going to look into the matter, to search the truth, to learn, and that's great! Maybe they'll like it and become Christian, or maybe they'll dislike it and remain what they were before, but learning is ALWAYS good! Hell, I want to read Mein Kampf to better understand Hitler's mentality. Going to be awkward carrying that around, but considering how major a role he played in history, however negative, it seems to me like it is practically required reading for anyone interested in the modern history.

Well, I've heard it said that Jesus was basically Himself a God. This is not what I believe, I'm still understanding His role as the son of God, but in my mind if He were to be such a being then He would not bleed or feel pain. I have an atheist room mate who likes to shit on Christians and Christianity whenever possible, it seems to be a major aspect to his views on religion. He thinks all religious people are idiots and that all preachers are spouting bullshit for money, that's pretty much it, and he mentioned something about Jesus being like a God, while I said that he was a man. A messiah, a messenger, the 'lamb of God' as it were. He ate, He slept, and probably had to take a piss from time to time like any other man. Now, the whole 'water to wine' thing and taking some bread and fish and making it multiply, that's tricky. If it did indeed happen, I would contribute that to Jesus summoning the powers of God, rather than Jesus doing it Himself. That's my position at the moment but it's likely to change in some manner as I continue to learn, but at any rate if anyone here thinks that it makes me an 'atheist Christian', I'm going to go ahead and reject that notion. People can call me whatever they like of course, but it doesn't change anything.

I don't think you can "follow the teachings of the Bible" (nor that it would make sense to) without assenting to the metaphysical beliefs that underlay those teachings. The fact that I don't is the reason I am not a Christian. It's a good thing that people become more interested in cultural, religious and philosophical traditions like Christianity, but I hope they don't adopt Peterson's wishy-washy utilitarian attitude toward the whole thing. I think that would be a disservice. It's obfuscatory. Most serious philosophers are already familiar with the Christian tradition and often have a deep respect for it, engage with its ideas and its theses about humanity - you don't need to be a Christian to do so. I think it's rather limp to say you subscribe to something you don't believe in, and play some odd game where you sort of believe in it and sort of don't, but not in a genuine confusion brought about by truth-seeking, but as a deliberate act.

Ironically, I think changing the definition of Christian to simply mean... whatever the fuck this is.... something that doesn't require actual metaphysical belief... don't bring it up bigot.... is a greater sin against clarity than most of the postmodernist shit Peterson rails against.

One of the central ideas in Christianity is that God is so powerful he doesn't need to conform to our earthly ideas of what "powerful" entails - invincibility, strength, grandeur political authority, etc. These are ultimately very little things. They are meaningful in human terms, in a human hierarchy - not a divine one. God is so powerful he can be a little crying baby on the outskirts of the Roman empire.

When God decided to manifest on Earth as Jesus, he didn't just make himself "like a human", appear as a human apparition. He appeared as an actual frail mortal flesh and blood human organism. This is why Jesus continually gets tempted, though he never falls. But he feels the same temptation as you or I. He even begs God the Father to spare him crucifixion, though he nevertheless ultimately accepts. But his humanity is equally as important as his divinity: he must be seen as both the Man-God and the God-Man. Because Jesus can also perform miracles, he also knows everything, he never sins, he can do all kinds of stuff humans can't do. Christians often refer to Jesus as the "new Adam" - the new pathway for humans to become what they were meant to be. This is the meaning of salvation.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, the books of the New Testament were written by men who believed Jesus was literally God. Hence his words "before Abraham was, I AM" - recalling the name God gives Himself in Exodus when talking to Moses.

Also John 10:30-33 and John 20:28.

What's the point in being a Christian if you don't believe that Jesus was the son of God? Why do his instructions have moral weight if they don't actually correspond to a real living reality?

didn't read lol

You might as well read Confessions if you want some metaphysical ruminations about God/Jesus/Holy Spirit and Biblical scripture by a rhetorician to realign whatever misconceptions you have floating around in your head. Not to say everything Augustine said was infallible nu-Gospel but you might as well at least consider his point of view, if what you said is as "sophisticated" as you can manage work out on your own now.

>What is some essential atheist literature?
Principia Discordia (Discordianism)

". . . The Principia Discordia holds three core principles: the Aneristic and Eristic principle representing order and disorder, and the notion that both are mere illusions. The following excerpt summarizes these principles:

The Aneristic Principle is that of apparent order; the Eristic Principle is that of apparent disorder. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of pure chaos, which is a level deeper than is the level of distinction making.

With our concept-making apparatus called "the brain" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about-reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently.

It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T) True reality is a level deeper than is the level of concept. We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The order is in the grid. That is the Aneristic Principle.

Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be true. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the Aneristic Illusion. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.

Disorder is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the Eristic Principle.

The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the Eristic Illusion.

The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered. . ."
— Principia Discordia, pages 00049–00050"

Basically everyone who was opposed to religion in some way.
Most deists back then, then existentialists and similar,etc...
People just didn't call themselves atheists but if you want nonreligious authors then there are quite a few.

Sweetie, let's not confuse atheists with deists.
You'll get a lot more authors if you're fine with just anticlerical sentiments, then even Kierkegaard is included.

The Miracle of Theism - JL Mackie
The Non-Existence of God - Nicholas Everitt
The Dissapearance of God - Richard E. Friedman