Books on Atheism

become agnostic

>>8736962
I'm an agnostic atheist.

>>8736958
>I'm still an atheist but I realised I've never read an intelligent book on the subject, just online circlejerks.
But why should atheist be part of your identity? Let's be honest here, Dawkins and his buddies are into identity politics as well. (Also hate their reductionist approach (Dawkins and Dennet) to things, but that aside).

I do consider acceptance of the theory of evolution a part of my identity, but I feel no need to make that a part of my identity. I just read lots of evolutionary biology, which by the way is very critical of Dawnkin's selfish gene concept.

The only thing I do struggle with is finding some meaning without a God, but I really cope with in a kind of Nietzschian way (maybe) by making my own goals in life. You do not need atheists for that, philosophy will do.

Not fan of turning to science for meaning as well. It can only be an useful guidance to create goals in life, but shouldn't become the meaning nor goal (scientism really).

>>8736990
>but I feel no need to make that a part of my identity.
This should be:
>but I feel no need to make that my (most important part of) identity.

>>8736990
When people ask I just say I'm not religious. Its not something I consider a part of my identity anymore. I just say 'I'm an atheist' here because it makes it clear what I am looking for, books discussing non belief.

>>8737008
>books discussing non belief.
But what is there to discuss? That is what I don't understand and was trying to communicate. I do not find it necessary to read those books.

>>8736958
God is not Great is probably the best pop book on this subject, even though it's probably better to read philosophy.

>>8736958
When I was 14 I found out internet atheism and was retarded for two years.
Then I saw Jesus.

>>8737026
Actually, I'm lying. I found internet atheism at twelve and was retarded for four years, even as I went towards beyond consistently towards agnosticism.

>>8737029
>towards beyond consistently towards
Correction. I still am retarded, just not an atheist.

>>8737018
You need to have reasons you for your non belief. How do I know my reasoning isn't flawed? What do others have to say on the subject?

File: 1479347497557.jpg (44KB, 476x476px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 476x476px

>>8736963

>>8737062
>That girth
All hail the king.

>>8737053
>You need to have reasons you for your non belief.
Just read evolutionary biology and God stops making sense.
I couldn't even acknowledge a God if I wanted to.

File: divine hiddenness.jpg (21KB, 314x499px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 314x499px

You should get a rudimentary understanding of religious philosophy too. I don't understand why you're only interested in the atheism side of things unless you have an emotional attachment to that belief, if you're interested in the topic you should read Christian works as well.

Avoid books like The God Delusion and God is Not Great. Dawkins doesn't really know what he's talking about. Read Hume or Nietzsche or whatever. Try to avoid most 'Christian apologetics' too because it's similarly trash. Read people like Feser, Macintyre or Anscombe.

>Not being a deist

plebs

>>8737083
Ok thanks. I've no problem with reading both sides.

File: Scary scary.gif (3MB, 374x269px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 374x269px

>>8736958
The God Delusion is outright awful. I was constantly cringing as I read it. All the book did for me was confirm that Richard Dawkins is poorly educated and doesn't do research.

>>8737024
>God is not Great
You mean 'Anecdotes are not Arguments: the Book'?
I use that work as an example of how vocabulary and style and convince people that poor rhetoric is convincing.

>>8737070
What would your response to people who believe in both God and the Theory of Evolution? I'd say most modern Christians acknowledged the validity of it.

>>8736958
Watch Hitchens videos and debates, God is Not Great isn't all that...great. Sagan's Demon Haunted World is a very good read.


And not memeing but I'd argue that Ulysses is actually a fairly atheistic or at least Godless Ireland book

>>8737113
>Anecdotes are not Arguments

What do you mean by that exactly? Where in the book, apart from the allusion to his childhood teacher who was an extremely religious person, does he use anecdotes?

As far as I remember most of the book is criticism of supernaturalism, and a secular humanist critique of religious morality.

>>8737070
The overwhelming majority of Christians have no issues with biology, evolution, etc.

>>8737148
Yeah. Even the Pope gives it a thumbs up.

>>8737140
Look, the statement
>"Some religious people have done bad things"
Is not an argument, especially if a core tenet of religious belief is that some people, even religious ones, do bad things. He puts up anecdotes
>"This religious person did that bad thing!"
which are statements and then leaps to
>"So religion is bad!"
That is rhetoric, not an argument or logic. He ignores the vast good done by religions and religious people.
Further, even his discussion of supernatural belief is all surface. he has no discussion of the philosophy of religion, he repeats a huge number of discredited armchair psychology critiques as if they were facts, and generally just insults people he disagrees with.
It is terrible except as an example of emotional rhetoric.

>>8737148
>The overwhelming majority of Christians have no issues with biology, evolution, etc.

They do when it's add odds with strictly dogmatic and supernatural subjects, such as the efficacy of prayer, or the fact that people don't return from the dead.

>>8737115
>What would your response to people who believe in both God and the Theory of Evolution?
I have a friend who is religious and doesn't believe in evolution. I let him be.
I do not even buy the whole "knowledge creates enlightenment" (see philosopher John Gray for example).

If my friend didn't believe in climate change, that is much more worrying. Evolution doesn't have that much implications, something like climate change does.

What I will never understand is that Christians seem to have such a harsh philosophy towards nature. I guess it is due to fellas such as Francis Bacon. My point being that evolution gives you new lifeforms after extinction when it isn't even sure God would recreate species and so on.

I read The God Delusion a while after I became an agnostic.
It's a pretty awesome book; it's got some intelligent arguments in it.

By the way, I've never made a public argument about atheism or agnosticism either; neither in real life nor on the Internet.

I personally don't mind religious people as long as their beliefs don't harm anyone, but we know that that's not always the case.

>>8737161
at odds*

>>8737160
Well religion is bad if you are talking about specific things.

I mean, most Christian probably don't agree with the death penalty for homosexuality in the Old Testament, but the problem is that if a Christian actually murders a homosexual he has a biblical justification for doing so.

>>8737148
>The overwhelming majority of Christians have no issues with biology, evolution, etc.
Oh I see what you mean. But I did know about that. I thought it was mainly Catholics.
Even within Islam there are some who have no or little problem with evolution. What is controversial in Islam is that human beans are not special in that case.

The book "evolutionaries", which I quickly stopped reading, even talked about some Christian evolutionary theologians or philosophers, and those who see in evolution progress. There was even some very New Age kind of evolutionary 'theory'. Not a fan of it, but the scientific method should purge those.

Could be interesting for OP that book perhaps.

>>8736958
The god delusion is a terrible book and an incomplete argument. Anything else by dawkins would better suit you, and none of it will disprove any deity.

>>8737196
>and none of it will disprove any deity.

And neither does the Bible prove any deity.

But that's not the point. Having a discussion about one of the most important subjects in the history of humanity is quite didactic.

>>8737121
As a staunch atheist, Hitchens is a horrible debater who has horrible arguments

>>8737202
why do you say that? I've watched and read plenty of his work. Some irregularities yes but he is pretty strong at making a solid point.

File: tips Christian morality.jpg (20KB, 474x528px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 474x528px

>>8737202

Seconding this.

>>8737201
the Bible doesn't seek to prove anything

>>8737162
As someone who's a theist (but not christian), I just see God as much a part of the universe as I am. What I mean is that God isn't somehow separate from nature. Does this mean that I don't believe in God but rather a highly evolved cosmic being? So be it. I just think the universe is too massive to rule out the possibility of an ultra powerful(all powerful?) noncorporal being existing

>>8737225
>the Bible doesn't seek to prove anything

Mhm.

>>8737239
what kind of a reply is that

>>8737244
edgy atheist with no argument

>>8737244
>what kind of a reply is that

It's the kind of reply you get to a retarded assertion as "the bible doesn't seek to prove anything".

>>8737253
The point is that the Bible isn't one work, and it is not a philosophical treatise on God that seeks to prove God's existence. The comparison between it and The God Delusion is silly, and disturbing if you really think Dawkins' tripe is anything close to being an 'atheist bible'.

Try the Summa Theologica, my man.

>>8737259
>The point is that the Bible isn't one work, and it is not a philosophical treatise on God that seeks to prove God's existence.

That's true and I agree somewhat. The Bible is a collection of stories, most of which are mythological.

But that doesn't mean the Bible doesn't seek to convince you that Jesus Christ is God, because it does, indeed, do that.

>>8737290
try to convince =/= formal argument for the existence of god

>>8736990
>I just read lots of evolutionary biology, which by the way is very critical of Dawnkin's selfish gene concept.


it isn't tho, except for one or two people with no better ideas of their own

>>8737102
>Richard Dawkins is poorly educated and doesn't do research.

yeah that's how he became a professor at Oxford. they're notorious for hiring the most poorly educated dimwits imaginable. probably they should have hired you instead. i mean you sound like an expert. i bet you've published loads of papers and everything.

>>8737305
Yeah. They even let me teach an economics class one semester. Twas interesting.

>>8737294
>try to convince =/= formal argument for the existence of god

Literally semantics.

>>8737311
literally? Oy vey

>>8737318
Yes.

>>8737173
>most Christian probably don't agree with the death penalty for homosexuality in the Old Testament
translation
>I don't know anything about how OT laws are viewed by Christians

>>8737253
Of course, the bible doesn't seek to prove anything to non-believers. It isn't an apologetics text.
Book of Numbers? History. Book of Proverbs? Aphorisms on morality. Book of Amos? Prophetic utterings. Epistle to the Romans? Internal instructions to another branch of the Church.
Its like you've never read it.

>>8737331
I know how it's viewed by a couple of Christians who are my friends in real life, but yes of course, I have no idea how ALL the 50000 denominations of Christianity view that.

>>8737341
Yeah, I'm sure the Parable of Doubting Thomas isn't trying to convince people of anything at all, nope, nothing.

File: neckbeardknowles.jpg (30KB, 400x257px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x257px

>>8737305
>yeah that's how he became a professor at Oxford
two points:
One-
So...
You *DON'T* know how he became a professor at Oxford?
Let me clue you in; a rich fan gave the university a large endowment on the condition that Dawkins be made the first professor of that endowment.
The *day* he COULD be removed, he WAS.
Look it up.
Two-
A man well-read in Physics can be utterly ignorant of Music. A top expert in Nuclear Engineering might not know how to change the oil in a car.
Dawkins could be Professor Emeritus of Biology and still be very poorly educated in religion, philosophy, and history.

>>8737349
Awwww, it is like you don't understand that a parable is not a formal argument, but a tool akin to the Socratic Method to encourage thought and growth.
And what DOES the parable of St. Thomas Didymus teach us?
That some people require proof -and that is ok- even if it is better to have faith.
Again - it is like you never read it yourself.

>>8737301
>it isn't tho, except for one or two people with no better ideas of their own
Well to be honest the critique of Lynn Margulis seems like pure ideology to me, and I know another which is definitely pure ideology. But what about Yaneer Bar Yam, Eva Jablonka and to name another - which I still need to read - is Peter Godfrey-Smith? I am sure I forgot some others.

You did make me revaluate whatever I have read enough evolutionary (text)books and whatever I am not overstating my case. But critique of the selfish gene is something I do come across very often.

>>8737364
>it is like you don't understand that a parable is not a formal argument

Why does this matter so much to you? Don't you get that if the Bible never existed, nobody would believe in Jesus Christ and Christianity would have have existed?

E.g The Bible *is* trying to convince you of something, through history, stories, legends, myths and allegory.

But of course, you're just shitposting at this point because you refuse to listen to what I am saying. So we're done.

>>8737380
>if the Bible never existed, nobody would believe in Jesus Christ and Christianity would have have existed?
Sweet.
Mercy.
Above.
Pop quiz - year of the founding of the Catholic Church?
>A: 33 A.D.
Year that the list of documents that are 'the bible' was formalized?
>A: 382 A.D.
The Catholic Church, councils, etc. were already well established in the 349 years between the origins of the Church and the first list of books in the bible was formal.
But wait, there's more!
How many people were literate in the 1st-7th Centuries?
Hint - much less than there were Christians.
It is like you are arguing that without Schoolhouse Rock there would be no America

>>8736958

I recommend Anselm' Proslogion and Summa Theologica by Aquinas, you heathen.

>>8737414
I don't see how any of these things argues against my point that the Bible tries to convince you that Jesus is God.

>I've never read an intelligent book on the subject

Such is the ideology, such is the Literature.

File: 1449914186550.png (244KB, 609x945px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 609x945px

OP here, turned into a suprisingly good thread. Thought it might just be a complete shitfest. Thanks for the recs /lit/.

File: Whenreligionbecomesevil.jpg (22KB, 220x328px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 220x328px

>>8736958
It was good. Christopher Hitches also has some good books. Dominated by social and moral arguments against religion.

For more Academic texts about the history of religion (so you can see how primitive and fictional it is): A history of God and When Religion Becomes Evil

Also read How God Changes Your BRain. It shows religion from a neurological perspective... lol they guys put praying and meditating people in the MRI and show the biological response to being emotionally or "spiritually" stimulated. Anyway, fascinating and current read.

>>8736958
Also Origin of Satan or Elaine Pagel's books. Very detailed and well researched.

>>8736962
>become agnostic
Bad advice.

Continue your studies and solidify your understanding. Religious people are morons. Calling yourself agnostic is lazy.

>>8737488

Yes all of intelligent society prior to the 20th century, morons!

File: wittgenstein.jpg (29KB, 567x459px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 567x459px

>Debating religion with literalism or philosophy

Kill yourselves.

>>8737436
....
Read the post again.
let me C&P for you
>>if the Bible never existed, nobody would believe in Jesus Christ and Christianity would have have existed?
See the (stone ignorant of history) statement I replied to?
Yeah.

>>8737436
Your point is unsupported.
Your assertion that 'without the bible there would be no Christian church' is risible.
You have negative credibility at this point.

>>8737202
Genuinely curious as to how exactly you mean this? Examples or explanation? I find him the most reasonable of the "New Atheists."

>>8736958
all you need is this song with Richard Dawkins:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n499M4pgc5o

skip to 18 mins in

>>8737173
I mean, if a scientist kills a bunch of homosexuals as part of a eugenics program, he has an "evolutionary justification" for doing so. It means he misunderstood it, but it's a similar superficial justification

>>8737538

WE PRIVILEGED FE WHO WON THE LOTTERY OF BIRTH AGAINST ALL ODDS- HOW DARE WE WHINE AT OUR INEVITABLE RETURN TO THAT PRIOR STATE, FROM WHICH THE VAST MAJORITY HAVE NEVER STIRRED

great song

>>8737495
I feel like you haven't really read Wittgenstein. The word "religion" is being used in like 5 different ways in this thread, some of them are perfectly amenable to philosophical argumentation

>>8737605
Seems like *you* don't understand Wittgenstein, retard.

File: Why-I-Became-Atheist.jpg (25KB, 448x674px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 448x674px

>>8736958
This is the best book on atheism, if you're just looking for a solid overview of the best arguments for it

It's what made me become an atheist, I used to be a major christfag. I read a ton of books on atheism afterward as well, including the pop shit like dawkins but 99% of books on atheism are pretty cringy. Philosophy is much better

>>8737616
>Arguing against religion 'Philosophically'

>>8737549
>It means he misunderstood it, but it's a similar superficial justification

Except in the case of the Bible, it wouldn't be a misunderstanding.

>>8737510
>>8737515
I guess you guys are one of those: "The Holy Ghost is the reason people believe in Christianity, not the Bible" - people.

>>8737647
crude attempt to regain control of the discussion
sad!
i'm gonna fug ur gf now:)

>>8737253
It's becoming increasingly apparent that you immigrated from Reddit and have never actually read the Bible.
The Holy Bible is the only book that gets in depth discussions here. You aren't about to straw-man anyone into agreeing with you. If you want to look like you're knowledgeable about the Bible then read it faggot

>>8737202
>>8737216
Plebs

>>8736958
Miracle of Theism by Mackie

>>8737290
The Gospels were not written to convince the reader that Christ was God.
They were written as accounts of people discussing it at the time, but they were not written as a discourse, but an account

>>8737664
MAGA, high energy.

HE IS A KEK, you are arguing with a cuck.

SJWs.

File: 22.jpg (30KB, 333x499px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 333x499px

>People still unironically recommend and support the "brights"

I used to think the atheist movement deserved better than the "4 horsemen" because their arguments are so ridiculously ignorant but when I see so many people supporting them I have to say that you people deserve every bit of scorn that you get. If you think that asking "who created god?" in any way refutes Aquinas or the cosmological argument like Dawkins thinks it does in the God Delusion then you should really do yourself a favor and be quiet before you embarrass yourself.

>>8736990
reading the cover of a book doesn't give you enough data to criticize it. Only arrogant jerks like you are critical of dawkins work.

>>8737789
Low energy! low energy.

Going to fuck your gf Pedro.

>>8736958
The God Delusion is a very good book indeed. I also recommend Hitchen's one, God Is Not Great.
Don't get discouraged by people calling you fedora, or stupid just for being atheist. You don't need to be a social impaired person to be a atheist. Debating religion is fun as long as the other person finds it fun or interesting too. No need to parade your views at everytime. People who criticize atheist only met the stupid, just-following-the-trends atheist.

>>8737616
>implying philosophy isn't a cringefest.

>>8737647
No, I am one of those "claiming that X is dependent on Y when X produced Y well after x was established is wrong" - people
Look: you were wrong, let it go and move on.

>>8737616
That book is widely considered one of the worst pro-atheism/anti-christians books around *by atheists*.
And if you think that book has any actual philosophy in it I have bad news for you, anon....

>>8737783
My favorite quote about the God Delusion was "reading this made me ashamed to be an atheist"

>>8737806
Both of those were shot down as crap hours ago

>>8737493
To be fair, some degree of agnosticism is implied in all belief systems, because you can't claim to KNOW there is or is not a god. Atheism is the position that there is not enough evidence to disprove or support the existence of god. Calling yourself agnostic really is just lazy because it shows you're either using the term incorrectly, or you haven't put any serious thought into your position.

>>8737869
>some random on /lit/ doesn't like Hitch
>"shot down as crap" (collectively, you seem to assume)

Now I agree with you Dawkins, but not Hitch.

>>8737644
yes it would be

>>8737854
usually what happens is these major retarded christfags who dont know anything read a book like this and get their world rocked because for the first time they're exposed to some critical thinking about their religion, so then they deconvert completely and become anti-theists even though they have a baby understanding of their former religion

>>8736958
>I'm still an atheist but I realised I've never read an intelligent book on the subject, just online circlejerks.
There is nothing intelligent to be said on the subject. Not trying to be edgy, but shit like atheism vs. deism has been dealt with by ancient Greeks.
Assuming you care about the philosophical aspect, maybe you don't.

Maybe you enjoy the sophistry and passion of atheism vs. deism "debates", because the religious theme itself fascinates you. But in that case I recommend debates like protestants vs. catholics. They're more entertaining, desu.

>>8737875
As a writer, Hitch was a pretty decent OpEd journalist
As a philosopher Hitch sucked ass
As a debater he seemed to think 'British accent + insults = I win'

>>8737904
The guy who WROTE it was like that!
Ever read it?
>"I had a masters degree from a Protestant bible college and believed in Young Earth Creationism. When I realized (like 1.6 billion Christians that never believed it to begin with) that Young Earth Creationism makes no sense I realized all Christians are idiots like I used to be!"
And that is about it, other than proving he doesn't understand the quinque viae

File: 1468152071386.jpg (27KB, 552x390px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 552x390px

>not being gnostic
you are never going to make it, lads.

>>8737980
In regards to your last point: did you ever watch Hitch on Firing Line? Because he couldn't quite pull that on Buckley. Or have you only seen him in "le new atheism?"

>>8738009
It was like he was a different man at that time, wasn't it?
I have always suspected that when Hitch attacked Mother Teresa it changed his directory completely. He had been a very interesting and insightful writer and speaker, if a bit impetuous at times.
But his (unwarranted) attack on a beloved religious figure made him famous, made him popular with the sorts of people who invite you to Important Parties, and made him a lot of money.
I fear, but do not *know*, that he cynically turned to cheap theatrics and public atheism for easy money.

>>8738033
*trajectory
>how did I do that?

Atheism is basically: I'm 14 and know nothing nothing about philosophy.

At least learn about ignosticism/theological noncognitivism

>>8738009
>>8738033
This. I saw him on the Firing Line and it was like a completely different breed of Hitchens. Then again, almost everyone was more cordial when they were on that show back then compared to now.

File: IMG_0754.jpg (53KB, 307x409px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 307x409px

>>8738033
I suppose he certainly acted different, I imagine that is closer to the genuine Hitch. In some interviews he mentions his first love was literature, then he enjoyed talking politics, and he sort of found himself dragged into the religious debate because he wrote one book O it that blew up and his publishers loved it and it made them a ton of money etc etc. I think that knowing Hitch's routes, politically, it makes sense that he attacked Theresa, even if for no better reason than he didn't want a public figure to be seen as unquestionably venerable.

The religious deal seems to have almost been more of an act to pay for his habits.

Have you heard his defense of free speech? While he does tie religion in with it in the second half, he is so incredibly interesting and well-read that hearing him at politics and prose talking about Jefferson, or at the Village Voice in Paris, were far more interesting and Hitch-esque than nonsense run ins with Sharpton in NYC.

It's just too trendy and cool to hate on him is all, and I find it incredibly lazy and disingenuous.

>>8738100
>O
>routes

Sorry about all the typos, I'm on my phone. I assure you they were out of negligence, not (complete) stupidity.

>>8738100
I agree - the atheism stuff seems to have been for the money, which is my issue - he claimed he thought St. Teresa was a hypocrite, but he was attacking others for cash, so....
>it is the internet - typos just are

>>8738117
Perhaps it's just because of how outspoken he was. But he welcomed others to attack him as well if they wish to disagree. I feel more like it was just a healthy dose of skepticism. Have you read/heard of "Letters to a Young Contrarian?"

When he was assaulting someone else through writing, it was almost always at established entities, sort of questioning doctrine-like beliefs held by the public.

And that's not to mention the number of people he wanted to help defend due to such opinions (Rushdie, Austrian historian -Irving I think- who was out of the norm on his account of the Second World War and the holocaust).

I would only really take the "attacking other people for cash" charge seriously if he weren't "punching up," as it were. If he was attacking grad students or some random internet troll that may be a bit different. But he seemed really more to question established personalities/beliefs that already had an almost god-like acceptance in society.

Hitch was more of a "hold on a second there, m8, we don't all undoubtedly love and venerate that individual."

Not sure if any of that made sense, but yea.

>>8738100
>It's just too trendy and cool to hate on him is all

Maybe it's his habit of making things up and not sourcing his claims. His essay on St. Theresa has zero citations and many of his claims make absolutely no sense in the context of Catholic doctrine, like when he asserts that St. Theresa was withholding treatment until people received baptism or even forcing them to be baptized before she administered to them. Baptism is simply not valid if it is forced or done through trickery or deceit, and a Catholic nun would know this. He also routinely confuses hospital with hospice and refuses to provide any context behind her mission and why she did the things she did the way she did. I hope you're diligent and at least take the time to skim through some of the rebuttals of his work.

>>8738142
He made his name attacking a nun who fed and cared for the poor in Calcutta - not exactly 'punching up' when you attack an old woman who you know will not respond with anything but charity.
He was a rather... well, poor writer. His books are short, not really researched, have no ground-breaking ideas, and often seem boilerplate. Letters to a Young Contrarian is cringe worthy in its blandness while taking on an air of wisdom.
My problem with Hitch was *always* that there really isn't anything there.

Both Hitchens brothers are pseuds and charlatans of the highest order.

>>8738207
I don't know, or have much of an opinion, on his attacks in Theresa. I haven't read any of them. I was talking about "why" he did, because I think to him it was more important to have someone disagree with her rather than to convince everyone. Obviously I could be wrong.

>>8738223
You don't know what "punching up" means, anon. Physical stature has nothing to do with it. I the poor writer part I'd just say you're flat wrong. I can understand other accusations, but especially for one writing non-fiction, I think your assertion is unbased.

>>8738231
Wow, how insightful. Thank you for your input.

>>8737161
Science is dogmatic, though, by definition. Prayer is effective, it's just effective in a SUBJECTIVE way. Biology cannot approach SUBJECTS.

Christ isn't just a person, go read a book.

And certainly, an omnipotent being can restore the bodies of all dead peoples. It's not like that matter has disappeared, or that there deficiency of it, or that an omnipotent being can't create new matter.

Get your head out of your ass, you people are the actual dogmatists.
>>8737163
Why is harming people bad?

Do you support any kind of human experimentation?

Or how about this: humanity probably would have gone extinct if it weren't for mass rape. Computer technologies would probably be a good century less advanced if it weren't for the world wars (automobile technology, too.)

What makes these means less ignoble than the means of other groups with their own noble ends? Absolutely nothing, you arbitrary bastard.
>>8737173
There was no argument for killing homosexuals in the OT, the argument was against sodomy.

Because it is unjustifiable lust, except unlike masturbation it is two people involved instead of one (which makes it a perversion of traditional male-female sex as well as pure lust.)

If butt-babies could exist, then it would not be pure lust.

There are no intelligent books on the subject. It's a lost-cause position.
>>8737083
Awful book; same old bad arguments just with a trendy new name.

>human reason
DUDE PLATONISM LMAO

>>8737349
It's an argument against autism. The majority of things you rely on and love are things you have never experienced directly and never will. Skepticism is an arrogant position
>>8737477
There are no 'social arguments, and there cannot be any 'moral' arguments. There is no morality in secularism.
>For more Academic texts about the history of religion (so you can see how primitive and fictional it is)
muh project 21st century meme values on ancient texts

DUDE THOSE PLURALISTS WERE SO STUPID THEY WERE SO WRONG DUDE LOL DUUUUUUUUUDE
Off yourself, mate.

>>8737341
>Book of Numbers? History.
Would that include Balaam and his talking donkey?

>>8736958
cradle atheist here. why do you want to read a book on atheism if you already are one? if you want to be christian, read the bible. if you want to learn card tricks, read a book about card tricks. if you don't care about learning card tricks, would you feel the need to read a book about how unimportant card tricks are?

I haven't read it, but thought the point of the book was to explain to theists why their idea doesn't make sense. if you already agree, then you're just wanting validation or need to bandwagon. I suppose that does describe most atheists these days, unfortunately.

>>8737871
Just because I don't deny the existence of flying spaghetti monster or Ancient Egyptian Chaos God KEK It doesn't mean I am lazy. I just like to keep everything with probabilities. 0.000000000001 is still probable, that is how agnostic I am.

>>8736958

The intelligent way to read about atheism is just to read about the social construction of belief. I'm sure there are ethnographies of atheism in particular out there, but if you just read some books about the origins of various religions you'll come to understand better. All the philosophy on the matter is a little pointless really, either you believe in a God or you don't

>>8738936

>cradle atheist here. why do you want to read a book on atheism if you already are one?

How do you explain the existence of the universe, the apparent fine-tuning, and the existence of moral truths? Intelligent theists have good explanations for these and they're able to defend them. For an atheist to justify his belief he needs alternate theories for these problems and he needs to be able to defend them. That's where these books come in, or at least should come in.

>>8738936
Uh... perspective?

>>8739062
From an atheist's perspective, "fine tuning" doesn't exist, it's just a misunderstanding of science as well as cause and effect. Moral truth has nothing to do with atheism

>>8739062
why is the burden on me to justify anything? Not every theist is a theologian. whatever I may believe, it's a hell of a lot more plausible than "LOL, god did it," and yet the overwhelming majority of the world get to skate by on just that. But I'm supposed to devote myself to "proving" atheism? sounds like zealotry to me.

I certainly don't want or expect theists to explain or defend their beliefs to me. They can believe what they want to and it's fine. Likewise, it is not my duty to make anyone disavow god. To me, it is self-evident. If it ain't self-evident to you, I doubt any amount of lecturing from me is going to have any impact.

>>8739111
>From an atheist's perspective, "fine tuning" doesn't exist,

You should familiarize yourself with what is meant by fine-tuning. Unless you actually mean to say that the physical constants that allow for intelligent life to develop don't exist, in which case you may be retarded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yt7hvgFuNg

A theist would argue that god is the best explanation for these physical constants, an atheist would need an alternate explanation. You can't simply handwave the problem away and pretend physics don't exist.

>>8739150

If something exists there ought to be an explanation for it. Many internet atheists are perfectly happy to just put up there hands and say "I DUNNO LOL" and that's perfectly fine. You don't have to explain anything you don't want to but at the same time you don't get to do this and pretend to be an intellectual. You also don't get to say there's no evidence for god because you won't even tackle the issue.

there is no deity. the universe is just what happens. it is what has happened and is what will keep happening and all that could ever be. you are an inevitability as much as are stars. life is what happens when all the things that happen to make life happen. stars are rare, they're complex. life is rarer and more complex, and its rarity and complexity only comes after the rarity and complexity of a star. ever notice how there isn't much to life? it's cause there isn't. when you die, the things that came together to result in "your" perception of consciousness will cease to exist. an unknowable and experienceable amount of time will pass before another consciousness will fade into existence, just like the one "you" have now. and it will keep happening, over and over and over. remember that everything is largely comprised of nothing! every part of the universe experiences consciousness at some point in the cycles. it's really expensive though, and it is only "experienced" as we know it when conditions like the ones on earth exist, and perhaps in other "higher" even more expensive forms this form is incapable of perceiving. you are a miracle, but no deity made you. and look at what you're doing with the closest you can get to being a god! loooooosers!

>>8739175
>you don't get to do this and pretend to be an intellectual.

I don't get how thinking that "the imaginary magic person isn't actually real" requires intellectual rigor. Not being indoctrinated by my family since before I could talk to believe in an imaginary friend moots any theist argument AND makes any atheist argument redundant.

however, I never said I was an intellectual nor do I pretend to be, so I guess we're good.

>>8736958
Holy Bible is a good start

>>8739167
You should familiarize yourself with basic science and the anthropic principle. We are only able to make the observations about supposedly "finely tuned" constants, because those constants are what make the universe what it is, and enable our observing in the first place.

>>8739407
>We are only able to make the observations about supposedly "finely tuned" constants, because those constants are what make the universe what it is, and enable our observing in the first place.

I don't see anyone denying that.

A book on atheism is as interesting a concept as a good on anything else that doesn't exist.

>>8739421
You aren't understanding what I'm saying.

Everything in the universe is interdependent. That's why we can model so many things with forumale. If a constant or formula were "tweaked" so to speak, existence itself would be something entirely different.

We are products of a system. Assuming that system is the best/ only valid or possible configuration to produce something capable of some sort of observation seems shortsighted -- that a supernatural force aligned everything so that we specifically could exist, even moreso.

>>8737083
>Implying nietzcshe has any clue what the fuck he's talking about when it comes to religion

>>8738266
grab, oh, 20 of his essays written within the same year or, better yet, essays on the same topic written years apart or for different outlets.
Boilerplate.
Now go to videos of his debates with 'lesser figures' and watch them.
Memorized lines for emotional response.
He wrote the same thing over and over again with a few edits. like - spam.
>You don't know what "punching up" means, anon. Physical stature has nothing to do with it.
So you think a widely-published, TV-friendly, well-connected journalist bad-mouthing a nun with unsupported conjecture is "punching up" because people admired her for working with the poor?
See, I *do* know what 'punching up' means, which is why I despised Hitch when he was alive.

>>8739438
I would rather read The Bible than a book on atheism.

I hate reading the Bible because it's so "epic" all the time. However, the title of OP's pic indicates a predilection toward just poking at believers. Notice no "pic not related"?

Does it go on and moan about how the whole world is ruined by Christianity or, better yet, does it introspect and divide one's own tendency to believe from accepting the reality of what an atheist believes to know is true.

Superiority on either side is so unsexy.

>>8738484
>There is no morality in secularism.
True, but Dawkins (and the other mentions) aren't talking about secularism. They're explicitly calling Religion evil.