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.

@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.

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.

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

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

rmfr