I'm Christian and I want to get out of my comfort zone,

The Anti-Christ, Nietzsche.

If you are strong enough...

Dawkins

>>3018779
George Carlin

/thread

>>3018784
Nietzshe and Hume seem like the most popular choices
>>3018785
>>3018797
no rhetoricians please

>>3018779
> best anti-Christian arguments
Read Muslims for this one, not atheists.

>>3018785
wtf he sucks

Hume is way better if you want that sort of skeptical anglo perspective. I'd even say Hitchens is a better read. He has less rigor but is far more colorful and fun to read.

When Dawkins is outside of his field he tends to flounder, and I think he bridged the gap somewhat well with his examples of "dumb design" (i.e. no intelligent creator would decide on some of the structures present), but is otherwise a bit puerile.

>>3018801
Hume's perspective on miracles alone is pretty foundation-shaking.

>>3018803
the quran itself is full of inadequate arguments
>the bible is tampered with
>mary is part of the trinity
>jesus was never crucified, he was replaced
anyways, if you give me a name or a work I'll look into it

>>3018779

J.L Mackie "The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God " is the best choice I can think of.

Hume has weak argumentation, and Nietzsche has no argumentation. Though both of them have very interesting ideas that are worth exploring. And Anti-Christian Pop-Sci writers aren't even worth considering.

If you are a rationalist and you think that the faith should be rationally justifiable if true then your best bet is to go for scholastic theologians who disagreed with the idea that the faith was rational but still believed anyways. There you are going to find people who actually know all the in's and out's of the faith, were highly logically sophisticated( more so than anyone save 20th century analytic philosophers), and were constantly engaging with the best arguments for the rational foundations of the faith as part of their life's work, and yet still rejected the idea that the faith could be rationally grounded. Get some basic Aristotle secondary literature for some background, and then try to find some easy to digest secondary literature on Ockham.

>>3018987
Seconding this

>ctrl+f
>Bertrand Russell

You fucking people...

>>3019008
I thought about it but I don't like him, lol

>>3018779
Bart Ehrman

>>3018779
This did it for me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc

>>3019055
tell dawkins to do this with william lane craig or james r white

File: ISHYGDDT.png (2MB, 3000x3210px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x3210px

>>3019138
>implying I give a fuck what Dawkins does
>implying I'm not Catholic

>>3018779
>so which atheist do I read
Don't bother.

Read the Nag Hammadi Library instead and you'll realize that if YHVH is a deceiver.

>>3018779

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOnefFVBEb0

Basically former West Boro baptist church member who turned atheist after the Church couldn't answer her questions about the conflicting Bible quotes. She is very well versed in theology and has basically memorized the Bible.

>>3018779
Read? Just watch the debates of people like Hitchens, Krauss, Harris and Delahaughty against apologists on youtube. See, the old atheist books were also written by people who have less knowledge of the universe than we have and these debates are a huge timesaver. There's a channel called atheistvstheistdebates with over 200 of these debates against people from all of the Abrahamic faiths.