Atheism books

[Phil Ayesho]

Christopher Hitchens edited a great anthology of atheist writings called the Portable Atheist.

 

[deleted213967]

In the It Takes One To Know One genre:

1. Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus; Jesus, Interrupted): a top-flight biblical scholar who saw the light.

2. Dan Barker (Godless, prefaced by Dawkins):a recovered career fundamentalist Christian, then liberal Christian, then Atheist...ooops "atheist" with a lower-case "a" as he likes to point out.

 

[Calboner]

In the It Takes One To Know One genre:

1. Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus; Jesus, Interrupted): a top-flight biblical scholar who saw the light.

2. Dan Barker (Godless, prefaced by Dawkins):a recovered career fundamentalist Christian, then liberal Christian, then Atheist...ooops "atheist" with a lower-case "a" as he likes to point out.

In the genre of no. 2: John Loftus, Why I Became an Atheist. Not to be confused with a successor volume that the same author has recently published under the nearly identical title Why I Became an Atheist: Personal Reflections and Additional Arguments. (I find it hard to believe that he has two books' worth of things to say in the matter, but there they are.) Loftus also has an interesting blog called "Debunking Christianity."

I've got Misquoting Jesus but have not yet gotten around to reading it. Ehrman sounds interesting.

 

[Calboner]

I haven't read this guy, but apparently his books have some standing in the literature of atheism:

George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (1974; 355 pages; Wikipedia article; Amazon page)

George H. Smith, Why Atheism? (Prometheus Books, 2000; 170 pages; Amazon)

 

[Guy-jin]

I would argue that The Blind Watchmaker seems to me far more likely to make someone who is iffy about Theism "see the light" (and by that I mean move more towards Atheism) than The God Delusion would.

Delusion is more about the disdain for Theists the author holds than a justification for Atheism. He basically treats Atheism as a given. To be honest, as a devout Atheist, I found Delusion fairly offensive myself, as I do not think Theists are deluding themselves (or that they're stupid, which is basically his thesis in that book).

I actually think it's more likely Francis Collins is right--there are probably genetic reasons for people to believe in a higher power, and some of us (the minority) end up having variants that make us true Atheists.

That said, Dawkins best work is and always will be The Selfish Gene. The man revolutionized our understanding of evolution and genetics. I do not think it's out of line to say his thesis in that book was the ultimate explanation that brought together Darwin, Mendel and Watson & Crick.

If nothing else, he's deserving of praise for that.

(And I do find his anti-Theist tirades generally entertaining, although I feel they probably do more harm to we Atheists as a group than they do good.)

As for Atheist books, I'm sadly not well read in them. There is almost always something else I am more interested in reading. I read Dawkins' books because I had read Selfish Gene, which is, as I stated, revolutionary. Blind Watchmaker is a strong case for Atheism, and Delusion is just kind of meaningless to me after Watchmaker.

I will recommend a great book regarding the junction of science and religion, however, as that is certainly a related topic: The Universe in a Single Atom by His Holiness The Dalai Lama XIV. The man has had the opportunity to spend his life studying Buddhism and science and explains in a very convincing manner how Buddhism is utterly compatible with science. This book actually had me as close as I have ever been to believing in a religion because he makes such a convincing argument of how rational it is--basically, that Buddhism encourages empirical observation and study to determine truths as opposed to explaining things away through mythical forces.

 

[2322]

I will recommend a great book regarding the junction of science and religion, however, as that is certainly a related topic: The Universe in a Single Atom by His Holiness The Dalai Lama XIV. The man has had the opportunity to spend his life studying Buddhism and science and explains in a very convincing manner how Buddhism is utterly compatible with science. This book actually had me as close as I have ever been to believing in a religion because he makes such a convincing argument of how rational it is--basically, that Buddhism encourages empirical observation and study to determine truths as opposed to explaining things away through mythical forces.

This is why I find Buddhism so intriguing. I've been doing some Buddhist practices and find them immensely helpful to keeping my sanity. It's all done without supernatural anything.

 

[deleted213967]

I will recommend a great book regarding the junction of science and religion, however, as that is certainly a related topic: The Universe in a Single Atom by His Holiness The Dalai Lama XIV. The man has had the opportunity to spend his life studying Buddhism and science and explains in a very convincing manner how Buddhism is utterly compatible with science. This book actually had me as close as I have ever been to believing in a religion because he makes such a convincing argument of how rational it is--basically, that Buddhism encourages empirical observation and study to determine truths as opposed to explaining things away through mythical forces.

Funny, His So Very Holy and Yet Scientific Dalai Lama #14 has this to say about sexuality, a topic endearing to many LPSG members:

In his view, oral, manual and anal sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) is not acceptable in Buddhism or for Buddhists, but society should tolerate gays and lesbians from a secular point of view.[70] In 1997 he explained that the basis of that teaching was unknown to him and that he at least had some "willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context" while reiterating the unacceptable nature saying, "Buddhist sexual proscriptions ban homosexual activity and heterosexual sex through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand... From a Buddhist point of view, lesbian and gay sex is generally considered sexual misconduct".[71] In a 1994 interview with OUT Magazine, the Dalai Lama explained "If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality[72] However, in his 1996 book is okay or not, I will ask 'What is your companion's opinion?'. If you both agree, then I think I would say 'if two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay'".Beyond Dogma, he clearly states, "A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else....Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama#cite_note-72

As for buddhism and science, it is well known that Special and General Theory of Relativity, the Germ Theory, Quantum Physics, the Theory of Evolution, String Theory, Genetics, not to mention such terrestrial inventions as antibiotics, electricity, the internet, etc. were all invented by Buddhist monks.

 

[Guy-jin]

Funny, His So Very Holy and Yet Scientific Dalai Lama #14 has this to say about sexuality, a topic endearing to many LPSG members:

In his view, oral, manual and anal sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) is not acceptable in Buddhism or for Buddhists, but society should tolerate gays and lesbians from a secular point of view.[70] In 1997 he explained that the basis of that teaching was unknown to him and that he at least had some "willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context" while reiterating the unacceptable nature saying, "Buddhist sexual proscriptions ban homosexual activity and heterosexual sex through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand... From a Buddhist point of view, lesbian and gay sex is generally considered sexual misconduct".[71] In a 1994 interview with OUT Magazine, the Dalai Lama explained "If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality[72] However, in his 1996 book is okay or not, I will ask 'What is your companion's opinion?'. If you both agree, then I think I would say 'if two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay'".Beyond Dogma, he clearly states, "A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else....Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact."

You should not use Wikipedia as your primary source.

To my understanding, Buddhism generally discourages sex as recreation, and as HH14DL is basically the embodiment of Buddhism, is it some kind of surprise he is generally against recreational sex?

Based on a cursory reading of his beliefs, he feels that in Buddhism, homosexual sex is an improper type of sex in the same way that oral, anal or even meaningless recreational vaginal heterosexual sex would be.

He has stated multiple times that he does not think homosexuals should be prejudiced against and that they should have the same human rights as everyone else. To me, this is certainly more progressive than many other long-time religious leaders of other religions. Given the history of religion generally, homosexuality in modern religions is a hard sell, but I do believe that Buddhism is one religion that will eventually adapt to recognize it as "valid" in the future. I'm no expert on the matter, though. (Then again, I don't think you are, either. :redface

So while you're suggesting that nothing the man has to say is of value because he does not think homosexual sex is compatible with Buddhism, I do not think that is at all relevant to the arguments he puts forth that scientific practices and Buddhism are highly compatible.

As for buddhism and science, it is well known that Special and General Theory of Relativity, the Germ Theory, Quantum Physics, the Theory of Evolution, String Theory, Genetics, not to mention such terrestrial inventions as antibiotics, electricity, the internet, etc. were all invented by Buddhist monks.

I'm not sure why you think asinine sarcasm is relevant here. If you've actually read The Universe in a Single Atom and want to criticize it specifically, as that is what I was recommending, then I encourage it. If not, keep your sarcastic banter to yourself.

 

[Guy-jin]

This is why I find Buddhism so intriguing. I've been doing some Buddhist practices and find them immensely helpful to keeping my sanity. It's all done without supernatural anything.

I think the philosophies behind Buddhism are wonderful. A lot of the meditation practices it encourages are indeed helpful, something I never found true of praying, which is basically the Christian equivalent.

That said, I find Buddhist mythology to be even more foreign than Christian. Of course, that makes sense since I grew up in a Christian society, but still. Some of the ethereal beliefs I find just as crazy as Christian beliefs. (Actually, seeing the commercial for Men Who Stare At Goats, I see the main character "cloud bursting" and have known Buddhists who believe they can affect change in that manner.)

Then again, I think Christian philosophy often has a lot to offer as well. The problem with it is the focus on an external being as opposed to on the self. Buddhism has this focus on affecting change within yourself, something I can believe in, as opposed to reliance on an magical external force, which I cannot.

 

[deleted213967]

You should not use Wikipedia as your primary source.

As it happens, I heard the man say it himself on NPR, but I could not recall his words verbatim, hence my choice of peer-reviewed Wikipedia, which has been demonstrated to be "on the money" on most matters, and is widely used here at LPSG.

He has stated multiple times that he does not think homosexuals should be prejudiced against and that they should have the same human rights as everyone else. To me, this is certainly more progressive than many other long-time religious leaders of other religions. Given the history of religion generally, homosexuality in modern religions is a hard sell, but I do believe that Buddhism is one religion that will eventually adapt to recognize it as "valid" in the future. I'm no expert on the matter, though. (Then again, I don't think you are, either. :redface

I realize that you are straight. Perhaps I shouldn't have stressed his views (or those of Buddhism) on homosexuality, but rather their objections to masturbation and anal sex for all, including straight married couples. Given that those practices inspire a grotesque percentage of LPSG threads and posts, I found those precepts mildly amusing.

I'm not sure why you think asinine sarcasm is relevant here. If you've actually read The Universe in a Single Atom and want to criticize it specifically, as that is what I was recommending, then I encourage it. If not, keep your sarcastic banter to yourself.

I need not read the man's book to add zeros, do I? None of the science I cited has been the outcome, direct or otherwise, of Buddhism, none. It's a verifiable fact.

Here is more math: 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists, here, in religion-obsessed America.

This is a thread on books about atheism, not on proselytizing. Keep your proselytizing to yourself.