Atheistic literature

This guy gets it: . More specific to Christianity I'll also add:
The Evolution of God by Robert Wright
Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell

>It was a paradoxical attempt to create a church of atheism
lol wut

all the 'new' atheists said was that in an age of weapons of mass destruction religion will destroy us all unless we destroy it first

and they're right. i've never seen a godcuck successfully counter that argument, and in fact many actively wish for the apocalypse.

Literature is a strong word to use

I think you should stay away from anything that is targeted toward atheists - I've seen a lot of good recommendations in this thread that are representative of the philosophical side of belief that you should focus on. Remember that it takes as much faith to believe as it does not to.

>Remember that it takes as much faith to believe as it does not to.
I'm not even atheist anymore but this is a retarded argument. Rocks don't fucking believe in anything, does that mean that rocks are capable of faith?

>it takes as much faith to believe as it does not to
here's your (you), cuck

> it takes as much faith to believe as it does not to.

ck off you cunt. 70% of philosophers are atheist and 95% of physicists are atheist

go study anything that is tangentially related to religion, op, and you will prob lose your faith

the Historicity of Jesus Christ, is irrelevant, a moot point. What matters is the dialectical reality of Christ as historical process. The institutional Church was an attempt to contain and channel the promise of universal redemption, still an radical and dangerous idea, even by today's standards. Why else did the protestant reformation unleash so many peasant revolts, along with the first appearance of something resembling communist theory? I've come to think Human concioussness is the process through which the Universe becomes self aware. Even Christ's promise of eternal life can be realised by an activated world-concioussness, at once a oneness and a collection of individuals, like the holy trinity, a myriad persons in one. Christianity foretells the resurrection of our fathers and the ultimate defeat of death and chaos, the organization of the universe into forms ever more beautiful and perfect.

the Historicity of Muhammed, is irrelevant, a moot point. What matters is the dialectical reality of Allah as historical process. The institutional Mosque was an attempt to contain and channel the promise of universal redemption, still an radical and dangerous idea, even by today's standards. Why else did the Shia reformation unleash so many peasant revolts, along with the first appearance of something resembling communist theory? I've come to think Human concioussness is the process through which the Universe becomes self aware. Even Allah's promise of eternal life can be realised by an activated world-concioussness, at once a universal oneness, like the oneness of Allah. Islam foretells the resurrection of our fathers and the ultimate defeat of death and chaos, the organization of the universe into forms ever more beautiful and perfect.

I was mostly trolling, but this appeal to authority was a terrible way for you to try to refute my statement. You can have belief that a supreme being or concept does or does not exist, but you can't have knowledge of the fact.

the pure atheism needs a leap of faith just as religion needs it, because you can't assume that the god doesn't exist without doing such a leap, you can't simply choose one of the unverifiable options and claim it to be true

the modern rampant scientism makes that leap of faith feel very natural though

or you can be an agnostic. actually most of the prominent atheists say that they are agnostics, but their preference for atheism is so strong that i personally find it questionable that they don't have a belief that the god doesn't exist

The (non)problem of evil

Logical positivism

Complete ignorance, regardless.

>you can't assume
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

But even so, nobody is assuming. Historians have shown that the historical account of the major religions are false, and science has not only shown no evidence of a creator but strong evidence that things are the way they are as a consequence of chance.

>you can't simply choose one of the unverifiable options and claim it to be true
Yes you can if the balance of probabilities overwhelmingly favour one of them. If I'm playing poker and I hold two Aces (the best hand) I can't know with verifiable certainty that I will win but I'm sure as hell going to bet on it.

>christians are cringe
So how are your morals based on society working out for you?

Of coarse not, but there are alsays evidence about God and I had personal moments (not supernatural) where God was present. (Hard to understand for non believers).

The AntiChrist, Nietzsche
Age of Reason, Thomas paine

They don't really bash god though, they bash christianity.

This works. Thank you.

Oh lord.

those "personal moments" can be easily debunked when you read a bit on psychology, neurology, how our brain fools us, some biology and some history. One doesn't even have to read anything more than entry level uni freshman literature to realize how much we lie to ourselves to reinforce our beliefs. That's why there are so many pseudointellectual atheists, because if you take the time to read on it it's not really that hard to figure out. All those personal moments are bullshit

>science is fact
>science has any affect on subjects

It's really not that difficult to understand. You have a mental illness.

If what he describe could be classified as qualia, then you cannot debunk it with any kind of psychological or biological truths

I don't know what you mean by "inspired" but you should probably use a different word

Yeah. I guess I should've not shared this

Seek help.

cultexperts.org

...

>What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>the modern rampant scientism makes that leap of faith feel very natural though

>What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

i don't even get what it means

firstly nothing can be dismissed without evidence, the stuff which can't be proven can be ignored for scientific purposes, but it cannot be dismissed. such ignoring is "i don't know" position i.e. it's the core of agnosticism, hence why science is agnostic about the god, but not atheistic

secondly to say that the god doesn't exist is just as much an assumption as to say that he exists, now who should dismiss whom? who called dibs the first?

>Historians have shown that the historical account of the major religions are false

firstly it is not related and secondly not even true - as we know it nowadays christ, muhammed and buddha likely were historical persons

>and science has not only shown no evidence of a creator but strong evidence that things are the way they are as a consequence of chance

considering how popular determinism among scientists nowadays it's pretty amusing to mention the latter because, you know, it only raises the question about the first cause. not like it's verifiable anyway

>Yes you can if the balance of probabilities overwhelmingly favour one of them.

you cannot measure that probability, you simply don't have any tools to do it

you merely follow what the society tends to believe nowadays and nothing more, the key word there is "to believe"

>i don't even get what it means
It means if I tell you that I am a talking flower you don't have to believe me or prove that I'm not.

>likely were historical persons
Who were nothing like the mythological accounts of them suggest there were like.

>verifiable
There's that word again.

>you cannot measure that probability, you simply don't have any tools to do it
So it's a coin toss and you flipped and got heads?

That book and most atheists are jokes. The only respectable atheists are people like Cioran and Zapffe. They take the idea to its rational conclusion. Well almost. Only Philipp Mainländer did that. People like Chris Hitch want the civilizations that religions have produced but with God somehow excluded. It's the same as non-whites risking death to arrive in whitopia so they can be oppressed by whitey, all while engaging in cultural appropriation by driving cars, using the Internet, and not raping infants to cure AIDS. Absurd!

If you think religion created civilization you are absurd

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You're trying to make an argument that, because god has not been proven to exist, he must not exist.

Don't read New Atheist books (like Hitchins, Dawkins, Sam Harris etc).

Instead check out Nietzsche. He makes some legitimate psychological arguments against Christianity, and makes a case for a way to live a better life without Christianity (rather than the stemfag "muh evidence," "muh evil bible quotes" you'll see in Hitchens.

If anyone has any other authors that make criticisms of Christianity of the same vein as Nietzsche, please let me know.

>they are kind of like CS Lewis - articulate but ultimate vapid when it comes to serious argument.
I've noticed Veeky Forums dislikes Lewis - can you explain / elaborate on what you said?

Russell is heavily underrated here

>cloning
>the end of human civilization
Wot. If anything it'll give us endless copies of key intellectuals, leading to a massive leap forward

F.A. Hayek saluted both Evolution and Genesis (which he saw as an evolutionary advantage)–the very same Law which Christ came to fulfill: “To understand our civilisation, one must appreciate that the extended order resulted not from human design or intention but spontaneously: it arose from unintentionally conforming to certain traditional and largely moral practices, many of which men tend to dislike, whose significance they usually fail to understand, whose validity they cannot prove, and which have nonetheless fairly rapidly spread by means of an evolutionary selection — the comparative increase of population and wealth — of those groups that happened to follow them. The unwitting, reluctant, even painful adoption of these practices kept these groups together, increased their access to valuable information of all sorts, and enabled them to be ‘fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it’ (Genesis 1:28). This process is perhaps the least appreciated facet of human evolution. –The Fatal Conceit : The Errors of Socialism (1988), p. 6″

He is a bad philosopher and a bad theologian.
t. devout Catholic
Because we wrote the worst History of Philosophy anyone could imagine.

The Christian religion gave men a vocation to study (their) God's creation. This gave the West an advantage over countries like China when it came to science.

What's more, the abolition of slavery, the women's suffrage movement, and black emancipation were all spearheaded by Christians. And then you have the more equivocal blessing of capitalism, which is inseparably intertwined with Protestantism.

I'm not him but that user is not far off.

>can you explain / elaborate on what you said?

Ill give a sample of two arguments he uses and you will see why :

First the lewis trilemma which states that the biblical account of Jesus presents us with a person who was either a liar, crazy or who he says he was (ie God)

And as he was not a dribbling lunatic and because no liar would possibly eschew wealth and welcome death he must therefore be who he says he is.

The second is that moral judgments can only be made with reference to an objective standard and that only God can provide that standard therefore if you are to make a moral judgement you must believe in God.

The first one is embarrassing, considering he must have known about Socrates.
The second one is also embarrassing, considering he must have known about Socrates.

To my defense, when I first read him I didn't know about Socrates.

He was once BTFO by Elizabeth Anscombe so hard he didn't speak again in that group.

>Can you please suggest me good psychological books that bash God.
Bible.

Those would be heretic books then, from christian point of view.

>He was once BTFO by Elizabeth Anscombe so hard he didn't speak again in that group.

Good to see that christians could also see through his eloquent language,

I'm the one asking the questions here, cuck.

How does it fit?

>And as he was not a dribbling lunatic
why not?

Kinda of assumed however I think his argument would revolve around his ability to teach coherent and powerful lessons and attract a large following.

...

Atheistic

>>>>>>>>>>>"literature"

The key intellectuals are dead.

yes it is

look it up

Thanks for turning me into Atheist.

>he thinks the two are necessarily mutually exclusive

wew

As a christian and someone who reads, I'm disappointed in myself to admit that I know a lot less actual philosophy or theology than I feel I ought to. Lewis' arguments that user summarized don't sound perfect but they don't sound terrible either. Would some kind user mind picking them apart so I can better understand why these are not good arguments to support christianity? Maybe explain the references to Socrates and Liz Anscombe?

Christianity is a religion of revelation. It is revealed to us. You can't put a smart man in a vacuum and expect him to reason his way to God sending Jesus, who is Himself but unique to die for the sin of mankind if he has never heard of Jesus before. The onus is entirely on Christianity in stating its claim which is has never done satisfactorily. There are philosophical arguments for the existence of God, though many of these the word God is a little strange since it can be believed by an atheist (something like Spinoza's God for example), but nowhere in philosophy do we see anyone making the bridge from that to the Christian God.

tl/dr weak atheism doesn't need to argue against Christianity until Christians put forth a compelling argument.

Except for the part where he explicitly states his atheism.

>muh evidence

Pretty well. Better than yours did, anyway.

>gave the west an advantage scientifically
Wrong -- major scientific development was largely repressed outside of small circles until the seventeen-hundreds.

It's more that nobody was interested. Not that the Church actively shut it down.

Monks actually did a fair amount of mathematics and astronomy. Calculating the date of Easter and inventing the Gregorian calendar was pretty impressive.

They even eventually had a rudimentary understanding of contagious disease; plague doctors figured out it was smart to burn the bodies and clothes of plague victims.

Basically they were only interested in science that could be immediately applied.

>and welcome death
Yea, kind of, but I wouldn't exactly say "welcome"

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”"

guys this girl said she wants me to fug her brains out but my pastor told me sex before marriage is a sin

i'm so confused. what do i do?

Great recommendation. Listen to this guy, OP

Just start reading philosophy. Best make a specific thread, explain your situation, lit will give you a lot of recs.

He's right, sex before marriage is a sin. Even if it wasn't it's still a bad idea. Society would essentially be utopian if sex only occurred within marriage

...

You're both wrong but the christian guy is also retarded

Are you serious?

What is Mental illness?

You have to understand that nearly every (Western) scientist who ever lived was a Christian or Jew. The Heliocentrism controversy is a historical meme and while I'm not a Christian it would be nice if other atheists knew more about history than what you can glean from reading the front page of reddit. The vast majority of classical knowledge would have vanished completely if it weren't for the church and the university system itself was a Christian invention. There were no universities of any kind in Greece or Rome; learning was for children or wealthy hobbyists, there was no vocation for learning.

The Chinese had extremely conservative religious and social views, and this hampered their development. This is why the Chinese "army" was using crossbows and matchlocks in the 1800s, while the British had steam powered warships, rifles, heavy cannons, and rockets.

We owe our entire way of life to Christianity. It's an inseparable part of our culture and if the Christians do ugly things sometimes, just look at the alternatives in the Middle East, Asia, or Africa. That'll cheer you up real fast.

I'm exaggerating but yes, premarital sex is socially detrimental. The extent of that detriment is debatable but I think you'd have a hard time arguing that marriage doesn't improve society

>You have to understand that nearly every (Western) scientist who ever lived was a Christian or Jew
And? Pretty much everyone who lived in Europe was a Christian. It doesn't mean we attribute to the particular sticky shit John Doe took on the 4th day of June 1020 as being a Christian shit.

>The vast majority of classical knowledge would have vanished completely if it weren't for the church
You mean if it weren't for Islam. With or without Christianity those things would have found their way back into Europe with much of the philosopher probably finding a more receptive environment without Christians feeling embarrassed about learning from pagans.

>The Chinese had extremely conservative religious and social views, and this hampered their development. This is why the Chinese "army" was using crossbows and matchlocks in the 1800s, while the British had steam powered warships, rifles, heavy cannons, and rockets.
This is an incredibly over simplified view. It ignores the centuries that China was more advanced mathematically, or in terms of education and bureaucracy than the Christian west. China only learned it wasn't the only non-barbarian nation during the Han. They simply didn't have the competition that European nations had that helped their development. Sure there are some strong conservative strains in Chinese society but to reduce everything to Christianity = scientific progress and China = backward swamp is wrong.

Premarital sex doesn't not preclude a society with widespread marriage. Societies in which the expectation is for both partners to be virgins upon entering marriage and that partner being your only partner for the rest of your life are a minority.

>And?

Did you read my first post? >You mean if it weren't for Islam.

Who founded the universities? Who copied the manuscripts? England in the 1700s had a higher literacy rate than Arabia today because reading and literacy were essential to understand (their) God's word. In Islam the Koran is memorized and recited orally, and thus few Muslims ever learned to read. You're grasping at straws here. A few geniuses like Averroes don't make up for the overwhelming ignorance of the Muslims.

>or in terms of education and bureaucracy

Oh man you can't be serious. Those "educated" magistrates spent ten years memorizing Confucius and Confucian exegesis so they could pass the civil service exam and become magistrates, but in actual practice the local warlords controlled everything. Being a magistrate was just an honorary position outside of a few core regions. As for the mathematics, well what's the point if you can't apply it? In the end what worked best? Christianity, Islam, or Confucianism?

>A few geniuses like Averroes don't make up for the overwhelming ignorance of the Muslims.
Most of Europe's understanding of its classical past comes from Islam. They preserved the treasures of Europe while Europe threw them away and it was only because of the Muslims many translation academies that these works made there way back to Europe. Without Islam Europe would have no Aristotle. It sounds like you don't know anything about the translation movement in the near east.

>As for the mathematics, well what's the point if you can't apply it?
You mean how like how they used their superior mathematics to make better astronomical predictions. What about where they invented gun powder and used it to made landmines and canons? Tang dynasty China was much more advanced and stable then anything happening in western Europe at the time. The west was still dealing with the collapse of the western Roman empire while China was at it's peak. What about how China constructed the largest

>but in actual practice the local warlords controlled everything.
I think your problem is is that you are reducing thousands of years of Chinese history and only using the parts you want to to make a point. What you said is true sometimes but often not. The Tang and Song were very stable and prosperous dynasties in part due to their effective administration which exists because of their advanced bureaucracy.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a God, not necessarily an active belief in there being no God. And even if you strongly believe there is no God, you can still be an agnostic if you accept that there is no absolute proof one way or the other.

This. I call myself an atheist because agnostic implies a lack of inquiry and because I conduct myself as if there was no god, but in the end, by my reasoning the balance of probabilities is only slightly in favour of a godless universe.

My reasoning is essentially that a model of the universe built upon the presupposition that a god exists (just an intelligent creator-being, not necessarily the god described by any particular religion) requires more unverifiable assumptions than a universe that "just exists," and so lacking evidence to disqualify either theory, I prefer godlessness by Occam's Razor.

But, if, on the day of my death, I meet St. Peter beside the pearly gates, then I will be immediately convinced of the foolishness of my atheism.

Why do 17th century philosophers always have that "Really, nigga?" look on their faces?

>Occam's Razor.
Occam was a theologian.

The idea has no actual validity, just mindless promotion.

Occam's Razor doesn't apply to God. Occam's point is that God is unreachable by logic and all we have when it comes to him is wether or not we believe in him.

Literally all we can say of God is: "He is willful, he is free".

>What about where they invented gun powder and used it to made landmines and canons?

They invented gunpowder by accident while they were trying to create immortality potion. Chinese firearms were incredibly basic, and were easily and quickly surpassed by Turkish or European guns.

>The Tang and Song

Right. But that was in the Middle Ages. China declined from the Qing onward while Europe only got stronger. See also: The Ottoman Empire, Persia, the Mughals. . .Marx said that Asia "fell asleep in history" and for once he was right.

...

> they don't sound terrible either. Would some kind user mind picking them apart so I can better understand why these are not good arguments to support christianity?

For the trilema, it creates a false dichotomy of sorts in holding that those are the only options, it completely ignores the influence of legend on historical figures which distorts their character and message, given Jesus left no personal writings and that it took the church 400 years to hammer out Jesus and the Trinity (ie him being God) this is a very viable option and the fact that someone with his formal study in literature didnt mention this is very telling.

Secondly this test could be used to demonstrate the truth of almost all religions modern to ancient as almost every prophet or founder meets this test.

The second one is just lazy as it begs the question - ie that people cant have a subjective morality based on thier own frames of reference and not only that ignores all the arguments around how people can derive an objective morality via reason ie like those done by utilitarians or Kant