Reddit reviews Atheism: A Very Short Introduction
We found 5 Reddit comments about Atheism: A Very Short Introduction. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Oxford University Press USA
You could also try the Atheism short-book from Oxford's 'A Very Short Introduction' series.
Brief, to the point, and no religion-bashing inside. Just basic arguments for why atheists choose not to believe in supernatural events or beings.
Try Baggini's book: https://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Short-Introduction-Julian-Baggini/dp/0192804243/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
>The "professional philosophers" who use incorrect definitions, on the other hand, I couldn't care less about.
First off, let me be clear again, you're the one using the incorrect definition. We can know that because we have rational minds that can understand rational arguments. And luckily, we have redditors that are very proficient at providing just the rational arguments we need to show that weak atheism is not intellectually viable.
>. If you could be so kind as to point out some of these "professional philosophers" - with sources - so I could dismiss anything they have to say on the matter, it would save me a lot of time.
First, I do so love the overconfidence. You've clearly proven my point there. You're completely unaware of even who these philosophers let alone what they argue, yet you're absolutely convinced of your ability to dismantle whatever it is they have to say.
The question is why would you want to? Clearly you're attached to the label atheist, and you're here so you at least like the impression of being intellectual, so why would you be interested in dismissing the arguments of professional atheists philosophers out of hand? Surely you'd want to at least see what they had to say. In fact, I'd say that you'd want to study and really understand their arguments. But maybe that's just me projecting what I want onto you.
Just in case, here are a few atheist philosophers of religion you ought to be reading up on.
>And just because "professional atheist philosophers" make arguments that gods don't exist, that doesn't change the definitions.
Read all of those links (remember to check your local library or your local university's library!) and you'll see that atheists who aren't a part of the cacophony of the unsophisticated group think do not argue for weak atheism. They do not simply argue against the theist's argument and, convinced they have sufficiently undermined that argument, declared themselves free of any belief. They believe there is probably no God and they argue there is probably no God.
You take pride in your belligerence, but it's a shame that belligerence comes from a position of ignorance. I worry about the status of atheism not because I think the theist arguments have won but because people like you are so completely ignorant of the topic that they can't even get straight what atheism even is, what arguments actually support it, and what obstacles there are for atheists to overcome. And yet you feel justified in spewing your nonsense in the most jackass way you can muster.
You know, it's getting a little tedious when we have to unpack a ton-and-a-half of evidence and help you through your epistemological crisis every time someone feeds you some creationist propaganda.
How's about instead of us dragging you into the late period of the Enlightenment era, you defend your position deep in the Dark Ages? Read this and have fun, kiddo.
I think people should take a step back when wanting their state to be a atheistic instead of a secular one and i think this is quite fitting in this situation (this is a part of the book Atheism: A Very Short Introduction):
>So atheists can consistently distance themselves
from the terrors of Stalin by simply pointing out that Soviet communism is not even a logical extension of Marxist communism, let alone a logical extension of core atheist values, which are not communist at all. However, although this defence is certainly enough to justifY a 'not guilty' verdict in the court of history, the Soviet experience does point to two dangers of atheism. The first of these is a too-zealous militancy. It is one thing to disagree with religion and quite another to think that the best way to counter it is by oppression and making atheism the official state credo. What happened in Soviet Russia is one of the reasons why I personally dislike militant atheism. When I heard someone recently say that they really thought religious belief was some kind of mental illness and that they looked forward to a time in the future when religious believers would be treated, I could see an example of how militant atheism can lead to totalitarian oppression. But this is not a danger specific to atheism. Fundamentalism is a danger in any belief system, and that is why I think the main danger we need to guard against is not religion but fundamentalism of any description. Atheism's model should not thus be Soviet-style state atheism but Western-style state secularism.