Dawkins-If Religion worked like science....

[solja247]

I'm not being sarcastic-but it seems pretty hardcore for a layman's book on atheism. So what would you recommend for more hardcore atheism reading?? Because I've read both of Sam Harris's books.

Not really. When I read it, it nearly made me become an Agnostic Deist. But its rather weak. He attempts to dismantle the ontological argument (very poorly) He spends too much time attacking fundamentalism than being a storng book. He starts with saying there could be a God and then ends with saying anyone who believes in God is as irrational as an 8 year old.
Dont get me wrong, he is a great scientists, I have a lot of respect for him, but when he comes to Apologetics and philosophy, its too simplistic and rushed to be powerful...

[theVOID]

Meh, it's good for a layman book on atheism and does a good job at outlining the main objections. The parts about the design argument are as you would expect, awesome, but the philosophical stuff later on is pretty terrible at times. I've read just about as many rebuttals of it from Philosophical atheists as i have theists.

I'm not being sarcastic-but it seems pretty hardcore for a layman's book on atheism. So what would you recommend for more hardcore atheism reading?? Because I've read both of Sam Harris's books.

Harris' books are also for the layman

If you want the hardcore stuff you'll need papers by actual 'philosophers of religion' like Tyler Wunder addressing specific arguments made by theist philosophers like Plantinga, Craig, Swineburn etc. The horsemen do well at addressing belief by the rather typical unthoughtful Christians.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content...mology.pdf

Check out this site: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?cat=5

It's an interview based podcast featuring tons of philosophers both theist and atheist.

[Paul the Human]

I don't know who else has read it, but I really enjoyed "The Case Against God" - by George R. Smith. It must be for the 'layman', since I completely understood it, but it is a more philosophical take on the arguments than a scientific one. I liked it... and I'm not a big fan of philosophy in general. If you haven't read it, I do recommend it.

[theVOID]

By layman all i essentially meant was 'not in any great detail'. That is pretty much the new atheists topics, they sometimes touch on the philosophical arguments in a semi formal style, although not all that often or all that well, most of their good arguments are against objections to atheism or design arguments (Which are usually just personal incredulity fallacies), their moral responses are mainly objections to theists claiming more morality or an argument that atheist morality is superior, rather than addressing the actual questions (See Hitchens vs Craig debate). Dawkins and Hitchens always bring up historical atrocities too, which isn't really an argument against anything, they start by pointing out that x believed y and also did horrible things but then say therefore y = cause of x, which is just poor reasoning.

That is essentially what is the layman atheism is imo, a general understanding of the basic arguments and knowledge about what makes a good argument and what is poor reasoning, the objections to the common arguments for theism, an understanding of why their beliefs are unsubstantiated etc. I think most people here are well above that level, like when you read Dawkins book and don't really do much but agree on tons of points that you already understand or have opinions of, or think of ways he could have rephrased it to be more coherent, or see some mistakes in it. That is imo when you have more than a layman understanding of the subject. That doesn't mean any of the guys writing these books are laymans, because they clearly are not, they could all talk about each point in their book to an extend that could probably fill another book... It's just the book it's self that is mostly aimed at layman understandings of the arguments (in most but not all cases).

[Minimalist]

Dawkins and Hitchens always bring up historical atrocities too, which isn't really an argument against anything, they start by pointing out that x believed y and also did horrible things but then say therefore y = cause of x, which is just poor reasoning.

Hmmm.....Hitchens' book is about 'how religion poisons everything'. God is a secondary consideration. Religion certainly does exist and when religious people torture and kill others specifically because they believe in a different sky-daddy then I disagree with you. The reasoning is apparent. When Cardinal Torquemada had people killed for being heretics it most definitely is because of religion. Sometimes you have to take people at their word.

Wonderful things were to be seen. Numbers of the Saracens [Muslims] were beheaded ... Others were shot with arrows, or forced to jump from the towers; others were tortured for several days, then burned with flames. In the streets were seen piles of heads and hands and feet. One rode about everywhere amid the corpses of men and horses. In the temple of Solomon, the horses waded in the blood up to their knees, nay, up to the bridle. It was a just and marvelous judgement of God, that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers.
-- Raymond of Aguilers

Praise fucking jesus!