(Part 2) Best products from r/TrueAtheism

It sounds like you're already familiar with it, but just in case, the most plausible mythicist theory (in my opinion) of Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald is not simply that Jesus was made up from whole cloth at a later time or something, but that the original concept of Jesus was of him as a celestial deity, existing only in the heavenly realms. He was later "euhemerized" and placed into stories on earth (this was a common practice), and these later stories became cannonized into the gospels, and the earlier views of him as a celestial-only deity were lost.

The strongest case for this is in the early epistles, where many references to Jesus actually make more sense as a celestial Jesus than a Jesus-on-earth. One strong example:

> Hebrews 8:4 “For if he [Jesus] were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.”

> An astounding verse, and one that might well be considered the “smoking gun” proving that early Christians did not believe in a human, historical Jesus. Hebrews chapters 8 and 9 discuss the covenant of sacrifice between God and man. The writer is comparing the Jewish tabernacle, where the high priest makes blood sacrifices of animals to God within the heart of the sanctuary, with the “greater and more perfect tabernacle” (9:11) of Heaven, where Jesus offers his own blood within the heavenly sanctuary as a more perfect sacrifice to God. The underlying theme here is clearly a Platonic one: human actions on Earth mirror divine actions in Heaven, the imperfect material world reflecting the perfect divine world.

> As the writer of Hebrews crafts this analogy, he mentions, almost in passing, that if Jesus were on Earth, he would have had nothing to do, because there were already priests there offering sacrifices. Jesus’ role was only in Heaven, where he could offer his blood as a better sacrifice.

> But how could any writer who knew a human Jesus possibly have said this? How could he have overlooked the blindingly obvious fact that Jesus did have a purpose on Earth, that in fact he had to come here precisely to fulfill this purpose? Why does he seem to think that Jesus’ offering of his own blood took place exclusively in Heaven?

> From the gospel standpoint, this is impossible to explain. From the spiritual-Jesus standpoint, it is very easy, and indeed fits perfectly, like a lock in a key, with the scenario this essay puts forward.

• Watch this Yale introductory course to the old testament. (multiple videos) It's eye-opening, all the actual facts about the old testament they don't tell you about in Sunday school class.
  
  
• The new testament course is interesting too, it's good to know when it was written and by who. Then consider how little is said of Jesus outside of the bible.
  
  
• Watch any debate between an atheist and a religious figure, try to figure out which ones are actually making points you can relate to, and why. Even though Bill Nye vs Ken Ham is fascinating, I'm thinking more of Bill Craig with Sam Harris or Chris Hitchens with Bill Craig.
  
  
• Read "A short history of nearly everything" and you'll see how science, including evolution, has gotten to where it is.
  
  I don't think I ever believed in a god.
  
  Certainly I was there on Sundays and testified to my friends if they asked, I was a pretty decent missionary's kid. I participated when called on, but didn't ever initiate anything religious, just went with the flow.
  
  Going to college was the first big step. Getting out of one bubble, but that got substituted for another containing a Christianity I didn't recognize. I stopped going to church, never liked it, even worse than school ... because I wasn't learning anything. Every sermon, class, lesson I heard over and over. In college, without parents to drag me out of bed, I started appreciating that sweet Sunday morning sleep a lot more instead.
  
  (The singing was fun though)
  
  I started questioning everything about my faith, for 2 years trying to make new information and new personal convictions fit into what I already believed. It became harder and harder to do. At first it was easy, some shifting and everything fit in perfectly. But that wasn't working anymore.
  
  One night, I wanted to let it all go, start from scratch, but too terrified that I would change and wouldn't be the same "good" person I took myself for.
  
  I decided that whatever was true would present itself when approaching it with a clear mind, just practice healthy skepticism, roll every new idea around in my head and see it from every possible angle, I was always good at thinking exercises, decent at deductions, the truth would present itself. I had to trust that.
  
  Years went by and I realized how little religion was a part of my life, how little I cared for it. How little sense it made, especially after being gone for a while and going to a service ... it felt like a cult.
  
  Being a moral person is about making that decision, not something that comes from faith, faith that if you don't do it the destination will be hell...
  
  For a long time it was all I could think about, I took in books, debates, documentaries, anything that stirred the controversy. Now, it's just another (weird) thing on this planet that I get reminded of from time to time.
  

It depends. But I'm glad you asked, for the following suggestions might also be helpful to others.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that pointing out fallacies is an efficient way to "fight the good fight". At least, that's my impression. Please correct me when I'm wrong.

Unfortunately, almost all the evidence points to a different direction: It's usually not very effective, because those committing the fallacy usually don't care much about a logical analysis of the situation, anyway. This does also apply to non-believers. Assuming all humans process information in two ways (see Kahneman's System 1 and 2), even atheists often seem to ignore their own system 2, because it actually takes effort to use it.

However, if you're looking for resources about fallacies, any good book on logic will help. One of the best one, I've been told, is "Introduction to logic" by Gensler. You may only need the first 5 chapters, because it becomes quite technical after that. Maybe, Amazon can help find a less technical book.

If, however, you're looking to persuade people, that's a completely different story.

Here, a very common recommendation is Cialdini's "Influence". You can research its contents easily online, so there's no need to buy it. Cialdini emphasizes six common areas to get people to agree with you.

I've looked at your comment history, so here's a short overview what you may want to change to be more effective:

• Liking: People say yes to people they like. Being offensive to believers is thus unlikely to help you make your point.
  
• Scarcity: People often want they don't think is hard to get. It's thus okay to say that we as atheists may indeed by the exception. It might help to say, you understand if your opponent is unable to understand your position.
  
• Authority: It helps to have bookmarks, or notes, from authorities who believers respect (typically other believers).
  
• Social Proof: It helps to have notes and bookmarks about being a non-believer is on the rise, generally speaking.
  
• Reciprocity: People tend to return a favor. This is hard to apply online, but it may help offline.
  
• Commitment: If people commit, verbally or in writing, to an idea or goal, they are more likely to honor that commitment. It's thus worth trying to get your opponents to agree to a certain set of principles. For instance, the fight about gay marriage was won by appealing to one of the most common principles among Americans: Freedom. A simple change of words (from the "right to marry" to the "freedom to marry") made a big difference.
  
  Hope this helps.

I had written a huge heartfelt reply and while trying to post links to several books I read, I accidentally closed the tab. :( Major fail.

Anyway, here are the books I read after my year of begging for my faith to return:

"God: Hit or Myth?" by Rober Ingersoll

"Why I am Not a Christian" by Richard Carrier

["Why We Believe in God"] (http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Believe-God-Concise/dp/0984493212/ref=pd_sim_b_21) by J. Anderson Thomson and Clare Aukofer

My Story
I started out not just Catholic but very Catholic. I was very involved in the faith clubs at my Catholic high school. I insisted on attended a Catholic college. I spent each summer during college helping run a Catholic version of VBS called Totus Tuus. We went to a different parish each week running these camps. It was exhausting and very fulfilling. I was totally high on Jesus and even convinced I was supposed to be a nun.

However, I was also a theatre student at my very Catholic college. And many of the other students found fault with some of our productions and show posters. For more on that, I point you to an old blog post of mine. In short, it really sucked. Despite being a very model of Catholicism, I was still on the receiving end of some very uncharitable attitudes, words, and actions. I started to get bitter. And that opened me up to questioning Church teaching. After all, you can't go far in theatre without making friends with a few gays! :) And I couldn't bear to think that they didn't deserve to be happy just because they preferred a coupling that couldn't naturally produce children. A seed of doubt and resistance was planted.

I moved back to my hometown after college, and started spending time with my best friend, her fiance, and his best friend. We'd all gone to high school together but I hadn't spent much time with these guys before. This other guy and I mesh really well together and have nearly identical thought patterns. I couldn't move on with becoming a nun without seeing if this was something special. I tirelessly pursued him until he gave in and started dating me. ^_^ Then, I lost my virginity to him. I'm not sure what I was expecting to happen, but my world didn't come crumbling down when I broke that big rule. I started to realize I could think for myself and make my own decisions. And, maybe I shouldn't be lazy and just let the Church tell me how to live. I needed to be accountable for my own actions, words, and beliefs. I couldn't just blame it on the Church for telling me what to do. (A little reminiscent of Nazis just following orders...)

Anyway, we eventually stopped going to Church because I was just sick of it. But I waffled back and forth on Catholicism for awhile. (After all, it was a huge part of my life!) I let my mom convince me that we wanted a Catholic wedding, so we had one. But I spent the next year praying for faith with no response from the Almighty. At that point, I borrowed the books mentioned above and broke free. It was a huge weight lifted off my shoulders. I didn't have to battle any more. I had peace. And it brought greater peace to my marriage. (The hubby never wanted to be Catholic, even since childhood.) We've moved to the west coast and are raising our daughters out here, away from constant religious pressures from both of our families. I've never been happier.

tl;dr Was a super Catholic, questioned teachings on homosexuality, lost virginity, explored atheism, and broke free!

It appears you are asking about two subject areas:

'1. The polytheistic foundation of Yahweh and Yahweh worship, and the evolution from polytheism to henotheism (a monolatry for Yahweh; Yahweh is in charge, there are other Gods to worship) to an aggressive monolatrist polytheistic belief (Yahweh is the most important God, there exists other Gods but worship of these other Gods is to be actively rejected) to, finally, a monotheistic belief system (there is and, somehow, always has been, only Yahweh).

An area that I am interested in (as a hobbyist) is the origin story of Yahweh and Yahweh worship that precedes, and leads to, the Torah. If you are interested some references on the growth of monotheistic Yahwehism from a historical polytheistic foundation of holy scripture to the development of the henotheism and then monotheism of early Biblical Israelites:

• [The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel](http://www.amazon.com/The-Early-History-God-Biblical/dp/080283972X) by Mark Smith<br />

• The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark S. Smith
  
• A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by Karen Armstrong
  
• The Religion of Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel) by Patrick D. Miller
  
• Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches by Ziony Zevit
  
• Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Library Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies) by John Day
  
• God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World by Mark S. Smith
  
  While limited to starting with the Hebrew Bible as a basis, and not addressing much pre-Torah scripture related to Yahweh, the following takes a look at:
  
  
• Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible, by Michael S. Heiser, PhD
  
  While a College Senior Thesis (and the perception therefore of a less credible scholarly/appeal to authority level), the following is a good source of other reference material:
  
  
• The Ascension of Yahweh: The Origins and Development of Israelite Monotheism from the Afrasan to Josiah by Andrew Halladay
  
  Some of the on-line summaries/arguments which related to the above argument/position are:
  
  
• Are Yahweh and El the same god OR different gods?
  
• Ugarit and the Bible
  
• Israelite Religion to Judaism: the Evolution of the Religion of Israel By David Steinberg
  
• The evolution of God
  
  The full argument I make against monotheistic yahwehism (the most essential and foundational tenet of the Abrahamic Religions - Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is: Argument against monotheistic Yahwehism/Allahism
  
  '2. Documentation (Documentary hypothesis - generally accepted by many scholars, though still hotly debated by those professing to be a scholar or presenting a scholarly format while actually intending to lay the groundwork for faith-based apologetics or starting out with a presupposition and then selectively presenting only that evidence that supports this confirmation bias with any "peer review" from people/organizations that share the same confirmation bias /mini-rant over) regarding who likely wrote what and when, to include editing and redactions, of the Torah and OT.
  
  I am a fan of the ongoing (and arguable) documentary (JEDP) hypothesis regarding the source/date of the original writings of the Torah, though given the editing/redaction/combination of the source materials I think that it will be very difficult to give definitive origin source identification to every verse/passage. Some references are presented below.
  
  This same question came up recently in /r/AcademicBiblical :
  
  
• How do we know when which books were written? Specifically Old Testament.
  
  
• J, P, E, D, etc. is it still the scholarly consensus of the Pentateuch's composition?
  
  and
  
  
• Pentateuchal source criticism: a preliminary bibliography and exploration of recent research
  
  If you are not subscribed to /r/AcademicBiblical - WHY NOT? :D
  
  ----
  
  
• Documentary hypothesis
  
  
• Documentary Hypothesis
  
  
• JEDP theory
  
  
• JEDP theory
  
  
• Who Wrote the Torah?
  
  
• Pentateuchal Studies Today3
  
  
• JEPD Theory, Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis, Documentary Hypothesis
  
  
• The Documentary Hypothesis The Four-Source Theory of the Pentateuch
  
  
• The Documentary Hypothesis

> mainly as evident in the fact that the Quran manuscripts we have today exactly match the earliest manuscripts we found so far,

I think there's a good possibility that this is also a lie (or irrelevant). Pardon me for sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but from what little I know it seems that there are experts who disagree with your assessment (or your sources).

Ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq, from whom I've so far read far too little, claims that there was a period early in the history of Islam where the Koran (and the Hadith, I guess - it's been a while) underwent a fair amount of change. This is pretty much analogous to the fate of the Bible in the time before (and probably a little after) the Council of Nicea. It wasn't until this process had run for a bit that the Powers That Be (long after Mohammed) put their foot down and declared a moratorium on changes.

My source for this was Warraq's chapter in Hitchens' The Portable Atheist. If interested, you can surely work your way a bit closer to this horse's mouth.

But having written all this, I realize this whole discussion is pointless. Just yesterday I had a similar discussion with a Christian about the thousands of (allegedly faithful) copies of the Bible. But the point is, who cares if they were transmitted faithfully if the very first original was already bullshit?

We don't even know very well who the original sources were; there's some serious tension between the claim that all those surahs were written by Mo or transcribed from his personal dictation, and the fact that heaps and bundles of these things kept popping up from various sources long after he'd died. The process by which these writings were "found" and assembled looks far from reliable to me.

Finally, again, miracles. In order to accept the Koran's miracles as true, we'd have to

• reject the miracle stories of all conflicting religious stories;
  
• accept that these particular miracle stories were truthfully recorded by reliable eyewitnesses (of unknown identity); and
  
• concede the possibility that miracles actually happened and, to be consistent with the teachings of the Koran, still happen today, regardless of the fact that no miracle has been adequately verified in human history.
  
  Like all religions, Islam faces a huge burden of proof here.

I have not spent a ton of time reading about this, but based on the source in my original comment - A History of the Ancient Near East by van der Mieroop - there is a cuneiform literary style called the royal inscription they put on buildings or special objects, like border markers.

It started out simply as "King X on the orders of god Y built this in year Z" and over time have became more elaborate stories of why the building is being built, what battle/conquest it commemorates, ets. Usually they are pretty over the top and extremely flattering to the king and the line between gods and kings is pretty blurred. For example the god would be right there participating in the battle and the king accomplishing some sort of super human feats. (Which, I assume, was meant and perceived as metaphor.) Actual decision making is usually attributed to the god with the king just carrying out his orders. This is from mid-2000s BCE. Later periods have more realistic styles.

The reason I say there are thousands of them is because these things are nothing special. Every city had a king and every king was fighting his neighbors, building stuff, and having this type of inscriptions made. It didn't occur to me before I started reading about this period, but there a lot of cities and most have not been excavated, so most of this stuff is just sitting in the ground.

Unfortunately the book is not in google books, so I can't link to an example passage. But I highly recommend at least taking a look at it because it really puts the Abrahamic religions in vital context without which it is impossible to understand them fully. The book is in very broad strokes, but we are talking 3000 years worth of history over a decent size area with a lot of actors. Also it does not go into religion much, which is mostly why I am reading about this in the first place, so I definitely need another source on religion.

I'll let Jared Diamond explain:

--------------------------------------------

A recent interpretation among some scholars of religion is that belief in religious superstitions serves to display one’s commitment to one’s religion. All long-lasting human groups — Boston Red Sox fans (like me), devoted Catholics, patriotic Japanese, and others — face the same basic problem of identifying who can be trusted to remain as a group member. The more of one’s life is wrapped up with one’s group, the more crucial it is to be able to identify group members correctly and not to be deceived by someone who seeks temporary advantage by claiming to share your ideals but who really doesn’t. If that man carrying a Boston Red Sox banner, whom you had accepted as a fellow Red Sox fan, suddenly cheers when the New York Yankees hit a home run, you’ll find it humiliating but not life-threatening. But if he’s a soldier next to you in the front line and he drops his gun (or turns it on you) when the enemy attacks, your misreading of him may cost you your life.

That’s why religious affiliation involves so many overt displays to demonstrate the sincerity of your commitment: sacrifices of time and resources, enduring of hardships, and other costly displays that I’ll discuss later. One such display might be to espouse some irrational belief that contradicts the evidence of our senses, and that people outside our religion would never believe. If you claim that the founder of your church had been conceived by normal sexual intercourse between his mother and father, anyone else would believe that too, and you’ve done nothing to demonstrate your commitment to your church. But if you insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that he was born of a virgin birth, and nobody has been able to shake you of that irrational belief after many decades of your life, then your fellow believers will feel much more confident that you’ll persist in your belief and can be trusted not to abandon your group.

Nevertheless, it’s not the case that there are no limits to what can be accepted as a religious supernatural belief. Scott Atran and Pascal Boyer have independently pointed out that actual religious superstitions over the whole world constitute a narrow subset of all the arbitrary random superstitions that one could theoretically invent. To quote Pascal Boyer, there is no religion proclaiming anything like the following tenet: “There is only one God! He is omnipotent. But he exists only on Wednesdays.” Instead, the religious supernatural beings in which we believe are surprisingly similar to humans, animals, or other natural objects, except for having superior powers. They are more far-sighted, longer-lived, and stronger, travel faster, can predict the future, can change shape, can pass through walls, and so on. In other respects, gods and ghosts behave like people. The god of the Old Testament got angry, while Greek gods and goddesses became jealous, ate, drank, and had sex. Their powers surpassing human powers are projections of our own personal power fantasies; they can do what we wish we could do ourselves. I do have fantasies of hurling thunderbolts that destroy evil people, and probably many other people share those fantasies of mine, but I have never fantasized about existing only on Wednesdays. Hence it doesn’t surprise me that gods in many religions are pictured as smiting evil-doers, but that no religion holds out the dream of existing just on Wednesdays. Thus, religious supernatural beliefs are irrational, but emotionally plausible and satisfying. That’s why they’re so believable, despite at the same time being rationally implausible.

Source: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/13/jared_diamond_its_irrational_to_be_religious/

--------------------------------------------

You may also want to read the book Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer (alluded to in the passage by Diamond) to understand religion on a deeper psychological level:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_Explained

http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Explained-Evolutionary-Origins-Religious/dp/0465006965

I was an evangelical for 27 years, from age 18 to 45. I wouldn't say that there's one profound argument against Christianity; I would say that Christians and atheists are not even talking the same language. And most of that has to do with Christians having their conclusions in mind when they investigate, whereas atheists are willing to be led wherever the evidence and reason lead them. The end result is that atheists and Christians have completely different mindsets about what constitutes evidence and what they are willing to consider.

The first book I would recommend is Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman. Friedman is, himself, a Christian. The book deals with what scholars know about the construction of the first few books of the Bible.

Second book I would recommend is The Bible Unearthed by Neil Silberman and Israel Finkelstein. Have you ever wondered what the archaeological support is for the stories of the Old Testament? Dr. Finkelstein is one of the leading archaeologists in Israel today. This is an excellent place to start. (Here's a 90 minute video if you prefer.)

Third, pretty much any book by Bart Ehrman. Here's a good one, though -- Jesus, Interrupted. Dr. Ehrman is very respected in the scholarly community, and what he writes here, for the most part, represents where the majority of scholars are.

Fourth is A History of God by Karen Armstrong. Ms Armstrong tells the story of how the God the Jews, Christians, and Muslims got his start in Canaan. There is a quick summary of the book here.

One of the main and repeated sources Christopher Hitchens cites in his "God is not Great" book is Jennifer Hecht and her book "Doubt: A history: The great doubters and their legacy of innovation from Socrates to Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickenson. https://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson-ebook/dp/B003YCOORG/ref=sr_1_7?keywords=doubt&qid=1565131475&s=books&sr=1-7



While not argumentative it is full of careful study and resources.



Karen Armstrong and her "History of god: The 4,000 year quest of Judaism, Christianity , and Islam" is a wonderful read as well.



https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345384563/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0



I think the point about confrontation is a good one. So while there may not be many women debating about religion on the public stage, there are women writing great reviews of the development of religions.

Reading between the lines of Chris82179's comment, I think he's just pointing out that there may be no single best morality, but that there can definitely be better moralities than others. Let's try this little tweak:

I think my morality is not 'incorrect', it's incomplete. But it's as correct as can be based on the best information available to me.

> what kind of practical existence are we shooting for, and what kind of behaviors and social structures facilitate that existence?

If we base our decisions on the single parameter of "maximizing human wellbeing", then the entire framework for a science of morality emerges. It's the central argument of Sam Harris' excellent The Moral Landscape

> Do you think Jesus was a real guy?

I recently read the books on this topic by Ehrman, Doherty, and Carrier.

I found Carrier's case for a Mythical Jesus to be compelling. I found Carrier to be annoying as a writer, but his book is scholarly and well documented.

Ehrman argues for a historical Jesus. His book was almost the opposite of Carrier's. His tone was friendly and approachable. He seemed calm and reassuring. I kind of wanted him to prove his case. But his arguments sucked.

Doherty dissected Ehrman's case paragraph by paragraph. (I read Carrier first, then Ehrman, then Doherty.) Doherty raised many of the concerns I noticed myself. Ehrman's arguments just didn't make sense. Never mind the history or the evidence — I'm no scholar — his arguments didn't make logical sense.

I wouldn't say it's proven either way. Given the scarcity of evidence, it may never be. That said, Carrier made a surprisingly strong case against a historical Jesus. If Ehrman's defense of Jesus is the best that academia can do, I'd say Jesus is pretty much dead.

But I would love to see a serious and scholarly attempt to refute Carrier's work. Ehrman's work didn't cut it.

The book you're looking for is "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why"

I'm about 70% though it and it's been a great read. It's thick reading, but super interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512

Free (legal?) ebook links here: https://archive.org/details/Prof.BartEhrman-MisquotingJesus

Yeah man, deconversion is really hard. It takes years to get through the whole process. Or did for me. A couple years for the doubts to really take hold, a couple years of digging and second guessing everything I was finding, and a couple more years to feel comfortable with my new identity. It was probably three years of myself calling myself agnostic before I was willing to say, even just in my own head to describe myself to myself as atheist.

> How can I be sure the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit? [...] why are Christians so fervent on defending their Bible through "evidence"?

Check out some Bart Ehrman books. He's a former Christian and biblical scholar who breaks the Bible down in terms of historicity. I feel like it really helps you understand where the religion comes from and how the way Christians cherry pick small bits of it out of the full context all the time can really get you hooked on the feel good parts while ignoring how it doesn't add up as a whole. I can recommend this one in particular.

Glad your girlfriend has your back. I was going to mention one of the hardest parts of being atheist in the Midwest was dating. So, so many times it would be going fantastic for a few dates, and then religion comes up, and they instantly cut me off. "I could never date an atheist." And say the word with disgust behind it, it was unreal.

The usual is Why I am no longer a Christian by Evid3nc3, but that's all youtube.



If you want to go old-school angry try out Testament: Memoir of the Thoughts and Sentiments of Jean Meslier (from the 1700s).

>Know, then, my friends, that everything that is recited and practiced in the world for the cult and adoration of gods is nothing but errors, abuses, illusions, and impostures. All the laws and orders that are issued in the name and authority of God or the gods are really only human inventions…."



For a more general and softer approach, try out 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God.

***

If you need someone who was really a "true Christian" try perhaps something from Richard Price or listen to the podcasts of Matt Dillahunty.

>I am mad at myself for not being this analytic about this earlier in my life

I had this exact feeling.

So one thing to realize is that this process takes time I mean for FSM sake u lived a lot with this Idea.keep reading whatever you do keep reading.

some sources or ideas that were helpful to me:

• parables of Jesus
  
• the history of hell
  
• history before ur religion.
  
• the Christ myth theory (However I do believe he existed but it lowered my certainty) and how exodus never happened look for the exodus myth
  
• Commonsense atheism and proving the negative
  
• talk origin and talk design are also very good sources.
  
• read some books on cognitive sciences and psychology of religion , search for recommended atheism books. (understand what cognitive bias is)
  
• this is the phone line u're looking for
  
• read an introductory account on atheism this is one of the best books on atheism
  
• find a way to express u're doubts or else u'll go crazy (at least if u're anything like me) ,blog about it or write about it , talk to s1, ask others questions.
  
• listen to debates about religions.
  
• think about the fact that u finally could emancipate urself from this.
  
• learn a little more about other religions it helps A LOT .
  
• read books by Xbelievers like John Luftus or Dan barker
  
• read more I mean Way more on cosmology and physics. just search for top books on Cosmology
  
• read comparative books like Karen Armstrong books and read the evolution of god
  
• read Religion Explained
  
  

  keep fear away and ...good luck !

Flair^Catholic

Your post made me think of a mountain climber set out to conquer Everest with a hiking stick and a bagged lunch. Of course he failed and of course he was miserable. He was unprepared.

I wonder what some pre-preparation like the great mystics (this work comes to mind) would have done for you. I would also recommend Edith Stein's The Science of the Cross.

Also, one does not journey without an expert to guide them. If you would like recommendations for a guild who is schooled in the mystics, PM me and I will do my best to direct you to one near you.

Also available online for free here.

The Portable Atheist, edited by Christopher Hitchens, is an invaluable resource and a full-on greatest hits of nonbeliever writing, tracing the chronology of freethinkers all the way from to Lucretius to H.P. Lovecraft to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I'm constantly going back to it, especially because there are essays for all sorts of atheism-related subjects, like the refutation of miracles or the source of morality.

Also, I know you said you're not looking for anti-Christian media, but Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian is a classic for a reason - it's comprehensive and expertly-crafted without being vitriolic. As influential as Dawkins has been for me, he can't hold a candle to Russell.

> Quite possibly the worst is the cult-like encouragement to indoctrinate your kids into Christianity.

Every so often I like to mention the book The God Virus by Darrel Ray. It goes into considerable detail on that point, and the book is just fascinating. Darrel has a way with words and is good at making a point, and I think he has a pretty compelling argument here. If you've not read it, it's honestly worth checking out.

Grab a used copy of Misquoting Jesus for $4 shipped here: http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512

It goes into great detail on how the New Testament came together. It's fascinating stuff that every Christian should be aware of.

I really enjoyed The Atheist and the Bonobo. It examines the evolutionary roots for human morality but isn't as contemptuous and anti-theist as some of the other popular atheist literature. I found it to be a rather refreshing read that bridges the gap between the religious and the non-religious.

> No soul, no separation of consciousness from body. We are biological machines

This would be closer to monism and naturalism.
It can be perturbing to think about, so I suggest you brush up on it before introducing others. It will be nice to have answers to their questions on hand, because it does bring about many.

This book does a great job at giving you an idea of how to look at the world as a monist. I actually read it as a suggestion from a neuroscience professor at my university.

However, to address the more specific question "Are atheists materialists as well?" The short answer is no. Technically even Bhuddists are atheists, since they don't believe in a god. Atheists are just people who don't believe in a God. Though most atheists don't subscribe to superstitious beliefs such as souls.

Misquoting Jesus. It's by a highly regarded New Testament scholar and covers the history of the creation and development of the New Testament brilliantly.

A bunch of good books have already been mentioned, so I'll throw this one in the mix. Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus does a very good job explaining how the documents that make up the Bible were compiled, altered, and repercussions of that process.

Ever read The God Virus by Darrel Ray?

He explains the guilt cycle from a psychological perspective in detail.

1. Make something that every animal does into a taboo, encode it into the religious virus's DNA.
   
2. When followers do it anyways (fornication, masturbation, you name it...), compel them to come to the church for repentance.
   
3. Tell followers they'll be absolved, this time, for the low-low price of 10%.
   
4. Followers repent, fork over the tithe, priest waves his dead chicken of absolution, induces wave of dopamine euphoria as guilt is washed away, for a while...
   
5. Lather, rinse, repeat once a week.
   
6. PROFIT!!!

My personal fave is written by Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

And the book that is my fave is Misquoting Jesus.

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512

sitting around and debating the topic is exactly what I have a problem with. I am in no way qualified to answers these questions, and never claimed to be. I only pointed out that the philosophers aren't qualified either. Since this is /r/trueatheism, can I recommend a few books on the topic? Science of Good and Evil or The Moral Landscape are both good reads, and I think they have advanced the study of Ethics by leaps and bounds.

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson is a good overview of the history of science. PDF (or MP3 audiobook) available online if you're OK with torrenting copyrighted stuff, but a hard copy wouldn't be a bad investment.

I would suggest books written by ex-christians. Here are some that I have enjoyed:

[This] (http://astore.amazon.com/exchrisnetenc-20/detail/B00AM4UFSG)

[And this] (http://www.amazon.com/End-Faith-Religion-Terror-Future/dp/0393327655/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427226664&sr=1-1&keywords=the+end+of+faith)

[And this] (http://www.amazon.com/Letter-Christian-Nation-Sam-Harris/dp/0307278778/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=149ZKC19M7DB7MC831Q9)

[And this] (http://www.amazon.com/God-Virus-The-Religion-Infects/dp/0970950519/ref=pd_rhf_se_s_cp_7_F6GR?ie=UTF8&refRID=0ZE3TFDAPY4Z6BD4RN71)

I find the books written by Bart D. Ehrman to be both informative and interesting. I have read three of them: Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are

Misquoting Jesus

Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them)
All three of them are solid reads.

Online Bible Links:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
https://www.biblegateway.com/ (over 100 versions and 50 translations of the bible, including audio.)
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (with Cross-References) [Kindle Edition] [free]

(edit:formatting to make it easier to read)

A really good book on atheism is also titled "Why I Am Not A Christian," and is written by Richard Carrier.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Am-Not-Christian-Conclusive/dp/1456588850

There's also an article he wrote on Infidels, which I think is the shorter, earlier version of it: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html

Parenting Beyond Belief helped my wife and I with a similar situation. :)

I recommend that she read Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini. Even people with finely-tuned BS meters fall for all sorts of psychological tricks in very reliable ways. It's important to know about them beforehand so that you know when you experience them being used on you.

Another book that might be interesting is The Portable Atheist by Christopher Hitchens. It's a collection of writings and essays from a lot of different people.

On the topic of raising children in a mixed-faith environment, I'd recommend the book Parenting Beyond Belief.

Teaching our children how to think critically from a young age will be the biggest help in fighting against nonsensical beliefs.

The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Portable-Atheist-Essential-Non-Believer/dp/0306816083

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0060859512?pc_redir=1397900990&robot_redir=1

If they really want to do this, they should read and discuss a book like 50 reasons people give for believing in a god or Why I Became an Atheist.

Allowing you to write a short argument and then not respond just isn't very useful. Either the argument has to be robust (like book length or longer) or you need to be able to dialog.

I don't find that funny, I find it hugely disturbing. Learn about how your Bible was created and then see what that does for you.

http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Year-Judaism-Christianity/dp/0345384563/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397171166&sr=8-1&keywords=a+history+of+god

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397171269&sr=8-1&keywords=misquoting+jesus+the+story+behind+who+changed+the+bible+and+why

Also please don't just downvote this guy because he's a religious person, that is counter-intuitive to the discourse here.

There is NO contemporary evidence (outside the bible) that this Jesus character even existed. Between the apparent "death" of Jesus until Saul of Tarsus' (aka Paul the apostle) Damascus road vision there is no record of Christianity at all. It was Paul that kicked off Christianity. Here is some recommended reading

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330464426&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Nailed-Christian-Myths-Jesus-Existed/dp/0557709911/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408070120&sr=1-1&keywords=Nailed

http://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation-ebook/dp/B00DB39V2Q/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-1&qid=1403984728

> Is the Bible we have today accurate?

>Was Jesus who he said he was?

Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus is a good start here.

Also Forged from the same author.

>Why does evil exist?

Another book by Professor Ehrman is God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer. But there are countless resources out there exploring the Problem Of Evil.

Thank you for providing context. I offer my sympathies with what you are going thru.

If I can make a suggestion. Read this book "The God Virus"

It is one explanation of why religious people behave the way they do and offers some suggestions in how to communicate with them. I don't know if it'll help with your wife, but you may get an insight on the rest of your community. Reading unapproved books is a threat to the community and therefore shunned and aggressively persecuted.

On the plus side, now all your fears are of the earthly variety :).

Do you still go to church?