Reddit mentions: The best atheism books

Whatever makes you happy, you are free to believe whatever you want.
I was just curious as to why people believe in god and that islam is the right religion. I do not deny that many people can find happiness and purpose in their lives by believing in God, but I do deny that that is the only way to find these things.

I think that's a very common prejudice against atheists. So you think my life has less meaning/no meaning in your eyes because I don't believe in your god that's very arrogant. It Made me think of this The fact of the matter is that religion does not have exclusive possession of qualities such as love, happiness, and purpose. These are basic and fundamental parts of what it means to be human, and no one belief system owns them. Though some theists may proclaim that those who do not follow their religion's tenets cannot feel these things, their authority to make such a statement is entirely lacking.

My life still has meaning without god and I am sure you can find meaning in your life even if god didn't exist.

"For me, I am driven by two main philosophies: know more today about the world than I knew yesterday and lessen the suffering of others." NeilDeGraseeTyson.

What good does it to raise children if they will die anyway? They may be raped, murdered, battered, and nobody would care. That's not true at all, humans do care about each other. Evolution has determined that the point of life is to reproduce and to be the most successful species. that is the meaning of life for all creatures. If it was not their point in life that species would've died off long ago. (mainly it is the urge to pass along your own genes).


Yes we are all going to die. "We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here."


What if I am wrong ?


I Recommend this Book!

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

If there is no afterlife, then this life is the only one we will ever have, and our only chance to be happy is now. This means that, in fact atheism is the worldview that makes our life the most precious thing there is and imbues our goals in it with the greatest importance. The afterlife by comparison, has little reason to believe that anything we accomplish now matters in the long run. Any work of art one wanted to create, any great book one wanted to write or read, any other task one might have wanted to achieve - there will be all the time anyone could ever need to do these things in Heaven. There would be no point in packing all these things into this fleeting mortal life. Likewise, this view removes all the urgency, all the importance, from any quest to improve this world for our descendants, to establish justice, or to ease the burden of human suffering. Why bother, if such things will be taken care of in the end anyway?

If this life is all we have, then whatever we want to do to improve ourselves, we have to do it now or miss the opportunity forever. Likewise, if there is no afterlife where the good will be rewarded and the evildoers punished, we have a real reason to work our hardest to decrease suffering and ensure justice. If there is no god we can count on to do these things, then it is up to us.

an atheist who lives by the Golden Rule and the kind of far-looking compassion that makes us human has every reason to set long-term goals such as securing human rights around the world, improving the health of the planet or advancing the state of scientific knowledge, goals whose full benefits may not be realized during an individual's lifetime. Our descendants will one day inherit this world, and we owe it to them to provide them with the best one we can possibly give. This is the only way to pay back the debt we owe to previous generations who likewise fought and died for our sake, and furthermore, it is the right thing to do. Likewise, since there will be no great meeting of the minds in an imaginary afterlife, we have an obligation to preserve our own intellects and discoveries for the benefit of future generations as best as possible, through literature, science or invention. These things are the gifts we can give to people who are not yet born.

Our eventual non-existence does not make any of these things meaningless. They have meaning for us now, and they will have meaning when their benefits are realized in the future, and that is more than enough. They are worthwhile. What is not worthwhile is spending this life, the only and the most precious gift anyone could ever have, in a state of abject obedience, submitting your body, your mind, your thoughts to the will of another and groveling before shadows and phantoms of your own imagination. It is not worthwhile to forsake the full power of the free mind and the full extent of all the happiness a person can have to live a life of passive unawareness, fear, and pointless self-denial. It is not worthwhile to shut out contrary opinions, refuse to question, refuse to investigate and instead meekly accept the pronouncements of self-declared authority figures. It is not worthwhile to divide, to hate, to wage war, and to conquer in the name of God. These things are horrendous wastes of the priceless chance each of us has only once.

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!

> 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.

Hey BouncingBettie! Congratulations and well done on digging your way out of that intellectual hole, and welcome to the rapidly growing club!

Thanks also for your shout out. I pour a lot of myself into this place and often earn criticism for being so hardnosed. I'm happy to hear some people like it and, most importantly, benefit from what I do.

In that spirit, a couple of three posts of mine that might help you a bit:

• Advantages of being an atheist
  
• NukeThePope on purpose (love that title)
  
• Dying for after fun and profit - the Disneyland analogy.
  
  If you have any questions about anything, by all means post here!
  
  Hey, is your hubby a cerebral type? The kind that would read a philosophy book for fun and enlightenment? My current favorite is Sense & Goodness Without God by Richard Carrier; I hope to be writing up a book review on it soon. This is a nice book to give someone if you want them to consider a different world view and don't want to hammer them over the head with the (relatively) confrontational The God Delusion. The nice thing about S&GWG is that it doesn't just tell you to kick God to the curb (in fact, I think it never explicitly advises this); it instead tells you the whole inter-relating story of how stuff works in the real world, including the Big Bang, Evolution, language, human brains, logic, thinking, love, and so on. In other words, a whole world view, not just one with a God-shaped hole in it. Recommended, obviously. I love Richard Carrier for being one of the minds behind the historical proposition that Jesus never even existed.

> My grandfather's death was not the only occurrence similar to this, but MANY times i've "seen" death.

How many misses? How good were the hits, really? Those are the questions I would ask.

> You use yourself and your environment to change your inner self, thereby changing how YOU act in the world.

This is where I find your perspective somewhat confusing.

You talk about a "spiritual" experience involving "energy", but when you say things like this, it sounds like most of your view is compatible with there being nothing actually mystical going on. I could say I change my inner self and change how I act in the world, though I most often use much more mundane tools to do so, like studying, and learning to admit when I'm wrong.

> while it's true that saying "i don't know" can be freeing or an easy way out, an even better way to look at it is "i don't know, but i look forward to knowing one day". Understanding yourself takes a lifetime, and i'm not done yet. Just because there is no god doesn't mean i've stopped thinking about things i don't understand, or trying to understand my inner self. Just stopping everything having to do with self discovery is a stagnant way to live.

What I've stopped doing is looking for supernatural explanations. I've only done this as a shortcut, not because I think one should never look for such explanations, but because it seems so unlikely to be true that I can find so many better things to do with my time.

Saying "I don't know," especially coupled with "and I'd like to find out," makes sense. But there is a difference between keeping an open mind and being deliberately agnostic about everything. Take Russel's Teapot -- I don't know for sure whether or not that exists, any more than I know whether or not a god exists, or whether or not the spirit exists, but I wouldn't seriously entertain the idea that it does.

> because why not? I have no idea if you're even checking back on this...

I'm not sure if I will be, though I'll notice if you reply. I just had a relatively full day, took me awhile to get back to you.

But why not what? Why not follow a religion? Well, if I think it's false, that would be a reason not to. Or if I think it's probably false.

> If we're talking about philosophy, i'm a fan of Taoism, but not Taoists. The Tao Te Ching was one of the more enjoyable reads i've come across.

Interesting way of putting it. Just the Tao Te Ching, then, as opposed to the weird interpretations people have added over the years?

> I've also read several atheist writings, but sometimes they get a bit angry or aggressive for me. Not enjoyable (Penn Jillette is an exception for me). Atheist FICTION is fun, though, and i like it a lot.

I have a few things to recommend, then, if you're looking for less-aggressive, more thoughtful approaches...

Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness Without God is so far my favorite book on the topic. Like many atheists, he is not afraid to speak his mind, but the theme, tone, and purpose of this book is to explain his entire world-view. I don't think I've seen a complete world-view presented and defended so clearly before.

The "Without God", and the religion, is a relatively small part of what the book is really about. Mostly, it is there to answer objections a theist might pose. For example, when he puts forth his own morality -- a fairly complete and well-defended moral theory, I think -- he of course must compare and contrast it with common religion ideas of morality, and defend it against common attacks made by the religious.

I've also found several YouTube channels to be quitely thoughtful. Evid3nc3 has a series on his deconversion, telling one of the most complete and sympathetic stories I've seen of a Christian slowly losing his faith. One point often missed is that for most of the process, he was still a Christian.

Philhelenes has quite a few videos, some silly, some argumentative... But there are a few which stand alone as truly astounding: Science Saved My Soul, Why Didn't Anybody Tell Me?, She Sparkled, and a few others I'll probably remember later.

And AronRa is entertaining and informative, though confrontational without apology. I enjoy him more than Penn Gillette, anyway. I'd start here.

Hi I am Jason Malcolm from Edinburgh, Scotland.

I am flying to San Francisco to attend the Deep Reinforcement Learning Bootcamp, and staying for 3 weeks - so if anyone has any local knowledge of labs, hacklabs, meetups, art-studios, organic/ permaculture farms or any intersection of art, craft, making, engineering, computers or robots in the Berkeley / San Fran Cisco area ( & will visit L.A. to see cousins ) then reply or PM me.

I am staying in Berkeley for 3 weeks if anyone has any recommendations for hacklabs, or computery robotic stuff, or fun or interesting things.

I have been studying Neural Nets for a few years, part time and online so this will be my first IRL course.

My father, Chris Malcolm, lectured in & researched AI & robotics at Edinburgh University and so I was exposed to computing and intelligent robots from a early age.

At Edinburgh College of Art, (part of Edinburgh University) I attained a Masters Degree in Tapestry - so I am a trained weaver, dyer and spinner of wool :) and I have been creatively exploring materials, ideas and inspiration for a couple of decades.

I have always been into math & programming, beginning with Microsoft BASIC on the NASCOM II, PASCAL and then BBC BASIC, BBC LOGO. Gave it up to do art for a few years. Then computer animation, old-school realtime VRML97 for VJs, 3ds-max, then Blender & python.

I support my creativity by making websites for others, initially handwritten HTML ( and VRML :) ), Javascript, then PHP and now often Wordpress - I program quite a bit in my spare time.

A Lecture by Professor Geoffrey Hinton, demonstrating the wake sleep algorithm training a Restricted Boltzmann Machine to draw digits from MNIST made me think, machines can be creative.

Then the first MOOCs happened and I took, Professor Andrew Ng's Machine Learning and Professors Peter Norvig and Sebastian Thrun's MOOC Introduction to AI ( based on the textbook Artificial Intelligence A Modern Approach by Peter Norvig and Stuart Russel ).

I then took Geoffrey Hinton's MOOC Neural Networks for Machine Learning and this enabled me to read & comprehend papers and try replicating experiments using some of the libraries from Toronto University.

Since then studying to varying degrees of success parallel GPU programming, elementry physics, calculus, haskell, Stanford's CS231n, & Berkeley's CS294-112.

I want to study robotics because I believe that AI can best succeed when computation is embodied in a creature.

I hope to work towards developing robots that can learn to assist and perform useful tasks, like gardening, housebuilding, ecology or folding shirts.

My (current) long term research goals are to enable robots to talk about what they are doing, short term: get Tensorflow to control my Cheerson CX-10WD nano FPV drone and learn to fly it using Reinforcement Learning.

The idea of Strong AI ( where the machines 'awaken' ) may happen but I think Professor Dan Dennet is correct that we will build machines that will build machines that build machines, &c, that may achieve strong AI, i.e. self-evolution.

I sometimes dream of machine learning coming up with creative solutions to help us colonise the solar system. Occaisionaly I imagine a far flung future when Robots may become considered another domain of life with their own wants, dreams and motivations that are a paradigm shift away from what we know now - perhaps in a millenia or so.

Probably just getting a robot to make a really good cup of tea is a not ignoble goal.

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.

>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.

The best case for Christianity I've seen comes from:

>NT Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God.

I don't buy it, because for Wright's argument to make sense, you have to throw out most of the conclusions of higher criticism. In addition, there are too many instances of hand waving over important contradictions in the nature of the resurrection body in the disparate accounts, too much willful ignorance of other resurrection myths of the time period and history, the use of too many "just so stories" to try to harmonize the accounts, and dismissing the cognitive dissonance explanation based solely on some methodological problems in the first study of the phenomenon, while ignoring much follow up research that has been done since then which strongly supports and expounds on the theory. The fact that I know about the follow up studies without having done research to write a 800 page book means I find it hard to imagine that he would be ignorant of them.

All that being said, the book is the closest I've ever seen to evidence of Christianity being at all exceptional. And that's important, because I believe the argument from inconsistent revelations (sometimes called the "problem of other religions") is among the strongest facing traditional religions of all stripes.


>Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief

This is the other top of the charts, which wastes many words to say Christian belief might not be totally crazy, at least in it's reformed formulation. To some people this is a big deal. The fact that you have to write such a big tome to justify your beliefs not as truthful, but simply to say they aren't totally crazy if it does turn out they are in fact true, speaks very strongly to me. But once again, it's more than the other apologists are able to accomplish.

Hmm.. Believe it or not, I started to write this to help by recommending what I think are the best resources out there. I really didn't set out to write a "come to the dark side, we have cookies" message, I swear. ;-) It's still some of what I believe is the best evidence, plus some objections to that evidence, so I think it's fair.

I'll throw one more argument and counter out there, that doesn't argue for Christianity as such, but is often used for generic theism. The other argument that bothered me for the longest time was the apparent teleology of many things in life. This was the basic argument of C.S Lewis and Francis Schaeffer. I started to write a work of my own about that as I hadn't seen any good resources on that specific topic, but had many of the component parts in my head from all the other research I've done over the past year or so since I left the faith. I recently stopped when I found this book which explained everything I was going to better than I could. If you want an explanation of apparent purpose and our apparent moral intuition, I haven't found better.

I hope something here helps you one way or the other. I've been in the place you are, and it's no fun. One way or another though, it will get better.

I hope you enjoy the journey.

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.

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

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.
  
  

>>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:

• The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan
  
  
• Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne
  
  
• The Skeptic's Annotated Bible by Steve Wells
  
  
• Why There Is No God by Armin Navabi
  
  
• Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman
  
  
• The God Argument by A.C. Grayling
  
  
• Deconverted: A Journey from Religion to Reason by Seth Andrews
  
  Get through these books, and you'll be better armed against Christianity than many. Have fun!
  
  EDIT: Use the smile.amazon links that the bot posted below if you're going to buy any books. Lol.

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.

> The decline of traditional faith in America has coincided with an explosion of new atheisms. Some people worship beauty, some worship political identities, and others worship their children. But everybody worships something. And workism is among the most potent of the new religions competing for congregants.

The sources in this paragraph are pretty dubious. Here they are:

https:/www.amazon.com/Seven-Types-Atheism-John-Gray/dp/0374261091/

Read the top review on this.

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/gwyneth-paltrow-goop-cult/

> Callahan’s whole report is pretty wild, with one interesting caveat: The audience wasn’t wholly invested in the guest speakers. A lot of people walked out of Sadeghi’s lecture, and the crowd was most excited about Paltrow’s panel with celebrity guests Cameron Diaz, Nicole Richie, and Miranda Kerr.

So this source basically admits that it is just sensationalism. The audience didn't care about the con artists, they just wanted to see some celebrities.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/andrew-sullivan-americas-new-religions.html

Just a regurgitation of the previous book, so not really a different source.

http://bulletin-archive.kenyon.edu/x4280.html

And finally... a commencement speech by David Foster Wallace?

I would take everything here with a grain of salt.

> 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.

> 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=

Yeah. I am thinking about having a little piece that goes something like.

For people who have just known (or thought to have known) that God existed, the idea of him possibly not being there is daunting. This is because for these people, their world view was delicately interweaved with their religion. Questions such as how did we get here? Does my life have meaning? Why should I be good? had answers. However, by taking God and religion out of the equation, the world view built around those mainstays is shattered. These questions again come to the forefront.

Luckily, there are many godless world views. These are ways to view life, and its questions, that do not need to invoke the existence of God. Two popular views that members of this subreddit subscribe to are Naturalism and Secular Humanism. These philosophical standpoints are grounded in the natural world, they use science, logic and reasoning to arrive at conclusions about the nature of self, life and the universe.

For a more in depth read on an aethistic philosophy, see Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism .

EDIT: Made changes suggested by NTP below.

I’m hijacking your comment in the hope it gets seen.

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

That's so open ended, you could mean anything. This may not be what you're looking for, but here's a book about someone in the middle. He says that there's enough ambiguity around the idea of a sentient god that we can't presume one for the sake of existential fulfillment anymore. But that we do have good reason to think that the things the term god exists to encompass are meaningful anyways. And so we should construct a theistic religion based on symbology, understanding that our understanding of what is beyond the world is limited, but saying that this doesn't matter, since religion doesn't need to claim to know that for sure to be made sense of. Since religious symbology necessarily was indirect to begin with.

Here's a book for atheism http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Atheism-Companions-Philosophy/dp/0521603676/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463201221&sr=8-1&keywords=cambridge+companion+to+atheism. There's a lot of books in the cambridge companion series. Some for religion too. And they all are anthologies of good authors. So you can see what kind of topics you think are interesting.

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.

This was a pretty good read.

As was this.

Still reading this one.

A fun, quick read.

Haven't read it, but if his other book is anything by which to judge, worth a look.

Good luck.

>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.

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.

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.

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:

• A Manual for Creating Atheists, by Peter Boghossian.
  
• God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction, by Dan Barker.
  
• [The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture] (https://www.amazon.com/God-Virus-Religion-Infects-Culture/dp/0970950519/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486982921&sr=1-1&keywords=the+god+virus), by Darrel Ray.
  
• Sacred Cows: A Lighthearted Look at Belief and Tradition Around the World, by Seth Andrews himself.

A morality is a consequence of natural selection (evolution) of humans (and this applies to other animals as well).

There are a number of references linking biological evolution to moral development. One is Alex Rosenberg's The Atheist's Guide to Reality, chapter 6, addresses the "scientism" of how darwinism (biological) evolution leads to a positive moral outcome in humans. You can download the file from http://www.mediafire.com/?8f9pdp1gid8sa6g. It is an EPUB file. Firefox has a FREE EPUB addon.

As such, there is actually a good amount of hard evidence for morality as expressed in humans, and other animals. Keep in mind that personality plays a role in the ethics that result from morality and that there is a distribution of personality types/disorders in a population.

Additionally, much of the underlying morality of the Word of God/Jesus/3rd person, is essentially the same as other moral systems, under a variety of heathen and pagan worldviews that existed prior to the ghostwriter authorship of the various books of the Christian Bible. It can be argued that the moral basis for all (most?) of these interpretations can be linked to the natural subjective evolution based morality combined with critical thought.

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

> Anyone have a good resource or something?

Yes. Close YouTube. Hit the books.

• An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Brian Davies
  
• God?: A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist by William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
  
• The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions by Alex Rosenberg
  
• The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss by David Bentley Hart
  
• Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume
  
• Aquinas by Edward Feser

Yea there are a lot better of books to give a devout Christian to read than the God Delusion, Dawkins is for someone who's already turning away from their faith to seal in the deal, something a little less attack-y like The God Argument would be better suited

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.

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.

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

I recommend Fighting God: An Atheist Manifesto for a Religious World by David Silverman, the president of the American Atheists. He helped organize the first Reason Rally and is a wonderful spokesman. I really liked his straightforward approach to normalizing atheism and reducing the stigma and prejudice that comes with it. A quick and entertaining read.

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

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"

> 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?

• The God Delusion (For obvious reasons)
  
• Why There Is No God (Ditto)
  
• Better Living Through Plastic Explosives (Don't judge a book by it's cover - a great read at jury selection and airports)
  
• Napalm & Silly Putty (George is not very well liked by republicans or people of faith)
  
• Phone books from across the entire state - the very people she would be working for.

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

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

> 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?

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

Ants individually aren't intelligent, but as a group they can behave in intelligent ways, although they don't do it the same way we do. If you ask a random person to guess how many marbles are in a container you won't get a very accurate answer, but if you ask 1000 people and average their answers you'll get a much more accurate result. We can understand our environment and communicate with others to create a more accurate model of the world, we are the only animal that does this. An individual ant will run in a random direction when it feels vibration such as a foot stomping on the ground. This doesn't help the individual ant much but when thousands of ants all run in random directions it results in them scattering, protecting the colony. Ants release pheromones in response to environmental stimuli. They do this automatically, it requires no understanding. The pheromones they release are received by other ants who are influenced and also release their owns pheromones. This complex network of ants signalling eachother can respond in ways more intelligent than any individual ant. It's similar to how you can understand this sentence, but no individual neuron in your brain can understand anything. I recommend the book From Bacteria to Bach and Back. It talks about how consciousness may have evolved, and how cultural evolution began to overtake biological evolution.

They did, haha.
Not really a "bible" in the literal sense, but it is a great read.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Atheists-Bible-Illustrious-Collection/dp/0061349151/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345088936&sr=8-1&keywords=atheists+bible

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.

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

​

• Carl Sagan - Demon Haunted World
  
• Greg M. Epstein - Good Without God
  
• Michael Shermer - Why People Believe Weird Things
  
• Sean Carroll - The Big Picture
  
• John Loftus - Why I Became an Atheist
  
• A.C. Grayling - The God Argument
  
• Kenneth Daniels - Why I Believed
  
• Robert A Burton - On Being Certain
  
  ​
  
  Some of the above is specifically related to atheism, while others I've used to help shape and inform my understanding and my worldview. Out of the entire list, the Carl Sagan book and the Sean Carroll book rank highest, for me, in level of importance. Those books didn't just change what I think, they changed how I think, and I am forever indebted to them.

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 (?)

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.

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/

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

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

How about the viewpoint of a former pastor turned atheist?

Dan Barker 's Godless or The Good Atheist might be good choices.

Or Jerry DeWitt's Hope After Faith

>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.

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.

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

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.

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

> I'm fine with words having baggage, it is what gives them their weight and meaning, after all; as long as the baggage is representative of reality.

It's complicated, isn't it?

The problem is if the words prevent us from examining the actual situation.

Do we deal with brain cancer because we have thought about whether we should (and can), or because of a word that somehow got tagged on?

Anyway, gotta go. This tuned out to be interesting.

--

I'm currently reading Dennett's From Bacteria to Bach...

https://www.amazon.com/Bacteria-Bach-Back-Evolution-Minds/dp/0393242072

You might enjoy it :-)

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.

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.

>Is there a book any of you have read that compares religion and irreligion without bias?

The problem is that religion asserts there is a god (and generally a lot of other things), and atheism rejects that assertion. I question whether it is possible for there to be some non-biased middle ground. You either accept that if there's no reason to believe something then there is no reason to believe it, or you don't. I think pretty much every book is going to be "biased" because you can't make a rational argument for both sides without... being rational.

Personally, I've only read Richard Dawkin's God Delusion. Already being comfortable as an atheist, I wasn't very impressed, and it certainly can't be considered unbiased. There's also Atheism for Dummies. That might be the best bet for "unbiased" as its purpose is to explain what atheism is to non-atheists, not to present an argument for it. However, I have not read it.

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

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

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

I recommend Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism by Richard Carrier.

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.

Sam Harris - The End of Faith

Christopher Hitchens - God Is Not Great

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion

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.

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.

Haven't read it, but maybe something like this?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1577316428?pc_redir=1408603725&robot_redir=1

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

Carlin is up there among my favorite comedians. Another ones are Doug Stanhope and Tom Segura.

> Also points for the emphasis on possibly. It irritates the hell out of me how people just take it as given that ‘rationality > emotionality’ when it’s completely arbitrary. People need to drop the Seneca and pick up the Descartes now and then.

Before moving forward, are using 'rationality' and 'reason' as synonyms? If I understand correctly, one of the cornerstones of Stoicism is that reason is the only thing that differentiates humans from other animals. So as you might guess, reason takes an important place in Stoicism since without it, it'd be futile to distinguish between what's under your control and what's not under your control. However, I think I understand where you're coming from. For instance, as an atheist, up until recently I thought religions to be a scorch to the human species but after reading the book John Grey's Seven Types of Atheism [1] and giving it some careful thoughts, I've come to realize that religion might've had (and likely still has) its place throughout different civilizations for reasons that are unique to the human condition. Certainly I don't condone all the horrific crimes that have been committed in the name of religion but at their cores, some religion might be considered benign and just try to provide some framework in a chaotic universe even if such framework isn't scientifically accurate.

[1]: I don't consider this book to be infallible but with all of its weakness, it puts forward some interesting ideas that are at least worth entertaining, even if you don't espouse any of them.

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.

Sense and Goodness Without God

There's also an Atheism for Dummies, incidentally.

I think the entire book series is somewhat mis-titled. They're actually very smart and well-written books.

Here's a good book to read and cite.

https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Heretics-Guide-Western-Religion/dp/1482773341

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.

I highly recommend this book: The Quotable Atheist.

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.

You sure showed us Christians! Oh, wait...

http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-For-Dummies-Dale-McGowan/dp/111850920X

Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism

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.

Link to the original source: https://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Will-Replace-Religion-ebook/dp/B00886ZSJ6/

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.

I thought this book did a pretty decent job at explaining the craziness that is mormon: https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Heretics-Guide-Western-Religion/dp/1482773341/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1485021246&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=the+complete+heretic%27s+guide+to+western+religion

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.

> 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:

• Religion and Education Around the World from PewResearchCenter
  
• Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief by Will M. Gervais and Ara Norenzayan (ScienceMag)
  
• The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity, A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations by Miron Zuckerman, Jordan Silberman, Judith A. Hall, Society for Personality and Social Psychology
  
• Why Atheism Will Replace Religion by Nigel Barber
  
• Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations by Richard Lynna, John Harveyb and Helmuth Nyborgc at ScienceDirect (you may need credentials from your university to access this one)
  
  I can link more, so feel free to ask.
  
  > What statistics are you referring to?
  
  I'm referring to statistics, the science, not specific polls. The fact that you had to ask shows that you're not following the conversation.
  
  > Hell, after the fall of Rome, the Church practically carried knowledge and science forward single-handedly in the West.
  
  Yeah, by burning at the stake scientists proposing heliocentrism or anything that questioned the religious dogma.
  
  Don't make me laugh.
  

"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

The Atheist's Bible: An Illustrious Collection of Irreverent Thoughts

http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Bible-Illustrious-Collection-Irreverent/dp/0061349151

Makes sense.

> 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.

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

http://www.amazon.com/Every-Thing-Must-Metaphysics-Naturalized/dp/0199573093

Alex Rosenberg

An Atheists Guide to Reality

Try reading Nietzsche sometime.

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.

My uncle is David Silverman, he wrote this book

Silverman's new book : http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-God-Atheist-Manifesto-Religious/dp/1250064848

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

The Atheist's Way

Found it.

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.

"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.

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.