Origin of Language

[JMT]

Well, I mean if you're looking for literally "what atheism is", then you don't need a book, it's way simpler than that.

There are tons of books written arguing against theism, why it's most likely untrue, why it's bad, etc etc.

There are books written for atheists who are just getting out of religion talking about ways to view the world now that you've gone through a huge ideological change, etc etc.

There are books about morality that refute the need for god in a philosophy of morality.

Lots and lots of different types of books written for different reasons by atheists with very different views, so it's hard to just recommend a book just "about atheism."  Can't say I've read Rosenberg's book though, so I'm afraid I can't really comment on it's substance.

I've listened to debates between theists and atheists such as Stein vs Bahnsen, et. al. and read Dawkins book, The God Delusion and Hitchen's book, God is not Great. They're both talking about many other things than atheism, such as evidences against Christianity, like the wars during Christendom, or justifications for morality apart from a god concept, etc...and, of course Dawkins spends lots of time talking about molecular determinism. So I assumed atheism was tied into these thinking patterns. But, these are just two guys....

I was thinking it might be a problem for an atheist to explain language origins, because, as far as we can tell from modern experiments with children learning language, they only learn language when they interact with a previous speaker. Even listening to TV or radio will not result in them speaking, due to the lack of personal interaction. That is where I am coming from. I appreciate your responses so far. They have been helpful in getting some other things straight...

[FatAndFaithless]

Again...go look at the theories on origin of language that have been linked already. None of them point to a god. There isn't "an atheist explanation" for anything, because atheism doesn't own theories or scientific models or explanations. There are plenty of theories and ideas for the origin of language that do not include a God. Does that make them an "atheist explanation"? If that's what you're looking for, great.

You mentioned Dawkins and Hitchens - you're aware they disagreed on some things in philosophy/morality/politics, right? How could you conclude that their thoughts were representative when they even disagree with each other?

[Fireball]

"How else could we tell you to blow your god out your ass?"

You never cease to amuse me, Min!

[Astreja]

The main reason for language is that the human brains are capable of generating it and the human vocal cords are capable of producing it. A lot of it has to do with abstract and symbolic thinking, again a capacity facilitated by brain structure.

There are many types of intraspecies communication seen throughout the animal kingdom, and even among humans there are non-linguistic communications in use, such as body language and paraverbal communication, such as the actual inflections used to convey different meanings with identical word combinations. For example:

"I stole your lunch." (falling inflection, assertion of fact)
"I stole your lunch?" (rising inflection, expressing denial and incredulity)

[Angrboda]

The general assumption is that atheism, by denying God, implies naturalism, which dictates the answers you can derive. However, Buddhists may deny God while at the same time endorsing a metaphysics that is incompatible with naturalism. You can also have people who deny God, but not the supernatural. So, no, atheism doesn't point to any specific worldview. It's a generalization that atheists endorse naturalism, and in certain parts of the west, this may be largely true. But it does not follow logically that an atheist necessarily believes other propositions such as naturalism.

[JMT]

[Angrboda]

[FatAndFaithless]

[JMT]

[FatAndFaithless]