Best christian self help books according to redditors
We found 598 Reddit comments discussing the best christian self help books. We ranked the 181 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 598 Reddit comments discussing the best christian self help books. We ranked the 181 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Hey look, the outsider test of faith.
Fear and Trembling - Soren Kierkegaard
I totally understand!! Honestly, I went through the same feelings while learning this stuff too. There came a point where I sat myself down and was like look - if I continue to believe what I’ve always believed, the world stays small and known. Imagine telling someone back in the 15th century that cars existed - no need to walk or ride a horse to travel. They wouldn’t have believed you, but it’s true - cars exist. I took the same approach to learning - a conscious decision to accept that there’s so much I took for fact, that actually isn’t known, just assumed.
For example, Darwin’s theory - he said himself, when presenting the theory, that he wasn’t actually sure that survival of the fittest was natural law, but theorized that it was possible and likely. Possible and likely, but NOT fact.
(I don’t remember where I originally read this, but here’s a great read from Quora: https://www.quora.com/Was-Charles-Darwin-100-sure-that-his-evolution-theory-is-right-and-without-single-doubt)
Scientists have been studying nature, and guess what - survival of the fittest is not The Law of Nature. There are endless examples of collaboration, support, exchange in nature - it’s about giving and taking, for the benefit of all.
As a society, however, we took Darwin’s theory and ran with it, and it’s literally baked into the fiber of our fabric. Capitalism, hierarchical structure, large corporations consuming small businesses, etc etc etc.
What would society look like if we built our structures on the basis of sharing, caring for each other, pursuing the highest good of all?
All of that to say, when you allow yourself to be open, to think, to consider different approaches, you achieve different outcomes.
When you close yourself off, assume you have “the answer”, act reactively, unconsciously, then you achieve the same outcome.
I just want different! For me, life is about growing, stretching, learning, getting my mind blown over and over and over, adjusting and adapting, constantly. And ITS FUN!
Regarding the whole life after death/soul separate from body concept, I was thrown into it via Dolores Cannon. If you like reading books, buy and read Between Death and Life: Conversations with a Spirit (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1940265002). If you prefer watching videos:
https://youtu.be/FhjoEnG4gww
She’s incredibly close to “the answer”, but I think since she was practicing, some things have changed - like the emotional evolution of the greys, nothing is static.
Another great book: The Gaia Project by Hwee-Yong Jiang (https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-gaia-project-hwee-yong-jang/1123431981)
And another: The Complete Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0399153292)
In any case, all of us reach a point where we can’t be told “the answer”. Someone can tell us something close to it, but ultimately, you can only truly truly believe what you’ve searched and found to be true. That’s literally what belief is, and in its truest form, it cannot be forced. I think that’s the beautiful thing about exploration, and the great news is, if you consciously stay open to new information and actually seek, you absolutely will find and find and find until you choose to close down or stop.
Haha, that's a good one. He wrote a book about faith healers. Foreword by Carl Sagan. http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Healers-James-Randi/dp/0879755350
>I'd love to do the Vedas or the Tripiṭaka, but from what I'm reading, these are almost impossible to understand without the formal training and would take more than a year to complete (if you can even find English translations of them).
The Tripitaka actually has a lot of very accessible parts -- reading the entire thing would be a massive undertaking (this would be thousands and thousands of pages), but the Majjhima Nikaya (the middle length discourses of the Buddha) and the Digha Nikaya (the long length discourses of the Buddha) are IMO extremely accessible and cover most of the non-Mahayana Buddhist teachings. Both come with very good forwards which serve as a good introduction for understanding the rest of the text.
For Mahayana Buddhism, there are a number of sutras translated, but probably the most foundational/important would be the Bodhicharyavatara (the way of the Bodhisattvas) which is amazing, but really needs more unpacking to fully appreciate. For that I'd recommend The Nectar of Manjushri's Speech which is an excellent and detailed commentary on it.
The book I always recommend people start out with is Sophie's World, not because it's the most in-depth, but because it's the most accessible for a newcomer. It's also the most entertaining I've read. If you want something more in-depth, Russell's History of Western Philosophy is generally this subreddit's big recommendation, although I personally wouldn't say it's a great starting point. His reading of some thinkers is not great, and he's not quite as good at dumbing down certain ideas to an introductory level.
A good summary of philosophy will help you for a couple reasons. One, it will give you enough information to find out what thinkers and ideas interest you. If you're interested in a particular question or thinker, then that's obviously where you should go. Philosophy of religion? Logic? Aesthetics and art? Language? There's plenty written on all these topics, but it can be a bit overwhelming to try and just attack all of philosophy at once. Like any other field, there will be parts of it that click with you, and parts that don't really seem all that appealing. Find your niche, and pursue it. In addition to giving you an idea of where to go, a good overview will put ideas in context. Understanding Augustine and Aquinas will make more sense if you know that they're working with a foundation of the Greek thought of Plato and Aristotle. Descartes wrote his meditations during the enlightenment, and was a major contributor to much of the emphasis on reason that defined that era. Nietzsche and Kierkegaard's existentialist ideas become more powerful when you realize they're critiquing and challenging the technicality of Kant and Hegel. Ideas don't exist in a vacuum, and while you can't be expected to know all the details of everything, your niche area of interest will make more sense if you understand it's context.
As for easier texts that I'd recommend trying out (once you find an area of interest), here's a few that are pretty important and also fairly accessible. These are texts that are generally read by all philosophy students, due to their importance, but if you're just into this for personal interest, you can pick and choose a bit. Still, these are important works, so they'll be very good to read anyways.
Plato - Apology: not terribly dense, but an accessible text in which Socrates basically defends his pursuing philosophical thought. I'd recommend this as an accessible introduction that will get you to feel like philosophy matters; think of it as pump-up music before a big game.
Plato - The Republic: this is arguably Plato's most important work. In it, he talks about the nature of men, politics, education and art.
Aristotle - Nichomachean Ethics: a text that deals with leading a life in accordance with virtue. Aristotle's style is a bit dry and technical, but he's also very important.
Augustine - On Free Choice of the Will: a dialogue similar to Plato's in which Augustine argues that the existence of God does not conflict with man having free will.
Aquinas - Selected Excerpts: he wrote a lot, so you don't wanna try reading a whole one of his works. This selects his key ideas and puts them in bite-sized chunks. He's a big Christian thinker, arguing for the existence and goodness of God and related theological concepts.
Descartes - Meditations on First Philosophy: Descartes uses reason to prove he exists, along with some other things. Pretty easy to read, although it sparked a revolution in thought, making epistemology a central problem of philosophy.
Kant - Grounding for Metaphysics of Morals: one of his easier works, but it's still one of the more technical works I'm recommending, in which Kant demonstrates that morals are a priori.
Kierkegaard - Fear and Trembling: one of my favorite books, Kierkegaard writes about the nature of faith using the story of Abraham and Isaac as his starting point. A huge critic of Kant's obsession with pure reason, he is generally considered to be the first existential thinker.
Nietzsche - Beyond Good & Evil: Nietzsche is one of the more controversial thinkers in history. Also a critic of Kant, he is one of the most profound critics of religion. This book is one of his more important, in which he talks about his problems of religion, the culture around him, and at times points us in the direction he wants us to go. Know that he doesn't write in a terribly direct manner, so if you choose to read him, come here for assistance. He's a bit different to read, and can be challenging if you're not ready.
This list is by no means exhaustive, and having a good reference to help you along will be very helpful.
> Atheism now has a strong foothold in western society.
Blatantly false, unless you consider approximately 3-7% of the population explicitly identifying as atheist as a "strong foothold":
---
> (Peterson on Belief) It’s not in dispute that human beings are a biological product of an evolutionary history.
Although Peterson incorporates evolutionary arguments in his work, he also clearly has pretensions to a dualist position on the nature of being and consciousness: From an interview with Peterson https://youtu.be/07Ys4tQPRis?t=814
> You can say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the material world, and you can make a perfectly coherent set of tools out of those presuppositions, but those set of tools do not cover everything that you need, and it's no more viable as an explanation than the explanation that, no, consciousness is somehow fundamental to being, and of course being is different than material reality.
---
> The new atheists, the four horsemen (Harris, Hitch, Dawkins, Dennett) that think the belief in god is false, and religion corrupt and outdated.
Although they all share the common belief that God does not exist, there are some actual differences in their positions. Dennett, for example, argues we should teach religion in schools, but he wants it presented as objectively as possible. That is, by providing the facts about all religions without any spin or bias to any one particular religion. https://youtu.be/DTepA-WV_oE?t=233 . Also see is book Breaking The Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
The Way of the Bodhisattva
I find this book is a brilliant thing to start my day with. It sets my motivation, it frames the way I want to view my day going forward, it reminds me of the person I want to be.
At its core, atheism is solely the absence of belief in gods/magic/metaphysical/religion etc.
But there are many related issues that are inextricably linked to atheism. A very common one is opposition to the very idea of faith - defined as belief without evidence. Science, being a rigorous method for the continuous pursuit of knowledge, is a natural ally of many atheists and an excellent counterpoint to the phenomenon of faith.
Further, many people take the position that science has nothing to say on the topic of religion or gods (Gould's NOMA). This is entirely untrue. Just as science can be used to determine if there is an invisible elephant with specific attributes in a specific room, it can also be used to test the hypothesis of the existence of a deity with specific attributes. Research along these lines already occurs, such as studies on the efficacy of prayer.
I highly suggest God: the Failed Hypothesis by physicist Victor J. Stenger for any skeptic.
Edit: I accidentally a letter.
I've become rather obsessed with deconversion narratives recently
Why I became an Atheist
Deconverted FYI I recommend the audiobook
Godless
Farewell to God
This might be a good starting point:
https://amazon.com/Chosen-Faith-Introduction-Unitarian-Universalism/dp/0807016179
Autobiography of a Yogi
Kundalini: The Evolutionary Energy in Man
The book that truly explains what the Bible is literally saying in a hilarious manner is called "God Is Disappointed In You"
It describes the guards thinking that the king was "taking one of his notoriously long shits"
Yeah, maybe he said the reverse of what he had to say. But for anyone interested in God being a meme, check out Breaking the Spell
I don't, but I have a book on it. Aptly titled Jewish Meditation by Aryeh Kaplan.
If you want to read a book which may have you actually smashing things, read The Faith Healers by James Randi. Now, I don't think Randi is the final authority of the world, and he's got a rock star sized ego. But he makes some scathing criticisms of people who promise everything and deliver nothing. Those people absolutely prey on others who are in a very bad place in life.
Ok, I can tell you that that sounds exactly like kundalini awakening. I've had symptoms too, but not that severe. It's going to be a wild ride for you, let me tell you, but at the end of it all you will be enlightened and be in constant bliss. Make sure you try and aim the energy up your central channel called the sushumna. it can be really bad if it gets forced up the left or right sides. I'd recommend getting in contact with some kind of kundalini yoga teacher to help guide you through this. Usually only advanced yogis attempt to raise their kundalini. The goal is to get the kundalini to go to the top of your head where the energies will merge and change your whole body and consiousness. I'd recommend reading these books:
http://www.amazon.com/Kundalini-Rising-Exploring-Energy-Awakening/dp/B0054U5DXU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1334630716&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.com/Kundalini-Tantra-Re-print-Satyananda-Saraswati/dp/8185787158/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1334630716&sr=8-4
http://www.amazon.com/Kundalini-The-Evolutionary-Energy-Man/dp/1570622809/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334630754&sr=1-1
These sites will also give you a good idea:
http://swamij.com/index-yoga-meditation-kundalini.htm
http://www.aypsite.org/index.html
http://www.kundaliniawakeningsystems1.com/index.html#.T4zZ1TJYv-I
YOU'RE NOT CRAZY. This is very real and serious and you have to educate yourself. Send me a pm if you ever have any questions. I've read a lot about this and can give you advice. If you could find some kind of spiritual teacher that would be great. This can be very dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. Read the Gopi Krishna book. He gives his account of how he accidentally had a kundalini awakening and it totally fucked him over for 10 years. He almost died, but that's because he didn't know what it was and had no info available to him. God speed bro.
Yeah I’ve been to that site. A great resource! For me, it started with 2 things.
I started reading Why I Became An Atheist , researching and taking the blinders off. Really explored questions in the past I would just shrug off. It would eventually lead me to being an atheist during Easter! I had to preach what I no longer believed. That struggle was tearing me apart. You got to realize, my whole life, paycheck, everything was wrapped in my faith.
It was recently that I resigned my position to pursue a business I started. It’s scary and I no longer have the certainty, which as you know is comforting. Especially in tragedy.
I have found peace in a different kind of faith. One that is fully inclusive, celebrates humanism, love and life. I don’t hate the Bible or Christians. I see it all very differently. I’m in a better place now. Thanks for asking! There’s so much more, over a years worth of journeying.
I think that if she can learn to critically examine her own thinking and beliefs, and understand how and why people come to believe what they believe, that this will definitely be more effective than addressing just the factual problems.
Here are some book recommendations that I think can accomplish this, if she's willing to read them:
Why We Believe What We Believe - Newburg and Waldman
Mistakes Were Made - But Not By Me - Tavris and Aronson
The Outsider Test for Faith - John Loftus
I have a section on this in a PDF I recently wrote: Examining Church Claims
But take your time; pushing things will only create more resistance.
Good luck!
I'd suggest Dan Dennett's Breaking the Spell. He's got a very smooth presentation and is unlikely to offend, which means the book may even get read.
I agree with what you're saying, but if you want to find good arguments against a god or gods then you should read some books on the subject. Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, these are all great authors that I would imagine that most of us consider them as somewhat heroes.
Also, you have to realize that everyone that is subscribed to /r/atheism is more than likely an atheist. We don't need to explain our arguments to one another because they are already known. There is no reason to debate about religion, a god, or gods because we all feel the same way, which is why the saying, "preaching to the choir" is quite appropriate for a counter-argument to this thread.
If you want a thoughtful discussion, then ask us a great question and you will find more than enough people that will be willing to argue their position. But I beg of you, please, be open-minded and don't just regurgitate scriptures, because a majority of us will probably consider you a lost cause.
Don't get too caught up on the higher power thing. A lot of people are too literal (on both sides of the coin) and end up missing the point.
I'm an staunch Atheist but have no problem relating to and using the concept of a higher power in my recovery. Religion and Spirituality are not the same thing. I have met a lot of people who come into AA or NA and immediately get defensive or riled up when they start hearing the word god. They start calling people out or putting them down. Thats wrong and disrespectful.
On the flip side, I see people who think because that word is used, its OK and appropriate to read bible passages in a recovery meeting, or speak about Jesus as if he should be (or is) everyones higher power. Thats wrong and disrespectful too. "God" in this context is really just a place holder for wherever your personal strength and understanding comes from.
There are some really great books that deal with the compatibility of Athiesm and Spirituality, and explain the difference between those and Religion.
For example, I can look at a mountain and know how its made, how it formed and the process that created it. That doesn't mean when I'm hiking and look up at it, I can't be in complete awe of how beautiful it is, what it needed to come to be, and the fact that its something so much bigger than I am. Not in size, but in the fact that I couldn't create in on my own, its been there millions of years longer than me and will be there for centuries after I die. That feeling of being so small compared to the enormous existence of that mountain(in size, in history, in the pure power if it just being there), is connection with with something. Its Spiritual.
Heres one of my favorite books, if you are interested
[The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Little-Book-Atheist-Spirituality/dp/0143114433), Its a great jumping off point.
> tell me all of the reasons why the bible is flawed
That's rather a tall order. There are many perspectives from which it is flawed, and within many of those, a great many problems.
Are you after things like contradictions? Then see this question in the FAQ
Are you after finding out how the New Testament was altered again and again, and why? Then you may want to try to get the book Misquoting Jesus
Are you interested in common mistaken claims about and hidden contradictions in the New Testament? Maybe you'd enjoy Jesus, Interrupted
Are you interested in finding out which parts of the new testament were written by people claiming to be someone else? Then try Forged
Are you interested in whether there's solid evidence Jesus existed at all? Then try Nailed
Are you interested in refuations of many Christian ideas by a bunch of different authors? Then try The Christian Delusion
and so on and so on...
> I also plan on telling my family about my new found Athiesm soon so, any advice in that regards would be greatly appreciated.
Please read the advice in the FAQ. This is not a decision to be taken lightly.
---
> why Athiesm is your preferred route
That's atheism (small a, e before i). It's not a choice, any more than I chose not to believe in leprechauns or Santa or flying monkeys. At some point I found I didn't have belief in these propositions. Discovering there weren't any gods I believed in made me without-god-belief. That's literally a-theism.
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/recommended/reading
http://smile.amazon.com/History-God-000-Year-Judaism-Christianity/dp/0345384563/
http://smile.amazon.com/Descartes-Baby-Science-Development-Explains/dp/0465007864
http://smile.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/
http://smile.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/0143038338/
And so many more.
I don't think that there's a one word, simple answer for this question. A very thought provoking (and perhaps apologetic to a fault) read is Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Its long. Its dry. But its terribly interesting.
Watch some of Dan Dennett's TED Talks to get a brief idea of his approach.
One thing that helps with the Tao Te Ching is to read different translations. It gives you a better sense of what they're really trying to get at. Check some out online compared to the copy you have.
A really good book for learning some ways to apply the Tao to your life is Change Your Thoughts Change Your Life. A bit new agey but helpful. This is an awesome look at the Tao by one of the greats in Western understanding of Eastern thought.
Taoism has had a huge impact on my life, I hope you find your way! One thing I notice in reading the Tao Te Ching is that I can't force my understandings. I often just open up to a random chapter and read. Sometimes it seems like gibberish, but sometimes you're in the exact right place in your life to understand, and the same chapter you've read a hundred times all of a sudden just hits you like... a wave. Or something!
Yeah, it sounds to me like you are a Unitarian Universalist. Pretty much anybody and everybody who doesn't fit into the limitations of dogmatic Christianity loves Unitarian Universalism.
Unitarian Universalism is a non-creedal faith which means that you don't have to adhere to any dogma in order to be a part of a UU community. I won't go through them all but we have seven principles and six sources the most relevant here are: "Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;"
"A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;" from the sources, "Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life," and "Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature." ( Read more here if you'd like: UUA: Our UU Principles )
Your interest in yoga, Buddhism, Christianity and pantheism makes it seem like you would fit in really well and love a UU community. Generally, most UU communities will have Buddhists, Christians, atheists, agnostics, pagans and/or pantheists, mystics and more (plus people who consider themselves more than one of those categories) as happy members.
A great book to check out to give you a nice short, concise and interesting introduction is John Buehrens' A Chosen Faith
If you have any other questions let me know.
Full book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Healers-James-Randi/dp/0879755350
The Way of the Bodhisattva
H. H. the Dalai Lama - "If I have any understanding of compassion and the practice of the bodhisattva path, it is entirely on the basis of this text that I possess it."
I suggest you read A Guide to the Bodhisattvas Way of Life by Shantideva and a commentary. You can read a different commentary but this one is very philosophical in nature and breaks it down for you. I failed miserably to explain emptiness in two threads yesterday so I'm deferring to the masters.
I don't think there is one, though it would be an appropriate work to eventually receive such a treatment.
There are only really three (published) English versions to speak of: by the Padmakara Translation Group,
Vesna Wallace, and Crosby and Skilton. I can't vouch for any of them.
If they do, I haven't found them, and it's not for lack of looking. Neither has Lohn Loftus, who also made the same argument in his book "The Christian Delusion". Neither have the Christians of Reddit, I've brought it up multiple times and the only 2 real answers yet are something like "god doesn't give a shit about us", which, well, kind of goes against the god talked about in the bible a bit, and "evolution is false", which is just flat out ignorant.
Edit: Platinga (probably Christendom's best philosopher) takes on a subset of this argument(doesn't address the blaming humans part) and comes up with a 3rd answer: Blame Satan.
This is but one of the many reasons I am a fairly recent ex-Christian.
Knowing that brilliant people believe was one of the things that kept me in the faith for a very long time. I really get that "who am I to judge" inner voice.
What helped was getting the opportunity to question those I deemed most brilliant, and discovering something shocking. The smarter you are, the more convoluted your defenses of things can get.
I found amongst the brightest a few strains.
Most of them had abstracted God into something very remote from the Judeochristian mainstream. He is an idea, he is unknown and unknowable, the stories about him are metaphor, man's grasping attempt to reach out and touch the untouchable. I think this makes it possible for you to be aware of the vast volumes of evidence against Gods in general, and the specific Christian God in particular, and yet feel it's ok because it's part of the mystery. They were perhaps better classed as Deists, but staying in the community they were in and playing along.
Some, but fewer, of them had found a way to reject the findings of science (at least in the areas that conflicted with them) completely, because of some version of God's Ways Are Higher Than Ours and We Can't Understand Them. They willfully remained ignorant of much of the historical/textual/archeological/scientific evidence because those are Lies of Atheistic people who are Afraid To Obey God so their ideas should be ignored.
And one very sad one was struggling with a fatal disease, and clinging to this belief for comfort.
Nobody was able to give me a simple explanation for why to believe. They either weren't aware of the evidence, couldn't address the evidence, or they way they did made it so abstract that you might as well believe anything.
If you can find someone whose intellect you admire and ask them why they believe, you might find it's for reasons like this, and that might help let this go.
The ultimate stopper for me is what /u/xlightbrightx said; brilliant people believe all kinds of crazy, incompatible things. Indoctrination is powerful. If you want a very comprehensive guide through this line of thinking check out The Outsider Test For Faith. It's unreasonable for you to wake up afraid of hell and not also be afraid of, e.g., being reincarnated as a cockroach. You were just indoctrinated with one fear and not the other.
I've only read two works by Kierkegaard (so I'm no expert) but I do have a few thoughts to consider and a recommendation.
Now as far as what to read first I'd recommend "Fear and Trembling." It isn't a long read and it deals with the familiar Biblical account of the binding of Isaac. It would be a good introduction to Kierkegaard and would be helpful in seeing if his works are for you. This was my first Kierkegaard book and I liked it enough to pick up "The Works of Love."
Your image makes sense to me now (I am atheist).
Like most of us who left religion altogether once we realized Mormonism is false, I interpreted the word "spirituality" almost as a synonym of "religion" or, at best, connected to mystical, faith-based notions.
As an atheist, however, I knew (and still do) I hadn't "lost" anything once I cleansed myself from a faith-based perception of reality. I remained the same ethical, moral person. My personal principles remained unmoved if not higher now than before. I was still sensitive to other people's pain. I felt the same love towards my family and friends. I would still be emotionally moved by music and books and movies. I still had "spiritual" experiences in the presence of nature, and the universe, and a new born baby... etc.
So I started considering that maybe "spirituality" is not exclusive to religion, you know?. Maybe the tacit definition was incomplete, or the result of cultural bias. Maybe "spirituality" is our ability for empathy, for connecting with other fellow humans or with nature and its creatures, for being selfless towards those in pain; for feeling small in the presence of the cosmos, for wanting to spread good and leave things better than we found them, etc.
My searches led me to a small, wonderful book that explained it all in plain English. It is called The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality.
I think in the end it doesn't matter what word(s) we use to describe our "meditational", introspective, self-examining abilities. Personally, I've learned to call it Spirituality without embarrassment because I now know it exists by itself, religion or not :)
Kabbalah is Jewish mysticism, so it’s certainly going to have a place in Judaism. Some of the great Jewish theorists like Nachmanides, Joseph Karo, the Vilna Gaon, etc. were all Kabbalists. Hasidism is a Kabbalistic movement, so every Hasidic Jew partakes in a Kabbalistic philosophy. The prominent Chabad movement is a Hasidic movement and thus partakes in Kabbalah. Hasidism was resisted by the Mitnagdim, but they were also Kabbalists (like the aforementioned Vilna Gaon). I don’t know any rabbis who teach transcendental meditation, but devekut is a Jewish concept. Additionally, the popular Orthodox Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan has authored Jewish Meditation: A Practical Guide.
----
Edit:
Forgot to mention that there are also Jews who are fully traditional and fully reject Kabbalah.
Jewish Meditation sounds like what you're looking for!
Sorry to hear what you went through. If you are in to reading Stanislav Grof could be something to look in to.
In his”biography” - when the impossible happens, he describes several incidents with his wife Christina. He/they call the incidents spiritual emergencies. Which seems to be other words for psychotic breaks, but with less stigma.
Some happen with psychedelics others out of the blue.
They have written this book, which may interest you:
https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Emergency-Personal-Transformation-Consciousness/dp/0874775388
Thank you for sharing!
Hi, atheist here who is converting to Judaism. Long story, let me see if I can give you the gist of it.
I did not "have a bad experience in the water." I led a perfectly fulfilling life as an atheist, and I gained a lot of respect for atheism and atheists in general. I came to understand how the universe behaves exactly as we would expect it to without a god, and how it is incredibly unlikely that there is a god, given the huge body of evidence against it (a favorite book of mine comes to mind, God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger). Nevertheless, I have chosen to convert to Judaism for a variety of reasons, most of which won't make sense to most atheists given that I'm choosing to believe something against truth because it adds meaning to my life (my best friend is an atheist and this is essentially the point he can't understand, and we respect each other for looking at it differently). But there is one psychological explanation I can offer you.
I have a pretty severe case of ADHD. My entire life is constantly in a state of chaos. I generally attribute it to the ADHD but I also believe I have an inherently disordered personality, that leads me to struggle to order my internal and external universe. It's hard for me to explain how profoundly my life is affected by this disorder, especially given the fact that some people don't believe it exists or think the only problem is distraction. I assure you the problems run much deeper, at least for me, and it has lead to problems of both pragmatic concern, and what I'm tempted to call existential concern. It's for this reason that I turned to Judaism. It adds a sort of superstructure to my life, and orders my universe in a way that I've found no secular ideas can. The external moral framework helps me because I really do require external motivation sometimes. The regularity of prayer and services have been immensely beneficial to introducing a state of order into my life. And the day of Shabbat, on which I do not work, write, handle money, or even use electricity, allows me to step back from the busy-ness of everyday life and calmly and objectively look at my life and the world for what it is, not from within the constant need to do but from the outside, reflectively and purposefully. I hope that makes sense to you, and I hope you can see that some people do have actual reasons for being religious other than ignorance. I also hope you see that I'm on your side for the most part...I believe in secularism and I plan to take every opportunity to explain to religious people that atheism isn't the existential nihilistic nightmare that most of the think it is. I understand the problems with religion, and most of people's criticism is deserved. Nevertheless, I wish more atheists could respect people like me and understand where we're coming from here.
TL;DR: Some people have reasons other than ignorance for being religious.
God is Disappointed in You is a condensed version of the entire Bible. Absolutely hilarious, and by far the best way to read the Bible if you don't actually want to read the Bible. You can read a sample chapter (Genesis) online; here's an excerpt:
> God built a beautiful garden in Iraq for Adam and Eve to live in. Adam and Eve spent their days running around naked and playing frisbee. They ate a lot of fruit. It was a lot like living at a Grateful Dead concert. God’s one rule was that they couldn’t eat the fruit from this magical tree he’d planted in the center of the garden. I don’t know why he put it there. It just tied the whole garden together.
> Understandably, Adam and Eve were consumed with curiosity about this tree. It was just one of thousands of trees in the garden, but now they found it impossible to resist eating its magical fruit... and having a talking snake constantly goading them into it didn’t help any. So Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the forbidden tree and were immediately endowed with the knowledge of good and evil, which mostly made them uptight about nudity.
> When God found out about the missing fruit, he went apeshit. He yelled at them, evicted Adam and Eve from the garden and, as extra punishment, he ordered them to become parents. This move backfired, however, because Adam and Eve simply filled the world with children who murdered each other, worshiped idols and had sex with giants, all of which really pulled God’s beard.
And another:
> God really hated Sodom and Gomorrah. The people there wanted to have sex with absolutely everything. They even tried to have sex with two angels God sent to warn Lot leave town. Angel rape is not how you get on God’s good side, so God incinerated the cities and all their inhabitants with fire and brimstone, except for Lot and his family, whom he let escape. But during their getaway, Lot’s wife made the mistake of turning to look back upon her burning hometown, for which God turned her into a pillar of salt, her punishment for the crime of nostalgia.
> Lot’s daughters felt it was a shame that, because their mother was salt, Lot would never have a son to carry on his family name. So they got their father drunk and had sex with him until he impregnated them both, which sort of made Lot his own father-in-law.
The author (Mark Russell) followed it up with a book based on the Apocrypha (Apocrypha Now) which isn't quite as funny but is still worth a look, especially if you're not familiar with those books.
Do you want the intentionally vague and obscure answer that most people want when they ask about existentialism? "It may be true that there is no ultimate purpose to life. But that is irrelevant either way since it is fundamentally unknowable."
The big idea is to seek out your own purpose, to find something bigger than yourself and devote yourself to it. Whether that something is an established thing like a religion, or if it is something like bringing vaccines to areas of the world without them, BOTH of those options are pretty big ideas. Can't find an already existing idea that is big enough? I guess you'll just have to create something.
>There's nothing bigger than myself to dictate my actions, and I haven't found anything that really ignites my passions.
That just kills me. Nothing? Really? There's NOTHING bigger than yourself? I'm not sure how much of an ego you've got on you, but it sounds like you have no problem finding a passion. It is just a selfish ambition that ignores that there are other people to be concerned about. If you REALLY think that there is NOTHING bigger than yourself out there, and there are no other people to be concerned about, no other events to get involved with, then existentialism and philosophy as a whole would like you to kindly remove your head from your hindquarters.
Is the study of philosophy not big enough? Or do you already encompass it? Is writing a novel something too easy for you that you can bang one out with no troubles?
You could devote yourself to becoming the Ubermensch, but why? You still need to answer the question for yourself "why bother?" What makes that your ideal goal instead of the Knight of Faith? Why become either when you can merely float along and exist? It would certainly be easier.
Why are you assuming that the bigger thing would have to dictate your actions? They can influence, or guide you, but you can also influence the ideas and help form them. Some big ideas are SO formless that they don't seem like a coherent thought at all. You could jump in and help clean them up.
I generally don't recommend reading existentialist texts. Especially to help find a purpose. I'm sure there is some great stuff out there, but it also helps give philosophy a bad name. Read someKant and devote yourself to being abel to understand what the hell he was trying to say in this. If you absolutely MUST read existentialism, read Kierkegaard or something. I don't know. Existentialism is one area that I just steered clear of because everything I read in there just sounded like a lot of angsty teenagers.
Your examples aren't really drawing a clear picture.
> My car is pretty dirty, so I should probably for 30 minuts or so take up the cause of cleaning it. But why bother if I don't really care?
You ought to bother because if you live anywhere that puts salt on the roads, regular cleaning will help maintain your car better. Also, if you ever go to pick someone up, it is SUPER nice to be able to get in and out of a person's car without getting the bottoms of your pants dirty.
>I could make a point to really try and be the best man I could by working out and dressing nice, etc. But I just don't care enough. So what if I'm skinny as hell and just wear jeans and a tee-shirt everywhere?
Working out and dressing nice makes EVERYTHING a lot easier. Until you do it, you have no idea how much easier it is to move around, open heavy doors, carry groceries, breathe, etc. And dressing nice makes people want to talk to you more. If your T actually fits and goes with your pants and is maybe even clean, that goes a LONG way to making you more approachable. And once someone approaches you, then suddenly you get to talk to them about philosophy!
So it isn't really about YOU at all. A good chunk of what we do, including philosophy, is to make you a more complete citizen. And there is never a city with only 1 citizen. You need to make a bigger choice of whether it is a society you want to be part of, or not. If not, are you going to devote yourself to changing it, or are are you going to turn tail and remove yourself from it?
Alan Watts "Tao the Watercourse Way" is all you need (in addition to Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu) to get started. It changed my life, and is by far the best introduction out there; much more than just an introduction.
Also listen to his many, excellent videos explaining Daoism on youtube. If you like his speaking, you will like his writing. This is a free and quick way to get to know Alan Watts and Daoism.
I read "The Tao of Pooh" and found it unhelpful and a waste of time. It is simply not an introduction to Daoism, and makes no attempt to be so.
Excellent translators and/or expositors of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are DC Lau, Victor Mair, Burton Watson, AC Graham, and Roger Ames.
Mulamadhyamakakarika by Nagarjuna
Madhyamakavatara by Chandrakirti
Aryadeva's 400 Stanzas
Bodhisattvacharyavatara by Shantideva
I highly recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520/
The author makes the case that god IS a testable hypothesis, and when consistent scrutiny is applied, the hypothesis can be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's a common misconception. The traditional concept of gods is not compatible with modern scientific knowledge. For a summary of why this is the case, see e.g. God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.
Beyond that, science provides explanations for human belief in gods that shows why so many people have such beliefs, and it's not because gods exist.
We are at a point in human history where it's possible to say, with as much certainty as we have about any knowledge, that gods do not exist, outside of the imaginations of humans.
https://www.amazon.com/God-Disappointed-You-Mark-Russell/dp/1603090983
​
I'll have to pick up a used copy - thanks!
I'm an atheist, and most will hate me for this, but I don't recommend The God Delusion. There are better books, and Dawkins is much better when he writes about biology.
Atheist worldview book: I recommend Sense and Goodness without God by Richard Carrier
Books about Christianity (there are so many to recommend, but these are some favorites):
I'm a big fan of Spong, so I would recommend any of his books. Also Robert M. Price is worth looking into, he has lots of free sermons and writings available from when he was a liberal pastor and theologian, which he is not anymore.
I'd like to suggest "Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity " by John Loftus. A hugely underrated book,imo.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Became-Atheist-Preacher-Christianity/dp/1616145773/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
John also writes on http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/
Sartre presented a lecture called "Existentialism and Humanism," which can now be found in print as Existentialism is a Humanism. It's almost like an Existentialism manefesto, per se. The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus is a good treatise on existentialism (Absurdism, really, but it'll do).
I would not hesitate to start reading fiction novels that have Existentialist themes. Camus' The Stranger, Sartre's Nausea, and Dostyevsky's Notes From the Underground are just a few that will find your studies well.
As for secondary literature, the only text I can knowledgeably recommend is Existentialism For Dummies, as I'm currently working my way through it. It's actually not as bad as you might think coming from the "For Dummies" series. It doesn't go too in-depth, and ideas are very concise and oftentimes humorous.
I have also heard good things about David Cogswell's Existentialism For Beginners, though I have never read it myself.
If your niece feels comfortable with this level of writing and philosophical examination, it is almost imperative to read Kierkegaard's Either/Or and Fear and Trembling, Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, and Sartre's Being and Nothingness, among others. It is good to have some background understanding of Kant and perhaps have a few essays by Schopenhauer under your belt leading up to the more rigorous academics like Heidegger and Hegel.
Good luck, and happy reading!
Actually, this format box on Amazon might be the solution. I remember having this problem with Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard because there were two different Penguin Classics covers. The format box seems to show the distinction between the one with the portrait of Kierkegaard (http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Trembling-Soren-Kierkegaard/dp/B000K1PPZO/ref=tmm_pap_title_9) and the one with the painting (http://www.amazon.com/Trembling-Penguin-Classics-Soren-Kierkegaard/dp/0140444491/ref=tmm_pap_title_4). Thanks very much for the help!
If you haven't read it; I highly suggest Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett. It's an entire book dedicated to this question.
Here are some books that may help.
> Can a Deist be spiritual? Is the belief in energies, spirits, and other entities against the concept?
Your two questions are actually unrelated. Rationalist/anti-supernaturalist/atheists can be spiritual.
http://www.spiritualatheism.com/
http://www.uua.org/beliefs/welcome/atheism/
http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/04/10/religious-atheists-interview-maria-greene-unitarian-universalist-humanists/
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-plea-for-spirituality
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Little-Book-Atheist-Spirituality/dp/0143114433
I think that deists can also believe in energies, spirits and other entities but they typically do not.
Jeg er ateist, hører en masse black metal og jeg er mindst lige så kritisk overfor religion, MEN den her video og den har bog i kombination med en øget muslimsk tilvækst i Europa har flyttet mit syn på den sag. Jeg er fuldt ud overbevist om at 1) Kristendommens positive indflydelse er undervurderet og 2) uden kristendommen bliver muslimsk indflydelse meget større i Europa end den er i dag, hvad jeg meget gerne vil undgå. Hvis valget står mellem Islam og Kristendommen, hvad jeg er begyndt at tro det gør, så vælger jeg Kristendommen. Uanset hvad, så er det min vurdering, at det bedste bolværk imod Islam er Kristendommen, og jeg er trosalt mere utryg ved Islam end ved Folkekirken.
People accept emotionally, justify rationally… and ever religion, there's an element of ridiculousness.
I was once in a Buddha seminar with monks from Tibet visiting the US. They'd actually convinced people in the room that if you mediate hard enough at this chart and had good "alignment" of body, soul, mind, etc… you could stop wearing glasses and contacts.
You can also read about someone being an atheist buddha.
In Confession of a Buddhist Atheist, Stephen Batchelor wrote of visiting the giant Buddhas of Bamiyan, three decades before they were reduced to a pile of rocks.
"From the monk's cell, hewn out of the sandstone cliff centuries earlier, where I spent my days idly smoking a potent blend of marijuana, hashish, and tobacco, a narrow passage led to a dark inner staircase that I would illuminate by striking matches. The steep rock steps climbed to an opening that brought me out, via a narrow ledge, onto the smooth dome of the giant Buddha's head, which fell away dizzily on all sides to the ground one hundred and eighty feet below. On the ceiling of the niche above were faded fragments of painted Buddhas and bodhisattvas. I feared looking up at them for too long lest I lose my balance, slip, and plummet earthward. As my eyes became used to the fierce sunlight, I would gaze out onto the fertile valley of Bamiyan, a patchwork of fields interspersed with low, flat-roofed farmhouses, which lay stretched before me. It was the summer of 1972. This was my first encounter with the remains of a Buddhist civilization, one that had ended with Mahmud of Ghazni's conquest of Afghanistan in the eleventh century.
Like others on the hippie trail to India, I thought of myself as a traveler rather than a mere tourist, someone on an indeterminate quest rather than a journey with a prescribed beginning and end. Had I been asked what I was seeking, I doubt my answer would have been very coherent. I had no destination, either of the geographical or spiritual kind. I was simply "on the road," in that anarchic and ecstatic sense celebrated by Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg, and other role models I revered at the time.
I enjoyed nothing more than simply being on the way to somewhere else. I was quite content to peer for hours through the grimy, grease-smeared windows of a rattling bus with cooped chickens in the aisle, observing farmers bent over as they toiled in fields,women carrying babies on their backs, barefoot children playing in the dust, old men seated in the shade smoking hookahs, and all the shabby little towns and villages at which we stopped for sweet tea and unleavened bread." https://www.amazon.com/Confession-Buddhist-Atheist-Stephen-Batchelor/dp/0385527071
---
While the adventures of past pilgrims are inspiring, other types of journeys are impressive as well:
Cave in the Snow: A Western Woman's Quest for Enlightenment https://www.amazon.com/Cave-Snow-Western-Womans-Enlightenment/dp/0747543895
The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist Monk https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Two-Hands-Clapping-Education/dp/0520232607
One approach would be to check out a book called "365 Tao." It's a wonderful book that gives you a Tao passage every day and then expands upon the meaning of it. 365 Tao on Amazon
Also you could check out Alan Watts' "Tao: The Watercourse Way." I personally really enjoy Watts, and this book is a nice exposition of some Tao ideals. Tao: The Watercourse Way
Tao: The Watercourse Way - by Alan Watts
These are popular:
Jewish Literacy
Jewish Meditation
Also, many books by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.
I've found it to be a good fit for me. It was a long journey to get there. When I first was leaving Catholicism and talking with friends, several people suggested I check out Unitarian Universalism. In those days, I didn't want to go anywhere near any church. Over the years, the UU suggestion came up a few times. When I would take those "what religion am I?" online quiz, I would always get UU. Eventually, I decided to check out the local UU church.
There is a certain amount of familiarity. There's a weekly service that has a similar structure: readings, songs, sermon, etc. UU congregations can differ in their religiosity. The church attend is pretty reluctant to embrace Christianity, but that's okay with me.
What I like about UU'ism is that people come to it from all sorts of backgrounds. At my church there are people who grew up: Catholic, Baptist and various Protestant denominations, Jewish, Buddist, Pagan, Athiest, Agnostic, and more. What helps make it work in one of the UU Principles
> As responsible religious seekers, we recognize that we are privileged to be free, to have resources to pursue life beyond mere survival, to continually search for truth and meaning, to exist beyond bonds of dogma and oppression, and to wrestle freely with truth and meaning as they evolve.
There is no official religious dogma or creeds, people are encouraged to find their own truths and respect other peoples search for truth. It's not a perfect process. There have been people who find their truth in more conservative viewpoints and then get frustrated that other UUs are not supportive of that. If you are a fairly liberal, lefty, progressive, then UU could be a great fit, though there are probably more conservative UU congregations that would embrace those beliefs too.
I found this book to be a helpful introduction to UU'ism.
Padmakara Translation Group revised edition for the translation: https://www.amazon.com/Way-Bodhisattva-Bodhicaryavatara-Shambhala-Classics/dp/1590303881/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518685960&sr=1-1&keywords=bodhisattva
The Nectar of Manjushri's Speech for a traditional and detailed commentary https://www.amazon.com/Nectar-Manjushris-Speech-Shantidevas-Bodhisattva-ebook/dp/B005LQYQJO/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518685934&sr=1-5
If you want a lighter commentary maybe the Dalai Lama's, or Pema Chodron's.
Ringu Tulku Rinpoche also has a great video series/course on it: https://bodhicharya.org/teachings/courses/bodhicharyavatara/
>And no one has the evidence to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
They do, and have already done so.
God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
God is Disapointed in you for posting this picture
edit: the book in the passenger seat
I got kind of lazy with the links, but anyways here is my collection of Christianity related books, links etc.
Listening:
Books:
Links
i cut and pasted this from nuke the pope i will give a link to it at the bottem ...
>I'm just reading John Loftus' The Christian Delusion, a collection of experts' essays challenging various bits of Christian doctrine. I've just started on chapter 14, where Hector Avalos refutes Dinesh D'Souza's claptrap about Hitler & Co. (is that what's in your video? I can't watch it right now).
>There's some controversy about Hitler's personal views, though those are not nearly as important as the views he espoused in public. So Avalos basically ignores those, whatever they may have been, and instead explains how many centuries of Church-propagated anti-Semitism contributed most significantly to the Holocaust. A couple of pages beyond where I've read, he apparently also demolishes the silly claims about Hitler and Darwinism as engines of genocide. Instead, from what I've briefly skimmed, he points to the Bible as a strong precedent for and proposition of genocide.
>I'm already past Avalos' brief mention of Stalin. His mass murders arguably had nothing to do with atheism, but with enforced collectivization - those who refused to submit to the collective "for the greater good" had to be eliminated. Ironically, the move toward collectivization parallels that found in the Bible and preached by Jesus. Avalos quotes a passage where a man and woman are killed for failing to participate in the collective. Today we condemn the idea that the collective is more important than the lives of human beings, but the Bible actually propagates it. I've been meaning to follow a reference Avalos makes where he says that recent document finds have actually exposed participation and complicity of the Eastern Church in Stalin's operations toward collectivization. It's really amazing how religion tends to show up behind many activities we consider evil!
He also points out that the "numbers games" Christians like to play with regard to numbers killed is petty and meaningless. Christianity may point out that "only" 100,000 witches were burnt in the Dark Ages, while WW2 killed 10 million. Some counter arguments:
For whatever it's worth, when someone insists on arguing numbers, I point out that the Christianization of Europe alone cost an estimated 8 million lives; the 30 Years War (between Catholicism and Protestantism) wiped out a third of Germany's population (+ more elsewhere)... and these numbers are all the more impressive because there simply weren't that many people around in those times. But for those folks arguing about genocides "under the banner of atheism" I point to the Spanish, Portugese and other "conquistadores" who invaded the Americas and wiped out much of the population of these two continents, with estimates (as looked up in Wikipedia) ranging as high as 200 million. You folks sure you want to play this game? ;)
here is the link http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/h5hro/hitler_stalin_mao_pol_pot_blah_blah_blah/c1sqjqs
I would recommend "Breaking The Spell" by Daniel Dennett.
http://www.amazon.ca/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/0143038338/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405461794&sr=1-1&keywords=daniel+dennett
yep
"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins doesn't really go into anything new or original, but the strength of the book is that is a great, concise summary of all the beginning arguments for atheism.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004
I'd follow it with Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell", also a good recommendation. Same goes for Carl Sagan's "A Demon Haunted World"
http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/0143038338
http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469/
Christopher Hitchens is a bit vitriolic for some, but "God is not Great" has some nuggets in it.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807/
I personally didn't like Sam Harris' "End of Faith" but I did like his "Letter to a Christian Nation".
http://www.amazon.com/Letter-Christian-Nation-Vintage-Harris/dp/0307278778/
For the topic of evolution, Talk Origins is great (and free) http://toarchive.org/
Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" is also a good read (and short). Not so short but also good are Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker", "Climbing Mount Improbable" and "Unweaving the Rainbow"
http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Introduction/dp/0199291152/
http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/
http://www.amazon.com/Climbing-Mount-Improbable-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0393316823/
http://www.amazon.com/Unweaving-Rainbow-Science-Delusion-Appetite/dp/0618056734/
It's mind-boggling isn't. Daniel Dennett wrote a book into his investigation into this question, from the perspective that religions are memes that act like evolved viral organisms, perfectly adapted to lodge themselves into the minds of those who are without the inoculation of critical thinking ability. Contained in this idea, is that many religions hijack our brains' mechanism to fall in love, meaning that religious believers are in love with their religion and are blinded to the reality of it. Pretty interesting read; http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/0143038338
http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/0143038338/ref=cm_lmf_tit_4 this one should be good
God is Not Great. Getting it out there, I think it's probably one of the more inevitable ones.
Losing Faith in Faith and Godless each by Dan Barker.
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel Dennett.
First ones that come to mind. I think a few theologians may be worth reading as well. Not sure what ones though. If Kent Hovind wrote a book, we could keep a facepalm count.
Book suggestion. Check out Breaking The Spell
It's a brilliant examination as religion as natural human evolution and really assisted me with better articulating some problems I have with religion.
Recommended Reading
A History of God
Check that out.
EDIT: More broader then these are probably what you're looking for:
Religion is Natural
Religion is A Nautral Phenomenom
Since there have been tons of religions, it's kind of hard to fit them all into one book.
I haven't read either of these, but they seem to be the kind of thing you're looking for.
The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by Andre Comte-Sponville
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Atheist-Spirituality/dp/0143114433/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376775957&sr=1-1&keywords=the+little+book+of+atheist+spirituality
The Good Book by A. C. Grayling
http://www.amazon.com/The-Good-Book-Humanist-Bible/dp/0802778372
Not my bag really, but Alain de Botton has published a book which sounds like it might be right up your alley - Religion for Atheists.
The other option that comes to mind is AC Grayling's The Good Book. (In my opinion, a little better)
Hope they help!
You're completely ignoring the sociological functions that religion satisfies, which is why "common sense and intelligence" hasn't overrun religion entirely in the developed world. You should definitely read Religion for Atheists: A Non-believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion.
I'm also not talking about morality (and you're incorrect claiming that most religious people are immoral) nor about war and "divisiveness" (which are primarily caused by material factors and not ideological ones).
This is perfectly normal but very under-discussed.
See Alain de Botton's book "Religion for Athiests"
https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Atheists-Non-believers-Guide-Uses/dp/0307476820
Throughout human culture we have created rituals, marked our developments, and formed communities through religion and spiritual avenues. Our need for these institutions goes beyond their adherences to divine philosophies. They serve the human need for meaning and collaboration.
We, as atheists, can engage in religious archetypes of ritual and action because they in themselves are not religious projects, but human projects, and the atheist community hasn't solidified our own yet.
Enjoy!
Edit: link
ITT: y'all haven't read Alain De Botton's Religion for Atheists: A Non-believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion and it shows.
You mentioning the value of community reminds me of the second chapter of this book, and I only wish I had such a community of my own. Alain de botton is a dabbler (dabblist?) if I've ever seen one.
My favorite idea to ponder is that of impermanence. Observing anything, you'll see that nothing lasts- but does anything stand still? The taoists seem to think that nothingness is behind the seams of everything, and getting in touch with it by clearing your head is the natural path of authentic virtue.
I think a few near death experiences made the search for something that lasts come along pretty authentically. I believe that if everything comes from and returns to nothingness, then everyone is born as a clean slate- so what keeps you from empathising with others when the wrongdoer does exactly what you would do if you went through every single thing they have?
I am skeptical about group dynamics, and the way people lose themselves in a crowd, so I naturally can't pick one "ism", but I also have my guard up from giving too much attention to just anything, in fear of falling pray to inauthentic things.
Meditation, or returning to my clean slate, I can ask myself "do I really want this thing this group wants of me?" of any group, or "do i really need to feel this way?". Realising that nobody can please me but myself, and more importantly- that nobody can upset me other than myself, I find my self getting overjoyed and overwhelmed less and less.
It may sound crazy, but self-reliance, meditation, permanence, compassion, reason, and tranquility may all be one & the same thing. Whenever I work to develop one of them, the other ones seem to flourish with it.
This book doesn't offer much in the way of scripture or teachings, but it may be up your alley.
Well... yes, you can. (Link is to an autobiography by a former Buddhist monk, still practicing Buddhist—self-defined but also accepted by other members of the Buddhist community—who also identifies as atheist but nonetheless keeps certain ritual practices.)
Zen Buddhism. [Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist] (http://www.amazon.com/Confession-Buddhist-Atheist-Stephen-Batchelor/dp/0385527071 ) is a great book talking about how reincarnation was just something the Buddha talked about in terms of adopting a world view that was very common at the time. It is not, therefore, a central component of the Buddha's message.
A more philosophical discussion of the Chinese language can be found in Alan Watts "Tao: The Watercourse Way" link, particularly Chapter 1 on the Chinese Written Language. You should proceed with caution, though. Having read DeFrancis, you'll be in a good position to critique Watts' description of Chinese.
"365 Tao" link and "Everyday Tao" link, both by Deng Ming-dao are not scholarly works, but they include some interesting philosophical discussions about particular characters which include some etymology.
"The Composition of Common Chinese Characters(an Illustrated Account)" link by Guanghui Xie also includes the etymology of specific characters.
May I suggest you a book that is eye-opening about God and religion?
The three volumes of Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch.
Please read the reviews and do your research (read plot, etc), as most of the message is really about how religions have distorted and created egoic teachings to suit their agenda, plus how they are doing it wrong.
2 things.
Once you learn the ropes, you will be amazed at the massive changes for the better in your life. In fact, it only gets better as long as the desire remains. It's easy once the instructions are learned.
That's a good starting point. I have seen some seriously messed up people turn into harmonious powerhouses. The secret ingredient is intelligence. You can only do it if you know how and this stuff isn't taught in any schools unfortunately.
> While I certainly agree that there is value in looking at things in a new light to see a new truth, all too often people do not actually read the actual source material and instead read modern interpretations which are fallacious, and misleading.
Sounds like we'd get along. :)
In the Jewish tradition many English speaking practitioners happily accepted Michael Berg's translation of The Zohar as being canonical.
Luckily a scholar with more of an academic eye grounded in Aramaic named Daniel Matt was willing to spend the better part of a decade trying to capture the nuanced almost poetical nature of the texts for an English audience.
This gets to a point that I think Jorge Luis Borges perfectly described in his short story 'An Examination of the Work of Herbert Quain' and 'Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'.
The first short explores the idea that the same book may tell many stories or that there is only one story iterated infinitely as a sort of synecdoche. The second portrays how translations are in many ways whole new works that never fully capture the original's essence, somewhat similar to Godel's incompleteness theorem.
To illustrate this look at a single simple Hebrew word that has shaped the better part of the last 2000 years of Western civilization: יֵשׁוּעַ. Most westerners think the correct pronunciation of this word is Jesus. Yeshua is far closer to the truth, but even then it doesn't entirely capture the full Hebrew vocalization on the vowels/nikkud.
How did this happen? The name Yeshua (יֵשׁוּעַ) comes from Joshua's Hebrew name, Yehoshua (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ) which sometimes appears in its shortened form, Yeshua (e.g., 1 Chron. 24:11; Neh. 8:17). Yeshua, when transliterated into Greek, comes out as ᾽Ιησοῦς (pronounced YAY-soos), with the final sigma being necessary in the nominative case to designate a proper name. In old English, the "y" sound was rendered as "j," and thus we obtain "Jesus".
Put another way all interpretations and translations are necessarily corruptions.
> As an aside I have not read much re; Kabbalah, do you have a recommendation of a good book?
The tradition spans everything from neoplatonism, gnosticism, hermetica, to pythagorean mysticism. It wouldn't be exaggerating to say Kabbalah is the thread that ties together almost all of western esotericism.
There are a number of popular documentaries that give a general overview without being too inaccurate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibuSPtXG5dg
Rav. Michael Laitman's protege, Anthony Kosinec, does a nice job as well,
http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/kabbalah-video-clips/kabbalah-revealed-a-basic-overview
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan does a stellar job summarizing the traditional Jewish take on Kabbalah in his 1991 book "Inner Space." The book doesn't convey the feeling, however, of what it means to be really "in" the tradition.
The closest thing I think I can share to give a sense of what I'm getting at is this little paper.
Other than that though unless a person has any experience with lucid dreaming or out of body experiences, I am not sure anything I say will make any sense. Kaplan wrote two books, "Jewish Meditation, A Practical Guide" and "Meditation and the Bible", with the hopes that others could have the same sorts of lived experiences. Like anything, though, it requires a little practice. :)
There are other takes on Jewish meditation as well, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan has some great starter books explaining the concept. Jewish Meditation: A Practical Guide & Meditation and Kabbalah
I was curious about this myself about a year ago and did some reading. turns out the ancient Jews were into meditation as well, but their practice differed from the typical eastern meditation practices.
Eastern Meditation is usually performed as a means to an end, or done for the experience itself. The Jewish practice didn't use meditation for the experience in itself, but rather to quiet and focus the mind for prayer. I highly recommend this book for a in-depth look at this history and techniques of Jewish Meditation and how it differs from the eastern practices: https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Meditation-Practical-Aryeh-Kaplan/dp/0805210377
I've begun to incorporate aspects of the jewish meditation practice (within my own christian context) into my own prayer life. I haven't become regular at it yet, but for someone who is very easily detracted while praying, I can tell you it does work wonders for keeping focused during prayer. Also, I do believe there are emotional and psychological benefits to regular practice, and I hope to become more regular.
Try this
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0805210377/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473133471&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=Jewish+meditation&dpPl=1&dpID=41DhIahkWLL&ref=plSrch
I truly think it is. I read A Chosen Faith before even attending. They make a point of having no doctrine, but have seven "principles." The principles are simple and promote tolerance, dignity, and acceptance. In some places you might run into some of the "cheesiness" but I just mark that up to others uniqueness. However, you won't find anyone trying to push anything on you or getting in your face w/ the cheesiness. I was raised Southern Baptist. When we started attending a UU congregation, we met a Jew who married a Catholic, a young couple that had been raised Hari Krishna, and a boatload of atheists just looking for somewhere to find a social support network. Also, they have "religious education" that I think you would approve of for your child. They do cover different faith traditions, but only to the point that your child would not be clueless if someone tried to push something on them later in life. I know this was a long response, and UU does not proselytize as a rule, but I have always felt comfortable. The UUA website has a search function so you can find a congregation near you. One further piece of advice though. Find a large to medium sized church if possible (400 members maybe). We've been to a medium sized one and now occasionally make it to a small one. There were simply more opportunities at the larger church.
During our pledge drive, the woman that ran it got up during service and said "I know few of you believe in god, and even fewer in damnation, but get your goddamn pledges in. Thank you."
I read A Chosen Faith a couple months back, and the UU definition is more about the universal quality of all religions (that they are looking at the same light through different windows) rather than the concept of Hell.
It's basically not a topic of discussion. After a century and a half of theology about salvation and the nature of God, it's a settled topic in UU circles.
You should read a couple of books on the concept of a spiritual emergency. Spiritual Emergency: When Personal Transformation Becomes a Crisis and Trials of the Visionary Mind
The Faith Healers (Amazon)
Derren Brown - Miracles for Sale (youtube)
Lot of great Therevadan book recommendations, but if you're interested in Mahayana Buddhism, or the Bodhisattva Ideal in particular, then I recommend the following books:
 
The Way of the Bodhisattva - This is a classic Mahayana text that explains in full detail the path of the Bodhisattva. I also recommend the Dalai Lama's commentary on this text.
 
Lastly, for good intro to Buddhism books from a Mahayana perspective, I recommend the Dalai Lama's Becoming Enlightened and Lama Surya Das's Awakening the Buddha Within
Beautiful quote :-)
As a reference, it was Shantideva who wrote this in the The Way of the Bodhisattva (Bodhicharyavatara)
Compassion. Thankfulness (for having been met with the concepts of mindfulness/right speech). Patience.
"Thus, when enemies or friends,
Are seen to act improperly,
Remain serene and call to mind
That everything arises from conditions"
The above is just one nugget from Shantideva's The Way of the Bodhisattva
. (Chapter 6 "Patience" verse 33.)
http://grooveshark.com/#!/search?q=shantideva
Way of the Bodhisattva - Shantideva
http://www.amazon.com/Way-Bodhisattva-Shambhala-Library/dp/1590306147/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312863050&sr=8-1
Victor Stenger wrote an entire book addressing the fine-tuning argument:
God: The Failed Hypothesis
He put the punchline in the title...
Oh yeah! This one:
God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist Hardcover – January 2, 2007
by Victor J. Stenger
I haven't read that yet. It's definitely on my wishlist now.
If you haven't read it I strongly recommend Stenger's God The Failed Hypothesis. He tackles the question of if God can be tested for. He comes up with a number of viable tests all of which God fails. As Goldang says we can't disprove all possible gods. But what we can disprove is an interventionist God. And since that is fundamentally what groups like TSCC argue for, it amounts to the same thing.
No, some conceptions of god are falsifiable. There's nothing magical about the word god that makes it somehow unfalsifiable. It really depends on what one means by 'god'. How many essential attributes/past actions does this purported entity have? If they are disproven, perhaps that conception of god has been disproven. There are people who would not - indeed perhaps cannot - believe in a god who did not create the universe in 6 days. If one considers this disproven, then that god is in fact disproven.
One can create a conception of a god that contains no falsifiable claims, or perhaps one can simply disbelieve that particular claims have indeed been disproven. In the first case the proposed deity would look not much like the christian conception, and in the second one definitely must ignore much of modern science.
The recently deceased Victor Stenger wrote a number of wonderful books on the subject that I highly recommend. The short version is that atheists should not agree that god is unfalsifiable because virtually all conceptions of god are not only falsifiable, but nearly entirely falsified. We should be challenging this assertion wherever it is stated, not reenforcing it.
God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor J. Stenger. It's quite good without being too abrasive in my opinion.
dude it's over.... read some Karl Marx
here's another video from Dr Richard Carrier breaking it down scientifically and with actual facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79Lmmy2jfeo
here's an excellent book:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520
it's a dry read, but it fucking crushes the Jesus myth and other super natural nonsense.
read the portable atheist by Christopher Hitchens, there are countless atheist philosophers that utterly fucking destroy the validity of jesus. It's over dude, give it up! there was no Jesus.
I don't know why people keep thinking he was just some ordinary dude hippy guy walking around preaching shit. He never fucking existed.
facts, science and the philosophers are on my side, not yours and they never will be.
https://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God:_The_Failed_Hypothesis
Aside:
If people don't want to, or find the Bible hard to read - a good alternative is "God is Disappointed In You". It's a humourous abridged but somewhat accurate version of the Bible. Amazon link.
I own it and love it. Whilst I did read the Bible mostly cover to cover a few years ago (skipped the genealogy), this comedy version is a great refresher.
You might want to check this out (especially the audio book narrated by James Urbaniak) :
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1603090983/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Since you know about Richard Carrier I would assume you already have read some of the well known Anti-religionists like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennet, Stenger, etc. If you are talking about secular biblical scholarship and historical analysis there isn't anyone who keeps me interested as much as Carrier, but I haven't read much in that subject. Some others include Robert Price and Bart Erhman.
There are several good essay compilations by John Loftus which are more generally directed at Christianity. They include essays by Carrier and Robert Price and a number of other secular thinkers. The Christian Delusion I think is the first in that series. Hitchens's The Portable Atheist is another good collection which includes older writing aimed at all religion. Bertrand Russell is a great, too.
I think there's a failure for many people to view religion anthropologically. Study the history of religions. Learn about religions in other places. You quickly realize there are as many religions out there as there are opinions.
The Christian Delusion has a great chapter about culture and Christianity:
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Delusion-Why-Faith-Fails/dp/1616141689
I believe anthropology can also inform us on the subject of religion. Not just science alone.
>1) How do we explain that we all seem to know what is right and wrong? Why do we believe that being a human entitles someone to rights?
Evolved Morality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/#EvoBioDebMor
 
>2) Why do we all look for and want meaning if this is a meaningless world?
Again, evolution.
We are hardwired to find meaning where there may be one because at some point it was advantageous to our survival.
 
>3) How can we know what is true? If our brains have evolved to ensure our survival and not necessarily tell us what is true... how can we be sure of anything?
The thing is that "being right" is part of the survival process. Or at least it became a part of the survival process at some stage. And since we know that we as humans are prone to making errors we have taken steps to doublecheck our beliefs to make sure that they are true (or at least that they map to reality).
 
>4) How do you as an atheist defend the fine-tuning argument? The chances of a world existing with life, even existing at all, is incredibly low. Did we really just get extremely lucky?
I personally dont defend the fine-tuning argument, I reject it for multiple reasons.
First of all, its proponents assume that the constants we see today could be different, but there is no real proof of that.
Second, even if they were indeed different that does not mean that life would be impossible. Life in the form as we know it may be impossible, but other forms could still arise.
http://web.uni-plovdiv.bg/marta/life_in_the_multiverse.pdf ignore the multiverse part, focus on the fact that even completely removing the weak nuclear force would still allow for the universe to form
 
>5) What do you think is the best argument against Christianity? Can you recommend any good literature that argues for atheism? I am not sure if Dawkins and Sam Harris books are any good or not. Looking for more honest/less biased writers.
Tough question.
For general overview of theistic arguments and why they all fail in one form or another I would recommend John Shook - The God Debates
For a bit more specific arguments against Christianity I would probably go for Loftus (although he can be a dick sometimes imo) Why I became an Atheist and The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. Loftus is a former preacher and apologiest so he has really good insight into Christianity. Think Matt Dillahunty, but this one writes books. And has a huge ego :P
That Jesus was just another failed Jewish apocalyptic prophet.
Read about a book full of such things in The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails.
>(Have you read John Loftus’ Outsider Test for Faith?)
Not the book, no, but I'm vaguely familiar with the idea. Loftus's book Why I Became an Atheist was the first serious criticism of theism I read, although it has been years since I read it now.
The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True.
"Do unto your own faith what you do to other faiths." Apply the same skepticism to your own beliefs as you do to the beliefs of other faiths.
edit: added link
Couple things here.
You're describing the same idea as what John W. Loftus called the Outsider Test for Faith: “Test your beliefs as if you were an outsider to the faith you are evaluating."
Your former missionary companion seems to be applying Pascal's Wager to Mormonism, without realizing that if Pascal was right to propose this, that means Mormonism had to be false (since Pascal was a Christian, which is at odds with Mormonism). But Pascal was wrong.
Pascal's Wager fails to tell us which God is the right one, and it certainly does not tell us how to please this Being. For all he knows, God gave man reason and then hid Himself from man to test them to see if they would use the reason God gave them to conclude God doesn't exist, thus freeing mankind to develop moral frameworks based in reason, which would please this God. So in this scenario God would reward atheists and punish theists for their rejection of God's gift of reason in favor of faith. Another scenario is that the true God is not known to anyone on Earth and whenever people worship another God it just makes the true God angrier and angrier.
There's also the minor point that if God requires belief then the person using Pascal's Wager isn't providing a genuine faith, but is trying to game the system to cover their own ass "just in case." I doubt God, if such a being existed, would take kindly to this approach since people are trying to use a false faith to trick God into rewarding them for their feigned commitment.
Plus, there is a real downside. Sure, we will all eventually become worm food but between now and then we can either be prisoners to a false religion or live free to achieve our best life. So wasting the one life you've got for a what-if religion is not a costless gamble.
You pretty much came to the outsider test for faith on your own. Well done!
>This year, I made it my mission to understand and implement the teachings of Napoleon Hill and then teach it to others.
You left out the part between implementing it and teaching it to others where you confirm that it works. You seem committed to teaching it to others before you have observed personally that it works, so your plan might lead to you spreading lies.
Napoleon Hill's belief system is a type of magic, that is, claims about cause and effect without any plausible mechanism that could really connect them. "Magic Ladder to Success" literally has "Magic" in the title. Magical thinking is considered a sign of psychosis. The problem with magical thinking it is that it is a-priori implausible; it is structured in a way that discourages doing systematic experiments; and it is structured in a way that disrupts the objectivity of the person doing it so they are not in a position to determine whether it is true or false.
Religions are fundamentally about doing magic. No one religious belief has a majority, so most believers in magic are wrong. The evidence is also consistent with all of them being wrong. If you're going to work in this area, you have to be very clear how you are doing something different from the other magic users, since most of them are wrong.
If you learn to do magic, that's great. Figure out how to do experiments with it, publish a physics paper proving that it works, and get a Nobel prize. Many parapsychologists have failed before you.
It is irrational to put a large fraction of one's wealth into a risky investment even when that investment has expected positive return. Therefore you want to have a huge pile of money, or a large group of financially supportive people who are not concurrently experimenting with the same type of magic, before you start. If you aren't up to trying something that risky, don't bother trying to do magic.
You question wouldn't happen to have been inspired by this book would it?
You might start here for more tools that you and your family can use to understand where you are.
https://smile.amazon.com/Outsider-Test-Faith-Which-Religion/dp/1616147377?sa-no-redirect=1
Good luck.
> I believe there is a God
> I believe he has communicated with people
Does your evidence for these two claims pass the outsider test for faith? That is, if someone else presented you with this evidence for a faith other than your own, would you believe in that faith? I find this question is easier with a faith that no one believes in, so here's an example:
Someone comes up to you and claims that Elvis wasn't human, is alive, and communicates with people. He presents you with evidence equivalent to the evidence you use to justify your beliefs in God and his communication (old book, many other believers, feels Elvis's presence in their life, people have suffered for their belief, just the right song at just the right moment, "prime rocker" argument, whatever it is that reinforces your belief.) Do you now believe Elvis is a nonhuman entity who still lives and communicates with people? Or do you doubt some or all of that claim?
Thanks for the feedback and thoughtful reply! "Condemns most" refers to several indications that the (currently) 2/3rds of the world that does not believe in Jesus will be lost.
 
I do think it's a position reasonably supported by the text. Not that I agree -- I find it morally reprehensible that any "good pagans" and/or the vast billions raised without much exposure to Christianity would be lost due to being born in the wrong place/time. William Lane Craig, a leading apologist, has written a thoroughly repulsive response on the topic: God already knew they'd be lost, so he put them in those places -- and, he says, for all we know, the ratio of saved-to-lost is is perfectly optimal. Ugh!
 
To your point, I'd have a hard time agreeing that Mk 9:40 and Lk 9:50 "whoever is not against us is for us" indicates Jesus believed people could be saved without him. For starters, he contradicts this in Mt 12:30 and Lk 11:23 "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." In context though, both seem to refer to doing miraculous works (casting out demons) and aren't discussing how to be saved at all.
 
In addition, there are ample NT verses saying Jesus saw himself as the only way to be saved:
 
Many contradictory religions claim exclusivity. If Christianity let go of the idea of needing Jesus to be saved, it's a slippery slope to not needing him for anything -- just be a decent person and live your life. But in holding onto the need for Jesus, it ran headlong into another huge problem: if it's all about "accepting God's free gift of love", then a serial rapist can accept Jesus and be fully saved on death row, while a lifelong moral non-theist will go to hell for not accepting the gift. This completely devalues any of our actions and puts all the emphasis on "believing on bad evidence" instead of what you actually do with your life.
 
It's all a moot point, however -- as it's likely "Jesus", if he existed, never said most of the things attributed to him, and some epistles attributed to Paul were written pseudonymously also. The whole idea of a "final judgment" wasn't from the Old Testament (which focused largely on earthly kings and national victories); rather, it was borrowed from Zoroastrianism eschatology during Babylonian/Persian captivity, which is around the time the Jews rewrote their national history to better fit their unfortunate circumstances, leading to inclusion in Jewish inter-testamental scripture such as the Book of Enoch, which was accepted as scripture for hundreds of years and was quoted by and influenced the thinking of New Testament writers who were making all this stuff up at the time.
 
So, yeah -- who cares what Jesus said anyway, it's a lousy plan that wasn't even original! :-)
IMO, the best of them all is Why I Became an Atheist by John Loftus.
Loftus is a former evangelical preacher.
A descent selection so far from the other comments. I'll throw in a few, as well:
​
​
Some of the above is specifically related to atheism, while others I've used to help shape and inform my understanding and my worldview. Out of the entire list, the Carl Sagan book and the Sean Carroll book rank highest, for me, in level of importance. Those books didn't just change what I think, they changed how I think, and I am forever indebted to them.
There is a very good book which I recommend. What you are briefly outlining is the very attitude we should have while dealing with faiths.
https://www.amazon.com/Outsider-Test-Faith-Which-Religion/dp/1616147377
https://www.amazon.com/Outsider-Test-Faith-Which-Religion/dp/1616147377
For anyone looking for a logical resource to take a skeptical, comprehensive, step-by-step look at any God or faith, The Outsider Test for Faith is a great resource.
If I were absolutely convinced of it, yes. I doubt I will ever have an Abraham-type experience though. My favorite book on the matter: http://www.amazon.com/Trembling-Penguin-Classics-Soren-Kierkegaard/dp/0140444491
Kirkegaard: Fear and Trembling
Plenty of Christian apologists were convinced by Christianity. What do you think would cause a staunch atheist to convert?
>Why do we distinguish between apologetics and philosophy?
Often we don't, and oftentimes a philosopher is an apologist and vice versa.
> Why are so few philosophers theists?
This wasn't the case for most of human history, and I don't think it's fair to draw the conclusion out of the current state of secularization in academia.
>If you think you've got something good then by all means share it, but I don't expect to be surprised.
Have you read the following?
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis - Lewis was an atheist for most of his life, but later became the most well-known Christian apologist. You might also want to read his autobiography, Surprised by Joy.
The Reason for God by Tim Keller.
The Language of God by Francis Collins -
This one is more about how science and religion relate, and it's written by one of the leading scientists of the modern day.
Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas This is the original apologetic. If you're alright with some more-serious reading, this would be a great book to have read, both from an intellectual and historical perspective.
Descartes' Meditations While I'm not really convinced by his arguments, Descartes is known as the "Father of Modern Philosophy" for popularizing rationalism, or the use of reason/logic as the chief source or test of knowledge.
Pascal's Pensees
The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant This is known as "one of the greatest works in the history of philosophy" Quite the opposite of Descartes, Kant actually argues against the notion that we can use reason alone to understand the universe.
Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard - This is definitely not apologetics. However, he was an incredibly Christian philosopher, and is known as the Father of Existentialism (interesting that the founder of existentialism was a devout Christian, though now it is often associated with atheists such as Sarte and Nietzsche).
Here's a pretty good online summary of his faith/reason thinking.
Hit up Fear and Trembling for a primary source.
Several good books, God Delusion I like. Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan is also a very good one. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon is another good one.
Dawkins was merely speculating on possible mechanisms, not absolutely claiming truth to that mechanism. It is clear that children are credulous and gullible...Dawkins looks at both why that would be and how religion would affect such credulous minds.
But if you want a better examination of where religion comes from, read Breaking The Spell by Daniel Dennett.
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, by Daniel Dennett
Dennett is incredibly pleasant (like, the Mr. Rogers of atheistic philosophy), and the main point of the book is to get the reader to a place where they are comfortable thinking critically about religion. Once that initial barrier has been breached, people tend to be much more comfortable with something a bit harsher, like The God Delusion, or just more open to conversation.
>Maybe you should read Dennett’s Breaking the Spell
HTH
>>Maybe you should read Dennett’s Breaking the Spell
I said, what part in particular? Waving at a book is unhelpful. I'm trying to understand what point you're trying to make.
I don't really disagree. Maybe you would prefer "science-based" to "science-driven"? As far as spirituality is concerned, I think I'm with you, and I enjoyed reading the following a number of years ago: https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Atheist-Spirituality/dp/0143114433
It all depends on the goal. If OP wants to send a message, then choosing The God Delusion or God Is Not Great would certainly send that message. If OP wants a book that's a good read, both are still good choices, but now there're other books that are equally good choices.
The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality, The Portable Atheist, On Bullshit, On Truth, The Good Book: A Humanist Bible, The Moral Landscape, The Demon Haunted World, Religion and Science, and many others are excellent reads, but don't send that little (possibly unnecessary) jab.
This is exactly one of the points of this book. The ideas of communal support, getting together with the goal of talking and listening, and knowing one is not alone in their thoughts are all excellent ideas. Unfortunately, this idea had baggage known as organized religion. This idea will evolve, like everything else. Hopefully it will catch on and places like this will spout up in more and more places.
I found this difficult for a while too. These days, I've come around to the more typical anti-theistic stance on God (a "celestial North Korea" and all that), but coming to terms with godlessness was a painful process for me.
I found André Comte-Sponville's Little Book of Atheist Spirituality very helpful. Not sure if your wife's ready to read a book that identifies her as an atheist, but if so it may help her too.
Anti-theist Humanist here. I experience what might be considered a spiritual feeling when I contemplate the scale and beauty of the universe, or the desert, or the forest. I also think there are intrinsic benefits to quiet contemplation, aka meditation. I suppose it depends on what one calls "spirituality," but I think it's a useful part of being human, regardless of whether supernatural things exist.
See also The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality.
You might want to check out Alain de Botton's books (most notably, "Religion for Atheists: A Non-believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion") and his project "The School of Life".
Also, see Sunday Assembly.
He's got some TED Talks too.
If you can, read the book Religion for Atheists. It's all about how awesome traditions and customs we assign to religion could be appropriated to serve a secular mankind. In truth, Christmas was a pagan festival well before it was appropriated by Christianity and vestigial aspects of that pagan holiday (x-mas tree, the date Dec. 25th for example) still remain.
Is it possible to not quit that type of social life cold turkey? Can you still hang out with those saw people our of church? I know I did that a little but afterwards but it's hard. There isn't as much in common eventually.
I keep forgetting to pick this up. But it apparently talks about what we can get from religion, ie a structured social gathering.
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Atheists-Non-believers-Guide-Uses/dp/0307476820
I think it really depends on what you want to get out of reading it. I think pretty much everything people have suggested could be/is a good choice, but interestingly they are all going to give you a very different impression of Buddhism.
What the Buddha Taught is simple but dry. Imo, doesn't convey much of the "spirit" of buddhism, but it does get the ideas across pretty directly. When I was about 18 I read this... it was pretty confusing at the time, being one of the first things I read on the subject.
Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind is a classic and also written in short essays, iirc. However that's from (obviously) a Zen perspective. It's going to have some pretty different things to say about Buddhism than Walpola's book. Also, Zen can be rather enigmatic. So don't expect any kind of direct explanation if you go that route.
Awakening the Buddha Within might be a pretty good choice. Das is good for a mainstream audience. He's light and fun to read, but also gives a lot of good information on the subject.
Siddhartha is probably the suggestion I like the most. It's literature, but also pretty short, and quite interesting. I think it probably is going to give you the best idea of what Buddhism is "about."
I would also throw out there a personal favorite, [The World is Made of Stories by David Loy] (http://www.amazon.com/World-Made-Stories-David-Loy/dp/0861716159/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323643538&sr=8-1). This book makes for some very light reading and it's fun, but also very profound, imo. It's totally anecdotal, in that the whole thing is a collection of unrelated quotes strung together to convey a concept. However, don't expect any real talk about Buddhism. It really is just quotes.
Another thing that I think is worth mentioning, and might be a good choice, depending on your mentality is [Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist by Stephen Batchelor] (http://www.amazon.com/Confession-Buddhist-Atheist-Stephen-Batchelor/dp/0385527071/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323643708&sr=1-1). This book probably isn't for most people. For one thing its very polemic! And I don't necessarily agree with his ideas about the "historical Buddha" (a pretty lame concept in general, if you ask me) but reading this would definitely give you a good idea of how the western mind deals with some of the less appealing aspects of eastern thought. I think it can also show you what is at the core of Buddhism, what makes it worth translating into another culture.
Anyway, hope that helps!
You can still be an atheist and "become" a Buddhist. A book worth checking out.
I come from a similar angle, I'm surprised no one has suggested this:
"Buddhist Without Beliefs"
http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Without-Beliefs-Contemporary-Awakening/dp/1573226564
"Confession of a Buddhist Atheist"
http://www.amazon.com/Confession-Buddhist-Atheist-Stephen-Batchelor/dp/0385527071/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1409011759&sr=8-1&keywords=confessions+of+an+atheist+buddhist
I highly recommend "Buddhist Without Beliefs", being an atheist you will find a lot of empathy points. Buddhism it self, a lot of people argue, is atheist, not based on a deity (or group of deities), but on self realization.
Great book. I'm reading Bachelor's latest Confession of a Buddhist Atheist and having like moments. He's a stellar teacher.
The Way of Zen, by Alan Watts
The Three Pilars of Zen, by Philip Kapleau Roshi
Confession of a Buddhist Atheist, by Stephen Batchelor.
Outside of that, most of the stuff that I read comes from brazilian monks, like Monja Coen or Monje Gensho
given what i have said so far, i don't see how the age of the tradition is relevant, unless we're just to go round in circles.
some interesting readings
http://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Causality-Buddihism-General-Systems/dp/0791406377
http://www.amazon.com/Confession-Buddhist-Atheist-Stephen-Batchelor/dp/0385527071/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346351097&sr=1-1&keywords=confessions+buddhist+atheist
http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Science-B-Alan-Wallace/dp/0231123353/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346351200&sr=1-4&keywords=materialism+buddhism
i am a layman. if i have a sangha it would be right here, although i have in the past had association with the cambridge buddhist centre.
also, wanted to add - a good precursor to that book is confession of a buddhist atheist.
and his third book in a similar fashion, after buddhism: rethinking the dharma for a secular age.
Check out this book on Buddhism written by Stephen Batchelor. It was a good read on Athiesm in Buddhism.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0385527071/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/175-2409745-7939719
You're welcome, and thank you!
You make a good point. If your life ends up in a direction that leads to believing the sorts of things Watts talked about, which is no small 'if' in itself, then it will still take some time to process those ideas. I'm in my 40s and only starting to understand some of the things I read in my late teens.
My understanding of formal philosophy comes from books and conversations. ;) I was an art student. Watts is one of the more down-to-earth of the, uh, alternative thinkers/authors/speakers I spend a little time with once in a while. I do read more academic and/or formal stuff, but I tend more toward the mystical (spiritual but not religious) side of things. But I also read popularized physics and stuff like art theory books and the occasional programming manual. I tell you this so you don't go thinking I'm some kind of academic philosophy major before I recommend any books.
Here are the three books I've read from Watts, as Amazon links just because it's easy that way... no marketing here.
The Way of Zen - I read this mostly on the train back and forth to school each day when I was 18. It made some sense, but mostly introduced a lot of ideas I needed to examine and explore for years thereafter. I am not a Buddhist, but I really appreciated the ideas I picked up from this little book. It is on my list for re-reading in the near future.
Tao: The Watercourse Way - I don't think I recall much from this. I read it when I was in my 20s. I picked it up at a used bookstore, mostly because it was "by the guy that wrote that Zen book," and because I had heard of the Tao. I don't recall much of it, probably because I was a raging drunk at the time. I think I came to understand the futility of fighting against what you can't fight from this book, but I can't really say off the top of my head.
The Book - I just finished this last week. It's hard to describe, but it is very accessible, as are the other two, and sums up most of what Watts wanted to tell the world. I recommend it highly. Most of that thing I wrote before is from there, and from recordings of him speaking about it.
Search for Alan Watts on Youtube. There are many recordings of him. Most are just bits and pieces of talks he gave, but some are longer. I do this every once in a while (and other names, Ram Dass, Robert Anton Wilson, Terrence McKenna, etc.. Mostly kind of out-there people but I enjoy having different thoughts thrown at me. Watts is quite a bit more grounded compared to a lot of them.) Along the way Youtube recommends other videos from people who fall along that vein. I think you will find a lot there of interest.
Prickles and goo.
>He talked about language yesterday and how it can't really describe what he is going through because it is so restrictive.
If you get the chance, point him in the direction of the Tao Te Ching. It deals with precisely that. I would also suggest Tao: The Watercourse Way by Alan Watts, which is an attempt at translating the ideas and concepts of contemplative Taoism to a Western audience.
---
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.
---
Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form.
Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound.
Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible.
These three are indefinable;
Therefore they are joined in one.
From above it is not bright;
From below it is not dark:
An unbroken thread beyond description.
It returns to nothingness.
The form of the formless,
The image of the imageless,
It is called indefinable and beyond imagination.
Stand before it and there is no beginning.
Follow it and there is no end.
Stay with the ancient Tao,
Move with the present.
Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao.
I would buy land and books.
With the land, I would set up ecovillages, and I would (also) set aside vast areas where the plants and animals would be able to rejuvenate uninhibited.
I would find like-minded people, and I would ultimately try to integrate them into the enviornment with the wolves and the buffalo and the other animals. Humans can, and have been, ecologically sustainable organisms in natural environments. Not all agriculture is bad. Many Native American groups practiced agriculture in harmony with the rest of the environment.
I am also not against technology. A bow and arrow is technology, any tool that people use is technology. I am, however, against plastics and other harmful chemicals.
I would also build an army with the people who come to live on my land. There is no shortage of people - homeless people, high-school and college dropouts, homeless children, the unemployed, environmentalists, and lots of people I talk to IRL would be down for this idea.
I would learn assorted martial arts, I would teach them to others, and I would have the others teach them to more people, and we would spend a lot of time on it. This would be both for the health benefits and the self-defense benefits. It would be an army of ninjas, who also grow their own food and are self-sustaining. This will be great in case of societal failure or economic collapse. I would also teach/learn as many natural survival skills as I can. The goal of the army would be to establish peace and not wars, and to help people achieve independence (from money, oil, and industry) while also keeping a healthy relationship with the environment and the other animals.
We would also care for our children. We would raise them to be physically healthy and open-minded. We would not overshelter them, or put taboos on their sexuality, and we would make it the job of the entire community (especially the elders) to educate and take care of them. We will not over-shelter them or raise them to be weak. We will teach them how to socialize with each other in healthy ways, in an open, nurturing, loving environment. We'll also make it official policy that everything we do is done with the well-being of the next seven generations in mind.
There are also some books that I would want to buy and distribute. They include Circle of Life Traditional Teachings of Native American Elders, by James David Audlin, The Other Side of Eden, by Hugh Brody, The Conversations with God trilogy, by Neale Donald Walsch, The Art of Shen Ku, by Zeek, The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, by Thom Hartmann, A Practical Guide to Setting Up Ecovillages and Intentional Communities, by Diana Leafe Christian, and I'm sure there's lots of other good ones. You should really conduct your own search, but I feel all the ones I've listed have valuable information and the power to change the ideas of large groups of people. Anything on Native American culture, history, and philosophy, or on organic gardening, or self-sustainability in general. I might even set up my own bookstore or library, now that I think about it, and make more money. I'm definitley not against making money, because everyone in our world believes in money and money is power in our society.
Neale Donald Walsh already did one with him
I will link you to a couple of sites. I enjoy reading the Amazon reviews people submit, although you're going to find a lot of "this guy is just profiting...he's insane...this is NOT the Bible" type of stuff. But pay attention to the 5-star ratings, and what those people have to say. It is a VERY relevant book in my opinion.
Conversations With God - all three books in one
If you want to learn about Jewish mysticism, I've heard this is an awesome book:
http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Meditation-Practical-Aryeh-Kaplan/dp/0805210377/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1319601342&sr=8-10
When I say "hallucinations," it's really just for lack of a better word. I can tell what is in the real world and what isn't. But what I was experiencing were like what other people describe in other places as "visions." I know what I'm seeing isn't the real world. It's really not the type of problem that people seem to think when I try to communicate it.
That being said, there is some history of mental illness in my family, (as in all families I suppose), but those with those illnesses have been successfully treating them with marijuana for quite some time now without anything like what I've experienced. One family member using this method has actually been diagnosed schizo-affective, and the herb makes it better, not worse.
I understand this evidence is anecdotal and that I'm not a doctor. I have people looking after me to make sure nothing gets out of hand, and am seeking a medical opinion, but I am reasonably confident that it won't turn up anything concrete.
I know this sounds like fucking insanity...but I think maybe this is what's happening to me? https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Emergency-Personal-Transformation-Consciousness/dp/0874775388
Variously, I have seen it put in these terms: http://theyogalunchbox.co.nz/what-is-a-kundalini-awakening-and-have-i-had-one/
In the second link, try to read through the strange Hindu language, it's really his report of the experience itself that I resonate with.(the stuff about the energy in the spine though doesn't mean anything to me, and I did not experience anything like that)
I don't know if Judaism has a word for this, but this is the closest thing I have found so far to describing what I've been experiencing over the last 5 days or so.
Any feedback from anyone would be greatly appreciated.
Edit* Although the links are to things that were probably outside of my worldview...and that makes me feel uncomfortable...the people in those links passed through this experience unmedicated and came out better on the other side.
Do you feel like it was a spiritual awakening? Your experiences sound very similar to kundalini awakening. I had a similar experience and found some solace in the books Spiritual Emergency and Kundalini by Gopi Krishna
I was able to come back but some days the veil seems too thin for my own good.
Hoping this comment gets read.. for whomever has had this experience or similar, I strongly suggest reading Stan & Christina Grof's book "Spiritual Emergency: When Personal Transformation Becomes a Crisis", it has a lot of information pertinent to these kinds of experiences.
To find a therapist, I would suggest looking into the Spiritual Emergence Network, started by Christina Grof to help people find therapists who can recognize and competently work with spiritual emergenc(e/y) without pathologizing it.
The energies associated with kundalini awakening are indeed extremely intense, which is why it is recommended that people never attempt to undertake a kundalini yoga practice unless they are working with a master/extremely experienced kundalini guide. But, as this report shows, these energies can be awoken by psychedelics, by other practices, or even spontaneously. With kundalini yoga, the aim is not to awaken energies that will profoundly destabilize your life as can happen when it is awoken without the proper support, but rather to awaken it within a supportive context that can help one to navigate the experience skillfully.
/u/tralfaz66
From what you wrote, you might be experiencing something called a "spiritual emergency". A good starting resource for it might be for example this book https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0874775388/ or just search the internet.
Also by the same author "The Faith Healers"
> I'm talking about the people who are instantly healed after having a Christian lay their hands on them. Blind see. Deaf hear. Lame walk. Dead are raised. People with back-pain for 10+ years are healed. People with pain in their knees every time they bend them are healed. People who haven't been able to lift their hands above their shoulders for 10+ years are healed.
And yet, where are these people? Are you talking about faith healers who con people into giving them money? These people have been debunked and exposed as frauds so many times, yet people still continued to go to them. What do you make of this?
James Randi has spent a lot of time researching faith healers, and he debunked many. In his book called The Faith Healers, James Randi has written a damning indictment of the faith-healing practices of the leading televangelists and others who claim divine healing powers. Randi and his team of researchers attended scores of "miracle services" and often were pronounced "healed" of the nonexistent illnesses they claimed. They viewed first-hand the tragedies resulting from the wide-spread belief that faith healing can cure every conceivable disease. The ministries, they discovered, were rife with deception, chicanery, and often outright fraud.
Self-annointed ministers of God convince the gullible that they have been healed - and that they should pay for the service. The Faith Healers examines in depth the reasons for belief in faith healing and the catastrophic results for the victims of these hoaxes. Included in Randi's book are profiles of a highly profitable "psychic dentist", and the "Vatican-approved wizard."
To quote one of the reviewers:
It is almost impossible to read this book and not be outraged by the callous and reprehensible behavior of the so-called "faith healers." Not only does Randi reveal the methods and tricks used by these charlatans, but he provides example after example, including actual documents, to back up his findings. He demonstrates just how disgracefully these individuals use every underhanded trick they can come up with to wring money out of people who honestly believe that their hard-earned dollars are going to support a good cause; they believe they are doing the right thing, when in actuality their donations are used to purchase sports cars, clothes, and new homes for these supposed "men of God."
I say this: bring some of these Christian "healers" and have them demonstrate their powers in a controlled scientific setting. If you manage to prove that such powers exist, you'd probably get a Nobel prize. You don't even have to go as far as proving that the "supernatural" exists, as they can just be X-Men style mutants with healing powers, but that would still be extremely impressive.
So I'm not asking you to prove the supernatural, but just to prove the claimed powers of these faith healers, and that will still be a huge step forward.
https://www.amazon.com/Kundalini-Evolutionary-Energy-Krishna-Gopi/dp/1570622809
This is the point of "meditation": https://www.amazon.com/Kundalini-Evolutionary-Energy-Krishna-Gopi/dp/1570622809
If you are looking for good reading on Buddhism, I cannot recommend enough a book called, "The Way of the Bodhisattva", by Shantideva.
Another favorite is, " Gates to Buddhist Practice ", by Chagdud Tulku
( an excerpt )
Best of luck.
Shingon and Zen are both practices that, in my opinion, benefit greatly from some preliminary understanding of Buddhism. There is a lot of info out there and you already have a great start with Suzuki. In my opinion, you'll want to get a feel for the Buddhist approach to inquiry, teaching, and the importance of spiritual friends. accesstoinsight.org has some fantastic material from the Theravada tradition, which (again in my opinion) serves as an excellent foundation for the Mahayana tradition if you so choose. I personally am Mahayana but learn so, so much from Theravada.
Inquiry: The Kalama Sutta
How to recognize the Dharma
The importance of spiritual friends
Access To Insight Study guides
If you feel you have a good handle on the basic concepts like the Four Noble Truths, The Eightfold Noble Path, Stream Entrancy, etc., then Shantideva's The Way of the Bodhisattva is a sublime text no matter what tradition you end up calling home. Good luck!
The first book that my teacher instructed that I read is The Way of the Bodhisattva by Shantideva. In many ways, this is a foundational text across the various Tibetan traditions, and it really grounded me in my preliminary practice.
/u/DespreTine provides a great list of teachers. (A personal favorite is Bokar Rinpoche, who was my teacher's root guru and who I have developed a devotional relationship toward. He has a few books out there, but they're really more designed for practioners who have received certain empowerments/transmissions.)
The key here, of course, is that there really is no substitute for a lama/guru who you can physically go to and receive teachings from. They will guide you along the path.
Bodhisattvacharyavatara
The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way is amazing if you have a background in philosophy, more of a metaphysical look at existence, and why things have to exist this certain way that they do (won't spoil it for you)
The Way of the Bodhisattva is also good, you can find a free online version (I think it's a better translation than the printed version I read) at www.shantideva.net
I know it's only anecdotally about Buddhism, but Coffinman is a great novel, it got made into the award-winning film Departures (Okuribito) a few years back.
Given the absence of evidence, it is best to accept the null hypothesis - i.e. the position not making positive claims.
A positive claim is something like "God exists" or "This tree exists".
You can touch a tree, take a picture of it, climb it. You can feel a change in temperature when you are walking into its shadow. It is safe to say that it exists.
On to god.
More questions like this can be found in God: The Failed Hypothesis
If you are reserving judgement about god, then are you doing the same for dragons, fairies, santa, the loch ness monster? Why not? All of those mythical things are written about in old books.
This was a pretty good read.
As was this.
Still reading this one.
A fun, quick read.
Haven't read it, but if his other book is anything by which to judge, worth a look.
Good luck.
Thanks for the reply - I apologize that my own response is so late in coming. I was intrigued by how someone might arrive at faith rationally, and had hoped to pick your brains a bit.
I notice that you do not mention empirical evidence. What are your thoughts regarding the evidence (or the need for evidence, perhaps) for a theistic position?
I admit to being a philosophical lightweight - but I find the lack of evidence for any kind of intelligent agency to be insurmountable. Essentially, I cannot distinguish between a universe containing a God who does not measurably affect change, and one in which no such entity exists.
But in fact, the situation is worse than this. Insofar as I am aware of any evidence, it actually weighs against intelligent agency. See, for example, God - The Failed Hypothesis.
With regards to choosing a specific denomination, the lack of evidence similarly strikes me as insurmountable. Without any evidence, I feel compelled to conclude that the prophets were not supernaturally inspired, and therefore did not have access to additional sources of information. And in particular, claims regarding the afterlife, and how God wishes people to live their lives, ring hollowly.
> Naturalistic accounts of mind in addition seemed particularly poor
I assume you're talking about the phenomenon of consciousness? How do theistic accounts improve on this?
> I realized I'd gone on for a page about how unjustly the Ontological Argument is treated
Do you find the ontological argument compelling? If so, then I'd be interested to see a version of the argument that you consider to do it justice. Personally, I'm with Russell when he states (paraphrasing), "It's easier to feel that something must be wrong with the argument than to actually figure out what."
>> It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.
I find the above quote impossible to sympathize with. I am only interested in what is true, and I could never actively hope for one set of facts over another. Similarly, I have nothing invested in naturalism. It's simply the best explanation (fits the facts that) I am currently aware of. I'd love for you to convince me otherwise. Hah, I notice that Wikipedia has a Popper quote that I would agree with:
> A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention.
Anyway, thanks if you read this far.
No
Victor Stenger: God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591024811
> its funny how everytime I ask an atheist what proof refutes God's existence they find a way to dance around the question.
Maybe that's because the burden lies on the person making the assertion? hmm? The God of the Gaps argument is so lame. That ever decreasing nook where you think your deity lives is not an impressive or convincing argument.
> science still hasn't explained how life is created or where the infinitely dense ball of matter at the source of the big bang
That doesn't mean magic did it. 500 years ago you'd be saying the same thing except thinking earthquakes and disease are a message from your god. And while science can't prove the things you mention, they have made an awfully good start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591024811
On the whole universe expansion thing, this video should help. I apologies in advance for it being introduced by Richard Dawkins—but like it or not he was an eminent biologist long before he became the poster child for activist atheism and the main lecturer, Lawrence Krauss is perhaps one of the best communicators of astrophysics and science in general since Richard Feynman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Not caring about the nuts and bolts implications of what you say you believe is not an uncommon dichotomy in believers in belief. If that qualifies as yet another snide remark, again I can only repeat that it isn't supposed to read that way as it certainly doesn't sound like that when I say it in my head. Maybe something weird happens between the synapses and the keyboard that makes me think I'm being clear when I read like a wanker. Who knows?
Whatever the reason I seem to have inadvertently made you feel as if I'm selling you something. Nothing could be further from the truth. There's no genuine leather-bound books on their way to you, no 30 day money back guarantee if you order now. All I'm trying to do—all I ever hope comes of my passion for communicating what I've learned—is pass on the fact that all you need to do, to learn about the beauty of the godless universe for yourself, is pick up a book on a topic you know nothing about and start reading.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591024811
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268026326&sr=1-8
Take a look at this book sometime. Someone with a phd in physics wrote it. I think he knows more about logic and what can or cannot be deduced from the scientific method.
https://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520
> 1.) What scientific evidence does atheism present in the argument against God?
http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520
God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist; by Victor J. Stenger
Why God does not exist:
http://www.amazon.com/Non-Existence-God-Nicholas-Everitt/dp/0415301076
http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520/
http://www.amazon.com/Impossibility-God-Michael-Martin/dp/1591021200/
http://www.amazon.com/Improbability-God-Michael-Martin/dp/1591023815/
http://www.thesixwaysofatheism.com/
Don't get The God Delusion. I seriously don't understand why people always recommend Dawkins to thiests. I think non-theists get much more out of his books.
Read this or this. I have The God Delusion and was not satisfied with it:
http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X
http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302021802&sr=1-1
(Mind you this 2nd book's title is a bit hyperbolic, its rather the argument for the abrahamic religions (Xtianity/Judaism/Islam) but he goes into detail on the extent of the evidence for those vs. other religions etc.
Two books you should probably read are:
God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist by Victor J. Stenger
and
Faith Vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible by Jerry Coyne
This is kid a like that. Pretty funny read.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Disappointed-You-Mark-Russell/dp/1603090983
Here it is:
https://www.amazon.com/God-Disappointed-You-Mark-Russell/dp/1603090983
If you find comparable versions of the Koran and Tora, let me know! I'm definitely interested.
https://www.amazon.com/God-Disappointed-You-Mark-Russell/dp/1603090983 My brother got me this book for Christmas one year. It might be what you are looking for.
I've learned a hell of a lot more from God Is Disappointed In You than I have in seminary. My history class also has taught me more about life then than seminary has.
The book "God is Disappointed in You" by Mark Russell treats the whole Bible in this style. https://www.amazon.com/God-Disappointed-You-Mark-Russell/dp/1603090983/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504788160&sr=8-1&keywords=god+is+disappointed+in+you
There's actually a book that's sort of written like this. Met one of the creators at the NYCC '15. I think there also other books that are similar in nature.
Yes, that is totally what I meant ಠ_ಠ
The Christian Delusion edited by John Loftus is an excellent collection of essays coming from various points of view
A tough view. The use of pop, and children's, culture icon cartoon figures, the distracting background noise, and the really slow presentation of actual information/argument make the first vid hard to watch and really dilutes any message. Though I did like the cameo from the Little Caesars Pizza-Pizza guy. From watching the first vid, there is no topic argument/position statement explicitly made/presented, though if I had to guess as to the final topic position/argument, based upon the way the very sparse information is presented, that an argument will be made that supports the listed or attributed authors of the various books of the NT - this is just a guess, the presentation of introductory material was really incoherent.
> "One of the things I have noticed about critics who say that this or that book in the NT is bogus is that they seldom seem to explain in any detail how we decide who wrote a document."
Say what? I smell a strawman argument.
The above quote was made whilst a slide show of books that discuss the New Testament was shown. Some of these books are recognizable as titles containing literary criticism of the New Testament, many are not. I could not get a good look at the "examples" presented as the screen time was very short (compared to the relatively long time given to worthless animations of smurfs or topic transition special effects), too short to get a good look at the sources that I assume supports the above statement was quoted; I had to do a frame by frame advance to see/read the titles presented.
Let's look at the first few "references" presented:
Just between the book title and lack of authorship identification, without even reading the book description, is enough for anyone discussing NT literary criticism to reject the book as a credible source.Does not seem to be a reference to literary criticism and authorship of the New Testament books. Nope.
A book containing the personal journey of one man losing Religious Faith. Does not seem to be a reference to literary criticism and authorship of the New Testament books.
Examines the documentary hypothesis and other possible sources of much of the narrative of the Bible. Does not seem to be a reference to literary criticism and authorship of the New Testament books.
Look, another Dan Baker book already. A book against the reasonableness and rationality of Christian belief. Does not seem to be a reference to literary criticism and authorship of the New Testament books.
Finally, a book that appears to have sections that may address the authorship of selected New Testament writings (I say appears as I have not read it and am relying upon the publisher description, the TOC, and reviews) - though the book appears to be more directed towards the content of the NT rather than attributed source critism.
Bummer. Out of the first 5 potential references which one would reasonably consider as being presented on the authorship of the NT (you know, the topic/vid title), none (0 for 5) of them seem to be a reference to literary criticism of the authorship of the New Testament books. And I wanted to use the very references presented above to refute the strawman argument presented in the above quote that books/references that perform a literary criticism of the NT authorship (or the Bible in general) "seldom seem to explain in any detail how we decide who wrote a document."
Let's look at a popular writer on the New Testament, Bart D. Ehrman. An example, Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. And look at that, Ehrman does indeed present extensive detail, on the how's of literary criticism and attributed authorship. Granted one example does not a strawman break, however, I have found that references literary criticism, Biblical or other, almost always include a review of the methods used.
The OP and the book don’t talk about anything but Christianity - that does not exclude other gods. That’s a logical conclusion that is not present in this thread outside of your post.
Here’s a link to the book - it’s written by an atheist but it’s only focus is Christianity: https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Delusion-Why-Faith-Fails/dp/1616141689/ref=nodl_
There are many people and religions that identify as Christian that believe in more than one god.
http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Meditation-A-Practical-Guide/dp/0805210377
This is exactly what we're talking about right here.
>Pascal’s Wager
>The Authority of the Bible
>Quality of Life
Calling these arguments at all is very generous. Pascals wager comes the closest to being taken seriously but has multiple fatal flaws, such as the fact that if there is no God and you take him up on his wager so to speak, you waste your entire existence, making it a poor bet. Then there's the many gods problem as well.
>The Actionable Conclusion
This is neither an argument, nor supporting of a belief in God.
>Personal Experience
Hume has an excellent response to most of what could be considered an argument in here. However most of what you've written here does not constitute an argument, and should not rationally be enough to convince anyone else. It certainly doesn't qualify as, " any rational argument, supported by evidence."
>Kalam's Cosmological Argument
For the sake of time, I'm going to refer you to the wikipedia article here. There are numerous problems with the KCA, none of which can be satisfactorily resolved, and it does not have any supporting evidence. Since the argument is not logically sound, valid, and non-vacuous, it isn't taken seriously in modern debate except for it's role in the history of philosophy.
>Aristotle’s Cosmological Argument
This is no stronger than the KCA above, and has many of the same problems. It doesn't prove a God exists even if true, has no supporting evidence, and must resort to special pleading for the "first cause" to not have a cause itself.
>The Fine Tuned Universe Argument
This is probably the only argument in the batch that's even taken seriously at all, but it has the most problems, probably due to being more well-defined and claiming it has supporting evidence (which none of the rest can).
>Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!”
If you want more supporting evidence against fine tuning/god of the gaps, wikipedia has almost everything you could possibly want cited, and Victor Stenger has written a sound rebuttal to it and all common counter arguments within God: The Failed Hypothesis.
This book answers your question (with actual evidence).