Best atheism books according to redditors

We found 356 Reddit comments discussing the best atheism books. We ranked the 89 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Atheism:

u/NukeThePope · 81 pointsr/atheism

I'm happy to see this question, as it so happens I just recently learned the answer myself and am eager to share it with /r/atheism.

My source is Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness Without God. Carrier is an atheist philosopher and historian. In a section "2.2.1 Religion Didn't Win by Playing Fair," he explains:

----

> ... all the other religions whose holy books are cited above outright condemn and slander not only atheists and doubters, but anyone of a different religious creed. ... they all make terrifying threats against doubters and unbelievers. The reasons why many of the major religions persist today reinforce this conclusion.

(You can look at Islam's vicious attitude against apostates and unbelievers, but Christianity works much the same way)

He later talks about the history of Christianity:

> Christianity... started in one tiny place, when the rest of the earth was populated by a wildly marvelous diversity of religious beliefs - and yet, curiously enough, the concept of warfare over religious differences was virtually nonexistent. Most people in ancient times believed it was proper to respect the gods of other peoples. This changed on a global scale when Christianity was spread, quite literally, by the sword. Those who attempted to assert their religious differences were harassed, tortured, robbed of their land and belongings, even killed. Before it achieved political power, Christianity was a small sect, a heresy against the Jewish faith, that had to accept equality among all the other religions of the Roman Empire. Yet it was the first religion to openly attack the religions of other people as false... Needless to say, Christianity only truly flourished when it had the ability to eliminate the competition - when it had the full support of Rome's Emperors after 313 AD, and when, in 395 AD, every religion other than Christianity was actually outlawed. Through force and decree Christianity was immersed in the cultural surroundings of lands near and far, and in an environment where it was widely accepted, if not the only thing accepted, it spread and planted itself among subjugated peoples.

> Colonization of the world, more often than not by robbery and warfare, spread Christianity into the Americas and other corners of the earth, just as Islam was spread throughout Asia and Africa. It is not a coincidence that the two most widespread religions in the world today are the most warlike and intolerant religions in history. Before the rise of Christianity, religious tolerance, including a large degree of religious freedom, was not only custom but in many ways law under the Roman and Persian empires. They conquered for greed and power, rarely for any declared religious reasons, and actually sought to integrate foreign religions into their civiliation, rather than seeking to destroy them. People were generally not killed because they practiced a different religion. Indeed, the Christians were persecuted for denying that the popular gods existed - not for following a different religion. In other words, Christians were persecuted for being intolerant.

Carrier mentions that religious intolerance was first expressed in the Hebrew Old Testament, where God leads the Jews in genocide.

> With the radical advent of Christianity, this self-righteous intolerance was borrowed from the Jews, and a new twist was added. The conversion of infidels by any means possible became the newfound calling card of religious fervor, and this new experiment in human culture spread like wildfire. By its very nature, how could it not have? Islam followed suit, conquering half the world in brutal warfare and, much like its Christian counterpart, it developed a new and convenient survival characteristic: the destruction of all images and practices attributed to other religions. Muslims destroyed millions of statues and paintings in India and Africa, and forced conversion under pain of death (or more subtle tricks ... taxing ...), while the Catholic Church busily burned books along with pagans, shattering statues and defacing or destroying pagan art... . Laws against pagan practices and heretics were in full force throughout Europe by the sixth century, and as long as those laws were in place it was impossible for anyone to refuse the tenets of Christianity and expect to keep their property or their life. Similar... Islamic countries even to this day... .

This also explains why, of the three bellicose Abrahamic religions, Judaism didn't end up going much of anywhere: Judaism is not evangelical, i.e. it doesn't try to proselytize and/or convert. The "new twist" was wildly successful for Christianity and Islam.

Ironically enough in these days when Christian fundamentalists deny the Theory of Evolution, Christianity won by the simple process of natural selection:

> Simply imagine two competing religious points of view, one holding the idea that other religions are to be respected and that war is justified only in defense, the other holding that war is justified in converting infidels to the only true faith, and that this faith must by its very calling be spread across the world. Which religion will survive and grow, and which will be stamped out and forgotten? The answer is self-evident - and yet it has nothing to do with which religion is actually true.

Dang, I've cited large parts of the chapter. I hope this is "fair use!" OK, I'll wrap up by sharing his conclusion:

> So the new idea that only one religion is true and all others are evil or false, and the idea that this true faith must be carried across the globe in order to save everyone from doom, are the very attributes that guaranteed the survival of Christianity and Islam, and the elimination of nearly all other religions in the world. Both these characteristics are much more plausible explanations for the widespread acceptance of Christianity and Islam than the claim that "they are widespread because they are true" or "this is evidence of God's design." How could both Christianity and Islam credit their spread to their unique truth? Clearly, at least one of them has to be false, proving that such vast success does not need truth behind it. And they can't both be the result of God's design, unless God is confused.

----

I see no reason to doubt Carrier's interpretation; history is his specialty, and he cites lots of references, which I'll be happy to share if requested. Understanding this makes a bittersweet irony of Christianity's and Islam's sanctimonious claims to being "religions of peace," and I'm anxious to expose this wicked and pervasive lie at every opportunity.

EDIT: Typos, inevitably. Also, highlighting for TL;DR.

u/ComputerSavvy · 63 pointsr/atheism

> The fallout would be spectacular.

Well, if you want to stir up the shit pot a bit more, might I suggest setting the blender on puree with these titles?

u/crayonleague · 40 pointsr/atheism

Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted (2010)

In this deliciously satisfying book, the author, a New Testament scholar, carefully reviews and assesses the New Testament with a detailed and extremely thorough analysis of the figure we call Jesus. This is not a rant, not an attack on Christianity, this is an objective and critical analysis of the New Testament, showing how the entire Jesus myth and indeed, all of Christianity is a purposely-designed fabrication rife with contradictions, inaccuracies, and sometimes outright falsehoods.

John Loftus - Why I Became an Atheist (2008)

If you want a one-stop total critique of Christianity, this is the book you're looking for. The author is a former Christian apologist turned extremely angry and prolific atheist. In this book Loftus attacks the full span of Christianity, addressing the philosophical arguments against theism, the historical incompatibilities and inaccuracies of the Bible, and the contradictions between creationism and modern science, and throughout it all is an undercurrent of personal experience as Loftus explains his own deconversion from devout evangelicalism to enraged atheist.

Concerning atheism.

These are for the people going "Well, I'm an atheist. Now what?" There's more to atheism than eating babies and posting fake facebook conversations on r/atheism. There's much more truth, beauty, and value in a universe without a celestial supervisor, where humans are free to make our own purposes and dictate our own paths. Thinking for yourself and recognizing the natural wonder of the universe is far greater than the false consolation any religion can provide you. These books show how.

Michael Martin - Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (1989)

In this book, Martin attempts a two-pronged defense of atheism: first by attacking theistic arguments regarding the implausibility of morality and purpose without God, second by defending against attacks specifically on atheism. In such a manner he makes a strong case for both negative and positive atheism. Though extremely dated, this book is a classic and a must-read for any atheist.

Erik J. Wielenberg - Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe (2005)

In this book, Wielenberg advances a naturalist philosophy and addresses the problem of nontheistic morality as weakly espoused by the likes of Dostoevsky and C.S. Lewis. First he challenges the claims of theistic morality, next he advances naturalistic ethics and displays how theological justification is unnecessary for a good and moral life. Concepts such as intrinsic morality, inherent human tendencies such as charity and altruism, and the idea of moral obligations are all addressed.

Richard Carrier - Sense and Goodness Without God (2005)

In this book, Richard Carrier, perhaps most well-known as one of the major modern debunkers of the Jesus myth, continues the trend of expanding metaphysical naturalism, but this is a more complex and thorough work covering the full spectrum of a developed worldview, addressing nearly every topic beyond just morality, and presents a complete philosophical outlook on life that is easy to comprehend and evaluate. A solid starting point for the newly atheist.

My personal picks.

Now, since this is my list after all, and after typing up all of that, I think I've earned the right to make my own recommendations. These are books that I think people should read that don't necessarily have anything to do with atheism.

Markos Moulitsas - American Taliban (2010)

This book reads like a collection of loosely-related blog entries, some of them written by angry teenagers, and Moulitsas himself is no philosopher or professor, but is still an important read for those of you who haven't been paying attention. In this book, the founder of Daily Kos draws the extremely obvious and transparent similarities between the religious right of America, and the Islamofascists across the pond, and displays how modern conservatism has largely been hijacked and/or replaced by a complex political machine intent on maintaining the power of a small group of white, male, Christian elite.

Chris Hedges - American Fascists (2007)

Okay, time for a more sophisticated take on the issue than Daily Kos stuff. Those of you who plan on staying and fighting in the US rather than simply getting the fuck out while you still can need this book. With a critical and objective eye, Hedges displays the dark and tumultuous underbelly of America and shows how an extremely powerful and well-organized coalition of dominionists is slowly taking over the country and seeking to transform it into a theocratic state. Those of you who are moderate Christians and similarly despise the lunatic fringe of Christians should also read this book. Hedges analyzes this Christian Right movement, allied with totalitarianism and a denial of reality, that has declared a jihad (or a "teahad", if you're a Tea Partier) on secularism and even on Christianity itself, utilizing religion for its darkest and most sinister purpose - committing cruelty and intolerance upon others in the name of divine supervision.

CJ Werleman - God Hates You, Hate Him Back (2009)

This is one of my favorite books and is a great book to unwind with after a critical look at Christianity. The biggest problem with the Bible is not the contradictions, the outright falsehoods, or even the blatantly made-up and ridiculous bullshit about magic and miracles and supernatural nonsense - it's the fact that, taking it all at face value, the God described in the Bible is the single most despicable and terrifying fictional villain ever imagined by humanity. This is a character that seems to actively despise mankind, and in this book, Werleman shows why with a hilarious and thorough analysis of the Bible. This book reads like Monty Python and is just as funny - not meant to be taken seriously of course unless you're a Biblical literalist, but still a great read.


Well, that's all I got. This list took about half a day to compile and is itself also woefully inadequate, there's quite a bit of books I haven't gotten around to reading yet. But, it should be much more sufficient than the current r/atheism reading lists and I've done my best to include the most recent works. If you have any books to add that you feel are noteworthy, please feel free to post them. I hope this list can help many people in their understanding of philosophy and atheism.

u/OldWolf2642 · 26 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

To quote:

>Why are atheists angry? Is it because they're selfish, joyless, lacking in meaning, and alienated from God? Or is it because they have legitimate reasons to be angry--and are ready to do something about it?

Read a BOOK

Watch a LECTURE

Then try exercising what little intelligence you appear to have and think about it.

u/everythingisfikshun · 21 pointsr/worldnews


There is a lot of discussion here about what ‘teaching Atheism’ might look like, and since there a few of us who actually do that I thought it might be interesting for people to see what we do.

A good friend of mine teaches at the University of Edinburgh on the subject of non-religion, and in the UK there is also the Non-religion and Secularzation Research Network, the Understanding Unbelief research program at the University of Kent, the International Society of Historians of Atheism Secularism and Humanism, and the International Society for Heresy Studies:

As well, many of us have recently published books on Atheism and non-religion, and there is a growing number of people researching Atheism at the academic level.

Here’s a good short bibliography.

History of Atheism

Atheism and the US Supreme Court

New Atheism

Cambridge Companion

Oxford Handbook

Definitions

Nonreligion

u/rookiebatman · 19 pointsr/atheism

A blogger named Greta Christina wrote a blog post answering that question, which was so popular that it spawned a book and a lecture.

u/XtotheY · 16 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Oxford Handbook of Atheism

Cambridge Companion to Atheism

Any decent textbook about philosophy of religion should provide counter-points to the arguments for God. There is also the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; here's the article on Aquinas.

u/redsledletters · 16 pointsr/TrueAtheism

David Hume - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, "Of Miracles".

Anthony Flew - The Presumption of Atheism (Link goes to a layman review of the argument. There's a real Philosophy Journal entry somewhere, sorry I couldn't find a link for it.)

Michael Martin - The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, "Keith Parsons: Some Contemporary Theistic Arguments; The Evidentialist Challenge".

u/Bilbo_Fraggins · 15 pointsr/atheism

Sigh. Living in the bible belt, I know the answer to this.

I live near the headquarters main US campus of IBM, one of the most progressive companies in the US, as well as the second largest campus for CISCO, lots of biomedical research, a good number of excellent colleges (including the ones who employ Bart Ehrman and my new favorite author ever), and it's still filled with fundies once you get further than about 20 minutes away from RTP in any direction.

On the up side, housing is cheap, traffic is much better than most high tech cities, and it's not as damn hot as Houston or Dallas. I moved here as a matter of choice, and I like it. I just can't drive too far or the pervailing fog of fundiness hurts my brain. ;-)

I'm thinking of escaping for the Boulder, Colorado region in a few years. The fundies don't seem any better, but at least they have gorgeous mountains to make up for it. ;-)

(EDIT: Clarifications on local companies)

u/penguinland · 14 pointsr/atheism

...and her blog post on the same subject, and her upcoming book on it.

u/MegaTrain · 11 pointsr/atheism

Yes, that content was ultimately expanded into a book:
Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless

Greta's excellent writing was central to my de-conversion.

u/kent_eh · 10 pointsr/exchristian

> Clearly, there's a reason.

Lots of them. Enough to fill an entire book, or to make a lengthy speech about.


And even those reasons are only scratching the surface. There's lots more

u/ralph-j · 10 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

And her book as well!

u/My_soliloquy · 9 pointsr/atheism

Sorry, but if putting up a billboard is an "attack," you really don't have any leg to stand on because of the thousands of other billboards that promote hatred and demonizing anyone who doesn't believe in whatever particular religion it promotes. And the statement that "Catholics don't try to convert others," is blatantly false. As someone who was born into it, that is a lie.

If you want to really understand why, read Greta Christina's book.

u/ashmortar · 8 pointsr/RepublicOfAtheism

Discussions on free will always raise my ire. It seems that the majority of philosophers in the field are compatibilists but theists seem to always be ignorant of the last 300 years of philosophical thought in the area of free will. Appeals to quantum mechanics strike me just as absurd as libertarian free will. Random effects at the quantum level do not degrees of freedom in action make.


Unfortunately most people are stuck in the determinism vs libertarian mindset. Compatibilism offers an amazingly powerful argument to the contrary. Other good resources (besides the stanford philosophical dictionary I linked above) are the discussion on free will in Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness Without God and Daniel Dennett's Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Having.

u/geophagus · 8 pointsr/atheism
u/sev1nk · 8 pointsr/justneckbeardthings

The guy actually has a book.

u/spaceghoti · 7 pointsr/atheism

Welcome to /r/atheism! What did you think of our FAQ?

> If religion were nothing but a personal choice, many of us would have no problem with it. Unfortunately, it causes a great deal of harm in the world, from justifying historical slavery and genocide, to current oppression of women, LGBT individuals, and other minorities across the globe, to promoting child abuse and teaching fairy tales as fact in science classrooms.

> Greta Christina wrote a fairly comprehensive article on why atheists have good reason to be angry, which is also available in video form, as well as a book which goes into more detail.

> For more detail, please see the wiki entry on Atheists and Anger.

u/bunker_man · 6 pointsr/TrueOffMyChest

You can be atheist, but it helps if you realize that richard dawkins' work is considered extremely lowbrow. He's popular with random teenagers, not academics, because he misunderstands quite a bit of what he tries talking about. If you want something academic, this is a bit more up to speed.

u/Ember357 · 6 pointsr/atheism

Openly Secular day is November 15th. Let at least one person know you don't buy into what the religionists are selling. And may I suggest the book Fighting God: An Atheist Manifesto for a Religious World by David Silverman.

u/lextori · 6 pointsr/atheism

So pointing out the theists who are most frequently giving us a hard time is somehow OT? is that what you're suggesting, because that suggestion just seems silly to me.

/r/atheism has lots of people bitching about christians because guess what, it's largely christians who are making atheists in the western world's lives miserable. There is enough of this crap that Greta Christina wrote a whole damn book about it Why are you atheists so angry.

u/Pi_Arc · 6 pointsr/tifu

They're getting their info from somewhere like here: https://scottmsullivan.com/out-of-the-top-10-most-intelligent-people-in-the-world-at-least-8-think-god-exists-and-6-are-believing-christians/

'Course, they're ignoring well-known stuff like the fact that in general religion infects more poorly educated people or people of lower IQ. Last paper I read supporting that claim was: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721418754491

You might also look at this: http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Will-Replace-Religion-ebook/dp/B00886ZSJ6/

If you don't want to, here's a synopsis of IQ and belief correlation: "Atheists are probably more intelligent than religious people because they benefit from many social conditions that happen to be correlated with loss of religious belief." - the author on Psychology Today

Those high IQ people mustn't allow their convoluted beliefs pollute their ideas about reality.

u/atheistlibrarian · 5 pointsr/atheism

Can I suggest some reading? Wait, I'm a librarian of course I can.

Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless

Letter to a Christian Nation

Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language

Pay particular attention to the part about Straw Men in the last book.

u/Mjabearman · 5 pointsr/justneckbeardthings
u/Fodash · 5 pointsr/atheism

This book is a great source for answering your question: http://www.amazon.com/Nonbeliever-Nation-Rise-Secular-Americans/dp/023033895X

u/ForceTen2112 · 5 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

The book The Atheist's Guide to Reality explains the evolutionary reason for why we see significance where there is none (i.e. conspiracies) near the beginning. Also, it's a great book.

u/vanishingstapler · 5 pointsr/TrueAtheism

I think much of what got me, as a former Christian, was not "reasoning for becoming an atheist", but rather realizing the reasons I believed did not hold up, and slowly arriving there by default. This makes sense given that atheism is really nothing more than a lack of a belief.

Kenneth Daniels' book, Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary captures this fairly well, and it's also the first book I'd recommend to a Christian that wants to understand why someone would leave the faith.

Edit: If you missed their comment, warebec has pointed out that you can go read it for free here: http://infidels.org/library/modern/ken_daniels/why.html

u/astroNerf · 5 pointsr/atheism

Do you think religion should be protected from criticism? If you believe as I do that beliefs inform our actions, is it not reasonable to criticise potentially harmful beliefs?

There are a lot of things religious people do that anger me, and telling me that I should allow them to continue doing those things is kind of a dick move, sorry to say.

If you have not read it, check out Greta Christina's Atheists and Anger blog post where she lays out why anger is useful and why it's fucked up to tell us that we can't be angry. (Now in book form!)

u/Jayesar · 5 pointsr/atheism

Richard Carrier - Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism. That book is amazing.

Read this for a snapshot.

I don't know how one can read the above book and still have faith.

u/MaxSupernova · 5 pointsr/TrueAtheism

If you are looking for a gentler but still compelling look at atheism, try "The Atheists Way" by Eric Maisel. It's very positive and affirming of the atheist outlook on life rather than just trashing religion.

He looks at the larger picture of "How do Atheists create a meaningful life" from a number of different angles. I found it one of the least confrontational books on atheism that I've read, and yet one of the most practically useful.

Here's an amazon link, I hope it's not affiliated, I'm just trying to show you the book: http://www.amazon.ca/The-Atheists-Way-Living-Without/dp/1577316428

u/trailrider · 5 pointsr/atheism

Nope. There's atheists who believe absurd bullshit like healing crystals and flat earth. Some are very active politically while others don't give a shit. There's no "holy book", you can't be "excommunicated", you don't have to tithe, etc. All there is an answer to a question: Do you believe in god(s)? No? Congrats! You're an atheist.

While I won't presume to speak for everyone, I would say that most of the "active" ones; like people here on this Reddit, Aronra, guys at Scathing Atheist, Seth Andrews, etc; are more inclined to want to believe true things and discard not true/not proven/unprobable things.

Oh, and there's no "belief" in science. Science is a tool like a DeWalt drill. Whether you ACCEPT the conclusions or not is the question.

EDIT: as for why atheists are "angry", might wanna try this book.

Now I wanna ask you: Why are theists so angry? ISIS, Lord's Resistance Army, Focus on the Family, Jerry Falwell, this christian woman, etc....all very angry.

u/flatcap_monty · 4 pointsr/AskMen

I really enjoyed Sapiens, and I'm picking up some more of the author's books soon. Fascinating theories on why humans developed language, money, art, religion... All of it. Well worth your time.

Becoming Who We Need To Be was a good (short) read. I'm a fan of the author's work already (particularly his podcast), and the book is a thought-provoking look at a wide variety of topics. More a collection of essays than anything.

Jordan Peterson gets a fair bit of stick, but I found 12 Rules for Life to be quite a powerful read. I don't agree with all of what he writes, but there are some very good lessons in here for sorting one's shit out. A lot of it very obvious now that I've read it, but sometimes you need things spelling out for you.

Religious or not, I would encourage anyone to read The God Delusion. Dawkins is quite militant in his atheism, but it does present a lot of good arguments as to why religion isn't necessary for a person to act morally.

How To Be Miserable resonated with me quite a lot. Bits of it are in a similar vein to 12 Rules for Life, but essentially it's a self-help book that's approaching the matter from the slightly tongue-in-cheek perspective of wanting to make yourself as miserable as possible (ie. don't do these things). Another fairly short, but quite enjoyable read.

​

Bonus fiction recommendation:

The Way of Kings. I just got finished reading this last night, and oh boy was it good. It's an absolute tome at 1200 pages, but it's a proper un-put-down-able. Really great work of fantasy, with some outstanding worldbuilding, fascinating characters, and one of the best climaxes I've read in years.

u/darkcalling · 4 pointsr/atheism

> I think it would have been a better billboard if it was kinda polite.

The current president of American Atheists disagrees. (And I also have to agree with him.)


Luckily we as a movement have room and need for firebrands (as he self describes) and diplomats. If you're more interested in his thinking and why he'll always go for the most provocative message I'd suggest giving his book Fighting God: An Atheist Manifesto for a Religious World a read.

It isn't terribly groundbreaking as far as literature on atheism goes but it does offer his thinking on the movement going forward and offers a defense of his tactics grounded in analytics of interest and revolving around media amplification via controversy (tl;dr: having controversial billboards gets them on the news, giving them hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars of free press in the process; its about visibility). Personally I think he has a good point, but to each their own.

u/kkeut · 4 pointsr/malefashionadvice

Good books: 'The Moral Landscape' by Sam Harris and 'Sense and Goodness Without God' by Richard Carrier.

u/camspiers · 4 pointsr/OpenChristian

I'm an atheist, and most will hate me for this, but I don't recommend The God Delusion. There are better books, and Dawkins is much better when he writes about biology.

Atheist worldview book: I recommend Sense and Goodness without God by Richard Carrier

Books about Christianity (there are so many to recommend, but these are some favorites):

  • The Christian Delusion by various authors.
  • Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms

    I'm a big fan of Spong, so I would recommend any of his books. Also Robert M. Price is worth looking into, he has lots of free sermons and writings available from when he was a liberal pastor and theologian, which he is not anymore.

u/thesunmustdie · 4 pointsr/atheism

There's nothing like an atheist bible, but there are plenty of atheist books and resources that might help you out in regards to finding meaning in life. I would start with checking out Dan Barker:

https://www.amazon.com/Good-Atheist-Living-Purpose-Filled-Without/dp/1569758468/ref=pd_sim_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=X70J98QANBK667WXNEC5

https://www.amazon.com/Life-Driven-Purpose-Atheist-Meaning/dp/1939578213

I also think it's worth socializing with other atheists. Find yourself an atheist/freethought/humanist/skeptic community, OP, or join a UU or Sunday Assembly.

u/wegener1880 · 4 pointsr/atheism

yeah, as /u/TheBraindonkey mentioned, atheist are pretty normal people that are sometimes good and sometimes bad, like any other population of humans on this beautiful blue, brown and green ball.

Most of us just would like religion completely separate from politics and for religious people to not pester us at least as much at our front doors. Other than that we don't care.

unfortunately this desire to keep religion out of politics and annoyance when our doors are knocked on has caused society to brand us as "angry". There is a good book on that Why are you athiest so angry? 99 things that piss of the godless that you might be interested in reading. Mostly just commentary on why atheist are justified to be pissed off at certain things, like, idk, trying to force religious dogma upon our kids in classrooms?

other than that, we are pretty chill.

hope for the best man.

EDIT: also, might you be able to get a job in religious studies? maybe religion interest you as a subject, and you could teach world religions or something? your preaching background might be an asset in a job search of that type.

EDIT 2: also, the barber dream sounds cool. look into the feasibility of it!

u/abcd_z · 4 pointsr/TrueAtheism
u/panamafloyd · 3 pointsr/atheism

Greta Christina (US activist) on atheists and anger:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

If the blog post piques your interest, in the time since she wrote it (2007), she's fleshed it out into a book:
http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Angry-Things-Godless-ebook/dp/B007MCMKV6

u/AmorDeCosmos97 · 3 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Contact Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist - he loves helping groups like yours. He also wrote the book "The Young Atheist's Survival Guide: Helping Secular Students Thrive"

u/StochasticApostle · 3 pointsr/atheism

"The reason that there are so many opinions is that no one knows the truth"

Introductory quote to this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Bible-Illustrious-Collection-Irreverent/dp/0061349151/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301269902&sr=8-1

u/TooManyInLitter · 3 pointsr/atheism

Background information

u/willbell · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

> This book comes to mind, though it's about more than atheism.
> https://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Guide-Reality-Enjoying-Illusions/dp/0393344118

Although this book is really cringey so please do not use this as your starting point.

u/Notasurgeon · 3 pointsr/TrueAtheism

This is the book you want

Why I Believed - Kenneth Daniels

It is exactly what you're looking for. Kindle edition is only 99 cents.

u/makeshift_mike · 3 pointsr/exchristian

To take a step back, how do you see this dialogue going? If you give them resources or make arguments, do you expect them to listen, say "good point," and accept that your position is valid?

Said another way, stuff that's convincing to you won't be convincing to them, and vice versa. After a few long conversations, I couldn't even get my family to admit the possibility that they may be wrong about their faith, or even that believers of other religions feel their religion to be true in the same way they do (and aren't deluded by Satan). Might be useful to start there rather than diving into the deep end with God Doesn't Exist.

It's a tough road ahead. Getting that first crack in the "the bible is 100% perfect" armor is a huge deal. For me it came in OT history (specifically the nonexistence of the Exodus and the book of Daniel, for which even N.T. Wright accepts a late date), which is easier to debunk than the NT stuff. Good luck.

Here's one though: check out works by former pastors and missionaries, like this book or this blog (the author of which has unfortunately passed away). When I was still on my journey I was basically immune to arguments from atheists, but these guys could get through.

u/Khufuu · 3 pointsr/exchristian

I know of a couple of books written by ex-evangelicals that might be useful to you at this time in your life:

godless

or Why I Believed

Why I believed is also free here

u/thatsmyuncle_ewww · 3 pointsr/atheism

My uncle is David Silverman, he wrote this book

u/RealityApologist · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

Rather than merely jump down your throat for the tone of your post--I think everyone else has sufficiently chastised you, and I'll say more about that in general at the end--let me make a few constructive suggestions.

>For example, when philosophers argue for the non-existence of reality or unkownableness of things I just want to shake them and say "get your head our of your fucking ass and look out the window! There is obviously a real world out there."

This sounds very much like naive realism, which is a genuine position held by some philosophers (albeit not very commonly). You might find Quee Nelson's The Slightest Philosophy interesting if you want to learn more about naive realism and its history. She's not a mainstream professional philosopher, but the book is quite a fun read.

The kinds of intuitions you're describing also suggest that you'd be inclined toward naturalism, very broadly constued. In general, naturalists see philosophy as continuous with (or even part of) science, and reject philosophical arguments that either ignore or purport to "transcend" scientific knowledge and reasoning. Naturalist (or naturalized) philosophy tends to take scientific theories very seriously, and is often aimed at excavating the foundations of various sciences. This is a significantly more popular position within professional philosophy (though certainly not a universal one). That SEP link I posted should give you a good overview. The anthology Naturalism Without Mirrors can also serve as a good survey. Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness Without God is a less rigorous "pop-philosophy" treatment of the subject, but is a frequently cited basic introduction to some of the principles, and aimed at non-philosophers.

Now, with all that said, I strongly suspect that you're going to find understanding any of the links I posted (with the possible exception of Carrier) rather difficult to understand without some background in philosophy. Naturalism emerged as a reaction and/or successor to various movements within the history of philosophy, and without some idea of the context in which the discussion is happening, you're apt to find the going rather difficult.

I should mention that I say this as someone who shares a lot of the views you described: I have very little patience for most of the history of philosophy, and find much of what goes on in contemporary mainstream philosophy incredibly, frustratingly obtuse. However, I developed that opinion as a result of decades of rigorous study of philosophy, rather than based on my first impressions as a beginner. I can say with fairly high confidence that if you were able to dismiss what you were reading as nonsense so quickly that you can't even recall what you've read, you probably didn't really understand what you were reading. Much of historical philosophy might be misguided or wrong, but the people who wrote it were emphatically not stupid, and their ideas are worthy of honest, serious engagement even if you think they're mistaken.

It might help to look at reading the canon as something like running on a treadmill in a gym. If someone told you that they thought running on a treadmill was silly because they'd tried it for a minute and hadn't gotten anywhere, you probably would think that they'd missed the point. The point of running on a treadmill isn't to get somewhere, but rather to improve your own fitness level. One side effect of this improvement is that when you do run in order to get somewhere, you can run much faster and for much longer. If it helps, think of reading philosophy like that: as a kind of "mental workout" that helps you sharpen your critical faculties and analysis skills, so that when you encounter arguments that you're actually interested in engaging with, you'll be better able to give them serious thought.

To that end, I'd suggest that you try some of the literature that you dismissed as pointless again, but this time with the intention of reading it, understanding it, and articulating why you think it's bullshit. Reading Descartes and coming away with "well that was dumb and obviously wrong" is missing the point in the same way that telling a guy running on a treadmill "you'll never get anywhere that way" is missing the point. What exactly do you find so dumb about it? What ideas specifically are mistaken? In what way are they mistaken? What are the implications of the mistakes you noticed? I suspect that once you try to seriously answer these questions, you'll discover that it's much harder than it looks, and that (perhaps) you don't have as much of a grasp on the ideas as you thought you did.

u/mpg1453 · 3 pointsr/atheism

The books were Demon Possession and The Atheist's Way. This first is a collection of stories of demonic possession without a skeptical attitude toward them, while the latter is a book designed to explain how Atheists can lead moral lives. One would think the first one is more likely to lead to arson.

u/SanityInAnarchy · 3 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Another nitpick, then: It doesn't have to be monotheism. Monolatrism is sufficient.

I'd also argue that the important bit is the dogma, not necessarily whether it's tied to a scripture per se. Scripture doesn't quite explain how you get such violence between people who have the same scripture -- between Catholics and Protestants, for example. If it was just a matter of the scripture itself, there are ways to settle those arguments -- you go back and read the scripture -- except that people have different interpretations that they have accepted as gospel (literally).

You might be interested in Greta Christina's "Why are you atheists so angry?", which was originally a blog rant, became a surprisingly good speech, and is now a book. Because I don't have time to watch the whole speech again, I'm going to assume this collection of quotes has it right:

> Religion is a belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die. It therefore has no reality check. And it is therefore uniquely armored against criticism, questioning, and self-correction. It is uniquely armored against anything that might stop it from spinning into extreme absurdity, extreme denial of reality… and extreme, grotesque immorality.

Or, similarly:

> Religion, by its very nature as an untestable belief in undetectable beings and an unknowable afterlife, disables our reality checks. It ends the conversation. It cuts off inquiry: not only factual inquiry, but moral inquiry. Because God's law trumps human law, people who think they're obeying God can easily get cut off from their own moral instincts.

> And these moral contortions don't always lie in the realm of theological game-playing. They can have real-world consequences: from genocide to infanticide, from honor killings to abandoned gay children, from burned witches to battered wives to blown-up buildings.

What's missing is the bit where she compares this to political ideology. Because most political ideologies make promises on this world, they're at least somewhat subject to test. Eventually, wealth either trickles down or it doesn't, for example. That doesn't apply to religions -- and the religions it used to apply to have either adapted or died out.

u/Galphanore · 3 pointsr/atheism

You're welcome. She recently expanded it into a book that I'm reading at the moment.

u/JonathanTech · 3 pointsr/exmormon

From "Why are you atheists so angry? 99 Things that piss of the godless" by Christina, Greta:

> 37) I'm angry that, because of religious bigotry against LGBT people, Ingrid and I had to get married three times, before we finally got to have a wedding that was legal in our home state. I'm angry that nine months after our marriage, Catholics and Mormons spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours to pass Prop 8 and make it impossible for any other same-sex couples in California to marry. I'm angry that our marriage is still not seen as a real marriage in (as of this writing) 42 of the 50 states. I'm angry that, when we travel to places like Missouri or Colorado, we have to worry about what happens if one of us has to go to the hospital -- will the other be able to make decisions on our behalf, or even be able to visit? I'm angry that even our federal government won't recognize our marriage as real -- because fear of offending the religious right controls how laws get made in this country. And I'm angry that religious and political leaders are scoring points by exploiting fears about sexuality in a changing world, fanning the flames of those fears... and giving people a religious excuse for why their fears are justified.

>38) I'm angry about "lying for the Lord." I'm angry that the Mormon Church officially advocates a policy of deception, concealment, exaggeration, selective disclosure, censorship, and outright dishonest about the history and tenets of their religion -- aimed at both the general public and members or their own church -- in order to protect their image. I'm angry that Mormons who have violated this policy, and who told the truth about the church's history and teachings even when it was unflattering, have been excommunicated.

>42) And on a related topic: I'm angry that, in Salt Lake City, Utah, 40 percent of all homeless teenagers are gay -- most of them kids who have been kicked out of their homes by their Mormon families.

It's a great read at a great price. Plenty of reasons why religion is damaging.

u/frn2000 · 2 pointsr/Christianity

You're referring to cultural Christianity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Christian). I didn't even know there was such a term. There's even a 2007 BBC article from Richard Dawkins (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7136682.stm) calling himself a cultural Christian.

> Prof Dawkins, who has frequently spoken out against creationism and religious fundamentalism, replied: "I'm not one of those who wants to stop Christian traditions.
>
> "This is historically a Christian country. I'm a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims.
>
> "So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.
>
> "If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists."

Are you looking for a way to be converted to Christianity without realizing it? If not, stay away from searching atheism and Bible at the same time. Most results are articles that either turn Christians into atheists (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2016/04/11-bible-verses-that-turn-christians-into-atheists/) or try to covert atheists into Christianity (https://www.everystudent.com/wires/atheist.html). In any case, I guess you can follow all the instructions Jesus gave his disciples as blueprint of what a good person ought to do and be (https://www.alternet.org/belief/bible-verses-atheists-love). In all, service (Meals of Wheels, Habitat for Humanity, soup kitchens, etc.). By the way, there's an Atheist's Bible, which covers God, Christianity and faith in all.

u/A_person_in_a_place · 2 pointsr/Freethought

"As opposed to some other theory that suggests existence is absurd?"

Well, I could see how that could be seen as a straw man. I think it is more that some people like Albert Camus (or who use similar lines of thinking) might conclude that reductionistic thinking about life makes human aims absurd. I am not sure what anything we currently know or think scientifically about life means that human existence is absurd. So, I could see how maybe that was a bad thing to put in the book description or in the book. I think it is a response to someone like Alex Rosenberg who wrote The Atheist's Guide to Reality: https://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Guide-Reality-Enjoying-Illusions/dp/0393344118 Rosenberg argues that the everything is ultimately just about the interactions of fermions and bosons. People have argued in response to him that he wrote a book to convey this, so apparently that's not all you need in order to understand everything. Anyway, Rosenberg isn't a scientist though and there isn't a scientific theory that argues human existence is absurd... just saying though.

u/Donkey_of_Balaam · 2 pointsr/Judaism

> The possibilities are endless, and some are better than others, but "the meaning of life" is inherently subjective.

According to what criteria are some better than others? If X is inherently subjective, how is my subjective meaning superior to Ted Bundy’s? The affirmation of intrinsic subjectivity AND objective differences is a contradiction.

Similarly, "Stealing is wrong" is a true statement, analogous to "613 is a Lukas prime," if and only if there is an objective difference between primes and composites, and right and wrong. "Rational systems of thought based on human need and social cohesion," however eloquent and ballyhooed, can’t change this. Morality can’t find True answers if no such domain exists. Rosenberg states it well:
>We have to acknowledge (to ourselves, at least) that many questions we want the “right” answers to just don’t have any. These are questions about the morality of stem-cell research or abortion or affirmative action or gay marriage or our obligations to future generations. Many enlightened people, including many scientists, think that reasonable people can eventually find the right answers to such questions. Alas, it will turn out that all anyone can really find are the answers that they like. The same goes for those who disagree with them. Real moral disputes can be ended in lots of ways: by voting, by decree, by fatigue of the disputants, by the force of example that changes social mores. But they can never really be resolved by finding the correct answers. There are none. (p. 96)

Yes, moral codes can exist in the absence of G-d. They just can’t be true. They’re outgrowths of an evolved mechanism to spread genes and ensure survival. Life's fulfilment per the Humanist Manifesto presupposes something not unlike Aristotelian teleology. Was Darwin cool with that?

u/isperfectlycromulent · 2 pointsr/atheism

My girlfriend got me this book for Christmas(heh) The Atheist's Guide to Reality. I think it's a really good read, especially for people who have questions about what it all means and the meaning of life.

u/josephsmidt · 2 pointsr/latterdaysaints

> Question: Why would naturalism imply an inherent unreliability of our senses?... articulate the arguments these "eminent philosophers" make against naturalism rather throw out a list of books.... Kinda goes against the peer-reviewed

The main problem: Here is the main problem with you Tibberclaw (and it happened in the last thread too), you want to make accusations without reading the relevant literature. You want to have strong opinions, without being well read.

And that attitude, the "tell me in a comment box so I don't have to read any books" is the real detriment to the peer-review process.

Free alternatives: With that said, this small, free and readable article gives a simplified version of Negal's argument. This Op-ed in the NY Times gives an very simplified version of Paul Davies argument. As for Plantengia, you might have to actually read a book on a subject you want to have strong opinion on without reading to hear his.

But since you might not even read those: But if you want the extremely terse version (which you should only critique after reading the full versions as surely the authors addressed your concerns in their books) here:

  1. Thomas Negal - He discusses the problems with mental states being linked to physical states and shows how physical states cannot have the properties we know mental states do. Thus he argues materialism/naturalism cannot account for our ability to understand it. Even through emergence.

    I will give one example. The aboutness or intentionality problem which is taken serious in philosophy. It is a big enough problem that even the atheist/philosopher Dr. Rosenberg in his book admits that the naturalism he espouses implies our brains cannot actually be conceiving the outside world but he argues that is okay. Well good for him as the easier interpretation is materialism fails to account how we can possible understand the cosmos.

    Read the slate article for a better summary... or the book if you want the real thought out deal.

  2. Alvin Plantinga - He points out that evolution optimizes on survivability, not truth. There is no reason to think that naturalism would produce brains that could grasp truth, only brains that would confuse creatures what truth is for survivability purposes.

    He also takes on the almost universal conclusion that is agreed upon by naturalist philosophers, like again Dr. Rosenberg above, that naturalism implies determinism. (Even if we disguise it with fancy words like compatibilism which is still just determinism where you think you have free choices)

    And actually that last part is the problem. You cannot really trust your thoughts because you have no choice in the matter. You are an atheist because determinism says so, not because you have a free choice in the matter. You have been given the illusion of free choice, (like naturalist forms of compatibilism) but it isn;t free. So if naturalism is true, you have to admit you can't trust your own thoughts because they were forced down your throat by determinism.

    Again, read the book if it still isn't registering. There is too much detail to cover.

  3. Paul Davis - A few questions: 1. why should the universe obey law at all? 2. Why should that law have a rational structure. (IE.. using logic you can go from one correct law to another. Logic is based on immaterial abstract laws... so why in the world should a blind materialistic universe follow them with perfection?) and 3. Why should that rational structure be perfectly suited to human minds? We evolved to understand things like tress and water. So how is it that the universe has "chosen" to obey laws that, from the tiniest sub-atomic particle, to the entire cosmos obeys rational laws perfectly suited for human minds?

    Now, pretend you knew nothing about the universe except for these things: it is a blind, meaningless, purposeless, random entity that is indifferent to anything inside. Would you honestly guess such a universe is perfectly law abiding? (Nothing above suggests it has to) Would you guess that, the laws had a perfect rational structure in that it adhere to the immaterial abstract principles of logic? (Nothing above suggests it has to) Would you guess that, in addition these laws are perfectly suited for the minds of one of the creatures inside. Creatures that did not evolve on the tiniest or largest scales but can still comprehend it all?

    These questions deeply troubled Einstein. It's like the universe we find ourselves in is rigged (even on scales we did not evolve on) to make sense to human minds in a rational way, and nothing about blindness, meaningless, purposeless, randomness would suggest this.

    On the other hand, if you said the universe was created by a rational lawgiver in whose image humans would be, might you expect the universe to be this way. Yes! So one worldview just makes the rational nature of the universe confusing (like Einstein was), and the other almost predicts these attributes.

    And again, read the book if you want the real deal.

    There you go, You got your overly simplistic summaries. Now be an intellectual and learn to actually be well read before you attack with strong opinions.
u/Zombiescout · 2 pointsr/atheism

Go with the Cambridge Companion to Atheism, it is a good starting point, covers a variety of angles, has multiple authors each writing about subjects they know well. I find it to be far more rigorous than much of the pop atheism, this however means that there are parts that can be difficult to follow if you don't know modal logic or ethical theory. It comes down to how much you want the work to challenge you.

I would also highly recommend Atheism and Theism (Great Debates in Philosophy) as a good critical overview of the arguments involved. It is better at remaining neutral and dispassionate than the pop atheism books since it seeks to present both sides, it is well written and the author on the atheist side is imo much better at structuring arguments than someone like Dawkins.

u/awkward_armadillo · 2 pointsr/atheism

A descent selection so far from the other comments. I'll throw in a few, as well:

​

u/mrwiseman · 2 pointsr/atheism

Greta Christina has an influential 2007 blog post and a new book and a speech from Skepticon about why atheists are so angry which may help you understand some aspects of "Exactly why is religion a bad thing?"

u/MrDelirious · 2 pointsr/atheism

Of the four, I'd probably recommend Harris. Given the freedom, I wouldn't recommend any of them if you're trying to expand a theist's mind.

Suggestion 1 from me is Guy Harrison's "50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God". He goes through the 50 most common reasons people gave him when he asked, and explained why an average skeptic/atheist doesn't find those reasons compelling.

Suggestion 2 is probably a volume on naturalism (for example "Encountering Naturalism" or Carrier's "Sense and Goodness Without God"). Firmly establishing a coherent, complete worldview that doesn't require gods can be a valuable step.

u/gmt9791 · 2 pointsr/exmormon

I've never actually read this book, but I really respect the author's scholarship and thinking. The title seems like it might be in the ballpark of what you're looking for. Or, you can look into related books:

https://www.amazon.com/Sense-Goodness-Without-God-Metaphysical/dp/1420802933

u/yellownumberfive · 2 pointsr/atheism

Richard Carrier used to consider himself a Taoist before giving that up as well in favor of simple atheism.

Do check out his book "Sense and Goodness Without God; a Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism" it is quite good and he talks a bit about his history with Taoism as well as the ethics of non-belief.

http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Goodness-Without-God-Metaphysical/dp/1420802933

u/nonficFTW · 2 pointsr/booksuggestions

I recommend Sense and Goodness without God. Very accessible, quite pithy, and doesn't harp a lot about God.

u/Jake451 · 2 pointsr/exmormon

Someone has already written the book http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Heretics-Guide-Western-Religion/dp/1482773341. Now we just need a courageous film maker...

u/The_Mighty_Atom · 2 pointsr/exchristian

>>Finally! do you have any good book recommendations? Again, thanks!

Ooh goody, I always love it when people ask for book recommendations. :)

Here's just the tip of the iceberg:

u/ResidentRedneck · 2 pointsr/Christianity

>Atheism is not a religion.

Really?

>We have no doctrine.

I'm almost positive that that's not the case.

>No creed.

From PZ Myers himself.

>No hymns.

Really? Are you so very certain?

So...are you positive that atheism has not taken on all the trappings of a religion? I would say you even have apostles - Dawkins, Hitchins, Harris.

Finally - I would urge you to look up state atheism and then tell me that certain people didn't kill in the name of atheism.

u/roobix · 2 pointsr/atheism

This will already be lost in the sea of comments, but since I'm seeing quote images posted quite regularly on /r/atheism lately: if you want a higher resolution version of this image, it comes from a pack of 100 quotes I put together, selected from the book "The Quotable Atheist".

You can download the whole pack of 100 here if you like, and post them for karma whenever the need arises.

Video version for those who like to read to music (?)

u/trekbette · 2 pointsr/atheism

I highly recommend this book: The Quotable Atheist.

u/absolutspacegirl · 2 pointsr/TrueAtheism
u/lady_wildcat · 2 pointsr/Christianity

A little light reading

Also if you smell shit everywhere, try checking your shoes.

u/f1shbone · 2 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

This is going to end well ...

I would recommend reading this book by Greta Christina

https://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Angry-Things-That-Godless-ebook/dp/B007MCMKV6

u/fishfingrs-n-custard · 2 pointsr/atheism

Read this book http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Angry-Things-Godless-ebook/dp/B007MCMKV6 I think it speaks for a lot of atheists out there. Also, there is really nothing to "learn" about atheism, except for maybe what it is not about.

u/luckydog1123 · 2 pointsr/atheism

All of these are from an actual book entitled "Why are you Atheists so Angry?". Its a great read, but don't plagiarize and take credit for yourself

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B007MCMKV6/ref=redir_mdp_mobile

u/TheYoungMasterBates · 1 pointr/justneckbeardthings

He wrote a book

u/phillysoftpretzel · 1 pointr/justneckbeardthings

Here's the link to his book on amazon. It has amazing reviews.
https://www.amazon.com/Dear-God-Suck-David-Nordahl-ebook/dp/B01GGYLK8Y#customerReviews

u/iCanon · 1 pointr/atheism

Show her your perspective. The Young Atheist's Survival Guide, I've never read this book but I have heard good things about it.

Length 158 pages.

u/percussaresurgo · 1 pointr/worldnews
u/jaspersgroove · 1 pointr/AskReddit
u/ssa_august · 1 pointr/atheism

Campquest's answer is spot on. But for a whole book about not only what this has to do with atheism but the place of rationality in American political discourse in general I highly recommend Nonbeliever Nation by David Niose.

u/BillWeld · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

Here's a recent book on it from an atheist's perspective: The Atheist's Guide to Reality. He basically says Neitche was right. Here's a brief lecture by a Christian philosopher critiquing that idea: The Atheist’s Guide to Intellectual Suicide.

u/amalagg · 1 pointr/india

>My position is that subjective, culture-relative values are not nihilistic, because they are real to the cultures they apply to.

If you say we have culture-relative values currently which are arbitrary then to evaluate that you have to get into the cultural roots of our values. Such a discussion would become very tangential.

Self-professed nihilists do accept that a value system without an absolute basis is nihilistic.

>Arbitrary value is what humans assign to events in reality; it is arbitrary because humanity is not the seat of godhead in the universe, and thus not any form of absolute judgment over it, but we are small creatures like the birds, rodents and lizards, and thus are subject to its rules as well.

(from the earlier link)

>But my other point was that you can't show that that your particular absolute perspective is correct.

I have no intention to. It is up to a person to find out their belief system. So to someone who believes that goodness is a real eternal principle, then relative and arbitrary values are nihilistic. Your paradigm is one of temporality. I refuse to discuss on such a platform. It is a waste of my time. I live in a world in which goodness is real and eternal, my temporary body is not the end of my existence.

If you want to discuss on that temporary platform, be my guest, but don't make the mistake of thinking you are any less religious than me. Your religion is acceptance of your imperfect senses and your limited logical understanding. Mine is the faith that I can and do experience higher truth.

Why does anyone need to "prove" their experience of the absolute to you? Are you qualified to understand it? The proof is conscious experience. You may refer to it as subjective, but that will assume we cannot experience the absolute. Rather our conscious experience does show us there could be more than subjective reality and reality could very well be absolute.

Further don't make the mistake of thinking that there are consequences for someone after they die. You can refer to your artful comic. So if someone has no consequences of their actions 100 years from now, then they can act and get away with anything once they are dead.

Rather you should be honest and embrace such a position as this philosophy professor has done.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Atheists-Guide-Reality-Illusions/dp/0393344118/ref=pd_ybh_2

http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/nice-nihilism/

>‘This is a book for atheists’. Rosenberg makes this explicit in the preface. Atheism requires a whole view of the world based on science that is ‘demanding, rigorous, breathtaking.’

>The atheists’ self-image as the hero nihilist choosing her fate is condemned as being just as hopeless as the religious self image. This is why this is a book with some tough and strange lessons for the atheist.

>There is no purpose, no meaningfulness, no free-will in this blind, deterministic universe. The universe of fermions and bosons is our universe. So there is no purpose and meaningfulness in our universe. Now that’s nihilism that isn’t house trained!

> Nihilism was okay when we could inscribe our meanings in humanity as brave intellectual heroes or communes of political purpose or make distinctions between what was true of the brain and what was true of persons. But Rosenberg rips these positions to shreds.

> Evolutionism and physics gives us a nihilist universe, purposeless, meaningless, ultimately devoid of everything we think is important. But it has constructed us as having evolutionary reflexes that grant us illusions of freewill and purpose we cannot but believe.

So embrace it and be a "Nice Nihilist" as the good professor encourages you to do.

u/epistemic_edge · 1 pointr/VeryBadWizards

Guest request: Alex Rosenberg

For the following reasons:

  1. I’m pretty sure Tamler mentioned that Rosenberg was his PhD supervisor. They wrote a paper together, anyway:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1026311011245
    Would be interesting to hear why Tamler now rejects the conclusion in that paper (if he does).

  2. Rosenberg pushes the kind of hardcore reductionist/eliminativist agenda that Dave and Tamler seem to loathe: https://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Guide-Reality-Enjoying-Illusions/dp/0393344118

  3. Rosenberg can be pretty terrifying in a debate:
    https://youtu.be/bhfkhq-CM84
    I think he’d bring out the best/silliest in Dave and Tamler.
u/id10tjoeuser · 1 pointr/ChristianCreationists

>If you duplicate a gene then change the new sequence, then you're adding new information.

What new sequence? If you take some information, and copy that information - its the same information. Its a copy.

>You don't have to buy into it, but you clearly don't understand it.

I don't understand speciation? Didn't I just define it? Do not I know it so well that the problems with it, you admitted were accurate?

>That makes no sense.

You mean to tell me that you dont know the difference between science and scientific theory? You know what, you should really read a book. I think its something you will actually really enjoy - a book by atheists for atheists - {The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions by Alex Rosenberg}[http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Guide-Reality-Enjoying-Illusions/dp/0393344118/ref=la_B001ITTUDA_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1370476239&sr=1-2]. Its so good for atheists - because it is a philosopher explaining how to convince people to fully embrace "scientism". Now, I believe you have already made this jump - if you cant tell the difference between what is a theory and what is reality. But at least it might reveal to you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

u/simism66 · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

Why don't you just read up a bit on what philosophers of religion actually have to say on this matter?

You might want to start here, but, if you want to find a philosopher of religion that actually basically agrees with your distinction (and lays it out more rigorously) you might want to look up Michael Martin's introduction in the Cambridge Companion to Atheism.

u/2ysCoBra · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

You might be familiar with some of this already, but I'm going to explain it as though you have no familiarity with this subject.

Philosophy of religion explores topics such as the existence of God, concepts of God, religious language, religious belief, miracles, and so on. Philosophyofreligion.info presents a good primer for the subject.

It seems like your primary interest is in the existence of God. Natural theology, although the approach of doing theology without the assistance of special, divine revelation, in philosophical circles is basically synonymous with arguments for the existence of God. Natural atheological arguments, as some have put it (i.e. Plantinga), are arguments for atheism.

Popular arguments for the existence of God would be the various cosmological, teleological, ontological, and axiological arguments. There's almost too many of them to keep track. Popular arguments against the existence of God would be the various kinds of the problem of evil, divine hiddenness, and attacks on the coherence of theism.

"The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology" is perhaps the best single resource on arguments for and against the existence of God, although it is highly advanced. "The Cambridge Companion to Atheism" is also a very solid resource. "The Existence of God" by Swinburne is classic, as is his "Coherence of Theism." Again, all of those are fairly advanced. Swinburne has a shorter, more popular level version of "The Existence of God" titled "Is There a God?" Stephen Davis also has a similar book titled "God, Reason and Theistic Proofs." If you're going to be reading Oppy and Sobel, I recommend reading their counterparts in any of these books above (barring the "Cambridge Companion to Atheism," of course), that way you have a good balance of perspectives.

With regards to the philosophy of religion a bit more broadly, William Rowe, C. Stephen Evans, and Brian Davies each have solid, brief introduction books. Michael Murray and Eleonore Stump have a more thorough introduction; Louis Pojman and Michael Rea have a great anthology; and William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, and Michael Rea have perhaps the greatest single resource on this subject.

Moreover, William Lane Craig has dozens of debates on topics concerning the existence of God (and other topics) available on YouTube. Here is a fantastic list of his debates with links available in the table. You'll see some popular figures in the list that aren't good philosophers (i.e. Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, etc.), but there are quite a few very high caliber philosophers on that list too (i.e. Michael Tooley, Quentin Smith, Peter Millican, Stephen Law, etc.).

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Good luck!

u/bigomess · 1 pointr/atheism

The Cambridge Companion to Atheism is an interesting introduction to Atheism. This review summarizes the book well.

u/GeoffreyCharles · 1 pointr/Christianity

Doubting Jesus Resurrection by Komarnitsky (an agnostic) is good. http://www.amazon.com/Doubting-Jesus-Resurrection-Happened-Black-ebook/dp/B00I6DDLUO

Also, it's been a while, but Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary was good. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0578003880/ref%3Dcm_cr_asin_lnk

u/cpqarray · 1 pointr/atheism

Have her read Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary by Ken Daniels. Very well written and by a former Christian who left Christianity in stages. Bonus if you have Kindle it's only $.99.

u/austac06 · 1 pointr/atheism

Another great book to read is Why I Believed by Kenneth W. Daniels. He has a really candid and honest approach to how he lost his faith. Highly recommended.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Believed-Reflections-Former-Missionary/dp/0578003880/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368751142&sr=8-1&keywords=why+i+believed

Edit: I posted the wrong link. My bad.

u/sharplikeginsu · 1 pointr/atheism

I like Why I believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary. It's written from the point of view of an extremely commited Christian, and how they gradually lost their faith. It's available for free if you don't mind reading it on the web.

I like it as a "first course" because, though I really like Dawkins/Harris/Loftus/Carrier/etc, they all have lost such respect for Christianity over the years of being apologists (if they ever had any) that it sometimes leaks through in the writing. A sense of "what kind of idiot would think..." Because Ken Daniels is writing as someone who was really in it to win it, it's far more sympathetic to the position of a current believer.

u/cypherpunks · 1 pointr/atheism

Greta Christina's answer was so popular she turned it into a published book.

u/AMoralPedo · 1 pointr/TrueAtheism

I recommend you read Fighting God by David Silverman. It makes the case for atheist activism, among many other things. I think it would be a good next step after AMFCA.

u/SchadeyDrummer · 1 pointr/atheism

I'd give him "Sense & Goodness Without God" by Richard Carrier. I think it's one of the most thorough, and eloquently put argument for atheism I've ever read. I cannot imagine anyone reading and understanding this book will walk away and at least have a great respect for atheist philosophy. Your friend may be denying gods existence by halfway through the book, most likely. http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Goodness-Without-God-Metaphysical/dp/1420802933

u/BluescreenOfDeath · 1 pointr/atheism
u/hork · 1 pointr/atheism

> God wants you to "be good" because He has given you the ability to do so. That is, be good for the sake of being good.

If that were true, there would be no reason for heaven and hell. Just admit it -- "God" is a "father" figure for people who cannot grow up. You need a system of punishments and rewards in order to behave... because you can't trust yourself to behave.

> Santa is an icon for the commercialization of Christmas and nothing more.

No argument here. And you can certainly argue that "presents vs. coal" in the stocking is a system of rewards/punishments for good behavior. But I'm still looking in the Bible for the passage that says "Be good for goodness sake."

While you may believe that God = "Good," many people believe that Morality can exist without some external, transcendent basis.

http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Goodness-Without-God-Metaphysical/dp/1420802933

http://rondam.blogspot.com/2008/05/can-morality-exist-without-god.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma%20rel=

u/Dalimey100 · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Richard Carrier's Goodness and Sense Without God Its become a manual to me on defining life without a god. He's incredible because he specializes in taking complex ideas and making them digestible to your average layperson (okay, upper high school/ college age person).
he also gave a talk at skepticon this november ( I was in the fourth row :D) and it was wonderful

u/DescendantX · 1 pointr/Christianity

Some of it is also cribbed from Shakespeare. You should read The Mormons by David Fitzgerald for a good look at the history of the LDS.

u/andrecunha · 1 pointr/atheism

I would start with the classic Some mistakes of Moses, by Robert Ingersoll.

There is a short book called Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God, by Armin Navabi, that is also a nice read.

One that I recently finished reading and enjoyed very much is The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism, by Aron Ra. The book is not exactly about atheism; it's Aron's rebuttal to many creationist arguments, but Aron is a widely known atheist activist, and the book is very enjoyable.

I usually listen to The Thinking Atheist podcast, from Seth Andrews (a podcast I highly recommend, by the way). There are some book he suggested in his podcast that I haven't read yet, but which I included in my to-read list:

u/remembertosmilebot · 1 pointr/exchristian

Did you know Amazon will donate a portion of every purchase if you shop by going to smile.amazon.com instead? Over $50,000,000 has been raised for charity - all you need to do is change the URL!

Here are your smile-ified links:

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Why Evolution Is True

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

Why There Is No God

Jesus, Interrupted

The God Argument

Deconverted: A Journey from Religion to Reason

---

^^i'm ^^a ^^friendly bot

u/SecretAgentX9 · 1 pointr/philosophy

A book I love that describes a secular, reason-based method for generating meaning: The Atheist's Way by Eric Maisel. It's also a highly existentialist book so it might be a good fit.

http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Way-Living-Well-Without/dp/1577316428

u/remarkedvial · 1 pointr/atheism

A friend of mine went through something similar, wasn't ready to read something as indepth as "God Delusion" or "God is Not Great", found a less intimidating (and much shorter) book called "The Atheist's Way". She said it was comforting, and while she still does not consider herself an atheist, she's no longer afraid of her doubts, knowing that the worst case scenario (losing her beleif) does not sound as bad as she had previously imagined. She said she now has a better understanding and appreciation of her atheist friends. Might be worth a try.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Atheists-Way-Living-Without/dp/1577316428

u/tree_or_up · 1 pointr/atheism

I would highly recommend The Atheist's Way: http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Way-Living-Well-Without/dp/1577316428/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278031253&sr=8-1

Short version: you have a unique opportunity to create meaning, not just respond/react to meaning that's been handed to you. In the language of this book, I'd say you're still looking at the world through religiously-conditioned eyes.

Also, you sound to me like you may be suffering from acute depression on top of an already-existing existential crisis. I would strongly recommend seeking counseling, even if it means taking some extra time and effort to find one that you feel comfortable/compatible with as an atheist.

u/Hypersapien · 1 pointr/atheism
u/LT_Kettch · 1 pointr/Christianity

Google "christian apologetics"

Here's a [very] few sources:
http://www.thetruthproject.org/
This appears to be a catholic one: http://highschoolapologetics.wordpress.com/
Counters to atheistic arguments: http://www.amazon.com/The-Irrational-Atheist-Dissecting-Hitchens/dp/1933771364

u/garbonzo607 · 1 pointr/atheism

This is a general rule of debates in fact, attack away at the topic / subject at hand or rather the other side's view, but never start using ad hominems and personal blows at a person's character.

The thing is, people automatically equate attacking their (or other people's) views personally, or as a personal attack. A lot of these attacks are ambiguous, but I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and if there is a Facebook pic of a religious person saying something just plain ignorant, I would be laughing at their philosophy or position, rather than them themselves, personally, their character.

I love this article on a popular atheism blog:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/08/reddit-atheism-i-still-love-you/

The best part that is relevant:

> And you’re damn right atheists want other people to lose their faith. When you see the awful policy-decisions made because of support from religious groups, it’s hard not to want them to come to their senses. We’re trying to educate them, not annihilate them.

And I'm sure others have put it even better.

[I bought this book but never read it.](
http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Angry-Things-Godless-ebook/dp/B007MCMKV6) I really need to.

Found this video relating to the book and need to watch it, but I'm guessing it's relevant, so oh well. Hope it's good, rofl.

u/InnocuousJoe · 1 pointr/videos

Think about it this way: relativity is entirely observable, with quantifiable results and experiments that can be run against it.

Religion, simply put, has none of that. At all.

I'd recommend you read Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off The Godless if you want to get a better idea of why equivocation like yours is so infuriating ("it's all about making the world a better place" ... when Catholicism is responsibly for some of the worst atrocities the world has known)

u/davidkscot · 1 pointr/atheism

I think your imposing a perception of atheists onto them that doesn't fit without first considering if it's correct.

For example you say atheists are angry at god, most atheists would correct this and tell you they dislike the character of the christian god in the same way they dislike Voldemort from the Harry Potter books.

They dislike some actions taken for religious reasons and thus the religions which provide the reasons behind the actions.

There are good reasons to be angry, just not in the way to are mischaracterising, I'd recommend looking up Gretta Christina, there's a Blog post, YouTube video and a book she has written which are all about why she is an angry atheist.

Edit: I'd also recommend Gretta's follow up blog post replying to criticisms

u/wickman69 · 1 pointr/atheism

I agree with this and it is indeed well written. I reckon a lot of the inspiration was from this - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atheists-Angry-Things-Godless-ebook/dp/B007MCMKV6

u/Stylux · 0 pointsr/politics

I just skipped to the sources:

  1. Barber, N. (2012). Why atheism will replace religion: The triumph of earthly pleasures over pie in the sky. E-book, available at: http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Will-Replace-Religion-ebook/dp/B00886ZSJ6/

  2. Barber, N. (2011, April 19). Conservatives big on fear, brain study finds. Blog post accessed at:

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives...

  3. Garchick, L. (2000, November 5). Remodelers split along party lines. San Francisco Chronicle, accessed at:

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-11-05/news/0011050380_1_remodele...


    How could I dare argue with this wealth of knowledge.
u/JaviLM · 0 pointsr/todayilearned

> The assertions that you make are in reference to studies which were released. I'm assuming they're where you got the idea.

You're wrong again. My assertions are based mainly in the fact that I'm old enough to have been moving around, visiting and living in for years in diverse places.

However, if what you want are scientific studies, then I can provide a bunch of those too:

u/ArcoJedi · -1 pointsr/Christianity

OP: Because Atheism is a religion now. It wouldn't have so much fanaticism and witch-hunting otherwise. They have symbols (that giant spaghetti thing), high priests (Richard Dawkins), their own scriptures ( Amazon ) and so on.

That said, I love atheists and was an atheist for more than half my life. I recall that the point was not "convincing" but "saving people from themselves" as apparently my point of view at the time was the better way to be.

I've brought it up before, but I find this link on Cracked to be a good read on this subject.

http://www.cracked.com/article_15663_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html

Both sides of the debate feel passionately they are in the right and doing their best to help enlighten the other side. Neither side is being totally evil or draconic (except for the fringe), they are just being very passionate.

u/CharlieDarwin2 · -1 pointsr/atheism

I enjoyed this book: "The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions" by Alex Rosenburg

www.amazon.com/Atheists-Guide-Reality-Enjoying-Illusions/dp/0393344118/

u/Ibrey · -1 pointsr/DebateReligion

I suggest Alex Rosenberg's book The Atheist's Guide to Reality for an attempt to show that a commitment to science requires us to accept the non-existence of not only God but also minds, meaning, truth, objects that continue to exist from one moment to the next, etc.

u/deanisprolol · -1 pointsr/atheism

The way in which you have written the first part of this reply is completely grammatically incorrect for a start. I shall provide one example as I don't really find that you are making too much sense and I really couldn't be bothered arguing with anybody on the internet.

Link here

And quote the name of his best selling book too "The God Delusion" This is simply making Athiests look like stuck up dickheads- Just because others do not have the same beliefs as us does not mean that you have to try to correct them for that. That makes you just as bad as the Religious themselves.

u/B_anon · -3 pointsr/DebateReligion

Alex Rosenberg

An Atheists Guide to Reality

Try reading Nietzsche sometime.