Atheists who have never read common atheist literature

[abaris]

I feel ashamed at times to say that as an atheist I have never read the very popular atheist books like the God Delusion or Godless.

I never read any atheist book and don't feel ashamed about it. Why should I? I didn't need them for confirmation bias.

[TheRealJoeFish]

I have never read "atheist literature." Unless you count His Dark Materials, but I don't think that's what we mean.

[Magilla]

I feel ashamed at times to say that as an atheist . . .

I don't understand how an atheist can also be a creationist, unless you have a highly unconventional definition of creationism, (ie. as an -ism).
In your religious views, you cite creationism :-

ComradeMeow
Drama Queen

Religious Views: Creationism

[Thumpalumpacus]

The so-called "New Atheist" books are very poor on so many levels. If you must read atheist literature, then I would look first to Sartre. Reading Nietzsche properly requires a LOT more background knowledge than one would suppose.

Can you be more specific what e.g. concrete criticisms of The God Delusion would be that make it poor on many levels?

Through much of the book, Dawkins argues from emotion, e.g. raising a child in religion is child abuse, based on how a few turned out fucked-up, when so many of us were raised in religion and didn't throw a mental gear. Hes using the phrase "child abuse", to my mind, as a sort of "think of the children!" argument, without considering the fact that the vast majority of people, religious or irreligious, are mentally speaking just fine.

It's been a good ten years since I've read the book, so I'd have to go back and reread to grab anything more specific, but that's the biggest issue I had with it.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Never read any atheist literature. I have no need to. I'm an atheist. I see these books as being aimed at people still struggling to sort through the lies of religion.

[GUBU]

The so-called "New Atheist" books are very poor on so many levels. If you must read atheist literature, then I would look first to Sartre. Reading Nietzsche properly requires a LOT more background knowledge than one would suppose.

Can you be more specific what e.g. concrete criticisms of The God Delusion would be that make it poor on many levels?

I think it's a case that the books tend to destroy his assertions. Remember, Wooters is a big fan of Kalam/Aquinas and books on atheism make short shrift of that formula quite often.

[Firefighter01]

It's been a good ten years since I've read the book, so I'd have to go back and reread to grab anything more specific, but that's the biggest issue I had with it.

I read somewhere a while ago that that book was the one of the main motivators for Christians converting to atheism. It changed me from someone that didn't actually give a fuck into an activist that comments on forums like this.  So I reckon that this book made an enormous difference and other books like it add fuel to the fire of rationalism and change people's viewpoints. Well written and researched books are great education tools that have the capacity to improve our lives.

[The Industrial Atheist]

Can you be more specific what e.g. concrete criticisms of The God Delusion would be that make it poor on many levels?

Through much of the book, Dawkins argues from emotion, e.g. raising a child in religion is child abuse, based on how a few turned out fucked-up, when so many of us were raised in religion and didn't throw a mental gear. Hes using the phrase "child abuse", to my mind, as a sort of "think of the children!" argument, without considering the fact that the vast majority of people, religious or irreligious, are mentally speaking just fine.

It's been a good ten years since I've read the book, so I'd have to go back and reread to grab anything more specific, but that's the biggest issue I had with it.

I didn't take it as saying they would develop mental health problems. I think he was  just saying that it's cruel to tell a child they will burn in hell without Jesus because their undeveloped minds picture all the torment and fixate on it. Kind of like if you forced them to watch the most graphic and scary horror movie.

[abaris]

I think he was  just saying that it's cruel to tell a child they will burn in hell without Jesus because their undeveloped minds picture all the torment and fixate on it.

I never read the book, so I say it depends on the context he said that, since not every religious parent teaches the burn in hell part. My parents were only mildly religious and they never once threatened me with hell. They only told me the nice parts, which did nothing to make me unstable. I'm well aware that there are religious nutters being all into hell porn, but context is all that matters. I reserve judgment on the statement till I know the context of what he says. There's a difference between applying the broad brush and making a distinction within a not at all homogenous group.

[The Industrial Atheist]

I think he was  just saying that it's cruel to tell a child they will burn in hell without Jesus because their undeveloped minds picture all the torment and fixate on it.

I never read the book, so I say it depends on the context he said that, since not every religious parent teaches the burn in hell part. My parents were only mildly religious and they never once threatened me with hell. They only told me the nice parts, which did nothing to make me unstable. I'm well aware that there are religious nutters being all into hell porn, but context is all that matters. I reserve judgment on the statement till I know the context of what he says. There's a difference between applying the broad brush and making a distinction within a not at all homogenous group.

I don't have perfect recall of it but I don't remembering him saying he was or was not talking about all Christian parents. I would lean towards not when considering the rest of the book because he does acknowledge that there are liberal Christians elsewhere in the book.