literature on atheism

>can anyone suggest worthwhile literature on atheism?

1:

>>9231594
my diary desu
I'm sorry, but atheists are just wrong
read the Bible

>>9231594
>look jesus i posted it again for you

>>9231676
I've alread done that as I've been a christian for 20 years. What evidence do you have to back up your assertion that atheists are wrong?

File: Neckbeards.png (127KB, 345x337px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 345x337px

>>9231594
>atheism

ITT /pol/smokers roleplaying as christians
/lit/ is an atheist board

File: DIllema.jpg (494KB, 736x1103px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 736x1103px

>>9231716
>brings evidence into a discussion about belief
pic-related is evidence enough for me. cheeks like hers have ruined cities

File: 1489171358122.jpg (33KB, 540x666px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 540x666px

>>9233329
>believes things without supporting evidence
how's your unicorn doing?

File: 41BKsVLDwdL._SX307_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg (22KB, 309x499px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 309x499px

>>9231594

>>9231594
If you want secular-humanist atheism (also known as "reddit atheism"), then go with the Four Horsemen: Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett.
If you want a less fedora form of atheism, then go with Spinoza (well, in a certain way he was an atheist), Hume, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, also Lange's "History of materialism" may be of interest. There's also Sartre but I've never read him. Stirner is interesting too, he not only criticises the notion of God but also that of Man or Humanity.

>>9231682
>>9233546
>>9233559
>>9233634
thanks a lot guys for not trying to proselytize me but for actually giving advice. appreciated

File: 00097aec_medium.jpg (10KB, 200x300px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x300px

>>9231594

Books on Atheist philosophy:

Two good sources are >>9233546 (which is probably the best academic work on Athiesm) and Arguing for Atheism by Robin Le Poidevin (which is less complex version of the above).

What makes these two books good is that they are written by philosophers rather than journalists or biologists hence has a an actual understanding of the philosophical arguments for religion.

Because of this they avoid a lot of the common problems like misrepresenting Aquinas or treating all religious people as intellectually dishonest or stupid.

These will provide a more holistic and complete argument for the school of thought, and if you wish to pursue any part of it further you can then dig into the philosophers who were important when it came to specific arguments.

as far as discussion on lit goes you will probably have to wait for a few more years

>>9233693
You're welcome, I would also recommend delving into Christian theology and apologetics. However not poor and cheap theology and apologetics like the ones you usually see here and on /his/. I'm talking about Aquinas, Abelard, and Pascal. Lewis and Craig are only good for understanding the poverty in which the religious mind finds itself today.