(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best atheism books

Long before this puzzle was completed, I saw the light of repeated reference to Periodic Table elements in the hidden cipher which was being shown to me.  To me, it shows a clear focus on science ... and reaffirms that this focus is both well hidden and amazingly prevalent throughout religion.  With thought, it also shows clear prescience--knowledge of modern chemistry symbols and other modern technological concepts... many correlating to our computer industry.  It is bright light, which I would much later see ties directly to a verse of Revelation heralding the return of Jesus Christ.

The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.  

Revelation 1:20

It's Elementary... my dear What-son's

You might think I'm out of my mind for pointing out how amazingly relevant this Sherlock Holmes reference is to ... well, to this "situation," but hopefully sooner rather than later you'll see that you're crazy, not to have seen the light.  Enough John Legend... back to the chemistry between religion and science...

The very first bright element that "just came to me" as I was writing my first explanation of the story of Exodus as a time-shifted map of _today _beginning with the Burning Bush also clearly relating to _time travel _is a very bright reference to the element Xenon (which is primarily associated with a camera flash) whose symbol also happens to be the application name of Oracle Corporation's database.  Paired together with the Linux command "sudo" (related: the "root" of David (wikipedia))  which runs commands as the Unix "Administrator account," a functional equivalent of "God say:" FLASH.. or..

LET THERE BE LIGHT

In the multi-year story of the inspiration that has lead up to this e-mail; is a foundational key to the relationship between Christ and America... one which called me to question the "prediction" in Revelation that says "Christ will rule with an Iron-rod for 1,000 years."   It lead me to call into question the possibility of a messianic fulfillment in a world where God had supposedly "granted" liberty to all.  Through a little bit of analysis though ... it eventually became a key to the symbol for Iron... which is "Fe" and to a hidden prophesy within Exodus that links the rod's of Aaron, Christ, and Jim Mor-i-son's band _The Doors.  _There's a logical confluence that makes this "alphabetical" connection and concept of "reading words backwards" ... found simply by correlating the famous phrase "let my people go" with the answer to this whole conundrum that would make "Christ rule."  It's a "definition" found in expanding the symbol for iron as an acronym... to for everyone.  Doors, for everyone...





  It's Elementary, my dear What-son? The light of the 7 Golden Lampstands of Revelation 1:20

 

I AM THE** GATE... (to [Atlantis**.](http://bit.ly/1X085o9)) -John 10:9

These symbols are the beginning of a group of seven which tie Revelation 1:20 directly to Ecclesiastes 9:11... the words spoken by George W. Bush on... 1/20/2001.  They lead us to see a pattern, one which begins with Mercury and ends.. with Uranium... this is the verse:

_The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong... buttime and chance (...pdf and the "original typewritten draft")_ happeneth to them all.  

Ecclesiastes 9:11

You'll note the correlation between the first phrase and Mercury... and the ending with Saturn, the God of time... and a chance to build Heaven.  It is a bread crumb in a pattern, which shows a correlation between Ecc 9:11, Rev 1:20, and the "stars" as planets... correlated to elements.  Mercury and Hg, Uranus and Uranium.

You will also note that these books are freely distributed, you could_ buy them on Amazon. _Did I mention that I am broke?

I am quite sure there is something to this "element thing," that are the true 7 seals of Revelation. This is the Fifth Element, tying to the God of Light-ning, J-u-p'tah. 

((here)) is ((light)) for the wise

(the element corresponding to Earth, Xenon and the third phrase of Ecc 9:11, "neither yet bread to the wise.")

I would love to hear from you... and start a discussion.  This is only the beginning. 

-a 

(let me google that for you)

I'm pretty sure my parents would have an easier time if I was gay. I've read a few articles that made a good point of how the atheist movement in its current stages is in a very similar position that the gay movement was in the early 70s, like Dawkins suggests, and how the best thing that we can do is to come out of the atheist closet.

Dawkins makes very good points. I'm not yet out as an atheist to my family, but the problem is I am 100% certain that most of them would never talk to me again. Obviously, that's pretty screwed up since Christians are supposed to love everyone, but I do value my familial relationships, even if they may be predicated upon an assumed belief in god. I dunno. I have been seriously thinking about coming out as an atheist for the past several months (although I've been one for at least a decade), and everyone here at Reddit has really helped me understand how principally important this matter truly is.

One reason why I haven't come out as an atheist just yet is that I can't even convince my dad that Obama isn't a fascist/socialist/marxist/whatever. If I can't even make those sort of obvious inroads to these people, I will certainly never be able to make them understand why I don't believe in a deity.

I think that while coming out as gay can be pretty tough, it at least does not necessitate the idea of not believing in god, so that is an argument that can be held later if it is necessary. But when you have a very pious and devout family, being an atheist means that you reject the fundamental basis for everything they have ever tried to teach you. A gay person might only reject one part of his/her parents' belief system, not every part. Not only are you, as an atheist, rejecting the idea of a god, but you are pretty much rejecting your parents themselves (at least that's how they see it), and that's a pretty tough nut to make.

A few weeks ago I read a book called A Brief History of Western Atheism - the link is not the same book but I think a revised and updated version with a different title. It is at least by the same author, so I imagine most of what I read is still there. I was, somehow, pretty shocked to learn that outright atheism is a very, very new idea when compared to the history of intellectual and philosophical thought.

Think about it this way: Those of us that are atheists in the 21st century are very truly among the first (and largest group of) people to reject the idea of a deity. For the whole of recorded human history the idea of non-belief in a deity or creator has only just started to take shape. It might not seem like it, but we have only arrived at this perspective due to many centuries of philosophical and scientific achievement, and it was only when those two fields were significantly advanced enough that humans were able to synthesize enough of an understanding that they could realize that belief in a deity was so demonstrably false.

So please remember that we are truly wading in uncharted waters, and those of us who are atheists are, in the grand scheme of things, among the first people in all of the history of the entire world who have arrived at this understanding. It's going to take some time, and it's not going to be easy.

I would recommend staying away from the polemics. Authors like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris all have books worth reading, but not really if you want a primer on atheistic alternatives in the areas of worldview, ethics, etc. I will say that Dawkins's earlier works on science would be good, but God Delusion is not an exposition of an atheistic worldview, but rather an attack on religion, and a messy, at times ignorant and oversimplified one at that (I bet I'll get crucified for saying that). As one religious studies student to another, it is a book that gets awfully frustrating every time you realize that he has a horrible grasp of the relevant data.

Books that would be really great to read:

George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God is an approachable critique of some of the more popular arguments for God's existence.

Julian Baggini's Atheism: A Brief Insight is a really good and thorough survey of the explanation, arguments, history, and ethics of atheism.

Greg Epstein's Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe really gets into where someone goes once he/she has already concluded that God doesn't exist. He looks at how one builds a nonreligious life of meaning. Epstein is definitely in the "friendly atheist" category. As the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard (strange, oxymoronic titles aside) he has done a great deal of work with the Pluralism Project in their School of Divinity. He has even worked with inter-religious groups like the InterFaith Youth Core.

A long, but very much worth the time and highly recommended book is Jennifer Michael Hecht's Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson. In it, she goes very thoroughly through the long history of religious skepticism. She looks at the lives and questions of philosophers, scientists, poets, politicians, even some religious figures who have gone through the "dark night of the soul." This is a book that I think every atheist should read to learn that religious folks aren't the only ones with a long and storied tradition. It is a good grounding in history for secularists.

I'm sorry you had that experience, but it sounds like you did well and you're not backing down from what's right!

Since you mention being atheist and them being religious, I'll recommend this. Religious people tend to be the most hostile to the notion that humans aren't the most inherently important species in my experience, as that idea goes against many widely held religious beliefs (although there are of course many religious vegans). The book examines some of those beliefs and the links between religion and animal exploitation. Maybe a little off topic, but it seems like you would enjoy it, and recommending something you might enjoy feels better than just offering support!

Honestly, this is really, really hard to explain without a lot of context and a fair bit of background knowledge of Husserl, Heidegger, and probably some Kant. To my mind the best, clearest, and most persuasive interpreter of Derrida right now is Martin Hägglund, so I would recommend that you check out some his work. This essay on Derrida and Levinas is a good place to start (see especially 42ff.), though ultimately the most detailed account of this stuff you're going to get is in his book, Radical Atheism.

The short answer is yes, you are missing the point somewhat. Différance isn't just about words and meanings; it's about time and temporal succession. What concepts like différance and 'the trace' are about is a is a way of describing the logical relations obtaining among the elements of a temporal synthesis through which distinct temporal moments are put in relation. This synthesis acts as a condition for the possibility of identity over time (X is the same X at T1, T2... Tn), but it also undermines a picture of identity that Derrida--following Heidegger--believes dominates the history of philosophy (where there is some atemporal essence or property of a thing by virtue of which it remains identical over time). For Derrida, as it were it's time--not turtles--all the way down; there are no atemporal essences, properties, beings, meanings, etc., etc.

When Derrida says that différance is neither a word nor a concept, he's speaking in a way that I find somewhat annoying. I think the point that he is trying to make is that to talk about a condition for the possibility of identity over time as something like a word or concept would be a category mistake: words and concepts (and meanings, for that matter) are conditioned by time and are thus conditioned by différance. The "neither a word nor a concept" line seems like a silly way to make that point if you ask me, but people more sympathetic to Derrida's writing style than I am might want to make a case for that way of putting it. Différance isn't a word or concept just in the sense that it is meant to be describing a transcendental condition for the possibility of words and concepts.

Really, though, I would strongly recommend checking out the Hägglund and seeing whether that helps. It's just hard to know where to begin when it comes to giving a more substantive definition of différance.

A book I like to recommend that closely matches your criteria is

Sense and Goodness Without God - A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism

by "atheist talking head" Richard Carrier.

Each chapter in this book gives a summary of the modern "state of the art" of the various sciences and other fields of study that bear on the topic of how the world works, and how we can be reasonably assured that what we think we know is probably true. Fields include (off the top of my head, hence not in that order) cosmology, physics, history, biology, philosophy, politics, an explanation of the Scientific Method and more.

This is not a "popular atheism" book like Dawkins' The God Delusion. The survey of intellectual fields is aimed at a college student level. It's also not an attempt to disprove God (or Allah, or whatever other kind of superstition). Instead, it's a thorough explanation of how a world view based on Naturalism is internally consistent and in agreement with observed reality, i.e. how it makes sense. The decision of whether you want to look at the world through Naturalist glasses or something based on ancient myths is left to you.

I built a Website a few years ago with some of my favorit videos. The website is in germen, but some of the videos are in english: https://www.atheismus-deutschland.de/videos_atheisten_atheismus.html
The best arguments on YouTube can be found by people like: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, Sam Harris,...
I also wrote book on how to become an atheist in 20 steps. :) It´s the perfect Christmas gift for the family. ;D
But it´s in german as well - sorry. Maby I´ll transalte it one day.
https://www.amazon.de/dp/1980329575/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_m2gxCb0FRVA9V

> I'm not seeing where this is evidence of the existence of a god.

I don't think I can explain it well since I'm slugging through the math myself all over again to sort it out. But I'll try to explain as best I can.

So for now, I'm accepting the quotes from respected physicists including Richard Conn Henry from my graduate Alma mater.

So I'll fumble through my understanding as best as I can...

When we study a single system, like say an electron. Our observation can bring its position into existence. The quarrel between Einstein and Bohr was to the effect, "does the moon have to be observed in order to exist." Well the usual answer is "no", but in the quantum atomic world, it's "yes". Observation creates a collapse of the ordinary evolution of hypothetical probabilities and brings to existence the position of the electron. The mathemagicians and physicists said this is the most consistent way to model experimental results. Hence, we have paradoxes like Shrodinger's cat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

So the cat is not made dead or alive till it is observed. Of course that seems to not make any sense! But at the atomic level, that's par for the course.

>Schrödinger intended his thought experiment as a discussion of the EPR article—named after its authors Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen—in 1935.[9] The EPR article highlighted the bizarre nature of quantum superpositions, in which a quantum system such as an atom or photon can exist as a combination of multiple states corresponding to different possible outcomes. The prevailing theory, called the Copenhagen interpretation, said that a quantum system remained in this superposition until it interacted with, or was observed by, the external world, at which time the superposition collapses into one or another of the possible definite states. The EPR experiment showed that a system with multiple particles separated by large distances could be in such a superposition. Schrödinger and Einstein exchanged letters about Einstein's EPR article, in the course of which Einstein pointed out that the state of an unstable keg of gunpowder will, after a while, contain a superposition of both exploded and unexploded states.

Now in the world of quantum computing, we try to leverage this sort of strangeness. So it's more than a mere academic curiosity, but has now practical applications. The difficulty is preventing the quantum bits from "collapsing" in the wrong way by an inadvertent "observation" or "measurement". This creates a hardware nightmare of creating such an isolated environment....

Ok, so suffice to say, some mysterious act of observation brings to life a hypothetical position of an electron into a definite position of the electron.

By way of extension, at the beginning of the universe, some observation brought to life the laws of physics and matter. That observation is in the future, because in Quantum Mechanics the future is causal of the past. We see this especially in the Double Slit Delayed Choice experiment.
http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/qphil/qphil.htm

>Psychic Photons

>The astronomer's choice of how to observe photons from the quasar here in the present apparently detemiines whether each photon took both paths or just one path around the gravitational lens-bdhons of years ago. As they approached the galactic beam splitter, the photons must have had something like a premonition telling them how to behave in order to satisfy a choice to be made by unbom beings on a still non-exstent planet. The fallacy giving rise to such speculations. Wheeler explains is the assumption that a photon had some physical form before the astronomer observed it. Either it was a wave or a particle; either it went both ways around the quasar or only one way. Actually, Wheeler says, quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured. In a sense, the British philosopher Bishop Berkeley was right when he asserted two centuries ago that 'to be is to be perceived.


I actually worked in a nano-systems group and one of my co-workers was working on the problem of ensuring quantum computers would be sufficiently isolated from future events such that present time computation are not affected by future events. This may sound bizarre, but in the atomic world, this is par for the course.

So one unsolved mystery is why the macroscopic world behaves so classically but the atomic world so bizarrely.

But in any case, if one can accept the notion that observation brings something into existence that was in an indefinite amorphous spooky condition, then by way of extension some observation brought the universe into existence.

Some have hypothesized a Universal Wave function. That is the Schrodinger equation encompassing all of material reality. You can see it is mentioned here in the last column which interpretations accord with the existence of the Universal Wave function:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations

This is discussion of that Universal Wave function:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_wavefunction
>The universal wave function is the wavefunction or quantum state of the totality of existence, regarded as the "basic physical entity"[8] or "the fundamental entity, obeying at all times a deterministic wave equation."[9]

So if there is a universal wave function, there is the possibility of an Ultimate Observer (aka God) who will observe this function and bring it to life much like we bring the existence of electron position to life through the act of observation.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003XF1EKO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Is this proof airtight? No. But it puts an option on the table.

This was what I said over at r/creation:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/82osbh/laws_of_physics_especially_qm_suggests_the/dvegfrw/
>If I may point out one of my reasons for taking this line of inquiry.

>It would be easy for someone to imagine and believe in imaginary beings that could work all sorts of wonders. This would be akin to fairy tales.

>Now, if have something like life that couldn't naturally evolve, then we could invoke such an imaginary hypothetical being with all sorts of magical powers to explain life. At least that is a little more justifiable.

>But when atheistic physicists make a 180 degree turn toward ID because solutions to their physics equations imply God, I really take notice! At that point, when physics can be used to argue for the existence of God, then ID becomes far more legitimate in my mind than kids inventing fairy tales. It provides the missing element to ID, a Designer. But up until that point most design arguments are God of the Gaps with no other line of reasoning except the gap itself. I wanted something more to point to God than a mere Gap. Quantum Mechanics provided an alternate argument for God than just mere gaps.

So this is not a PROOF of God or ID, it is a feasibility argument from physics and math. The feasibility argument was how I could alleviate worries that I was just making up fairy tales in my own mind. Whether ID is ultimately true, I do not think a formal resolution of the question is possible, we can only examine the evidence and form our best guess or belief.

I’m hijacking your comment in the hope it gets seen.

There is a lot of discussion here about what ‘teaching Atheism’ might look like, and since there a few of us who actually do that I thought it might be interesting for people to see what we do.

A good friend of mine teaches at the University of Edinburgh on the subject of non-religion, and in the UK there is also the Non-religion and Secularzation Research Network, the Understanding Unbelief research program at the University of Kent, the International Society of Historians of Atheism Secularism and Humanism, and the International Society for Heresy Studies:

As well, many of us have recently published books on Atheism and non-religion, and there is a growing number of people researching Atheism at the academic level.

Here’s a good short bibliography.

History of Atheism

Atheism and the US Supreme Court

New Atheism

Cambridge Companion

Oxford Handbook

Definitions

Nonreligion

Just a few thoughts from reading your post, although probably not things that will really help you in your situation:

• I find it odd that he calls you spineless when this is clearly a very difficult thing for you. Spineless would be going along and taking the easy route.
  
  
• A person who never questions his faith accusing someone else of simply following others' leads is a person who needs to look in the mirror.
  
  
• Here's a point that might be stressed: belief is NOT voluntary. You either believe or you don't; you can't just decide to believe or not to believe. Your father may rebut this by saying you simply need to seek or accept God or some such nonsense, but rest assured that it is nonsense and he should realize this. Ask him if he could simply decide one day to believe in Vishnu. He should also realize that his faith tells him that God made you the way you are.
  
  
• As a book selection, I would suggest this. I would NOT suggest something like God is Not Great by Hitchens. It is quite abrasive, where Atheism Explained is more matter-of-fact.
  
  
• Good luck. My first few points may be nothing more than fodder for a continuing argument with your father, so I thought some encouragement was in order. This will pass, however it turns out. You will have a good life if you want it.

The last time Dawkins said he was writing a "children's book" he wrote "The Magic of Reality" which was mostly a science book and introduction to empiricism, but clocked in at almost 300 pages and was definitely more geared for teenagers than young kids. It was the kind of book an intelligent young person might find in a library and decide to read, but not as dumbed-down as you'd think from hearing him talk about a "children's book."

Seeing the listing for this new one, a 304 page hardcover in the 'rationalist philosophy' section at amazon, I suspect that again, he's writing what he would have enjoyed reading himself when he was 15 years old, rather than creating a true children's book for kids who wait at home for their parents to pick library books for them.

> I apologize, but I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

The point is that all religions are man made. They claim to be divine but offer no proof for it and they have lots of issues.

May I ask: Did you convert to Islam or were you born to Muslim parents?

> I would read a specific book about humanism that you recommend, if you read the book I recommended to you.

How about, The God Delusion for one. And how about this one for Humanisn, its just 99 cents. I think you just need to install the free Kindle app.

What are we?
The most intelligent animal? Most innovative? Most stupid? Most barbaric? Most whining? Most merciful? Best imitators? Most dramatic? Most hardworking? Most destructive species?
Again, what are we?

Lifen Revolution will shake the thinking and perception of the human race who are lost in their own creations and imaginations, and who have drifted far away from reality. It helps every individual to re-evaluate themselves and celebrate their life while they are ALIVE!

URL:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B01IGWRORU/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=

FREE on Amazon: 9/1/2016 - 9/5/2016

> Do you think a book written today, about someone living today [etc]

Yeah this makes me think you think there was an actual fellow named Jesus who preached in Judea about 2000 years ago. Which considering the evidence is very unlikely 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The first two sources being the best scholarly work on the historicity of "Jesus" reviewing and coming to the conclusion that any positive belief is unwarranted. The other three giving a very detailed description of how the jesus story contains elements from various pagan mythologies popular around that time in the region of wider Judea, concluding that it is likely that the jesus story is a fictional account consisting of a Hebrew substrate overlain with pagan motives.

I don't really think you have to get it. It's a personal choice and I definitely don't think it's one that's for everyone. It's just kind of where I was led after growing up in an openly hostile church. I also don't think that astrology and atheism can't live in tandem. There are definitely atheists that check their horoscope everyday.

Queer atheism definitely exists, though! It's hard to weed through r/atheism to find queer content but there are some lovely queers over on r/Dear_Mr_Atheist. There's also a book called Queer Disbelief that is supposed to be really good.

No sarcasam, I would love to make this argument blazenly! Can you send me some links or articles supporting your statment: "Atheism isn't really coherent..." I've been meaning to pick up a copy of this book, but I would love any resources you have. I feel like I could make this argument in the abstract, but I lack any concrete way to really formulate it.

You might find the following resources useful. Best of luck on your journey.

• The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality
  
• Buddhism Without Beliefs

And here's the link for UK Amazon shoppers. :)

In case anyone wants a copy. Here you go

Edit: They are on Amazon now so if you have prime you can get free shipping.

Apparently Dawkins has a new book which is very similar to "the God Delusion" but written in a more "understandable" way, ie, simpler vocabulary. Intended for younger people or people not as well-educated. Apparently people were asking for a more understandable book:

Outgrowing God: A Beginner's Guide

https://www.amazon.com/Outgrowing-God-Beginners-Richard-Dawkins/dp/1984853910

I am currently reading The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality
The author does a good job of explaining why spirituality has nothing to do with god(s), and is more or less our birth right.

There's a lot the atheist community and LGBTQ community have in common, and they can support each other. Check out this book.

Atheism Explained is a book I am reading. If your parents really like philosophy, this book builds up the arguements on both sides and shows the errors in the Christian defences of god.

https://www.amazon.com/Definitive-Proof-Gods-Existence-Adrian/dp/1540894711

Nope, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Biblical scholars are predominantly christian, so they are quite biased.