Books on Atheism

Actually, I'm lying. I found internet atheism at twelve and was retarded for four years, even as I went towards beyond consistently towards agnosticism.

>towards beyond consistently towards
Correction. I still am retarded, just not an atheist.

You need to have reasons you for your non belief. How do I know my reasoning isn't flawed? What do others have to say on the subject?

...

>That girth
All hail the king.

>You need to have reasons you for your non belief.
Just read evolutionary biology and God stops making sense.
I couldn't even acknowledge a God if I wanted to.

You should get a rudimentary understanding of religious philosophy too. I don't understand why you're only interested in the atheism side of things unless you have an emotional attachment to that belief, if you're interested in the topic you should read Christian works as well.

Avoid books like The God Delusion and God is Not Great. Dawkins doesn't really know what he's talking about. Read Hume or Nietzsche or whatever. Try to avoid most 'Christian apologetics' too because it's similarly trash. Read people like Feser, Macintyre or Anscombe.

>Not being a deist

plebs

Ok thanks. I've no problem with reading both sides.

The God Delusion is outright awful. I was constantly cringing as I read it. All the book did for me was confirm that Richard Dawkins is poorly educated and doesn't do research.

>God is not Great
You mean 'Anecdotes are not Arguments: the Book'?
I use that work as an example of how vocabulary and style and convince people that poor rhetoric is convincing.

What would your response to people who believe in both God and the Theory of Evolution? I'd say most modern Christians acknowledged the validity of it.

Watch Hitchens videos and debates, God is Not Great isn't all that...great. Sagan's Demon Haunted World is a very good read.

And not memeing but I'd argue that Ulysses is actually a fairly atheistic or at least Godless Ireland book

>Anecdotes are not Arguments

What do you mean by that exactly? Where in the book, apart from the allusion to his childhood teacher who was an extremely religious person, does he use anecdotes?

As far as I remember most of the book is criticism of supernaturalism, and a secular humanist critique of religious morality.

The overwhelming majority of Christians have no issues with biology, evolution, etc.

Yeah. Even the Pope gives it a thumbs up.

Look, the statement
>"Some religious people have done bad things"
Is not an argument, especially if a core tenet of religious belief is that some people, even religious ones, do bad things. He puts up anecdotes
>"This religious person did that bad thing!"
which are statements and then leaps to
>"So religion is bad!"
That is rhetoric, not an argument or logic. He ignores the vast good done by religions and religious people.
Further, even his discussion of supernatural belief is all surface. he has no discussion of the philosophy of religion, he repeats a huge number of discredited armchair psychology critiques as if they were facts, and generally just insults people he disagrees with.
It is terrible except as an example of emotional rhetoric.

>The overwhelming majority of Christians have no issues with biology, evolution, etc.

They do when it's add odds with strictly dogmatic and supernatural subjects, such as the efficacy of prayer, or the fact that people don't return from the dead.

>What would your response to people who believe in both God and the Theory of Evolution?
I have a friend who is religious and doesn't believe in evolution. I let him be.
I do not even buy the whole "knowledge creates enlightenment" (see philosopher John Gray for example).

If my friend didn't believe in climate change, that is much more worrying. Evolution doesn't have that much implications, something like climate change does.

What I will never understand is that Christians seem to have such a harsh philosophy towards nature. I guess it is due to fellas such as Francis Bacon. My point being that evolution gives you new lifeforms after extinction when it isn't even sure God would recreate species and so on.

I read The God Delusion a while after I became an agnostic.
It's a pretty awesome book; it's got some intelligent arguments in it.

By the way, I've never made a public argument about atheism or agnosticism either; neither in real life nor on the Internet.

I personally don't mind religious people as long as their beliefs don't harm anyone, but we know that that's not always the case.

at odds*

Well religion is bad if you are talking about specific things.

I mean, most Christian probably don't agree with the death penalty for homosexuality in the Old Testament, but the problem is that if a Christian actually murders a homosexual he has a biblical justification for doing so.

>The overwhelming majority of Christians have no issues with biology, evolution, etc.
Oh I see what you mean. But I did know about that. I thought it was mainly Catholics.
Even within Islam there are some who have no or little problem with evolution. What is controversial in Islam is that human beans are not special in that case.

The book "evolutionaries", which I quickly stopped reading, even talked about some Christian evolutionary theologians or philosophers, and those who see in evolution progress. There was even some very New Age kind of evolutionary 'theory'. Not a fan of it, but the scientific method should purge those.

Could be interesting for OP that book perhaps.

The god delusion is a terrible book and an incomplete argument. Anything else by dawkins would better suit you, and none of it will disprove any deity.

>and none of it will disprove any deity.

And neither does the Bible prove any deity.

But that's not the point. Having a discussion about one of the most important subjects in the history of humanity is quite didactic.

As a staunch atheist, Hitchens is a horrible debater who has horrible arguments

why do you say that? I've watched and read plenty of his work. Some irregularities yes but he is pretty strong at making a solid point.

Seconding this.

the Bible doesn't seek to prove anything

As someone who's a theist (but not christian), I just see God as much a part of the universe as I am. What I mean is that God isn't somehow separate from nature. Does this mean that I don't believe in God but rather a highly evolved cosmic being? So be it. I just think the universe is too massive to rule out the possibility of an ultra powerful(all powerful?) noncorporal being existing

>the Bible doesn't seek to prove anything

Mhm.

what kind of a reply is that

edgy atheist with no argument

>what kind of a reply is that

It's the kind of reply you get to a retarded assertion as "the bible doesn't seek to prove anything".

The point is that the Bible isn't one work, and it is not a philosophical treatise on God that seeks to prove God's existence. The comparison between it and The God Delusion is silly, and disturbing if you really think Dawkins' tripe is anything close to being an 'atheist bible'.

Try the Summa Theologica, my man.

>The point is that the Bible isn't one work, and it is not a philosophical treatise on God that seeks to prove God's existence.

That's true and I agree somewhat. The Bible is a collection of stories, most of which are mythological.

But that doesn't mean the Bible doesn't seek to convince you that Jesus Christ is God, because it does, indeed, do that.

try to convince =/= formal argument for the existence of god

>I just read lots of evolutionary biology, which by the way is very critical of Dawnkin's selfish gene concept.

it isn't tho, except for one or two people with no better ideas of their own

>Richard Dawkins is poorly educated and doesn't do research.

yeah that's how he became a professor at Oxford. they're notorious for hiring the most poorly educated dimwits imaginable. probably they should have hired you instead. i mean you sound like an expert. i bet you've published loads of papers and everything.

Yeah. They even let me teach an economics class one semester. Twas interesting.

>try to convince =/= formal argument for the existence of god

Literally semantics.

literally? Oy vey

Yes.

>most Christian probably don't agree with the death penalty for homosexuality in the Old Testament
translation
>I don't know anything about how OT laws are viewed by Christians

Of course, the bible doesn't seek to prove anything to non-believers. It isn't an apologetics text.
Book of Numbers? History. Book of Proverbs? Aphorisms on morality. Book of Amos? Prophetic utterings. Epistle to the Romans? Internal instructions to another branch of the Church.
Its like you've never read it.

I know how it's viewed by a couple of Christians who are my friends in real life, but yes of course, I have no idea how ALL the 50000 denominations of Christianity view that.

Yeah, I'm sure the Parable of Doubting Thomas isn't trying to convince people of anything at all, nope, nothing.

>yeah that's how he became a professor at Oxford
two points:
One-
So...
You *DON'T* know how he became a professor at Oxford?
Let me clue you in; a rich fan gave the university a large endowment on the condition that Dawkins be made the first professor of that endowment.
The *day* he COULD be removed, he WAS.
Look it up.
Two-
A man well-read in Physics can be utterly ignorant of Music. A top expert in Nuclear Engineering might not know how to change the oil in a car.
Dawkins could be Professor Emeritus of Biology and still be very poorly educated in religion, philosophy, and history.

Awwww, it is like you don't understand that a parable is not a formal argument, but a tool akin to the Socratic Method to encourage thought and growth.
And what DOES the parable of St. Thomas Didymus teach us?
That some people require proof -and that is ok- even if it is better to have faith.
Again - it is like you never read it yourself.

>it isn't tho, except for one or two people with no better ideas of their own
Well to be honest the critique of Lynn Margulis seems like pure ideology to me, and I know another which is definitely pure ideology. But what about Yaneer Bar Yam, Eva Jablonka and to name another - which I still need to read - is Peter Godfrey-Smith? I am sure I forgot some others.

You did make me revaluate whatever I have read enough evolutionary (text)books and whatever I am not overstating my case. But critique of the selfish gene is something I do come across very often.

>it is like you don't understand that a parable is not a formal argument

Why does this matter so much to you? Don't you get that if the Bible never existed, nobody would believe in Jesus Christ and Christianity would have have existed?

E.g The Bible *is* trying to convince you of something, through history, stories, legends, myths and allegory.

But of course, you're just shitposting at this point because you refuse to listen to what I am saying. So we're done.

>if the Bible never existed, nobody would believe in Jesus Christ and Christianity would have have existed?
Sweet.
Mercy.
Above.
Pop quiz - year of the founding of the Catholic Church?
>A: 33 A.D.
Year that the list of documents that are 'the bible' was formalized?
>A: 382 A.D.
The Catholic Church, councils, etc. were already well established in the 349 years between the origins of the Church and the first list of books in the bible was formal.
But wait, there's more!
How many people were literate in the 1st-7th Centuries?
Hint - much less than there were Christians.
It is like you are arguing that without Schoolhouse Rock there would be no America

I recommend Anselm' Proslogion and Summa Theologica by Aquinas, you heathen.

I don't see how any of these things argues against my point that the Bible tries to convince you that Jesus is God.

>I've never read an intelligent book on the subject

Such is the ideology, such is the Literature.

OP here, turned into a suprisingly good thread. Thought it might just be a complete shitfest. Thanks for the recs Veeky Forums.

It was good. Christopher Hitches also has some good books. Dominated by social and moral arguments against religion.

For more Academic texts about the history of religion (so you can see how primitive and fictional it is): A history of God and When Religion Becomes Evil

Also read How God Changes Your BRain. It shows religion from a neurological perspective... lol they guys put praying and meditating people in the MRI and show the biological response to being emotionally or "spiritually" stimulated. Anyway, fascinating and current read.

Also Origin of Satan or Elaine Pagel's books. Very detailed and well researched.

>become agnostic
Bad advice.

Continue your studies and solidify your understanding. Religious people are morons. Calling yourself agnostic is lazy.

Yes all of intelligent society prior to the 20th century, morons!

>Debating religion with literalism or philosophy

Kill yourselves.

....
Read the post again.
let me C&P for you
>>if the Bible never existed, nobody would believe in Jesus Christ and Christianity would have have existed?
See the (stone ignorant of history) statement I replied to?
Yeah.

Your point is unsupported.
Your assertion that 'without the bible there would be no Christian church' is risible.
You have negative credibility at this point.

Genuinely curious as to how exactly you mean this? Examples or explanation? I find him the most reasonable of the "New Atheists."

all you need is this song with Richard Dawkins:youtube.com/watch?v=n499M4pgc5o

skip to 18 mins in

I mean, if a scientist kills a bunch of homosexuals as part of a eugenics program, he has an "evolutionary justification" for doing so. It means he misunderstood it, but it's a similar superficial justification

WE PRIVILEGED FE WHO WON THE LOTTERY OF BIRTH AGAINST ALL ODDS- HOW DARE WE WHINE AT OUR INEVITABLE RETURN TO THAT PRIOR STATE, FROM WHICH THE VAST MAJORITY HAVE NEVER STIRRED

great song

I feel like you haven't really read Wittgenstein. The word "religion" is being used in like 5 different ways in this thread, some of them are perfectly amenable to philosophical argumentation

Seems like *you* don't understand Wittgenstein, retard.

This is the best book on atheism, if you're just looking for a solid overview of the best arguments for it

It's what made me become an atheist, I used to be a major christfag. I read a ton of books on atheism afterward as well, including the pop shit like dawkins but 99% of books on atheism are pretty cringy. Philosophy is much better

>Arguing against religion 'Philosophically'

>It means he misunderstood it, but it's a similar superficial justification

Except in the case of the Bible, it wouldn't be a misunderstanding.

I guess you guys are one of those: "The Holy Ghost is the reason people believe in Christianity, not the Bible" - people.

crude attempt to regain control of the discussion
sad!
i'm gonna fug ur gf now:)

It's becoming increasingly apparent that you immigrated from Reddit and have never actually read the Bible.
The Holy Bible is the only book that gets in depth discussions here. You aren't about to straw-man anyone into agreeing with you. If you want to look like you're knowledgeable about the Bible then read it faggot

Plebs

Miracle of Theism by Mackie

The Gospels were not written to convince the reader that Christ was God.
They were written as accounts of people discussing it at the time, but they were not written as a discourse, but an account

MAGA, high energy.

HE IS A KEK, you are arguing with a cuck.

SJWs.

>People still unironically recommend and support the "brights"

I used to think the atheist movement deserved better than the "4 horsemen" because their arguments are so ridiculously ignorant but when I see so many people supporting them I have to say that you people deserve every bit of scorn that you get. If you think that asking "who created god?" in any way refutes Aquinas or the cosmological argument like Dawkins thinks it does in the God Delusion then you should really do yourself a favor and be quiet before you embarrass yourself.

reading the cover of a book doesn't give you enough data to criticize it. Only arrogant jerks like you are critical of dawkins work.

Low energy! low energy.

Going to fuck your gf Pedro.

The God Delusion is a very good book indeed. I also recommend Hitchen's one, God Is Not Great.
Don't get discouraged by people calling you fedora, or stupid just for being atheist. You don't need to be a social impaired person to be a atheist. Debating religion is fun as long as the other person finds it fun or interesting too. No need to parade your views at everytime. People who criticize atheist only met the stupid, just-following-the-trends atheist.

>implying philosophy isn't a cringefest.

No, I am one of those "claiming that X is dependent on Y when X produced Y well after x was established is wrong" - people
Look: you were wrong, let it go and move on.

That book is widely considered one of the worst pro-atheism/anti-christians books around *by atheists*.
And if you think that book has any actual philosophy in it I have bad news for you, user....

My favorite quote about the God Delusion was "reading this made me ashamed to be an atheist"

Both of those were shot down as crap hours ago

To be fair, some degree of agnosticism is implied in all belief systems, because you can't claim to KNOW there is or is not a god. Atheism is the position that there is not enough evidence to disprove or support the existence of god. Calling yourself agnostic really is just lazy because it shows you're either using the term incorrectly, or you haven't put any serious thought into your position.

>some random on Veeky Forums doesn't like Hitch
>"shot down as crap" (collectively, you seem to assume)

Now I agree with you Dawkins, but not Hitch.