Books regarding atheism

[The Grand Nudger]

Was it on the basis of some believers arguments containing logical fallacies that you no longer believed?

Good springboard, too. If I pointed out the fact that Grandizers response was a fallacious appeal to negative consequences - a false choice between having justification or being an unintelligent person, would you cease to believe that you had justification?

[GrandizerII]

I think you misunderstand the question.  OFC most, if not all atheists have something to say..and partly because, as social artifact, it's seen to be a requirement of some sort or another.

-is the thing they have to say, in reality, the explanation or justification for the fact that they don't believe - or a convenient ad hoc proposition filling a gap that their cognitive apparatus saw no need to address, or..perhaps..lacked the fundamental ability to address?

Let's take the case of ex believers, as the most fertile field for people who might have or need some justification.  In the moment that you realized "fuck, I don't believe this shit anymore" had some sentence in the magic book changed?  Was a flying horse or a risen demi-god more or less rational or believable the moment before than it was the moment after?  OFC not, the change was internal.


-but what was it?  Do you know, how could you know?  How expansive and accurate a picture of your subconscious do you possess?

Isn't it at least possible...and couldn't I mine the converts corner..for stories where a person first ceased to believe..and then began to look for justifications to buttress that new state of being?

(fwiw, I fully expect to find that some people did methodically deconstuct their beliefs...but I also expect that group to be smaller than the one that didn't, or never had any need to)

You (rhetorical) may not be able to pinpoint why you became an atheist in the first place, but this doesn't mean you can't provide justification for why you still to this point do not believe. I have a good idea why I still lack belief to this day (not in some full infallible sense, but enough to provide some explanation).

[The Grand Nudger]

An explanation for why you still don't believe is necessarily ad hoc, if the question is why you didn't or don't in the first place. It's not the explanation for your atheism.

OFC I can't pinpoint it, and I'm pretty open about that. I'm looking for people who can. Remember, the notion was floated, and is in dispute between us, that the majority of atheists can pinpoint this, not that. We're both equally certain that atheists have something to say, today, about that.

[GrandizerII]

An explanation for why you still don't believe is necessarily ad hoc, if the question is why you didn't or don't in the first place.  It's not the explanation for your atheism.

OFC I can't pinpoint it, and I'm pretty open about that.  I'm looking for people who can.

It's the explanation for my current atheism, and I'm pretty sure what you've been arguing is slightly different from the point that was initially made.

---

Was it on the basis of some believers arguments containing logical fallacies that you no longer believed?

Good springboard, too.  If I pointed out the fact that Grandizers response was a fallacious appeal to negative consequences - a false choice between having justification or being an unintelligent person, would you cease to believe that you had justification?

lol, yeah, it's fallacy if taken literally. But I'm not sure that's appeal to negative consequences.

[The Grand Nudger]

I am, lol. It was what your mind immediately flung to. You were reflexively arguing against being unintelligent, not what I was asking. That's why fallacious appeals work, they play on our cognitive apparatus. Hey, leave that aside, though. 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 gods...and is such a poor justification justification at all?

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?

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why would an argument against an ad hoc proposition argue against the actual, if any, justification for your non belief?

We're talking about a "bad reason to lack belief" situation...but will that change the status of your belief, or just lead you to abandon that particular conceit? I'm not convinced that these sorts of beliefs ultimately reduce to anything we'd could accurately call justification one way or another, personally. It may simply be that some are susceptible and some are not, or that we all fall on a range of susceptibility. Our coming to terms with where we fall on that spectrum - whenever we become self aware of it- leads to elaborate linguistic ruses, and particularly in context of a culture dominated for thousands of years by religious thought, and recently by rational thought, setting up the assumed internal dilemma of justification and it's baseline.

Ultimately we're talking around the issue of the operation of the human brain..and I want to stress again that none of us have an even remotely accurate internal model of that. It's being so integral to who we are, however, we're deeply invested in imagining that we know what it's doing..what we're doing..and we resent suggestions to the contrary as though they're derogatory remarks. Comments on our intelligence, for example.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I've found that virtually all of the Dr. Seuss books, while not making an explicit case for atheism, manage to do a pretty fair job of pointing up the fecklessness of belief.

I got as much out if 'If I Ran The Zoo' as I did out of 'The God Delusion'.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm pretty sure that I realized I was an atheist, as some concrete thing in opposition to some other, sometime between beginning "The Golden Dawn" by Isreal Regardie, and finishing it.

It's a users manual on 19/20th century ceremonial magic and it's underlying mechanics/mythological constructs. The rituals were elaborate, and very well thought out to produce effects. I found myself highly amused by that, my personal observation being that as competent as the engineers of the system were, the rituals would ultimately fail, as the movement failed, because there were no gods to hear their pleas.

Just them, all dressed up with painted walls, humming to themselves, wishing the world were otherwise in so many ways.

I'd known for years that I didn't believe in the stories, but I didn't realize how deeply others might or how that differentiated us and the way we viewed the world as it is, or how it could be. My first reaction as a cognizant atheist, to other peoples beliefs..was something like "really?....I'd assumed that this was stuff people just said, not that you believed it as you say it...?". That's still there, obviously, lol.

That's why I suggest other peoples magic books. There's only one way to learn about atheism, itself, and that;s first hand experience..since it's nothing more or other than the first hand experience of a state of belief. You learn about it, even if you still believe in some god, by noticing your experience of other gods that you don't. You can read about other positions in the periphery of atheism, so often mistaken -for- atheism by theists and atheists alike - but atheism...well, lived experience is pretty much the beginning and the end of that one. There's nothing else to know about it. It has no tenets, no dogma, no collection of holy writ, no specific history or authorities..even.

[GrandizerII]

Ultimately we're talking around the issue of the operation of the human brain..and I want to stress again that none of us have an even remotely accurate internal model of that. It's being so integral to who we are, however, we're deeply invested in imagining that we know what it's doing..what we're doing..and we resent suggestions to the contrary as though they're derogatory remarks. Comments on our intelligence, for example.

I'm fine with all that. I don't agree with what you're overall arguing because it seems obvious to me that justifications aren't how you see it. I couldn't care less if I mostly behave subconsciously and unaware of how my brain operates for the most part. If I can answer what makes atheism reasonable, the answer itself provides a justification for atheism regardless of whether I had this as justification at the time I had the atheism cherry popped.

I'm also fine if atheism is compared to religion to an extent. It's not a big deal. Atheism would still be the most reasonable position to take when it comes to the god question