[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 958 KB, 2184x3064, god.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3906738 No.3906738 [Reply] [Original]

What are some good books arguing for atheism or criticizing the arguments for god?

I see the "New Atheist" books ridiculed here all the time but I'm wondering if there are some good books on the subject.

>> No.3906752

>arguing for atheism or criticizing the arguments for god
common sense

But seriously, Demon-Haunted World was a great read when I was a teenager. Helped get rid of some trash in my head.

>> No.3906751

Come up with your own goddamn arguments, dumbass. You'll be no different than the New Atheists if you steal some other guy's arguments.

Think for yourself.

Captcha: flofHea omnipotence

>> No.3906768

>>3906751
You must hate philosophy

>>3906752
>Demon-Haunted World

I've already read that. It was okay, I'm looking for something not as entry level and more specific towards religion.

>> No.3906779

>>3906768
>You must hate philosophy
Yes, indeed - suggesting some casualfag to come up with his own original arguments is a clear implication of me hating philosophy.

Religion and the New Atheism movement has no significant substance of any worthwhile philosophy.

It's garbage.

>> No.3906792

>>3906768
Also, how much of a paltry fucking faggot do you have to be in order to intentionally uncapitalize 'god?'

>> No.3906818 [DELETED] 

bump

>> No.3907314

bump

>> No.3907316

>>3906792
>paltry fucking faggot
lol'd

>> No.3907320

>New Atheism

Detestable; not as much as Atheism+, however.

>> No.3907322

"Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion" by Brian Davies.

Talks about every argument for and against God while criticizing and explaining them.
Can be dry in certain parts but you'll learn a tonne.

>> No.3907323

>>3907322
I should mention it doesn't specifically talk about Atheism, rather the entirety of religion.

Plus can all y'all niggas post books instead of shittalking and bumping a thread you dislike.

>> No.3907325
File: 107 KB, 380x500, Saint-clement-of-alexandria.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3907325

>>3906738
there are no new heresies

>> No.3907331

>>3907322
>>3907323

Thanks man, pretty much just what I was looking for!

>> No.3907338

The fact that people get most worked up about their religious beliefs is proof its the most BS thing ever to discuss. Obviously not up to acceptable standards to at this point in our existence

>> No.3907340
File: 22 KB, 335x353, 1360859754985.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3907340

Dictionnaire philosophique

>> No.3907349

>>3906779
>religion has no significant substance of any worthwhile philosophy
well we sure are edgy and stupid today, huh? myth, the infinite, and how we interact with the two sure are useless subjects.

>> No.3907373

>>3907325
dood wut is up w/ his BRANE

>> No.3907405
File: 27 KB, 320x317, Foreseen, is forearmed!.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3907405

>>3907338
No, rather it says that religion is a very contentious issue which effects everyone's belief and function within an "ultimate" reality. It only shows the worsening (and depressing) view the average laymen has to work with when faced with the ever mounting evidence that everything is absurd.

Back on topic, OP have a look at:
John Hick's "The Existence of God"
Peter Vardy's "The Puzzle of Evil",
>>3907322
OP should also have a look at writers who used the same book title, such as Michael Murray and Michael Rea. They help to update Davies' Introduction which is 'on the go' for a number of years.

Oh! And if you want yet ANOTHER introduction look up Linda Trinkhaus Zagzebski's "Philosophy of religion: an historical introduction"

>> No.3907413

Honestly, with an issue such as this, the best thing to do is to study theological arguments from a Christian/religious perspective, and then try to find logical flaws in them. Most atheists (not Richard Dawkins) gained their arguments through a like process.