Seriously though, what would be a good selection for a “atheist/rationalist/skeptic/secular” “canon” of books ? Please no Dawkins tier pop atheism crap. Like, Humme/Darwin/Lucretius tier stuff.
>>12362510Also maybe William James
whatever they scribble on the sides of funko pop packaging
You should be well versed in biology, chemistry and physics on the basics, also focuses on health sciences and neuroscience. Anthropology wouldn’t be bad either. Enough knowledge contained in just the basics of those fields to construct an entire alternative worldview to the bible.
>>12362510mathematics, statistics, physics, biology, psychology , economics, history, archeology.if you know these things and are honest then you'd realise that there's no rational reason to believe in folktales and myths and superstition, i.e. traditional religions incl abrahamic religions.
>>12363252>if you’re honest That’s the problem buddy, many could look at cosmological evidence and just go “Oh its just how Jew Sky Daddy works !” and I wouldn’t have a easy rebuttal.I wanted to know about Logic fields that totally bitch slap Intelligent Design exposing the biases in human cognition that make people think out universe is special or some shit.
>>12363277>That’s the problem buddy, many could look at cosmological evidence and just go “Oh its just how Jew Sky Daddy works !” and I wouldn’t have a easy rebuttalAnd that is how they argue, especially on /his/. Look at the recent thread about hell where they either tried to force people to assume the Bible is correct or simply shouted “Muh god says so it’s true”.
>>12363118Atheism is not a scientific opinion though, so you could be versed in all those things and still be a religious person
>>12363252>if you were honest you would agree with meuh-huhany other opinions you have that i should agree with? i just wanna be an honest person bro
>>12363296Could? Yes. I mean, retards to this day still argue about carbon-14 dating because it invalidates young earth creationism.
Stephen J Gould
>>12363311yeah but YEC is absurd and Kent is a hack, but yes you could do that i guess...but not all Christians are YEC there are plenty OEC as well
>>12363311god made the carbon disintegrate faster to test our faith
>>12363330You’re not wrong. I suppose one could present the archeological evidence supporting the fact that Hebrews were polytheistic and only relatively recently did they focus on El/YWHW >>12363332Anon please, I know you’re being sarcastic but I’ve heard people unironically say that
>>12363379>You’re not wrong. I suppose one could present the archeological evidence supporting the fact that Hebrews were polytheistic and only relatively recently did they focus on El/YWHWI always find it odd that people bring this up. The Bible itself literally states that on multiple occasions the Hebrews were given to idolatry and sinned against their God by worshipping idols.
>>12363296You would have to reach very hard. Scientists are far less religious than the general population.
>>12363417Which is the standard counter argument, yes. Though it is rather in descriptive of historic reality
>>12363277Your religion only lasted 12 years. One should never worship failure.
>>12363473I’m glad you agree, since christfaggotry is dying in every nation that matters.
>>12363478>only the countries with declining brithrates matter!!!
>>12363478Yes, it’s dying in a dying continent. It’s literally doing fine everywhere else.
>>12363491Correct.>>12363501And the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Have fun with all the sub-saharans though.
>>12363428>Scientists are far less religious than the general population.They're also more intelligent and richer than the rest of the population. You already know about the studies correlating intelligence and wealth with atheism.But anyway, most scientists don't become atheists after they become scientists. Most scientists are already atheist before they recieve their training. In other words they are interpreting their data in the lens of their belief in atheism, they are not going into the scientific field and having their religious beliefs debunked. They are just looking at data and fitting into their materialist model for the most part.
>>12363505Christianity is growing in plenty of places other than sub-sahran Africa. Like China for example.
>>12363517Such an improvement, anon
>>12363523I mean all you hear about nowadays in how scared Americans are now that China is becoming an economic superpower, with huge military and all this. So yeah Christianity growing there is kind of a big deal.
>>12363510good point anon. Also when most people say "scientists are atheists" they're mostly looking at America or very secular countries where religion is in decline.I'm sure there would be a lot more religious scientists in countries where religion is still an important part of daily life.
>>12362510> Athiesim> Good books There are none.
>>12363118It really doesn't.The world in which we live in is very orderly, the more you understand it's laws, the more you realize that it was finely tuned for our existence.
>>12363599Yes. That is true. I am just saying it's more compliated than scinece = atheism. People that are richer and smarter will always be less religious, because people who are richer and smarter want to be their own god. Dumber people generally have less of a problem with submitting to authority, smart people are generally leading dumb people, so smart people just figure they don't need a god and that they can just do everything themselves.
>>12362510The Poddington Peas was a pretty great series of books that never explicitly state there is a God. The existence of a sentient society of peas could be argued to be proof that no god exists in that universe.
>>12363510>Most scientists are already atheist before they recieve their training.I’ve seen you say this before and you’ve never given proof of it. Not that it really matters anyway. If you’re smart enough to be a scientist…
>>12363707That's easy anon, just give me a moment and I will retrieve the data for you.
>>12363546Only the irrelevant backwoods shitholes of China are Christianizing, the state and wealthy areas are remaining secular. Basically Christianity can only survive in 3rd world rural areas where people are so poor and desperate that they turn to the church because it’s the only social institution that pretends to care about them. Any where that’s part of the developed world secularizes and loses its religion the moment people are no longer starving and desperate.
>>12363707https://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_are_scientists_atheists.htmlI found it for you anon.>It is true that scientists believe less in the existence of God than the general population of the United States. However, the recent study by Ecklund, and Scheitle reveals that the most important factors in belief were related to upbringing and family status, and not area of expertise. The fact that social scientists as well as those in the natural sciences expressed nearly the same disbelief in God suggests that rejection of God's existence is not a result of knowledge in any particular area of expertise. It is likely that those who have rejected religious morality (i.e., those who were cohabiting) wanted to justify their behavior by saying that there was very little truth in any religion.In other words, people who are sex perverts are more likely to say that religion is not true, no surprise there.>"Instead, particular demographic factors, such as age, marital status, and presence of children in the household, seem to explain some of the religious differences among academic scientists... Most important, respondents who were raised in religious homes, especially those raised in homes where religion was important are most likely to be religious at present."Which is what anon and I were discussing above.I recommend looking for the original study by Ecklund and Scheitle if you want a less biased source, since I am linking you directly to an apologist website. But it's your life, in any case here are the facts.
>>12363741>Basically Christianity can only survive in 3rd world rural areas where people are so poor and desperate that they turn to the church because it’s the only social institution that pretends to care about themWell it's certainly the case that atheists have no reason to care about other human beings. You don't really hear about secular humanists going overseas to dig wells, that is a specifically Christian behavior, you are correct.>Any where that’s part of the developed world secularizes and loses its religion the moment people are no longer starving and desperate.Deuteronomy 8"[A]nd when your herds and flocks grow large and your silver and gold increase and all you have is multiplied, then your heart will become proud and you will forget the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."Yes, God has told me this as well. I know that people who have more stuff hate God more. Me myself, I was raised as an atheist, my parents were atheist and I had nice things, I hated God. I understand how it is, and God has told us already many hundreds of years ago, that people who are doing well in a worldly sense will forget about him.So you are not telling me anything that I do not already know.
>>12363746>is likely that those who have rejected religious morality (i.e., those who were cohabiting) wanted to justify their behavior by saying that there was very little truth in any religion.An unjustified leap of faith not present in the data. Also stop posting animals to make your garbage posts more palatable.
>>12363763>Well it's certainly the case that atheists have no reason to care about other human beings.Wrong. Christians talk the talk but they are actually deceitful snakes in the grass. That's why the more secular and irreligious a place is, like Sweden or Japan, the higher its living standards. This is mostly because their population is kept educated and healthy by the state, so the population stay productives and elect good politicians. The more religious, low IQ nations have corruption where the state is turned into a predator that screws over its population just to keep them in a state of artificial impoverishment that forces them to go crawling back to church just to put food on their child's plate, and perpetuates cycles of violence and expropriation just to keep the money flowing into the pockets of religious grifters. Along the way, Christians utterly destroy all traces of traditional culture and "whitewashes" them in order to more easily control the population by divorcing it from its past
>>12363787>Also stop posting animals to make your garbage posts more palatable.Never.>complaining about me posting cute /an/imalsYou are the opposite of a fun person>An unjustified leap of faith not present in the dataHow? Do you really think that people who reject morality are going to say that religion is true? That's the opposite of a logical conclusion.If someone says that there's nothing wrong with being a pervert, they are going to be less likely to be religious. Do you want me to find data to support this claim? Because I definately can and it would be very easy for me to do so.
>>12363798>How? Do you really think that people who reject morality are going to say that religion is true? That's the opposite of a logical conclusion.Just completely loaded questions and sophistry that you post with animal pics.You will never be an honest person, you will never be like Jesus.
>>12363795>Along the way, Christians utterly destroy all traces of traditional cultureYes, you're right anon. That's why central America was an absolute paradise before the Spaniards came there and Christianized them. They were better off before they had modern medicine and when they were sacrificing people to pagan gods.>That's why the more secular and irreligious a place is, like Sweden or Japan, the higher its living standards.Ah yes, I forgot. The richest countries on the planet, like UAE and Kuwait. Those places that literally have Shari'ah law and are majority Muslim, but also have even higher living standards than the countries you mention? Yes, totally secular.But anyway those countries, which you refused to name or be specific about. The people are religious because they are impoverished and abused by the government, they aren't impoverished and abused by the government because they are religious. You are basically reversing the sequence of events.
>>12363798>HowBecause the data show that religious vs. non-religious upbringing plays a factor, not that it’s the primary determinant. Also the hard sciences are over 10% less religious, to act like a 10% disparity is nothing is wildly unscientific. It’s far beyond a significant difference.
>>12363804Your complete lack of an argument is a death knell. That is fine, I cannot expect you to argue rationally because your religious belief is predicated purely upon emotion, not reason.
>>12363816Your data do not support your hypothesis. It’s that simple.
>>12363813>However, the recent study by Ecklund, and Scheitle reveals that the most important factors in belief were related to upbringing and family status, and not area of expertise.If you disagree with this assessment, present an argument against it and I will review it.>Also the hard sciences are over 10% less religious,Did you even read the page?The difference overall was 6.4%. That's statistically significant, but only barely so. It is entirely fair to say that it's pretty much the same.
>>12363812>hat's why central America was an absolute paradise before the Spaniards came there and Christianized them.We'll never know, because by the time that the Spaniards were done with them, 90% of the population was dead, and almost their entire culture had been cancelled and destroyed by religious zealots trying to control them in order to suck more gold out of them.>The richest countries on the planet, like UAE and Kuwait.but also have even higher living standards than the countries you mention? Yes, totally secular.Lieshttps://jobzey.com/highest-quality-of-life-in-202/#:~:text=1%20Denmark%20%E2%80%93%20with%20a%20standard%20of%20living,of%20living%20of%20188.94%20points.%20More%20items...%20
>>12363818You have failed to demonsrate it, and when I challenged you you just personally insulted me and pretended that you won some argument. Okay, that is fine, but this will be my final reply to you regarding this matter.
>>12363825>It is entirely fair to say that it's pretty much the same.Only if you’re ignoring the scientific standard for different enough to be meaningful, which you are. Because you’re biased. Correlation doesn’t equal causation by the way. I’m sure you’re assblasted about that but its the basics of stats and data analysis. Something you’re CLEARLY not familiar with.
>>12363828Anon, it's more like by the time the Spaniards GOT to them they were 90% dead.>LiesI'll freely concede my point about quality of life because that's a nebulous term that is not really useful to begin with. I will flatly say, again, that the richest countries in the world are NOT majority atheist in any sense.Plenty of nice places are not atheist.But my point all along is again that atheists have no reason to care about other human beings.Your response to this was literally to say "But look how much they only care about their own countries!" like that was the opposite of a counterargument.All you have done is told me that atheists are self centered and that they want to horde wealth to themselves to increase their own standard of living.Yes anon. That was EXACTLY what I was saying.
>>12363829>You have failed to demonsrate it,>shows a statistically significant deviation between soft and hard sciences by even the loosest p > 0.5 standard>claims it’s no difference Suckstart a shotgun private Pyle.
>>12363844The standard in statistics is 5%. The difference is 6.4%. Meaning...what anon? It's a statistically significant deviation, technically speaking. I never said it wasn't. I just said it's still pretty close, and it is.>correlation doesn't equal causationAgain, who are you arguing with? I never said that it did.
>>12363118Plenty of relatively high ranking scientists are religious, in particular mathematicians that are also scientists tend to be religious. It is also important to understand that most scientists in the world are also not born into a society that follows whatever American cult YEC belong to.
>>12363825Anyone should be fully open to the fact that people trained in sociology, physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology in 2011 are going to be more likely to doubt the existence of gods than the average person. At this point I’m genuinely curious if you even know what’s going on right now.
>>12363865Scientists tend to be significantly less religious than the general pop, often dramatically so. Learning about how reality works and/or being intelligent enough to be able to become a scientist nosedives the likelihood that you buy the existence of religious gods.
>>12363868What does that have to do with what we are discussing? Did you wander into the thread just now? Because you seem to have no idea what I am arguing about.Go read the thread and then return. If you still have an argument, present it at that time.
>>12363876I’m wondering why you think anyone was saying psychologists and sociologists aren’t going to be less religious than the gen pop in a similar way to physicists chemists and biologists. It’s all study of reality and people, which is going to contribute to a lack of belief in religious gods, even if part of it is just the intelligence required to become a scientist,
>Lucretius>94 BCgive me a break
>>12362510>Seriously though, what would be a good selection for a “atheist/rationalist/skeptic/secular” “canon” of books ?Uh, just some textbooks about stuff I guess? I really don't know what you mean by that question those things really aren't fairth or religion. There's no interconnecting series of stories with messages or anything like that, they're just simply positions on matter of religion (not religious). Your question makes no sense.
>>12363887>I’m wondering why you think anyone was saying psychologists and sociologists aren’t going to be less religious than the gen popThat's the opposite of what I was saying. I see you still haven't bothered to read the thread. Go do that. You are wasting my time.
>>12363875Again, that generally depends on the timeframe and country.How most Americans conduct religion at this exact moment in time is indeed easily falsifiable, and if you conduct a survey in the US, particularly in WASP communities, your hypothesis might be confirmed, but if you were to conduct said survey in, for example, Japan, or India, you'd be surprised how many scientists go to shrines (partially because religious understanding is i.e what is religion is different across the world). In my own personal experience as a scientist living in a Catholic country, most scientists I know of tend to be at the very least "culturally Catholic", at most actually devoted. Separating the spiritual from the secular is a pretty basic skill.
>>12363900I see you’ve posted that both scientists in the hard sciences and soft sciences were pretty dramatically less religious than the gen pop in 2011 and hard scientists more than significantly so, especially physicists and biologists. Yeah, people who study reality and humans at a high level are less likely to believe in gods. What point are you exactly trying to make here?
>>12363910Oh please. The Japanese and Indian folk religions are more akin to thanksgiving and a secular pseudo-pagan Christmas tree not the same as you genuinely believing the Bible and becoming a missionary you wack ass pussy
>>12362510Xenophanes' fragmentsCicero - On the Nature of the GodsSextus Empiricus - Outlines of ScepticismHume - Dialogues Concerning Natural ReligionNietzsche's oeuvreAntony Flew - 'Theology and Falsification'JL Mackie - The Miracle of Theism
>>12363918Religion across the world, with some exceptions (the most notable one being the US) does not pretend to explain the physical world in the way science does, these spirits, God, gods, superstitions generally operate in a different "plane" than the physical, material world, and religions in most places are mostly concerned with things in this "plane". It's also why, in the widest-spread study I could find (only scientists in 8 countries surveyed), while in 6 cases scientists were less religious, in the other 2 countries they were more. furthermore, across all countries but France, scientists generally regarded science as religion as operating in seperate fields.To me, you scream of the American son of fundie parents that was forced to participate in the retardation that is American religion and you are now a smug little shit for joining the 97%~ of the world that does not participate in Evangelism or YEC.
>>12363949>science as religion Science and Religion
>>12363949Nah I was catholic it wasn’t hardcore and my parents probably took it less seriously than I. Anyway the other scientists and non-religious folks correctly assess that’s cope to try and legitimize imaginary nonsense. “Oh it’s not physical maaaan” Yeah, identical in character to imaginary things, wow. Really makes you think. Did you get kicked out of the military for being a right wing conservative extremist yet?
>>12363964I'm not religious myself, but I do feel there's plenty of things that are best explained by methods other than empiricism, for example Mathematics. I put spirituality in a similar sphere, it's not something you explain or are fulfilled by through le scientific method, you require of another of the many branches of human knowledge, and that is religion.If anything, I'd say the long road through academia and learning the perspectives of my peers made me a more tolerant person and more willing to not see science as "the queen" of knowledge.
>>12364002>I recommend looking for the original study by Ecklund and Scheitle if you want a less biased source, since I am linking you directly to an apologist website. But it's your life, in any case here are the facts.
>>12363517>>12363546China enforces state atheism, lol. Delusional.
>>12364107So much for your christian uprising.
>>12364118You do realize that Christianity started as a persecuted religion in ancient Rome, right?
>>12364139Ah yes, the religion of slaves and women
>>12364139The CCP is the final boss of persecution. Christcucks won't stand a chance.
Plagiarism of Biblical stories mainly.Its not a very interesting subject beyond "im totes gonna troll ortodox religious ppl so epic"
>>12364147You can joke but really the last thing people ever give up is their religion. Politics, comfort, even race, all those things are discarded first.Christianity started and grew as a religion under persecution, I speculate the same will happen in China. But we will see.
>>12364186They’ll be given the same treatment as the Muslims, I’m sure
>>12362510I feel like there isn't much atheist literature as there's no grand shit you need to read into to know about it.Assuming you're an atheist now, you get it. you're done. You can be free and not dedicate your life to a religion.
>>12362510American canon after the 60s is all degenerate Commie stuff you're looking for.
>>12362510Enjoy burning in hell you retard. Dumbfuck.
>>12362510I mean atheism in itself is simply the rejection of a proposition and doesn’t entail a set of doctrines of its own. So the associated literature consists primarily of critiques of theistic texts and arguments and isn’t otherwise very extensive.But if we broaden the scope to skepticism and/or naturalistic/materialistic/positivistic positions, we have guys like Democritus (as much as his positions have been faithfully preserved by other writers like Aristotle), Strato of Lampsacus and Epicurus, Lucretius (those two actually more in line with non-interventionist deism), the Charvaka school in ancient India (and to some extend most other nastika schools), antique Greek skepticism by Pyrrho and Sextus Empiricus etc...In the Middle Ages there is not much that I can think of (at least in Europe).In the 18th century you have Hume, a few of the French philosophe (La Mettrie, Diderot, d’Holbach, ) and Meslier, Hebert, Sade etc...In the 19th/early 20th century there are of course the “big four” critics (Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche and Freud) and some lesser known once like Vogel and Comte among others.In the 20th century you have positivists like Carnap or Ayers and analytic philosophers like Russell or Mackie who have prominently criticized theistic positions.
>>12366937You have sinned, I don't like sin!
>>12367637What sin I committed?
>>12363277In what fucking world were the nazis worshipping nature lmao