The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-Believer

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by vurt

See, it's nice to hear people like that and go "yeah! That guy gets it."

I guarantee you that whatever creation hypothesis you believe in, you're believing in something put forth by a priest.

[tad10]

Originally Posted by Jedah

It's intellectual camaraderie;.

That's not what I read in the OP's comments. What I saw was much more of "Yeah, more members of the club. Sweet!"

My outsider perspective is that there appears to be at least one strain of atheism in the US and abroad, represented by vurt's comments, that is highly social. I don't see much difference between it and other organized religions. Social atheism (for wont of a better term) is just as hellbent as imposing its view of the world on the world as radical Islam or evangelical Christianity.

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by tad10

That's not what I read in the OP's comments. What I saw was much more of "Yeah, more members of the club. Sweet!"

My outsider perspective is that there appears to be at least one strain of atheism in the US and abroad, represented by vurt's comments, that is highly social. I don't see much difference between it and other organized religions. Social atheism (for wont of a better term) is just as hellbent as imposing its view of the world on the world as radical Islam or evangelical Christianity.

You're going to find your Hrsi-Ali's and your Hitchens' as much as you're going to find your Falwell's and Robertson's; they're culture warriors, and whether they truly believe in what they're selling, or that they just want to get rich, either way they don't operate on subtlety or gray areas. They pawn off romanticized visions of struggle and rebellion against oppression, generally imagined. They're all self styled messiahs with eschatological visions.

Atheists are social creatures in as much as every single human being is a social creature who wants to surround himself with people who speak to his understanding of the world. Atheism makes no positive claims, but is it really that hard to understand that Atheists go on to make positive claims on their own time, and that these people are going to want to read the corresponding literature?

People are also attracted to authors and thinkers who are eloquent and adept at putting into words the ideas and beliefs they can't convey as adeptly, is it that hard to understand? Again, as a theist, you should take heart that there is an incredible intellectual heritage backing your position as well.

[aychamo_aycono]

Originally Posted by tad10

Incoming derail because I'm in a lousy mood from writing.

* * *

Why on Earth would an atheist care whether he was in "good company" as to his belief system? It's not like you need to go to Church regularly.

Now Catholic that I am, I appreciate the fact that I can go to Church almost anywhere (excluding certain fucktard Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and including fucktard communist countries like China that have a regulated Catholic Church). But if no one else in the world believed what I believed that wouldn't affect my belief system one whit though it would limit my Church going opportunities.

Since one of my favorite Atheist claims is that they have no beliefs why on earth would you care that other people adhere to this same nonbelief?

It makes me happy to read other atheists writings. When you live in a country that is 90% (or whatever, I don't give a shit the exact number) christian, you start to feel alone sometimes and look around at all these christians and wonder how they suffer from such a mass delusion.

Also since atheism is inherently more scientific (re: evidence, or a complete lack there-of), it's impossible to deny the possibility (albeit, with infinitely small probability) of the existence of some sort of a god. Reading the writings of those with minds greater than my own helps me continually realize that my position, as an atheist, is most appropriate.

[Xakk]

Originally Posted by tad10

I don't see much difference between [atheism] and other organized religions.

"Religion" is very loaded word that I am amused by when people throw around so easily. What do you mean by religion? Religion has influenced EVERYTHING . Religion is temples, churches, ziggurats, mosques, pyramids and runestones. It has created as much wonderful history and knowledge as it has destroyed and suppressed. Religion has been the excuse for wars, torture and death longer than it has been a source of peace and love.

I guess you mean to say it not "much different" because atheism draws people together?

Originally Posted by tad10

Social atheism (for wont of a better term) is just as hellbent as imposing its view of the world on the world as radical Islam or evangelical Christianity.

I don't really aspire to any atheist leader. I mean, Dawkins seems like a pretty cool guy but I'm not going to fight and die for him. I'm not going to fight the unbelievers and spread the light of evolution to every edge of the world.

[vurt]

Originally Posted by Khorum

I guarantee you that whatever creation hypothesis you believe in, you're believing in something put forth by a priest.

I don't get it.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by vurt

I don't get it.

Don't get what?

Which widely-held hypothesis for the creation of the universe do you believe in? The Genesis of the Torah? Tiamat and Marduk? The Dhamballah loa? Or do you subscribe to the widely-held modern notion that the universe emerged out of the cataclysm of the Big Bang?

Like I said, I can guarantee you that WHICHEVER creation theory you believe in, you either believe in the ideas of a millenia-dead witch doctor or you believe in the epochal 1934 hypothesis of a Catholic Priest. Either way, you're believing in the teachings of a clergyman.

Go atheism!

[Grumath]

Originally Posted by Khorum

Don't get what?

Which widely-held hypothesis for the creation of the universe do you believe in? The Genesis of the Torah? Tiamat and Marduk? The Dhamballah loa? Or do you subscribe to the widely-held modern notion that the universe emerged out of the cataclysm of the Big Bang?

Like I said, I can guarantee you that WHICHEVER creation theory you believe in, you either believe in the ideas of a millenia-dead witch doctor or you believe in the epochal 1934 hypothesis of a Catholic Priest. Either way, you're believing in the teachings of a clergyman.

Go atheism!

Or maybe you just aren't arrogant and can say "I don't know the answer to that question, not does the human race as a whole". Why does one HAVE to have a belief about something we know very little about?

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Grumath

Why does one HAVE to have a belief about something we know very little about?

LOL so it's ARROGANT to believe in the Big Bang's cosmology now? Just because YOU can't grasp how everything from Hubble's proofs to the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1966 to today's pursuit of the Higgs Boson all are poised to confirm Father LeMaitre's version of Creation doesn't mean that "the human race as a whole" wallows in the same ignorance.

Father Lemaitre's theories were praised by the Pope even as Einstein himself rejected the notion of an expanding universe until Edwin Hubble provided results that supported Father (later Monsignor) LeMaitre's Big Bang theory. After a preponderance of Father LeMaitre's predictions became insurmountable however, even the great Einstein supported the priest and his work.

[The Ancient]

Khorum, you filthy liar you can't accomplish anything in the field of science unless you are an aethiest. Everyone knows that!

[Grumath]

Originally Posted by Khorum

LOL so it's ARROGANT to believe in the Big Bang's cosmology now? Just because YOU can't grasp how everything from Hubble's proofs to the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1966 to today's pursuit of the Higgs Boson all are poised to confirm Father LeMaitre's version of Creation doesn't mean that "the human race as a whole" wallows in the same ignorance.

Father Lemaitre's theories were praised by the Pope even as Einstein himself rejected the notion of an expanding universe until Edwin Hubble provided results that supported Father (later Monsignor) LeMaitre's Big Bang theory. After a preponderance of Father LeMaitre's predictions became insurmountable however, even the great Einstein supported the priest and his work.

You are quickly degrading this into an argument on semantics Khorum. When people talk about a theory of creation or creationism they are implying a sentient creator with a purpose (something Einstein was against BTW and is quoted multiple times in the very book this thread is about). You are trying to lump the Big Bang theories and god theories together based on a weak tie to priests? Thats pretty weak.

And the arrogance thing was aimed at people who claim to have the end all answer, be it god or a scientific theory. At best its an ever changing work in progress to which no one has an answer yet. Even Einstein, Hawking, or any other prominent cosmologist will answer "I don't know" to many of the "Big Questions". Who are you or I to stand up and claim we do know when these giants in science don't know a good deal more than they do know?

[UnchainedAcolyte]

As I've gotten older I've become more of a skeptic I suppose, though I still consider myself a Christian.

As for the "more/other people believe what I believe" issue with vurt, everyone desires, whether intellectually or dogmatically, people to converse with and share (and for the more secure people, even test) their philosophical stances or personal beliefs on a subject. It's also beneficial to see people in a less tolerant time generally holding a more radical stance on a particular issue, and fascinating to find out their specific views and the origins of those views.

To those who would say their are multiple strains of atheism, or particular leanings within groups of atheists, I would agree. The hard definition of an atheist is a non-theist, and that's it. However, due to whatever reason/influence, different people have a different flavor or emphasis, or seem particularly outspoken on certain points. For example, I know a number of atheists for whom one of their catalysts is the pushy, condemning and hypocritical nature of the church and its members. I put this down to a combination of personal experiences in their lives, and in our cultural in general (America, where Judeo-Christian values are still held to be a priority).

Finally, I would encourage any Christian/spiritual believer to read collections such as this one, and other works including Nietzsche and one of my favorites, Bertrand Russell. They give an excellent view of why these people were skeptics, and biting but often accurate criticisms of the church. They also discuss important philosophical and theological problems that every believer serious about their faith needs to be familiar with.

[vurt]

Originally Posted by Khorum

Don't get what?

Which widely-held hypothesis for the creation of the universe do you believe in? The Genesis of the Torah? Tiamat and Marduk? The Dhamballah loa? Or do you subscribe to the widely-held modern notion that the universe emerged out of the cataclysm of the Big Bang?

Like I said, I can guarantee you that WHICHEVER creation theory you believe in, you either believe in the ideas of a millenia-dead witch doctor or you believe in the epochal 1934 hypothesis of a Catholic Priest. Either way, you're believing in the teachings of a clergyman.

Go atheism!

As Grumath said, I actually don't believe in any particular creation hypothesis. I certainly believe that the Big Bang happened, but there's a lot of reason to think that it wasn't the beginning. I don't know what the beginning was or if there even was a beginning, and I'm willing to accept that I don't know (though it is a very compelling mystery).

The difference between my (and Grumath's) approach and yours is that you, apparently, must completely buy into a specific "creation theory". You can't do that, because we don't know the whole story -- not even close. Rather than subscribe to any existing creation theory (of which none have access to the truth), I have no problem only speculating as far as science has taken us thus far.

Any drugged up shaman from the 3rd millenium BC could have said "first there was nothing, then there was something" and yeah, he'd probably be right (though we don't know that for sure, maybe there was always something). There's a huge difference between science describing cosmology quantiatively and qualitatively, actually saying something, and our shaman friend above, who isn't actually saying anything.

And when I said "I don't get it", I knew what you probably meant, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake.

[aychamo_aycono]

Originally Posted by Khorum

LOL so it's ARROGANT to believe in the Big Bang's cosmology now? Just because YOU can't grasp how everything from Hubble's proofs to the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1966 to today's pursuit of the Higgs Boson all are poised to confirm Father LeMaitre's version of Creation doesn't mean that "the human race as a whole" wallows in the same ignorance.

Father Lemaitre's theories were praised by the Pope even as Einstein himself rejected the notion of an expanding universe until Edwin Hubble provided results that supported Father (later Monsignor) LeMaitre's Big Bang theory. After a preponderance of Father LeMaitre's predictions became insurmountable however, even the great Einstein supported the priest and his work.

Khorum you should read up on what a theory is. Just because some old priest or whatever thought up some idea of something like a big bang doesn't mean he had a "theory" on any level. Sure maybe he had some thought about it, but that doesn't make it a theory. Your argument is complete garbage.

[The Ancient]

Originally Posted by aychamo_aycono

Khorum you should read up on what a theory is. Just because some old priest or whatever thought up some idea of something like a big bang doesn't mean he had a "theory" on any level. Sure maybe he had some thought about it, but that doesn't make it a theory. Your argument is complete garbage.

Yours is complete garbage on account of extreme ignorance. Did you even bother to read anything before you spouted that muck?