Best books debunking Christianity

[Neo-Scholastic]

Personally, IMO, from a purely intellectual point of view, nihilism is the ultimate conclusion of any philosophy without some grounding in the Divine. I cannot say that definitively, since I cannot exclude the possibility that some historic or current atheistic philosophy of which I am unaware avoids it.

Doesn't Plato's Euthyphro argument avoid it? Plato actually seems to argue the reverse: that assuming values just because "God says so" represents a nihilism of sorts.

Plato contrasts the arbitrary will of the Greek pantheon with the ultimate Ideal. This concept is further developed not only by Aristotle but by other Platonists like Plotinus. Thus we get the God of Classical Theism. The Scholastics considered this pretty much the limit of what could be known of God apart from special revelation. So the difference is this. The gods of the Greek pantheon would issue commands of the "Because I said so" variety; whereas the Christian God says, "Be perfect as I am Perfect" which aligns nicely with the Platonic notion of "The Good".

[vulcanlogician]

Plato contrasts the arbitrary will of the Greek pantheon with the ultimate Ideal. This concept is further developed not only by Aristotle but by other Platonists like Plotinus. Thus we get the God of Classical Theism. The Scholastics considered this pretty much the limit of what could be known of God apart from special revelation. So the difference is this. The gods of the Greek pantheon would issue commands of the "Because I said so" variety; whereas the Christian God says, "Be perfect as I am Perfect" which aligns nicely with the Platonic notion of "The Good".

No. The Christian God beats his chest in front of a bunch of shepherds and says,"FEAR ME!!! (and while you're at it, be sure to get circumcised)." You're adding a layer of nuance that the Judeo-Christian deity does not deserve. The notion of God that you speak of was formed by Augustine (who was exposed to Greek thought) and then extrapolated by folks like Anselm and Aquinas (similarly familiar with Plato and the Greeks). When you read the Old Testament, you can plainly see that Yahweh is just as petty as any Olympian, if not more so. I'll admit that the New Testament (or at least the Gospels when read charitably) takes us a few steps closer to Plato's Forms, but not much farther. 

But all of that is beside the point. Euthyphro is an Early work. Plato hadn't really developed his theory of Forms when he wrote it. For all we know, it could have been Plato's rendition of an actual conversation that took place between Socrates and Euthyphro. This is a Socratic work. The arguments are rooted in a simple dialectic and should be viewed as apart from Plato's later elaborations. Either the God(s) value something arbitrarily or for reasons. The point he is trying to make is that reason and careful discernment can lead to correct valuation independently of what the God(s) think of it. In response to your original statement, reason gives us a way to avoid nihilism without "Divinity." To chain the Euthyphro argument to the God Plato speaks of in later works (like Timaeus) is taking it out of context.

I find it interesting that you see Christianity through the lens of the scholastics. It's a hell of a lot more sane than fundamentalism, I'll give you that. I haven't read anything by Plotinus, and my knowledge of Aristotle is rudimentary. But I really don't see what they can add to the conversation here. Your claim was that nihilism is inescapable without Divinity, and that "no historic or current atheistic philosophy" avoids it. I don't know if you can call Plato "atheistic" philosophy, but he certainly provides a way to avoid nihilism without Divinity.

[The Grand Nudger]

Awfully unkind to the greek gods as well.  Sure, they could be tyrannical and capricious, but their narratives often served as a treatise in consequentialist and virtue ethics, as well.  I suppose we may forget (or some of us may never know) that pagan narratives of gods were often cautionary tales, lessons by a bad example.  They were conceptualized of as such and written or spoken accordingly accordingly.  

This is why pagan heros often struggle against those gods, or chart their own nobler (or baser) course in contrast to the wishes of the gods..why they are described as having done evil things...and echoes of this can be seen in the OT as well, even in the name "Israel". Even by the manufacture of the NT, judeo-christianity had still not doiverced itself entirely from pagan roots, narratives, and themes...nor have christians today.

Sin (and redemption) as conceptualized by christians is remarkably similar to miasma.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Plato contrasts the arbitrary will of the Greek pantheon with the ultimate Ideal. This concept is further developed not only by Aristotle but by other Platonists like Plotinus. Thus we get the God of Classical Theism. The Scholastics considered this pretty much the limit of what could be known of God apart from special revelation. So the difference is this. The gods of the Greek pantheon would issue commands of the "Because I said so" variety; whereas the Christian God says, "Be perfect as I am Perfect" which aligns nicely with the Platonic notion of "The Good".

No. The Christian God beats his chest in front of a bunch of shepherds and says,"FEAR ME!!! (and while you're at it, be sure to get circumcised)." You're adding a layer of nuance that the Judeo-Christian deity does not deserve. The notion of God that you speak of was formed by Augustine (who was exposed to Greek thought) and then extrapolated by folks like Anselm and Aquinas (similarly familiar with Plato and the Greeks). When you read the Old Testament, you can plainly see that Yahweh is just as petty as any Olympian, if not more so. I'll admit that the New Testament (or at least the Gospels when read charitably) takes us a few steps closer to Plato's Forms, but not much farther. 

But all of that is beside the point. Euthyphro is an Early work. Plato hadn't really developed his theory of Forms when he wrote it. For all we know, it could have been Plato's rendition of an actual conversation that took place between Socrates and Euthyphro. This is a Socratic work. The arguments are rooted in a simple dialectic and should be viewed as apart from Plato's later elaborations. Either the God(s) value something arbitrarily or for reasons. The point he is trying to make is that reason and careful discernment can lead to correct valuation independently of what the God(s) think of it. In response to your original statement, reason gives us a way to avoid nihilism without "Divinity." To chain the Euthyphro argument to the God Plato speaks of in later works (like Timaeus) is taking it out of context.

I find it interesting that you see Christianity through the lens of the scholastics. It's a hell of a lot more sane than fundamentalism, I'll give you that. I haven't read anything by Plotinus, and my knowledge of Aristotle is rudimentary. But I really don't see what they can add to the conversation here. Your claim was that nihilism is inescapable without Divinity, and that "no historic or current atheistic philosophy" avoids it. I don't know if you can call Plato "atheistic" philosophy, but he certainly provides a way to avoid nihilism without Divinity.

Well, I will consed your point. The concept of God presented in the OT, in a plain reading, does at least appear the be arbitrary, vengeful, and has a decidedly national character. That is most certainly a conversation we could have. I see the problem largely within a framework of progressive revelation; although, I draw the line at dispensationalism. And I certainly don't want to get into a proof-texting argument where I present verses suggesting that later interpretations of God's nature are implicit in the text, since the counter verses would likely be presented from the perspective of a different hermeneutic.

You may be at least partially correct about the work of Plato. I'd have to go back and re-read since I'm drawing largely on my memory of study I did a long time ago. I would be very reluctant to accept the notion that any of the dialog is actually Socratic. Plato seems to have fictionalized Socrates to present his own philosophy. And I really find it difficult to call any from of Platonism atheistic given its close association with mysticism.

[The Grand Nudger]

Plato seems to have fictionalized Socrates to present his own philosophy.

Wouldn;t be the last time somebody pulled that trick, either. 

And I really find it difficult to call any from of Platonism atheistic given its close association with mysticism.

Anything that does not reference a god in justification is "atheistic" by any sensible description.  If value can be derived by reason and careful discernment then whatever value is derived by this is "atheistic"...but it's available to atheists, and theists, and mystics alike.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Plato seems to have fictionalized Socrates to present his own philosophy.

Wouldn;t be the last time somebody pulled that trick, either. 

And I really find it difficult to call any from of Platonism atheistic given its close association with mysticism.

Anything that does not reference a god in justification is "atheistic" by any sensible description.  If value can be derived by reason and careful discernment then whatever value is derived by this is "atheistic"...but it's available to atheists, and theists, and mystics alike.

Pretty ironic coming from you since you deny anything that has even a whiff of Platonism. That's okay. I'm used to your arguments of convenience. Anyways, I don't see how it is even possible to differentiate between Plato's notion of "The Good" and the being demonstrated in Aquinas's 4th W, the gradations of perfection. But suit yourself. Integrity never was your strong suit.

[c152]

"God: The Most Unpleasant Character In All Fiction" by former christian preacher turned atheist Dan Barker.
While mostly being a quote mine of verses from the bible gathering all the atrocities and nastiness of the Abrahamic God, Barker includes his own thoughts and raises many interesting points. Very useful book to bring out whenever someone tries to defend their "good God".

[The Grand Nudger]

Pretty ironic coming from you since you deny anything that has even a whiff of Platonism. That's okay. I'm used to your arguments of convenience.

LOL...................?  You want a beer or something bud?  I don't have to agree with some idea x to point out that it's available to atheists, since it doesn't depend on gods, or that things which don't depend on gods are equally open to people who do believe in them.  

Anyways, I don't see how it is even possible to differentiate between Plato's notion of "The Good" and the being demonstrated in Aquinas's 4th W, the gradations of perfection. But suit yourself. Integrity never was your strong suit.

More of your previously noted inability to see relevant differences when you absolutely don't want to, I guess?  

More than that I don't know what to tell you.  Atheism is a single line item.  An atheist can accept notions of value and goodness, and means of determining either, and still -be- an atheist.  Being an atheist doesn't actually mean that a person is a nihilist, nor does atheism inexorably reduce to nihilism. 

That -you- can't imagine value or meaning in the absence of a god only expresses the fact that -you- are a nihilist...imagining that god imparts or circumscribes value or meaning that is not intrinsic to you or the universe in any meaningful sense.  I beg to differ.  I think that whatever value you have is, properly, a property of your own august self.  That it belongs naturally and essentially to you.  I would propose this even if there -were- a god, which there isn't, and regardless of whether or not you would beg to differ on -that- the meaning and value I refer to is available to you all the same.......so?  

Don't get me wrong, I'm ribbing you a little bit, up above..I know it's not -just- you and your willful ignorance.  I get consistent befuddlement from the religious on this and related subjects.  It;s as if they spent all of their time preparing for some specific argument and..right at the outset, I make all of that wasted time.  "No, no..you -have- to be a nihilist...I've prepared for that argument, my apologism and righteous indignation depend on it!"  

Yeah...I know........... too bad isn't it?

[Amarok]

Pretty ironic coming from you since you deny anything that has even a whiff of Platonism. That's okay. I'm used to your arguments of convenience

The existence of non material things is not proof of the supernatural . Some thing  could be platonic and totally natural . Atheism is in no way bound to materialism .

---

Is wooter pushing his "You have to be a nihilist" crap again Or "values need to be magically assigned " nonsense . So the record plays.

[vulcanlogician]

This is why pagan heros often struggle against those gods, or chart their own nobler (or baser) course in contrast to the wishes of the gods..why they are described as having done evil things...and echoes of this can be seen in the OT as well, even in the name "Israel".  Even by the manufacture of the NT, judeo-christianity had still not doiverced itself entirely from pagan roots, narratives, and themes...nor have christians today.

Sin (and redemption) as conceptualized by christians is remarkably similar to miasma.

Your assessment here reminds me of Jung and Joseph Campbell, whose work I find fascinating.The miasma comment channels Nietzsche. Also a fav of mine. IDK the etymology of the word "Israel" but it sounds like an eye-opener. 

You may be at least partially correct about the work of Plato. I'd have to go back and re-read since I'm drawing largely on my memory of study I did a long time ago. I would be very reluctant to accept the notion that any of the dialog is actually Socratic. Plato seems to have fictionalized Socrates to present his own philosophy.

It would be fruitless to splice scripture to see which vision of God is correct. Monotheism forces a single God to play many roles.

By the way, I fully understand that Socrates is a fictionalized mouthpiece of Plato. But his Early works are considered to be more "Socratic" than his Middle and Late works. In his Early works, Plato is often seen to be a "preserver" of Socratic wisdom. By the time we get to the Republic he is obviously developing his own ideas, merely using Socrates as an instrument, a character, a literary device. In his Late works, Plato stops using Socrates as a main character and replaces him with the Wanderer-- perhaps out of respect for the fact that Plato's ideas are now distinctly Plato's, and bear little resemblance to those of Socrates.

Personally, I hate the idea of "Platonism." But I love Plato. Scholars, in their quest to differentiate Plato from his famous mentor, have presented a rather anti-Socratic version of Plato, whereby Socrates is merely an asker of questions and Plato is an answerer of them. This is the wrong way to read Plato. 

As Julia Annas puts it: 

"Plato very much wants not to present his own position for the reader to accept on Plato's authority. He was aware of philosophers who wrote authoritarian treatises, telling their readers what to think about a number of large and important matters. Plato has very substantial and strongly held views on a number of issues; that is why he is so prominent in Western philosophy. But he also sees himself as a follower of Socrates, who wrote nothing, but examined the views of others, trying to get them to understand for themselves. Plato wants the reader to come to understand what is said for himself or herself."

Taking this into account, the term "Platonism" is something of a misnomer.