Book Recommendations

[Brian37]

Hey folks - hit me with all your favourite atheist books! Here's some I've read or are on my list already:

Mom, Dad, I'm am Atheist by David G McAfee
Godless by Dan Barker
God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
The Happy Atheist by PZ Myers

Not exactly an atheist book, but God dies or is the bad guy or something (and my parents didn't want me reading it as a kid) so I wanna read The Golden Compass. And subsequent books.

What else you all got?

- Gnomey

You have a couple up there I have read. 

The God Delusion and God Is Not Great.

I'd add to that 

Victor Stenger "God, The Failed Hypothesis" and "The New Atheism".

Sam Harris, " The End Of Faith", " Letter To A Christian Nation", 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, "Infidel"

James A Haught, "2000 Years of Disbelief"

Christopher Hitchens " Portable Atheist".

[Belacqua]

What else you all got?

- Gnomey

Reason, Faith, and Revolution, by Terry Eagleton

This book explains why Hitchens, Dawkins, et.al, take an overly simple view of religion and tacitly support a questionable ideology. Young people who found the "New Atheists" appealing need to get past their rhetorical appeal and see what else is going on. (Eagleton has a sharp sense of humor and good politics: his book On Evil is dedicated to Henry Kissinger.)

http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5...6B1A05C383

Seven Types of Atheism, by John Gray

Adult atheists have concluded that the metaphysical claims made by religions are unpersuasive. This may well be true, but no such conclusion exists in isolation -- it needs a more complete system of commitments about what is true. Gray explains some of the more important outlooks which help us conclude that religious claims are untrue.

http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5...E47C77C098

[Rhizomorph13]

One of the best books I've ever read was "Imagicka" by Clive barker God is mentioned in the story and isn't the good guy at all.

Tangentially related, "Hellbound Heart" the book that inspired the movie "Hellraiser" is a good book too; Pinhead is a woman and makes a spectacular entrance that blows anything in any of the movies away!

[Simon Moon]

What else you all got?

- Gnomey

Reason, Faith, and Revolution, by Terry Eagleton

This book explains why Hitchens, Dawkins, et.al, take an overly simple view of religion and tacitly support a questionable ideology. Young people who found the "New Atheists" appealing need to get past their rhetorical appeal and see what else is going on. (Eagleton has a sharp sense of humor and good politics: his book On Evil is dedicated to Henry Kissinger.)

http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5...6B1A05C383

Seven Types of Atheism, by John Gray

Adult atheists have concluded that the metaphysical claims made by religions are unpersuasive. This may well be true, but no such conclusion exists in isolation -- it needs a more complete system of commitments about what is true. Gray explains some of the more important outlooks which help us conclude that religious claims are untrue.

http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5...E47C77C098

Is it atheists fault that the arguments and evidence for the existence of gods provided by theists, does not require more sophisticated refutations than those provided by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al, ?

Seriously. Please provide an argument for the existence of gods more sophisticated or convincing than: Kalam, Ontological, Teleological, TAG, etc, that have not been refuted by any of the above people? I was able to detect the flaws in these arguments after 2 semesters of basic logic courses, and I am not at the level of intellect as those mentioned.

And just to show that I can be just as guilty of  fallacies as the 'best' apologists (I'm looking at you, William Lane Craig), here's an appeal to authority fallacy;

72.8% of PhD level philosophers at 99 of the top universities, disbelieve in the existence of gods. I would guess, with pretty high confidence, that the majority of those 72.8% are quite a bit more philosophically sophisticated than Dawkins, Hitchens, et al., and yet they come to the same conclusions*.

Philosopher Study

*that theists have failed to meet their burden of proof for their claim that gods exist.

[Belacqua]

Is it atheists fault that the arguments and evidence for the existence of gods provided by theists, does not require more sophisticated refutations than those provided by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al, ?

It's atheists' fault if they think that Dawkins, et.al., are providing "sophisticated" refutations. 

Seriously. Please provide an argument for the existence of gods more sophisticated or convincing than: Kalam, Ontological, Teleological, TAG, etc, that have not been refuted by any of the above people? I was able to detect the flaws in these arguments after 2 semesters of basic logic courses, and I am not at the level of intellect as those mentioned. 

And just to show that I can be just as guilty of  fallacies as the 'best' apologists (I'm looking at you, William Lane Craig), here's an appeal to authority fallacy;

Dawkins, Hitchens, and William Lane Craig are media figures. Getting your theology from them is like getting your political philosophy from CNN or Fox. People who do that think that Tucker Carlson is sophisticated, but have never heard of Benjamin Constant, Locke, or Mill. Not to mention Rawls. 

For example, you mention the Kalam argument. This was explicitly rejected by theologians in the 13th century, for reasons that still pertain. Unfortunately, Dawkins-type people consistently confuse it with what Thomists actually say. That doesn't mean that Thomism is correct, but it means that Dawkins doesn't know what he's talking about. His smug takedown of Thomas Aquinas doesn't address anything that Thomas actually wrote. 

You would benefit from reading the two books I mentioned.

[GrandizerII]

Honestly some of the books to read for a beginning atheist should also include books written by religious thinkers regardless of whether you agree with them or not. This is to help keep things in perspective and expose oneself to what people really think instead of reading critiques that may end up strawmanning them at times. Helps with improving critical thinking skills as well

[Belacqua]

Honestly some of the books to read for a beginning atheist should also include books written by religious thinkers regardless of whether you agree with them or not. This is to help keep things in perspective and expose oneself to what people really think instead of reading critiques that may end up strawmanning them at times. Helps with improving critical thinking skills as well

I think so too!

No doubt there are a lot of people who stop being Christians for good reasons -- maybe they were raised in a dumb church, or all they know of Christianity is the TV evangelist version. I'm sure it's hard to get past all that. They haven't been exposed to the intelligent people. 

The trouble is that on both sides, the most available sources are the media figures and sophists. And people of that type benefit from the illusion that the issue is simple. 

The great religious figures whom we all benefit from reading are difficult. It takes time to get what Dante or William Blake are saying. And this is not something that people in sound-bite culture can manage. 

I remember mentioning Nicholas of Cusa to someone on an Internet forum. (Cusanus was a cardinal and important mathematician, who suggested a non-geocentric universe 70 years before Galileo.) The person I was talking with did a quick skim of Wikipedia and came back to announce that all of Nicholas' thought was crap. The time stamp on the posts indicated that he had devoted about 4 minutes to his study. When people graduate from Four-Minutes of Wikipedia University with that much confidence, you know that things are not operating at an intelligent level.

[GrandizerII]

Honestly some of the books to read for a beginning atheist should also include books written by religious thinkers regardless of whether you agree with them or not. This is to help keep things in perspective and expose oneself to what people really think instead of reading critiques that may end up strawmanning them at times. Helps with improving critical thinking skills as well

The great religious figures whom we all benefit from reading are difficult. It takes time to get what Dante or William Blake are saying. And this is not something that people in sound-bite culture can manage.

Doesn't have to be classical stuff really. Just reading works by modern religious thinkers is good enough imo (for the reasons I stated). Whether Feser or even William Lane Craig or those hailing from other religions (like Islam or Buddhism).

ETA: Doesn't have to be perfect understanding obviosly, just this allows for a clearer understanding of what others believe even though there will still remain some misunderstandings. Feser himself is said, by some other types of Thomists, to have misunderstood some aspects of what Aquinas said in his writings. So the expectation certainly isn't that we will do better than him at understanding this stuff.

[Rhizomorph13]

I've only read two books that were about atheism, The God Delusion and God is Not Great. I really don't see the need to keep re-affirming my non-belief, although I am tempted to read Julia Sweeny's book Letting Go of God because it sounds funny.

[Rahn127]

My favorite atheist books are

Math books, engineering books, history books, biology books, physics books, language books, sports books, economy books, books on mining, books on solar energy, books on wind mills, books about animals and insects and trees.

What else ?

Every book out there that isn't religious.