Reddit reviews The Non-Existence of God

Colin Howson – Objecting to God

George H. Smith – Atheism: The Case Against God

Graham Oppy – Arguing about Gods

Graham Oppy – The Best Argument Against God

Herman Philipse – God in the Age of Science

J. L. Mackie – The Miracle of Theism

Jordan Sobel – Logic and Theism

Nicholas Everitt – The Non-Existence of God

Richard Gale – On the Nature and Existence of God

Robin Le Poidevin – Arguing for Atheism

Andrew Melnyk – A Physicalist Manifesto

In general, academic philosophy of religion is dominated by theistic philosophers, so there aren't many works defending atheism and atheistic arguments in the professional literature.

But there are still a few notable books:

• J.L Mackie's The Miracle of Theism is considered a classic, but it's a bit outdated by now. Although Mackie focuses more on critiquing the arguments for God's existence rather than outright defending atheism, he is no doubt coming from an atheistic point of view.
  
• Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification is a lengthy book with the ambitious goal of showing atheism is the justified and rational philosophical position, while theism is not.
  
• Nicholas Everitt's The Non-existence of God is maybe one of the most accessible books in the "case for atheism" genre written by a professional philosopher. He even presents a new argument against god's existence.
  
• If you're more into debates, God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist is a written debate between atheist philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and famous Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig. It's far better than any debate WLC had with any of the New Atheists in my humble opinion.
  
• On the more Continental side of things, there a few works that could be mentioned. There's Michel Onfray's Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (although I must admit I didn't read it myself, so I can't attest to how good it is) and of course any work by the atheist existentialists, a good place to start will by Jean-paul Sartre's Existentialism Is a Humanism.
  
  I didn't add him because others have already mentioned him, but everything written by Graham Oppy is fantastic IMO. He is maybe the leading atheist philosopher in the field of philosophy of religion. A good place to start with his writings is his 2013 paper on arguments for atheism.

Alright, let me try to simplify this all. You ready?

The point of everything I've been trying to say is to demonstrate to you that the Epicurean argument is illogical, and completely disregarded in modern times by philosophers. The reason I'm struggling here is because I'm having trouble cutting through your presuppositions, bias, (and the occasional barb). I'm wondering at this point if you have had any formal training in logic or philosophy? If you don't, I encourage you to take a cursory course on the subject. That's not to insult you; that really is to encourage you in this direction.

Please open your mind to what I'm about to say, if for no other reason than we've had 2000+ years to debunk Epicurus, and not just from a theistic standpoint. Keep in mind that the modern philosophical consensus is to completely disregard the Epicurean argument.

I'll try very hard to be succinct.

Epicurus has 3 main assumptions in his argument.

1 - God is all powerful and all knowing.

2 - God is all good.

3 - Evil exists.

It should be noted here that only the popularizers of Atheism (Dawkins, Hitchens... and random internet forums with their Epicurus demotivator) are the ones willing to use the Epicurean argument; not the atheistic philosophers however.

Michael Martin, atheistic philosopher, says that the [Epicurean argument] has "generally been regarded as unsuccessful."

Michael Tooley says, "It seems very doubtful the argument is sound."

Nicholas Everitt says, "It does not form an explicitly contradictory set."

Paul Draper says, "Although logical arguments from evil seemed promising to a number of philosophers in the 1950' and 1960's, they are rejected by the vast majority of contemporary philosophers of religion."

Draper goes on to say elsewhere, "In order for a logical argument from evil to succeed, it is necessary to show that, for some known fact about evil, it is logically impossible for God to have a good moral reason to permit that fact to obtain. This, however, is precisely what most philosophers nowadays believe cannot be shown."

Martin adds,

"A. God is all-powerful and all-knowing.

A. God could prevent evil unless evil was logically necessary.

B. God is all-good.

B. God would prevent evil unless God had a morally significant reason to allow it.

C. Evil exists.

C. Evil exists only if either God has a morally sufficient reason to allow it or it is logically necessary."

Martin then concludes that, "3 does not conflict with 1 and 2."

Furthermore, "Because of the failure of deductive arguments from evil, atheologians have developed inductive or probabilistic arguments from evil for the nonexistence of God."

Everitt divides Epicurus into 4 propositions.

1. The world contains evil because the presence of evil is so obvious.
   
2. God is omnipotent.
   
3. God is omniscient.
   
4. God is morally perfect.
   
   He then says, "Premises 1-4 do not form an explicitly contradictory set; and it would be difficult to find any atheist who thought that they did."
   
   [I will add here that this is precisely where we're getting stuck. In 2000+ years of this set not working, you are one of the rare ones that insists the set is fine (remember, I haven't cited a single theist yet here). Are you trained in philosophy and logic so that you can back up such a dispute against minds like those I've cited here today? That's not an appeal to authority, but an appeal to expertise. Would you still hold to your contentions after seeing the illogic of the Epicurean statement so plainly on display here today?]
   
   As such, the philosophical consensus is to disregard Epicurus (which is why I was surprised you brought him up in the first place). It is not unfair to say that the majority of philosophers in the world consider the Epicurean argument a joke.
   
   Now... I know you (severely) underestimated my intelligence this entire time (even going so far as to insult me once or twice), but I hope you now realize, I was holding back as I tried bring down these topics to a personal level so as to not overwhelm you with pure information and scholarly research. These are leading atheistic philosophers here; I haven't used a single theistic source in my argument today, and they're all saying the Epicurean argument from evil is bunk. You don't have to believe me; but you should at least believe them, if atheism truly is the worldview you choose to accept, and not just another Pharisaical exercise in superiority.
   
   I'll close with a quote from C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity, who gets to the heart of what I've been trying to show you with my past posts (C.S. Lewis was an atheist for years after he fought in the first world war, you'll remember):
   
   >"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies."
   
   I'm interested to see how you'll respond to all this.
   
   EDIT: Fixed typos, numbering.

Why God does not exist:

http://www.amazon.com/Non-Existence-God-Nicholas-Everitt/dp/0415301076

http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520/

http://www.amazon.com/Impossibility-God-Michael-Martin/dp/1591021200/

http://www.amazon.com/Improbability-God-Michael-Martin/dp/1591023815/

http://www.thesixwaysofatheism.com/