/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19833002]

Which are the best anti-atheist books?

[Anonymous No.19833011]

>>19833002
the bible

[Anonymous No.19833050]

>>19833002
My bank account book is empirical proof of the absence of a merciful god.

[Anonymous No.19833062]

>>19833002
Just read Leviticus and then ask yourself how many self-professed theists actually follow its rules.

[Anonymous No.19833121]

>>19833002
Actual answer since you're looking for it. Written by an atheist, too, but a smart one at that.
>>19833062
not really original

[Anonymous No.19833129]

>>19833002
That kid is probably way smarter than you.

[Anonymous No.19833136]

>>19833002
Pic related is probably what you're looking for

[Anonymous No.19833152]

>>19833002

[Anonymous No.19833164]

>>19833121
>not really original
Hilarious argument coming from a christcuck

[Anonymous No.19833165]

>>19833002
This is what you're looking for OP.

[Anonymous No.19833169]

>>19833050
>I have poor self-control so there is no God
Typical atheist "logic".

[Anonymous No.19833173]

>>19833164
t. Gaytheist

[Anonymous No.19833186]

>>19833062
>the Bible has rules you don't follow
>theism disproved
All atheism is just "fuck you dad", the ideology.

[Anonymous No.19833199]

>>19833186
>Christfags are liberal faggots who spam chuds as an argument
Not surprising.

[Anonymous No.19833202]

>>19833173
>dating a trans """woman"""
What little respect I had for this man has just evaporated.

[Anonymous No.19833217]

>>19833002
For something to show the rigurosity in theism, classical theological is the stuff: the Metaphysics, the Summa. For the dangers of anti theism read Houellebecq

[Anonymous No.19833282]

>>19833199
>post Chud
>anon seethes about Chud
>thus revealing he must be a reactionary
>very unlikely to be an atheist
>revealing himself as weak bait
All according to the keikaku

[Anonymous No.19833316]

>>19833136
>>19833186
>believe in a sky daddy who will take care of you if you obey him
>accuse others of daddy issues
Jesus was the only child of a single mother too. Hmmm.

[Anonymous No.19833335]

>>19833316
>God is repeatedly portrayed as being the father of all creation
>faggot shows an emotional opposition to the authority figures that tell him to believe in God
>Why do people think I have daddy issues?

[Anonymous No.19833367]

>>19833316
>Jesus, I told you to clean your room.
>I said I'll do it tomorrow!
>It's the sabbath tomorrow Jesus--clean your room NOW!
>You're not even my real dad!
Mary wasn't a single mother.

[Anonymous No.19833404]

>>19833164
The book I recommended was written by an atheist lol, it is perfectly possible to be an atheist and not be a tool. it's just not your case, I'm afraid

[Anonymous No.19833406]

Do you mean refuting materialism, or justifications for larping underage 'tradcaths' to buy more Knight's Templar merch?

Here's a list
>INB4 all of this is science
Atheism and the existence of God are science or empirical problems. Whether said God is good, Christian or what have you is another matter entirely.

>The Grand Biocentric Design
>Anything by Fred Alan Wolfe
>Anything by Rupert Sheldrake
>Superior Beings by Steven Bram
>Colin Wilson's Occult Trilogy
>The Omega Point by John Gribbin
>The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot
>Meister Eckhart
>Kierkegaard
>Road to Reality by Roger Penrose
>I and thou

As for the nature of said god.
>Christ the Magician and Secret Mark by Morton Smith
>Joseph's Bones
>Greek Gods Human Lives
>The Bicameral Mind
>Man in Revolt by Albert Camus
>Jung
>Anything by Keel
>Homo Deus by Yuval Harrari

[Anonymous No.19833418]

>>19833406
solid recs here

[Anonymous No.19833427]

>>19833335
>please tell me how to be a good boy daddy
>fuck you I won't do what you tell me
>implying these aren't different manifestations of daddy issues

[Anonymous No.19833444]

>>19833427
Based and Medieval Mystic pilled we must go beyond god as shaped by our minds to find God as God truly is.

[Anonymous No.19833477]

>>19833062
Why should modern christians follow leviticus?
>inb4 because it's in le book

[Kant Goblino No.19833493]

>>19833165
Blasphemy

[Anonymous No.19833504]

>>19833477
because it's in le book

[Anonymous No.19833505]

>>19833477
Yes, Holy Bible is literally the Word of God and if you ignore parts of it you are heretic, my christcuck friend

[Anonymous No.19833511]

>>19833504
well thank God the new covenant happened and we're not bound by 3.000 year old jewish civil / kosher laws

[Anonymous No.19833539]

>>19833511
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/right-books-in-old-testament/question17-new-testament-quote-old-testament.cfm

[Anonymous No.19833607]

>you are nothing before god
atheist mad
>you are nothing before le material realm
atheist happy

we live in society

[Anonymous No.19833625]

>>19833505
>Holy Bible is literally the Word of God
It really isn't, it's inspired by God and even then hermeneutics is required to distinguish between that which is essential/eternal and what isn't. Some of the stuff in Leviticus, for instance, was not even followed by all jews by the time it held validity.
No part is ignored just contextualized, by tradition. Even then, heretic according to whom exactly? Not by the Church, which is what matters
>>19833539
>posts a literal who

[Anonymous No.19833648]

>>19833316
You only think that because you're blinded by empiricism

[Anonymous No.19833652]

>>19833625
>Not by the Church, which is what matters

Why does the Church matter? And which Church? How do you know the Ethiopians or the Nestorians don't have it right? Unless of course Emperor Constantine truly was divine.

[Anonymous No.19833663]

Leibniz found god through reason, if you can't do the same there's no hope for you

[Anonymous No.19833701]

>>19833335
>repeatedly portrayed as
wow that's a lot of epistemological weight there buddy
>>19833367
Joseph's not the father. His real father's in heaven? And he's going to beat me up?

[Anonymous No.19833702]

>>19833652
>Why does the Church matter? And which Church? How do you know the Ethiopians or the Nestorians don't have it right? Unless of course Emperor Constantine truly was divine.
This is not a question fit for this board because I'd have to employ some heavy weight reductionism to answer it, but if a in-a-nutshell answer contents you: councils, miracles, apostolic succession

[Anonymous No.19833706]

>>19833648
I'd rather be "blinded by empiricism" than delusional

[Anonymous No.19833715]

>>19833702
>miracles
If I pull a rabbit out of a hat, you must bow to me as God's son on earth.

[Anonymous No.19833726]

>>19833715
Cute reply, I'll give you that

[Anonymous No.19833737]

>>19833702
>councils
Many of which were influenced by regional politics
>miracles
Supernatural Phenomena happens quite a bit outside the Church but that doesn't seem to make you a Theosophist, Hindu, Ufo Cultist, or Shamanic animist.
>apostolic succession
The apostles fought quite a bit judging by the fact various sects backed various guys as how the Eibonites preferred James or the Gnostics liked Thomas. All of which seemed to crop up in the areas they settled according to biblical canon. And if you take the book of John as 'the spiritual gospel' then it's heavily implied the beloved disciple is not Peter.

[Anonymous No.19833751]

>>19833002
There is a book whose name I cant recall that argued for religion based primarily on the concept of theophany. I know thats not much to go on but anyone have any idea which book that was

[Anonymous No.19833799]

>>19833737
>Many of which were influenced by regional politics
Correct, but not as influenced by politics as the Reformation or the Anglican church were; and the process dialetics made sure that the resulting conclusions were trustworthy.
>Supernatural Phenomena happens quite a bit outside the Church but that doesn't seem to make you a Theosophist, Hindu, Ufo Cultist, or Shamanic animist.
Not all supernatural phenomena is a miracle, and question at stake is an abundance of miracles.
>The apostles fought etc etc
This segment of your reply suggests that you do not seem to really what "apostolic succession" refers to

[Anonymous No.19833803]

>>19833751
The Sacred and Profane, by Mircea Eliade?
>>19833799
to really know.* oh well.

[Anonymous No.19833828]

>>19833799
>Not all supernatural phenomena is a miracle, and question at stake is an abundance of miracles.
Uh huh. So what's the criteria for one to be a miracle instead of merely supernatural, that you believe it?

[Anonymous No.19833861]

>>19833799
>This segment of your reply suggests that you do not seem to really what "apostolic succession" refers to
No, I'm merely saying that other groups also have a right to it beyond Nicene Christianity.

>>19833828
>Uh huh. So what's the criteria for one to be a miracle instead of merely supernatural, that you believe it?
That's the real question. I suppose one could say 'oh that's just satan/unexplained natural phenomena yet how can you safely say yours is not just that or Iblis/Yaldaboath/or Mara?

[Anonymous No.19833875]

>>19833505
Leviticus is an ancient jewish lawbook, they are human laws and customs from an ancient society, not the universal moral law. you'd know that if you actually read it.

[Anonymous No.19833911]

>>19833875
>Leviticus is an ancient jewish lawbook, they are human laws and customs from an ancient society, not the universal moral law. you'd know that if you actually read it.
What about Deuteronomy? It'd be weird if the entire basis of a covenant with a deity is entirely created by human hands. If that is the case why out of all the Monotheists did God use them as his instruments? Especially because until Exodus the entire Genesis cycle after Abraham leads up to the law. So for the Old Testament to be valid at all, and the parts that carry over to the New then all of it has to be divinely or at least angelically inspired. Of course that can be worked around and you can switch it out for Socrates and Plato and solely keep it around for cultural context of Jesus's times, but I doubt you'd do that.

[Anonymous No.19833948]

>>19833169
no you idiot hes actually very rich & also very evil

[Anonymous No.19833963]

>>19833911
Also in Matthew:23 Jesus tells his disciples to follow the Torah, including the Oral Torah. While this is before his death and the possible New Covenant, it still seems as if he strongly recommends this behavior even if it is not completely necessary for Salvation.

[Anonymous No.19834085]

>>19833861
>how can you safely say yours is not just that
I'm not the one using miracles to determine truth and falsehood

[Anonymous No.19834142]

>>19833828
Well, for starters, I don't think any of us would consider a demonic possession, if there's such a thing, a miracle.

[Anonymous No.19834152]

>>19834142
Demonic possession if real is more like making people depressed or schizo than the hollywood version

[Anonymous No.19834219]

>>19834152
>Demonic possession if real is more like making people depressed or schizo than the hollywood version

Nah the Exorcist, or at least the novel is pretty accurate. Peter Blatty was catholic and might have even been a Jesuit. There's also a lot of anthropological literature and church annals on the subject.

[Anonymous No.19834237]

>>19833737
>>19833861
Sorry for poking in a little late into the party, but I'd argue that it's less about having those elements individually than it is having them simultaneously. Also, I act out what I believe in and it works for me.
>>19834142
were this a Plato dialogue, Socrates would have eaten you alive for using that example

[Anonymous No.19834241]

>>19834219
The exorcist is way over the top. A schizo person can sort of roll around and say satanic sounding stuff but the exorcist has blatantly magic stuff happening all over the place and the girl is clearly not there at all anymore, it's an entirely different person speaking

[Anonymous No.19834252]

>>19834142
So if it's demon you believe you have a contract with, such as Yahweh, then it is a miracle?

[Anonymous No.19834296]

>>19834241
>The exorcist is way over the top. A schizo person can sort of roll around and say satanic sounding stuff but the exorcist has blatantly magic stuff happening all over the place and the girl is clearly not there at all anymore, it's an entirely different person speaking
That's what an exorcism is my dude, most Exorcists in the first world actually have to send their clients to a Psychiatrist first to make sure they aren't Schizos first.

[Anonymous No.19834325]

>>19834296
What do you think about pic related

[Anonymous No.19834476]

>>19833002
There aren't. God is presupposed, which is fine. People have their presuppositions. They're needed to build any functional epistemic system.

[Anonymous No.19834571]

>>19833444
This. pbuh.

[Anonymous No.19835750]

>>19833002
The Pali canon, ignore anything christian.

[Anonymous No.19835757]

Honestly, there could be more books written that delve into modern religious debate.

I've read a lot of modern philosophy journal articles (specifically philosophy of religion), and some good debates are : Fine-Tuning (I think Stanford has an article on it), Hard Problem of Consciousness (Soul Debate), Abiogenesis.

There's also old school stuff like Cosmological Argument and First Cause Argument.

Oh, a good argument I like is human evolution. 30% of Americans think evolution was Divinely Guided. The best argument from that is that the morphological differences between us and our ancestors or any other animal are unique. No other animal has distinct faces exactly like humans do.

Anyway, someone should compile all the modern debates and roll them into a book.

[Anonymous No.19835781]

>>19833002
Theology. Atheists pride themselves in not knowing theology, yet they get crushed in debates against theologians all the time.

[Anonymous No.19835787]

>>19835750

based

[Anonymous No.19835801]

>>19833002
Read the Church Fathers (PBUT)

[Anonymous No.19835819]

>A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23921675/

>Confirming previous conclusions, the new analysis showed that the correlation between intelligence and religious beliefs in college and noncollege samples ranged from -.20 to -.23.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31610740/

>The negative association between cognitive intelligence (CI) and religiosity has been widely studied and is now well documented.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31748923/

>Recent research has indicated a negative relation between the propensity for analytic reasoning and religious beliefs and practices.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23784742/

>Participants more willing to engage in analytic reasoning were less likely to endorse supernatural beliefs. Further, an association between analytic cognitive style and religious engagement was mediated by religious beliefs, suggesting that an analytic cognitive style negatively affects religious engagement via lower acceptance of conventional religious beliefs.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22481051/

>Our results indicate that the association between analytic thinking and religious disbelief is not caused by a simple order effect. There is good evidence that atheists and agnostics are more reflective than religious believers.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27054566/

>What age or period of life is the most addicted to superstition? The weakest and most timid. What sex? The same answer must be given.
—David Hume, Natural History of Religion

>On this question, the pronouncements of highly learned men are so varied and so much at odds with each other that inevitably they strongly suggest that the explanation is human ignorance, and that the Academics have been wise to withhold assent on matters of such uncertainty; for what can be more degrading than rash judgement, and what can be so rash and unworthy of the serious and sustained attention of a philosopher, as either to hold a false opinion or to defend without hesitation propositions inadequately examined and grasped?
—Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, 1.1

Bros, there must be a reason God set it up this way… right??

[Anonymous No.19835827]

>>19833002

[Anonymous No.19835851]

>>19835819
What do the experts at Snopes think?

[Anonymous No.19835868]

>>19835819

26. To you who like hearing something inspirational about Buddhism

They say, “When I hear Sawaki talk, my faith cools down.” Now I’m going to really put their faith on ice: This sort of faith is nothing but superstition.
They say, “Sawaki’s talks don’t awaken any faith in me.” They don’t awaken any superstition, that’s all.

There’s nothing more funny than old women looking for “inspiration”. Everything for them is “inspirational” even if it’s only worth as much as pigeon shit. Anyway, this idea of inspiration is mistaken: isn’t it just personal inspiration they’re talking about? They’re only taking refuge in Buddha because they hope to get something out of it.

Whatever sutra you read, it’s always about devoting your body and life to the Way. Why is it that the whole world believes religion means praying to Buddha for good health and good business?

However much good they do, everything that humans do is bad. If you give, all day long you think, “I gave!” If you do religious practice, you think “I practiced, I practiced!” If you do something good, you never forget, “I did good, I did good!” Does this mean that we should do something bad instead? No, even when we do good, it’s bad. When we do something bad, it’s even worse.

If you do good, you start to work yourself up about everything bad you suddenly see in others. When you have done something bad, you’re quiet, because your own ass itches. People don’t only calculate when it’s a matter of money. In everything they do they try to bargain up or down. That’s because their body and mind haven’t dropped off. Only when body and mind have dropped off does this business not count any more. Dropping off body and mind means immeasurability, limitlessness.

“Do good, leave the bad.” There’s no doubt about that, but is it so clear what’s good and what’s bad? Good and bad go hand-in-hand.

Zazen is beyond good and evil. It’s not moral education. Zazen takes place where Communism and Capitalism finish.

[Anonymous No.19835883]

>>19833406
Thanks anon great list, capped

[Anonymous No.19836275]

>>19833706
That's being delusional

[Anonymous No.19836280]

>>19833963
You forgot the fact the apostles were NOT GENTILE.
Saint Paul of Tarsus is clear about the gentile not having to follow the law. Saint Paul was directly chosen by Christ and recognized by the other apostles.

[Anonymous No.19836293]

>>19833062
>>19833505
That's a pretty old heresy, you absolute plebeian. They were called the Nazarene and tried to force gentiles to follow the Law of Moses.
You are an absolute idiot and The Bible is clear about the Law and the Spirit of the Law.

[Anonymous No.19836305]

>>19833701
According to Revelations, yeah. You will discover the meaning of divine retribution.

[Anonymous No.19836314]

>>19836293
>keeps the old testament
>ignores everything it says to do
Why are christers like this? If there is a Yahweh, he couldn't be happy with you tossing out his covenant

[Anonymous No.19836319]

>>19836305
Angry scrawlings of weak people defeated on earth.

[Anonymous No.19836325]

>>19836314
>Ignores everything
Why do you keep making claims about a subject you clearly are ignorant about?
The 10 commandments is one of the most important moral cornerstones of Christianity with Jesus adding a new commandment, to love each other the way He loved us.
Saint Paul of Tarsus was clear about the Law and the Spirit of the Law but you in your arrogance ignore what was already said in favor of your arrogance.

[Anonymous No.19836328]

>>19836319
What is this even suppose to mean. The moment you are confronted directly, you hide behind cheap smartass replies.

[Anonymous No.19836330]

>>19836325
Why did Peter and/or the Holy Spirit kill Ananias and Saphira in Acts? Seems to have violated both the Commandments and the Golden Rule

[Anonymous No.19836335]

>>19836328
You threatened me with astral persecution and think I'm the one hiding behind cheap smartass replies? You are like a teenage girl who thinks she is a witch because she bought a tarot deck from Jeff Bezos.

[Anonymous No.19836340]

>>19833002
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Mere Christianity

[Anonymous No.19836343]

>>19836330
He lied to the Holy Spirit and the retribution was clear. God will not be fooled for retribution belongs to Him. You don't get to decide what God does and what He doesn't.
You speak with arrogance as usual.

[Anonymous No.19836345]

>>19833173
So that's why he's always harping on about trans this and trans that. What a fucking faggot.

[Anonymous No.19836347]

>>19836340
He asked for the best not the worst

[Anonymous No.19836351]

>>19836335
Threatening you? I just replied to your cheap reply of "what He is going to beat me up?"
You are an arrogant idiot that has to hide behind cheap rethoric and act like a smartass. There's no sincerity in you, there's only pride.

[Anonymous No.19836358]

>>19836343
>kill someone for not giving you all their money
So.... god is a communist?

[Anonymous No.19836360]

>>19836347
You can defeat atheism with the weakest of arguments and this will teach them humility. Frank Turek has humiliated countless atheists and C.S. Lewis mocks them relentlessly in the Chronicles of Narnia, revealing all who deny Christ as fools.

[Anonymous No.19836362]

>>19836351
>you're arrogant for disagreeing with me and my dogma
>you're proud for disagreeing with me and my dogma
Yes you do sound rather familiar with these vices

[Anonymous No.19836363]

>>19836358
>So is God All Mighty?
FTFY

[Anonymous No.19836365]

>>19836360
I think you’re the one who needs to learn humility anon. Remember that CS Lewis said that he does not ask anyone is not sincerely convinced by his arguments to accept Christianity. His arguments are not convincing. Ergo, those who do not accept them should not be mocked or chastised for that fact. Many learned Christians have despaired of the fact that the veracity of Christianity is difficult to demonstrate — Pascal and Kierkegaard spent their entire intellectual lives dealing with this fact

[Anonymous No.19836366]

>>19836362
>NO U
Not only you are an arrogant idiot, but also lack originality.
You are indeed familiar with the vices of arrogance and pride.

[Anonymous No.19836373]

>>19836365
You're the dwarf still denying Aslan while he roars in your face and you WILL burn in Hell for all eternity.

[Anonymous No.19836380]

>>19836366
In this moment, are you perhaps euphoric? It does seem the christers of today were the fedoras of yesterday. What contrarian you will posture as next, none can say, for if they did, you would rush to disagree with them

[Anonymous No.19836389]

>>19836373
Anon you must not earnestly care very much about people’s souls since you know this rhetoric drives people AWAY from Christianity and God. You are doing the opposite of what God wants. You are satisfying your own pride and wrath and disguising it in religious language

[Anonymous No.19836415]

>>19836389
Look, I get it. You think you're being clever as fuck but you're still going to Hell and you can't argue your way out of it, you can't place God in an intellectual checkmate Goronchev-style when Judgement Day comes.
I'm not here to convince anyone. I'm here to call you out in your unrighteousness and shame you.

[Anonymous No.19836423]

>>19836415
Not that anon but shame only works if you've internalized that system in the first place. Like, you're probably not ashamed of sneezing, but that was considered very rude in ancient asia minor. Likewise, nobody who has accepted the whole hell/sin/christian god thing is going to be ashamed.
Also, do yourself a favor and read Robert Koon or Alexander Pruss or Joshua Rasmussen. Frank Turek is garbage.

[Anonymous No.19836435]

>>19836415
I am also trying to shame you, for being a hypocrite. Both of us seem to be earnestly convinced we are correct. How can acting on what one believes to be true merit damnation?

[Anonymous No.19836445]

>>19833002
>Stephen Fry
>literal nonce