Definitive Books

39 posts / 0 new
Last post
catholicray's picture
Definitive Books

If you could only choose one, which book would you suggest to debunk theism?

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

R F's picture
Dr. Elaine Pagels is the

Dr. Elaine Pagels is the Professor of Religion at Princeton Divinity. Her most recent book is titled Why Religion.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
I have three: The bible, and

I have three: The bible, and the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon. Just read them, they debunk themselves.

catholicray's picture
@Old man shouts

@Old man shouts

Oh jeesh LOL!

Nyarlathotep's picture
It's no accident that the

It's no accident that the Catholic church forbade the ownership of the bible in English/Romance languages.

catholicray's picture
@Nyarlathotep

@Nyarlathotep

By all means share your conspiracy but I’m not biting. They had an index of banned books as well at one point.

Certainly it wasn’t the best decision but it’s not dogma so I’m not too worried about it. If you want to debunk my Church you’ll need to debunk a single dogma. Otherwise you’re debunking the folly of men which I am well aware of.

Maybe you could recommend a book =)

Nyarlathotep's picture
catholicray - Maybe you could

catholicray - Maybe you could recommend a book =)

Oh I agree with Old man shouts: the best book for casting doubt on a religion is the book/writings associated with the religion itself. In the case of Christianity, it is the bible.

arakish's picture
Agree. As Isaac Asimov once

Agree. As Isaac Asimov once said, "Properly read, the Bible is the greatest tool for atheism." Same applies to ALL religious texts. Additionaly, Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.

rmfr

EDIT: inserted omitted word

Sapporo's picture
A book isn't needed to debunk

A book isn't needed to debunk theism. Theism is false until demonstrated otherwise.

David Killens's picture
Theism is a claim, it must

Theism is a claim, it must bear the burden of proof. As Sapporo stated, it is not about debunking by atheists, it first must be proven by theists.

catholicray's picture
@David Killens

@David Killens

You know this burden thing ain’t so bad. I’ve been bearing it for some time now. Oh and they have cookies.

David Killens's picture
Cookies? Puleeeze, please

Cookies? Puleeeze, please tell me they are chocolate chip cookies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqL7jyrXhLs

catholicray's picture
@David Killens They are!!

@David Killens

They are!!

MarylinC's picture
Exactly!

Exactly!

The very word, theism, derives from the word 'theory'.

In other words it was the best guess of a bunch of tribes people who had thousands of years less knowledge than we have now, to try explain stuff they didn't understand.

Sheldon's picture
Sapporo "A book isn't needed

Sapporo "A book isn't needed to debunk theism. Theism is false until demonstrated otherwise."

As usual Sapporo cuts right to the fact of the matter. I concur...

Cognostic's picture
Just to fuck with the theists

Just to fuck with the theists of the world...... What you do is you go up on a volcanic mountain for a few days, catch a few rays, eat some wild berries and spend your nights counting the stars. Then you come down with a book of Mother Goose Nursery rhymes. You tell the idiots that God gave them to you and the meaning of the rhymes are subjective.

2000 years later the morons will be quoting Mother Goose as if it had some sort of mystical meaning.

Diotrephes's picture
catholicray,

catholicray,

"If you could only choose one, which book would you suggest to debunk theism?"

That is a silly question and an appeal to authority. The question suggests that someone knows more than I do about religious delusions.

Why do people believe in religious delusions that unknown ancient people pulled out of their butts? The short answer is because they are stupid and superstitious twits but they will never admit to it.

Sheldon's picture
"The short answer is because

"The short answer is because they are *>being<* stupid and superstitious twits but they will never admit to it."

I agree, but we need not imply it's not choice, there is a cure, and large bodies of research testing huge demographics spanning years of research shows this, it's education. As education increases in any demographic the percentage of theists reduces in direct proportion.

The cure is out there...

catholicray's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

How in the hell does an I am statement not imply *>being<* for the love of God not existing do explain.

This is why I’m skeptical of skeptics.

catholicray's picture
@Diotrephes

@Diotrephes

I am stupid and a superstitious twit.
Now go sit in the corner for telling lies.

Diotrephes's picture
catholicray,

catholicray,

"I am stupid and a superstitious twit."

Yes, that has always been a problem for many people throughout the ages.

Acts 17:22 (GNV) = "22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ street, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious."

2 Thessalonians 2:11 (NKJV) = "11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,"

Nyarlathotep's picture
catholicray - I am stupid and

catholicray - I am stupid and a superstitious twit.

We'll I'd certainly agree with the superstitious part; otherwise don't be so hard on yourself.

arakish's picture
@ catholicray

@ catholicray

What lies? I see no lies. Just simple statements.

rmfr

Calilasseia's picture
@catholicray

@catholicray

As at least one other person here has already observed, you have it backwards.

Theism contains assertions about the world, which require evidential support. Without said evidential support, said assertions are inherently discardable, in accordance with the proper rules of discourse, as understood in every properly constituted rigorous academic discipline. There is need to "debunk" unsupported assertions: all that is needed, is to observe the failure of those presenting said assertions to support them.

Indeed, "debunking" is only genuinely applicable to claims that are demonstrably false, yet presented as if they were true. Such as, for example, the creationist claim that there is no evidence for evolution, which is completely and utterly destroyed by the existence of at least 1½ million peer reviewed scientific papers documenting the evidence for evolution in exquisite detail, including direct empirical tests of evolutionary postulates.

An unsupported assertion, by definition, has the status "truth value unknown", and therefore, by definition, there is nothing to "debunk". There is merely something that may safely be discarded, until a proper test of the assertion is conducted, whereupon the epistemological deficit is remedied. If said test results in the assertion being false, then all that is needed to debunk any claim that the assertion is true, is to point to the results of said test.

The above exposition should be telling you why those of us who exercise diligence in such matters, do not assert "there is no god". Instead, we recognise that in the most general sense, the assertion that a god-type entity does exist remains an unsupported assertion, and may therefore simply be discarded until data informing us otherwise materialises. What those of us who exercise diligence do state with good reason, however, is that mythologies are incompetent to inform us on the matter. Not least because they have a habit of containing testable assertions, that upon being tested, are found to be wrong. For example, the entire Genesis cosmogony in chapter 1 is completely at variance with known scientific data, and other chapters therein contain other assertions that are also know to be wrong, when recourse to known scientific data is made.

Sheldon's picture
"If you could only choose one

"If you could only choose one, which book would you suggest to debunk theism?"

The bible or the koran, no contest.

Sapporo's picture
While I think it is nonsense

While I think it is nonsense to talk of books that "debunk" theism, for the various reasons mentioned in this thread, I think you could read: books of a general nature that cover theologies & gods through various cultures over time (because then you could assess the extent to which your own beliefs are a human construct and not particularly exceptional); books that cover the origins of your particular religion (which are often of a murky and unseemly nature); books that cover the later history of your religion (and thus, the extent to which dogma has been engineered to suit the ends of ideologues); books that explore the moral codes of your religion (I use the word 'moral' in a general sense, rather than to mean I think them moral); and possibly also books that cover philosophies such as secular humanism.

In Spirit's picture
Catholicray

Catholicray

Perhaps you might have better answers if you asked atheists to recommend one atheist book for theists. Reading between the lines, I think that is what you were aiming for.

Sheldon's picture
To be honest you'd be hard

To be honest you'd be hard pressed to do better than the bible or the koran. Books that so often contradict known scientific facts, and outrage reason are so demonstrably not derived from omniscience, that belief is impossible for any remotely rational person.

How you read something is at least as important as what you read, reading the bible or the koran with an open mind can only lead to disbelief. That's why both religions place so much value on faith and submission, without that bias belief becomes impossible.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: OP (Before reading any

Re: OP (Before reading any other responses.)

"Mother Goose and Grimm". Hey, fight fire with fire.

(Now to go see what others have said.)

arakish's picture
If you could only choose one,

If you could only choose one, which book would you suggest to debunk theism?

Well, it ain't a book. A magazine. Penthouse.

rmfr

catholicray's picture
@Everyone

@Everyone

Thank you for the input. I see I misworded my question. In Spirit helped a lot here.

What’s one good book you’d recommend to me? Can I have that answer as well.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.