Best books debunking Christianity

[The Grand Nudger]

"Who is she? The secular humanists? The objectivists? You're not hanging out with the Unitarian Universalists, are you? All the women who go there are whores!"

-"You're really gonna have to work on your objections there."

---

Yeah, though, I think of it as a sort of religious permanent friend zone.  My shenanigans are funny and relatable, the wayward believers are tragic. Ultimately, they don't see me as a person whose failed some obligation or reversed myself in a meaningful way that harms or discredits some portion of our bond.

[vulcanlogician]

"Who is she? The secular humanists? The objectivists? You're not hanging out with the Unitarian Universalists, are you? All the women who go there are whores!"

-"You're really gonna have to work on your objections there."

LOL! Yes, seriously bad objection.

Yeah, though, I think of it as a sort of religious permanent friend zone.  My shenanigans are funny and relatable, the wayward believers are tragic.  Ultimately, they don't see me as a person whose failed some obligation or reversed myself in a meaningful way that harms or discredits some portion of our bond.

And that's the problem isn't it? Religion is coercive in that respect. Much of the time, people don't participate in it due to seeing at as a logically plausible set of beliefs, but rather due to subtle social pressures. Being in a relationship is one thing. If you have been dating a while, sure, she's going to assert herself and make you go watch a chick flick some night. That is to be expected.

But religion crosses a line. It demands obedience, but its demands don't stop there. It demands love. Demands it! Wow. "You should love me, or you will suffer torture for eternity." This chick is starting to seem pretty "out there." 

"And also, you need to make sure your interpretation of the universe conforms to the stories in my favorite book."

So many parallels between religion and an abusive relationship. Not the most original thought, I know, but it deserves repeating.

[GUBU]

Well, I meant "social disadvantages." I think possiblitarian mentioned something like awkward moments with his friends that continue to believe. I was alienated by certain family members for a brief time... etc. Some people go through this stuff; it depends on one's situation. Maybe "difficulties" would have been a better word.

Strangely enough, I don't have those awkward moments with family members who -have- shunned other people for falling away from their shared faith.  I'd posit that the awkwardness and shunning was due to a perceived rejection of what they attempted to instill in you, a subtle and often personally felt criticism of them...not the simple fact of your atheism.   This may explain why I, having been married in or having never believed, get a pass.  I;ve even got a knack for getting the more religious members of my family to tell blasphemous jokes.  I'll appreciate them, and I'm not an inappropriate audience for that sort of thing.

But you got me thinking: ARE there any disadvantages to nonbelief? Maybe "spiritual feelings" can be of benefit. But any atheist can go chant mantras without actually being a Hindu. This will get those spiritual feelings going and no belief required. I will put some thought into it and see if I can't come up with an actual disadvantage. Simply as an intellectual exercise. 

Be interesting to see what you come up with.  

I'm also interested in your "myth collection." That sounds friggin' awesome. Although I don't believe in any of it, I find religion and mythology fascinating. I like Greek myths, but who doesn't. A few years ago, I got into Hindu mythology. A lot of those stories are fun. Like you said in another post, a lot of myths have deep stories to tell. Even Adam and Eve, when one does not commit the folly of thinking it literally happened, may be a deep human story about growing up and losing innocence. Or perhaps man's journey from tribal life to civilization. There are a number of ways to interpret it.

They go off into the trees and next thing you know, bam, Eves pregnant.  Obviously wasn't an apple that Adam was eating in that bush. 

I wish my Dad told Beowulf on family trips. 

I butchered it, lol..but they don't know that.  It'll be better next time.  The alternative is listening to k-pop or incessant arguing.  That shits enough to make -me- rip a motherfuckers arm off.  My eldest daughter, Allannah, thinks that Beowulf is the villain, she empathizes with grendels mother.  She's cute like that.  Her younger sister, Morrigan...doesn't concern herself with the moral ramifications of the story..she just likes stories where peoples arms come off.

She'd like the Táin bó Cuailnge then. Lots of dismemberment in that.

[Sal]

Dan Barker's old book "Losing Faith in Faith" has the usual arguments against Christianity and god, but also a pretty nice story about his journey, going from a pastor to an atheist. It's not as rigid as some other atheist themed books out there.

[Brian37]

The more I read all the different threads/posts about "debunking" this religion or that religion I keep thinking, "why aren't more skeptics taking a global view"?

Three books I think address in really decent terms the superfluous nature of ALL religions in our species history. 

1. The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins..... While it does focus on the big three monotheisms it does explain also in later chapters where religion comes from in evolutionary terms as a result of flawed perceptions.

2. God The Failed Hypothesis, Victor Stenger

3. The New Atheism, Victor Stenger.......<---- This book says there is no separate but equal and  that science DOES have something to say about any and all God/god/s claims. It also in later chapters compares the motifs in several religions including those in Asia to demonstrate that claims of good and morality exist in all religions, which should show the reader that our sense of morality, isn't coming from the writing itself, but is in our evolution.

Even Hitchens has said, and I agree, our species 200,000 years ago didn't have even writing, or modern housing or farming. Our species lived in a very dark age of lack of modern knowledge back then. Back then everything scared the shit out of us as a species, so we created gap answers to explain why nature did what it did, and attached human like qualities as to being in charge of that but with super natural powers.

So sure Christianity is what atheists deal with the most in the west, but it still isn't the only one in our species history, all of them worldwide are all rooted in superstition and mythology and gap answers.

I really enjoyed God The Failed Hypothesis, although I've only heard it as an audiobook when I was working. I'm definitely going to have to read The New Atheism, are there more book by Victor Stenger you'd recommend? 
Although on a similar note of what you first described about that book I'd recommend Faith vs Fact: Why Religion And Science Are Incompatible by Jerry A. Coyne (author of Why Evolution Is True) in which he makes a very solid case as to why it's inaccurate to say that science and religion can coexist and that they are fundamentally incompatible on virtually every level.

Yes "The New Atheism" is a must read and it too is also by Victor Stenger. Stenger was not the first to say religion and science are not compatible, but he certainly was the first I ran into to show the overlap in our species sense of morality, that was new to me in that book.

The common argument with theists, of all labels is that religion and science are "separate but equal".  Stenger debunks that idea. It is certainly true that theists can accept science, but that does not make it prop up any religion, it just means the theist accepts science. The problem I see even with theists who accept some science, you always see that is only up until it conflicts with their ideas, then they either try to debunk science, or try to co op science to get it to point to their specific club. But this is not unique to one label. If you pay attention to all the worlds religions, you will see they all have members whom try those tactics.

The truth is science has always been religion independent.

[possibletarian]

It gets better with time, I was actually raised as a Jehovah's Witness which I left at 16 (as soon as my parents said i could make my own choices) which led to all manners of discord, which to a degree i understood. I believe the indoctrination left me emotionally immature in some ways.

The 'god' bug though was very strong and later in life I got involved with a baptist church,  I always had believed in a god and got involved with a much more traditional church, which for me , now an adult i fared much better.  I became very active in my faith, I identified  with the closeness of god, the holy spirit, indeed i was very winsome with my faith and had about 30 or so spiritual (people i had the then honour of guiding to faith) children , many of which keep in touch despite my rejection of faith, in fact they still come to me for advice. I lost a great deal of friends, kept others (who pray for me) to be fair i think it's simply awkward for them i have rejected what is most dear to their hearts and that's hard to take.

The road out is as complex as the one in, it takes years to unravel what it took years to indoctrinate but bit by bit is does unravel and I no longer fear any backlash,  i am finding a new found freedom especially in the area of discovery, science, and the people around me, now not having to filter everything through the irrational filter of religion, i can see clearly now.  The road out can be very hard, and very costly..  but it is worth the journey.

Thanks for sharing your story. And I appreciate your caring words, but I "came out" as an atheist in my early teens. It was a problem then, but not anymore. As for "indoctrination" I have one vague memory of it when I was a young child. I went to Sunday school with one of my protestant friends. In my Catholic Sunday school classes we did crafts or listened to Bible stories, stuff like that. But in my friend's Sunday school class, these two women came in and talked about "these people who don't believe in God" and how horrible they were. Quite frankly, I think it had the opposite of its intended effect. I was intrigued, never having heard God's nonexistence mentioned before. 

It sounds like you invested some serious time and effort in your faith. You said the road out was difficult for you. Do you still have difficulties? Or are you past that? In its own way, Atheism can be rather rewarding.

I think the most rewarding thing about being an atheist is the freedom of thought. One feels free to explore any number of interpretations of the universe without feeling that one has sinned. To perceive the beauty of the universe and not reflexively think of some biblical creator is to truly behold an unfathomable beauty. Another benefit is of not taking offense at things which are not offensive. Gay people aren't trying to rebel against God; they're just gay. When someone is honest and forthright about something, it isn't blasphemy, it's telling it like it is. To me, the advantages of atheism outweigh any potential disadvantages.

Hi there

I do feel free now, in fact as you point out it's more than being free it's like a whole new world of discovery has opened up, just like you experienced I can now explore science as science instead of trying to fit and filter it through a religious world view. One of the reasons that led me to disbelief was the torturous twisting and re-defining of science I had to do to remain true to my faith, in the end the strain was simply too much.

The universe really is beautiful isn't it, i have many more questions than answers, isn't that exciting and wonderful to live in such an era of discovery and casting off of old ways of thinking. Now I can simply look and learn, people really have no idea of how freeing that is if they are still deep in their faith. I can learn to love all peoples without judging from a religious point of reference about their chosen lifestyle, though like you mention I believe that gay people are simply made that way, just like I am made a heterosexual I no longer have to say things like 'you are in sin, but god loves you anyway' I can simply say 'I love you', without casting my prejudices and excuses on an imaginary god.

Like yourself there was a time when the thought of a universe with a god was inconceivable and as I listen to the theists on here I don't doubt that they believe, but I also know they have to keep accepting what now I see clearly as an untenable compromise from day to day, they make the same excuses and replies I used to make, and now instead of feeling pity for the lost (as it were) I feel empathy for the so called saved.

It's like waking up from a long nightmare, while you were in it you became comfortable with its lies and revelled in its compromise believing it to be the answer to everything, but now I'm free and can now seek answers and discovery, it is the most exciting part of my life ever.
[url=http://biblehub.com/greek/444.htm][/url]

[The Grand Nudger]

She'd like the Táin bó Cuailnge then. Lots of dismemberment in that.

She does..but not for that part-

"I’ll get under your feet in the ford in the shape of an eel and make sure you fall. I’ll put your eye out with a stone from my sling. I’ll come as a hornless red heifer, and lead the cattle to surge against you in the waters, whether ford or pool, and you’ll not know me."  -said the Morrigan, to Chulainn. She beat his ass, too...and then snuck off promising that he would die for having rejected her. Which, ofc, he did. She watched as he died, and one can only surmise she got her man in the end, Morrigan gets what she wants.

All of my kids are derived from characters in the ulster cycle and associated mytholgy.

Allannah is a disambiguation of an honorific/term of endearment for the daughter of Lir, Fiannuala. She cared for her brothers for 900 years after they were all turned to swans through the jealousy of a second wife.

Morrigan..well, we know her from the above. A shapeshifting war goddess who watched over the water. The Phantom Queen. She's the Floridian in the family, lol.

Ronan, My big boy....little seal....literally - a reference to selkie....a mermaid kind of figure. Definitely conceived at seaside.

Cormac........my little man, mini-me. This one was kid naming brilliance in action. Drew my name and my wifes family name together. Roughly tied with his middle it means something like: The raven, son of- It really flows off the tongue and into the rest of his name, too. Like a song. He hates it though, gets real pissy about it (and people habitually mispronounce it like they're pointing at something in the spice rack). "That's not MY NAME! My name is Big Mack!"

Lahni, Mo, Ro, and Mac. :takes a bow:

(They have an older sister, Jocelyn - roughly meaning "from the Geats" not to be confused with the Danes. What can I say, I'm committed. If we'd had more I'd have started to dip into the Edda, but since we didn't..I name my pets shit like Huginn and Muninn )

[The Grand Nudger]

Back on topic, circling round from the above.  I don;t think that christianity is best "debunked" by books specifically debunking christianity.  Those have always existed.  They never worked.  I think it's best done by exposing people to a vast array of myth and culture and narrative tradition.  The heritage that was literally destroyed out of fear by the nascent christian religion.  They knew, even then, that they could not compete for hearts and minds against all of this.  Repeated every time christian civilization conquered a new people.  The first order of business was eradication of their culture and normative application of christian ideology to children.  Here in the us, it was done to the natives..and then to slaves.  It's an effective means of disempowerment and control.

Anecdotal, but, my own kids have already heard too much myth for me to expect them to grow into believing christians.  My daughter actually asked us why people put plus signs on the side of the road.  If you ask her about jesus..she'll tell you that The God™ needed his blood to make The People™.  A seamless convergence of many of the myths and fairy tales she knows.  Christianity can't survive, intact, in a mind like that. She's beginnuing to be confronted by the traditional christian bigotries here in rural Murica...and her response is predictable bemusement. She thinks her peers, now sharing the product of their indoctrination and beginning to self and socially identify as such..are silly. She knows the real stories.

Dawkins...Hitchens, Sagan...none of them can hold a candle to that. She did that. It's her head, she decides what goes in.

[vulcanlogician]

Back on topic, circling round from the above.  I don;t think that christianity is best "debunked" by books specifically debunking christianity.  Those have always existed.  They never worked.  I think it's best done by exposing people to a vast array of myth and culture and narrative tradition.  The heritage that was literally destroyed out of fear by the nascent christian religion.  They knew, even then, that they could not compete for hearts and minds against all of this.  Repeated every time christian civilization conquered a new people.  The first order of business was eradication of their culture and normative application of christian ideology to children.  Here in the us, it was done to the natives..and then to slaves.  It's an effective means of disempowerment and control.

Anecdotal, but, my own kids have already heard too much myth for me to expect them to grow into believing christians.  My daughter actually asked us why people put plus signs on the side of the road.  If you ask her about jesus..she'll tell you that The God™ needed his blood to make The People™.  A seamless convergence of many of the myths and fairy tales she knows.  Christianity can't survive, intact, in a mind like that.  She's beginnuing to be confronted by the traditional christian bigotries here in rural Murica...and her response is predictable bemusement.  She thinks her peers, now sharing the product of their indoctrination and beginning to self and socially identify as such..are silly.  She knows the real stories.

Dawkins...Hitchens, Sagan...none of them can hold a candle to that.  She did that.  It's her head, she decides what goes in.

A very thoughtful post.

And btw, I have gone over our discussion about moral naturalism and (after much thought and reflection) I have concluded that I was not question-begging with my proposal that science can't assign values. If you really think that there is circularity in my reasoning, we need to bring in a third party or something because I disagree. Anyway, it seemed to me that you did not like my refutation of moral naturalism, but you had one of your own.

So let's hear it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Would you prefer to be question begging in the context of hedonism or just flat out wrong in any context? 

Science assigns values all the time. You could only be reasserting that they can't assign -these- values.....but without justification as to why these values are different from some other value science assigns, that's nothing more or less than special pleading. I, personally...don;t have a refutation of moral naturalism.

I accept that moral facts and properties are natural facts and properties. What else could moral facts and properties be, if there are moral facts and properties? Are there some other kind of facts and properties? What might those be?