Atheism
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
Anyone got some good books on atheism?
sinners in the hands of an angry god
Dante's Inferno
Nothing that you can't learn from google searches and wikipedia
Бecы (demons/devils/the possessed) by Dostoevsky
>>7897112
Kinda strange how good books about why atheism is the way to go are scarce.
https://m.youtube.com/user/TheAmazingAtheist
You're welcome.
>>7897178
Because Atheism is a terribly basic world view, and books revolving around it are typically cash cows and simply appeals to emotion
>>7897197
How so? I'm that it's a starting point for more complex worldviews? What do you consider a complex worldview to be? A good understanding of Epistemology?
>>7897220
>I'm that it's a starting point for more complex worldviews?
anything can be a starting point for a worldview. Atheism as the subject matter in itself is terribly basic though.
> What do you consider a complex worldview to be? A good understanding of Epistemology?
I don't know. I just know Atheism is basic. It isn't as deeply rich as something like a theological worldview
C A N C E R
>>7897178
For largely the same reason why books about why astrology is shit are hard to find as well. Its just painfully obvious.
S P I N O Z A
P
I
N
O
Z
A
>>7897261
This.
>>7897290
Faust isn't a Christian work.
The person who made it unconsciously realized that protestants can't write religious fiction.
>>7897294
Milton?
Atheism is such an easy conclusion that nobody, after it became popular, bothered to write a good book about it. It's taken for granted now.
It's like asking if anyone has a good book about why racism is bad.
>>7897302
It's in the other meme and he's basically the exception.
>>7897283
>Indeed, but it's the most dominant worldview of today so I would assume people would write about it.
It's written about at length in the section called "Science".
>>7897197
>Because Atheism is a terribly basic world view,
For those who cannot into mental integration.
>>7897294
>protestants can't write religious fiction
Because protestant are holyfags such as the orthordox (kiss, kiss, kiss, kiss everything) or plain fags ad the catholics.
>>7897349
Why are you a theist?
>>7897356
Because God has revealed himself to me. Sorry I don't have a more intellectual response for you
>>7897349
Do you believe in bigfoot and santa claus?
>>7897366
Were you tripping on DMT? How do you know it was not a hallucination?
>>7897384
Not him, but unless he's a protestant, the revelation is a more broad term. Like opening of the heart for example.
>>7897366
>God revealed himself to me
You don't have to be an atheist to see the arrogance that you think your so special that big G god went out of his way to say hi to you.
>>7897283
>but it's the most dominant worldview of today
No it's not. It's not even close to being dominant in any sense of the word.
>>7897406
I'm not being arrogant, God chooses to reveal Himself to whomever He wants, I did nothing special to deserve it. In fact the bible says God chooses the weak and the ignorant which I certainly am.
>>7897396
>no because I wasn't under the influence of a hallucinogenic
The brain can do funky things. You might be a schizo.
>good books
>atheism
pick one fedora tipper
>>7897404
Sounds pretty vague.
What does this "opening of the heart" experience consist of, if not literal open-heart surgery?
>>7897415
How did he "reveal himself" exactly? Describe the event in detail.
>>7897122
Only real answer ITT
>>7897415
How do you know it was god and not the devil trying to sway you away from Islam?
>>7897442
Event which changes your perspective on life for example. It's not very difficult to grasp. It's different for different people. Take Raskoljnikov as an example of such an event.
>>7897448
>>7897469
I can't give you an intellectual answer to this. It all comes down to theology
God reveals Himself, through divine revelation given to us through His Holy Spirit. Of course, our flesh or evil entities can attempt to imitate this revelation or replace it with something else, resulting in idolatry, or the formation of cults. Because of this, we're told in the bible to test every spirit and teaching to see what is true
Basically God's Holy Spirit revealed Himself to me, and authenticated Himself by driving me to study. So I do know the arguments regarding Christ's resurrection, the existence of God, etc., but those are ultimately not responsible for my belief. The inner witness of God's Holy Spirit is what causes my belief
Romans 8:16
The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
>>7897112
My Intro to philosophy teacher recommended these authors for "naturalists"
Sam Harris
Richard Dawkins
Daniel Dennett
Christopher Hitckens
Ibn Warraq
Ayan Hirsi Ali
>>7897470
What? God "reveals himself" whenever people commit murder?
The fact that "major events" occur in people's lives says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of supernatural deities.
>>7897470
Okay but how do you know these experiences are given by god? What would it look like if these experiences weren't given by god? Would they be any different?
>>7897485
I'm curious from most "sinful" to less can you rank the following
Other Christian sects, Muslims, Jews, Atheist, Agnostics, Satanists, Eastern Religions
>>7897499
Depends which Christian sects
Other than that, all of those are equally dead in their sins.
>>7897499
Muslims = Jews = Atheist = Agnostics = Satanists = Eastern Religions
>>7897485
Sounds like you are just regurgitating a bunch of dogma that was fed to you at some point. You're not answering the question.
How, personally, did God "reveal himself" to you, that made you believe the thesis that Christianity is true and made you want to learn all that scripture you so dutifully recite?
>>7897485
But why do you believe theology in the first place? You're using theology to justify these experiences but can you justify theology? You're using circular logic which I hope you realize is bad.
>>7897521
>How, personally, did God "reveal himself" to you, that made you believe the thesis that Christianity is true and made you want to learn all that scripture you so dutifully recite?
Are you asking for my testimony? I can tell you the story, but that still isn't technically how God revealed Himself. Its a supernatural event.
>>7897523
Because God's Holy Spirit testifies that its true
I know the type of answer you're looking for. Lets just say its because the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection is overwhelming then.
>>7897491
>What? God "reveals himself" whenever people commit murder?
I will answer seriously in hopes you aren't actually retarded.
As you know people have different experiences and come to religion in different ways. Committing murder and feeling guilt is one of them and obviously doesn't happen by default. Another novel dealing with coming to religion through bad deeds is Book of the New Sun and other novels in the Solar Cycle.
>The fact that "major events" occur in people's lives says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of supernatural deities.
It doesn't, but it leads people to believe in the existence of such.
>>7897495
>Okay but how do you know these experiences are given by god?
I never had one of a significant magnitude so I can't say personally. I came to faith through my family initially and reading a lot, Wolfe and Dostoevsky being the main parties guilty.
>What would it look like if these experiences weren't given by god?
Well you need to look into them and do research I guess. If it's easily seen that it comes from drugs, mental illness or some other factor like euphoria, it's probably not God. A genuine mystical experience will be consistent with a teaching (and here I primarily mean Christian) and you can have rational inquiry into the nature of the experience.
>Would they be any different?
Well I would assume so, compare Catholic mysticism and something else that claims to be of religious nature.
>>7897535
>gods holy spirit testifies its true
Okay, how do you know that it testifies its true? Is it because of theology saying that? This is still circular logic. Please realize how fucking terrible these arguments are and how pathetic it is that they convince you or any person with an IQ greater than 50.
>historical evidence for Christs resurrection is overwhelming
Alright what is it then? First I've ever heard of it.
>>7897584
>Okay, how do you know that it testifies its true? Is it because of theology saying that? This is still circular logic. Please realize how fucking terrible these arguments are and how pathetic it is that they convince you or any person with an IQ greater than 50.
Literally answered this in my last post. Please stop skimming
>authenticated Himself by driving me to study
>Alright what is it then? First I've ever heard of it.
Look up "Gary Habermas" on YouTube. He's a historian and only uses information that even most atheist historians agree with.
Also this
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUYymBPce08oyuhnHLLkR_B
The guy made it cites his sources so don't ">Youtube" me
>>7897536
>I came to faith through my family initially
This is all you need to know folks. QED.
>>7897535
>because the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection is overwhelming
You have to be fucking kidding me. The 'historical evidence' for Jesus even existing is quite underwhelming - let alone evidence for anyone 'rising from the dead' like a zombie. Use your fucking head, son.
>>7897197
christ/lit/ is so 2015
>>7897610
>Look up "Gary Habermas" on YouTube. He's a historian
Oh for fuck's sake. He's a Christian apologist.
Cite one SHRED of evidence that 'Jesus rose from the dead'. There is none.
>>7897660
>The 'historical evidence' for Jesus even existing is quite underwhelming
Thats a really stupid and uninformed opinion to have
>>7897677
>He's a Christian apologist.
so what
>Cite one SHRED of evidence that 'Jesus rose from the dead'. There is none.
I posted in depth videos for you and you ignored them. So I'm ruling you off as intellectually dishonest
>>7897689
>Thats a really stupid and uninformed opinion to have
Facepalm. There is no contemporary historical evidence of his existence, and the earliest Christians spoke of Christ as a spiritual entity not as a human preacher. The stories of a guy from Nazareth date to the second century, and draw their content line for line from the Old Testament. That's enough to conclude that he likely did not exist.
>>7897689
>I posted in depth videos for you and you ignored them.
For once in your life - use your own words. Give me ONE SINGLE piece of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. You can't, because there is none.
>>7897732
Yeah thats why so many early Christians, including Paul and the apostles, died for their beliefs. For someone who didn't exist
You should stop typing "facepalm" before people start making fun of you by the way.
>>7897740
I'm not using my own words because I'm not going down this rabbit hole of typing paragraphs back and forth with you
If you're really serious about wanting this information, then I gave it to you.
>>7897742
They DIDN'T die for their beliefs, you idiot. You keep going back to the fairy stories that have been been handed down to you and that you swallow whole without thinking. These fables are not history.
>>7897753
Nero's persecution of Christians is a fairy tale. Okay
>>7897747
The videos you linked are an utter shitshow because the guy is just spewing out Christian apologetics with no basis in history.
Give me one shred of HISTORICAL evidence of resurrection. You can't do it.
>>7897764
You didn't even watch them
>>7897759
>Nero's persecution of Christians is a fairy tale. Okay
You mean the "Chrestians"? Whoever they were, they did not include "Paul and the apostles".
By the way, the whole premise here - the idea that religious wackjobs will never martyr themselves unless they have experienced a supernatural event - is obviously false. Examples include Islamic suicide bombers and the Heaven's Gate cult.
>>7897769
I did watch them. He is literally quoting bible passages.
>>7897781
And by the way, he erroneously says "infer" rather than "imply" throughout the series. A minor annoyance, but indicative of his low level of erudition.
>>7897112
since any mention of popular contemporary atheist authors will inevitably get a pavlovian response from the shitheads that read this board (as, of course, will this sentence), i'll just post this, which was surprisingly fascinating
Its very strange being on the on the other side of 4chans contraianism but regardless
>>7897112
There have been multiple threads on this but the best works are The Miracle of Theism and to a lesser extent arguing for Atheism.
These texts outline the principle proofs of God and the athiest arguments against these.
In response to issues like >>7897178
This is because atheism has only been allowed to be discussed openly in the past 200 years or so compared to the 2000+ for religion. Its for the same reason you can make arguments about classical music being better than modern music.
>>7897732
>facepalm
Kill yourself
>>7898337
Facepalm.
>>7897610
Jesus christ this shit is fucking pathetic, do you really find this stuff convincing? Just ask yourself why dont any of his sources(william lane craig for instance) dont even believe this crap? And if this evidence was really good how come you can only find it on some shit tier youtube video? Don't these thoughts give you any pause at all?
As far as the evidence goes its so fucking wishy washy, one of the main pillars for his argument is that "we've proved that miracles ARE possible", of course anything is "possible", that doesn't tell you shit though. And then "this theory accounts for all the data", yeah its really easy to come up with bullshit theories that account for all the data but that doesn't make them verifiable. I could come up with the theory that some kid invented a simulated universe that we're all living in and it would account for all the data but that doesn't make it a good theory. Please reexamine what you think is good evidence, youtube videos are not good evidence and the "sources" that the youtube video give don't even make the case you argue for.
>>7898189
You had atheism since 1650 in philosophy big time with Hobbes, Hume and later on a lot of French authors. You also had the stoics which is another 200 of their school. That's 550 years. Also we now have so many more people writing so time and authorship isn't exactly linear. >>7898541
While his argumentation is really lacking, the local atheist is clearly someone who never read any philosophy or literature dealing with religion. >>7897662
Hey it wasn't us who started the thread and it mostly kept going because we had a Christian with shitty arguments and an atheist with worse (for example he discredits it because people were raised into it which works just the same for every other opinion people have).
