-
Features
Have Any Book Suggestions?
- Thread starter JemStone
- Start date
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Michael Martin has written a series of books giving arguments for atheism. Thorough if a bit dry. John Loftus has written or edited a series of books on the subject. J.L. Mackie, "The Miracle Of Theism". These are not exactly the popularization books such as Dawkins or Hitchens, but are more academic.
In my library I have "The Cambridge Companion to Atheism"
Michael Martin (editor) 2006
I have some of Loftus' books. He has a good perspective as a former minister.
Also his website https://www.debunking-christianity.com/
Thanks for recommending J.L. Mackie, "The Miracle Of Theism" i will have to read it
Michael Martin (editor) 2006
I have some of Loftus' books. He has a good perspective as a former minister.
Also his website https://www.debunking-christianity.com/
Thanks for recommending J.L. Mackie, "The Miracle Of Theism" i will have to read it
James Brown
Veteran Member
Agree with the John Loftus recommendation.
Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith was seminal for me, but it's Christian-centric.
Asimov's Guide to the Bible is eye-opening about what's not spelled out in the Bible (history, geography, etc.)
Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith was seminal for me, but it's Christian-centric.
Asimov's Guide to the Bible is eye-opening about what's not spelled out in the Bible (history, geography, etc.)
southernhybrid
Contributor
I love the book "Atheism for Dummies, by Dale McGowan, so much that I've read it twice. I've met the author, while attending a meeting at the Atlanta Freethought Society. He's very likable and reasonable. You can get it in paperback or for the kindle. It's an enjoyable read, imo.
I read "The Case Against God" a long time ago. I gave it away to another atheist who really loved it. It was a little too academic/boring for me, but it's well written and makes a good argument from w hat I remember. I don't even remember all of the atheist books I've read. I was already an atheist when I read them.
I read "The Case Against God" a long time ago. I gave it away to another atheist who really loved it. It was a little too academic/boring for me, but it's well written and makes a good argument from w hat I remember. I don't even remember all of the atheist books I've read. I was already an atheist when I read them.
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 8,935
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
I never found anti-theist or anti-Christianity books very interesting. I remember getting "The God Delusion", l lost interest a few pages in.
I found religious apologetics much more interesting.
One was "When bad things happen to good people", by Rabbi Kushner. Kushner explained away the Problem of Evil by simply eliminating "Almighty" from Almighty God.
Another was Alvin Platinga's "God, Freedom, and Evil". He just asserted that God is incapable of doing anything that he, Platinga, considers illogical.
Then there's Lee Strobel, "The Case for Christ". Strobel claimed to be a hard hitting journalist and an atheist. But he saw no apparent reason to ask tough questions of his Christian interviewees, he just accepted whatever they told him. Even when they were making up stuff and attributing it to non-Christian people.
He claimed that this method of investigation turned him from a hardcore atheist to a true believer.
Books like those keep me reading until the end. Dawkins, not so much.
Tom
ETA ~It just occurred to me to include William L Craig. He likes to talk about the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
I find KCA somewhat compelling. The simplest answer to the question "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" is "God". But then Craig goes on to attribute all kinds of human characteristics to God, like sentience and caring, with absolutely no justification. ~
I found religious apologetics much more interesting.
One was "When bad things happen to good people", by Rabbi Kushner. Kushner explained away the Problem of Evil by simply eliminating "Almighty" from Almighty God.
Another was Alvin Platinga's "God, Freedom, and Evil". He just asserted that God is incapable of doing anything that he, Platinga, considers illogical.
Then there's Lee Strobel, "The Case for Christ". Strobel claimed to be a hard hitting journalist and an atheist. But he saw no apparent reason to ask tough questions of his Christian interviewees, he just accepted whatever they told him. Even when they were making up stuff and attributing it to non-Christian people.
He claimed that this method of investigation turned him from a hardcore atheist to a true believer.
Books like those keep me reading until the end. Dawkins, not so much.
Tom
ETA ~It just occurred to me to include William L Craig. He likes to talk about the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
I find KCA somewhat compelling. The simplest answer to the question "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" is "God". But then Craig goes on to attribute all kinds of human characteristics to God, like sentience and caring, with absolutely no justification. ~
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 33,983
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
No, it's not. If God is something, then it's not an answer at all; And if God is nothing, then it's not even a coherent answer, as it contradicts itself.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Back around 1984, I read The Case Against God. At that time, also published by Promethues Books was Peter Angeles, "Critiques Of God: Making The Case Against Belief In God", and "The Case Against God: A Short Introduction". Angeles and Smith put me on the path of strong atheism.
"Critiques Of God" was a collection of essays by various authors Peter Angeles edited, for me an introduction into academic atheism.
Here's an interesting one:
Jesus: Mything in Action, Vol. I (The Complete Heretic’s Guide to Western Religion Book 2)
David Fitzgerald 2017
For review see: http://volumesofvalue.com/2022/09/26/jesus-mything-in-action/
I think the title's play on words "Mything" vs. Missing is clever.
Jesus: Mything in Action, Vol. I (The Complete Heretic’s Guide to Western Religion Book 2)
David Fitzgerald 2017
For review see: http://volumesofvalue.com/2022/09/26/jesus-mything-in-action/
I think the title's play on words "Mything" vs. Missing is clever.
Wiploc
Veteran Member
Oh. I think it doesn't work at all. I'll be happy to discuss it with you if you'd like.
The KCA uses unsupported/unstated premises and does not logically lead to the conclusion that the universe has a cause. The version of the KCA that Craig peddles takes the regular argument even further by adding a bunch of nonsensical shit about personal entities. You should start a thread laying out the argument and we can discuss.
Wiploc
Veteran Member
Oh, that KCA. I remember now.
My parody is the Bicycle Argument:
The premises are iffy (as opposed to "apparently true" or "somewhat compelling"), so iffy that they can't both be true.
The conclusion doesn't flow from the premises.
My parody is the Bicycle Argument:
The premises are iffy (as opposed to "apparently true" or "somewhat compelling"), so iffy that they can't both be true.
The conclusion doesn't flow from the premises.
Wiploc
Veteran Member
I listen to The Moral Landscape repeatedly. Not to say often, but every few years. He's so good at making an argument, taking note of objections I haven't even made because he isn't here with me, and then slam-dunking my objections.
He made me a comfortable moral realist.
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 8,935
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
I'm game, but I don't think this is an appropriate thread.
Also, the key word in my post was "somewhat".
I'm confident that there's more to reality than the material. I don't claim to know anything about it, that's why I identify as agnostic.
I both believe in a God image and also an afterlife while also understanding that I don't know anything important about it so I don't make any truth claims. I'm confident that there's more to reality than I understand, vastly more than I can possibly understand.
The one thing I am most certain of, concerning god and reality, is that I don't understand it and my best guesses are extremely below the mark. Nowhere close to the Truth.
From hard atheist to devout Abrahamic, people who think they understand this look egotistical to me.
Tom
This would be an interesting topic. Why don't you start a new thread and lay out your argument and we can take it from there. I ask because there are different versions of the cosmological argument, and the Kalam just happens to be one version. WL Craig has been a champion of the KCA since the 70's and has written books about it, and his version extends the KCA even further, and that might be a good place to start for you, if you are not well versed on the topic.
Last edited:
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 14,514
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I hope so. It's been a good long time since the last KCA thread. Should be good for a laugh.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 33,983
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Being confident about things you are aware that you know nothing about is a very common form of intellectual and philosophical bankruptcy.
You shouldn't do that; You certainly shouldn't be admitting publicly that you do that (if you value your reputation at all); And any rational audience should recognise your admission to that as rendering your opinions completely worthless.
Confidence without evidence is worse than useless.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 33,983
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Which would be fine, if not for the implied "if I don't understand something, then nobody does".
"You don't know everything, therefore the shit I believe for no good reason is plausible and justified" is not a defensible position, and is rife with moral hazard.
Your lack of knowledge is a reason for YOU to be humble; It is NOT a justification to demand humility from others, whose level of knowledge you cannot possibly assess.
"Ignorance is noble" has been the catchcry of religion since it started. It was always an introduction to fraud.
Ignorance is evil. And it's consequence - trust - is even worse. Trust nobody. Not even yourself. Especially not yourself.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman
Wiploc
Veteran Member
Great!
Agreed.
Somewhat compelling. Had you said the KCA was somewhat persuasive, then ... nah, that wouldn't work. Had you called it somewhat plausible.... Sorry, that's still a no.
How about this: If you think the KCA weighs more than zero in the scales of persuasion, then I stand ready to oppose and confound you. You may make that "somewhat more than zero" if you'd like.
I'm agnostic too. But I don't have to be agnostic about clearly identified error.
Stipulated: there is much we do not know. But I do somewhat understand the KCA.
I don't see what my egotism has to do with the KCA.
Shall we have a thread in the Existence of Gods forum. I can start it, or you can. We can post a link here, so that those would would pursue this topic will know where to go.
Wiploc
Veteran Member
I can enjoy a little bluster, a little smack talk.
Partly, I come on strong because, if I'm wrong, I want somebody to notice that and straighten me out.
Partly, it may be ... nevermind. Just know that if "oppose and confound" doesn't entertain you, I'd be equally happy with "reason together until we find common ground," or something like that.