Recommended reading from an Atheist

[Celebrindal]

Current list of recommended books from myself and others in this thread.

• Charles Darwin - [The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online]
• Carl Sagan - [The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark]
  
• Daniel Dennett - [Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon] - [Freedom Evolves]
  
• Michael Shermer - [Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design] [How We Believe]
  
• Richard Dawkins - [The Selfish Gene] - [The Blind Watchmaker] - [Unweaving the Rainbow] - [A Devil's Chaplain] - [The God Delusion]
  
• Sam Harris - [Letter to a Christian Nation] - [The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason]
  
• V.S. Ramachandran - [Phantoms In The Brain]
  
• Theodore Schick - [How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age]

I would start with Carl Sagan's book, because it explains pseudoscience and how we really need to stay far away from it. I would go on to Dan Dennet, because he is the most light hearted out of all of them (he's a philosopher), but yet brings a very prominent view to look at.

One of my recent purchases was, The Quotable Atheist by Jack Huberman. Truthfully, I think he overly tries to be funny in everything he says, and falls short every time. Thank goodness he doesn't say much. The book is full of quotes, listed alphabetically by the author of them. Here are a couple of them:

Originally Posted by John Adams

The United States of America is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion"

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. . . . Erecting the 'wall of seperation between church and state, 'therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

[xilsharn]

This whole 'Intelligent Design' is simple alarmism from the media. Such an insignificant amount of people actually believe it nowadays (I'm talking the "earth is 3000 years old, dinosaurs co-existed with man" crowd) I can't believe intelligent atheists are spending any time boning up on how to refute it. No person worth conversing with believes in Intelligent Design.

Further, I'm not sure how an atheist or religious person can support any religious policy other than "Let every individual do whatever they want wherever they want however they want as long as 1). they receive no official government endorsement, 2). they are not infringing on anyone else's ability to practice their religious beliefs (or lack thereof -- freedom from exposure to religion is not a right) 3). they're not hurting anyone or otherwise infringing on inalienable rights.

Let people pray in public, at graduations, at football games, etc., all they want. Atheists don't have to take part. If it disgusts you it disgusts you. Stupid people disgust me but I don't make serious attempts to bone up on how the framers were all for banning stupid people from public places.

Basically my point is, and how this is germane to the topic at hand is that it seems an awful waste of time to bone up on "atheist thought." Atheists of all people should be champions of individual religious freedoms, not experts at why religion should be outlawed.

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by xilsharn

This whole 'Intelligent Design' is simple alarmism from the media. Such an insignificant amount of people actually believe it nowadays (I'm talking the "earth is 3000 years old, dinosaurs co-existed with man" crowd) I can't believe intelligent atheists are spending any time boning up on how to refute it. No person worth conversing with believes in Intelligent Design.

...

...

[Celebrindal]

When you teach pseudoscience, dogma and other ignorant foolery as fact, you are breeding stupidity into the next generation.

Then, when you interpret your holy texts into something that lets you strike and kill another person/country, meanwhile saying it's o.k. because you insist that "God" speaks through you... what do you have? What I see is the end of the fucking world. You may think that's extreme, but it surely is fucking possible.

Further, I'm not sure how an atheist or religious person can support any religious policy other than "Let every individual do whatever they want wherever they want however they want as long as 1). they receive no official government endorsement, 2). they are not infringing on anyone else's ability to practice their religious beliefs (or lack thereof -- freedom from exposure to religion is not a right) 3). they're not hurting anyone or otherwise infringing on inalienable rights

You may not be sure, but it definitely fucking happens. Look at abortion, stem-cell research, the teaching of safe sex. There is so much that I can say about the above topic, but I am refraining. We have a thread called Science vs. Religion. I'd rather use that as a means to further this topic.

Let's stick to the books, the points they make and criticism of said points. Not generalizations.

[xilsharn]

I wish I could view the Science vs. Religion thread, but unfortunately the firewall here (see location below my username) classifies Screenshots as "pornography". Heh. =(

[xilsharn]

Oh, and after reading a profile of Richard Dawkins in Wired a few months back (December issue?) I'm not convinced he's any less closed-minded or militant than the most zealous of religious fundamentalists. Even the Wired writer was taken aback.

[Celebrindal]

Okay then, I will post a few videos of the above authors from Youtube. Assuming that's not blocked by your firewall.

Audio interview of Richard Dawkins, talking about his latest book, The God Delusion.


Daniel Dennet on TED Talks


Michael Shermer: First one is about his criticism of John Edwards on ABC news


Here is more about intelligent design. I think Shermer is one of the only people that debates with those dingbats.
CNN debate


Kent Hovind vs. Michael Shermer


Sam Harris - debate between Harris and Reza Aslan


I apologize that some of these are long, but you aren't really well informed about any of these authors. I would like you to get a broader sense of what they talk about.

[xilsharn]

I didn't comment on anyone except Dawkins, who is pretty widely considered an unsavory zealot who does nothing but harm his cause, by even people who agree with his general concepts. Even if I could watch flash (which I can't... firewall again =X) I wouldn't, because atheist scholarship, like religious scholarship, doesn't interest me. It's two sides of the same coin.

edit: Doesn't interest me because I have no vested interest in making people see "my side" of the issue. I mean, really, where does the theology or atheology of others impact me? Practically nowhere. Stem cell research being stifled is the only real issue for me. Abortion's legal and I would hope my wife and I would teach our daughter about safe sex practices. Just like we plan to teach her about drug and alcohol use. I don't understand this human compulsion to force other people to think like we do.

[Dirus]

Originally Posted by Tea on tuesday

...

...

Pretty scary...

[Celebrindal]

Then why are you even in this thread? You want to pose the question, "where does the theology or "atheology" of others impact me?", well, considering that there are a majority of government officials that impose their religious doctrine on us and turn it into legislature, as well as a majority of voters who insist on imposing it, surely impacts all of us.

You read one "profile" of Dawkins and you think he is harming the Atheist's cause. He is a very intelligent man, who puts together a really good argument against a belief system that is intolerant to criticism or scrutiny. When you go up against people who usually go "la la la, can't hear you an-ti-christ la la la", or try to refute you with pseudoscience, I, personally, would become arrogant. You're basically arguing with retards, who with no matter of the amount of reason and empirical evidence you give them, they reject it without a single thought.

Look at where you are man... You are in Iraq (assuming you're military) because of theology impacting your fucking life.

[Phelps McManus]

Originally Posted by Celebrindal

When you teach pseudoscience, dogma and other ignorant foolery as fact, you are breeding stupidity into the next generation.

By that logic, how did society ever get to the point we are now? Wouldn't you agree that religious influence has declined over the centuries?

Also, to say that schools should only teach theories that follow the Scientific Method in science class is one thing. To say that people who doubt a theory you happen to agree with are stupid is another. It seems a bit intolerant and hypocritical.

Those polls unfairly polarize the issue. I do not consider myself a religious person (but not specifically an atheist), but I don't believe Natural Selection accounts for taking us all the way from amino acids to the modern human. Where do people who don't believe in the Bible, but may be tolerant of the idea of a higher power influencing the beginning stages of the universe (Big Bang, Intelligent Design from the amino acid era of life, but evolution thereafter) fit in?

You may not be sure, but it definitely fucking happens. Look at abortion, stem-cell research, the teaching of safe sex. There is so much that I can say about the above topic, but I am refraining. We have a thread called Science vs. Religion. I'd rather use that as a means to further this topic.

I respect your reserve, but I would just like to call out that religion belief is too often confused with morals. Right or wrong (in your eyes), some people oppose abortion and stem-cell research simply because they find it morally abhorent, not because the Bible tells them to. Even if religion is the sole basis of their beliefs on those topics, why is that a worse reason than your own?

Let's stick to the books, the points they make and criticism of said points. Not generalizations.

I apologize for derailing your thread on books further. I just wanted to chime in on aforementioned derailments.

[Phelps McManus]

Originally Posted by Celebrindal

Look at where you are man... You are in Iraq (assuming you're military) because of theology impacting your fucking life.

Are you also assuming he is a priest or something? What does the study of religion have to do with the military in Iraq? Perhaps you simply meant religion.

If he were in Afghanistan, I would agree with you. We sent troops there because intolerant muslims attacked our country on 9/11.

Iraq about religion though? On what basis? That our president is a devout Christian? Blame it on him being a retard, him finishing up what daddy started, or even blame it on greed for oil. Those positions are much easier to defend.

[Celebrindal]

I'm not going to address all your arguments right now, I'm pressed for time, but let me run through it real quick.

By that logic, how did society ever get to the point we are now? Wouldn't you agree that religious influence has declined over the centuries?

Yes, but in the past decades, it has a very notable increase.

Also, to say that schools should only teach theories that follow the Scientific Method in science class is one thing. To say that people who doubt a theory you happen to agree with are stupid is another. It seems a bit intolerant and hypocritical.

You've obviously never heard a person supporting intelligent design lecture. They twist facts to denounce evolution. They go under the guise "oh we believe in the scientific method," but that is just bullshit. They offer no theory of inquiry except the belief in the "God of the gaps," which means if we can't explain it, God must've did it!

I respect your reserve, but I would just like to call out that religion belief is too often confused with morals. Right or wrong (in your eyes), some people oppose abortion and stem-cell research simply because they find it morally abhorent, not because the Bible tells them to. Even if religion is the sole basis of their beliefs on those topics, why is that a worse reason than your own?

Okay, but do those same people have a problem with In vitro fertilisation? Because the majority of Blastocysts used are discarded. You want morals? How can you justify giving equal rights to something that has 100 cells, to a person who has been burned over 90% of their body and is suffering every single day?

Iraq about religion though? On what basis? That our president is a devout Christian? Blame it on him being a retard, him finishing up what daddy started, or even blame it on greed for oil. Those positions are much easier to defend.

So... we're not fighting against religious extremists in Iraq right now?

[Phelps McManus]

Originally Posted by Celebrindal

Yes, but in the past decades, it has a very notable increase.

I remember prayer in school when the Challenger exploded. No one questioned "Under God" in the pledge we said every morning or consciously said Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. I was too young to notice if judges had the ten commandments on court grounds, but I imagine some did and never got called on it.

But you say there is an increase, so I will take your word for it. What is causing it? Is there some massively successful marketing campaign that is converting the non-believers? Are Christian parents pumping out more kids who are all brought up to embrace Jesus? Personally, I know a lot more people who stopped going to church than those who started, but YMMV.

You've obviously never heard a person supporting intelligent design lecture. They twist facts to denounce evolution. They go under the guise "oh we believe in the scientific method," but that is just bullshit. They offer no theory of inquiry except the belief in the "God of the gaps," which means if we can't explain it, God must've did it!

I assure you that twisting facts to denounce opposition is not unique to the ID vs Evolution debate. As for "God of the gaps", I think you underestimate how much science is based on faith. Faith that some empirical evidence and inductive reasoning won't be disproven by future observations. Humans evolving from monkeys can be observed, but where did the monkeys evolve from and so on? Eventually you reach the first step of evolution and have to wonder where it came from? What do you fill that gap with?

Okay, but do those same people have a problem with In vitro fertilisation? Because the majority of Blastocysts used are discarded. You want morals? How can you justify giving equal rights to something that has 100 cells, to a person who has been burned over 90% of their body and is suffering every single day?

Equal rights? What rights does a Blastocyst have? What are we denying the burn victim?

Deciding who/what lives and what dies, what quality of life people should be guaranteed and at what costs are moral decisions, not religious ones. Just because bible-thumpers all believe one way doesn't mean those who come to the same moral conclusions (on select topics) are bible-thumpers or influenced by religion in any way.

So... we're not fighting against religious extremists in Iraq right now?

Inductive reasoning. We are fighting religious extremists so the war is about religion? Here I thought we were fighting religious extremists because we didn't want them to topple a democracy or we are too prideful to admit defeat. Or perhaps we like fighting them over there rather than over here.

They happen to be extreme about religion, but they could have been extreme about hot dogs for all I care. I wouldn't say the war was fought over hot dogs had that been the case, because one side doesn't really care about that. They only care that they are being threatened.

[xilsharn]

Dear oh dear.

You've pretty much proven the point I was making, Celebrindal. Extremism is extremism whether it's based on one's religious beliefs, lack thereof, or "hot dogs for all I care." You casting aside everyone who doesn't agree with you as "stupid" is exactly why I think "studying atheist thought" is hypocritical. What it all comes down to is power and the ability to impose your will on someone else.

THAT is what Iraq is all about, my friend. Power. Don't hold any illusions that it's about religion. If somehow the US devolved to the state Iraq is in, it would be you butchering Christians and vice versa. You're an extremist, at least as I see it.