Books regarding atheism

[The Grand Nudger]

We're all pagans, according to the christians. I've always wanted to stand in as a sort of devils advocate for contemporary paganism in a discussion like that, lol. Never really any reason or opportunity.

I've been contributing to a couple pagan boards for longer than I've been here, and I find the discussions of religion..on those boards, far more insightful and productive. It's a very self aware and self conscious set. As eager to include a plurality of positions as it is to distance itself from superstition. In the same vein, discussions regarding christian superstition are exhausted fairly quickly. They don't really require the amount of study and consideration that pagan superstitions do..arguing for or against. The abrahamics have always had a relatively simple idea.

Honestly, to my mind, christian superstition is far and away the dumbest and easiest to address, and yet people struggle with it their entire lives, and it sucks the air out of any discussion of gods. Those same people never even becoming aware of the other boxes, and having dispensed with the christian god under which they're raised, dispense with the numinous entirely.

[LastPoet]

The natural explanations existing, fully support my existence. Those that advocate for something else must provide something else than philosophical arguments. As books about atheism, meh what's there to write about? A simple sentence would suffice.

I don't need to justify my atheism. I don't believe. That's all about it.

[Belacqua]

Those that advocate for something else must provide something else than philosophical arguments. 

This shows that you have very strong beliefs, and that these beliefs are the foundation of your atheism. (Here I am using the word "belief" just to mean "something you hold to be true.") 

By denying the worth of philosophical arguments, I'm guessing (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you consider only scientific-type evidence as persuasive. This would be the standard among the type of atheists who post on web sites like this one. 

So your strong belief in certain epistemological or metaphysical conclusions -- that only empirical evidence is reliable, that what science tells us is the most reliable -- and that this commitment (which is unprovable in itself) is why you are an atheist. 

It may not be chronologically first -- maybe you were an atheist without justification first, and then committed to these principles -- but currently they form the philosophical foundation for your atheism.

I don't need to justify my atheism.

On a forum like this one no one will demand that you justify your philosophical positions, because they are more or less the default among this type of atheist. 

However, they are positions that can and should be justified. No one should pretend that he completely lacks philosophical foundations for his atheism when he so clearly has them, as you do. 

I am not saying they are BAD foundations, or that you are wrong to hold these positions. I am only saying that you do have philosophical commitments, that they underlie your atheism, and therefore your atheism is not a pure lack but the conclusion based on principles.

[The Grand Nudger]

The position of atheism, Bel, is that a person doesn't believe something.

That's why your opinions, and the book you recommended, are garbage - when it comes to atheism-.

You may have something to say about some other additional position, and the author of the book you recommended certainly has alot to say about a range of other additional positions that he dislikes. If you can't understand the difference between atheism and scientism, or atheism and humanism, that's a you problem, and the author of the books problem.

---

This is good advice for anyone, really, from, the nutter who thinks that jesus is evident, to the nutter who thinks that other atheists aren't atheists unless they also support the war against eastasia....but, if you want to talk about atheism, or criticize atheism, or argue against atheism...then fucking do -that-.

Not whatever other list of assorted gripes and complaints you have about other positions that atheists might also hold.

[EgoDeath]

This is something that I've tried to get Bel to understand more than a few times. My guess is that he does understand it but simply chooses to ignore it. Admitting that atheism is simply a lack of belief would destroy a lot of his other arguments. But what he doesn't understand is that he's not even really arguing against atheism. I think we would probably take issue with a lot of these so-called atheists that Bel also takes issue with.

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC. We all disagree with each other, strongly, on a variety of other positions. It's far more likely that agreement between atheists on some other and additional position lines up with their demographics outside of the question of their beliefs. Things like their age, the countries they were born in, their placement on a political spectrum (which also differs place by place in the specifics) etc. We may even find that atheists and theists agree and disagree, respectively, as a bloc, based on those things, about those other issues.

Judging by our creationists posts, for example, a high value is placed on scientific evidence by both sets. Regardless of whether the two groups agree that "science is on their side" - both clearly desire the credibility that science can afford any position, on any issue. Humanism, another fine example. There are more believing humanists, than non believing humanists, by brute force of demographics alone. What this demonstrates, is that neither position is foundational or exclusive...to either atheism, or theism. Further, that neither atheism or theism can claim to possess ownership of either such that the other group must be borrowing from them in order to hold those positions.

[Belacqua]

Admitting that atheism is simply a lack of belief would destroy a lot of his other arguments.

Atheism is a lack of belief among stones and lizards.

If you are a grown-up human being who has heard and rejected religious claims, it is something more than a lack.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Admitting that atheism is simply a lack of belief would destroy a lot of his other arguments.

Atheism is a lack of belief among stones and lizards.

If you are a grown-up human being who has heard and rejected religious claims, it is something more than a lack.

Nah.  The difference between 'I believe there are no gods' and 'I don't believe there are any gods' is epistemologically valid.

Boru

[Belacqua]

Atheism is a lack of belief among stones and lizards.

If you are a grown-up human being who has heard and rejected religious claims, it is something more than a lack.

Nah.  The difference between 'I believe there are no gods' and 'I don't believe there are any gods' is epistemologically valid.

Boru

That's correct. That's consistent with what I'm arguing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, stones and lizards would be atheists, if the term referred to stones and lizards. It doesn't, and this seems like something that a grown-up human being might notice? Honestly, Bel, if you want to bitch about scientism, or humanism, or antitheism, or empiricism, or materialism....really...whatever it is that gets your goat......

Do -that-?

Those things are not atheism, nor are they foundational to atheism, nor are they exclusive to atheism.