What books have the best arguments for Christianity? What book

>>10022181
G.K. Chesterton, I guess.

>>10022181
C.S. Lewis

>>10022181
Der Naturwissenschaftler vor der religiösen "Frage" (the natural scientist confronted with the question of religion) by Pascal Jordan, the guy who developed the mathematics for quantum mechanics while being deeply catholic. Actually made me think about my hardcore atheism for the first time. I don't know if it exists in English, though

Republic, Timaeus, and few other of Plato's works.

>>10022181
They all will reassert in one way or another:
"You can't know nuffin so just choose what you want to think based on what makes you feel good."

Unlike Mohammad giving his followers slaves and booty from sacking villages, Christians got fuck all for following Christ.

File: well fuck this shit.jpg (59KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 300x300px

>>10022665
>people being fanatical means they're correct

>>10022186
This. Orthodoxy (and Heretics) were books who convert me.
>>10022643
Not this. I like Lewis, but I think his books are for Christians not for who only interested.

I''ve found Chesterton and Lewis to be unconvincing.

t. unhappy atheist

Would Kierkegaard be good?

>>10022707
Yes, although it's best to start with the Present Age by him.

The Quran

Fear and Trembling

/lit/ fags might enjoy the challenge of Augustine. I'd recommend Anselm's Proslogion and then some critiques and defenses of the ontological argument

>>10022181
Kierkegaard is good at challenging fedora types. Fear and Trembling my dude.

>>10022181
Not sure, but it would have to be a book that shatters that persons confidence in knowledge and that convinces them that people, though essentially good, are awful if not controlled.

File: 1415110660115.jpg (4KB, 212x218px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 212x218px

>>10022658
Or,
"Who are you to tell me how to live?"

>>10022694
Agreed, Chesterton is fun to read but he's for sure a complete sophist, refuting fallacies with more fallacies.

>>10025647
But that would mean they're not essentially good

>>10025654
This is true

>>10025654
This is less true but still sort of correct

>>10026271
wat

File: nietzsche.jpg (3KB, 90x90px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 90x90px

Is this SLAVE MORALITY I'm smelling?

>>10026275
Referring to those examples of reasoning

File: Gilbert_Chesterton.jpg (155KB, 582x718px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 582x718px

>>10022694
>"Is there anybody here who doesn't believe in God?"
>nervous silence from the audience
>"I ask again, otherwise I think my job here will be even easier than I assumed it would be."
>the audience laughs nervously
>"Is there anyone here who doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the word of his biblical teachings?"
>guy raises hands
>the audience, shocked, stares at him, with a look on their faces similar to one you'd give a man about to be executed
>"How dare you. I repeat, how DARE you enslave your soul to this cynical worship of logic, this tragic maxim of Darwinism! I assume you'd kill your children if it would bring you wordly gain?"
>the audience cheers, claps and yells in unison, a festival of mockery ensues. A loud laughter can be heard from those who are already familiar with the Ches and knew what to expect. The guy is not given a chance to reply or elaborate on his specific philosophical views because who cares he's probably stupid anyway. Atheism is deemed too stupid for discussion, that particular segment of the entire event is published separately in a collection of essays under the title "The Crime of Spiritual Suicide by a Maniac" and distributed to every seminary in the country. Ches is hailed as one of the greatest orators since Cicero. Christianity prevails, atheism fails, sorry, deal with it, bye bye.

>>10026316
But you only commented on one, reread yoyr own post lol

>>10026442
Oh shit, the other one I meant was
>>10022658