Books regarding atheism

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC you can give a full and exhaustive explanation of why atheism is the most reasonable position to take, as you see it, regardless of why or how or when you became an atheist. You may also be fine with atheism being compared to a religion. It doesn't really make the corner of my mouth start to twitch, either, but it's still wholly and fantastically inaccurate, and is the basis for scorched earth apologism. Just as the notion that a persons status of belief in gods is somehow a product of "insert negatively valued x here" is wholly and fantastically inaccurate, and the basis of another ridiculous line of psuedo-criticism.

Both form the basis of the absurd polemic Belaqua recommended, as though a person would learn about atheism from it. Color me skeptical, but I doubt that anyone is going to learn about atheism from something like that. He recommended what amounts to a chick tract in lipstick, lol. That actually does make the corner of my mouth twitch a little bit.

[Belacqua]

Let's say subconsciously I stopped believing in Christ because, for example, a bunch of Christians disappointed me big time with their behaviour. Would this be what led to my non-belief? Yes. Would this be the only way I could ever justify my lack of belief to this day? No.

I can grow in knowledge and understanding, and challenge my current positions to see if they hold water in the face of current observations. If I find that I have good arguments and/or evidence that continues to confirm my "non-belief" and lack good arguments and/or evidence that disconfirms my "non-belief", I have reason to continue doubting. And that I count as post hoc justification for my continued "non-belief". If, however, I were to be presented with arguments or evidence to the contrary, especially strong enough to shatter my "non-belief", then I think I no longer have justification for my "non-belief".

Assuming my subconscious biases don't get the better of me, of course. 

Christians have long recognized that the evidence of the senses is untrustworthy, and human reason is fallible. 

This of course is why they claim that revelation is superior -- it is knowledge unmediated by flawed human faculties. 

What they fail to accept (when they hold this strictly) is that everything we know and believe is mediated. The whole structure of how we evaluate truth claims is given to us by our culture, and is itself based on a long uncountable series of contingencies. Each one of us, if he's honest, will be comfortable with the fact that if history had been different, we would think differently.

If atheists are claiming that somehow their truth-claims are not subject to this history, and are not contingent on a million things that they themselves didn't choose, then they are not yet sufficiently aware of the background in their own minds. 

And I don't accept that this can be avoided by claiming that one doesn't have beliefs -- only lack of beliefs. The assertion that there is insufficient evidence for God is itself rooted in a number of things we hold to be true (i.e. believe). And the web of beliefs that allows us to live comfortably in the world without religion is itself contingent on history.

From experience I know that a few people will argue just about anything to avoid accepting that this is so.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and there we have the revisionist plying his trade, again.

What is it, exactly, that's so threatening to your view of atheism and christianity, about people who can accept that they don't really know, if there's any reason at all, why they do or don't believe the things they do and don't believe?

Do you? Care to lay out a factual justification for the status of your belief, for or against? The invitation was always open to anyone.

While you're at it, perhaps you could explain why you felt that some shit for brains polemic against atheism was a good source of information about atheism?

[Rev. Rye]

So, do I have to be the only one to champion Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian again?

Original lecture text hyeah, and the book has more essays on the subject.

[EgoDeath]

Let's say subconsciously I stopped believing in Christ because, for example, a bunch of Christians disappointed me big time with their behaviour. Would this be what led to my non-belief? Yes. Would this be the only way I could ever justify my lack of belief to this day? No.

I can grow in knowledge and understanding, and challenge my current positions to see if they hold water in the face of current observations. If I find that I have good arguments and/or evidence that continues to confirm my "non-belief" and lack good arguments and/or evidence that disconfirms my "non-belief", I have reason to continue doubting. And that I count as post hoc justification for my continued "non-belief". If, however, I were to be presented with arguments or evidence to the contrary, especially strong enough to shatter my "non-belief", then I think I no longer have justification for my "non-belief".

Assuming my subconscious biases don't get the better of me, of course. 

Christians have long recognized that the evidence of the senses is untrustworthy, and human reason is fallible. 

This of course is why they claim that revelation is superior -- it is knowledge unmediated by flawed human faculties. 

What they fail to accept (when they hold this strictly) is that everything we know and believe is mediated. The whole structure of how we evaluate truth claims is given to us by our culture, and is itself based on a long uncountable series of contingencies. Each one of us, if he's honest, will be comfortable with the fact that if history had been different, we would think differently.

If atheists are claiming that somehow their truth-claims are not subject to this history, and are not contingent on a million things that they themselves didn't choose, then they are not yet sufficiently aware of the background in their own minds. 

And I don't accept that this can be avoided by claiming that one doesn't have beliefs -- only lack of beliefs. The assertion that there is insufficient evidence for God is itself rooted in a number of things we hold to be true (i.e. believe). And the web of beliefs that allows us to live comfortably in the world without religion is itself contingent on history.

From experience I know that a few people will argue just about anything to avoid accepting that this is so.

It goes like this:

Theist: there is a god, i know it to be true!

Atheist: how do you know it to be true?

Theist: its self-evident

Atheist: so you have no evidence?

Theist: no

Atheist: then, so far, i have no reason to believe your claim

Im still unsure why this is so hard for you to grasp there bel.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, do I have to be the only one to champion Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian again?

Original lecture text hyeah, and the book has more essays on the subject.

With respect to the question, why a person isn't a christian really isn't the same thing as why a person is an atheist.  Responding that way falls right into the pit set up by nutbars like christian apologists, and John Gray, who isn't a christian apologist...but still..ironically...draws on the christian corpus to launch his screed against any other viewpoint than his own, which he conveniently mislabels -as- atheism.

I'm not a christian because I wont string a jew up to cover for all the times I've touched my dick. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in gods.

[Rev. Rye]

Fair enough, but you can still use the techniques he uses to critique Christianity and critique other religions, and other essays in the book go into a more general perspective, although, given that it was written in the first half of the 20th century in Britain, such a bias towards debunking Christianity was inevitable, and is probably useful for the many of us who grew up Christian. I'm told Ibn Warraq has a book called Why I am not a Muslim for the Muslims.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that if people spent any time around neo pagans they'd realize that their arguments against christer god are categorically inapplicable. The problems and dilemmas that face the abrahamic god concept are unique to it. Pagans can lean in on those problems and dilemmas as the the proper function of the divine universe...and aren't we silly people for ever imagining otherwise?

First cause? Nah. Pagan gods can be caused, themselves.

Natural law? Gods are natural as well, and subject to those laws.

Design? Why should a god have to design or create to be a god?

Moral arguments?...hold my beer while pagan gods shit on human morals, for fun.

The argument for the remedying of injustice...? Why would a pagan god have to give a shit about justice for mortal ants? See above.

-on and on it goes.

The arguments against a christian belief cannot be leveraged, even in general principle, against pagan gods. Christian belief is not general, or unspecific.

[Macoleco]

Robert Ingersoll volumes.

He was agnostic, not atheist, but doesn’t really matter. His writings are great. Very uplifting.

[Rev. Rye]

Yeah, Russell's arguments don't totally hold up for paganism, and in his defense, Wicca wasn't even a thing until after most of the essays in the book were written, and thus wasn't much of an option. Then again, do we even get that many ex-pagans here? Besides people who dabbled with it and found it wanting, or people who just joined the Church of Satan to get a rise out of normies?