Atheism books/authors?

[Minimalist]

Anything that kids read...except the fucking bible...is worthwhile.

[Creed of Heresy]

I actually WOULD suggest Dawkins' books, along with Hitchens' as well. ANYTHING by Hitchens, not just his things against religion. Reason for Dawkins' books is because if you intend to get into debates with low-level (see also: cherry-picker/ignorant-of-their-book's-content) religious folks and you don't quite have a firm, solid grasp on concise points, they will provide you with some novice-to-apprentice level debating points that may convince such potentially-skeptical types to start analyzing their "holy" texts more carefully. I don't mean to sound like some kind of atheist-evangelist but honestly the more people stop believing these silly myths and start opening their minds, the quicker society can actually get on a track with some kind of progression that doesn't require motherfucking decades to fully integrate.

So, yes, if gentle anti-theism is something you might be interested in, I would suggest Dawkins' books along with any other reading on science, skepticism, and rejection of ignorance/bigotry/credulousness.

It all depends on how new to being an atheist you are. Shrugging off the shackles of a religious belief comes with a new burden; the burdens of the realization of personal insignificance, mortality, and responsibility. You find yourself groping blindly as your eyes adjust to the light of reason, flailing wildly and struggling to tread water in an ocean of fresh uncertainty, which is absolutely terrifying for many people who once were given such childish comforts. It's nice to have something that can direct your attention and convince you of the beauty of the world around you faster than you otherwise would. If you've long been an atheist and have come to accept all that already, though, it's still useful for some other considerations all the same.

[apricot-and-a-coffee]

I actually WOULD suggest Dawkins' books, along with Hitchens' as well. ANYTHING by Hitchens, not just his things against religion. Reason for Dawkins' books is because if you intend to get into debates with low-level (see also: cherry-picker/ignorant-of-their-book's-content) religious folks and you don't quite have a firm, solid grasp on concise points, they will provide you with some novice-to-apprentice level debating points that may convince such potentially-skeptical types to start analyzing their "holy" texts more carefully. I don't mean to sound like some kind of atheist-evangelist but honestly the more people stop believing these silly myths and start opening their minds, the quicker society can actually get on a track with some kind of progression that doesn't require motherfucking decades to fully integrate.

So, yes, if gentle anti-theism is something you might be interested in, I would suggest Dawkins' books along with any other reading on science, skepticism, and rejection of ignorance/bigotry/credulousness.

It all depends on how new to being an atheist you are. Shrugging off the shackles of a religious belief comes with a new burden; the burdens of the realization of personal insignificance, mortality, and responsibility. You find yourself groping blindly as your eyes adjust to the light of reason, flailing wildly and struggling to tread water in an ocean of fresh uncertainty, which is absolutely terrifying for many people who once were given such childish comforts. It's nice to have something that can direct your attention and convince you of the beauty of the world around you faster than you otherwise would. If you've long been an atheist and have come to accept all that already, though, it's still useful for some other considerations all the same.

I'm not a new atheist (basically a lifer, albeit closeted), but I've never gotten into religious debates with anyone, either, except in my own head. So I can see your point. For example, a few years ago I was talking to a friend who said she really wanted to make herself believe in God. She basically summed up Pascal's Wager, and I didn't say anything because at the time I didn't even realize that argument had a name. Now that I've read The God Delusion and am more familiar with Pascal's Wager, I feel like I could have been more help to her as she struggled with that.

[Creed of Heresy]

Yeah, Pascal's Wager was one of those arguments I often conceded too when I was fresh into agnosticism [and is what KEPT me agnostic, in fact] and out of Methodism. Hitchens and Dawkins both pointed out to me how ridiculous "the wager" was, though. Not everyone is naturally skeptical. Sometimes you need to be shown the error of your ways before you can shrug off the pettishness of ego.

[Clueless Morgan]

There's no point to reading any "atheist" books by Dawkins or any of that sort.

Boy, oh boy, do I disagree. It was through books on atheism that I was introduced to concepts of philosophy and things like logical fallacies so books on atheism, for me, were very valuable in leading me to other areas of study despite the fact that I was already an atheist when I began reading them. I think reading atheist books can and is a worthwhile endeavor.

As far as Dawkins, I would recommend The Greatest Show on Earth to absolutely everyone, theist or atheist. It's just a fabulously interesting book and a great overview of evolution so I also disagree that Dawkins books are worth completely overlooking.

[freedomfromforum]

There's no point to reading any "atheist" books by Dawkins or any of that sort. However, you should read science books. I recommend Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution and Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, both by Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Science is what did it for me. I am currently in a Stephen Hawking trend. Science does not necessarily disprove the existence of a god, but I haven't seen any evidence for any god existing in my scientific reading.

[ManMachine]

What would you say is the most important book for an atheist to read? Or, if you could read only one book on atheism, which one would it be?

The book that tells you that getting all your ideas from one book is a dumb idea.


MM

[CleanShavenJesus]

There's no point to reading any "atheist" books by Dawkins or any of that sort.

Boy, oh boy, do I disagree. It was through books on atheism that I was introduced to concepts of philosophy and things like logical fallacies so books on atheism, for me, were very valuable in leading me to other areas of study despite the fact that I was already an atheist when I began reading them. I think reading atheist books can and is a worthwhile endeavor.

Sounds easier to skip that stage and go straight to science and philosophy books.

[Clueless Morgan]

Sounds easier to skip that stage and go straight to science and philosophy books.

I had virtually no concept of what philosophy even was before I started reading atheist books; I had no idea that I had played around with philosophical concepts throughout my teens and early twenties during my deconversion, of sorts, and the early years of me being an atheist. It took an introduction to philosophical concepts in atheist books to show me that philosophy might actually be useful to learn about.

The best way I can describe it is like math to one of my good friends: he didn't get it, didn't care about it, had no interest in it -- until he realized it was important to learn so that he could learn to fly planes. Once that in-road was made and once he was able to connect mathematical concepts to something he loved, he math began to make sense to him. Similarly for me, once philosophical concepts were framed in such a way that I understood them in the context of something I already had an interest in and why they were important I could finally connect the concepts to something I felt was tangible, and from that I could extrapolate to other areas of thought and other parts of my life.

It's easy to just say "Skip that step and read the philosophy book!" but that's disregarding the vital step, in my case, of figuring out how I could apply what I was learning to my life and my interests. Without the in between step of the atheist books I very well could have read the first five pages of a philosophy book, thought "This is boring as shit!" and put it back on the shelf never to pick it up again.

For some people that in between step is vital. For others it's not. We all walk our own paths through life and we all come to knowledge from different directions, some take a longer path than others. Don't poo-poo what other people need just because you don't need it.