(Part 2) Top products from r/TrueAtheism

It's interesting to me because when I talk to people and how they come to their faith, it's all kinds of different stuff that actually ends up being the "straw that breaks the camels back." Why don't I tell you what convinces me and then give you some recommendations in various directions.

Now, I was raised a Christian. That's important because I'm not sure that I would be a Christian now if I wasn't raised as one. I make that admission not because I think it's a weakness to my case, but because I want you to understand that I understand the difficulty in believing something like this seemingly ridiculous story.

Many of my friends, very few of whom are Christians, actually call me the "most open-minded person" they know or at least one of the most. One of my best friends (an agnostic Jewish girl) says that I would make a terrific atheist if it weren't for that whole "believing in God thing."

Though I have always identified as a Christian, I did go through a time when I decided to weigh the evidence.

I'll consider any evidence and look for its flaws. I like science, but I don't like the double standard that exists between science and faith. In the opinion of many atheists, if ANYTHING appears to be incompatible with their perception of faith, it's automatically proved incorrect and any effort of a person of faith to answer why it may not be incompatible is met with deaf ears. Conversely, if ANYTHING appears to be incompatible with science, that's "fascinating!" or "interesting!" or "a great opportunity to arrive at a greater truth."

With that being said, I think there are quite a few things that we (as a society) take for granted that may or may not be true. For example, we all believe that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. But the reason we arrived at that conclusion was not because it was the only possible answer, but because it was the simplest answer. (By the way, I believe that the earth revolves around the sun, this is just an example). Another example is gravity. It behaves so steadily that we even label it with a gravitational constant. But we know it does funky things at the quantum level and at the cosmological level (like near the event horizon of a black hole). We have no idea why.

This thinking brought me to the realization that I might not understand nearly as much as I thought I did. It felt lacking and EVERYTHING felt like faith at that time. Because of that, I decided that I would look for internal consistencies or inconsistencies in the Bible. The one that really stood out to me was Noah's flood. I had always heard that there was varying evidence for or against a global flood, but the vast majority of the arguments didn't seem to be asking the right questions. IF there WAS a global flood, it would certainly be an unprecedented event-- something that we had never observed in our time... so how would we know what to look for? The Bible itself records that water came up out of the earth-- that's not indicative of most floods.

But even that wasn't the most interesting part of that story to me. The Bible is actually a very valuable historical resource. Archaeologists rely on many of its dates and locations to find out more about sites in the middle east. That's why the flood account is so fascinating to me. No one believes that the flood account was written down for HUNDREDS of years after it is supposed to have happened. Yet, according to that account people before the flood were living for hundreds of years (up to 969). Then, for seemingly no reason, the author of the account picks the flood as the dividing point where lives are considerably shortened. I have yet to hear a good explanation for why someone over 1000 years later, yet still over 3000 years ago, would randomly decide to put that kind of change in there. Because of that, I thought, "Hm, maybe the earth drastically changed at that point." I can't prove that, just so you know. It's just an interesting thought that I had.

Now, beyond all that, I look at the historical record of the gospels and the few hundred years of church tradition immediately after that. The thing that always stands out to me there is that, regardless of the evidence of Jesus' resurrection, we do have pretty reliable reasons to believe that prominent apostles chose to die rather than go back on their claims that Christ raised from the dead. I just couldn't wrap my head around why 12 prominent guys, plus Paul, would choose to die for something they would have known to be a lie. I could understand people today who died for blind faith, but this isn't blind faith. It's not cultish (doesn't fit the psychology). It doesn't appear to be hallucinatory (doesn't fit the current medical understanding). The only thing that I could think is that it was either an incredibly elaborate lie that hundreds of people were willing to die for, or it was the truth.

When you take that into consideration with the actual gospel accounts of the resurrection, things get really interesting. I think a lot of people read those accounts (or, trust people who have read them) without considering that they may have actually happened exactly as recorded. They're certainly not written as ridiculous accounts of mad men. They don't protect the reputations of those surrounding the events. If the gospels claimed Jesus had made a roast beef sandwich rather than resurrecting, I'd bet that most people would arrive at the conclusion that they actually happened.

That's just a few reasons in addition to the ideas that resurrection was not exactly smiled upon in that culture, that the church had to survive persecution from the very beginning that the odds of Christianity actually taking hold was so unlikely it might as well have been impossible, etc. etc. As I said, none of these thoughts are exactly original.

Now as to why you should believe, I don't know what it would take to convince you. If you're wondering why I believe in Christianity over a multitude of religions, it's actually extremely original (yes, even in light of the Horus myth). No other surviving system says, "Humanity is despicable, wicked, and evil. There is literally nothing you can do to save yourselves." Yet Christianity is viewed primarily as a religion of hope and redemption. And it has convinced millions of people.

As for your comment about "superstitious goat herders" the book I like best to explain that these guys and their accounts are actually a lot more reliable than they seem is Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. It's not perfect, but it's very very thought provoking and fairly readable.

As I alluded to a number of times, I think most people tend to just treat the stories in the Bible as "impossible" without actually reading them and considering them. To a point, I don't blame them. It does seem unbelievable. But some really rational and reasonable people have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that it might not be as totally crazy as they once thought. Will it convince you? I don't know, I pray that it would, but ultimately that's up to you. If there's ever any question you have, I encourage you to come to me with it. I do this kind of thing a lot, speaking of which, here's another conversation I had with some other people on this subreddit. That conversation even caused /u/superwinner, a pretty frequent regular on this part of the site (this very thread, no less), to say, "Thats it, I'm friending the shit out of you." That's pretty much my crowning achievement on this subreddit.

I have much compassion for other members of this human race regardless of religious stance, and the same goes for you. I'm quite pleased that you seem willing to at least engage me on this issue and I thank you for doing it so honestly and respectfully. I hope that you find my response at least considerate and worth YOUR consideration. One final thought though-- it's not going to be ME or anything I say that convinces you one way or another. It'll be your own decision, perhaps in tandem with God, perhaps not (depending on what you choose). Either way, feel free to always consider me as a resource, even if you don't end up believing and you just want to understand why a Christian might believe something-- like why they choose one God over all the others. Good question, OP.

It sounds like you're already familiar with it, but just in case, the most plausible mythicist theory (in my opinion) of Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald is not simply that Jesus was made up from whole cloth at a later time or something, but that the original concept of Jesus was of him as a celestial deity, existing only in the heavenly realms. He was later "euhemerized" and placed into stories on earth (this was a common practice), and these later stories became cannonized into the gospels, and the earlier views of him as a celestial-only deity were lost.

The strongest case for this is in the early epistles, where many references to Jesus actually make more sense as a celestial Jesus than a Jesus-on-earth. One strong example:

> Hebrews 8:4 “For if he [Jesus] were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.”

> An astounding verse, and one that might well be considered the “smoking gun” proving that early Christians did not believe in a human, historical Jesus. Hebrews chapters 8 and 9 discuss the covenant of sacrifice between God and man. The writer is comparing the Jewish tabernacle, where the high priest makes blood sacrifices of animals to God within the heart of the sanctuary, with the “greater and more perfect tabernacle” (9:11) of Heaven, where Jesus offers his own blood within the heavenly sanctuary as a more perfect sacrifice to God. The underlying theme here is clearly a Platonic one: human actions on Earth mirror divine actions in Heaven, the imperfect material world reflecting the perfect divine world.

> As the writer of Hebrews crafts this analogy, he mentions, almost in passing, that if Jesus were on Earth, he would have had nothing to do, because there were already priests there offering sacrifices. Jesus’ role was only in Heaven, where he could offer his blood as a better sacrifice.

> But how could any writer who knew a human Jesus possibly have said this? How could he have overlooked the blindingly obvious fact that Jesus did have a purpose on Earth, that in fact he had to come here precisely to fulfill this purpose? Why does he seem to think that Jesus’ offering of his own blood took place exclusively in Heaven?

> From the gospel standpoint, this is impossible to explain. From the spiritual-Jesus standpoint, it is very easy, and indeed fits perfectly, like a lock in a key, with the scenario this essay puts forward.

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.

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

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.

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

I was an evangelical for 27 years, from age 18 to 45. I wouldn't say that there's one profound argument against Christianity; I would say that Christians and atheists are not even talking the same language. And most of that has to do with Christians having their conclusions in mind when they investigate, whereas atheists are willing to be led wherever the evidence and reason lead them. The end result is that atheists and Christians have completely different mindsets about what constitutes evidence and what they are willing to consider.

The first book I would recommend is Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman. Friedman is, himself, a Christian. The book deals with what scholars know about the construction of the first few books of the Bible.

Second book I would recommend is The Bible Unearthed by Neil Silberman and Israel Finkelstein. Have you ever wondered what the archaeological support is for the stories of the Old Testament? Dr. Finkelstein is one of the leading archaeologists in Israel today. This is an excellent place to start. (Here's a 90 minute video if you prefer.)

Third, pretty much any book by Bart Ehrman. Here's a good one, though -- Jesus, Interrupted. Dr. Ehrman is very respected in the scholarly community, and what he writes here, for the most part, represents where the majority of scholars are.

Fourth is A History of God by Karen Armstrong. Ms Armstrong tells the story of how the God the Jews, Christians, and Muslims got his start in Canaan. There is a quick summary of the book here.

Yeah man, deconversion is really hard. It takes years to get through the whole process. Or did for me. A couple years for the doubts to really take hold, a couple years of digging and second guessing everything I was finding, and a couple more years to feel comfortable with my new identity. It was probably three years of myself calling myself agnostic before I was willing to say, even just in my own head to describe myself to myself as atheist.

> How can I be sure the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit? [...] why are Christians so fervent on defending their Bible through "evidence"?

Check out some Bart Ehrman books. He's a former Christian and biblical scholar who breaks the Bible down in terms of historicity. I feel like it really helps you understand where the religion comes from and how the way Christians cherry pick small bits of it out of the full context all the time can really get you hooked on the feel good parts while ignoring how it doesn't add up as a whole. I can recommend this one in particular.

Glad your girlfriend has your back. I was going to mention one of the hardest parts of being atheist in the Midwest was dating. So, so many times it would be going fantastic for a few dates, and then religion comes up, and they instantly cut me off. "I could never date an atheist." And say the word with disgust behind it, it was unreal.

The usual is Why I am no longer a Christian by Evid3nc3, but that's all youtube.



If you want to go old-school angry try out Testament: Memoir of the Thoughts and Sentiments of Jean Meslier (from the 1700s).

>Know, then, my friends, that everything that is recited and practiced in the world for the cult and adoration of gods is nothing but errors, abuses, illusions, and impostures. All the laws and orders that are issued in the name and authority of God or the gods are really only human inventions…."



For a more general and softer approach, try out 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God.

***

If you need someone who was really a "true Christian" try perhaps something from Richard Price or listen to the podcasts of Matt Dillahunty.

>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 !

There are levels of historicity of the Jesus character.

The following is how I typically present the claim of the historicity of Jesus.

• Jesus existed (historically as a person, historically via the secular narratives of canon scriptures, and historically via the supernatural elements of the canon scriptures) and is the Jewish Christ/Anointed One/Messiah/Mashiach (via the, arguable, meeting of all the relevant prophecies) and is fully human/fully Yahweh or otherwise Divine
  
  
  • A human Jewish male, named Yehoshua/Jesus, historically existed in the timeframe of interest (i.e., 25-35'ish CE). A "Jesus" in this timeframe was a Messiah claimant.
    
  • A "Jesus" was put to death by the Romans.
    
  • A "Jesus," from the above two points, is the Jesus of the canon Gospels and Pauline narratives of the New Testament.
    
  • Jesus existed historically via the secular narratives of canon scriptures. That is, the secular (non-divine) accounts of the places/locations of Jesus (basically day to day life) in the canon scriptures is accurate.
    
  • Jesus existed historically via the words/sermons/messages as presented in the canon scriptures. That is, Jesus actually spoke the words attributed to him and the words were recorded accurately.
    
  • Jesus existed historically via the secular (non-divine) actions presented in the canon scriptures. That is, Jesus performed the non-divine actions attributed to him (ex., fasted 40 days in the desert).
    
  • Jesus existed historically via the claims of Divine based actions attributed to him as presented in the canon scriptures. That is, the actions (oft called "miracles") actually occurred as presented and actually (to a high level of significance) demonstrate supernatural/God-level events.
    
    Points 1 and 2 are easily conceded and proven as historical as Jesus was a common name. Points 3 through 7 all require a credible proof presentation. Until a proof presentation that can be credibly supported is made, items 3 through 7 are likely mythological and/or based upon some archetype Messiah claimant or troupe.
    
    The lack of credible support for the secular portions of the historical existence of Jesus as presented in the Gospels, to say nothing of the supernatural or miraculous narratives, already reduces the credibility of the Resurrection narrative to a low level of reliability and confidence.
    
    And yes, I am aware of the claims of the following historians/histories that are usually called upon to show extra-Biblical support of the historical existence of Jesus (and should you, OP, attempt to make rebuttal using these historians/histories I will be happy to make refutation as to credibility of these rebuttal claims).
    
    
• Flavius Josephus
  
  • The Testimonium Flavianum
    
  • “him called Christ”
    
• Suetonius
  
• Pliny the Younger
  
• Tacitus
  
• Mara Bar-Serapion
  
• Lucian of Samosata
  
• The Jewish Talmud
  
• Thallus
  
• Phlegon
  
  (Or you can save us both the effort and goto The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus, by Earl Doherty, January 1, 2005)
  
  ----
  
  An essay discussing the historicity of Jesus is available at:
  
  
• "Choking on the Camel," Ebon Musings/Daylight Atheism
  
  with discussion of the above claimed extra-Biblical references to Jesus discussed in Part 2 of the above essay - "Choking on the Camel - The Historians"
  
  > What's the general atheist consensus on the existence of Jesus as a person?
  
  My stance is Biblical "Jesus" is mostly myth (which can be negated if/when a credible proof presentation is made to support the non-trivial historical items - but I am not holding my breath).

Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:

Amazon Smile Link: Richard Davidson


|Country|Link|Charity Links|
|:-----------|:------------|:------------|
|USA|smile.amazon.com|EFF|
|UK|www.amazon.co.uk|Macmillan|
|Spain|www.amazon.es||
|France|www.amazon.fr||
|Germany|www.amazon.de||
|Japan|www.amazon.co.jp||
|Canada|www.amazon.ca||
|Italy|www.amazon.it||
|India|www.amazon.in||




To help add charity links, please have a look at this thread.

This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting). The thread for feature requests can be found here.

I think much of what got me, as a former Christian, was not "reasoning for becoming an atheist", but rather realizing the reasons I believed did not hold up, and slowly arriving there by default. This makes sense given that atheism is really nothing more than a lack of a belief.

Kenneth Daniels' book, Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary captures this fairly well, and it's also the first book I'd recommend to a Christian that wants to understand why someone would leave the faith.

Edit: If you missed their comment, warebec has pointed out that you can go read it for free here: http://infidels.org/library/modern/ken_daniels/why.html

I am a great fan of the book "The Better Angels of our Nature" by Steven Pinker. His premise is society IS getting better and has research to prove it. Amazon.com describes is like this:

> Thanks to the spread of government, literacy, trade, and cosmopolitanism, we increasingly control our impulses, empathize with others, debunk toxic ideologies, and deploy our powers of reason to reduce the temptations of violence.

At the same time. much of society is getting more godless. You may not able to persuade your Gran, but be assured you are RIGHT.

This is something that has become quite popular, I know Eric Hovind and Sye Ten Bruggencate love this apologetic, see Bruggencate's webpage.

This is also known by some theists as the "Road Runner Tactic" (as popularized in "I don't have enough Faith to be an atheist" by Frank Turek and Norman Geisler) it exists not so much to prove you wrong as to derail the conversation. As above you can pretty much say the same thing with with different words and it becomes logically valid.

For a review of the book and a deconstruction of it from an atheist's view check out this series.

Well the Bible does talk of an explosion and of a significant lag time from universe creation to earth creation:

http://theauthoroflife.org/the-creation-story.php

> And, in any case, how does (somehow) establishing the universe's creation by a sentient being have anything to do with "our" god, if it is ever found to exist?

God exists because there are plausible arguments for the existence of supernatural:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/scholarly-articles/the-existence-of-god

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles/existence-and-nature-of-god

http://www.bethinking.org/does-god-exist

Christianity is true, because there are plausible arguments for the historicity of Jesus permanent resurrection:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M

http://www.bethinking.org/did-jesus-rise-from-the-dead

http://www.bethinking.org/resurrection

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906/

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886/

https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310339308/

Fair warning though: If you start to openly push back after reading up some on Ehrman and a few other sources mentioned (I posted a wiki link to stuff on the NT papyri in an above comment) and your family is as hardcore fundamentalist as they sound from your description, be ready for a shitshow.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AtheistHavens/ ---if you need to get out

Also, Richard Eliot Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? is a great introduction to the Pentateuch and the Documentary Hypothesis. For all the emphasis Christians place on the New Testament and how Jesus resurrected and everything, he clearly seems to have believed the Old Testament to have been true and accurate, per the gospel writers. Problem is that it's way more complicated and problematic when it comes to sources/verification than even the New Testament.

A very good book on this (has been the most popular introduction to comparative religions for over 50 years now) is The World's Religions, by Huston Smith

"50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God" is a great choice: http://www.amazon.com/Reasons-People-Give-Believing-God/dp/1591025672

I haven't stated that religion should not be studied. read carefully what I sate. I simply state, that we can not say that religion has done more harm than good.

It is, I think, easier to dig deep in social psychology and see where 'evil' comes from, like Zimbardo does.

As Steven Pinker has stated in his book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, it is e.g. due to the intense global collaboration. Religion does not play a big role in this. Since still most people believe, or you have to make a difference between old vs new. But that one is pretty difficult ;)

Check out Huston Smith's The World's Religions.

Smith is not a Dawkins or a Hitchens. He's probably not even an atheist. What he is (as I remember the book anyway) is objective and fair.

The World's Religions is exactly that--a (light) history of major world religions with a more in-depth look at the tenets and practice of each. He's not out to convince anyone of anything, and for some people that's a very good thing.

When I read it (going on 10 years ago), it really gave me a lot of perspective and helped me step outside the bubble of christianity that I'd been raised in.

Should you ever find yourself in the mood, you should read Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliot Friedman. It's a dissection of the first five books of the OT in the attempt to explain how they were compiled, and it reads like a mystery novel.

I find the books written by Bart D. Ehrman to be both informative and interesting. I have read three of them: Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are

Misquoting Jesus

Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them)
All three of them are solid reads.

Online Bible Links:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
https://www.biblegateway.com/ (over 100 versions and 50 translations of the bible, including audio.)
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (with Cross-References) [Kindle Edition] [free]

(edit:formatting to make it easier to read)

An atheist who actually studies a lot of the philosophy around and relevant to atheism, and / or against religion in an academic context. For instance, if you want a short summary of what that entails, you can read the cambridge companion to atheism which contains academic thought about theistic arguments and why they aren't sufficient for classical theism, how to see ethics in light of being outside of religion, etc. The idea that there's no intellectualism that intersects with atheism is something people who don't want to be bothered to learn any of it made up. Obviously this book is only a super basic beginning but it gives an idea. Obviously reality isn't a free for all in terms of any thoughts being good ones as long as they are not religious^TM. So there's a bit of work establishing what some of the real ramifications are of this line of thought.

Also The Book, From the same guy. You can get a pdf of it if you just Google "The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are pdf"... it's one of the first results. It's pretty much all about the "spiritual aspect" you're talking about.

Parenting Beyond Belief helped my wife and I with a similar situation. :)

Bart Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist? argues strongly that he his existed is well proven.

Similarly, Wikipedia says: "The theory that Jesus never existed at all (the Christ myth theory) has very little scholarly support.[5][6][7][8][9] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts,[10] but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4 BC and died 30–36 AD,[11][12][13] that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, that he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate[14][15][16] and that he lived in Galilee and Judea.[17][18][19]" Notice all the footnotes.

And yes, that is what I believed until I started reading books by Doherty and Carrier.

This is a very good book on the history of christianity. It's long (just like it needs to, but good).

If anyone is interested in reading more about the neuroscience of meditation, check out the work of Richard Davidson.

On the topic of raising children in a mixed-faith environment, I'd recommend the book Parenting Beyond Belief.

Teaching our children how to think critically from a young age will be the biggest help in fighting against nonsensical beliefs.

The author makes a real attempt to portray Jesus as he would have been historically. Worth reading!

http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/140006922X

This book might be worth a read, saw it from a post in /r/atheism yesterday.

"Zealot" by Reza Aslan takes a historical look at Jesus. The author is a Muslim professor (used to be a Christian), who has been researching the historical life of Jesus for some twenty years.

Zealot on Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/140006922X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375111277&sr=1-1&keywords=zealot

Link to article with video of Reza in an interview with Fox News
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/27/reza-aslan-fox-zealot_n_3665211.html

Link to original post from /r/atheism
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1j86c6/fox_news_get_owned_for_once_again_resorting_to_ad/

A couple others here have recommended Alan Watts. I couldn't agree more. I would start with The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are.

If you want more information on how the Bible was written, look into the book "Who Wrote the New Testament: The Bible with Sources Revealed"
http://www.amazon.com/Sources-Revealed-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/006073065X

That's literally an argument I've seen made, I think in "Not enough faith to be an Atheist."

God is not great by Christopher Hitchens. If you are looking for someone that had a sound knowledge of Christianity, its history and scripture, Hitchens is the man.

Denett also wrote a book or two on the topic.

This is the book you want

Why I Believed - Kenneth Daniels

It is exactly what you're looking for. Kindle edition is only 99 cents.

Here's some reading on the subject.

One that is quite popular in the culture of conservative Christianity (think Southern Baptists) is I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. I read portions of it years ago, and it seemed to largely be a regurgitation of common theist arguments, in what was admittedly a reasonably well-written, if not fallacious work.

Link for the lazy

If they really want to do this, they should read and discuss a book like 50 reasons people give for believing in a god or Why I Became an Atheist.

Allowing you to write a short argument and then not respond just isn't very useful. Either the argument has to be robust (like book length or longer) or you need to be able to dialog.

Oxford Handbook of Atheism

Cambridge Companion to Atheism

Any decent textbook about philosophy of religion should provide counter-points to the arguments for God. There is also the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; here's the article on Aquinas.

It is really important to read the Pentateuch in a book which shows the sources. The Moses with Pharaoh story is actually from J, P, and E! 6:1 happens to be from the E source, the rest of chapter 6 and the first half of chapter 7 is P. The part of E where they leave Egypt is 12:30-33 where you can see that Pharaoh is pushing them to leave ASAP because all their firstborn just up and died.

I recommend The Bible with Sources Revealed.

Dan Dennett disagrees.

A more thorough argument in his books Freedom Evolves and Elbow Room.

>Yes, you are. You are an accumulation of molecules programmed to experience so as to increase chances of surviving and reproduction, to a point where "advanced" thought can take place, but it's still just an evolutionary tool.

Bacteria don't experience anything, & they copy just fine. The human body has over 37 trillion cells, & ~100 trillion bacterial cells in & on the body.

Billions of years of evolution has programmed humans to be pro-birth, since you are the result of millions of generations since sexual reproduction emerged 1.2 BYA, & since the first mammals ~225 MYA, & since the first placental mammals emerged 90-66MYA.

But test your theory.

In the book DMT: The Spirit Molecule by Rick Strassman, who tested DMT on human volunteers, it says "One of our volunteers likes to say 'You can still be an atheist until 0.4.'" (an IV 0.4mg/kg dose of DMT). So inject yourself intravenously with 0.4mg/kg of DMT. Test it. It's falsifiable. Why would such a dose of DMT decrease atheism?

Does every psychedelic drug increase your chance of surviving & reproducing? Does spirituality necessarily increase your chance of surviving & reproducing? Does religion necessarily increase your chance of surviving & reproducing?

No, in fact, many religious traditions expect celibacy or abstinence from their "highest" class of holy people, monks, nuns, priests, etc. Jesus never had children. In the Greek Gospel of the Egyptians, Salome asks "How long shall men die?" & Jesus answers "As long as you women bear children."

Antinatalism (anti-birth) (or at least chastity, celibacy, abstinence) is common among ascetics of many religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sufism within Islam, Inca religion, Taoism, Gnosticism, Manicheanism, Catharism, the Bogomils, the ascetic Christian sect the Encratites, even the father of the Protest Reformation Martin Luther said "it is not be denied, that there is sin in procreation." Saint Gregory of Nyssa wrote "those who refrain from procreation through virginity themselves bring about a cancellation of death by preventing it from advancing further because of them, and, by setting themselves up as a kind of boundary stone between life and death, they keep death from going forward." The Christian theologian Clement of Alexandria, writing about the Encratites (a 2nd century sect of ascetic Christians who forbade marriage, sexual intercourse, and the consumption of meat) wrote "they teach that one should not enter into matrimony and beget children, should not bring further unhappy beings into the world, and produce fresh fodder for death." How many kids did the "Desert Fathers" have, early Christian hermits, ascetics, & monks living in the Scetes desert of Egypt starting around the 3rd century AD? Paul of Thebes was born in 227 AD in Egypt, is regarded as the 1st Christian hermit, & lived alone in the desert from age 16 to age 103.

>Leary and the bunch of them chose to ignore all the rest of science to prove that we are all special, because if we aren't special, what's the point? But that's just the thing, there is no point. No point at all.

LSD was previously a research drug. It was synthesized in 1938 by Albert Hoffman from lysergic acid, derived from ergot & Hoffman discovered its psychedelic properties in 1943. In the 1950s & 1960s, LSD was sold as "Delysid" as a medication for research purposes. In 1963, the Sandoz patent expired on LSD. Tim Leary advocated for its use. But LSD possession was made illegal in the US on October 24, 1968. LSD is considered an entheogen because it can trigger intense spiritual experiences, or out of body experiences. Stanislav Grof wrote that the spiritual experiences observed during LSD sessions seem to be indistinguishable from similar descriptions from ancient civilizations & world religions.

Alan Watts said "You're not something that is a sort of puppet on the end of the process. You are still the process. You are the big bang."

Carl Sagan said "we are a way for the Cosmos to know itself."

Since every human being provides the universe a new perspective, since every human brain & personality is unique & unrepeatable, everyone is special. Every sentient observer becomes axis mundi the center of the universe (from their POV).

G. K. Chesterton said "The most unfathomable schools and sages have never attained to the gravity which dwells in the eyes of a baby of three months old. It is the gravity of astonishment at the universe, and astonishment at the universe is not mysticism, but a transcendent common-sense. The fascination of children lies in this: that with each of them all things are remade, and the universe is put again upon its trial. As we walk the streets and see below us those delightful bulbous heads, three times too big for the body, which mark these human mushrooms, we ought always primarily to remember that within every one of these heads there is a new universe, as new as it was on the seventh day of creation. In each of those orbs there is a new system of stars, new grass, new cities, a new sea." Well, and also new pain, new suffering, new heartache, new grief, new sadness, new boredom, new tragedy, new death, new loss, new mourning.

>You don't spend all day pondering the mortality of fish or bears, or wonder if that's all there is for them, but that's it for them. Or I mean, the energy stored in you will provide energy for many species of many things down the line, in that you're eaten and the things that eat you are eaten, and in that sense you live on. But other than that that's it. There is nothing scientific to support the feelings the psychedelic crowd lean on, that feeling is just a wanting to feel special.

There is a lot of fish suffering & bear suffering on Earth, but humans are currently sending the Earth on a course that will ultimately end in human extinction in 600 years (but not before all the fish & bears go extinct).

Science says LSD can trigger spiritual experiences. Science says psychedelic drugs like psilocybin can make terminal cancer patients accept death. You can ignore the science if you want, but then don't claim your views are scientific.

>Douglas Adams wrote a metaphor of humans being a puddle finding wonder in how the ground around them is shaped just right so the puddle fits just as it is. And that's all we are.

Edward R. Harrison supposedly said, "Given enough time, Hydrogen starts to wonder where it came from, and where its going." Why would it do that?

Hubert Reeves said "Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God & destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshiping." Pantheists believe God & the universe are the same thing. A pantheist might see the universe imbued with divinity. That's the Hindu description of God, Brahman, & they also believe the universe is cyclic. In Hinduism, Leela refers to the idea that all of reality is the result of "divine play" by the divine absolute, Brahman, "sport" of Brahman. Fritjof Capra wrote "God becomes the world which, in the end, becomes again God."

A pantheist would say God lives every life & experiences any pleasure or suffering that occurs. So the Golden Rule would be about avoiding self-harm. Jesus said "love God" & "love thy neighbor as thyself." A pantheist would say it's the same commandment. A pantheist believes reality is God playing solitaire forever. Which is the idea in The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are by Alan Watts. See the 2009 story "The Egg" by Andy Weir. I can see how such an idea would bother some people, considering how much suffering & death occurs on Earth, but births are only possible due to procreation.

If there is no point at all, why don't you smash your hand with hammer? Because you don't really believe that. You're just repeating Dan Harmon (who might have Aspergers, & people on the autism spectrum are less likely to believe in God).

To a pantheist, the "point" is God playing hide-and-seek with Itself forever, in God's single-player role-playing game.

Experience ego death on psychedelic drugs & verify that "you" are your ego.

Alan Watts said "We do not 'come into' this world; we come out of it, as leaves from a tree. As the ocean 'waves' the universe 'peoples.' Every individual is an expression of the whole realm of nature, a unique action of the total universe. This fact is rarely, if ever, experienced by most individuals. Even those who know it to be true in theory do not sense or feel it, but continue to be aware of themselves as isolated 'egos' inside bags of skin."

edit: typos

I was raised Jewish with all the schooling but never believed in a god. TzniusNotMyNameOh writes good questions to ask yourself. This year I refused to even be seated at the seder table (in the past I sat but didn't participate) because the entire Haggadah is just praising a god for killing other people. If you reread the stories of Lot and Dinah, they are also just as disgusting. And ask Orthodox about what they believe was the reason for god not intervening in the Holocaust- because he is too great for us to understand his reasons.

Some other books to check out:

God Is Not Great: How religion poisons everything by Christopher Hitchens

Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of my Hasidic Roots by Deborah Feldman

The Year of Living Biblically by AJ Jacobs

Unchosen: The Hidden Lives of Hasidic Rebels

interview with Nathan Englander

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

http://www.theatheistrabbi.com/

http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/

http://i.imgur.com/YWUig.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/7UdCA.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/rNOET.jpg

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/411550/its-raining-frogs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=6axdZAxyt2g&feature=endscreen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5JtxrR6msg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E67ommy95-o&feature=related

http://vimeo.com/25149893