Books regarding atheism

[GrandizerII]

What do you think..assuming some other person who wasnt you making some other fallacious appeal that you did not make.  Would that be a justification for atheism?  Is it likely, or likely true, that hearing a pentacostal nutter say something stupid is the reason that a person stops believing in a god...and is such a poor justification justification at all?

I don't know where you're going exactly with this specific scenario, but I'll answer. Poor justification, and therefore not really justification.

For the other - I'm asking the same question..but..yes, posing it in a slightly different way, in order to show the fundamental problem with the setup.  On the one hand we have batshit apologists, who need some concrete positive position to argue against in order to wantonly bullshit their audience about atheism.  On the other, we have atheists who have a similar need, albeit leveraged to a different end.  They want to have a justification, and a good one, and they would very much like their justification to address said batshits bullshit.

I'm asking whether it's possible for that justification, whatever it is, to be in error.  Not in factual error, in error as justification for the fact of their non belief.  Is it what made them non believers, or just a coat they've draped their non belief in, for intellectual comfort, and likely as a direct response to provocation?

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.