> The fallout would be spectacular.

Well, if you want to stir up the shit pot a bit more, might I suggest setting the blender on puree with these titles?

• The God Delusion (For obvious reasons)
  
• Why There Is No God (Ditto)
  
• Better Living Through Plastic Explosives (Don't judge a book by it's cover - a great read at jury selection and airports)
  
• Napalm & Silly Putty (George is not very well liked by republicans or people of faith)
  
• Phone books from across the entire state - the very people she would be working for.

A few pointers:

• Get yourself a copy of Peter Boghossian's A Manual for Creating Atheists and read it yourself. It's a good manual for teaching people how to talk to people of faith about their faith in a non-confrontational way using the socratic method. I liked the audiobook version. Gently challenge him on things he learns at church. Try to get him to explain what he's learned in his own words. Ask him if that makes sense, and so on.
  
• Science: get your kid interested in science, whether it be dinosaurs, astronomy, chemistry, electricity - something. If there's something he's already into, encourage it.
  
• Supplement his church with other mythologies. Take him to a mosque or synagogue. Talk about how different people have different beliefs. Read him Norse and Greek mythology before bedtime. Get him a book like C. Scott Littleton's Anthology of Mythology. It's got lots of pictures.
  
• Cosmos. If you have not seen it with him, you need to see it with him. Prepare to pause each episode when he has a question. Do your best to answer them and if you encounter something you don't know, be honest but follow up afterwards with a visit to wikipedia. You can get it on DVD as well as stream it on Hulu and Netflix, I think. If he likes science shows like that, there are plenty others folks here could recommend.
  
  One common theme here is this: teach him that it's important to value having as many true beliefs as possible. Instruct him on the importance of wanting to have good reasons or evidence for the things we believe. Part of this is the scientific method, but also a general desire for intellectual honesty comes into play here as well.
  
  You might also get some good suggestions are /r/atheistparents.
  
  
  

Hi there, and thank you for your trust!

It sounds like your boyfriend is going about this a bit insensitively. Logical arguments are OK for debates, when both sides do it for the intellectual challenge. It's not humane to tear a person's world view out from under them when they're unprepared for it and a captive audience. I'm sure he means well and wants you to be closer to him, but he's being a bit of a caveman about it. Don't be mad at him, but tell him you think you'll be better off if you do your own information seeking, at your own pace. Ask him to have the patience and the trust to let you educate yourself. If he really cares for you, he should be fine with this: It may even be taking a burden off his shoulders.

I think there are some things you can consider and think about that will put things into focus and make this mess seem less of a problem.

Do you remember that song by Elton John Sting? "I hope the Russians love their children too."

Consider, first, some family in Tibet. Mom and dad live in a simple hut, doing some farming or whatever Tibetans do, and they have a bunch of children. They work hard to feed the family, and in the evening when they get together for supper they talk and smile and laugh a lot. They hug their children, they care for them when they're sick. They observe some kind of religious rituals, though they've probably never heard of Jesus. When a neighbor has a problem, they help them out. When someone dies, they mourn their passing and wish them a happy afterlife. Apart from the fact that they look Asian, they're people just like you, and they're good people. They have similar hopes and fears, they have stories to share and comfort them, and so forth. Two thirds of the world's people don't believe in Jesus, yet they're humans just like you and mostly decent people, just like your neighbors. Do you think they're all going to hell? Do you think they're paralyzed by their distance from your god, from their fear of death? No. Forget what religion these folks are, they're human.

Atheists are just a special case of those "other" humans. They believe in even less "other-worldly" stuff than the folks in Tibet do. Yet you probably meet atheists on the street every day. Some of them greet you and smile, most of them would help you if you had a problem and they were around. Atheists are not like vampires: They're not evil, they don't have to stay out of God's sunlight, and they don't burn up in churches and from contact with holy water ;)

Atheists have stories too, about the creation of the universe, which is really awesomely huge and inspiring. About the struggle of life to evolve to the fine humans we are today. About the many important achievements humans have made in their short time of being intelligent and basically masters of the world.

Rather than wrenching at your faith, I suggest you take a look at other cultures and religions for a bit. Consider that there humans out there who think other things than you, yet manage to be good people and lead happy lives. I'm almost embarrassed enough to delete my sappy paragraph about the Tibetan family, but I'll leave it in there to let you know what I'm getting at.

Then, inhale a bit of science. Go to church if you feel you need to, but also listen to videos by Carl Sagan. Get an appreciation for the wonders of the universe and of nature here on our planet. It's a rich and wonderful world out there. There is so much to see, to learn! Some people are in awe of God for producing all this; but you can just as easily be in awe of nature, of the intricate mechanisms that brought all this about without anyone taking a hand in it.

More stuff on nature and evolution can be learned, more or less gently, from Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth. Get your boyfriend to buy it for you! But stay away from The God Delusion. While Dawkins is thoughtful and sensible, you don't want him telling you about how bad your god is - at least not right away.

A thought from me about a metaphor for God. Training wheels! You know how you have those wheels on your bike to keep it from tipping over as you're starting out? And how, once you've learned to keep your cycle straight, those training wheels are no longer really doing anything any more? That's God. It's comforting to feel that God is behind you in everything you do, it gives you strength and confidence. But everything you've achieved... that was you! You're standing up straight and doing fine, God is the training wheels you don't really need. On the other hand, I'm not going to say he really, truly absolutely isn't there. If you want him to be there, let him be there. Your BF will just have to put up with him for a while longer as you outgrow your training wheels.

Finally, about death: The good news is, it's not nearly the problem you think it is. There's a statistic that says, devout Christians are more than three times as likely, in their final week, to demand aggressive life-extending treatment than atheists. In English: Christians are more scared of dying than atheists are. You'd think that with heaven waiting, they'd be anxious to go! Actually, their religion -your religion- is telling them a comforting lie, letting them stick their heads in the sand all their lives. At the end, they panic because they're not sure what they believe is true. And they struggle for every minute of life.

I was religious once, and I had the "fear of death" phase, as many other atheists here report. You know what? I got over it. I confronted the idea, wrapped my head around it, got over it... and I've been completely unworried about death ever since. You'll get other people quoting Mark Twain for you here: About death being the same as the state you were in before you were born, and that didn't inconvenience you either, did it? Seriously, while I worry that my death may be painful or unpleasant, being dead is something I almost look forward to. It's like the long vacation I've always been meaning to take.

Well, I don't know if that will convince you, but... other people have been there too, and it turns out not to be the horrible problem you think it is. Things will be fine! Just allow yourself some time, and remind your BF to not be pushy about things. You can keep a spare room for when God comes to visit, but don't be surprised if that room turns out to fill up with other junk you're throwing out ;)

Trying to talk to believers about their belief is often frustrating and unproductive. Based on a great deal of practice and a deep interest in the best techniques to approach these difficult conversations, I think I can offer some constructive tips. I've written the following to help skeptics have productive conversations about religion. These techniques are heavily based on Peter Boghossian's "Street Epistemology" concept, and Anthony Magnabosco's work. (Anthony's videos are highly recommended to see these strategies in action)

HOW TO TALK TO RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR RELIGION

• You cannot convince someone else of anything — You can only provide new information, and if they accept it, they convince themselves. Sounds simple enough, but the problem is the backfire effect. This is the defensive tendency, upon hearing something contradictory, to reflexively reject it in order to preserve a belief. The result is an even stronger belief. Simply put, people like to be right, and they dislike being wrong, especially about something they consider important. So we are faced with the difficult task of getting someone to question their cherished beliefs, while we avoid being contradictory. Sounds impossible, but it's just tricky. The key is to ask questions and inspire empathy.
  
  
• Establish at the outset that you are open to new evidence, that you are willing to change your mind. Religious people like to define atheism as a religion because it's easier to dismiss dogma than an honestly curious person. But atheism has no dogma, and as an atheist, you are unattached to anything except a commitment to finding the truth, whatever it may be. You are not certain or closed-minded. You are agnostic, open, and honest, and it is this attitude that you want to inspire within the believer as much as possible. The best way to do that is to lead by example.
  
  
• Your entire discussion (and every future discussion) should primarily concern the investigation of one subject: "Why do you believe, and is it a good reason?" Instead of engaging in an argument, establish a teacher-student dynamic, with you as the student.
  
  
• How do we determine what is most likely true? Does your proposed method work consistently for everyone, or only when you use it? It's so easy to get entangled with irrelevant details, but stay on point. We want to help the believer discover that their epistemological method is unreliable, because this is the foundation of belief.
  
  
• Socratic method. Ask questions often and make assertions as sparingly as possible. I cannot overstate how important this is. Ask "why" enough, and you'll soon realize how comfortable the faithful are at describing "what" they believe, and how unprepared they are to explain the "why". And the "why" is what matters.
  
  
• Frequently summarize, in your own words, what you've heard. Ask if your summary is accurate. This assures them that you are listening and sincerely want to understand, and helps them to consider their own ideas, which can sound much less convincing when expressed with different verbiage and coming from outside one's own head. (No, I don't mean to summarize Christian doctrine as ancient blood magic. Be charitable.)
  
  
• When you hear the word, "faith", ask for a definition and don't continue until you get something reasonably coherent. Explore the reliability of faith. Ask about scenarios where faith leads to false conclusions. Listen carefully for when they use "faith" to mean something else, then return to asking what faith means. Believers often use "faith", "trust", "hope", and "belief" interchangeably. This is symptomatic of a circular belief structure — If all those words mean the same thing, then, "I have trust in my belief because I have faith" is really saying, "I have faith in my faith because I have faith".
  
  
• Avoid counter-apologetics. There are logical answers to every theistic argument, but they always fall on deaf ears. Why is this? The backfire effect plays a role, but also important to note: Apologetics are typically post facto rationalizations, and not the core reason for belief. Nobody ever converted to theism upon hearing the cosmological argument. Trying to rebut these kinds of excuses is not only argumentative, but irrelevant. If forced to engage apologetics, a good question is, "Were you a believer before you learned about these arguments?" The honest answer is always yes, so try to explore those foundational reasons for belief.
  
  
• The example of other religions should always be at the ready. When a spiritual revelation is mentioned, ask how the authenticity of one revelation can be established over another. When they talk about their holy book, ask how we can determine which holy book is most correct. When they appeal to faith, ask about people who have faith in a false god.
  
  
• "If the Muslim / Hindu / Mormon is mistaken about their revelation / book / evidence / faith... how can they discover their mistake?" You won't believe how effective and incisive this question is until you try it. It's a simple question about falsifiability, and believers, though well experienced with confirmation, don't think much about falsifiability. Whatever the answer, explore the reliability of the method.
  
  
• These kinds of questions tend to make believers uncomfortable because they rarely (if ever) consider their foundational reasoning. Expect responses of rhetorical tap-dancing which don't really answer the questions posed. Expect elaborations on "what" they believe, and not "why". Be patient and try not to interrupt. But...
  
  
• Don't get sidetracked. If you're asking good questions, you'll often get answers to questions you didn't ask. These answers will often contain fallacies or absurdities you'll want to counter, but resist that urge! Stay on topic, but don't be argumentative. If your question isn't answered, listen respectfully, then ask again, as gently as possible. I mean, avoid saying, "You didn't answer the question!" This is an accusation of evasion, and adversarial. Repeat what you just heard, ask if that's a fair summary, say, "Hmm" thoughtfully and then say, "But I don't understand how that explains..." Do you see the difference? The first response is an accusation. The second establishes that you are listening, and accuses yourself of a failure to understand. This humble attitude is important. Lead by example.
  
  
• Where appropriate, instead of saying, "I" or "You", say, "We". For example, "How can we tell the difference between something non-physical (supernatural) and something that doesn't exist?" This is a subtle but effective way to inspire empathy. You are inviting them to be your partner in an honest search for truth.
  
  
• You want to follow the beliefs of the person who is most correct. There are many competing religions and the reasons for belief offered by members of most religions are strikingly similar. Illustrate these similarities in your questions. Can the believer demonstrate that their reasons are superior to what other religions can provide? The object is to inspire empathy and get them thinking about the issue from your open perspective, faced with a variety of god claims, rather than from a position of closed certainty. If you are successful, you won't need to ask why their god hides from an honest seeker of truth — If they trust your sincerity, they'll ask themselves.
  
  I cannot guarantee that these strategies will make atheists out of everyone you encounter. But I can assure with some confidence that your conversations will be more productive, and will better provoke honest self-reflection in the believer. And that's the first step.

I'll let Jared Diamond explain:

--------------------------------------------

A recent interpretation among some scholars of religion is that belief in religious superstitions serves to display one’s commitment to one’s religion. All long-lasting human groups — Boston Red Sox fans (like me), devoted Catholics, patriotic Japanese, and others — face the same basic problem of identifying who can be trusted to remain as a group member. The more of one’s life is wrapped up with one’s group, the more crucial it is to be able to identify group members correctly and not to be deceived by someone who seeks temporary advantage by claiming to share your ideals but who really doesn’t. If that man carrying a Boston Red Sox banner, whom you had accepted as a fellow Red Sox fan, suddenly cheers when the New York Yankees hit a home run, you’ll find it humiliating but not life-threatening. But if he’s a soldier next to you in the front line and he drops his gun (or turns it on you) when the enemy attacks, your misreading of him may cost you your life.

That’s why religious affiliation involves so many overt displays to demonstrate the sincerity of your commitment: sacrifices of time and resources, enduring of hardships, and other costly displays that I’ll discuss later. One such display might be to espouse some irrational belief that contradicts the evidence of our senses, and that people outside our religion would never believe. If you claim that the founder of your church had been conceived by normal sexual intercourse between his mother and father, anyone else would believe that too, and you’ve done nothing to demonstrate your commitment to your church. But if you insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that he was born of a virgin birth, and nobody has been able to shake you of that irrational belief after many decades of your life, then your fellow believers will feel much more confident that you’ll persist in your belief and can be trusted not to abandon your group.

Nevertheless, it’s not the case that there are no limits to what can be accepted as a religious supernatural belief. Scott Atran and Pascal Boyer have independently pointed out that actual religious superstitions over the whole world constitute a narrow subset of all the arbitrary random superstitions that one could theoretically invent. To quote Pascal Boyer, there is no religion proclaiming anything like the following tenet: “There is only one God! He is omnipotent. But he exists only on Wednesdays.” Instead, the religious supernatural beings in which we believe are surprisingly similar to humans, animals, or other natural objects, except for having superior powers. They are more far-sighted, longer-lived, and stronger, travel faster, can predict the future, can change shape, can pass through walls, and so on. In other respects, gods and ghosts behave like people. The god of the Old Testament got angry, while Greek gods and goddesses became jealous, ate, drank, and had sex. Their powers surpassing human powers are projections of our own personal power fantasies; they can do what we wish we could do ourselves. I do have fantasies of hurling thunderbolts that destroy evil people, and probably many other people share those fantasies of mine, but I have never fantasized about existing only on Wednesdays. Hence it doesn’t surprise me that gods in many religions are pictured as smiting evil-doers, but that no religion holds out the dream of existing just on Wednesdays. Thus, religious supernatural beliefs are irrational, but emotionally plausible and satisfying. That’s why they’re so believable, despite at the same time being rationally implausible.

Source: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/13/jared_diamond_its_irrational_to_be_religious/

--------------------------------------------

You may also want to read the book Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer (alluded to in the passage by Diamond) to understand religion on a deeper psychological level:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_Explained

http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Explained-Evolutionary-Origins-Religious/dp/0465006965

Yeah, he made reference to well-known arguments for the existence of God that are easily found in such books as An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion and The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology and Proofs of God: Classical Arguments from Tertullian to Barth and New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy.

Why are you so angry?

Here's a book: https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094

You might want to look into street epistemology, which is specifically geared toward making people rethink their religious views in a non-confrontational way. You should check out some of Anthony Magnabosco's videos or the book A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian.

The thesis of this book is : Don’t attack specific truth claims. Undermine faith and epistemology to create critical thinkers.

https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094/ref=nodl_

No doubt! but, please buy them a replacement copy.

I've come to enjoy this youtube channel specifically for the way he engages with people in a largely non-confrontational role.

I believe the techniques are well described in a book by Peter Boghossian called A Manuel For Creating Atheists. The guy in the youtube channel might even be the author, I don't know.

Anyway, I think it's a good basis for discussion. It's not about "You Are WRONG!". It's about taking a closed door and nudging it ajar so the person goes home and thinks about the topic more.

Definitely. Ironically, /r/Islam is what started me on my journey, because half the content on that sub was stuff I totally disagreed with on a fundamental level. The questions that were being asked were silly (in my opinion), and the answers were even sillier. I didn't realise people actually thought that way. I was a pretty liberal Muslim at the time and thought that you didn't have to follow the Qur'an by the book to be a good Muslim, all you had to do was have good intentions. Seems I was the only one who thought that way.

So I went out looking for a sub that countered that one, which is when I found /r/exmuslim. The more I lurked around this sub the more I started to question organised religion, but still somewhat believed that god existed. Then I read The God Delusion, and that, I think, was the final blow.

But yes, /r/exmuslim played a huge part.

The question is not whether you feel close to god. The question is do you believe in God?

If the answer is, as I suspect it might be, "I don't know," then that is what you need to tackle first. You would have to remove all the questions of halal and haram, whether you can drink alcohol or not, eat bacon or not, because at this point they are irrelevant. They are details of what God has asked us to do, which mean nothing if you don't believe in God.

You have to assess whether you believe in God without involving your wants and desires into it. Then you'll have to face a very important and difficult decision: if you do believe in God, and become convinced it is the truth despite your emotions, are you willing to act upon that truth?

That statement you said about taking off the hijab and feeling the wind in your hair was me. I was lost. I too had read the Qur'an so many times with no real comprehension. I was in a swamp of doubt drowning in emotions and desires of what I wanted to do but which Islam was preventing me from doing. It was all Islam's fault you see, why everything was wrong, and everything would become so much better without it, because then I'd be in control of my life and decisions. I would do all the nice and fun things I couldn't otherwise do. See, that's what shaytan does, he masks the real issue in shallow wants and delusions of control that distract you from the real problem in hopes that you go completely off course.

I had a total emotional and faith breakdown one day complete with tears, as I came to the realization that I rationally believe that God absolutely exists and could not lie to myself, even though my heart felt emotionally empty of that belief. I had that breakdown because I thought myself too weak emotionally to face that belief and its consequences, that I almost didn't want to. But I did, I begged Allah for help, put my reason in charge of my emotions, and... I slowly got over it. I won't say I magically overnight went from resentful to pious, it has been a journey of many years. But with every small effort I made to stick with my deen, it became much easier and more good came my way. It still requires daily effort but now, alhamdulillah, my belief is no longer just rational and emotionally empty, but incredibly rich and filled with utter love for my Creator. The more love I have for Allah (swt) the more those wants and desires I used have feel like they were the prison and that now I feel the joy of freedom that only one who was in a prison can feel.

Some of the things that seem to have helped for me and for my younger sister (who went through what I went through a couple of years after me, but her faith was emotional and she needed to work on the rational part) that may help you too: Reading some philosophical works: reading the kalam cosmological argument helped me, she's currently reading There is a God by Anthony Flew (a famous atheist who ended up believing late in life). She also started a Qur'an club among a group of friends who were interested and we meet every other Sunday to discuss a surah. That has helped tremendously for us to connect with the Qur'an on a personal level. Listening to Nouman Ali Khan discuss the Qur'an has also helped us understand it a lot. Also, I feel like I'm sharing this video a lot these days, but here goes: Jeffrey Lang - The purpose of life.

My point is, find whatever works for you.

I pray Allah (swt) will guide you and make things clearer for you.

Edit: added some resources/links. I hope they help!

Saw him play this past May in Boston and they were phenomenal. If you get a chance check out his books Is Belief in God Good, Bad or Irrelevant? and Anarchy Evolution. Very smart dude and an incredibly talented vocalist.

Sigh..

1. Evolution has been understood to exist for 500 years, and enjoys support by scientists in every country in every century. You're proposing a massive conspiracy that is infeasible. Furthermore, evolution is quite proven by the concept of DNA. The question that is the "theory" part is what drives the change in species. Modern theory consists of natural selection, genetic drift, and other factors which all come into play. After the discovery of DNA, it kind of became ridiculous to deny. We can manipulate genes, we can discover which gene is responsible for specific genetic variations, and we can track the change of species (for instance Avian Influenza) and use modern understanding to create vaccines for them. Quite simply denying evolution is like denying algebra. Both are fundamental cornerstones of their respective fields.
   
2. Of course they didn't interview 100% of scientists, but anyone that has taken a class in statistics understands that any decent survey should represent the overall group very well given an adequate percentage of randomised samples. The fact that you said what you did instead of suggesting the survey was biased or not random tells me that you are not capable of going further in this conversation, so I will direct you to a book by a Catholic Evolutionary Biologist:
   http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497

Here are a few that might interest you.

https://strangenotions.com/wright-conversion/

C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1450724094&sr=1-1&keywords=mere+christianity+by+c.s.+lewis


Catholicism & Reason: Creed & Apologetics by Edward J. Hayes

Anthony Flew's "There is a God"
http://www.amazon.com/There-Is-God-Notorious-Atheist/dp/0061335304

I would say yes, but with a few caveats. I myself am a bit of an autodidact, and I study philosophy as a hobby in my free time. I am currently a university student who works part time, so I sympathize with your concerns about limited time and energy. Some things I think you should be aware of:

• Studying on your own will be slower and generally less efficient than getting a degree. You won’t have the same obligations or motivators that university students have.

• You will lack access to resources that university students have. This includes both academic material (journals, essays, books) but also an environment with instructors and fellow students to consult when you’re confused.

• You will not have the benefit of writing essays and having them graded by an instructor.

Despite this, I still think there is a lot to be gained from self study. You have the freedom to pursue whatever you want, and you can go at a pace that’s comfortable to you. Plus there’s something to be said about challenging yourself and doing constructive things in your free time.

It may be best to start with introductory texts like Copleston’s history to get a general idea for each philosopher and to find what interests you. If you are still interested in the thinkers you mentioned, you should move on to primary sources. I’d recommend the following reading plan which should cover some of the “essentials” and has a sort of progression from one thinker to the next:

1. Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy: From Thales to Aristotle
   
2. Descartes: Selected Philosophical Writings by Descartes
   
3. Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals by Hume
   
4. Critique of Pure Reason by Kant
   
   These four books will give you a solid foundation in western philosophy. You have the fundamental ideas and questions from the Pre-Socratics, Plato, and Aristotle, rationalism from Descartes, empiricism from Hume, and the synthesis of the two in Kant. Moving on:
   
   
5. Logical Investigations by Husserl
   
   
6. Being and Time by Heidegger
   
   
7. Being and Nothingness by Sartre
   
   These three cover your interests in phenomenology, from its foundations in Husserl, to Heidegger’s magnum opus, to Sartre’s interpretation and his development of existentialism. Finally we have:
   
   
8. Dialectic of Enlightenment by Horkheimer & Adorno
   
   
9. Speech and Phenomenon by Derrida
   
   These two cover Horkheimer & Adorno’s critical take on enlightenment rationality and Derrida’s deconstruction of Husserlian phenomenology.
   
   None of these books are particularly easy (especially Husserl and Heidegger), but I encourage you to try! Take it one book at a time, read slow and take notes, and consult the IEP and SEP if you’re confused, watch YouTube lectures, or ask on this subreddit.
   
   Good luck!

I believe he's referring to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Two things to toss on your bed...

THING 1

And THING 2

I am very much not an artist and so won't attempt to answer your questions (sorry). Instead, I will offer a syllabus of sorts of Reformed writings on the arts:

• Everything ever written by Hans Rookmaaker. In particular:
  
  • The Creative Gift: Essays on Art and the Christian Life
    
  • Modern Art and the Death of a Culture
    
  • Art Needs No Justification
    
• Art and the Bible by Francis Schaeffer.
  
• Calvinism and Art. The fifth of Abraham Kuypers "Lectures on Calvinism" - free ebook here.
  
• Art for God's Sake: A Call to Recover the Arts by Phillip Graham Ryken
  
• Visual Faith: Art, Theology, and Worship in Dialogue by William Dyrnes.
  
• Echoes of Eden: Reflections on Christianity, Literature, and the Arts by Jerram Barrs.
  
  

Try less of being an immature asshole and more of a critical thinker. Read some books on church history, the ces letter, A Manual For Creating Atheists, How to be a really good pain in the ass, etc and provide helpful rational polite commentary as the appropriate topic comes up. Really know your stuff and where the sources are coming from. Think about what their responses are likely to be and how to counter them. Consider it waging a polite private war on seminary if it helps you. If the teacher see you as an articulate and convincing influence on the other kids they won't want you there. Otherwise they will just think you are just another immature kid throwing a tantrum.

Or if that sounds like too much work for you than you can just nap your way through seminary or read a book for the few minutes a day they take up. I got a lot of good reading time in there when I was your age.

Yup.

I'd recommend checking these out:

Plantinga, Alvin. God and Other Minds. Cornell University Press, 1990.

Feser, Edward. The Last Superstition: a Refutation of the New Atheism. St. Augustine's Press, 2011.

Plantinga, Alvin. Knowledge and Christian Belief. Eerdmans, 2015.

Pitre, Brant. The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ. Image, 2016.

Feser, Edward. Five Proofs of the Existence of God. Ignatius Press, 2017.

If he doesn't want to read something, don't push it on him.

Even if he does end up reading it, it won't be a proper reading, just something to please you that he begrudgingly does.

It is like reading a book that you were forced to read in school years after the fact, and you love the book on the 2nd reading but because you were forced to read it the first time you didn't engage it the way you should have. Same thing.

If you want to have a good discussion with him, you need to stop telling him things and instead start asking questions. With the right questions, he comes to his own answers instead of some kid (which you are in his eyes because he is your uncle) telling him.

This is the socratic method, and it works. If you want to learn more about applying it to atheism, check out A Manual for Creating Atheists.

There's a book called "A Manual for Creating Atheists", which talks about various non-confrontational techniques like Socratic questioning.

If you value your relationship (long term), i would suggest taking a different approach.

I went through a similar situation with my GF (now wife). We were both pretty confident YEC's (then i took a Critical Thinking class and boom). The method i used was explaining my thought process and asking her what she thought about it. It's important not to make the issue adversarial, but to make it a conversation. No debate will make her change her mind (or better yet see where you come from).

The problem is not god/religion/church (not directly anyway), but faith. Faith is what causes logic/critical thinking not to work. It allows for magic. Faith is a bad epistemology (how you know what you know). My old CT professor wrote a book about it: A Manual For Creating Atheists. (foreward by Michael Shermer)

The edgy title is a little misleading, the book is about critical thinking and about how you know what you know. It tackles the issue of faith. The method advocated (honest, non-adversarial conversation etc) is pretty well demonstrated by this guy on youtube.

My relationship was very important to me and i almost lost it because of difference of belief. She was also reasonable and agreed to hear me out. Now we both still share utter incredulity that we could have ever held those views. Don't listen to the "just dump her" comments. Relationships with people are too important to just discard.

*full disclosure Amazon link is Smile link to support the skeptic society.

You're not likely to change theists minds through debate or argument. I find that Street Epistemology/Socratic Method is the best method for examining beliefs and what methods someone uses to arrive at a particular belief (e.g. faith vs scientific method). Check out Anthony Magnabosco's Youtube channel or Peter Boghossian's book "A Guide for creating atheists".

yeah the joke was about The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

I know this sounds hard to believe but I made $69/hour in my spare time just working at home! To visit this website click here or copy this URL into your web browser: http://xxxbotjobs.com/gamereddit

It was that easy I racked up $450 in 3 days just spending time online! I love this site it made it all possible! To visit this website click here or copy this URL into your web browser: http://xxxbotjobs.com/gamereddit

It is totally recession-proof, and read this news article from a reputable source about how this awesome Fortune 500 company is not a scam! To visit this website click here or copy this URL into your web browser: http://xxxbotjobs.com/gamereddit

> I've had spiritual experiences I believe are from God, so in a way, yes.

but you've never met him. the answer is no

> I've never met President Obama. Should I believe he doesn't exist? That's your best evidence?

neither have I but others have and we can prove his existence. are you trolling?

> I'll agree with the ones other than Christianity that I've researched.

ah, so you are an atheists towards other gods.

> Can you provide what convinces you of this in regards to Christianity?

this is going to require some research and time which sadly I dont think you'll do. but here are a few. I could go on and on and on if you'd like.

this, this, this, this, this, this

In terms of the existence of God, it was largely Anthony Flew's "There is a God" and C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" that got me to a place where I could at least be open the idea of the existence of God.

I recommend watching some videos by Anthony Magnabosco. He uses "Street Epistemology" techniques originally described in Peter Boghassian's book A Manual for Creating Atheists, although there are some variations. The core idea is to use the Socratic method to examine the reasons for why someone believes what they believe and determine if those reasons are reliable.

There are several advantages to this method:

• It is not necessarily adversarial; properly done it is framed as a mutual discussion and not as a debate. The goal isn't to "win" but to examine reasons for belief, which makes it far more effective in actually changing minds (and just as important, staying friends afterwards!).
  
  
• It is not reliant on attacking any specific belief system; usually it's best to avoid discussing religion at all! Instead it focuses on epistemology and "faith," trying to encourage the person to examine if their reason for belief is really justified. In Boghassian's book he mentions his theory is that the fundamental source of most people's belief in God is based on a flawed epistemology...fix the epistemology and the God belief will evaporate. His idea is that it's not belief in God per se that causes issues with religion but poor epistemologies that cause people to believe in God.
  
  
• Similar to the above, it can be used to examine any belief, not just God...karma, alien abductions, conspiracy theories, superstitions, etc. are all good targets.
  
  
• Lastly, it tends to be the most respectful way to engage with someone on these topics. Getting bent out of shape and raging against theists helps no one, and is usually hypocritical. The Socratic method relies on emulating the behavior you'd like to see in the other person, which tends to result in everyone being much happier afterwards rather than pissed off.
  
  The disadvantage, of course, is that it takes a long time and isn't as fun of a method to use to debate with strangers online. But for face-to-face conversations, especially with people you want to keep a good relationship with, I don't think there's a better method if you want to address the topic.

Check out Anthony Magnabosco on the YouTube practicing 'street epistemology' as taught by Peter Boghossian in Manual for Creating Atheists.

> if anyone has any experience with college kids and what they like to ask.

First off, your typical college kid has not read anything on religion as sophisticated C.S. Lewis et al. I think it will be less the kids and more the professors that might ask tough questions. I think /r/atheism is about as sophisticated as college kids will be. So, not that I would encourage you to check out that sub, but those are mainly college kids posting overly simplistic things like "religion starts wars" or "faith is inconsistent with science", "The religious are bigots" etc...

Some professors may have read significantly more sophisticated things then typically show up on the sophomoric memes of /r/atheism. But for every one of them, there is someone like those I list below that have just as sophisticated counterpoint.

With that said here is my advice:

1. Don't close your mind at college. There are many great truths the "secular world" knows and you need to treasure them all up. Don't become the Christian who thinks humans rode dinosaurs like horses. Be prepared to learn and work hard to learn.
   
   
2. Though I argue way too much, be careful when arguing/debating about religion that you never lose your cool. Always be civil and respectful. I have seen more people converted by "good examples" then by intellectual argument.
   
   
3. When you see intellectual things tugging at your faith, please allow the Christian Philosophers to also give their side of the story. Some here troubling things and give up way faster than they should. Some notable Christian Philosophers to follow: William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Alexander Pruss, basically the several authors of the chapters of this book which are all top notch philosophers and deeply faithful, this site has some contributors that are top notch, etc...
   
   And some of them like William Lane Craig have sections of their website devoted to answering questions so if you have any tough questions do be afraid to ask these people. Just please, no matter what confusing question you run into, know that there are incredibly smart and respected intellectuals who have already addressed that confusing issue.
   
   Also, follow their blogs, newsletters, youtube debates and websites (as well as check out their books) so you always stay on top of the latest Christian arguments.
   
   
4. The sophomoric posts of /r/atheism are literally being posted often by college kids so that sub is a good example of what you will find other kids bring up.
   
   
5. And what ever you do, always make sure you do the "little things" like pray and read the scriptures. One danger intellectuals sometimes have is ignoring these little things that bring power like a grain of mustard seed.
   
   

I think the first thing you need to do is undermine the idea of faith. The opposition to evolution, and science generally is deeply rooted in faith and if that isn't talked about, there is a good chance you will talk past each other. Peter Boghossian wrote a good book on this

Read A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian. Also, check out Anthony Magnabosco's YouTube channel. He interviews people while using the methods from Boghossian's book. I was able to get my parents out of Mormonism because of that book and YouTube channel.

https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1480443561&sr=1-1&keywords=a+manual+for+creating+atheists

> Every time I talk to them, they tell me to go to church or pray or read the bible or some other nonsense.

Agree to their request - IF they do the same for you. You will read the bible and discuss what you find in it with them if they will read something you suggest and they discuss it with you.

Here is a couple of suggestions for reading in the bible:

Luke 19:11-27 The Parable of the Ten Minas - What is the meaning behind this parable? When are your parents gearing up for the slaughter?

Ok, I am too lazy to list other examples - so here is a link - A Book of Blood: Biblical atrocities :D

As for reading material for your parents - check the FAQ for a good list. The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, is a popular choice.

Or you can work with your parents to investigate the foundations of the Catholic religion together. The primary most basic foundation to Catholics , and all the Abrahamic Religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is the belief in one and only one monotheistic deity, Yahweh/YHWH/Allah. All of these religions also have established the precedent of accepting the revealed and religious literature/oral history of previous cultures regarding Yahweh/Allah. A fun and informative activity that any good adherent to Yahwehism should undertake is to investigate the origin story for Yahweh. Where did Yahweh come from? Yahweh did not just pop up fully revealed to the early Israelites (as documented in the Torah). SPOLIER: Yahweh started out as a second tier fertility/rain/warrior local desert God under the El, Father God, Pantheon.

Online evidential sources related to the development and growth of Allahism/Yahwehism:

• Israelite Religion to Judaism: the Evolution of the Religion of Israel
  
• The evolution of God
  
• Ugarit and the Bible
  
• The Ascension of Yahweh: The Origins and Development of Israelite Monotheism from the Afrasan to Josiah - PDF warning
  
  Other (off-line references - but if you search, you may find them online):
  
  
• The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel by Mark Smith
  
• The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark S. Smith
  
• A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by Karen Armstrong
  
• The Religion of Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel) by Patrick D. Miller
  
• Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches by Ziony Zevit
  
  Allah/Yahweh/God is claimed to be the only true God (ex., “There is no god but Allah.”), yet significant physical archeological and linguistic anthropological evidence documents the doctrinal growth of Allah/Yahweh from a subordinate rain/fertility/warrior Deity in a large polytheistic pantheon of revealed and worshiped Deities into a politically and militarily motivated monotheistic Deity belief system. In other words, the evidence points to monotheistic Allahism/Yahwehism as a human-made concept and not as a self-revealed monotheistic Deity.

Well, it was a pretty long journey, but I'll try to summarize the main points.

I'm a cradle catholic. So when I was young, I attended catechism classes and I just took it all in without thinking about it critically.

As I grew older, I started to question all the things I was taught before. And the more you know about physics and biology, the more you question how the universe really works. Moreover, I got exposed to the writings and ideas of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and the other popularly vocal atheist guys. I got exposed to arguments like the God of the Gaps, I saw the corruption in the catholic church both now and in the past; and all these things just added up and eventually pushed me to become an atheist.

After a certain event in my life though, I was forced to really think about what I truly believe in. I did a lot of thinking and a lot of studying of the arguments of atheists and the other religions as well. What I've come to realize is that catholicism, though not perfect, is probably the closest to the truth about how our universe works and how we should live our lives. That's a big statement, and I'm willing to be proved wrong on that, but here's briefly how I came to that conclusion.

I was exposed to the writings of Thomas Aquinas. His five proofs, and in particular, his argument from contingency is quite a revelation, and to me it makes a lot of sense. I also realized that there is a limit to what science can answer, and the only honest statement that science can make about God is that we don't know and can't prove scientifically whether or not he exists. Then you have the argument from absolute morality (which is not the same as 'what's stopping you from committing crimes if you don't fear a higher power?'). You have the proof of the historicity of Jesus and his message. You have the high probability of the resurrection being a real event. There's also the behaviour of the early church fathers and what they believed the message of Jesus was.

And I also came across many scientist-theists and their writings. John Lennox is particularly good (http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertaker-Has-Science-Buried/dp/0745953719). Alistair McGrath is another one who bridges the science-religion debate really well.

So now I'm back to the catholic church. I know it's not perfect, there is still corruption there. But just because the people that make up the church are corrupt does not mean it's message is necessarily corrupt as well.

Further on 10: Here are some resources that I think you may find helpful.

Historicity of the Bible

An article by Peter S. Williams

Article On the Historicity of the New Testament By J.P. Moreland

Audio Resources By Dr. Timothy McGrew (analytic philosopher and historical apologist)

An essay on the historically and historiographically corroborated resurrection of Jesus Christ, explicated by the Bayesian Theorem of probabilities

In determining whether there is a true religion or not, I had to look to history. All other religions can be dismissed as nonfalsifiable for lacking an equally strong case, as analytic philosopher and NT Scholar William Lane Craig said.

Natural Theology • Contemporary Advanced Formulations + Extra Philosophy

Websites:

Dr. Alexander Pruss's Blog, Dr. Edward Feser's Blog,Reasonablefaith.org, DesiringGod.org

Essays and a Few Short Writings:

Christianity as a Properly Basic Belief

A Distinction Between Faith and Credence?

On the Kalam Cosmological Argument, Philosopher Robert Koons' Version

Appealing to the Sciences in Assessing a Kalam Cosmological Argument

On The Contemporary Cosmological Arugments Appealing to Plausible Causal Principles, and The Liebnizian Explanatory Principle

Moral Arguments--An Overview

Another Perspective on Arguments appealing to Our Moral Experience (first essay on evaluating moral antirealism as an extension of naturalism, the second on rejecting all other non-theistic accounts of morality with human dignity as the primary example)

An Argument From Reason

From Consciousness, + another consideration

Essays by Mathematician/Analytic Philosopher Alexander Pruss (see his work on the modal ontological arguments appealing to the unique and, as he argues, coherent concept of God. Additionally, his extensive work on the contemporary Liebnizian Cosmological Argument is, to my studied opinion, compelling--but that's up for you to conclude. His forthcoming collaborative book endeavors to substantiate theses regarding the existence of a necessary being.)

From Beauty

From Simplicity--Meta-aesthetics, See Plantinga's lecture notes at the bottom for another argument from Simplicity as A Theoretical Virtue for the Evaluation of a Hypothesis

Two arguments similar to the argument from fine tuning: The Applicability of Mathematics to the Physical World + A Simple Inference From Entropic Diminutiveness

Inferring from Instantiations of Biological Complexity to an Intelligent Source (the sort of thing that convinced Antony Flew of deism, world's most prominent and contributive atheist philosopher of religion in that recent generation...I'm not talking about the so called "ID Theory")

Search Robin Collins' website for his design arguments from the laws of nature and the "fine tuning" of the universe for the development of intelligent life. (forthcoming, tentatively titled book: A Well Tempered Universe)

From the Normative Status of Altruism

On How Religious Experiences Substantiate Theism

Essay By C.S. Lewis on Christ's Radical Personal Claims

The Laws of Logic<--interesting, maybe promising, but needs work

Answering a Few Objections

Atheistic Arguments from Evil: a long, thorough answer, + a short (but simplistic) answer

Can a Moral God and Hell Coexist?--see Dr. William Lane Craig debate this topic + Edward Feser's recent three blog posts on this topic.

Typical Objections to a Cosmological Argument Feser's specifically considering that of Thomism

Don't confuse the work of analytic philosophers with that of philosophically naive theologians debating philosophically naive popularizers of atheism

One resource won't likely do it for all your investigation in coming to an informed opinion on these subjects, I'm afraid.
I think an honest assessment of each of these reveals each at least raises the probability that God exists.
But don't forget one more thing: these arguments should be put together. A hypothesis that solves 24+ problems has significant evidence in its favor--especially when it serves to explain much of the most fundamental data in human experience. In the interest of objectivity and the pursuit of truth in general, try not to think of this as evaluating each argument aspiring to establish a theologically significant conclusion respectively--rather, determine whether each essay/article/etc is on to something or not. i.e. For quite a while I thought there could not possibly be a coherent formulation of an ontological argument, but now I can see that I would have done better to reject a particular defender's presentation of such an argument rather than throw it out as a whole. That's the most extreme example, of course, as ontological arguments for theism are notoriously controversial--in large part due to, I suspect, the conflation of Anselm's controversial argument from conceptuality with the modern ones from modality/potentiality.

There's much more I'm forgetting, but there's a place to start. I hope that helps, God bless! In honer of Alvin Plantinga

I'll second A Manual for Creating Atheists! It's a great read. Here's the link for anyone interested in picking it up:

http://smile.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian-ebook/dp/B00LKBT0MC/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=

I'd argue that trying to leave them dumbfounded is actually the wrong approach, instead you need to get them thinking and accepting that when they're really trying to solve problems, even when they claim to be relying on faith, if they're really trying to resolve the problem they'll end up using reason and critical thinking (or rely on those that do so like doctors, engineers, etc).

To do that, the arguments you use will vary greatly depending on the individual, their background, and how open or closed they are to reason and new ideas.

A good recent book that covers an overview of the topic is Peter Boghossian's recent book:

• A Manual for Creating Atheists, by Pater Boghossian
  
  as he points out, sometimes bringing up arguments just for argument- or "gotcha"- sake can set them to trying to refute what you just said or double-down on explaining their own beliefs and can entrench them further that can also insulate them even from reason.
  
  Seek out ways to not only get them to agree with you, but ways in which they want to agree with you that faith is useless (or worse) and reason is the best way to approach their problems.

Hi. It looks like Dr ransom got to you first but it looks like he is going to say much of what I came here to say myself.

I'm a working engineer, highly educated in the sciences, and a devout Christian. I not only accept evolution but recognize it as being as much of a fact as gravity and I have no problem with homosexuality. I have also spoken, at length, on why neither of these two things are in conflict with scripture when it is read in its proper context, (eg.. with consideration of the styles of the original authors, their intended audiences, the historical context of the portions of the Bible being considererd, etc...).

What you are running into is the simple fact that the current, popular, approach of trying to treat the Bible as a scientific textbook on everything isn't what God intended.

If you have any questions that you don't feel others are answering, feel free to PM me and give me a shot at it. If nothing else, I'll point you at some good reading. :)

Like 'Finding Darwins God'

Kennity Miller, the author, is a Professor of Biology at Brown University and has written a host of essays and papers talking about the intersection of evolution and Christianity, (amongst other topics).

So he may be a good place for you to look too. :)

That's an easy one, get "Finding Darwin's God":

http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497

But you know, this problem has been resolved before, it's just the new version of Christianity called "fundamentalism" that has re-introduced this debate.

Here's a passage from over 1.5K years ago:

-- St. Augustine, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" (written circa 401-415 AD)

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience."

"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men."

"If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

"Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.' [1 Timothy 1.7]"

St. Augustine is right to be worried. I was raised a YEC and I'm [now] an atheist. Creationism was one of the first dominos to fall, once I realized how much evidence there was against it I started questioning the other things I'd been taught to believe. Now I understand I was brainwashed and indoctrinated, but it was creationism that gave me my first glimpse of the light.

>This is a good explanation of in what contexts people are inclined to make snap judgments/stereotype: when the costs of getting it wrong are high and there isn't better information available, we'll be more willing to use a criteria that has a lot of false positives.

I recently read a book that suggested this is the origin of religion.

If by 'lacking' you mean 'nonexistent', then yes.

I went to public school but with heavy influence from my folks and church, all of whom seem to be involved in some sort of Fundamentalism competition. I learned exactly as much as I had to in order to pass the test, but I was always convinced it was a lie because scientists are all "out to get" Christianity.

I'm still wrapping my head around just how unhealthy this worldview can be.

I'll echo /u/Cognizant_Psyche - kudos on taking that first step and deciding to get smart on this topic.

I talked to my church pastor, who passed me off to his wife (who has apologetics degrees out the ass). She recommended The Language of God, a tactic which soundly backfired on her. That book was fantastic. It explains evolution from a DNA perspective but then tries to tell me I can still believe in God if I want to. For me, from such a fundamentalist, literalist background, the bible had to be true word-for-word, yet this book flew in the face of the entire Genesis account of creation. If that wasn't real, how could I trust any of the rest?

Once I was 'cleared' to learn about Evolution, I grabbed Dawkins' The God Delusion. I watched the Ham-Nye debate. I grabbed Who Wrote The New Testament, and Misquoting Jesus. That pretty much did it for me.

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/recommended/reading

http://smile.amazon.com/History-God-000-Year-Judaism-Christianity/dp/0345384563/

http://smile.amazon.com/Descartes-Baby-Science-Development-Explains/dp/0465007864

http://smile.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/

http://smile.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/0143038338/

And so many more.

Watch debates on YouTube. Dawkins is good for cold logic. Hitchens is good for more historical or anti-organized-religion arguments.

Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Keep in mind that a good debater should remain a gentleman. A kind word can go a long way. Be blunt but polite. Satire is useful, but crass ridicule may alienate your audience.

http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248

PM me if you want me to mail it to your folks place.

Some stuff that's important in contemporary analytic phil religion:

The Miracle of Theism by J.L. Mackie

God, Freedom, and Evil by Alvin Plantinga

God and Other Minds by Alvin Plantinga

The Coherence of Theism by Richard Swinburne

The Existence of God by Richard Swinburne

Can God Be Free? by William Rowe

Perceiving God by William Alston

where did i suggest other religions didnt have dedicated scholars.

>rational contemplations

oh rly. did you read Thomas Aquinas? ghazali? Maimonides? Descarte perhaps? Immanuel Kant? maybe william lane craig?

perhaps read something like this

I was this missionary. Not really, but I could rationalize with the best of them. Logic just did not enter my way of thinking. This missionary is SMART. You have to be smart to maneuver a conversation the way he did.

Looking back on it, I'm not sure if one conversation could change my mind. My mind was changed very, very slowly and by many, many conversations. With that said, I think you should just debate one topic and stick to it. Don't change...don't let him change. The reason to select just one topic is because five years from now, that's all he'll remember.

I had a conversation 10 years before I left the church with a guy. He said "Is the world more righteous now than it was 50 years ago?" I said "NO! We are more wicked now than ever!"

Then he said, "We're curing cancer, providing insulin, creating artificial limbs, and generally healing more people with more technology and medicine than in the history of the world. Surely God wouldn't bless us with such longevity for no reason? We're SUPER righteous!"

That stuck with me for a long time. It made no sense to me. Why would God do that? If God wasn't doing that, then why would Satan bless us with long, happy lives?

I guess what I'm saying is that this conversation might have been a major victory for you, but we won't know for years to come. People need lots of time to abandon their delusions.

Personally, I think you were on the right track when you attacked faith. Everyone feels the spirit. Everyone thinks it tells them what is true. Everyone believes in really different things. Therefore, faith and the spirit must be an unreliable way at arriving at truth. His central message is that faith is the ONLY reliable method for arriving at truth. He's using a method that is deeply flawed at finding ANY truth.

This is directly from Peter Boghassian's book, A Manual For Creating Atheists

Arguing in the sense of counter-apologetics and debate will very rarely change anyone's mind. Generally people have to be open-minded and willing to be wrong in order to change, and a debate setting immediately turns off both of these factors.

If you haven't already heard of Street Epistemology, [this channel] (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCocP40a_UvRkUAPLD5ezLIQ) is an excellent place to start. Based on [this book] (http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463408447&sr=8-1&keywords=a+manual+for+creating+atheists), Anthony uses the Socratic Method to get believers to start considering the reliability of their beliefs on their own, which is generally much more effective than slamming down silly arguments with counter-apologetics.

If you get into a debate, especially with fundamentalists, you're only hurting yourself.

You need this book. You're debating on his turf. Try using the Socratic method and treat him like a "patient" on your couch of psychology and find out "why" he thinks these things, then he will (maybe), realize that he is wrong in the future. Other than that, there is no other way for you to make him see the light.

Creation and evolution can co-exist. Be careful not to force her into a false dichotomy.

To quote another person:

> I think your statement about the compatibility of orthodox Christian belief and the embrace of evolutionary theory is correct. So far as I can see, no contradiction between them obtains. I have Catholic friends who are both devout with respect to Church doctrine and fully supportive of modern evolutionary theory, and I find the theodicy and theology that proceed from that more elegant and robust than special-creationist alternatives. If one is going to proceed under the irrational assumptions of Christian theism in the first place, that seems to be a fairly rational way of proceeding from there. In any case, it doesn't place those Christians in the mental ditch so many drive themselves into with the anti-evolutionary bent, denying reason and evidence in abundance for evolutionary theory.

> Even so, I think you are dismissing the problem in a very simplistic fashion. While I just affirmed that evolution and orthodox Christian doctrine are compatible, evolution is nevertheless quite toxic in many cases to support for Christian belief. Many Catholics, for instance, have maintained a kind of faithful theistic evolution throughout their lives, but for many others, evolution seriously undermines faith in God because it in a significant sense makes God superfluous, an afterthought, an unnecessary part of the explanation.

> I think that explains why so many Catholics here militate against the evidence and the facts on the ground concerning evolution. The objection is NOT that evolution cannot be harmonized with Catholic doctrine -- manifestly, it can be -- but rather that evolution betrays a basic conceit many believers have about their status as humans. Christian theology exalts mankind in an ontological sense -- only man is imprinted with the imago dei, only man has the reasoning faculties to apprehend natural law and the noetic facilities for knowing God in a spiritual sense.

> Man is fallen, but that "fallenness" itself is proof of man's ontological primacy in the world; there is hubris in supposing man had somewhere to fall from in the first place.

> As Christian, I know I was guilty of this conceit. And while evolution does not and cannot discredit the idea that God made the universe, and utlimately designed the world so that man would be man, in such form that he might enventually be invested with a soul, fashioned in some dualistic way in God's image, evolution as a mechanical, natural process really takes the pride out of human exceptionalism. Darwin's dangerous idea was that we are animals in the most thoroughgoing sense, cousins of the chimpanzee and relatives of the lowly cabbage, or even the most virulent bacteria, if we are to trace our lineage back far enough.

> I suggest to you that some of the draw of Christian faith -- not all of it, but some -- obtains from this intuitive desire to classify oneself, one's kind as "special". Not just special in some parochial sense, but "cosmically special". Catholicism can still cater to this innate inclination, but it's a lot harder to cater to through the filter of evolutionary theory. Evolution places man as an ordinary leaf, like all the other leaves, or a very large and ancient tree. Many have a conceit grounded in the idea that man was "formed from the dust" in some special, hands-on way -- a custom job, or as they would say in the UK, "bespoke".

> Evolution works right against this conceit, and while doctrine and faith can be maintained in embracing it, evolution just kills a lot of the joy of the "specialness" many believers are enamored of. If evolution is true, God may still be the Creator, the one forming man with the imago dei, somehow, but it sure does look more remote and mechanistic than it used to. And of course, it continually provides the idea that this is just how things would look if God were imaginary, and that's something many believers understand, and resist strongly on those grounds.

The point of course is that they are compatible, but that one must be humble about it. As Pope John Paul II said when he was accepting evolution, "Truth cannot contradict truth". In other words, if you look at the evidence for evolution, it's very clear that it's correct in at least the broad sense even if some of the specifics are still being researched. From this, you have to ask how this applies to your world view - do you think it's a work of the devil or God is trying to test you or some other nonsense, or will you take it as another building block of truth and apply it where appropriate understanding that even if the entire body is evolved, without help, from a single celled organism that this says nothing about anything regarding souls or spirits or whatever they want to believe. Christians believe we leave the physical world behind when we die, so why fight over it being so special?

Edit:

I also recommend this if she has problems believing dating methods... it's a "Christian perspective" but it's accurate and explains it pretty well.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html

And also a Christian biologist talking for 2 hours (with evidence!) about why evolution is true and ID is BS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

And here is a book written about evolution from the Christian perspective (recommended by Dawkins in a video once), starting at $2.61 used paperback. Just buy her a copy and have it shipped to her.

http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497

Nicely done, and certainly true.

You could also show an inverted curve on the secondary y-axis that illustrates the former believer's interest in engaging in rational debates with believers. The curve peaks out until finally dropping down again as the former believer realizes that believers are self-delusional (using Dawkins' phrase), and attempts at rational discussion are more akin to pigeon chess (where the bird just shits all over the board).

Much like you, I've also recently developed a strong interest in Levinas. I've yet to read him, though, so please take that into account when considering my recommendations.

I recently asked some of my professors and a friend of mine who wrote his master's thesis on Levinas to help me out with getting started. This is what they recommended:

• This introductory book by Colin Davis has been the most recommended to me. Davis succeeds in the difficult task of executing a clear exposition of Levinas' difficult prose without sacrificing too much of its nuance.
  
• Regarding Levinas' own writing, begin with On Escape. This work develops Levinas' fundamental ideas on Being and alterity, demonstrates how he does phenomenology, and reveals his engagement with Heidegger and Husserl
  
• The two next best works to read are Existence and Existents and Time and the Other.
  
  I'm not too knowledgeable of Husserl, so all I can really recommend from him is the Cartesian Meditations, which sort of serves as an introduction to Husserl's own method of phenomenology.
  
  For Heidegger, the most important work in this regard is certainly Being and Time. If you have the time, I recommend picking up the Basic Writings and reading through most of it.
  
  On a final note, Levinas was steeped within the Jewish intellectual tradition. Jewish philosophers often emphasize the role of community and social contextuality in general. It might serve you well to read works such as Martin Buber's I and Thou and Gabriel Marcel's Being and Having.
  
  EDIT: Another good compliment to Levinas is Maurice Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception.

I went through almost the exact same thing. After leaving our main church, my wife and I stopped going all together. Several years later, after we moved because of jobs, we started going again. Needless to say, that didn't last long.

My wife and I both come from very strong Christian backgrounds; my wife's father was a Southern-Baptist minister for decades, and my dad went to Dallas Theological Seminary and taught church classes most of his life. So let's just say that leaving wasn't an easy thing.

However, my own search led me to realize the truth. Since my wife and I are very close, I talked with her about these things but was very careful about what I said. I'm still careful. I approach the discussions from the standpoint of "searching for answers" rather than declaring that I've already decided.

My mantra over the last few years has been "If it were possible to know the truth, and one of the possibilities was that God didn't exist, would you really want to know?" Well, my answer is yes. I don't want to be a blind-follower Christian. If God is real, then I want to know for sure!

I recommend approaching it like that. It let's your spouse see that you are truly searching for answers. The truth is all we really want, and we can't use a 3000 year-old book to do it. We need real answers, not mythology.

Be sure to talk about it a lot, and be open minded to your spouse's point of view. Let them know you still care for them deeply.

This sub-reddit has been so helpful and caring, so good job starting here. Also grab some books or find some web-sites that discus these things. Here are a few I recommend:

Sites

• http://new.exchristian.net/
  
  
• http://www.patheos.com/ (you'll find many opinions here. great site)
  
  
• https://richarddawkins.net/
  
  Books
  
  
• https://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446697966/
  
  
• https://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248
  
  
• https://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250074223
  
  Cheers
  ~Nate

I'll throw out The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. A collection of essays that aim to get one to at least deism or classical theism without the use of special revelation (like the Bible).

You should try the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. It's a dense philosophical treatise on the best arguments for the existence of God (Fine-Tuning, Kalam Cosmological Argument, Moral Argument, etc.). Probably the most relevant and important work that apologetics has to offer today.

Be warned though, it's not a light read and it will be difficult to understand if you don't already have some working background in philosophy and science.

From a post I made awhile back:

If you want to go for a scholastic/western positive apologetics approach check out: The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.

If you want to go for a scholastic/western negative apologetics approach check out Alvin Plantinga's God and Other Minds. This is the work that actually re-kindled serious philosophical debate on the existence of God in Anglophone philosophical circles according to Quinten Smith (a notable atheist philosopher btw). From there you could also check out Alvin Plantinga's warrant trilogy in order: Warrant: The Current Debate, Warrant and Proper Function, and Warranted Christian Belief.

Personally I'm skeptical of the scholastic/western approach in general and I favor the Eastern/Mystical approach. I think the scholastic/western approach cannot escape radical skepticism, and I mean this in terms of secular and religious. If one takes seriously the scholastic/western approach in general, whether one is atheist or theist, radical skepticism follows. This video from a radical skeptic that goes by the user name Carneades.org does a good job of demonstrating this: Arguments of the Indirect Skeptic

The Orthodox approach has always been mystical rather than scholastic all the way from the beginnings of Christianity. From Jesus, to the apostles, to the church fathers, to right now we still have the original apostolic faith in the Orthodox Church. Check out this short documentary to learn more: Holy Orthodoxy: The Ancient Church of Acts in the 21st Century.

Fr. Vladimir Berzonsky explains the Eastern/Mystical approach: "To properly understand the Orthodox approach to the Fathers, one must first of all understand the mystical characteristic of Orthodox theology and the tradition of the apophatic approach to an understanding-if "understanding" is indeed the proper word-of what the hidden God in Trinity reveals to us. This needs to be combined with the insight that what is incomprehensible to our reason inspires us to rise above every attempt at philosophical limitation and to reach for an experience beyond the limits of the intellect. The experience of God is a transcendence born from union with the divine-henosis (oneness with God) being the ultimate goal of existence. This makes the requirement of true knowledge (gnosis) the abandoning of all hope of the conventional subject-object approach to discovery. It requires setting aside the dead ends of Scholasticism, nominalism, and the limits set by such Kantian paradigms as noumena/phenomena. One must return to, or better yet, find in one's heart (or nous, the soul's eye) union with the Holy Trinity, which has never been lost in the Orthodox Church."

Source: Fr. Vladimir Berzonsky, (2004). Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism. p. 178. Zondervan, Grand Rapids

Depends how familiar you are with Reformed theology already. I wouldn't say it is the best place to start in reformed theology. I would maybe start with Kuyper's Stone Lectures or maybe Bavinck. I would say be weary of anyone who tries to boil down Calvinism to 5 points. If you find a book that does that, it is doing Calvinism a serious injustice.

You should explore prayer and/or meditation, whichever is more your flavor.

Here are two great resources to get you started:

The Road Home: A Contemporary Exploration of the Buddhist Path https://www.amazon.com/dp/0374536716/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_pY1DzbXS0XHVD

Leisure: The Basis of Culture https://www.amazon.com/dp/1586172565/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_qM2Dzb3WVFBX5

I highly suggest reading both. They changed my life and I hope can help you, too.

The question and the follow up steps are there to understand what someone else means. If you try and use what you learn to convince them that they are mistaken, they will start to spout propaganda as a defense mechanism. I covered that a bit when I wrote;

> Why are they convinced? Almost always, they are convinced because they felt something or experienced something. That's it. Yet, if you criticize them or mock them or simply point out why a personal feeling or experience is not very good evidence, they will just switch back to telling you some of the BS about scripture, or the wonders of nature, or some philosophical puzzle; they will stop talking about what they think and they will only focus on the BS.

If you want to get them to change their minds, you have to use an entirely different set of questions and comments but the basis is still on understanding the individual even if their ideas are not (ever?) unique.

> Could you perhaps elaborate on what further questions should be asked and good explanations should they ask something in return?

While there are only a few things that I usually do, I assume that I will not have enough time to deconvert someone. To be honest, if I can get them to stop giving money and time to organizations that do bad deeds, I'm happy. I have no personal interest in deconverting them and it would take a few weeks to do it even if I found it a compelling goal to reach. The time needed is mainly because people tend to take a while to absorb these ideas, and if you are over aggressive they will just reject them and double down on their personal biases out of comfort or to have a sense of certainty.

The primary goal in any conversation is to have the conversation. You don't want to have them drop into a propaganda loop where they just repeat the words and/or ideas they have been indoctrinated with. So, you have to keep them off of their script.

You also have to keep in mind that very few thoughts are constructed in the moment. Our brains don't work that way. Instead, we piece together bits over time and our nerves are biased towards keeping the old structures in place. To change someone's mind over a deeply held socially taught construct takes time and if you rush it they will just re-write the old structures and make them stronger. You want cognitive dissonance. You want them to think things through on their own time for their own reasons, not to robotically reprogram them even if that is exactly how they were trained before to adopt those bad ideas.

So, what are the few things that I discuss with them?

• The moral value of facts; that all moral decisions by humans require facts and that obedience/subservience is not morality.
  
  
• How do they know what they say is true (when they pop back into the BS; I do not challenge the intuitive felt experience ... at least initially).
  
  
• I listen and I show that I understand exactly what they mean and why they say what they say.
  
  To tie those three things together, I point out that while we are in agreement on these points -- that I am not debating the facts nor am I challenging their personal conclusions -- I have reached a different conclusion. With that in mind, I ask why can I understand all that they think, agree with the details, and yet not come to the same conclusion? What is the difference?
  
  The difference is their intuitive felt personal experience that they attribute to some deity or proxy for a deity. **Yet, wait ...*** that's the exact same thing that they said in the last wall of text, so what has changed? Nothing, actually, except for the time you have spent talking with them.
  
  As an experiment, go and ask other atheists that used to be firmly theistic (religious or not) if they have had some similar personal felt experience when they were theists. Many will say yes or that they attempted to have that and failed. Of the atheists that had that experience, many of them did not realize that it was possible not to think any gods existed. They thought that everyone must think that gods exist since that is what they have been told.
  
  So, by showing that you have the same facts, and understand the same ideas, yet you are not personally convinced that any gods exist, you demonstrate to them that what they have thought about what others think is not entirely true. That opens up the possibility that they themselves can also change their minds. So, do they? It depends on many factors, and while emotions are a factor so is the need to be honest about what can be known and how conclusions should be reached.
  
  I don't know if this method is similar to Peter Boghossian's book, but it is likely to be complementary. I've listened to his interviews and his emphasis on epistemology overlaps with some of my 3 points, but I have not read his book yet so I can't say how much of an overlap there is.
  
  Edit: Tag: waterfall part 2

What you're saying actually applies to the much more broad area of talking people out of their beliefs. You're on point about many things.

You do have to create cognitive dissonance. Another term for it is "doxastic openness". The worst way you can do this is start directly attacking God, the Bible, the org, the GB, etc. People immediately go on the defensive and shut down. In other words, don't engage in apologetics. You have to attack their epistemology. Ask them to prove how they know what they know. Provide counter examples to those if you can.

There's a book that I cannot recommend enough. It's called "A Manual for Creating Atheists", by Peter Boghossian. https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094/

It's a very gentle, accommodating approach and is rather effective.

I know how you must feel. I went through the same thing. I was threatened by my mother, grabbed by the chest, and threatened to be kicked out of my house. I refused because I had no place to go, as my dad tried to calm her down, luckily they had to leave. I've learned a lot since then, and went back into the closet (though you seem to have a job, and security, so I'd say you don't have to do that) I think there's one effective persuasion technique that you may have not been exposed to - but maybe now it's too late because you're out of the closet. You might even be going through what many people call "an angry atheist phase", this can cause you to become more tribal which can send you into a downward spiral of anger and pain, and suck time like hell.

Here's the effective strategy I came across - this must be approached after you are both cool and preferably the other person doesn't know you are an atheist (but again, to me, it just seems too late):

It's called Street Epistemology. It's most concisely put in this book "A Manual for Creating Atheists", and you can see a good example of it on video here.

If you were an American Indian and you were dancing around the fire with feathers in your head gear, and I walked up to you and said "What are you dancing around the fire for?" You don't take your hat and throw it on the ground and say "You know I never thought of it that way!" We can't do that, we look at the world with our background, we have no other way of doing it.

Why is it that a Nazi gets a lump in his throat when he sees a swastika, and an American feels anger? The difference is the environment they've been brought up in. And if you're brought up in an environment with misinformation, you will behave that way.

No Chinese baby was ever born speaking Chinese, no matter how many generations of Chinese.

A child never writes his own alphabet

I believe, all behavior and actions that all people take are perfectly lawful to their environment and background. How your wife reacted, while it is very harmful to you, and I certainly empathize all the pain that my family has caused me specifically, is perfectly appropriate to her background and upbringing. Not saying what she did to you was beneficial. I'm saying that that is perfectly appropriate to the way she was brought up, and because of her indoctrination, it requires a different approach if you would like to change her beliefs and behaviors.

Over the years I've discovered a better way to convince believers. It's not hard either. It just takes some reading, and understanding on how human behavior works and how people are brainwashed. And how they are victims of that, not acting with their own free will and their own ideas.

A few books that helped me with convincing believers were: Nonviolent communication by Marshall Rosenberg, and semantics to clear language, the easiest book: Language in Thought and Action by Hayakawa. To understand psychological biases check out You Are Not So Smart by David McRaney

But perhaps the most helpful person was being exposed to Jacque Fresco - I shared some of his thoughts above. I highly recommend him - his ideas have changed my life.

I shared this snippet from Jacque Fresco on another post in this subreddit, but it bears repeating:

Conflict occurs when a person doesn’t seek your advice but you advise them.
So the way to get along with people is to let them be what they are unless they say I don’t seem to get along with pollocks whats my problem? Very few people say “What do you think of my value system?” If they do that and it’s sincere, not an ego thing...
If they ask a question, thats where you can get in and suggest but if they don’t, don’t s superimpose your values even if they’re better

If you suggest, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5

and they say I don’t like 4 and 5,

don’t argue.

Your question is: How different is the persons background than yours? And does the person seek information? And if they did, don’t feel like you’re instructing them.
If you come home and you brother is using a shovel in the lawn, and he's struggling with it and you come up to him and say "That's no way to use a shovel!"

That's not going to change him. If, however, you say nothing - and he comes up to you, and says "I can't seem to use this shovel efficiently, can you help me?" then you can instruct them but don't feel like you're instructing them so you say "I used to do it that way, then another person taught me to push it down with my foot, and that was easier"

Sometimes people don’t want advice. They feel they’re being put down. So stop giving one another advice, that produces antagonism, unless they ask for it.
You can’t point out “The trouble with you is you don’t listen to anybody” That doesn’t cause em to now listen. They’ll go on with their same pattern.

Unless they say to you “Am I inattentive? Or Do I appear inattentive?” Very few people talk like that. That’s what sane means. Sane means when a person comes over “I’m not familiar with that jigsaw. How do you use it?” Then you instruct them. If they come over everyday and ask you - watch them and guide them through it.
Making a comment “Your’e dimwitted or slow. The trouble with you is you have no imagination.” That doesn’t alter behavior, it only increases conflict.

In order to avoid conflict don’t generate it. You generate it when you offer something to somebody that they didn’t ask for. Let them be. Whatever they say. Unless they turn to you.

If someone says “I’m a catholic” Say “Do you fully accept everything in the catholic doctrine?” “yes!”

The door is shut. It’s welded.

But if he says “Im not sure” thats an opening.

That goes for any subject. Check for openings before you talk. If you’ve had conflict all your life cause you believe that what you say enters their head the way you want to - thats projection. When you tell something to somebody for their own good. “If you keep drinking the way you are - you may become addicted” But if you come at a person and he says “fuck you” then shut up.

If I’m talking to religious people I would say “The bible says thou shalt not kill” How do you handle war?

I would say “The bible says love thine enemy - if a man strikes you turn the other cheek” How do you deal with that?

Heard that before. Faith is so obvious because the beauty of our environment can "only" be explained by divinity. Faith is "pretending to know things you don't know." Faith is not a reliable source of why/how one knows something for several reasons.

My personal opinion is if there us a God, he's a jackass and fuck him.

I suggest this book, Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian, if you have not already read it. You can listen to a sample on Amazon.

Read this A Manual for Creating Atheists

At least look the dude up on youtube for an idea about what the book is about.

I would recommend a few changes to your approach. Instead of telling him what to think in a briefing, begin trying to teach him how to think. Because religion thrives in an environment where kids are told what to think and not taught how to think.

I'd use this video on critical thinking to start:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg

I would also recommend that you only allow him to go if he reads this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094/

It's also a book on critical thinking. The premise is if you learn critical thinking it eventually leads you to atheism. Oh, and you should read it together.

An easier book may be:
https://www.amazon.com/50-Simple-Questions-Every-Christian/dp/161614727X/

Critical thinking is about learning how to ask questions. And this book asks critical questions about Christian beliefs in a friendly manner. It would provide great questions that he can ask his peers.

But if books are not the right approach for him, then you can also try this video series:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?p=A0C3C1D163BE880A

Good luck.

Anthony's approach is based on Peter Boghossian's book A Manual for Creating Atheists, and there is also the Street Epistemology website.

What an awesome perspective! I've been out for four years and I'm constantly frustrated that my exmormon missionary efforts have been mostly fruitless.

Recently I've been studying Street Epistemology and though I'm still inexperienced, I'm hopeful that I can finally talk to friends and loved ones without anybody getting defensive. You should check it out if you haven't already. This book is literally a manual for using Street Epistemology. Interestingly enough, the goal isn't too de-convert people but rather get them to recognize, just by asking the right questions, the flaws in their own reasoning. If you can get them to be less sure of their beliefs, even slightly, then your encounter is considered a success.

any book by carl, hitchens, etc. https://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248

Personal research, mostly. I'm a big history nerd with a slant toward religion and other macabre subject matter. I'm actually not as well read as I'd like to be on these subjects, and I basically blend different sources into a knowledge smoothie and pour it out onto a page and see what works for me and what doesn't.

I'll list a few books I've read that I enjoyed. There are certainly more here and there, but these are the "big ones" I was citing when writing all the comments in this thread. I typically know more about Christianity than the other major faiths because of the culture around me.

Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years - Diarmaid MacCulloch

A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam - Karen Armstrong

The next two balance each other out quite well. Hardline anti-theism contrasted with "You know, maybe we can make this work".

The Case for God - Karen Armstrong

The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins



Lately, I have been reading the Stoics, which like Buddhism, I find to be one of the more personally palatable philosophies of mind I have come across, although I find rational contemplation a bit more accessible to my Westernized nature.

Stoic Philosophy of Seneca: Essays and Letters - Translated by Moses Hadas

Discourses and Selected Writings (of Epictetus) - Translated by Robert Dobbin

The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius - Translated by George Long

I'm still waiting on Fed Ex to deliver this one:

A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy - William B. Irvine

Also, if you're into history in general, a nice primer for what sorts of things to dive into when poking around history is this fun series on YouTube. I usually watch a video then spend a while reading more in depth about whatever subject is covered that week in order to fill the gaps. Plus, John and Hank are super awesome. The writing is superb and I think, most importantly, he presents an overall argument for why studying history is so important because of its relevance to current events.

Crash Course: World History - John Green

If you're really interested in this topic, I highly recommend Dan Denntt's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon...a whole book on why humans are predisposed to be religious (spoiler...it had evolutionary advantages)

This is a pretty big question, Charles Taylor recently wrote a 900 page book about it in fact. Wiki has a fairly decent summary of Taylor's thesis, which I think is fairly strong. There's also an excellent 30+ page review, with a reply by Taylor, in the July 2010 issue of the Journal of Religion. There are assuredly a ton of reviews of Taylor, it was an extremely important book. That would be a good place to get started (with the reviews, I mean, it may be a bit much to digest 900 pages).

You can't force someone to change their mind, but there are actually some methods for helping them look at their beliefs that are better than nothing.

The book A Manual for Creating Atheists demonstrates some of those methods.

Just started reading this book, containing a series of lectures delivered by Abraham Kuyper. It's amusingly non-PC, which you might expect, considering he delivered those lectures in 1898. He has some interesting arguments about which worldviews, or as he likes to say, "life systems," contribute to a more free and fair society.

He breaks down these life-systems into 5 primary philosophies:

1. Paganism
   
2. Modernism
   
3. Roman Catholicism
   
4. Islamism
   
5. Calvinism
   
   These five systems, Kuyper contends, each propose their own distinct schema for how we humans (should) relate to God, our fellow man, and the world/nature. Obviously, many people would take issue with dividing these systems up on seemingly religious grounds, but I think Kuyper's argument would be that you cannot establish a complete worldview without some opinion toward the metaphysical. Kuyper subsumes atheism, agnosticism, or whatever flavor of anti-theism one may prefer, under the umbrella of Modernism.
   
   Anyway, it may not be airtight, but this way of looking at the world and its competing "life-systems" provides an interesting opportunity for thought experiments, e.g., trying to imagine some system of thought that evades Kuyper's definitions.

A Manual for Creating Atheists, A book about how to have more civil and productive conversations about religion by using the Socratic method and focusing on epistemology.

You could learn street epistemology, which is a method of showing that faith is neither good nor useful.


A manual for creating atheists


Street epistemology in practice

Street epistemology. There's a whole YouTube channel devoted it.

Edit: one example

another example

even atheists can be interviewed

Edit2: Hey u/FirePhantom, here are a couple more I forgot to add.

A Manual for Creating Atheists

Atheos app for Android

I took several classes from Peter at Portland State right after I became an atheist. He is an awesome guy and an incredibly excellent professors, I learned so much from him about skepticism and critical thinking.

If anyone is interested despite the provocative title his book A Manual For Creating Atheists has a lot of good tips for engaging people on a variety of issues relevant to skepticism without creating adversarial relationships.

Anyway I don't have anything to add relevant to the video but I just wanted to give him a shout out since he had such a large impact on my life.

For an approach that isn't argumentative and doesn't ridicule them, I'd recommend checking out the book A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian. It has some good tips for talking to all kinds of people of faith and helping them to critically examine why they believe the things they do, and whether those beliefs are justified. There are lots of examples on YouTube as well under the banner of Street Epistemology.

Try the Socratic method, which is asking probing questions without directly contradicting their (invalid or whatever) answers. Instead, you just ask further questions relevant to their answers that delve down deeper into WHY they believe it. If you keep it up for a while, and keep your own wits about you (don't give in to frustration and give up too soon), you can often arrive at a point where they ae beginning to doubt their own words.

Fortunately, there is a book, an app, and a YouTube series of videos all about the Socratic Method:
    Book: A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian (Amazon link),
     App: Atheos by Peter Boghossian (download link),
      YT: Street Epistemology with Anthony Magnabosco (link to YT his channel).

Try all three!

>Why does Krauss have to be "humble"

Emulate the change you wish to see in someone else.
You want people to be more honest, blunt, and humble? Project that.
Peter Boghossian constantly reiterates this. But let me put it this way, no one has ever changed my mind by coming up to me and yelling at me about how wrong my world view is and how irrational/delusional I am.

If you need further evidence in how bad Krauss is at debating, look no further than here.. Krauss has never read any of the Koran and decided to jump into a debate of Atheism/Islam which went ugly real quick. Hitchens and Harris would have mopped the floor with this guy.

I HAVE THE ANSWER!!

Sorry, got excited there. The single best book I've ever read on evolution (and I've read a few) is Finding Darwin's God by Dr. Kenneth Miller, premier biologist, and devout Catholic.

He makes a very compelling (and surprising) argument that religious faith and evolution are not mutually exclusive, and states even that religion is strengthened by science. Richard Dawkins recommended it as the most concise explanation of evolution he's ever read, and he's flamingly anti-religious.

Edit: Stupid mistake.

Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God by Greg Graffin and Steve Olson.

http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Evolution-Science-Religion-Without/dp/0061828513

Perhaps it's time to move away from LDS specific arguments, and start questioning the God concept in general; especially as it relates to morality.

One argument I've always liked, is that even if there is a god, by far the strongest test of morality it could ask for is if a person will be moral while believing there is no such being, and no promise of reward or punishment.

If she is willing to read, I recommend the following:

• Start with The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. It's much less confrontational than the stuff from more current atheist writers, and his argument is awesome. He basically debunks religion by dismantling the new age movement, and then showing that religion is basically the same.
  
  
• After reading that I would go with "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, or "God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens. Both are much more confrontational, and in my opinion, are not recommended unless someone is already close to on the fence. Both also deal heavily with the immorality of religion, but I think "God Is Not Great" probably puts more focus on that particular issue.
  
  YouTube is also a fantastic resource. Here are some of the video series that I found particularly convincing as I was going through my own transition:
  
  
• Why I Am No Longer a Christian
  
  
• Psychology of Belief
  
  
• Morality By QualiaSoup: 1 - Good Without Gods, 2 - Not So Good Books, 3 - Objectivity and Oughtness
  
  
• The Best Optical Illusion in the World
  
  I think it's also important to remember that there is are alternative worldviews out there which are not based on religion, which are just as rewarding and fulfilling, if not more so. Here are a few videos that have sparked that sense of wonder and that I used to associate with the spirit. Most of these are not direct attacks on religion, but rather are just inspiring ideas from a secular\scientific worldview. I recognize that these may not have universal appeal, but they spoke to me, and may do so for you and your wife as well:
  
  
• My Spirituality as an Atheist
  
  
• You are Here (Pale Blue Dot)
  
  
• The Sagan Series
  
  
• The Most Astounding Fact: Neil deGrasse Tyson
  
  
• We Stopped Dreaming: Episode 1, Episode 2
  
  
• Science Saved My Soul
  
  
• Why Didn't Anybody Tell Me?
  
  
• Instruction Manual for Life
  
  
• We Got Scared
  
  
• The Greatest Speech Ever Made
  
  

Along those lines, Dawkins is great for explaining evolution in easy-to-understand detail. Pick pretty much any book by him and you'll get a very good education.

Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe

Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Simon Winchester, The Map that Changed The World

I loan out The God Delusion (Amazon Link) by Richard Dawkins quite a bit as friends/coworkers hound me about religion.

Former pastor Mike Aus has said it was this book that did it for him.

Here is a shortened version.

Was born into a very religious Hindu family. Brainwashed from childhood that Vedas/Upanishads and Gita held universal truths. Prayed/meditated/pondered/read Hindu religious texts because I believed in things that I have been told, purely on faith. Read Betrand Russell when I was in my teens which made me a little bit of a skeptic but still continued to be a believer for almost 2 decades . Then a few years ago, read dawkins, watched his speeches on youtube and slowly started questioning. Read some more Hitchens, harris, and watched some James randi videos. Started applying scientific methods to question things that I have been taught from childhood and that opened my eyes.

leo puro libro técnico, se valen?

EDIT:
como dijeron que si, ahi van:

• The Little Schemer: Primer libro tecnico en forma de dialogo que lei y cambio mi forma de pensar acerca de estos libros. Fuera de enseñarte las bases de Scheme, te enseña a pensar de forma recursiva.
  
• Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs: Antes de este libro varias tecnicas/librerias/metodologias parecian magia, el capitulo de streams me encanto.
  
• The God Delusion: este libro fue puro circlejerk para mi, pero me encanta como te da argumentos para hablar con religiosos fanaticos.
  

Her er en fin bog alle bør læse - http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413237319&sr=8-1&keywords=the+god+delusion

Here's mine:

The War that came Early by Harry Turtledove

The Hot War by Harry Turtledove

The God Delusions by Richard Dawkins

god is not GREAT by Christopher Hitchens

Death by Blackhole by Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Congrats from a former Catholic. Be out and open about it. We need more people to not be afraid to identify themselves in public and to their families as atheists. People have no clue how many there are around them.

​

For book recommendations, I like The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

One of the key tenants of learning and what often leads to atheism is simply asking questions. These questions often illustrate big problems in some beliefs and lead us away from certain conclusions, like a supernatural entity. It's what we mean when we say we're practicing skepticism and it can take on a variety of forms, but here are some suggestions I find compelling.

The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

Richard has excellent technical skill in how he discusses questions and ideas that make supernatural belief look very delusional, hence the title. His points on religious indoctrination of children being actual abuse are particularly potent.

Many others will suggest Hitchens' God is not Great and while I haven't read it I think he is a much better speaker than Dawkins, so it may be better. Though I think Dawkins has a more refined technical skill in tackling some more complex ideas.

Any sophisticated discussion on philosophy - Youtube

I really like Crashcourse and its different offerings to get introduced to different studies and find this is a good place to start finding interesting questions you might not have thought of. While much of its content is definitely not atheist in nature they do have a very honest discussion about different topics that practice real skepticism that can lead to atheism like I described earlier.

Sam Harris

The link is of a specific podcast of his, but notably one of the videos in the text called It is Always Now is wonderful. Lots of people have specific issues with Harris, often different, and all I would suggest is to not let something you dislike about him to allow you to dismiss ideas he might stumble upon. His ability to find questions, especially new ways to ask old questions, is really powerful.

I also think that Harris is a great introduction to the idea of what to believe while being a skeptic. This idea of what to believe is very complicated because being skeptical tends to suggest that you should never operate off belief and always be as objective as possible, so please be patient in exploring it. But basically after you use skepticism to get rid of toxic beliefs you need to find ways to build up helpful beliefs and I think Harris is helpful in finding those. A more effective person though is:

Jordan Peterson

He opens with stating he's "not an atheist anymore." So this is a little misleading because he does also say in other areas that he doesn't believe in a supernatural God as well, and he's not lying when he says either statement. Explaining how that can be would take a while and I'm still exploring it myself but I think he has some VERY powerful messages about what is worth believing even while valuing skepticism. Look up his Message to Millennials and Tragedy vs Evil lectures if you're interested, I found those videos very useful.

thislife

The problem you have is very simple. You believe. If you didn't believe you would have options. My wife went through the same process with depression and apathy.

She read two books and within days was on her way to recovery.

http://www.freeminds.org/sales/most_burned.htm

and

http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248


It doesn't take much but wow what a fun ride once you get started.

Read two books and fly.

Hi, I have a degree in Philosophy and teach Philosophy/English to high schooler. The following advice and recommendations are what I give my students who are interested in philosophy. I would not recommend Kant as an introduction (not that he's bad, but he is difficult to understand). Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar is a book that explains philosophical topics and questions through humor and uses jokes to illustrate the concepts. It is accessible and thought provoking. If you are interested in logic you might enjoy Logicomix. It is a graphic novel that gives a biographical narrative of Bertrand Russell, an English philosopher whose work is the basis of all modern logic. It is not a book about logic per se, but it does give a good introduction to what logic is and how it can be used. Also, Russell's book A History of Western Philosophy is a good place to start your education in philosophy. If you are interested in atheism, read Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. This book goes through the most common arguments for the existence of God, and debunks them using logic and reasoning. Good luck and read on!

Could have saved $5 on Amazon!

A few books I read recently (within the last couple of years) that really stand out for me:

Non-fiction:

• On Writing by Stephen King. The first half is a combination of a memoir of King's early life and professional writing tips on things like grammar, character development, etc. The second half is an application of these skills in a very lucid and memorable description of his recent automobile accident and subsequent rehabilitation. Even if you're not interested in writing as a craft, it's still a good read.
  
• The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. If you're a non-believer, or someone in the process of questioning your faith, you'll love it. It clearly states many of the things you think and feel much more eloquently and clearly than you yourself could. Even if you're religious and an opponent of Dawkins, it's still a good peek into the mind of an atheist to understand where they are coming from. Because of its eloquence and clarity, it's a dream to read.
  
• Lennon Legend by James Henke. A very simple and accessible biography of Lennon featuring tons of amazing photographs, incredibly detailed reproductions of memorabilia (such as the scrap of paper on which Lennon composed the lyrics to "In My Life"), and an accompanying audio CD containing rarities. It feels like the kind of book Lennon would have written himself.
  
  Fiction:
  
  
• House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski. One of my personal favourites and a book that's become something of a cultural phenomenon. As the Amazon review says: "Had The Blair Witch Project been a book, written by Nabokov, revised by Stephen King, and typeset by Blast." It's a pretty scary book that plays with your mind. You'll understand what I mean once the nightmares start...
  
• VALIS by Philip K. Dick. A semi-autobiographical tale of a man who may or may not be crazy and his quest to find God... Literally. It combines ancient religion with contemporary philosophy and screwup characters.
  
  Unfortunately the two fictional books aren't easy reads. Not difficult, mind you, but not as straightforwardly easy as, say, The Road. But I think they're engrossing enough that you'll get sucked in nevertheless.
  
  I hope this helps!

This is a slightly off-subject, but you should really read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I read it and found that he was articulating many ideas that I had in my head.

Just watch out for his militaristic approach. You don't want to turn into a knee-jerk/circlejerk atheist like some of our friends in /r/atheism...

They have semantic categorization. When you rate Dawkins 5 star Amazon registers you to be interested in books about "religion". (as Ironic as that may sound!)

Source: I am a PhD candidate currently writing a thesis on semantic ontology and data extraction.

Nah, that's what discussion is for. I'm reading Dennett's Breaking the Spell right now, and Sagan's been at the front of my mind for a month or so from watching The Sagan Series. Makes me really want to take some time to finally watch Cosmos (which I still haven't seen, much to my shame)

By the way, if you haven't read it, I really can't recommend Dennett's book enough. It's an excellent lesson in how to discuss religion civilly, while also making a number of very good points. It'll change how you discuss religion.

Buy this and read it cover-to-cover

It's a good, comprehensive book of the history of thought on religion and the God question. Another good recommendation from the atheistic perspective is Why I'm Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell.

Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell

Permit me to comment on/question the following quote:

> I would like to invite a conversation of how the "radical" perspective might be able to "go postformal" so to speak in the face of this traditional awareness of forms, i.e. by revealing them to somehow be ultimately empty, not truly life-affirming, or else maybe even harmful when dealing with particular and unique individuals, etc.

First, it seems to me that the doctrine of original sin addresses these concerns quite well, although I'm not sure it would concede that form is "ultimately empty" (I'll return to this in my second point). That the church, Catholic or otherwise, should never become too comfortable in its ways, formal or otherwise, is implied by the belief that the time within which the church finds itself is fallen. We can see this sort of thing in Charles Taylor's discussion of the relationship of sin to the church as

> a skein of relations which link particular, unique, enfleshed people to each other, rather than a grouping of people together on the grounds of their sharing some important property... The corruption of this network comes when it falls back into something more "normal" in worldly terms. Sometimes a church community becomes a tribe (or takes over an existing tribal society), and treats outsiders as Jews treated Samaritans (Belfast). But the really terrible corruption is a kind of falling forward, in which the church develops into something unprecedented. The network of agape involves a kind of fidelity to the new relations; and because we can all too easily fall away from this (which falling away we call "sin"), we are led to shore up these relations; we institutionalize them, introduce rules, divide responsibilities; but we are now living caricatures of the network life. We have lost some of the communion, the "conspiratio", which is at the heart of the Eucharist. The spirit is strangled (A Secular Age, p. 739).

If the church becomes too comfortable with formal distinctions, if it is not willing to continually go back and critically appropriate in order to avoid reverting back to a form of community that is based on possessing identifiable properties, then it has reconciled itself to sin. This is, literally, not good.

Second, the idea that all forms or orderings are ultimately empty vis-a-vis the particular and unique individual presupposes what I take to be a rather truncated (dare I say liberal or atomistic?) view of the self and its relation to its past. I'd like to hermeneutically wager that good ways of being lie hidden beneath the forms and orderings. That is, forms and orderings reflect real and distinct ways of being that arise out of the free interaction of enfleshed individuals in skeins of agape. What these forms and orderings, if uncritically affirmed or fetishized, become is what Ivan Illich calls

> the perversio optimis quae est pessima (the perversion of the best which is the worst) (The Rivers North of the Future, p. 56).

This, it seems to me, is precisely the idea which Alison is articulating, except he's pointing to a new way of being that is for the most part unprecedented when it comes to the historical development of Christian forms and orderings.

Third, and finally, I would like to note that this hermeneutic approach need not preclude the possibility of exploring other ways of being that arise out of the free interaction of enfleshed individuals in skeins of agape.

I'm sorry I have no items for a list.

I would skip Lewis, honestly. He's popular among certain Potestant trends of thought, but the Anglicans consider him something of an embarrassment, and he himself readily admits that he's no theologian. If you really want a pop-theology argument, I'd go to Chesterson's Orthodoxy instead, but even that's pretty low tier apologetic.

If you want serious theology and apologetic, Lewis has plenty of contemporaries that are worth reading. I'd suggest the following:

• Rudolph Otto, [The Idea of the Holy][1], which deals specifically with the numinous argument for theism -- that is, the argument that religious belief should be couched in the experience of the ineffable;
  
  
• Tielhard de Chardin, [The Divine Milieu][2], which addresses theism from the other side of a secular worldview, integrating a scientific and philosophical world view into a holistic religious sense;
  
  
• Paul Tillich, [The Dynamics of Faith][3], which begins with an examination of the phenomenon of faith and explores the notion of God as the logical terminus of faith;
  
  Even the longest of those three is still less than 300 pages, so they shouldn't be too daunting in terms of bulk, but they're all three packed with some very serious and challenging thought, so they should give you plenty to chew on. My only caution is that all three of them veer in their latter thirds towards a bias for specifically Christian theism, and particularly Protestant varieties. It's a bit of a disappointing given how they all three start out admirably ecumenical.
  
  All of those are specifically books written by theologians with the intent of making the 20th century comfortable with religion again, but while I'm at it I thought I'd throw out a few books that don't quite fall into the group:
  
  
• Mircea Eliade, [The Sacred and the Profane][4], which is not an argument for theism so much as an anthropological and sociological exploration into the nature of religion;
  
  
• Terry Eagleton, [Reason, Faith, and Revolution][5], which is novel precisely because it features a Marxist atheist arguing against the "New Atheists" to the effect that religion is valuable;
  
  
• Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, which I haven't actually read yet, but intend to, because the reviews that I've read of it mark it as one of the thorniest and most grandiose defenses of religion written in recent history.
  
  Good luck.
  
  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Idea-Holy-R-Otto/dp/0195002105/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253024930&sr=8-1
  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/Divine-Milieu-Pierre-Teilhard-Chardin/dp/1903900581/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253025127&sr=1-3
  [3]: http://www.amazon.com/Dynamics-Faith-Perennial-Classic-Tillich/dp/0060937130/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253025305&sr=1-3
  [4]: http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Profane-Nature-Religion/dp/015679201X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253025876&sr=1-1
  [5]: http://www.amazon.com/Reason-Faith-Revolution-Reflections-Lectures/dp/0300151799/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253025995&sr=1-1
  

I highly recommend God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? By John Lennox

You should also know and point out that the dichotomy is not between science and faith, it's between Christian Theism and Naturalism. That's a pretty big difference.

Apparently, a paperback edition for ~1/3 of that price is due for a British release in October. :D

My university's library and my city's library don't have it, so that might be a good option. Thanks for the recommendation.

why not? because he discusses miracles?

makie's the miracle of theism is a response to that book.

blackwell's companion to natural theology might be something.

I love Anthony's method, which is an application of Peter Boghossian's book. I'd love to try this method the next time I speak de novo with someone about religion. It's so soft yet cuts through all barriers if applied correctly.

Cheers.

Read A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian. He walks you through using the Socratic Method to help someone examine their own beliefs with a critical eye. Rather then pointing out the flaws in their reasoning, you'll be coaxing them into figuring out what they are on their own.

If she said you're not allowed to be an atheist, that means she's still planning on forcing you to go to Sunday School. Not much you can do about that in the short term, but if you want to play spy, read Boghossian's "A Manual for Creating Atheists", check out /r/StreetEpistemology/, and plant some seeds of doubt over there.

http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094

for those wondering what we're talking about.

I'm fairly sure that /u/alyosha3 is using techniques described in the book Manual for Creating Atheists.

It's a fantastic read and will help you understand that the base problem with TBMs is that they value faith above evidence and instead of piling on easily dismissed facts, you should attack that foundation.

You might want to check out A Manual For Creating Atheists. He describes a good framework for having these sorts of discussions.

Or:


A Manual for Creating Atheists https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LKBT0MC/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_V5F2DbC6SVS4K

Consequences in today's world are so far reaching (e.g. financial collapses, power of military weapons and forces, environmental degradation) that if we fail to have a revolution in human cognition, we may hit a major reset button for civilization.

As /u/maga-bigly mentioned, The Closing of the American Mind describes the start of this problem 50+ years ago when moral relativism made it immoral to criticize the ideas of others, effectively shutting down discussions (i.e. closing minds) and coddling those who FELT offended.

The Righteous Mind gives great insight into just how biased all of us are (libs, conservatives, and everyone in between) and how our inability to seek out and identify our own biases can doom us.

A Manual for Creating Atheists, poorly named by the publisher (should be called "Intro to Street Epistemology"), is a great book on methods to get people to contradict themselves, in turn identify their own biases, and hopefully create the critical thinkers necessary to achieve a cognitive revolution in what we actually know, what we don't know, and reliable heuristics for finding out.

When you get past the anger phase, check out: A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian

Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller is THE book to read on this topic. In the first half of the book, he talks about how all creationism versions (young earth, old earth and irreducible complexity) are not only bunk, but actually bad theology. Then in the second half he goes on the explain how evolution makes perfect sense given a God who gives us free will. In the end, I felt like evolution was actually proof for God, not against. Really, anyone with an interest in this topic should read this book. Amazon Link

Finding Darwin's God was pretty good.

Here you go.

This too.

And this one is probably most important.

FYI, I was specifically told not to use the Stambaugh English translation of Being and Time, the one you linked to.

Anyways, in my edition the chapter is "How the worldly character of the environment announces itself in entities within-the-world."

The sentence you pick out is in bold, here's the surrounding paragraph for context, as I think it will help you see what Heidegger is saying: "To the everydayness of Being-in-the-world there belong certain modes of concern. These permit the entities with which we concern ourselves to be encountered in such a way that the worldly character of what is within-the-world comes to the the fore. When we concern ourselves with something, the entities which are most closely ready-to-hand may be met as something unusuable, not properly adapted for the use we have decided upon."

This comes from the the Macquarrie and Robinson edition which was recently reprinted.

If you like Bad Religion then check out Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God by the lead singer Greg Graffin.

You could also try the Atheism short-book from Oxford's 'A Very Short Introduction' series.

Brief, to the point, and no religion-bashing inside. Just basic arguments for why atheists choose not to believe in supernatural events or beings.

Religion Explained suggests that friends are stored in your head as person-files: file of information linked to a facial image. Hence why death is so unnerving - the person is dead but the person-file still exists in your brain, triggering your brain to interact with them as though they are still alive.

New research shows kids with imaginary friends (imaginary person-files) are actually well-adjusted.

So what I'm saying is...

I'll try getting back into writing. If I can create enough imaginary person-files, maybe I'll feel less lonely. ;)

Here are some books that may help.

• Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, by Daniel C. Dennett. A philosopher and cognitive scientist examines the evolution from primitive consciousness, through a belief in ghosts, all the way to complex religions with their accompanying requirements and taboos.
  
• Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion, by Todd Tremlin. More brief and introductory (and less thorough), this book finds religion as a side-effect of the useful cognitive processes of empathy, risk aversion, and facial recognition.
  
• Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought, by Pascal Boyer. A cognitive anthropologist argues that the thing we called "religion" is made up of a variety of unrelated cognitive patterns that evolved as distinct adaptations, and cannot be explained by a single, unified theory.
  

> The academic study of Judaism/Christianity is just one part of a larger project: of revealing the naturalistic origins of religion itself. Of course, we've yet to fully flesh out a..."psychology" of ancient religion.

One book I'm still reading, but have found very enlightening, is Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought by cognitive anthropologist Pascal Boyer.

I was quite interested to see K.L. Noll (Brandon University) applying Boyer's anthropological findings on how religion "works" to the study of historical Judaism in "Was There Doctrinal Dissemination in Early Yahweh Religion?" (BI 16, 2008, 295-427). This seems like a useful approach to take.

>I have had some spiritual experiences that I believe are real, but I’m even doubting that

I don't doubt that you had experiences. Please read Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained.

I need to go mow my lawn unfortunately, but for start Ken Miller, an evolutionary biologist at Brown University is wonderfully smart and wrote a book on evolution and god. Was decent. But yeah, he would count as a brilliant guy I think. Google is your aid if you want more.

I have not read it but i've heard that Kenneth Millers Finding Darwin's God is really good. He is a catholic and was an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.

Here is a short snippet from his 2006 lecture on intelligent design: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
You can find the whole two hour lecture on youtube and i highly recommend it if you haven't seen it.

I'm a Mormon who believes in evolution. In fact, in a recent discussion on r/lds and from what I've seen in the majority of my conversations with other Mormons most of us do. Links to discussions [1](http://www.reddit.com/r/lds/comments/eiu9e/as_a_member_of_the_church_what_is_your_opinion_on/?sort=controversial
) and 2

We also have doctrines specific to Mormonism that seem to support evolutionary theory to me such as an un-determined period of actual time for the "days of creation" (creation may have taken place outside of time all together), in much of LDS specific scripture God created the world is replaced with God organized the world and that matter (and spirit) has always existed and cannot be created nor destroyed. More on Mormonism and Evolution here

My personal belief (read not church doctrine and pure speculation on my part) is that evolution was the mechanism that God used to create the world we live in. His role was in essence to guide the seemingly random chance of natural selection to make us and everything else what he wanted it to be. Thus religion answers the why question and science answers the how. For an overview on the Why read this. When everything was the way he wanted it to begin the test of man-kind he sent down the first spirit to inhabit a body created through evolution. Making Adam the first complete man with body and spirit.

An interesting read on all this is Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. I disagree with the author on several theological points (he's catholic) but reading it helped me sort out what I thought God's role in evolution was.

Edit- An article about how evolution is taught at BYU Link

Well, I was a Jehovah's Witness until I was 24.

If you're serious about trying to get to them, the book that finally woke me up was Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller. It's about evolution but since he's a nominal Catholic (and also head of Biology at Brown University) it isn't at all antagonistic toward religion (though it is insanely badass in shooting down all of the intelligent design arguments).

http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497

That's only going to work if the person's faith is evidence-driven. As the old adage goes, you can't reason someone out of an idea that they didn't come to through reason.

This one's good for witnesses, too: http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Conscience-Raymond-Franz/dp/0914675044

>What do you think agnosticism is?

An agnostic is defined by Webster's as a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not and /or a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

>What do you think scepticism is?

Scepticism is defined by Webster's as an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object and / or the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain and / or the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics and / or doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation

I am not going to pigeonhole any individual agnostic, sceptic, or fill-in-the-blank. Everyone can define themselves and their beliefs/worldview.
.

>Define 'worldview'.

Worldview is defined by Webster's as the way someone thinks about the world

I would add that a worldview is how one sees life and the world at large; a cluster of beliefs a person holds about the most significant concepts of life-such as God, the cosmos, knowledge, values, humanity, and history. They form a big picture, a general outlook, or a grand perspective on life and the world; it's one's basic or ultimate beliefs. This framework supplies a comprehensive view of what a person considers real, true, rational, good, valuable, and beautiful. Philosopher Ronald Nash defines a worldview as "a conceptual scheme by which we consciously or unconsciously place or fit everything we believe and by which we interpret and judge reality

>It's incredibly assumptive, if typical, for a person having your level of self-assurance to accuse others of the same.

I go, as Antony Flew said, where the evidence leads.

I have had a couple of recent discussion with people who, while having no problem criticizing the Christian WV, dropped the discussion when questioned about their worldviews. One refused to even articulate a worldview.

The sad fact is that most who have no problem attacking the Christian worldview have never even given a thought as to their own WV and whether or not it is coherent.

Alright here are some of the best resources I know as a Catholic. Hope they help!

Edward Feser's blog as well as his The Last Superstition and 5 Proofs of the Existence of God

Stephen Barr's Modern Physics and Ancient Faith

Francis Collin's The Language of God

Anthony Flew's There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

Thomas Wood's How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

Brant Pitre's The Case For Jesus

Tim O Neill on the Church and science, the Inquisition and the Galileo affair

Jenny Hawkins on Jesus and God, early Christianity and form criticism

Al Moritz on the Fine Tuning Argument

>There is a reason someone should believe in the supernatural and mystical aspects of Christianity. This is a large issue for me. Solely based on supernatural and mystical ideas, from an outsider perspective, Christianity is no different than animism or Buddhism. I can't have faith alone.

Well when you look at the world's religions, Christianity has a clear and impressive advantage in the miracles/mystical department. Historically, in Christianity, there have been numerous cases of Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions, miraculous healings and the spiritual gifts and religious experiences of countless Christian saints -- men and women of great virtue whose admirable character only add to the credibility of their testimony. Examples of these include Paul, Benedict of Nursia, Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Hildegard of Bingen, Anthony of Padua, Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Siena, Vincent Ferrer, Joan of Arc, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Catherine Emmerich, John Vianney, Anna Maria Taigi, Genma Galangi, Faustina Kowalska and Padre Pio. We also have a pair of impressive relics, the shroud of Turin and the sudarium of Orvieto. I'll also throw in Catholic exorcisms.

And these Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions and religious/mystical experiences continue to happen today.

What do Buddhism and animism have in comparison?

>Anything that discusses and argues against some common tropes from atheists such as Mother Teresa being a vile, sadistic person.

Honestly, I'm quite stunned at the portrait atheists have painted of her. At worst, she wasn't perfect and made mistakes. She cannot be a vile monster like Hitchens claims she was, that's ridiculous. Here are some articles that defend Mother Teresa -- here, here, here and here.

Check out any of Mother Teresa's personal writings (e.g. No Greater Love, A Simple Path, Come Be Thy Light) to see what she believed in, what she valued and how she saw the world. Check out books written by people who actually knew her such as that of Malcolm Muggeridge, an agnostic BBC reporter who ended up converting to Catholicism because of Teresa and ended up becoming a lifelong friend of hers. Or that of her priest, friend and confessor, Leo Maasburg, who was able to recall 50 inspiring stories of Mother Teresa. Or that of Conroy, a person who actually worked with her. Or any biography of hers. Find out what she was like according to the people around her. Then afterwards, determine for yourself if she resembles Hitchen's "monster" or the Catholic Church's "saint".

That's a very tortured reading of just one of the stories of a post-resurrection appearance.

I was thinking about what you said about us deserving more proof. Frankly, I think we've got far more than we have any right to when compared to previous generations.

In Jesus' day, only a few thousand people saw him work a miracle. Only a thousand at most saw him after the resurrection. In all of human history, seeing the supernatural has been confined to a relative handful of people.

Today, though, every single person in the developed world has access to

• scientific proof the universe began at a finite moment in time
  
  
• solid evidence of intentional design in the fabric of the universe, our planet, and biology
  
  
• documented evidence of miracles
  
  
• documented evidence of a non-material aspect of humans, some would even say of life after death
  
  
• solid evidence that the gospels are trustworthy
  
  
• and evidence that whether the gospels are historically reliable or merely "religious stories", Jesus really did rise from the dead.
  
  No, we don't get to see Jesus in the flesh -- walking on water or otherwise -- but we've got more than any generation since his has had. Far more. And we're going to be held responsible for what we did with that privilege.

There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind is also a good read about one of the most prominent atheists, Anthony Flew, and what turned him into a deist. Gerald Shroeder's argument was instrumental in this and can be found as number 5 on this page as well as Roy Varghese's book The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God.

Might be bullshit, might not.

https://www.amazon.ca/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335304

>I didn't know continental vs analytical terms are outdated.

Dated perhaps isn't the right term, but just know that they do have certain limits.

As for post-WWII philosophy, there's a lot, but I'm going to let you know that much of it can't be well-understood without a basic understanding of Heidegger, much of whose thought was pre-WWII. His best known work is Being and Time, but it's one of the most challenging texts in the western canon. For an easier introduction to prep you for it, I'd recommend some of his early lecture material, such as The Hermeneutics of Facticity and The History of the Concept of Time. This could just be me, but I've found his lectures to be generally easier than his primary texts. If you want to trace the development of his thought, much of which was post-WWII, the Basic Writings anthology has a number of essays by him. While nothing really eclipsed Being and Time, much of his later thought is still studied. I'd say the most significant work of his later career was his Contributions to Philosophy, which took the form of briefer aphorisms and anecdotes, more similar to Nietzsche in style, but still grounded in much of his own thought and terminology.

If you want to move away from Heidegger, some of the big texts would be Gadamer's Truth and Method (Gadamer was a student of Heidegger's, so the former's thought is very deeply influenced by the latter), Sartre's two texts Being and Nothingness and Existentialism is a Humanism (note the similarity to Sartre's title with Heidegger's Being and Time, and also note that Heidegger would respond rather critically to Sartre's Existentialism with an essay in the Basic Writings), and Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex (a key feminist work heavily influenced by Sartre and Heidegger).

Beyond this my knowledge is a bit scattered, as I've only just completed undergrad. I really would recommend David West's text as a decent overview that will guide you in what the key texts are, as well as good secondary sources. I've not brought up Derrida, who was also huge, as well as Alain Badiou, Slavoj Zizek, Michel Foucault and Charles Taylor just to name a few. On top of those, there's a ton of pre-WWII stuff that's hugely important for understanding these thinkers, such as the ideas of Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Husserl, and the whole field of psychoanalysis (Freud, Jung and Lacan). Then there's postmodernism, postcolonialism, the various strands of feminism, and tons more. The more I type, the more I'm just reminding myself how little I know about this area (even though it's the area I'm most interested in).

Let me know if there's anything more you need to know or if you want to know a decent secondary source.

I wish I had more info for you. Hopefully someone else reading this can chime in. I can only recommend the [translation I read.] (https://www.amazon.com/Being-Harper-Perennial-Modern-Thought/dp/0061575593/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8), Macquarrie & Robinson. This is a more recent translation and I don't speak German. The classic version was the [Stambaugh] (https://www.amazon.com/Being-Time-Translation-Contemporary-Continental/dp/1438432763).

Those are the two main ones as far as I know. Once again, I'm sure there are people far better qualified to speak to this than me reading.

Scott Atran attempts to answer this question in his book, In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion.

It's not light reading, but shit is ridiculous, yo.

If you are actually interested in religion and evolution this book is an excellent place to start, so long as you can plough through the jargon. In a nutshell, it's not so much that religion is beneficial to us in evolutionary terms, but that religious ideas (memes, if you like) arise naturally out of the normal function of our innate cognitive systems, and evolve into what we now call religions as they are shaped by our social organisations (this is also an inversion of earlier ideas in which religion was thought of as an attempt to impose some form of social order). It's dense, and gets a lot more complex that that of course, but rewarding and not easily refutable. There's probably more recent stuff out there by now, it's a little while now since I was studying this stuff.

Another way to come at this, instead of abstract reasoning, is to learn the history of religions--how they evolve, what functions they serve in society and so forth. Then you see that the religion you were raised in is one in the history of these belief systems at a specific point in time, with no more validity than any of the others, some of which we think of as silly. The evolution of religion, Why Would Anyone Believe in God Breaking the Spell.

In other words, religion can be explained as a natural phenomenon, rather than because it is correct.

Also Religion explained (amazon), which - although apparently controversial - was an interesting read :

>Using findings from anthropology, cognitive science, linguistics, and evolutionary biology, Religion Explained shows how this aspect of human consciousness is increasingly admissible to coherent, naturalistic explanation. This brilliant and controversial book gives readers the first scientific explanation for what religious feeling is really about, what it consists of, and where it comes from.

I suggest Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. He's an anthropologist but he uses a lot of evolutionary psychology (he's heavily influenced by Pinker's How the Mind Works) and cognitive science. It's an excellent book.

1. That's not why religion has evolved.
   
   
2. Much of (or most of) religion has nothing to do with death.
   
   
3. Existential worries about death & the futility of life under the guise of religion are pretty much unique to Christianity.
   
   
4. Even when religion is about death, it isn't so much about death in general as it is about dead bodies and how they are processed by our mental processor.
   
   
5. One cannot explain "religion" by thinking of only Christianity, or only the Abrahamic religions, or only organized religions, etc. To explain "religion" we have to be willing to consider all religion -- from Evangelical Christianity to ancestor worship, belief in witchcraft, and belief in ghosts & spirits.
   
   If you want to understand why religion evolved read this book: Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought
   
   Tl;dr: What we call 'religion' originates from cognitive by-products of mental systems that evolved for other reasons. "Religious" views of death are influenced by our mental systems for thinking about specific people we know, for detecting agents & living organisms, and our intuitive psychology or 'theory of mind'.

It would be funnier satire if, in fact, there wasn't a science on understanding the nature of religious belief and relationship with evolution. It does a pretty good job of understanding and explaining it, and nearly has a complete model of it.

I wouldn't doubt that many creationists won't get the satire and think this is real. They have a tendency to re-use bad quotes and refuted arguments, and they tend to be more conservative people who don't seem to understand satire.

I know it's a bit of pop psychology, but I can't help but think that you'd enjoy the works of Malcolm Gladwell, particularly Blink and Outliers. Blink brings forward a lot of the issues about conscious rationalization of unconscious behavior and cognition. The metaphor is that there is a locked door in our mind, behind which a huge series of unconscious processes occur. These processes evolved for specific tasks and have thus evolved, as a necessity, a specifically high accuracy in certain areas.

Described in the book is a particularly interesting psychological case study was done with gamblers. Gamblers were sat at a table with 4 decks of cards, 2 red and 2 blue. They would draw cards that would either net them money or lose them money. The decks were rigged, of course, with the red decks providing a few high payouts with a net loss, and the blue decks providing minor gains and an average positive net. By the 80th draw, on average, the gamblers knew to avoid the red decks and could consciously explain their behavior. At the 40th draw they had a hesitancy to draw from the red deck, but could not explain their behaviors beyond "suspicion". However, by as early as the 20 draw, the subjects demonstrated increased heart rate and sweaty palms when drawing from red that they were not even consciously aware of!

The book Religion Explained takes a lot of these evolved subconscious cognization theories and very convincingly applies them to the realm of religious evolution. It's dryer than Gladwell, but a valuable read nonetheless!

>I am mad at myself for not being this analytic about this earlier in my life

I had this exact feeling.

So one thing to realize is that this process takes time I mean for FSM sake u lived a lot with this Idea.keep reading whatever you do keep reading.

some sources or ideas that were helpful to me:

• parables of Jesus
  
• the history of hell
  
• history before ur religion.
  
• the Christ myth theory (However I do believe he existed but it lowered my certainty) and how exodus never happened look for the exodus myth
  
• Commonsense atheism and proving the negative
  
• talk origin and talk design are also very good sources.
  
• read some books on cognitive sciences and psychology of religion , search for recommended atheism books. (understand what cognitive bias is)
  
• this is the phone line u're looking for
  
• read an introductory account on atheism this is one of the best books on atheism
  
• find a way to express u're doubts or else u'll go crazy (at least if u're anything like me) ,blog about it or write about it , talk to s1, ask others questions.
  
• listen to debates about religions.
  
• think about the fact that u finally could emancipate urself from this.
  
• learn a little more about other religions it helps A LOT .
  
• read books by Xbelievers like John Luftus or Dan barker
  
• read more I mean Way more on cosmology and physics. just search for top books on Cosmology
  
• read comparative books like Karen Armstrong books and read the evolution of god
  
• read Religion Explained
  
  

  keep fear away and ...good luck !

Why Evolution is True

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark


Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (free online!)

Guns, Germs, Steel

The God Delusion

Misquoting Jesus (Conceptional this is very compatible with Mormonism--the Bible not being translated correctly so we need the BoM!--but the specifics about what got mistranslated are devastating as Mormonism doubled down on the mistranslated parts. oops.)

Don't even both learning anything more about Mormonism. Just be widely read and you'll soon see that the Mormon version of history is in incongruent with reality. This will cause cognitive dissonance and when you're ready to resolve it, go back and read independent sources about Mormonism and it will be very obvious that the narrative they indoctrinated into you as a child doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Thanks for responding!

I think that there are a few books which have influenced me greatly, but I have a much more expansive list of books I want to read than ones I have already consumed.

To start, you should try the greats:

• The God Delusion
  
• God Is Not Great
  
• The End of Faith
  
  For a historical perspective, try: The Barbarian Conversion
  
  Evolutionary perspective: The Selfish Gene
  
  And, if you have a sense of wonder:
  
• A Brief History of Time
  
• Cosmos
  
  But this is such a small selection... Try them out and let them guide you to many more works.

http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248

How about putting this book on her desk?

The Case for God and The Bible: A Biography by Karen Armstrong are both good. The God Delusion is a simple breakdown and explanation of most major religious claims. Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World by the Dalai Llama is an interesting book on ethics. The Koran: A Very Short Introduction by Michael Cook is 150 funny and insightful pages on Islam. Under the Banner of Heaven is a shocking and fascinating account of fundamentalist Mormonism. The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan discusses religion, and Cosmos and Pale Blue Dot are my secular versions of holy books. And of course given the occasion, I can't leave out God is Not Great.

I recommend avoiding authors like Lee Strobel and Deepak Chopra. Both are essentially liars for their causes, either inventing evidence, or deliberately being incredibly misleading in how they use terms. Popularity in those cases definitely doesn't indicate quality.

Any book by Mary Roach- her books are hilarious, random, and informative. I like Jon Krakauer's, Sarah Vowell's, and Bill Bryson's books as well.

Some of my favorites that I can think of offhand (as another poster mentioned, I loved Devil in the White City)

No Picnic on Mount Kenya

Guns, Germs, and Steel

Collapse

The Closing of the Western Mind

What is the What

A Long Way Gone

Alliance of Enemies

The Lucifer Effect

The World Without Us

What the Dog Saw

The God Delusion (you'd probably enjoy Richard Dawkins' other books as well if you like science)

One Down, One Dead

Lust for Life

Lost in Shangri-La

Endurance

True Story

Havana Nocturne

1984 - George Orwell

The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell - Tucker Max

you have the demon haunted world

I have the god delusion

Here’s a decent collection of his essays:

http://www.andrewmbailey.com/ap/

Several of them are shorter. I’d just find one with a title that interests me.

And though I haven’t read it, this looks to be a more accessible presentation of his Warrant works:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0802872042/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_NUMTCbJCJ7Q1Y

If I were getting into Plantinga now, I’d probably start with this book and go from there.

I imagine that when you were a kid you were able to base your beliefs on the authority of your parents or minister. Now that you are older and able to think critically, you see that they aren't actually in a position to speak authoritatively on that issue.

If you want to believe in God now, it will have to be on different grounds. You will have to find a rationale that you can intellectually accept. There are logical arguments for the existence of God. If this is the sort of thing that you are interested in you might look into getting The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. It provides in-depth treatments by well-know philosophers of the arguments for the existence of God based on nature and reason.

Try the First Way. Or if you prefer, user hammiesink wrote a good explication. He also wrote a series of posts on the subject in this community. Here is the denouement, with links to the prior posts.

If you're really interested in this subject, the Blackwell Companion is an indispensable resource.

Have you read and refuted all the arguments in, say, [The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology] (https://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Natural-Theology/dp/1444350854)?

And are you really saying that if something cannot be seen then it does not exist?

Political Theology is a neglected area, especially in Baptist circles. I think the data shows that, since there is a huge percentage of "Not Sure" answers on that question. Among Calvinists,Two-Kingdoms Theology and Neo-Calvinism tend to be the most popular views. So far, this claim is supported by the data in the Survey, since 22% of the responders voted for Two-Kingdoms Theology and 16.3% voted for Neo-Calvinism; these are the two most popular choices on the survey.

During the Reformation, Two Kingdoms Theology was the most popular view among Calvinists and Lutherans. Most people who hold to this view are Amillenialists.

In the late 1800's, Abraham Kuyper was very influential in reviving Calvinism in the Netherlands, promoting a view now known as Neo-Calvinism. A more extreme view of Neo-Calvinism known as Christian Reconstructionism was promoted by R.J. Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen, which advocates for theonomy. Most Neo-Calvinists and Reconstructionists tend to hold Post-Millenial views.

Here's some books if you want to learn more:

Two Kingdoms Theology:

The Two Kingdoms: A Guide for the Perplexed by Bradford Littlejohn

Living in God's Two Kingdoms by David Vandrunen.


Neo-Calvinism:

Lectures on Calvinism by Abraham Kuyper

Contours of the Kuyperian Tradition by Craig Bartholomew


Christian Reconstructionism/ Theonomy

By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today - Greg Bahnsen

Neo-Calvinism & Christian Theonomy by J. Glenn Friesen

Read and engage with others! Come check out some of the conversations happening on the sub, they are incredible.

I recommend Joseph Pieper as a good starting point to "wander into the wilderness." His work "Leisure As The Basis of Culture" is easy to read and has some great questions and incites. Or Viktor Frankl's "Man Search For Meaning" may be another good place to start.

For anyone else reading this: don't be deterred by this guy's tone, Josef Pieper's Leisure, the Basis of Culture is an excellent little book which explains that true leisure - taking the time to learn, or create - is the fundamental basis of Western culture. And it's pretty true: everyone from Socrates to Virgil to Dante to Pieper himself (as a professor and philosopher) spent significant amounts of non-working time attempting to achieve something greater than a mere occupation.

Think of the difference between a vacation and a professor's sabbatical. According to Pieper:

>We mistake leisure for idleness, and work for creativity.

Furthermore, in abandoning TV and spending his weekends reading, this guy is trying to spend his free timeaccording to a Pieperian ideal of leisure:

>Leisure is the disposition of receptive understanding, of contemplative, beholding, and immersion — in the real. In leisure, there is, furthermore, something of the serenity of ”not-being–able–to–grasp,” of the recognition of the mysterious character of the world, and the confidence of blind faith, which can let things go as they will; there is in it something of the ”trust in the fragmentary, that forms the very life and essence of history.

However, you can't do High Leisure 24 hours a day. This Redditor illustrates this by spending some of his time bashing people on Reddit and bitching about his fellow parishioners and their iPhones and 'splaining to us how using Reddit on a desktop computer is philosophically superior to having portable devices on WiFi. Socrates illustrated it by getting drunk (read Plato's Symposium).

I'm sure Josef Pieper, being a European professor living in Saxony, Germany, went on a vacation and to a pub now and then.

What this Redditor probably needs to read along with Pieper's book on culture is his book on prudence and virtue.

I highly recommend it for an easy-to-read, Thomist organization of the four cardinal virtues of Catholicism.

If you're leaning towards trying to talk him out of it and want some resources, I'd highly recommend reading Peter Boghossian's "A Manual For Creating Atheists" I just finished reading it a few days ago, and it talks you through using the Socratic Method. The main idea is that you just ask pointed questions until the arguments fall apart and look silly. You never ever state what you want them to believe, you only ever offer alternate possibilities, and even these you just ask if they are reasonable possibilities or not.

Obviously, he's his own man and might be too tied up with this girl to react to reason, hormones are strong, strong things. But approaching life with reason instead of faith is the best we can do, and it follows that helping others to do so is the best for humanity. Good luck with whatever choice you make!

OK

Check out this book...http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094

It has some interesting insights on how you may be able to achieve what you are wanting. Ultimately, finding a way to make him give reasoning for how and why he believes what he says....and never give them any information to which they can formulate an answer. Force him to explain it to you...and just maybe his beliefs will intersect, thus causing him to doubt his own words.

Then you walk away and let that seed grow.

Have you read "A Manual for Creating Atheists"? It's really good and shows a method that is completely different from debate. The author, Peter Boghossian, illustrates why debates don't work with religious people (they don't believe based on evidence, but on faith) and shows how you can instead target the foundation of their belief and assist them in realizing that it is a flawed system for forming beliefs. The method doesn't actually require you to know anything about arguments in order to demonstrate the flaws.

Here is the link to the book on amazon.

And here is a link to a channel of a guy on youtube who puts it into practice. Have a watch of some of them and see if either party comes away frustrated or worked-up.

I haven't read this specific book, but maybe a book on epistemology?

https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094

I'm currently reading through Peter Boghossian's "A Manual for Creating Atheists".

He has some excellent points on why we should get people to leave faith behind. Not religion, but faith. If we can get more people valuing evidence, that can only be a good thing for society.

Keep trucking. I'm curious if you've used any of the techniques from Peter Boghossian's A Manual for Creating Atheists?

I find from reading the comments you seem to be getting a lot of flak for various things. I think part of it may be your insistence on labeling positions as worldviews. I don't think it is necessarily wrong, but the word carries some baggage that may be implying more than you intent, or more than others would wish to be labeled with. While labels can be useful for quickly describing a position you or someone else may hold, be certain to know of the variations and try to attach specific answers to specific questions that underly labels, and to make sure you have specific definitions as well (i.e. Q: Do you believe in God? A: Generally no, but it would help if you could define God, as I can't say if I believe in something that I can't define or describe).

First:
>Atheism is not a stance, not really. Atheists do not believe in anything

I think I can see what you mean here but be really careful with -ists and -isms. Atheism being a stance or not a stance is very much in how someone views themselves. One can be a "strong atheist", as it has been put, and actively believe and assert that there is no God, god, gods, godesses or supernatural beings (which is the term I will stick with), or one can be a looser form of agnostic atheist. There are many who would even say that, regardless of what agnostics say, they are in fact atheists because atheism, being not the opposite but the negaitve of theism (a- theism) is the lack of belief in supreme supernatural beings (this includes Penn Jillette, as he mentions this view in his book "God No!). So I think the error you made here is saying Athiest do not believe in anything, as that is not true. I call myself an Atheist (or Real Big Atheist; mild or moderate anti-theist; Ignostic Agnostic Atheist; etc) but I believe in lots of things. I believe I am sitting in a chair while I write this. What I think you meant to say was Atheism does not imply a belief in something. Under any definition it is either the lack of belief or belief that another belief is false, it is not a statement on the existence of a thing.

Second:
>Anti-Theism, on the other hand, IS a worldview.

Again, worldview is a risky word to use as it suggests that there is larger over-arching position to it. I would call secular humanism a worldview, but I don't know if I would call anti-theism a worldview (and there are secular humanists who would see themselves as anti-theist and some who wouldn't). I would be more tempted to call it a position. Regardless of semantics, I think anti-theism is easier to define. Anti-theism is the opposition to theism. Simple. Theism being the belief in one or more gods (Theos), and thus being anti that.

On anti-theism, I agree with you, but I find anti-theism is subservient to a larger desire for truth. As has been argued below, theism can be used for good or bad. People could be motivated to work harder for Dear Leader, and improve life for us all. If theism is not true though, then can we truly consider that an appropriate course of action? In doing so we would subvert informed consent, and undermine the freedom of a person live their own lives and to choose their own beliefs. However, I have never been shown a case where theism was used where a non-supernatural alternative could be used. The teaching of philosophy to elementary students has shown be very useful for improving not just academic outcomes, but also social outcomes 1. Here is the group that published that document, there are many more on their resources page.

The above paragraph completely ignores any harm that may come from religion, and I do that intentionally. If a given religion is true, then extreme measures can be justifiable if you are preventing someone from enduring annihilation or eternal torture. Utilitarian defenses of religion can only be relevant if they are false. However, if they are false, then any harm that comes along is thus completely unjustifiable unless the benefits outweigh them AND you are willing to admit that truth is not intrinsically valuable. The first constraint is difficult to measure, and does not seem to add up, especially when considering that magical thinking can overlap into other areas, and thus a firm belief in the supernatural (as opposed to an allowance of the possibility, or a thought experiment) could be a hindrance to honest political or philosophical discourse, and technological progress. I prefer discussing religion and supernatural beliefs in an epistemological framework, epistemology being the philosophical study of knowledge, or how we know what we know. While I have enjoyed Hitchens, I find his arguments to fall short of compelling in terms of convincing me of the accuracy of atheism or value of anti-theism; his moral arguments work for a current common moral standard which I happen to agree to a fair degree, but they do not do much to convince me of any implicit truth, nor that the moral standard being used is necessarily correct and thus failing to adhere to it is truly as abhorrent as would naturally appear.

A book I recently listened to on audiobook (from audible.com) was "A Manual for Creating Atheists" by Peter Boghossian. I would strongly recommend this book, especially if you want to actively act as an anti-theist and atheist activist.

I would love to discuss any other aspects of atheism or anti-theism, especially if you disagree with any points I have made. I would also suggest looking into ignosticism (as it is a good additional label for getting people into discussion), the /r/philosophy subreddit and the /r/antitheism subreddit.

You [should read this book] (http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094), it taught me to argue a bit more structured, not make statements but ask very difficult questions.

Being blunt and honest at the same time, seems to scare the posers(most of them that come in groups) and make the true believer actually think about the validity of things he or she believes and question [faith as a method of getting reliable information] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIaPXtZpzBw#t=9m57s)..

Watch this video first

And if you really want. Buy this book

What you should know is you may ostracize yourself from friends and family if you attempt this on them. I would first have light conversions simply asking what they believe and why to gauge how open they may be to a discussion. Don't just start with these attacks on their beliefs.

Read A Manual For Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian. Talking to people about God is an entirely different subject. If they are using theism to prop up their decision to eat meat you have to address theism.

Also, watch some of Peter's lectures on YouTube. He teaches to debate/question/query not about facts but rather how one knows what one knows. Theism is based on faith which is an unreliable method for arriving at truth. Illustrate that to be true, or better yet, ask great questions so that your subject discovers it to be true and theism will crumble.

Sway him away from faith, and the rest will eventually take care of itself: https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094

This reminds me a lot of how people talk about trying to de-convert people. They try showing them evidence of how a particular religion is false, but no matter how much they push the point home the person they're talking to doesn't listen.

(Here's a concrete example for that: Consider someone who believes in a literal interpretation of Noah's Flood [God creates the earth, doesn't like what people are doing, decides to drown them all in a global flood, chooses one man {Noah} and his family to build a boat and collect up 2 of each animal into said boat, they float around on water covering Mt. Everest for 375 days, all animals depart to repopulate the earth]. This story has a list of problems so long in boggles the mind, but ask how Noah and his family simultaneously kept the penguins cold and desert foxes hot without refrigeration, keep the carnivores from eating the herbivores, or whatever else and you get a whole raft of rationalizations if they don't just claim you hate god or are an agent of the devil sent to deceive them.)

What I've learned so far about this problem is that it requires a different approach than facts and evidence. It requires instilling a sense of doubt in what one knows, and how one knows it and modeling an intellectually honest framework for answering such questions.

In the religious example how one knows the truth of claim x is usually answered with faith. They have faith that god helped Noah in every way he needed to get that boat stocked and taken care of. And how do they know their faith is true? To put it one way: They know that they know that they know. It is felt with the same level of conviction that one has asking if they exist.

I hope this was helpful without rambling too much. I am mostly taking from A Manual for Creating Atheists Which I found to be a useful source of information about changing people's minds even outside of religious contexts.


Edit: Please know I'm not trying to hassle anyone about religion here. There are goals worth banding together for and finding ways to help get people out of toxic and counterproductive mindsets is one of them.

Firstly by not using labels. Labels suck anyway.

> perhaps part of the reason people fall in line with all the positions of a particular party is that it's just easier that way

That's partly the reason, the other reason is that we only have two parties. So, in essence you aren't making a "positive" choice but a "negative" one instead. One may not agree with everything Blue but are certainly against Red for instance.

Funny clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7E9SS-X4YY

If we had a greater variety of parties you would find people gravitating to ones that believe more of what they believe. That, however, is a pipe dream given our current electoral system so no sense talking about it.

I'm not going to talk about any of your other beliefs or points as we could be here all day (both those I agree with and those I don't). But instead stay with your philosophical angst.

> And yet, l have a low opinion of the modern left.

My only advice is this. Don't do what labels are intended to do... box people in. When confronted with someone who claims to be a Liberal, or a Libertarian, Conservative, Democrat, Republican, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or whatever... don't foist your understanding of what they then should believe onto them. For every person, in every instance, and on every topic you have to ask.

Learn to ask open questions rather than closed questions. Questions like, "Do you believe X" are ok, but even better is "What do you believe?" Rather than, "Do you believe X about immigration", "What do you believe regarding immigration?". The open questions will always produce better results. Often times you will "catch" them in a contradiction, and that's ok. Don't rub it in their face, simply ask them about it as kindly and gently as you can. Make them consider their position through your questions. Don't try and change their mind but instead reconsider... to think. Providing them data sometimes help although a lot less than you might think. The mistake many, including myself, make is that we feel that the person we are talking to is merely ignorant of the facts. But it turns out that when it comes to beliefs, especially personal beliefs, facts are much less important than you might think.

Your goal should be to get to know the person, not the label. This technique is called Street Epistemology and you should look it up if you are interested. It can be done with varying degrees of success, I am still struggling with some aspects of it myself. Here is one of the books that founded the technique: https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094

Enjoy.

Peter Boghossian argues that in arguing with such deluded people, it's best to step back from the details of what they claim and ask how they know what they know. (The philosophical term for this question is epistemology.)

His point is that digging into the detailed claims themselves will just drive you batty. Things will go in circles.

If you focus on how people know what they know, you might be able to lead them into a place of less certainty. That's not all the way to believing what you do, but it is a necessary first step.

Thanks for the kind words. If I wrote a book it would likely turn out to just be a copy of this one, replacing a few of the words with "Jehovah's Witnesses", etc. and I don't want to be sued for plagarism. 😆

I'm sure asking for more book recommendations on the topic would prove fruitful.

Where is that video? I can't find it. I just don't want for you to get your hopes up. Peter Boghossian has years of experience and he says it's really rare to wake up a believer. All we can do is try.

A great resource that has taught me tons, is "The Atheist Debates Project" run by and featuring Matt Dillahunty. Watch the episodes for free on YouTube. I'm a patron to support the excellent work that Matt does.

Further, you can see these ideas in action, by listening/watching the podcast/YouTube/live stream of the Internet TV show, "The Atheist Experience". Some callers aren't interesting, but some exchanges are just gold.

I myself have written a primer on beliefs and labels to help introduce one to the landscape. Read that to understand the concepts. View the links in the green resource boxes to dive deeper into any subject. Watch the debates linked to, to see how others argue the material.

Just be a sponge for this. Prop up you iPhone in the bathroom and play debates while you brush your teeth or in the kitchen as you scramble your eggs. You'll get in an extra 30+ minutes a day of absorbing this content.

To learn about how best to get people to think without ever really arguing, but instead, using the socratic method to get them to think about their own positions, read the book (or listen to the excellent audiobook), A Manual for Creating Atheists. Based on these techniques, you can watch Anthony Magnabosco as he approaches people and politely asks them questions to get them to think. This technique is called Street Epistemology.

Finally, go through the Philosophy playlist on YouTube, from the channel Crash Course. They do an excellent job of introducing a lot of the concepts and terminology involved in philosophical argumentation--which is what all of this comes down to.

We need more people who educate themselves and can speak intelligently to the issues. So thank you for taking an interest. This is an awesome journey. Welcome.

If they force you to keep going to the same therapist (even if they don't), here's a book you might find useful: http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094

It talks about "street epistemology" which is basically asking questions of believers (such as your therapist) to get at why they believe there is a god. You can also find some good videos on YouTube that demonstrate how others do it.

If your therapist is giving answers like "it's hard to wrap your head around," perhaps her belief is not as strong as she thinks it is. Show her you're truly "exploring both sides" and make her answer why you should believe god exists - because you want to believe what's true. It may rattle her faith just a bit. She may even get uncomfortable and suggest you change therapists.

[this book] (https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094) tells you how to deal with religious people

>Or places with suggestions for "things you can do to fight theism and religion" that are likely to make a real difference in the world.

Read this book: A Manual for Creating Atheists

You can "argue" with people in real life instead. I'm not really suggesting arguing, but a better form of conversation to get people thinking.

If so, you might be interested in Peter Boghossian's book, a good start on the subject. The title doesn't do it justice, but it's called A Manual for Creating Atheists

A Manual for Creating Atheists is not directly an anti-cult book, but its logic is highly applicable.

One of the speakers has a book out, called A Manual for Creating Atheists.

I naturally never want to do anything that would cause my mother undue pain, and my revelation at this most inopportune time was definitely a mistake.

As far as continued discussion of the reasons why my brother and I rejected religion, I have never sat down and discussed this with her. I dare say I may never do so, unless invited by her. For as evil as I feel religion is in the public sphere, and as ridiculous as I find its teachings, I am loathe to bring to her the internal struggles of my late adolescence.

In all honesty, my parents have now moved on to a much more liberal Methodist congregation, and I don't feel religion is harming them all that much. Their new church runs the local food pantry, a homeless shelter, soup kitchen, feeds children lunch all summer break, and will pay for anyone's utilities or rent to avoid homelessness.

I have now convinced them of the soundness of evolution, that climate change is real (how is this even wrapped up in religion?) and that science in not the boogieman.

If the genie is out of the bottle - so to speak - with your mother, I would recommend reading Peter Boghassian's A Manual for Creating Atheists. Chapter 6: After The Fall deals with this exact issue. He talks of replacing the definiteness about death with wonder and love for family, etc.

Dan Barker's Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists might also help. Chapter 19 - Life and Death Matters would be a good place to start. While the arguments against religion made earlier in the book may have been better stated by other authors, he is an excellent source on replacing faith with meaningful purpose, as he was a minister for so long.

Best of luck, and if you need any help, I'm just a PM away.

just ordered the book A Manual for Creating Atheists. Really loking forward to it!

Leaving the church can be an emotional and harrowing experience especially, if like me, you are a generational mormon. My dad was a convert but quit the church when he bailed on the family but on my moms side my grandfathers family goes back to the pioneers and my grandmothers parents were converts in California during the depression. For generations my family has been indoctrinated in the mormon belief system. I walked away from the church almost ten years ago but it took about four years to come to terms with it. At 40 years old I still have stuff creep up on me out of nowhere. Leaving tscc is a traumatic experience, we lose part of our identity, we lose parts of our community, we lose parts of our family. We have been the subject of generational psychological abuse and coping with that trauma is difficult enough but when we leave we are subjected to more abuse for having left. Leaving the church is a traumatic event piled on top of a lifelong traumatic event. I was able to come to terms with my hangups when, for unrelated reasons, began doing some research into PTSD and began to understand why my upbringing in the church was impacting me long after I left. I would recommend doing some readings on PTSD and overcoming indoctrination, it really helped me come to terms with me.

If you haven't you might want to take a look at Deism which is basically God created the universe and then moved onto other things. Thats right God has ADD.

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and God Is Not Great by Christoper Hitchens are great books to read when coming to terms with the loss/end of religion in your life. You don't have to go full on atheist, Dawkins even has 7 degrees of theistic belief, but reading those two books can help understand many things.

> publishes garbage

Your personal bias is still showing. You're just one random person on the person who dislikes his writing and personally attacks him, calling what he writes garbage without actually providing any single argument as to why that is true. Here's the Amazon listing for The God Delusion with a 4 1/2 star rating from 3,300+ random internet people. https://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248

Are you ready to state why his arguments are bad or why he is garbage, or are you just going to continue to use the defense of "he writes about biology, therefore he can't write about philosophy and everything he writes is wrong", like a child?

You only answered half the question. Strawman. Tell me which books from those atheist philosophers that you listed have you read? Just curious, have you even read The God Delusion or have you been indoctrinated to hate Dawkins from secondary sources alone?

This isn't even fun. I wish you would try to bring up quran or hadith sources are try to prove your points rather than bashing a single author. I would love to showcase how contradictory/evil/sexist the quran is. If only you'd try that. And yes, I've read the quran and various hadith and still have half the quran memorized from my childhood. I actually read the shit I'm talking about, unlike you who hasn't read The God Delusion and has been indoctrinated to hate Dawkins and other atheists. Let me guess, you also hate Sam Harris, but haven't read any books by him, right?

http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248

read this. make your own decisions. I'm still Jewish and constantly trying to inform myself of more and more and more. At the end of the day people can lead you to information, but it's up to you to decide what you'll read or accept. Judaism is constantly shifting so you might be between sects, not to mention most of the religion is based on different accounts and interpretations of the Torah(talmud, mishnah, gemara, etc).

Here, read this book to celebrate his birthday.
 

http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248

First off, great contest! This is making be realize how much there is in my life to be grateful for. I won't be TOO obnoxious, but I'll name a few.

1. My parents: They are incredibly supportive and always there when I need them. I'm truly SO lucky to have them in my life.
   
   
2. My dog: Because he makes me feel SO loved. It doesn't matter if I went outside for 5 minutes or if I have been gone for 3 months he always greets me like he hasn't seen me in years and is so glad that I returned. A dogs love is something everyone should experience, imo.
   
   
3. My boyfriend (/u/pendragone01): Because he makes me feel like the prettiest girl in the world and puts up with my craziness even when I wouldn't want to be around me. True love!
   
   
4. My best friend: Because even when we are miles apart, haven't seen each other in months, and haven't talked in days nothing changes between us we are still the best friends ever! I couldn't ask for a better friendship.
   
   
5. Coffee: Because of that warm, happy feeling it gives me whenever I drink it.
   
   
6. My nephew: Because he reminds me that anything is possible in life no matter if you are 2 or 22! And he makes me laugh because a 2 year old is A LOT like a drunk 22 year old.
   
   Under $15
   
   Under $10

I’m a gay atheist. At first when I finally accepted I was gay, I tried my best to reconcile my being gay with Christianity until I read the Bible cover to cover (OT and NT, New International Version) until I found out the glaring errors, contradictions and repugnant deeds and sayings by God himself, his prophets as well as Jesus Christ and that made me look into more until I found four books that made me realize that the Abrahamic god is a man made one and not someone who is all-powerful and all knowing.

The books are here:
Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of the Christ
Misquoting Jesus
Is It God’s Word?
The God Delusion

>Atheism is not a religion.

Really?

>We have no doctrine.

I'm almost positive that that's not the case.

>No creed.

From PZ Myers himself.

>No hymns.

Really? Are you so very certain?

So...are you positive that atheism has not taken on all the trappings of a religion? I would say you even have apostles - Dawkins, Hitchins, Harris.

Finally - I would urge you to look up state atheism and then tell me that certain people didn't kill in the name of atheism.

I'm a little late to the party, but I just thought I'd add my voice.

There are a couple things I would like to say. I'm sure none of it hasn't already been said somewhere here, but I'll just repeat for emphasis.

First of all, hi! And welcome. I'm sure you are feeling so confused and overwhelmed right now. That's okay. There's a lot to take in and consider. Take your time, go at your own pace, and make sure that wherever you end up is a place that is right for you. It's important to always consider what others have to say but that doesn't mean you have to follow what they say. You make your decisions and you determine your path.

If this road you are taking brings you to atheism (or anything unacceptable to your family and/or friends) you do not have to come out before you are ready. Depending on your situation it could be very detrimental to do so before the time is right. If someone will do wrong by you if they know the truth, then you are by no means obligated to give them the truth. And when the right time is, only you can say. Others may be able to help you with it, but when it comes down to it, it is your life and your decision.

And, again, if you eventually begin to identify as an atheist it is possible, and maybe even probable that you will feel angry. Many of us have been through it, or still are going through it. Angry about things that are happening around the world today and angry about things from your upbringing. That is okay too. There are many things we should be angry about. Just don't let that anger consume you. And be sure to still be reasonable. Anger can be a good thing when placed appropriately and if it's kept in perspective. It's a hard field to navigate but you'll figure it out with time and experience.

Don't get so caught up in one worldview that you are stuck in an echo chamber, never exposed to differing thoughts and opinions. Keep an open mind and don't shut things out simply because you don't want to change your opinion or are so convinced of something that you think there's no chance you could ever be wrong. This really applies to everything in life...not just religious beliefs or lack thereof.

I wanted to address you personally, rather than discuss the beliefs because I'm sure you have been given so much to consider and read already. It is likely that everything I have to suggest has already been mentioned, but:

• There are so many good videos at The Atheist Experience
  
  
• Greta Christina's blog has many wonderful and thought provoking writings
  
  
• "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins is incredible (as is most of his work)
  
  
• Just about any Christopher Hitchens debate on YouTube is fascinating. I also loved his book "God Is Not Great" but if you aren't a reader it may be tiresome and difficult to get through.
  
  
• PZ Myers blog, Pharyngula is excellent as well.
  
  I could go on, but this post is already so much longer than I intended. So I'll just end on this note: things might look pretty frightening and overwhelming right now, but don't let it scare you off. There is no better feeling than learning and coming to your own conclusions about who you are and what you believe. Especially if you've had those things decided for you your entire life. If you ever need help or have questions, come here. There are many of us who are more than willing to do what we can to help.
  
  Good luck! :)

I'd highly recommend The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God by Carl Sagan. It's a transcription of his Gifford Lecture from 1985, but it's a very concise summation of his reasoning and it has some amazing quotes.

Also, obviously The God Delusion.

For others, look at the /r/atheism FAQ.

I suggest you read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

> We have eye witness testimonies.

We supposedly have eye witness testimonies, because almost none of the witnesses (besides the apostles) are named, nor are they alive, and their "testimonies" were recorded many decades after Christ's supposed ascension. Besides that, witness testimonies are not enough to prove that supernatural events are even possible.

> There was a detective who works cold cases, and would convict people of crimes based on people's testimonies. He was an Atheist investigating the case for Christ. He found that the people's testimonies lined up, and he would consider them as viable evidence in court, and he came to the conclusion that it was all real.

There are many authors like this one, who think they have the silver bullet that will prove their religion, be it Christianity or Islam, who eventually engage in all sorts of fallacies and provide nothing of substance. I haven't read this guy's book to be honest (Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels), but I have read other books by Christians who claim that they can prove the "truth" of Christianity. Short summary: they haven't.

The fact of the matter is that these books do not stand to scrutiny. Have you ever read anything written by Bart Ehrman, or other real scholars? They would vehemently disagree with that guy's conclusions.

Bart Denton Ehrman is an American professor and scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is one of North America's leading scholars in his field, having written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring five New York Times bestsellers. Ehrman's work focuses on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.

-- from WikiPedia

You should also read stuff by:

• Richard Dawkins (i.e. The God Delusion, The Greatest Show On Earth, Unweaving the rainbow, etc.),
  
  
• Lawrence Krauss (i.e. A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing),
  
  
• Sean Caroll
  
  and other scientists if you want to see what science actually has to say about reality and about how grossly wrong the Bible is when it tries to make pronouncements on our physical reality.
  
  > Why do you not believe in the gospel accounts? They were hand written accounts by people who witnessed an event, or people who spoke to those people.
  
  That's the claim, not the evidence. It's people claiming to have witnessed supernatural events for which they have no evidence, and even more than that, all these witnesses are long dead. We have nothing but third hand accounts of people from 2000 years ago claiming to have seen or heard wildly fantastical things for which we don't have any evidence that they are even possible.
  
  Heck, we literally have millions of people still alive who swear that they have encountered aliens or have been abducted by aliens - this is a much better evidence than your supposed witnesses who are long dead by now - and it's still not nearly enough to prove that these aliens actually exist and that they have indeed been abducting people.
  
  > Some of the things Jesus spoke about is verifiable today. As I have pointed out about the Holy Spirit guiding people, and people being able to heal and cast out demons in Jesus' name.
  
  Many of Buddha's teachings are verifiable and valid today, yet that does nothing to prove Buddha's claims of the supernatural. Besides, you first have to demonstrate that there are such things as demons before even making a claim of being able to cast them out. Bring one of these "demons" into a research facility and then we'll talk. Otherwise, you're no different than the alien abduction people or the Bigfoot hunters.

https://smile.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1479680665&sr=1-1&keywords=the+god+delusion

I'd suggest reading more on the subject. Having knowledgeable resources to refer to can make all the difference in the world.

Try "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.

It is an absolutely fantastic book about the nature of religion.

The God Delusion:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251605853&sr=8-1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkGpO1lQrLY

You won't regret reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

I would read The God Delusion. I'm still working on it myself right now, but it has helped me see how religion controls the mind.

As an anthropologist, you really, really need to read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/067003472X

It's a human-centered explanation of where religion come from in our culture, and why some religions persist while others disappear. The author is a philosopher by trade, but this is very much an anthropological theory book. Please find yourself a copy.

Your fears are understandable. This will help you get over them.

Daniel Dennett - Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon

The End of Faith by Sam Harris

The Spiral Staircase: My Climb Out of Darkness by Karen Armstrong

Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell

A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by Karen Armstrong

Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects by Bertrand Russell

I am as ardent an anti-theist as you'll find, however, few points

>I am not trying to offend anyone who is religious

Not up to you, they're going to get offended anyway.

>I know religion is responsible for many of our moral values

Is it though? Morality is still an incredibly rich area of study and thought (along with consciousness.) There are many competing theories such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_morality

In any case- religion certainly teaches that some things are bad and other things are good. I reject the claim that it is responsible for "many of our moral values." (Reference the Old Testament- morality isn't the word I would use to describe stoning people to death for transgressions.)

>Religion is responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history.

I would say that close-minded adherence to bad ideas are the root of the worst atrocities in human history. Religions are among the worst ideas and the most deeply held convictions people have and have contributed mightily (and have been the primary factor for a lot of the atrocities) however, people are responsible for the worst atrocities in human history.

>I don't understand how people are willing to die for something that they have been told and never actually seen.

Philosophy Psychology of` religion is pretty useful here. You may find the following concepts interesting:

• The Backfire Effect
  
• Cognitive Dissonance
  
• Confirmation Bias
  
  It is important to note that religious adherents often grow up being taught these dogmatic systems as truth. To them it is common sense and they attribute their good feelings and positive experiences to the religion.
  
  >We are not born believing in religion it is taught to us.
  
  Someone along the way came up with the idea. Generally these days we cannot tell because not many people can get to age 18 without being subject to religious ideas. Although, I tend to agree with this hypothesis in a modern sense.
  
  >I believe that any religion, whethever it's monotheistic (one god) or polytheistic (many gods) that believes in a divine creator is a plague and gives evil people justification for committing awful crimes againist others (molesting children, terroist attacks, etc).
  
  Well, polytheistic religions have a history of being tolerant and intolerant of other gods/faiths. Monotheism has a horrific track record here.
  
  Jainism is non-violent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
  
  >I think social philosophies like confucianism which are built on more ethical and natural principles should replace religion.
  
  Secular Humanism sounds like it would float your boat: https://secularhumanism.org/index.php/3260
  
  What people find irreplaceable about religion is its answers to big questions, comfort, and "spiritual fulfillment."
  
  Whether you believe in spirituality or not, there have been many hypotheses about what spiritual experience is, or where exactly it comes from. Personally, I think religions are middle men between you and whatever those experiences are. Meditation and other methods have been suggested.
  
  >Religion is an evil plague apon society CMV.
  
  Ultimately, I agree with you. Although, I do think that some people get things from religion that are good or benign (things that could be gotten from other sources IMO.) Your view just needs a bit more nuance, respectfully. The following sources would be interesting to you:
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Essays-Religion-Related-Subjects/dp/0671203231
  
  https://www.amazon.ca/End-Faith-Religion-Terror-Future/dp/0393327655
  
  https://www.amazon.ca/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0771041438

The Master and His Emissary, Iain McGilchrist

A Secular Age, Charles Taylor

Reasons and Persons, Derik Parfit

This is what you're looking for. Well worth the effort and Taylor has a nice dry wit.

I've been thinking about this. The works which first pop to mind are probably too technical for general interest as they are written to be read by other professional philosophers. I'm trying to think of what might be interest to the educated person who isn't a Philosophy major.
*****

Peter Kreeft

Peter Kreeft writes a lot of things for a general audience. He is a Catholic philosopher at Boston College. He often speaks at other universities, and has even been part of a debate with a former professor of mine, so he is at least pretty well-known in philosophical circles. He has a bunch of free readings on the "featured readings" and "more featured readings" pages of his site, which also has lectures and such. Here is his author page on Amazon. His books are also mostly intended for a general audience. I've read a handful of them, so if you're thinking of ordering one, or finding it at a library, let me know and I'll give you my two cents. The Sea Within: Waves and the Meaning of All Things is interesting. He is fairly old, and a lifelong surfer. In that book he draws analogies between the natural pull the ocean has on us and the pull God has on us. He also has many Socrates Meets... books which don't have so much to do with religion, but provide accessible introductions to various philosophers (e.g. Socrates Meets Sartre).
*****

Alvin Plantinga

Alvin Plantinga is a very prominent philosopher, and a Christian. Much of his writing is intended for the professional philosophical audience, but some if it might be accessible to a general audience. Here is his Amazon author page. Let me know if you're thinking about checking out any of his stuff. Like I said, a lot of it is more technical than Kreeft's. Also, he is in the analytic tradition, whereas Kreeft is more in the continental tradition. I think that further distances him from the casual reader.

Some of Plantinga's works which might be good:

• God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God is pretty much what it's long title says.
  
  
• I see a brand new book, which I might get myself! It's on a topic which often comes up in this very forum, science and religion. (Anybody want to read it with me?!) Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Publisher's blurb:
  
  >This book is a long-awaited major statement by a pre-eminent analytic philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, on one of our biggest debates -- the compatibility of science and religion. The last twenty years has seen a cottage industry of books on this divide, but with little consensus emerging. Plantinga, as a top philosopher but also a proponent of the rationality of religious belief, has a unique contribution to make. His theme in this short book is that the conflict between science and theistic religion is actually superficial, and that at a deeper level they are in concord.
  
  *****
  

  Søren Kierkegaard
  

  
  If you're thinking more historically, I think Kierkegaard can be very interesting. He is considered by many to be a proto-existentialist (a sort of existentialist before existentialism existed as a movement). Fear and Trembling is relatively easy to read, short, and probably his most read work. I recommend it. Also, here is his Amazon author page.
  
  *****
  

  Others
  

  
  Those three were just a few of the many Christian philosophers I find interesting. There are a whole lot more, some more accessible than others to a general audience. This is still just a fraction of the historical Christian philosophical scene, but I think it will give you a good start. These are all of them off of the top of my head whom I have studied to some extent.
  
  

  Contemporary:
  

  
  

• John Hick (Amazon) (Website) (Wiki): Primarily a philosopher of religion and theologian, comes from a rather liberal, mystic Christian perspective.
  
  
• Bas van Fraassen (Wiki): Doesn't actually do much on religion, just a prominent philosopher who happens to be a theist. In fact, many would not guess him to be a theist due to his ultra-empiricism.
  
  
• Peter van Inwagen (Wiki): A prominent philosopher in both philosophy of religion, and other areas. Some would argue he's even a better philosopher than Plantinga (heresy among some Christian philosophers, lol).
  
  
• J.P. Moreland (Wiki): Christian philosopher, does a lot of apologetics.
  
  
• William Lane Craig (Wiki): Well-known, but not well-liked by many philosophers, does a lot of apologetics and travels the world doing public debates with atheists. Has also done a good deal of publishing.
  
  
• Cornell West (Wiki): Awesome guy!
  
  
• Richard Swinburne: (Wiki) (Amazon Author Page): Has written many books more geared towards a general audience I believe.
  
  

  Historical
  

  
  

• Francis of Assisi
  
  
• Augustine of Hippo
  
  
• Peter Abelard
  
  
• Thomas Aquinas
  
  
• Renee Descartes
  
  
• John Locke
  
  
• George Berkeley
  
  
• Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
  
  
• Blaise Pascal
  
  
• Johann Gotlieb Fichte
  
  
• Immanuel Kant
  
  
• William James: One badass mo'fo in my humble opinion. Early twentieth century American philosopher, part of the pragmatist school, and a defender of faith.
  
  ****
  Author's Note: I've been working on this entry for about 45 minutes now. I hope someone reads some of it. Time for a break. If you have any questions, or wanna talk philosophy, let me know, it's in my blood.*
  
  

Plantinga is an old-school academic philosopher, so the best way to get familiar with his ideas is his published works (Amazon links below):

• The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader - a well-edited anthology that presents a broad survey of Plantinga's ideas (leans heavily toward his epistemology, though IIRC).
  
• Warrant: The Current Debate
  
• Warrant and Proper Function
  
• Warranted Christian Belief This is the only one of the "warrant" books I've read. The three books aren't considered a "trilogy" as such, rather WCD and WPF are companion pieces and WCB then builds a different argument based on the earlier works. Namely, Plantinga responds to what he calls the de jure argument that Christianity is irrational, unjustified, and/or unwarranted (in contrast to the de facto argument that Christianity is false). Some googling will reveal reviews of the book from every conceivable angle, some with responses from Plantinga himself. When Plantinga refers to the earlier books, he gives some context, so it's possible to read this book without having read the other two.
  
  Plantinga is also on the editorial board of Faith and Philosophy, the journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers, and he's contributed several articles over the years. There are even more published articles written by his students and colleagues about his ideas.

Logic admittedly isn't my area of expertise, but the logic class I took several years ago used this, which does a pretty good job of breaking down basic types of logical arguments, so that would probably be helpful. The Little Logic Book would also be a great and accessible guide for learning how arguments work, and how to both construct good arguments while recognizing bad ones. Beyond that, I'd say read good philosophers, especially analytic philosophers, since they have a tendency to be a bit more clear and organized with their thoughts. I learned a lot from reading Plantinga when I was first finding my footing, and I'm sure a thread made requesting good examples of clear and accessible instances of analytic philosophy would yield many more results. I might also check out Thomas Aquinas or Descartes, since they both write in a fairly clear style that uses fairly basic and clear instances of argument to build their ideas and express them clearly, and there will be shelves upon shelves of secondary material on them to help you see all the little subtleties going on in their work. Hope this helps.

>I believe that Christianity is rationally defensible, that religious experiences are valid, and that belief in God enjoys proper basicality--as Alvin Plantinga has defended

I think Plantinga, Alston and Wolterstorff's reformed epistemology is one of the most convincing defenses of rational belief that has hence been devised.

Warranted Christian Belief is an extraordinarily good read. There is an updated, condensed version also: Knowledge and Christian Belief.

/r/streetepistemology

And BTW, your Amazon link can be reduced to https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LKBT0MC

Maybe he would benefit from reading "A Manual for Creating Atheists"? The procedure described there is non-confrontational.

Take your time to detox from the indoctrination.

Regarding your wife: Only use questions here and there. Google for the Socratic method or watch videos from Peter Boghossian

I recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094/ref=la_B00CXT0V0K_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1526591670&sr=1-1

Peter Boghossian is a scholar who teaches at Portland State University and he is getting ready to launch a book in November called A Manual for Creating Atheists. He's not so much out to disprove God as much as he is about improving critical thinking and challenging the way people of faith "know" certain things. If you're interested in an argument for spreading skepticism, look him up.

I dig what he has to say and am eager to read the book.

VIDEO: Jesus, The Easter Bunny and Other Delusions: Just Say No!

VIDEO: Peter Boghossian at Imagine No Religion 3

Twitter

A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian, which is unfortunately titled because it's not really about atheism. It's about epistemology and how we know what we know and how we can check that we actually know what we think we know. I get the sense that the title of the book was chosen to generate some controversy and probably target a particular market. It's only about godlessness to the extent that that's one conclusion drawn from proper epistemology. He makes the point that it applies equally to beliefs about out of body experiences or alien abductions or vaccines causing autism.

I'm not sure if I can commit to that. However, if you haven't already maybe check out A Manual for Creating Atheists, or watch some of the videos on Anthony Magnabosco's channel for some tips on a softer, more persuasive approach to these kinds of interactions.

I suggest reading this book:

http://amzn.com/1939578094

https://www.youtube.com/user/magnabosco210

r/StreetEpistemology

Based on the book A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian

Don't talk too much of about history, facts, or counter-apologetics. You do not need to justify yourself to your family. Arguing with uniformed family members rarely leads anywhere useful.

However, if you find that your family is open minded start with epistemology.

Read this book.

Work through this app.

Use your study Mormon history to correct any misconceptions that may arise in the course of discussing epistemology rather than using history as a starting point for disagreement.

And above all remember that it is Mormon believers who are making the truth claims. They have the burden of proof. However, if you start making claims about this or that then you will find that you will have to shoulder the burden of proof, and the discussion can get sided tracked. Watch Matt Dillahunty. He is the master of not letting his debate opponent shift the burden of prove. He doesn't make many claims and he is willing to say "I don't know".

When a believer makes a claim, your first question should be:

>"How do you know that?"

From there you can easily keep the burden of proof where it should be or transition the topic to epistemology when you are ready.

Here is the mobile version of your link

Are you familiar with Dr. Peter Beghossian Manual for Creating Atheists? I ask because he has good points on how to counter argue and to plant the seed of doubt. The Socratic method will probably be a big help when the class attempts to rebut your points.

• Edit: spelling corrected and link added.

If you need help having a conversation with the faithful, try reading A Manual for Creating Atheists and watch videos made by Anthony Magnabosco.

Oh damn that's gotta be rough to see. I really wish I had a way to help you help her.

When r/atheism forgets all about Street Epistemology, the one method known and shown to work, it forgets it pretty damn thoroughly, eh? At least it does for the first 4 hours...

Street Epistemology (with Anthony Magnabosco)

Street Epistemology (with Tyrone Wells)

A Manual for Creating Atheists by Dr. Peter Boghossian (forget The God Delusion and God Is Not Great; they are unpersuasive to most religious people). This is the book that started the SE phenomenon.

Atheos app The mobile phone version of the above book. 1^st module is free!

---
Dr. Boghossian (philosophy prof. at PSU) wrote the book and the app. because he recognizes how bloody hard it is to overcome indoctrinated world views.

Oh I just checked the click through and that's because its an Amazon referral link, they're banned on all of reddit as spam so i have to remove the comment till you edit that out.

this string in the URL:

ref=as_li_ss_tl

A user called "as_li_ss_tl" is getting a cut of sales from anyone who buys after clicking that link.

Here's a non-referral version you could edit in to have your comment restored:

https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094/

These are four books and a lecture series that would certainly be good at getting you started, all of them are academic rigor level, so not something that you'll be able to flip through at the bus stop. They take a bit of time to digest.

• Evidence that Demands a Verdict- good summary of the reasons we have to think that Christianity is historically true.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198
  
  
• Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology- Natural theology, the arguments from reason for why we have good reason to think that there is a God. Written by academic philosophers.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Natural-Theology/dp/1444350854
  
  
• Philosophical Foundations of the Christian Worldview- Another excellent book providing a systematic narrative from the ground up.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Foundations-Christian-Worldview-Moreland/dp/0830851879/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=6HXK5P412QMRNR2XB37B
  
  
• New Essays on Divine Hiddeness- If God is real, then why doesn't he just appear to me? This collection of essays from both atheists and Christians explores that argument and offers (what I think) are some pretty good responses.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Hiddenness-Essays-Daniel-Howard-Snyder/dp/0521006104
  
  
• Faith and Reason Lectures by Peter Kreeft- Excellent lecture series by a philosopher who approaches the topic of religion from an introductory level and takes the time to examine the arguments for and against. A great place to start since it covers everything from a general perspective.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Scholar-Reason-Philosophy-Religion/dp/B001JHT8DI

> So I gather. The only recent stuff I've read is Brian Greene's, but he seems to think there being a first moment of time isn't decisively supported by the data, and that there's good evidence for eternal inflation. This was a 2010 book. When was the Vilenkin talk?

The Vilenkin talk was in 2012. I'm about 98% sure he's since made a stronger statement, but I can't for the life of me find it lol. I haven't read Greene's book, so I can't say anything to it, but James Sinclair analyzes string models in his and Craig's essay on the Kalam in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.

> I don't know. I don't know how controversial it is among scientists; all I have are (e.g.) the Wikipedia page, which is perfectly friendly to beginningless universes, and admits that a Big Bang singularity is impossible according to our well-supported physics.

I think you might find this article stimulating.

> It's also inconceivable that time have a sufficiently explained first moment, which is some evidence against it, if the normal pro-PSR considerations are evidence.

Well that's now to move past physics and into philosophy, particularly the intersection of phil of time and phil of religion. There are various ways theists attempt to hash out this perplexing issue. Craig himself grapples with this in his book on the Kalam, in the Blackwell essay, and in his book Time & Eternity. There is a solid Four Views book on this too. I think it must also be said that it is, at the very least, just as inconceivable that there is an infinite amount of time before this very moment than of time beginning.

> And there are many beginningless models; I'm not sure why we should think the disjunction of them has a probability below 0.5.

Yes, of course there are many beginningless models, but that's not to say they are the best-supported or even well-supported for that matter. In philosophy, for example, as I'm sure you're aware, there are dozens of models for the mind-body problem, but that alone doesn't thereby validate any of these models. From my understanding of the current state of the field, which, admittedly, is rather shallow, physicists pushing past-eternal models do so knowing that the current evidence we have is in favor of models with an absolute beginning of the universe. In other words, they are knowingly going against the grain of the evidence.

> In any case, the point of my original comment was to say that I don't know whether principles such as PSR apply to cosmogonic questions. I don't have any intuition in that direction, and it seems possible that PSR is a metaphysically contingent consequence of the physical laws we happened to arrive at, laws that themselves would be metaphysically contingent.

I suppose we just have different intuitions, and thus reach an impasse here lol. However, I'm not sure how PSR could be a metaphysical consequence of physical law. Could you explain that more (or differently)? I can understand it being contingent given it being birthed by contingent physical law, but I'm not sure how physical law can birth a metaphysical PSR. If it's a strictly physical principle, then why say there is a metaphysical PSR? Or am I misunderstanding you?

> But that's precisely what physicists do with physics itself: apply it to everything in the universe but toss it out when we get to the Big Bang singularity. And the beginning of the universe is radically different from everything else in the universe in interesting ways, for example (allegedly) that it's unbounded by time on one side.

Well you're conflating the KCA with the contingency argument. The KCA operates on a causal principle from beginnings ("everything that begins to exist has an efficient cause"), whereas contingency arguments operate on broader explanatory principles, typically focusing on contingent concrete particulars ("everything that exists (concretely) has an explanation for its existence"). With that said, physics only goes so far until we reach metaphysics, of course, and I'm not familiar with any relation between the PSR and cosmogony, let alone it being standard practice of physicists to throw it out completely. In fact, the entire project of cosmology seems completely founded on the PSR.

> But in my experience (I'm not an expert), those religion still (e.g.) anthropomorphize this creative agent or describe its act as will. And I certainly wouldn't want to call these views theistic either.

Well, they would, haha, but I suppose this is now just categorical. But would you consider the existence of a single, impersonal, immaterial, eternal, transcendent cause of the universe closer to theism or atheism? Where would you put this on the spectrum of conceptual schemes?

I don't know what you are asking. It sounds like you want A Compendium of Complete World Knowledge Compiled with Instructive Annotation and Arranged in Useful Order. http://www.amazon.com/Hodgman-Boxed-Set-John/dp/1594631352

More seriously, are you wanting an example of this in a particular topic? For example, you can read William Lane Craig's heady works on time, or the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. http://www.amazon.com/The-Blackwell-Companion-Natural-Theology/dp/1444350854

There isn't one book that does everything, obviously. There couldn't even be such a thing. And even if it could be done, by the time it was done, it'd be badly out of date.

I actually deconverted from Catholicism in college. I'm a revert.

I never got into into the party culture. I'm really against drinking and doing drugs, and I've always been skeptical of sex outside of a committed relationship and those morals stuck with me even after I deconverted from Christianity. What I did encounter was a lot of intellectual arguments against religion that I couldn't answer. However, what I also eventually discovered was that most of those objections had been heard before and responded to, at least in some manner.

So, here's my semi-comprehensive list of apologetics apologetics resources that I've accumulated over the years.

IMHO, the following books cover all the essentials very well and are probably must reads. You can buy used or online copies of them relatively cheaply, under 20 dollars if you're in the US. Check out Trent Horn's Answering Atheism, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civ, Mere Christianity by CS Lewis (you can probably get Mere Christianity at your at public library), and What is Marriage? Man and Woman a Defense for defending the concept of natural marriage. You should also read How to Argue which is a free pdf. I haven't researched abortion apologetics as extensively as other areas but I know Trent Horn has some books on those.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not going to say you should read all of my remaining recommendations but I'm putting the rest out there for you so you know they exist.

Now, no list of apologtics is going to cover every argument about Christianity so I would also recommend some online resources. www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism is an amazing forum. It has tons of Catholics who are way more knowledgable and experienced that me who can answer questions and stuff. You may or may not have heard of it ;). I also recommend William Lane Craig's site: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer. Again, Craig is a protestant so don't look to him for a defense of Catholicism. However, he's good when it comes to defending the basics of Christianity from atheism. Catholic Answers is good. Fr Barron is good. Strange Notions can be good, I link to it in my last paragraph.

The exact relationship between faith and reason was my biggest stumbling block on the road back to Catholicism, so I have some good recommendations on that topic. I recommend the papal encycle Fides et Ratio and How the Catholic Church Built Western Civ. Plantinga's book Where the Conflict Really Lies is also popular and uses evolution to make an interesting argument against materialism. Plantinga's not a Catholic so I don't know how well they would square with Catholic philosophies like Thomism, but, yeah, he exists. He also wrote this giant essay on faith and science, which was helpful. The book God and the Philosophers is pretty good too, it's an anthology of different Christian philosophers and talks about how they converted to Christianity.

Some comprehensive (but expensive) books by non-Catholics include The Blackwell Companion to natural theology by William Lane Craig (not a Catholic). I've heard good things about Richard Swinburne's apologetics trilogy The Coherence of Theism, The Existence of God, and Faith and Reason. Swinburne is Eastern Orthodox, just for the record.

I want to give a special shoutout to Edward Fesser. He's a secular atheist philosopher who converted to Catholicism. You can read his conversion story here. He also has a blog that you can google. Fesser also wrote a bunch of books that are highly recommended by people on this sub, although I haven't read them.

One last comment but I want to share this with you. You already have a lot to read so definitely don't start out with this. This book, assembled by the heavyweights in the philosophy of religion, is basically the gold standard for apologetics.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Blackwell-Companion-Natural-Theology/dp/1444350854

Just want to show you how the professionals think and write. After you've read through the other suggestions, maybe you can get your hands on it through interlibrary loan or on Kindle.

Lastly, the first commentator on Amazon had some great things to say that are also relevant:

>This is a fantastic book. But is it the "greatest defense of theism" ever assembled? No. Why? Because it is (in general) not defensive; rather, this would fall under the category of "offensive" apologetics. In general, this book attempts to prove God through Kalam, ontological, etc. But to say that this is a defense of theism simply shows the other reviewer's misunderstanding of philosophy. A defense of theism is when atheists attempt, through logic, to disprove God, and the theist "defends" theism by showing that the atheist's proofs are false (this is where theism is at its strongest). Disproving an argument FOR God does not disprove God. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>And when a reviewer writes that they will be "dismantling" the arguments shown here, simply disregard this. The philosophers and theologians who write essays in this book are top notch; atheist philosophers have a hard enough time trying to rebut them, and a 3rd year civil engineer student is attempting to? He is simply preaching to the choir (ironically, an atheist choir). I have witnessed quite a few layman try to disprove the Kalam, or the Modal, etc., only to use faulty logic or completely misunderstand the arguments. Christopher Hitchens admitted to being beat by William Lane Craig in a debate, and renowned atheist philosopher Walter Sinnot-Armstrong admitted to the coherency of theism during another Craig debate, and yet the average layman believes he has a chance??? Go look on Reasonablefaith.org to read all the poor attempts at outsmarting Craig.

>My main point is this: Do not obsess. I went through a time when I was rampantly reading apologetics, and then I would turn around to read atheistic literature. I did this because I was constantly in a state of, "But what if Craig/Plantinga/Moreland/etc. is wrong?? Look at all the atheists today! Surely they can't ALL be wrong!" This line of thinking is natural, though can be very detrimental. Even the great Socrates recognizes the problem here: "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing. And that is that I know nothing." We cannot know the answer to every question or every objection. Do not constantly worry about atheists attempting to disprove God, for this leads no where. Eventually you will have to make a choice, and stick with it without having to worry about possible objections.

The last sentence sounds like intellectual dishonesty (at least to me it did, at first.). But I have found that it is true that at some point, you have to make a commitment to yourself to assume X position is true, at least until some stronger argument against it can be found. That sounds like common sense but the above mindset is something that one can get wrapped up in (as I did), so I feel that that piece of advice is worth remembering at times.

You mentioned in this thread that you were interested in WLC. There are several works that might be helpful to you:

Reasonable Faith

and if you have a lot of time

Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Craig and Moreland, but includes a large collection of topics from many modern philosophers)

Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Craig and Moreland)

Again, these last two are rather extensive, but you may find them to be useful if you're interested in the philosophical/scientific aspects of Christianity. Hope this helps!

Well this is a bit exhaustive, I would suggest reaching out to more than one person, perhaps making a thread in this sub or really many other subs as the abrahamic framework and the monotheistic framework is a point of belief in many mediums.

>Why does being a creator mean that?

well first we would have to define what the creator even means, how familiar are you with Kalam and Plato's ideas of God and greek logic overall?

>morality is about improving the lives and existences of humans

well we would all hope that as well, but one should be wary of utilitarianism and its shortcomings.

You should really seek out questions like the origin of reason, and philosophical commentary on the matter.

If you want to go deeper here are some books that may be worthwhile to read/ take a look at. like this one or this one

I haven't read this yet, but I've been meaning to.

https://www.amazon.com/Leisure-Basis-Culture-Josef-Pieper/dp/1586172565

Dunno if that's quite what you want, but it's what popped into my head at your question.

> There seems to be an assumption that people whose basic needs are taken care of are all going to sit on their asses and watch Judge Judy all day. And I mean sure, there will be a certain percentage that does - but a) do you really want to have that cohort as your coworkers?

Work changes a person. "Free time off" for now leads to a life of inactivity. And yes, almost everyone I know would accept an offer for some free time off. And then when the next generation is coming up, they will be less likely to work when the payoff value is reduced, changing our culture and making us poor.

Leisure isn't bad. But you have to have a healthy understanding of leisure. This is a good source for starters. And leisure should never serve as a person's primary activity. Work that provides value to others (and value is often best measured through market mechanisms) is important.

Leisure: The Basis of Culture

You may find somewhat long article interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/magazine/bring-back-the-sabbath.html
>Sandor Ferenczi, a disciple of Freud's, once identified a disorder he called Sunday neurosis. Every Sunday (or, in the case of a Jewish patient, every Saturday), the Sunday neurotic developed a headache or a stomachache or an attack of depression. After ruling out purely physiological causes, including the rich food served at Sunday dinners, Ferenczi figured out what was bothering his patients. They were suffering from the Sabbath.

>On that weekly holiday observed by all ''present-day civilized humanity'' (Ferenczi was writing in 1919, when Sunday was still sacred, even in Budapest, his very cosmopolitan hometown), not only did drudgery give way to festivity, family gatherings and occasionally worship, but the machinery of self-censorship shut down, too, stilling the eternal inner murmur of self-reproach. The Sunday neurotic, rather than enjoying his respite, became distraught; he feared that impulses repressed only with great effort might be unleashed. He induced pain or mental anguish to pre-empt the feeling of being out of control.
... ... ...

>...It was only much later, after I joined the synagogue and changed my life in a million other unforeseen ways, that I developed a theory about my condition. If Ferenczi's patients had suffered from the Sabbath, I was suffering from the lack thereof. In the Darwinian world of the New York 20-something, everything -- even socializing, reading or exercising -- felt like work or the pursuit of work by other means. Had I been able to consult Ferenczi, I believe he would have told me that I was experiencing the painful inklings of sanity...

>...Customs exist because they answer a need; when they disappear, that need must be met in some other way.

>...Talk of God may disturb the secular, so they might prefer to frame the Sabbath in the more neutral context of aesthetics. The Sabbath provides two things essential to anyone who wishes to lift himself out of the banality of mercantile culture: time to contemplate and distance from everyday demands. The Sabbath is to the week what the line break is to poetic language. It is the silence that forces you to return to what came before to find its meaning.

Her article is from a generally secular jewish perspective, the lessons she learned attempting anyway, etc. If you are a Christian Tim Keller has a very good talk which references this article throughout:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux0_5zctrsI

The philosopher Josef Pieper has a somewhat dense but very interesting book along these lines as well, called Leisure: The Basis of Culture* where he talks about the difference between rest and true leisure (and was inspired by 'workaholism' of 60 years ago...when we think they had better balance!)

https://www.amazon.com/Leisure-Basis-Culture-Josef-Pieper/dp/1586172565/ref=la_B000AQ4VR2_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1520461522&sr=1-1
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/767958.Leisure

https://www.newcriterion.com/issues/1999/1/josef-pieper-leisure-and-its-discontents
>The introduction by Eliot to Leisure, the Basis of Culture—the first of many books by Pieper to appear in English—is one sign of the seriousness with which he was regarded. Another sign was the book’s reception by reviewers. (The present edition includes excerpts from the original reviews.) The Times Literary Supplement devoted a long and admiring piece to the book, as did The New Statesman. The Spectator was briefer but no less admiring: “These two short essays … go a long way towards a lucid explanation of the present crisis in civilization.” The book was also widely noticed in this country: reviews from The Nation, The Chicago Tribune, Commonweal, and The San Francisco Chronicle are included here. The review by Allen Tate in The New York Times Book Review probably did as much as Eliot’s introduction to stimulate interest in Pieper.

I'm not sure how helpful this will be... but I've been learning a lot about Street Epistemology. It's a conversational style based on the socratic method, where instead of trying to convince someone of your view, you ask them about their views.

The idea is, when you push a view on someone else, they get defensive and block you. But when you ask them to talk about their own thoughts/beliefs/views, they open up. At that point, you can ask things like "why?", which ultimately makes them back their dumbass views up. When they can't, they may lose some confidence in that view.

Look into it...

/r/StreetEpistemology

https://smile.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094?sa-no-redirect=1

http://www.atheos-app.com/

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh10RgQgGuM9RFiarmJkQg_yXIhLgauOZ

Read this. It’s the book that started it all

https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094

There are lots of entirely secular ways to arrive at morality. The basics appear to be hardwired into most people. The lines of reasoning all arrive at striking similar conclusions (i.e. Slavery is wrong, women are people).

Answer briefly, then put them on defensive. How do they call slavery moral? How do they call 9/11 or the Orlando nightclub shooting or whatever the latest terrorist attack happens to be, moral? There are people who sincerely believe that these are things god wanted. If that is your criteria, and those are your morals, then http://imgur.com/gallery/jEAKxR6

Sorry for the rant. With everything going on in the world today, I just feel like we should have done less to tolerate religion and more to make people responsible.
https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094

It is my sincerely held hope that atheist, with science and reason and clear, easily understood arguments for the children, will one day be considered the cause of the demise of Islam. Not that I expect to live to see that day.

I agree with the above. Most ex-moose figure it out on their own. The more you try to show them that their beliefs are wrong the more defensive they get. I suggest you read this https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094

> You're telling me to accept it on faith again.

Not true at all. I cited sources and directly quoted them as pointing out the difference between the various professors and lecturers. I even pointed you directly to the fact that gaining promotion from Boghossian's current position is based on contributing original research.

And this is all on top of the fact that I have previously referred you to Boghossian's publication histosy. If he was required to meet mandatory publication criteria then he'd surely have been fired by now, because he's averaging well under a paper per year. He's producing some useful work, like presentations, letters, etc., but nothing that would be counted towards bringing in grant funding (which is what these scholarly targets are all about).

In fact, if you recall, my original reason for directing you towards his publication history - which you are now trying to submit in its entirety without having to quote any part that backs up your claims - was to outline how little there is for someone whom you claim to be unduly affected by a temporary halt in sponsorship for such work. I count no more than five total publications since he joined PSU, and that includes maximum of two submissions that would qualify. One of them is literally less than a single page in length.

Like I said, scholarship evidently isn't his primary concern, which is why he likely appreciates a role in which it is not required.

>Your own source said they either contribute significantly with academic research and become professors or they're asked ot leave the position in 5-7 years.

So? In what way does that invalidate anything I said? He's only just reaching the lower bound of that range now, so are you trying to claim that he should have been fired early in order to fit that same data?

Incidentally, I suggest you look up the word "generally". Then I suggest you re-read those sources that you so disparaged while consipcuously failing to properly comprehend them.

>your sources do not say that it is the default position for assistant professors

One of them explicitly states that promotion to a tenured position requires that Assistant professors should demonstrate an aptitude for regular and/or noteworthy scholarly contributions. In other words, it clearly states that promotion is for those who show an ability to produce research that goes beyond the typical.

Note that not a single one of those sources states that such research is a mandatory aspect of that position, which has been your claim this entire time. You are trying to shift the burden of proof again.

>the default position isn't that Assistant professors do no research infact to reach the next level of the job

So you've noted - as I myself pointed out - that promotion to a tenured position requires some degree of scholarly contribution. And why is this relevant? For this to be valid you would first have to demonstrate that Boghossian wants a promotion and that he's actively working towards it.

>YOU have to prove that Boghossian either doesn't have research requirements to advance or that he wants to have his position terminated under that set of criteria.

Heh, no, I really don't. You have to demonstrate that he wants tenure, or that his department will fire him if he fails to do so. After all, it's not a legal requirement that they do so, nor that he should be aiming for promotion.

What a hilarious misapplication of logic, and you can bet your life that I'm archiving that little gem.

>under the UK criteria you have to prove Boghossian

He's at PSU. why would I have to prove anything related to the UK system. I only included that as a supplement to the US system, because they both work in the same way.

It is, however, highly useful as a demonstration of your innate dishonesty. You grab at a single word or number, twist it out of all context, apply it to whatever context you think you can use to fabricate a case, then switch it in for the original point. All of a sudden you go from a position which "generally" lasts for 5-7 years to a situation in which Boghossian must be fired or promoted right now, and - for some reason - you get to assume that he's working on the former rather than awaiting the latter, and without even considering the possibility that they'd simply retain him for longer than the typical period out of convenience for all.

Answer me this - assuming you're even capable of answering simple questions if you think they'll force you into a losing position: do you believe that Boghossian must either be promoted to tenured positions or fired between that 5-7 year period? If so, please cite the legally-binding document that decreess that it be so.

>Your own sources support that research being required is the default position in most cases.

Only if promotion is sought. You are now disingenuously attempting to insert yet another axiom: that Boghossian is actively seeking a tenured position.

Once again, you are trying to bullshit your way out of a lost dispute, and I'm not stupid enough to fall for it. This isn't a surprising tactic, but it's certainly interesting to note how carefully you quote around inconvenient words, like "generally". Pure cowardice.

>illusory superiority

Ah! Another new buzzword to stand in for a coherent thought process. I wonder how many times you'll trot this one out...

Three. All in close proximity. Fascinating...

>The Null hypothesis would be Boghossian not being different from other assistant professors

I agree, which means:

>he would be expected to produce research to be able to advance in his position and not be terminated

You have no evidence that this false dichotomy is correct. In fact, You have cherry-picked a quote around evidence that proves that it is untrue. Boghossian has no set time limit on his role by which he must either seek tenure or leave. That's how long that role "generally" lasts, but it is not a mandatory action.

Your entire reply seems to have been predicated upon this non-sequitur (note the correct use of that term). On top of that, it requires that he wants to seek a tenured position, and I previously outlined verifiable data that suggests that this is not the case. I'm going to bet that you won't even try to address any of that.

>research is one of the easier ones of the list

It really isn't.

>provide evidence of him having done the other methods to support your argument

You mean such as:

>> The mid-level position is usually awarded after a substantial record of scholarly accomplishment (such as the publication of one or more books ...)

...is that the kind of thing you mean? Then this will suffice. And, as I mentioned last time, he has another one out this year.

Done.

>you wish to use a very small sample size to represent it

Fine, then you can do so for everything he has published. Please read through all of his published works and cite examples of things he did to produce those papers that may have required sponsorship. Because, as established previously, I have no call to address anything in his papers until you can cite something within them that I need to check. You need to read it all, not me. I was trying to save you some work.

>I had at least 3

I'm not going to buy any of that nonsense from you, so don't bother trying.

Now, that aside, you continue to claim that Boghossian is directly impacted in his regular duties by being temporarily denied sponsorship. With that in mind, please present some evidence that Boghossian's work over the last five years actually requires some form of financial outlay in order to produce it. If not, he requires no sponsorship and any research he feels like doing remains unaffected. If you can provide no examples of this being a potential limiting factor then it is not a limiting factor.

In a similar vein, you have asserted that conducting research is a fundamental part of his job, despite the fact that his position is routinely understood to only rarely confer a mandatory research target. As such, please present evidence that Boghossian has a research quota to meet as part of his regular duties. Please do this with specific reference to the work he has produced within the past five years while at PSU. If you can find no such evidence then you have no basis for insisting that his position differs from everyone else who shares a similar role.

Oh, and have you found out why I'm finding one of your cited papers so funny yet? I was more than a little disappointed that you never tried to read it to see if he did anything that required sponsorship, but the fact that you still mistakenly think that it remains valid is almost as humorous. Do you need that hint?

If you actually plan on engaging them, there's a manual for that. Can't vouch for it, but you might find it interesting.

Good luck. Sounds kind of like you had an anthill show up in your yard one day.

hey, nothing wrong with having hope and optimism that the court case would've gone somewhere, but hey, shit happens.

My folks sound very similar to yours. I've just accepted that they will choose to believe, and refuse to really look to closely at the evidence (or if they did they'd dismiss it anyway).

If you haven't already seen it, I'd highly recommend this book, it's approach is quite different and I think worthwhile.
http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094

You should read Pete Boghossian's new book "A Manual for Creating Atheists" when it comes out. Pete is a philosophy professor at Portland State University and a prime example of antitheist, as well as an all around brilliant guy. Might be good for some footnotes in your next work.

Oh man, you've hit on a really hard topic.

First off, before I get into any of the juicy topics, let me say this: Consider where your parents are coming from based on their views. An analogy: If you were evacuating a building on fire and saw someone who didn't know they are in danger, would you try to notify them? For the sake of argument, let's say yes (I expect so). They see this world as a building burning down and they view themselves as trying to warn us of the danger we are supposedly in. Expand this to the fact that they are your parents and as their kid, you told them you are walking back into a burning building. They are literally scared for you. Irrationally scared, but still scared non the less. I am not sure if your short term situation or plans, but in the long term you need to accept that they are not going to share your views and may not accept you. Don't let them abuse you! They have to independently accept you for who you are or you need to distance yourself if they don't. Take care of yourself, maintain your dignity and self respect, and make decisions that make you happy and lead you towards living a happy and fulfilled life.

Some information on their reaction:

> I tried to be gentle about it and not criticize her but she kept telling me to defend why I didn't believe in God, and then when I answered she was like "you're trying to disprove God and attack my beliefs" . she later said I was being rude, (I was being as respectful as possible) when I explained that she said I was being "politely rude"???? But because of my beliefs I obviously thought she was a moron and I reject her values. (I never called her a moron and I said that I respected her faith and I didn't want this to be a source of contention for us)

Let's step back and parse this. Typically, strongly religious people follow a form of ethics called "Theological Ethics." The theological ethics system may incorporate other forms of ethics such as utilitarian, kant or phenomenological, but it is ultimately rooted in theology. Do [Action] because god demands it in or through [insert religious book, prophet, etc...]. In their view, all ethics and morality flow only from god. If god says give to the poor, you give to the poor. If god says kill that tribe, you kill that tribe. All ethics and morals are literally rooted in their version of god.

So, when you say "I don't believe in god," many people will imply "therefore I am not a moral person" OR "you think I am an idiot because I need god to work out what is right or wrong." In some cases, a person "without god" is seen as downright evil. However, we know that people can be moral and develop an ethics system without attributing it to or believing in god. We often follow heuristics such as the golden rule, informed consent or "no person is a means to an end."

Some theologians argue that this is only by the grace of god that he has allowed us to be a tool for good despite disbelieving, never mind that in many religions we are still considered doomed to eternal torment no matter how much good we do in the world and that an immoral or amoral person who believes in god has a higher chance into being accepted into paradise over an atheist who genuinely wanted to help others.

A few things you can do is work out why you can continue being a good person without needing to believe in a god. I personally see value in both society and individuals. I want the world to be a better place so that I can enjoy less violence, longer healthier lives. I want to see people individually succeed because it betters our society. Society is made up of individuals. Because life is precious, and this is our one life, we must make the most of it but not at the expense of others because their life is precious too. Informed consent is incredibly important. A society following informed consent reduces or prevents rape, murder, irresponsible or malicious human testing, robberies, etc...

Anyways, if you are interested in ethics and morality in the context of atheism and why reason will likely lead to a more just society, you should pick up a copy of The Moral Arc by Michael Shermer. http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Arc-Science-Better-People/dp/0805096914

If you're interested in why atheism and why you don't need religion to be moral, you should pick up a copy of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (who is giving an AMA this may 27). https://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins-ebook/dp/B003JTHWJQ

I personally think you will have a hard time converting your family to atheism, but if you want to shore up some of your arguments about why atheism, you should pick up a copy of A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghassian. I don't recommend you actively seek out these conversations with your family at this point, but they can help give you a better grounding about your belief system (yes, atheism is a belief system). http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094

To conclude, don't stop loving your parents but don't let them abuse you either.

[edits for minor typos and formatting]

I recommend reading the A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian. According to the author, your dad suffers from "Doxastic closure": a person who is resistant to belief revision.

Peter Boghossian borrows techniques from his experience teaching prison inmates and university students in how to convince people out of faith. He emphasizes the importance of not targeting religious concepts (e.g. God) but the base of religious thinking: faith. Once the subject realizes that faith-based reasoning is a flawed way of thinking, religious concepts will just fall apart. He recommends using the Socratic method to engage a person to use critical thinking to realize that faith is an incorrect belief formation mechanism. It is worth the read. Good luck.

I skimmed all your references and I find it a weird way to teach atheism as it seems to be largely an historical account and nothing explicitly to do with why/how.
The only reason atheism (without god(s)) exists is due to the large population of theists whom have no rational basis for that claim. The only sort of common trait is the use of logic and the scientific method, largely due to the departure from theism which required those skills. But this is not even a requirement either as the lack of belief could have been inherited from parents or from a separate false belief.

If one was to teach atheism, as in why people don't hold the belief that god(s) exist, I would think it would start with logic (valid, invalid, weak, strong arguments, soundness etc), the scientific method, skeptism/critical thinking, common fallacies(with a religious bias), some philosophy and some of the common arguments and counter points Some sort of challenge to try to prove one religion as true over another where you have to apply the same logic to both equally could also be useful for rooting out errors. ie if your holy book is true because the book/author states it is then you have to assume the other holy books self referential claim is true because it also makes the same claim with the same amount/quality of evidence which should show that it invalid as a method for proof.

Some better alternatives to your course material, in my opinion, are A Manual for Creating Atheists, The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake and this youtube playlist on logic and argumentation

I would start with the classic Some mistakes of Moses, by Robert Ingersoll.

There is a short book called Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God, by Armin Navabi, that is also a nice read.

One that I recently finished reading and enjoyed very much is The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism, by Aron Ra. The book is not exactly about atheism; it's Aron's rebuttal to many creationist arguments, but Aron is a widely known atheist activist, and the book is very enjoyable.

I usually listen to The Thinking Atheist podcast, from Seth Andrews (a podcast I highly recommend, by the way). There are some book he suggested in his podcast that I haven't read yet, but which I included in my to-read list:

• A Manual for Creating Atheists, by Peter Boghossian.
  
• God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction, by Dan Barker.
  
• [The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture] (https://www.amazon.com/God-Virus-Religion-Infects-Culture/dp/0970950519/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486982921&sr=1-1&keywords=the+god+virus), by Darrel Ray.
  
• Sacred Cows: A Lighthearted Look at Belief and Tradition Around the World, by Seth Andrews himself.

I agree, to an extent. OP is going about it the wrong way. I don't know if I'd say there's no value in trying to get friends and family to see reason, though.

To OP (/u/VirusMaster3072), I'd recommend reading A Manual for Creating Atheists. It's not perfect, but the strategies it lays out make for a better foundation for discussing religious topics with people of faith. Going back and forth each saying "I'm right" isn't all that productive. The best approach, though the hardest, is through patience and carefully constructed questions. This book lays out very practical strategies for achieving that.

The alternative is nothing more than digging yourselves further into your own ditches until you're so entrenched you can no longer see eye-to-eye.

They have already heard a lot of "arguments" in their "logic" classes, so I always try to find one that they haven't heard yet.

After that, I try to steer the discussion towards faith, as far away from religion as I can think of.

Did you ever see [any lecture from Peter Boghossian?] (https://youtu.be/WIaPXtZpzBw?t=10m20s) because he kinda wrote [the book] (https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094) on that.

Try this technique on her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_UD3AGFG6I

Here's the book mentioned in the first few minutes of that broadcast:

http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094

If she doesn't change her mind or at least begin to let go of the Watchtower Society fundamentalist, apocalyptic Christian literalism, within a year, I'd suggest you cut your losses & let her try to find a suitable marriage mate among the dwindling resources at her local Jehovah's Witness kingdom hall, instead.

Damn man, this sucks. But you know, there are plenty more fish in the sea... also, insert multiplying fish joke here.

Faith isn't a thing you can choose to have or to be given. It's deeply rooted and by definition stands in the face logical thought processes. It's a feeling in your gut that can slip away despite the most sincere efforts to hold onto it. Likewise no amount of her relating miracles will make it take root. She's trying to connivence you to have a feeling, and inherently non-cognative thing. You can't control feelings, at least not with that degree of control. Faith has to creep into your consciousness like all other superstitions. Usually this happens as a child grows, it's easier to indoctrinate the young. In adults, all intents and purposes, faith spreads like a virus. That's why you tend to get preached to when someone dies or before big life events - it's easier to manipulate someones thinking when they're distraught or distracted. Constantly trying to persuade you isn't going to work for her, which will cause frustration at best but most likely a great deal of resentment. It's going to drive a wedge between you. And really, do you even want the faith? Remembering that side effects may include faulty epistemological claims, poor reasoning and a willingness to indoctrinate others, especially children, in a sick self loathing misogynistic homophobic middle eastern blood cult. Not worth it man.

hmm, apparently I woke up on the grumpy side of the bed. But still...

Luckily there's a cure. It's called logic and it's easy to administer. Engage the discussion sincerely and ask good questions. You might find A manual for creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian useful.

Alternatively you could take her up on her offer to read the Bible, but on the condition that you read it cover to cover. No pull quotes or 'special readings' from her paster. Just cover to cover. After all, it's the authoritative word of God, how could reading it all be a bad thing? By the end of the book god will be a lot less important to her life. Because he's a fucking monster, never-mind all the internally inconsistent nonsense and outlandish claims about the world that we know to be false.

But all of this assumes that the relationship it worth your time and energy because helping someone out of a faith-based delusion is a long shitty road.

Some others have commented that they have successful inter-faith relationships and that's great. Good on them. If you can do that too awesome, but given that she's so desperate to push it on you and you're already annoyed but it... seems like 'live and let live' isn't going to be the solution. Besides, even it does work out eventually it will be time to indoctrinate, or not, your kids. Never-mind religion's constant medaling in, and association with, politics and culture. There are going to be more large issues. It might be a better call to acknowledge that you have different world views and will likely grow in different directions. Finding someone with your value set or outlook on life might be the better path.

Street epistemology can help people question their faith. Have you read Peter_Boghossian ?

I see two options here:

He's already admitted that he's unwilling to change his mind and that his faith is more important than truth. He could be telling the truth, which would mean you're wasting your time, or, it's just his mental conditioning coming out and subconsciously some of the stuff is getting through and making him uncomfortable. You need to determine which is the case.

If you want to try to get through to him then I would suggest getting this book. I would also suggest subscribing to a YouTube user called Anthony Magnabosco who puts the books techniques into practice on the street. The book focuses more on epistemology, so you won't have to teach anyone science or formal logic. The book show you how to make people cast doubt on what they think they know (when they actually don't). Once people have doubts then it's usually the beginning of the end for faith.

May I suggest A Manual For Creating Atheists?

I study evolutionary biology as a hobby and have read many books on the subject, several of which actually argue in favor of a designer (a position I disagree with based on the evidence). The facts and evidence overwhelmingly support the history of the eye's development as I have described it whether you agree with it or not. If you are interested in the subject, I highly recommend checking out "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller and "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" by Stephen Jay Gould, both of which are very informative and excellent reads.

If you are a blind, ocean-dwelling creature who's food tends to hang out near the surface, a mutation that allows a cell to detect light would make it easier to find food, thus increasing the likelihood that you would survive and pass on that mutation. Furthermore, if another mutation multiplied the number of those light detecting cells, you might be able to better determine your distance to the surface and more precisely hone in on your meal without getting too close to the surface and putting yourself in potential danger. If a further mutation granted you enough of the light-detecting cells that you determine movement, you would be in a much better position to both find food and evade predators.

It is small mutations like this that have selective advantages that result in the development of things like eyes and the rest of our organs. It's not that the creatures "knew what they wanted to see"; it's that mutations provided sensory inputs that increased the likelihood of those creatures surviving. It is the survivors that pass on their genes and spawn the next generation. This is happening constantly in all living things, humans included, and that is an indisputable fact. It can be and has been observed.

Different atheists think different things about it. And here where I live, most theists accept it. Why is an atheists understanding of something outside of atheism any more relevant than say Ken Miller's?

Why address atheists on that point at all?

Is your main concern actually something other than evolution?

Your repeated focus on evolution as if it was somehow atheism - and your unwillingness to be moved from that - is utterly frustrating. Why do you persist?

I'll grant that.

Since I mentioned it above, the holy book of my religion which gelled with me / spoke to me is the Principia Discordia. I don't know if it's what you're looking for, though. If it doesn't gel with you, all I can say is you're probably looking for a different god. Nothing wrong with that.

To bring things back on track, you may be interested in Anthony Flew's There is a God. It's been a few years since I read it, though, and all I remember is that it was decent enough that I think I read the whole thing.

> I'm fine with granting that the Universe forming is a miracle.

That's cool. What is it about the Universe that leads you to think it could be a miracle? For me, it is the amazing structure of the laws of physics.

I ask you because, what is it about DNA, ribosomes and the amazing structures within biology that make you then think they are "natural"? To me, microbiology is even more amazing than the cosmological argument. Anthony Flew was the most famous atheist of the 20th century. After he studied DNA and the amazing interplay of physics, chemistry, he became a theist. He wrote "There is a God. How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind" : https://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335304

> Darwin's small changes : Source, please.

See link below. Stephen Jay' Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" is where the evidence leads, and large changes are required to advanced beyond the local minimum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape

http://sciencenordic.com/suggesting-answers-one-darwin%E2%80%99s-mysteries

Here's Darwin on small changes ("slight modifications") from Origin of Species : “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”

> Until you can show HOW it was "designed", the notion that it IS designed is nonsense.

Huh? That's my whole point. It is a miracle. Atheists often ask for signs, and in microbiology you can see many amazing machines.

Your response sounds like this logically: "unless I think it is not a miracle, I'm not going to believe it is a miracle".

> Second, variation in traits IS evolution by definition.

Unfortunately, the word "evolution" is heavily overloaded. The term "evolution" is used sloppily to apply to mutation, speciation and even abiogenesis. Those are each very distinct concepts. Darwin's book is "Origin of Species", not "new traits". Do you think that blondes are different species than brunettes? Species are things like cats versus dogs. If you love science half as much as I do, please stop trying to confuse the concepts.

Adding one final book before signing off.

There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

God has always acted in symbolic ways.especially in the Bible. When a country brought down his wrath, he sent a plague or another country to conquer it. When he planned to absolve everyone of their sins, he sent Christ to die for us. When he spoke to his prophets, he always did it in a symbolic form.

Ex: Moses and the Burning Bush.

He still acts in such ways to this days. Miracles occur on a daily basis thanks to his mercy. Look up Literatures on his existence and read them to learn more. I’ll even offer you a link to help get you started.

https://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335304/ref=nodl_

Do you want to spark a debate? If not, put two words together in amazon.com and you'll get you're answer.

If you did want opinions, there are only fake ones or ones where the guy had some kind of psychological damage.

book 1

book 2

Have you read that book?

Start here -> https://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335304/ref=nodl_

Then compare the evidence that Harry Potter is real with the evidence that God is real.

Take your time. You can’t afford to be wrong.

> The consensus is many are forgeries.

The consensus 'amongst people you subscribe to' is many are forgeries. Most of their ideas are quite frankly full of suspicion and more like conspiracy theories than a search for truth.

The consensus over the past two thousand years is overwhelmingly in favour of traditional authorship.

>I don't necessarily agree with that. I know that's the orthodox view, but I don't mind being outside of orthodoxy. I'd rather be outside of the traditional orthodoxy, since I find it often incorrect.

I'm hardly surprised to see you write that.

You do essentially deny all that makes Christianity Christianity.

I suspect your view stems from the doubts you have over the existence of God and anything miraculous such as the bodily resurrection of Christ.

In relation to these two issues, let me ask if you have considered the 'argument from fine-tuning' as evidence for the existence of God? It is the argument which caused prominent atheist professor Anthony Flew to change his mind about the existence of God (so much that he wrote a book about it ).

The second is related to the resurrection of Christ. Apologist Dr. Gary Habermas has compiled a list of twelve historical facts on which most critical scholars agree with regards to the death and resurrection of Christ. There is enough evidence here to affirm the truth of the event if you are really looking for the truth, rather that trying to doubt it.

> If we had writings of them clearly doing so, I'd certainly appraise him differently. We don't have that though, and we do have evidence of them fighting back and forth.

So you don't consider Galatians 2 to be evidence of this?

> It's not about what I "like", it's about truth.

That isn't how it appears I am afraid.

By the way, I am still interested to hear your response from here.

You wrote this:

> I follow Jesus. I follow him as best as I can despite us having flawed accounts.

I responded with this:

> What exactly do you follow?

> If the accounts are flawed, how can you trust any of it?

> Which parts do you adhere to and how do you choose them?

I am very interested to hear your responses please.

Easy peasy.

Enjoy.

Being and Time by Martin Heidegger

If phenomenology of time peaks your interest, Edmund Husserl speaks about "Internal Time Consciousness." The sort of "how?" of experiencing time.

Heidegger wrote an eighty-eight page first draft to Being and Time. Unless you have a crazy amount of time on your hands, I'd recommend going after the first draft. Whichever version of the book you read, it will most likely be one of the most difficult philosophy books you will come across. I don't mean that demeaningly. Heidegger's writing is almost indecipherable. There are a few threads made here in /r/askphilosophy that have better recommendations as to where to begin with Heidegger. Hopefully someone will respond to this post with more and better info!

There's probably a few ways you could go about expanding your knowledge base. The two that seem most fruitful are

1. Reading for a deeper understanding of the topics that you're already familiar with.
   
   
2. Ranging more broadly into other areas that may interest you.
   
   If (1), then I'd probably suggest one of two courses. Either, (a) read the stuff that influenced the existential thinkers that you've listed, or (b) read some literature dealing with issues related to the thinkers you've listed.
   
   For (a) I'd suggest the following:
   
   

• Anything by Kant
  
• (In the case of Kierkegaard) Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit or his Aesthetics
  
• (For Nietzsche) Emerson's essays, Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation, or Spinoza's Ethics
  
• Maybe some Freud for the later thinkers? Civilization and its Discontents is really good.
  
  For (b) it's really a mixed bag. I'd suggest going through the SEP articles on the thinkers you've listed and looking into some good secondary literature on them. If you're super interested in Nietzsche, I'd definitely suggest reading Leiter's Nietzsche on Morality. I really couldn't tell you more unless you told me something more specific about your interests.
  
  If (2), then I suppose I'd suggest one of the following:
  
  
• Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy for a good, broad introduction to Chinese Thought
  
• The Analects of Confucius. This translation is excellent
  
• A Short History of Chinese Philosophy
  
• Heidegger's Being and Time
  
• Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception
  
• Some of Rilke's work
  
• Unamuno's Tragic Sense of Life
  
  Again, it's hard to give you better directions without more information on what you're actually interested in. I've just thrown a bunch of stuff at you, and you couldn't possibly be expected to read, say, Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation over break and be expected to really understand it.

http://www.amazon.com/Being-Time-Martin-Heidegger/dp/0061575593?pf_rd_mnb=ATVPDKIKX0D34&pf_rd_stb=center-2&pf_rd_rat=0817NMRY4ZRQZM6P18TH&pf_rd_t3r=101&pf_rd_ptd=470938631&pf_rd_ied=507846&tag=buaazs-20&pf_rd_ptd=470938631&pf_rd_ied=507846

Love them! have read Greg Graffin's book it is pretty interesting stuff. Consistently one of my favorite groups lyrically.
I play their version of Silent Night at family Christmas party every year.

Something you might be interested in: Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World W... https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061828513/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awdb_t1_ftnHDbZ2QC1FF

Written by the lead singer of Bad Religion. He became a professor and teaches undergrads at UCLA between touring with his band. His dissertation leading up to it interviews other evolutionary biologists and other modern atheist thinkers like Richard Dawkins. The interviews are transcribed in the dissertation but it’s hard to find. Ebay maybe? It was called: Evolution, Monism, and the Naturalist World-View.

Saw them a few years ago with Pennywise and Offspring. I should get his more recent book. I have this https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Evolution-Science-Religion-Without/dp/0061828513/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061828513/ref=oh_o04_s00_i00_details

You know, it's getting a little tedious when we have to unpack a ton-and-a-half of evidence and help you through your epistemological crisis every time someone feeds you some creationist propaganda.

How's about instead of us dragging you into the late period of the Enlightenment era, you defend your position deep in the Dark Ages? Read this and have fun, kiddo.

>The "professional philosophers" who use incorrect definitions, on the other hand, I couldn't care less about.

First off, let me be clear again, you're the one using the incorrect definition. We can know that because we have rational minds that can understand rational arguments. And luckily, we have redditors that are very proficient at providing just the rational arguments we need to show that weak atheism is not intellectually viable.

>. If you could be so kind as to point out some of these "professional philosophers" - with sources - so I could dismiss anything they have to say on the matter, it would save me a lot of time.

First, I do so love the overconfidence. You've clearly proven my point there. You're completely unaware of even who these philosophers let alone what they argue, yet you're absolutely convinced of your ability to dismantle whatever it is they have to say.

The question is why would you want to? Clearly you're attached to the label atheist, and you're here so you at least like the impression of being intellectual, so why would you be interested in dismissing the arguments of professional atheists philosophers out of hand? Surely you'd want to at least see what they had to say. In fact, I'd say that you'd want to study and really understand their arguments. But maybe that's just me projecting what I want onto you.

Just in case, here are a few atheist philosophers of religion you ought to be reading up on.

• Julian Baggini
  
• Raymond Bradley
  
• Theodore Drange
  
• Nicholas Everitt (also here)
  
• J.L. Mackie
  
• Stephen Maitzen
  
• Michael Martin
  
• Matt McCormick
  
• Kai Nielsen
  
• Graham Oppy
  
• Robin Le Poidevin
  
• William Rowe
  
• J.L. Schellenberg
  
• Quentin Smith
  
• Victor Stenger
  
• Michael Tooley
  
• Andrea Weisberger
  
• Erik Wielenberg
  
  >And just because "professional atheist philosophers" make arguments that gods don't exist, that doesn't change the definitions.
  
  Read all of those links (remember to check your local library or your local university's library!) and you'll see that atheists who aren't a part of the cacophony of the unsophisticated group think do not argue for weak atheism. They do not simply argue against the theist's argument and, convinced they have sufficiently undermined that argument, declared themselves free of any belief. They believe there is probably no God and they argue there is probably no God.
  
  You take pride in your belligerence, but it's a shame that belligerence comes from a position of ignorance. I worry about the status of atheism not because I think the theist arguments have won but because people like you are so completely ignorant of the topic that they can't even get straight what atheism even is, what arguments actually support it, and what obstacles there are for atheists to overcome. And yet you feel justified in spewing your nonsense in the most jackass way you can muster.

Try Baggini's book: https://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Short-Introduction-Julian-Baggini/dp/0192804243/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

By their descriptions, these 2 seems pretty good:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Religion-Explained-Evolutionary-Origins-Religious/dp/0465006965/ref=cm_wl_huc_item

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0195178033/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=1HZOGMRHHFYH5&coliid=I3K9Q1SNLXH4Z2

READ THIS BOOK: I HAVE IT, ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL FOR UNDERSTANDING RELIGION

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Trust-Evolutionary-Landscape-Evolution/dp/0195178033/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246574393&sr=8-1

"This ambitious, interdisciplinary book seeks to explain the origins of religion using our knowledge of the evolution of cognition. A cognitive anthropologist and psychologist, Scott Atran argues that religion is a by-product of human evolution just as the cognitive intervention, cultural selection, and historical survival of religion is an accommodation of certain existential and moral elements that have evolved in the human condition."

"Atran's work is a brilliant exposition of the evolutionary by-product interpretation [of religion] as well as a mine of references for empirical research into the psychology of religion." -- Pascal Boyer, Current Anthropology

5.) I've heard it said that religion is a product of evolution, but this seems counterintuitive to me. How and for what purpose would religion be implemented into the framework of evolution?

Religiosity is a product of evolution.

Large brains are expensive. The brain is responsible for 20% of the energy human bodies use (compared to 13% for chimps, and 2-8% for other vertebrates - source). Visually-oriented animals in a competitive hunter-prey environment conducive to hiding and stalking (such as a forest or savannah) who can recognise patterns in incomplete data thus generating hypotheses to explain what they are seeing, gain an advantage from this ability to predict., and so tend to have larger (or more active) brains for their body size.

The evolutionary pressure is not towards making perfectly accurate hypotheses. Rather, the advantage goes to the animal who generates an hypothesis quickly enough to escape a tiger before the tiger pounces, and there is a bias towards seeing a pattern where none exists, over missing a pattern where one does exist, because it is better to run away from shadows unnecessarily nine times if, on the tenth time, you escape being pounced upon. (Or, from the tiger's point of view, the reward of catching a meal outweighs the cost of investigating a few rustling bushes that turn out to be just the wind.)

Compared to plants, the bodies of other animals provide a rich bounty of calories and nutrients. Animals, such as wolves, dolphins and apes, that hunt as a group using tactics (and who communicate to coordinate) can afford larger brains if using group tactics provides a sufficient advantage in calories gained that it compensates for the additional calories expended in the thinking needed to do the prediction, coordination and awareness of social roles/status required to carry the tactics out.

Bipedalism offers apes a number of advantages (reach higher, wade deeper, run faster, see further) however the resulting hips compared to the adult brain size means that the children are born at a comparatively earlier developmental point compared to non-bipedal animals or ones with smaller brains. Baby chimps or humans are helpless and dependant upon their mother for much longer than baby lions or horses, despite lions and horses being large animals with a long life expectancy. This vulnerable stage (and the necessity for group defence against external threats) leads to a species with complex social dynamics, interactions and emotions. This extended childhood also provides an adaptive advantage to those family units where the children have a prolonged 'tame' phase in which the children remain in the safety of the authority of the adult parental figures, accepting what they say as true, learning from them, trying to 'fit in'. In dogs and cats that are domestic (as opposed to feral) you also see this personality phase prolonged into adulthood.

There is much more to the tale of why it was humans who have developed the intelligence they have, and where factors like tool use, fire, specialisation, trade, sexually-selected for ornamentation and Machiavellian social politics come into it. Too much to do justice to here - if you're interested I recommend the books "Up from Dragons" and "The Ancestor's Tale". However we have enough of the tale to now start talking about magic and religiosity.

Magical thinking is a by-product of pattern recognition. When a creature sees that two things are correlated and decides that one of them is causing the other, they are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. When it works, that can be very important. The principle of sympathy (like produces like) gives a prediction that's better than a random guess in many situations, and the principle of contagion (what happens to one bit, happens to the rest of the thing) has predictive power in situations relating to disease, contamination, complex social situations, or anywhere there may be a hidden third factor at work.

When magic thinking is combined with the ability to hypothesise the intentions of a sentient being behind otherwise unrelated events (an important ability in Machiavellian social politics), we get Animism (and Totemism) - the hypothesis that there are sentient spirits associated particular locations or things, that can influence physical reality, that have emotions and personalities, and that can be influenced by actions in physical reality.

Combined with some features of how consciousness is implemented in our brains that leads to the illusion that consciousness never ceases, and it is a short step from spirits to ancestor worship and the idea that humans have a spirit that lives on after death. These basics are a cultural universal, which indicates they have a biological basis rather than a culture-specific one. Not only are these polytheistic beliefs present in the earliest hunter-gatherer cultures we know of (the San Bushmen in Africa, and Aboriginal Indigenous in Australia), there are strong indications (eg burial, and flowers left on graves) that Neanderthals had them too.


In terms of the neurology of the brain, modern religions are not much different. Religiosity is how religious a person is - how much they think, feel and behave in a religious manner. Many studies have investigated the question of whether religiosity is due to genetics, shared parental environment, personality or other factors. What they've discovered is that multi dimensional scaling can be used to factor religiosity into three dimensions:

Involvement (Are supernatural agents, eg the Christian God, involved with life on a daily and personal basis?)
Emotion (Are these supernatural agents more loving and forgiving, than wrathful and punishing?)
Knowledge (Does religion tell us more about the big picture, eg "How the world was created?", than about the small picture, eg "How should I vote in the next election?")

and that these dimensions each directly correspond to activity in three specific parts of the brain involved with Theory of Mind. This directly explains why people on the autistic end of the spectrum tend to have a lower religiosity than people on the schizophrenic end of the spectrum (link). It also explains why there is a strong correlation between religiosity and scores on two of the four Myers-Briggs scales ("Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N)" and "Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F)" ) with people on the NT end being less religious, on average.

Here's an article with more in-depth information about the neuroanatomy of religiosity, but before I leave the brain, I want to touch on the debate over whether it is the brain causing the religiosity or whether it is how a person has thought and used their brain while growing up that is the cause of the changes in the brain. The latter may have seemed plausible 20 years ago, but they have since done twin studies and even tracked down specific genes. There is definitely a significant genetic component to religiosity, and a majority of the causality between brain and practice is in the direction of the brain affecting the practice not vice versa.

In other words, if there's a supernatural creator who designed humankind, then He deliberately created some individuals to be, right from birth, less likely to believe in Him.

So, if religiosity is significantly genetically based, why wasn't it selected against in the tribal environment? In evolutionary terms, religiosity started as a spandrel - a by-product of something else that is selected for. However, once it had started, it turned out that religions can have positive effects upon the survival of the genes of a tribe of believers. By appealing to the human instinct for a protective authority to shelter them, it improves cohesion and discipline in a tribe. In times of war, the idea of luck and a protective spirit you can pray to (a concept straight out of totems and magical thinking, and something you often see when people roll dice) improves morale. In times of peace, the idea of reward or punishment being handed out in an afterlife makes people more content with the status quo, reducing anxiety (which improves health). For these group selection effects not to suffer from the 'free rider' problem, it is also necessary for religions to include a doctrine of shunning or otherwise punishing members of the tribe who refuse to act as though they believe. (The logic behind the power of blood and sacrifices, by the way, stems from the contagion part of magical thinking, and is very useful for a religious leader when it comes to demanding tithes, altruism or picking people to go out to fight on the religion's behalf in battle.)

We're now going to move on to look at what happened when this instinctive religiosity moved from a tribal environment to larger, more complex societies, and whether it remained an adaptive advantage. However, before I do, here are some links to the growing body of research that's been done on this topic:

Evolutionary Religious Studies - resources page
EXREL
The Adaptive Logic of Religious Beliefs and Behaviour
In Gods We Trust

If you are curious of how people of different cultures relate to religion and the supernatural, then I heartily recommend this book which treats these question from an anthropological perspective There are several valuable insights to be had for both the atheist and the theist.

If you wonder why people experience aliens, miracles, ghosts and things that didn't happen? Why wouldn't we? We can never rule out events to be figments of our minds or perception, nor can we entirely rule out what we believe to be impossible.

I've read the entire Christian Bible. I'm not sure what your point is. There is not a one to one correlation of what's written in scripture and how people learn, practice and intuit religion. I can absolutely assure you of that one, as I'm in the field of anthropology of religion.

I'd recommend reading in evolutionary psychology and cognitive science of religion as well as reading the Bible. Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer is a fantastic overview of how religion operates in the individual: http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Explained-Pascal-Boyer/dp/0465006965

When it comes down to it you just can't tell or convince Christians who are not intolerant that they are intolerant, because they are not intolerant. Whatever they justify that by, they remain genuine.

This same lack of actually acquiring empirical knowledge about the source of one's beliefs embarrassingly has a lot of atheists who "believe in evolution" getting in arguments with Christian creationists for their irrational beliefs while saying absolutely ridiculous things about evolution that aren't remotely accurate. (I've witnessed this enough times to really get to headdesking.)

The human mind isn't rational and acquires logical and critical thinking through practice. The minds of atheists and Christians aren't significantly different, and frequently make the same kind of errors.

http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Explained-Pascal-Boyer/dp/0465006965/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333094305&sr=8-1

pretty good read if you're really interested.

From a more science-religion perspective, Pascal Boyer's insightful book on the relationship between cognition and religion. He explains why some gods exist and why some definitely don't - and it's because of how our cognitive belief system works (p.29):

> Take for instance the claim that my right
hand is made of green cheese except when people examine it, that God
ceases to exist every Wednesday afternoon, that cars feel thirsty when
their tanks run low or that cats think in German. We can make up
hundreds of such interesting and irrefutable beliefs. There is no clear
limit to imagination in this domain. The credulity arguments would
explain not just actual religious beliefs but also a whole variety of
beliefs that no one ever had

Not long after I went off to college. I'd heard and read all the terrible things in the bible, but my loss of faith actually had to do with really studying the history of religion for the first time, and understanding how humanity's changing understanding of the world and growing sense of morality had influenced every major and minor change in dogma along the way. (Very similar to how I was able to dismiss creation when I learned about evolution in school.) I had already started to become more like a "deist" rather than a "theist" without realizing it, but I also had plenty of "religious experiences" that made me feel a personal relationship with god and kept me from dismissing it completely.

My first real challenge to my belief didn't happen until I investigated a church other than the non-denominational type I'd always been taken to growing up. I did this because my very serious boyfriend at the time was mormon (Who is now my atheist husband ;) and of course wanted to give it an honest look. But naturally I was skeptical. I looked on the internet for information, and to make a looong story short, I knew that it was untrue. (Like, literally plagiarized. Heh, literally...) But in researching one religion, I unknowingly started studying them all, and I encountered a lot of new arguments because of this (and just from being on the internet everyday helped with that too. Reddit was a big influence) and I remember deciding that I could not dismiss his religion or any other without truly looking into my own. So I decided to read arguments against everything I'd been taught, like a scientifically minded person is supposed to want to do.

Like you, I made a reddit post around this time, asking for sources and wanting others to tell me why they made the decision. Still identifying as christian, I didn't even know what information was out there, and what sources would be a best place to start. On that post I was given a link to this video series (edit: also linked by someone else) and when I had finished it I was an atheist. My "official" transition happened in just two hours, but really it made me realize how much I already didn't believe and taught me about a lot of other things about the bible I'd never heard such as the Documentary Hypothesis and the origins of Judaism. It was just my "last straw."

What you should look into next really depends on what might interest you the most or have the biggest impact. Here's a site that lists a ton of relevant books by category. Two I personally would highly recommend: "The God Delusion" which is fairly popular and a great place to start for a comprehensive understanding of the main issues, and "A History of God" is absolutely amazing for understanding the natural evolution of religion.

Admiring the beauty of the Universe is already a form of worship, I would say. There is no need to add more imagination to the things we know and the things we do not know. God(s) as you pointed out are attempts of explaining the unexplainable. The "god of the gaps" it is called... your observation is very sane and demonstratively correct. If you now start asking questions, being amazed by the wonders and at the same time the multiple explanations that were given over time to the most mundane things. You can see why and where religion started from.

Good luck in your journey or as "The Legend of Zelda" points out: "it's dangerous to go alone, here take this": https://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248

Assuming you're not just a troll, read this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248

If you liked Cosmos by Sagan you might like Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time Updated and Expanded version (link to original version). I would also recommend Richard Dawkins' God Delusion if you are into that kind of thing (I only got a chapter into it so far). American Sniper by Chris Kyle is pretty good IMO (its his story of when he was a Navy Seal sniper in Iraq).

If you are looking for non-fiction I'm starting getting into comic books so I'd recommend Deadpool and Preacher. My last recommendation would be Stephen Coonts's series on Tommy Carmellini.

If I think of anything else I will PM you.

Here's some that I recommend:

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. A classic. Deals with censorship, dystopian future society (very similar to our current way of life), criticizes television, etc.

1984 and Animal Farm by George Orwell. Both deal with corrupt government, religion, conformity, etc.

VALIS by Philip K. Dick. A disturbing account of Dick's own struggles with finding a personal God. In fact, I can recommend anything by Philip K. Dick.

And, of course, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It's an essential.

1 book: The Portable Atheist.

For further reading: God Is Not Great and The God Delusion.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330981848&sr=8-1

The God Delusion

liking python is almost enough to overcome not knowing enough about evolution.

By the way, I'd be happy to support your campaign by sending you a copy of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins ;)

Dearest Sir,

Watch this.
I presume you've read the bible, have you read the case against? Here are two books I recommend. 1 and 2. I'm not going to answer your argument as it goes beyond rationality and is too poor to continue a rational debate. Please educate yourself either through what I have shown you or other means.

Yours truly,

A fellow mammal.

If you'd like to read a book about arguments like these, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins discusses this very argument (and many others) in Chapter 3, "Arguments For God's Existence". This specific argument is covered starting on page 103, in the section titled "The ontological argument and other a priori arguments".

Give her a copy of "The God Delusion".

I think you can find books on evolution and societal norms to be interesting. Someone already gave you some political philosophy. Maybe take a look at these for fun:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Queen:_Sex_and_the_Evolution_of_Human_Nature
https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Human-Emotions-Sociological-Evolution-ebook/dp/B004EWFDWA/
https://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/

I couldn't recommend Richard Dawkins The God Delusion enough.
https://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248

it's a fantastic entry point for somebody that is skeptical about religion.

also Sam Harris Letter to a Christian Nation is a great short read about morality and religion in America.

https://www.amazon.com/Letter-Christian-Nation-Sam-Harris/dp/0307278778/

If you really want to understand atheism, read a book.

To start with, I recommend the essay/lecture Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell (1927). Here it is in text form, which would be only about 10 pages if you print it out. Here it is in audio form on YouTube at about 39 minutes.

If you read that, and you want more, try Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion

The God Delusion
while reading David Robertson's responses chapter by chapter in
The Dawkins Letters

dude, it's just $10:

http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346262393&sr=8-1&keywords=god+delusion

I am experiencing The God Delusion right now, baby!

>I feel like we've been approaching God incorrectly the whole time.

Humanity has mapped out a hell of a lot of territory on the God issue, from a priori arguments to a posteriori arguments, arguments from mystical experience, pragmatic arguments, appeals to faith. Are you familiar with this body of literature? If so, where is there to go from here? At this point in our cultural evolution, I find it difficult to come up with anything worth saying that hasn't already been said.

>(I come from a Christian background, and I have had to dissent with everyone who taught me the things that I know).

That must have been difficult. A lot of people go through a similar experience. I was raised in a non-religious household - it's not that my parents were atheists - the subject just never really came up. So I never got religious, but I found the subject interesting so I've done a fair bit of studying on comparative religion and arguments for and against God. If you want to look at a very readable case for atheism, Dawkins' book The God Delusion is about as good a starting place as any. Though if the idea of atheism is depressing to you, you might give it a miss. The world doesn't need more depressed people. =) I think there is wisdom in Robert Anton Wilson's quip that in order to do good, you have to feel good."

>I don't know, because I don't necessarily believe that God does exist, just that he could.

So would it be fair to call you an agnostic? I was agnostic for years.

>It is in this regard different than science, where I fully trust those who came before me, because they accepted that they could have been wrong.

I wonder if you're putting too much trust in science. Scientific conclusions get overturned all the time - that's part of what makes science awesome. To use an evolutionary analogy, science is like natural selection, forever weeding out ideas that don't live up to the evidence, whereas religion is like genetic drift, floating along unable to improve itself because it is unwilling to admit that it might have been wrong.

Upvoted for a really great response.

I would second crillbilly's recommendation of reading Dawkins', specifically The God Delusion. He deals with pretty much every question you've asked here. Complexity and mystery don't necessarily equal a God. If that were true, you could throw anything into those "gaps" in our knowledge. I believe that's where the infamous "spaghetti monster" came from. I could tell you he existed, and if you never find him, that just means you haven't looked in the right place.

There will always be things we won't know, and one can always hold those "unknowables" hostage as proof that there's just one more layer we've yet to peel away in our search for God. But my philosophy on that is: belief is what you want it to be. Its importance is only what you ascribe to it. You don't need it to live a happy life, only if you've talked yourself into believing that you do.

tl;dr - Read Contact by Carl Sagan. Striking a balance between faith and science is pretty much all he did, and he did it well.

> You simply disbelieve because you refuse to try to understand.

I don't know about cephalgia, but for me: false. I "simply disbelieve" because there's a severe lack of evidence.

> If evolution explains all, how does evolution just "decide" it is going to do what it does?

You lack information of how evolution works. Go read The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins, or The God Delusion... If you dare.

> ... there is no reason to believe that when life was creating itself, ..., that conditions would change or that it would need to adapt... that's called consciousness

Again, a lack of information, because that's not how evolution works.

> but it fails in glaring fashion at explaining how it came to be in the first place

And again, a lack of information, because that's not what the theory of evolution explains.

> it's an idea, it can't create anything.

Again... (I think you're getting the idea here)

> Every cell in your body acts like a well oiled machine.

Say that to my face when I had 12 operations all related to my cleft lip, with which I was born with.

The obligatory two books are Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and Christopher Hitchens' God is not Great (How Religion Poisons Everything). Both are fantastic, Dawkins tends to focus more on Christianity and Hitchens is more widespread showing how dangerous it is across the board with many diverse examples.

For a broader sense start reading up on Philosophy and other religions, you will find that Christianity is nothing special and is quite weak in some areas. Familiarize yourself with the fallacies that are common in religious explanations as well. This way when the indoctrination starts to creep up you can look at the reasons you believed and see through them for what they are. Such engrained behaviors can be hard to shake, especially when guilt is involved as religion is a master craft at guilt manipulation. Once you see through the magic trick it looses it's power.

Another great book is The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, it shows how evolution works from a genetic level. I know you said you accept evolution and that is great, this will give you a more in depth look into the mechanics of the process and how we are no different than any other life form aside from our development tree. Its easy to read and understand, in fact this book really helped me break away from some of the mentalities of religion since it shows how humans really arent anything special and are very young.

Another author is Sam Harris, he has a lot of books that can help a deconvert find meaning in things they once valued without the need for religion, on subjects like morality, free will, spirituality, and other aspects.

Here is Hitchens' book on youtube read by the man himself:

God is not Great

Read this. Come back, six month.

Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins...you will be more at peace

https://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248

Denne:
https://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248

I went to Alpha when I was still a Christian, but when doubts were starting to form. They invite you in by sharing a meal together, watching Gumbel's presentation, and having discussion. The video segments are made up of the same old arguments stating that people are basically bad and need to be made right by the blood of Jesus. It's an effective tool on those who aren't able to or aren't trained in logical/cognitive fallacies.

> I've tried to respectfully challenge her on a couple of things, but she feels that I'm attacking her new found faith.

IMO this is a red flag. Being defensive usually doesn't allow for an open mind. Be wary.

> Are there any good books which help explain non-literalist Christian beliefs to someone who came from a literalist background?

I wouldn't keep pointing in the direction of belief, but rather point in the direction of truth (Plus, we were taught to hate Rob Bell in church):

• Why Evolution is True By Jerry Coyne
  
• Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation by Bill Nye
  
• Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality by Eliezer Yudkowsky
  
• The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
  
• The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan
  
  Pointing in the direction of religion, yields more bad philosophy.

After reading some of your comments below, my initial response was going to be to come back when you have an open mind. I don't think you'll get anything out of your pursuit until you do. But then I remembered myself in a similar mindset several years ago. If you'd really like to challenge your faith and develop a more rounded perspective here are some of the things I did that finally opened my eyes and helped me break free from the oppression of religion;

• Read a book like The God Delusion. I read this when I considered myself a Christian. I only made it half way though because I thought it was full of presumptive anti-Christian propaganda. And I honestly still don't have a great opinion of the book, but it got some gears turning for me and challenged me to examine my beliefs honestly.
  
• Read Rob Bell's series, What is the Bible?. Again, the quality of the content may be questionable, but it gets some gears turning in a good way.
  
• Expose yourself to diversity. Meet, and get to know friends from other cultures. Christian friends are fine. Be vulnerable with them and open to their perspectives. I don't think mainstream Christianity can survive honest confrontation with other branches of Christianity. Yes, they mostly all believe Jesus was God and died for our sins, but beyond that the vary widely in their application.
  
• Stop making excuses for God. Be honest with yourself and ask if you've ever had an experience that you can prove was an interaction with God. Christianity is a religion that claims God wants a relationship with individuals, so you should have had direct tangible experience of that somewhere in your life.
  
• Read The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. This one is fairly solid, and a very harsh critic of Christianity. If you do none of the other things on this list, read this. It's free online too.
  
  Good luck.

Now go and read this.

I'm sorry, and I'm sure you're a good person, but if you're a muslim you're subscribing to, and therefore enabling, an ideology which encourages the murder and rape of people who don't subscribe to it.

You don't need to follow my advice if you don't want to but I highly advise picking up atheism. Start with these books:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330464203&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Reality-Know-Whats-Really/dp/1439192812/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330464390&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330464824&sr=1-1

Here are two-

http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1348771577&sr=8-2&keywords=dawkins

http://www.amazon.com/The-Magic-Reality-Whats-Really/dp/1451675046/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348771577&sr=8-1&keywords=dawkins

Thanks for the response. I hoped for a little repartee.

>But there's also a difference between, say, the example you gave of a dragon and these Christian accounts.

No, alas, they are exactly the same. They rely on eye witness (personal anecdote) testimony and have no evidence. Again, if there WAS evidence you (they) would be the first in history to show it. Additionally, you might want to theologically think about your stance on evidence and whether or not there is any. If a god provided evidence of its existence, wouldn't that remove our free will that christians so desperately defend by compelling us to believe? (By the way, you might want to hear what Sam has to say about Free Will)

>you can look at those who have been willing to die for their faith

This doesn't make a thing true. Those who follow Allah say this exact same thing before they blow themselves up on the crowed Israeli bus. The stronger you say your faith is, the faster I walk the other way in fear for my safety. There's no telling where ardent faith leads. Oh yeah, the Crusades for one. 9/11 for another. I'm pretty sure the female genital mutilation crowd is willing to die for their faith too. How about those parents who let their children die of easily cured maladies because they'd rather pray for help to come? I'll bet they're pretty strong in their faith.

Which leads me to...

> insincere or just deluded?

I think the majority of those who profess a belief in supernatural woo-woo actually believe it. True charlatans are rare but exist nonetheless. The easy way to spot a charlatan is the request for money. "God made the universe but you need to give 'til it hurts 'cause he's out of money." Therefore, to answer your either/or question, woo-woo believers are deluded. You know there's a famous book with a title you might recognize, The God Delusion. The clue is in the title.

Since you finished with a question, allow me the same privilege.

Do you care if your beliefs are true?

*Edit: Hyperlinked to The God Delusion by Sir Richard Dawkins. Thought for sure you'd want more details.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0618918248/ref=sr_1_1_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1371097711&sr=8-1&keywords=the+god+delusion&condition=used

Tosses link your way

Indeed. I could always laugh off the criticisms of Christians, especially evangelicals ("My beliefs are crazy? You believe in biblical inerrantism! Do you know how crazy that is?") but I could not so easily discard the criticisms of atheists. I always maintained the reality of miracles and spiritual visitations to counter them, often telling them about Moroni's promise... and look at me now, I subscribe to r/atheism and I'm halfway through my second reading of The God Delusion. Gotta watch out for those atheists, they'll getcha!

I don't think you'll be getting the book, however, if you're on a budget Amazon has paperbacks for < $10 including shipping. I think it would probably help your ex a lot, sounds like she is ashamed and she shouldn't be. If I had an extra copy I'd send it to you but no such luck, sorry.

You can't come up with $9?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0618918248/ref=tmm_pap_new_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=new

Agreed. I actually would have recommended 'Mere Christianity' (CS Lewis) as a better book than 'Case for Christ'.

I have heard Dawkins premise is a bit off, as well. I haven't had a chance to read it, yet and may not after reading this review about how Dawkins 'misstates the question as an opposition between theism and science, when the opposition is between the ontological views of theism and naturalism.'

http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/product-reviews/0618918248/ref=sr_cr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0

I would suggest reading a more primary sources and less internet.

This is where I started probably before you were even born:
http://amzn.com/087975124X

Dawkins reiterates Smith's agnostic vs atheist debate over 30 years later here:
http://amzn.com/0618918248


This is logic and language. If you say you haven't decided on a political party you are a non-Republican. If you say you haven't decided on God you are a non-Theist. Because of history, unlike non-Republican we have a word for non-Theist called atheist.

Some of my "intellectual" favorites:

• The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
  
  
• Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
  
  
• Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries by Neil deGrasse Tyson

Why I Am Not a Christian - Bertrand Russell

Breaking The Spell - Daniel Dennett

All In The Mind: A farewell To God - Ludovic Kennedy

The straw man fallacy is where you set up a premise that is easy to defeat and then say therefore this other thing that may or may not be related is also false. The false choice (false dichotomy really, my bad) fallacy is where you present a set of outcomes as an either or choice. In this case the OP presents wear a seatbelt == stay on earth and not wear a seatbelt == go to heaven. That leaves out the very real and common 'option' of no seatbelt == horrible handicap.
My source for fallacy info:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx


Your second question is the best one though so I want to address that too. Yes. Many christians (even pastors and priests) who say publicly that they are saved are not sure. Some are even closet atheists. As reference I recommend Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell. It's quite good and addresses this very well.

I highly recommend Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Dan Dennet. He discusses this question in great detail. Of course, being a philosopher he defines the question more so than deciding on an exact answer... :-)

Dude this doc is like...impossible to find online! I'm kind of impressed~

Reading this right now. Excellent read, I would highly recommend.

I know all four of the names. Russell from about 13 years ago when I read http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Essays-Religion-Related-Subjects/dp/0671203231/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1393642671&sr=8-5&keywords=bertrand+russell. Turing from CS courses. Leibniz from Calculus. Pascal from CS exposure. However no in depth understanding of any one.

>If you have any recommendations let me know


https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Essays-Religion-Related-Subjects/dp/0671203231

If atheists such as Nietzsche, Jürgen Habermas, Jacques Derrida, and Slavoj Žižek have it right, it's the atheist who has trouble escaping the Christian world view, both in ontology and ethics. Of course, the masterwork on this is Charles Taylors' The Secular Age.

As to more practical questions, modern human rights is based in theism (see Declaration of Independence) and many contemporary philosophers deny the existence of human rights (now that theism has been removed). If anyone is unfamilar with this, I recommend listening to an overview lecture "Human Rights vs Religion?" from the Euhiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford University.

This doesn't answer your question about my decisions, but it answers the question of why atheists have similar worldviews to Christians. It's because they've inhereted it. Of course this will get downvoted bit this would be your answer if asked to many atheist academics (and theists, too).

Privileged planet

https://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Planet-John-Rhys-Davies/dp/B0002E34C0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1485725348&sr=8-2&keywords=privileged

Signature in the cell

https://www.amazon.com/Signature-Controversy-Responses-Critics-Cell/dp/0979014182/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1485725571&sr=8-3&keywords=signature+in+the+cell

Gunning for God

https://www.amazon.ca/Gunning-God-Atheists-Missing-Target/dp/0745953220

God's Undertaker

https://www.amazon.ca/Gods-Undertaker-Has-Science-Buried/dp/0745953719

https://www.amazon.com/Wonder-World-Journey-Modern-Science/dp/0972347313/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

The Wonder of the world- one of the books that changed Antony Flew from an outspoken Atheist to a diest.

I recommend these to start, if you are genuinely interested that is.

There's a book that I believe does a decent job of tackling this subject. In it, the author addresses the order of creation, the meaning of 'days', as well as many other topics.

He's also written another book that tackles the silly notion that science and faith cannot coexist.

I know this is not really conducive to debate, but I thought it pertinent to bring these books to everyone's attention.

So you admit (after, what's it been, 7 opportunities) you have no evidence for your all-encompassing, foundational assertion then?

You'd be smart to investigate this, and see how you not only have no evidence for what you are saying, but that pure naturalism actually contradicts all basis for reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism

And it would be alright to criticize WLC, if, you know, Hume's Law didn't exist. But since it does, you can't assert any sort of moral superiority - heck, morality even - without it being a completely arbitrary assertion on your part. In fact, the only reason you think the murder of children is wrong is because you've been profoundly influenced by Christian thought and western society. If you grew up in a place where it was acceptable, you wouldn't have a problem with it.

(Whether or not events like these even happened is a topic we haven't bothered to touch upon. WLC has spoken, I believe, along the lines of Paul Copan's book Is God a Moral Monster? and questioned the record since there isn't much evidence for these conquests, and their narrative similarity to other, pagan conquest narratives).

As for me, I believe science works because God created an ordered universe that finds God as its first cause. We expect to find natural laws because we believe in a law giver. This is what the first scientists believed as well (think Newton, etc). http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertaker-Has-Science-Buried/dp/0745953719/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1319304844&sr=8-3

If you're looking for books about scientific evidence for God, I'm partway through this book right now and it's really good.

https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertaker-Has-Science-Buried/dp/0745953719

I watched some of his debates with well known athiests (Dawkins, Hitchens), and liked him because he specifically defended the God of the Bible, the gospel, and the resurrection, rather than mainly sticking to general arguments for theism, which is a tendency that frustrates me with certain Christian apologists.

It seems that the op deleted his account. Is there any chance to get the source code of hist list to update it?

Three books that I can recommend are:

[The Reason For God - Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller] (http://www.timothykeller.com/books/the-reason-for-god)

The Book That Made Your World by Vishal Mangalwadi

God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? by John Lennox

Furtheron it would be great to have a smiliar list for christian apologetic organizations like

bethinking

The BioLogos Foundation

Institut für Glaube und Wissenschaft

God's Undertaker by John Lennox is an excellent book and he is actually a mathematician as well at Oxford. Highly recommended.

Here are a few of the resources that have helped me:

https://biologos.org/
https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Evolution-Do-Have-Choose/dp/0857215787
https://www.amazon.com/Gunning-God-Atheists-Missing-Target/dp/0745953220/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=gunning+for+god&qid=1555348576&s=books&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertaker-Has-Science-Buried/dp/0745953719/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=gunning+for+god&qid=1555348605&s=books&sr=1-2
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802831621
Also, I've visited a lot of different churches and have plenty of friends that are Christians. Seeing that Christians are so very different from JW's- many are well educated, intelligent, thinking people- with a faith that is extremely different from the JW belief system. They have this passion, sincerity and relationship with God that is the opposite of the legalistic JW cult.

"God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?" - by John C. Lennox

Hey, I'm glad to hear that! It's a topic of some interest for me.

I think too much of discussion about God today gets wrapped up in politics, especially in the United States. That's certainly something new, and can be found back even to the start of Christianity, or even human civilization. It tends to be rightly shunned and mocked.

However, the idea of God is something more central and serious than that. Sure, most people are idiots, so when they talk about something they don't study up on or look at different viewpoints, which is really really common for religion, they end up saying stupid stuff.

That's why it's worth distinguishing from theologians and philosophers who actually do that stuff, and many of them walk away from it with a clear and respectable, and even persuasive, ideas.

If you want to read up more, I can recommend a few works.

• God and Other Minds by Alvin Plantinga - One of the best respected books today on theism, and sparked a lot of discussion on God's existence in philosophy today. Plantinga argues that ultimately neither the arguments for theism or atheism hold, but that one can still rationally believe in God in a way similar to how you believe in the existence of other minds, despite having no way to directly perceive or prove the thoughts of others.
  
  
• Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes - This book is most people's jumping on point to philosophy, since it's pretty standard in philosophy 101 classes, since he's extremely important in the history of philosophy, and explains things without much jargon and works from the ground up. Descartes tries to ground his beliefs in pure reason, showing that through the knowledge of his own existence and God's existence, we can be certain of the existence of everything around us.
  
  
• The Euthyphro, the Apology, the Crito, and the Phaedo by Plato - Dialogues leading up to the death of Socrates, and fairly easy to read. Plato is arguably the most influential philosopher in history, and his dialogues are all aimed at teaching you to ask philosophical question and get a sense of what philosophical answers look like.
  
  
• The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps - An excellent podcast which is exactly what it says on the tin. Works from Pre-Socratics, and has made it up to the Renaissance, with a few other podcasts also started to cover Indian and Africana philosophy. Most philosophers will have something to say on God, and these 20 minute introductions and explanations help shape that understanding.
  
  
• Gregory Sadler - A philosophy professor who puts his lectures for free on Youtube. Plenty on most philosophers you can list off, and takes a special interest in Anselm.
  
  
• The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy are sites dedicated to thoroughly explaining the arguments of different people in philosophy. Incredibly useful.
  
  You should especially look at the philosophy of Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, Plotinus, Origen, Pseudo-Dionysus, Augustine, Anselm, Avicenna, Al-Ghazali, Maimonides, Averroes, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, Immanuel Kant, and Soren Kierkegaard.
  
  If you want to look more at the stuff I was arguing, you can also consider looking specifically at Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, posted for free here, although Aquinas is fairly jargon heavy, and expects familiarity with Aristotle, Averroes, and other points in Christian theological history.
  
  Edit: As a small aside, on the point of how atheism is defined, a moderator of /r/askphilosophy wrote a pretty good summary for what the term means in academic disciplines a while back. Worth checking out.

You're either a troll or a disrespectful. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801497353/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Why would you care about my belief system?

Tell her to netflix the cosmos. He makes many subtle stabs at superstitious beliefs in the series. If must have Carl Sagan, I have not read it but it but there are tons of good reviews for Demon Haunted World. However for the purposes you're describing you should recommend The God Delusion. I have read it and its a flawless victory defeat over believers.

The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins.

One of the best books I have ever read.

http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335304

and


http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342550912&sr=1-1&keywords=god+delusion




have fun being confused!

> Can you cite to any peer-reviewed historians other than Ray Price for your position? Can you explain why the book is "drivel"?

It's published by InterVarsity. It's a christian apologetics publisher. If I post a book by Dawkins as my proof that he didn't exist, would you accept that? If so here's my equivalent 'proof'. I couldn't make it through the entirety of your book. The authors will say one thing "consistency is what matters" then throw that out the next page, and just accept inconsistent evidence. It's just awful.

> I'm not seeing you provide any reasoning or reference to authority (other than, "there's no evidence because I choose not to recognize any of the evidence"),

If you'd post any that was real, I'd look at it. But there isn't any. Just a few books written 300 years after he died, with so many contradictions that they're useless as a history book.

> so at this point it seems like you are simply stating your opinion.

My opinion is that Jesus did exist. I just walked the Via Dolorosa, and went to the Holy Church of the Sepulchure last month. But I don't delude myself that there's any 'proof', and none should be needed. That's what faith is all about.

>If so, then I can't respond. If your opinion is that chocolate is better, I'm not going to try and convince you to prefer vanilla.

Likewise, it's simply your opinion that he did at this point. You've posted nothing substantial, then ask me to do so. Which I will. Now its your turn to not post something horrible and shitty as 'evidence'

Here - the only peer reviewed work to ever be published on the topic. we'll call this one 'better than anything you can provide'

Why not find a cheap copy of The God Delusion, put it conspicuously on his desk before he arrives to class, then see how he reacts? If he immediately tosses it in the trash, that might be a warning sign to drop/add and find a different instructor.

You might wanna try to read this book by Peter Boghossian>>>
http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395087030&sr=8-1&keywords=a+guide+to+creating+atheists

> Your sources for disproof are (1) a URL someone created, and (2) a tumblr someone created.

No, the first was a dictionary. The second was casual uses the dictionary definitions make feasible. They used it just like I did.

>Your account is 34 minutes old and you've said you were a philosopher.

Never did you read me write that I was a philosopher. I wrote that I had a degree in philosophy & religion.

>Tell me how the latter is possible.

An atheist apologist would be one who defends views important to atheism or attacking theism. Richard Carrier is a good example. Or books like A Manual for Creating Atheists.

Peter Boghossian defined it best. Pretending to know something you don't know. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LKBT0MC/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Deism. The evidence convinced Antony Flew to change his religion:

http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335304/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1421880907&sr=8-2&keywords=theist+flew

God isn't an object first of all......He can't be proved in the sense that I can show you some 'thing'. He is proved within yourself, NOT outside your self. It's really so very clever, because that way, all the wise asses can carry on denying him until they finally croak, and yet all those who really want to know him can do so too. Everyone wins....How awesome is that....God gives us all exactly what we want. Anyway, nothing anyone says here is going to make a big dent in what anyone else already thinks, but what DOES intrigue me is how Antony Flew, former self-proclaimed: 'most notorious atheist' had a complete 'volte farce' after articulately articulating the case for atheism for an entire lifetime: http://www.amazon.com/There-Is-God-Notorious-Atheist/dp/0061335304/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335701365&sr=1-1
‎Please read and try to understand that the very latest microbiological research has vastly strengthen the argument "intelligent' design and it consequent theological rammifications.

Here ya go.

Reiki?

I'd get her this:

https://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248

You can also try this: http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094

Have you asked her to read God Is Not Great or The God Delusion?
Have you read these books yourself?
Is her family religious?

Van Til went so far as to call the atheist delusional. After many many conversations with atheists here and on /r/debateanatheist, I tend to agree with him.

But of course, when the atheist does it, it's perfectly fine, right?

God is a delusion

The God Delusion it is pure stupidity from someone who thinks everything suddenly came into existence. Totally fucked up idiot.

I'm not a troll and I don't throw a "shit fit". But I definitely DO demand an apology when a fundie says something as offensive as that. I don't understand how any logical human being would have the gull to say "Bless you" when someone sneezes. It's simply insensitive to other beliefs whether religious or not and nonsensically insane.
People who do that need to know that they can't just go around hoisting their absurd beliefs on people just because of a natural sneeze. They deserve the utmost ridicule and they need to know that they're uneducated, delusional , and forthrightly moronic.

There should be no compromises when it comes to dealing with a fundie, and frankly, Arrow156, I think you're either with us or against us. If you're defending the extremist fundies, than you're clearly against us and definitely don't have a place in this subReddit. Those conciliating ideologies that say it is okay to be a Christian is the kind of cancer that destroys rationale and logical thought and enlightenment.

^tl;dr you're an idiot

I think people should take a step back when wanting their state to be a atheistic instead of a secular one and i think this is quite fitting in this situation (this is a part of the book Atheism: A Very Short Introduction):

>So atheists can consistently distance themselves
from the terrors of Stalin by simply pointing out that Soviet communism is not even a logical extension of Marxist communism, let alone a logical extension of core atheist values, which are not communist at all. However, although this defence is certainly enough to justifY a 'not guilty' verdict in the court of history, the Soviet experience does point to two dangers of atheism. The first of these is a too-zealous militancy. It is one thing to disagree with religion and quite another to think that the best way to counter it is by oppression and making atheism the official state credo. What happened in Soviet Russia is one of the reasons why I personally dislike militant atheism. When I heard someone recently say that they really thought religious belief was some kind of mental illness and that they looked forward to a time in the future when religious believers would be treated, I could see an example of how militant atheism can lead to totalitarian oppression. But this is not a danger specific to atheism. Fundamentalism is a danger in any belief system, and that is why I think the main danger we need to guard against is not religion but fundamentalism of any description. Atheism's model should not thus be Soviet-style state atheism but Western-style state secularism.

The God Delusion

Personally I am absolutely sick to death of Dawkins' entire approach; I am sick of his belittling, condescending attitude towards religion, and ultimately he has missed the entire point of religion.

Bertrand Russell's Why I am Not A Christian (book here) deals with the issues in a far more elegant manner.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446697966

http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248

> prostulatize

Just as an FYI, it's "proselytize".

Manuals for conversion to atheism exist.

Some people proselytize for Atheism.

I mean, obviously it's a much newer concept in general, but let's not act like the worst atheists aren't just as annoying as the worst religious people.