(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best religious history books

> Fides et Ratio, John Paul II, 1998

A reoccurring motif that runs through JP II's narrative is a position of presuppositionalism that Theistic Religious Faith, including the belief that the God Yahweh exists, is true; and this presupposition is the foundation upon which reason is built - even when reason leads one to consider/accept conclusions that are discrepant with Theistic Religious Faith.

This intrinsic and foundational presuppositionalism is the antithesis of reason; as well as representing a catastrophic failure of reason and reasoning.

As much as it pains me to agree with William Lane Craig, I will have to go with what this Great Christian Apologeticist god (lower case 'G'), who has said regarding Christianity (but is applicable to other Theist belief systems):

"...presuppositionalism is guilty of a logical howler: it commits the informal fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question, for it advocates presupposing the truth of Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism....It is difficult to imagine how anyone could with a straight face think to show theism to be true by reasoning, 'God exists. Therefore, God exists.' Nor is this said from the standpoint of unbelief. A Christian theist himself will deny that question-begging arguments prove anything..."

Source: Five Views on Apologetics by Steven B. Cowan, page 232-233

Or we can go with Drs. John H. Gerstner, Arthur W. Lindsley, and R.C. Sproul ....

“Presuppositionalism burns its evidential bridges behind it and cannot, while remaining Presuppositional, rebuild them. It burns its bridges by refusing evidences on the ground that evidences must be presupposed. “Presupposed evidences” is a contradiction in terms because evidences are supposed to prove the conclusion rather than be proven by it. But if the evidences were vindicated by the presupposition then the presupposition would be the evidence. But that cannot be, because if there is evidence for or in the presupposition, then we have reasons for presupposing, and we are, therefore, no longer presupposing.” (source: Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics)

> I do encourage you all, however, to read this and see how a prominent and intelligent man of very public faith is able to seamlessly link the two [Thestic Religion - specifically Christianity and Catholicism, and yet, always bow to the authority of reason.

A quick search through my bookmarks provides some reading material for you, OP, that undermines the validity of the claim that Theistic Religious Faith and reason can, and has been, seamlessly linked.

• A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 volumes, By Andrew Dickson White
  
• The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension, by Frank M. Turner, Isis, Vol. 69, No. 3 (Sep., 1978), pp. 356-376
  
• Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, By John Hedley Brooke
  
• History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, by John William Draper
  
• An interesting look at revisionist apologistics: Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction, by Gary B. Ferngren
  
• Persecution of Noted Physicians and Medical Scientists, by Steven I. Hajdu, Ann Clin Lab Sci Summer 2007 vol. 37 no. 3 295-297
  
• An Illusion of Harmony: Science And Religion in Islam, by Taner Edis
  
  Even a cursory examination of the Holy See (and other Christian and other Theistic Religious organizations) and secular reasoning and advancement shows a past and continuing discord between Theistic Religious Faith and reason: which raises the question - if one is to accept the transparent argument from appeal to authority (i.e., "prominent and intelligent man of very public faith"), then if there is actual and on-going conflict between Theistic Religious Faith and reason, why would such a claimed intelligent and otherwise super virtuous man accept Theistic Religious Faith as a foundational and core belief when actual reason shows such Theistic Religious Faith to be, at best, extremely questionable and non-credible?
  
  People, in general and including atheists and theists, have the capability of believing things (not just religion) initially based upon non-smart, non-intelligent, non-reasoned, emotional, false positive attribution, reasons; and then based upon this initial belief, develop smart arguments to defend or protect these beliefs, and to keep believing and defending even when reasonable refutation or contradictions have been demonstrated (cognitive dissonance).
  
  
• Why Do Intelligent, Well-Educated People Still Believe Nonsense?, by Neil Carter, October 9, 2015
  
  While the title is a bit pejorative, the short essay does address some thoughts on why otherwise smart/intelligent people have beliefs that are not always considered smart nor intelligent.
  
  Also, most scientists are not theologians, and yet....
  
  
• The Halo Effect
  
  And then there is the ever-popular argument from ignorance/God of the Gods...
  
  
• How Scientists Can Believe in God
  
  ----
  
  > Atheist counterparts will often say that faith is silly and simply used as a delusion
  
  > https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e4/12/25/e41225b83c807c503797cf89a31704aa.jpg
  
  The image you selected OP does not support the test quoted above. The image does not explicitly, nor implicitly, state that "[Theistic Religious] Faith is silly" and than Theistic Religous Faith is a delusion.
  
  As such, your statement is an example of the logical fallacy of a strawman.
  
  The image text - "It is time that we admitted that faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fails" Sam Harris - refers to the un-supportability and lack of credibility (e.g., very low to low levels of significance/levels of reliability and confidence) that can, in even a best case scenario, be assigned to Theistic Religious Faith through reason and reasoning. That Theistic Religious Faith, though claimed to be a virtue by many Theistics, represents reasoning that does not have credibility better than an appeal to emotion/argument from ignorance/failed and faulty logic arguments/wishful thinking - and yet many Theistic elevate and claim that this lack of credible reasoning represents an objective (or near) fact value (and then go on to hide their own self-serving bigotry and prejudice behind the facade of their Theistic Religious narratives and tenets).
  
  OP, AdGloriamDei, if you are a Theist of some favor, and you disagree that Theistic Religious Faith, belief in some God(s), only has credibility and supportability at the low value of appeal to emotion/argument from ignorance/failed and faulty logic arguments/wishful thinking, I would be most happy to discuss with you - using REASON - your arguments/evidence/knowledge that would elevate the credibility of Theistic Religious Faith above the threshold I presented:
  
  
• Identify the central God(s) (or Deities, Higher Power, Divine thingies, whatever) and present a coherent definition of this God(s)
  
• Make a presentation/listing/description of the attributes of this God(s)
  
• Make a presentation of claimed essential cognitive actualizations/interventions of this God(s)
  
• Make a presentation of the burden of proof, via credible evidence, and/or supportable argument that is free from logical fallacies and which can be shown to actually be linkable to this reality (i.e., both logically and factually true), to a level of significance (or level of reliability and confidence) above some acceptable threshold [Let's use a level of significance above that of a conceptual possibility or an appeal to emotion as a threshold for consideration - even though the consequences of the actualization of God(s), or proof that God(s) does exist, and associated claims, is extraordinary], of the above attributes and claims of this God(s)
  
• Defend your the burden of proof against refutation
  
  Note: For this discussion, the qualitative levels of significance (levels of reliability and confidence), for lowest to highest, are:
  
  
• None
  
• Asymptotically approaches none/zero; conceptual possibility
  
• Appeal to emotion/wishful thinking/Theistic Religious Faith
  
• Low
  
• Medium
  
• High
  
• Extraordinary
  
• Asymptotically approaches certainty
  
• Certainty/Unity

It was suggested I post here. I have to say it's pretty outside of my location and timeframe. Most of my reading is centered around Buddhism and what I know about India that's not political in nature is mostly centered around Buddhism. Even the concepts I know of Hinduism are usually through a Buddhist lens.

What I do know about the development I also can't provide a source. I studied at the Royal Thimphu College and once sat down with a Bengali professor who explained her own dissertation to me about the development of the Varna system in India, which ended up being a primer on "Brahmanism." (Which then led to a long discussion on the inaccuracy of the term "Hinduism" which was developed post-independence as a response to the development of Pakistan for Muslims, India for Hindus. When I presented the irony that "India" and "Hindu" both stem from the "Indus River" which is currently in Pakistan, Runa, aforementioned professor, winked at me and said "Exactly. Hindus are political, Brahmanists are religious." The logic being that Brahmanists derive religious authority from the Brahmin Varna, just as Christians derive religious authority from Christ, and Muslims from submission to God.)

Anyway, I'll just point out some of the books that have helped me in understanding this complex religion and maybe you can go on with your search from there.

Originally I was interested in Wendy Doniger's The Hindus: An Alternative History but found out it was full of selective information and skewed perspectives. I was more interested in a general history of India and fell upon John Keay's India: A History which he describes as "A historiography of India as well as a history." And he does go over developments of Brahmanism threaded with the rise and fall of conquerors through the region.

My introduction to Brahmanism (though he DOES refer to it as Hinduism) was Huston Smith's The World's Religions which doesn't go over the history as much of any of the religions, but is a nice starting point, especially when comparing say Buddhism with Brahmanism, which most people regularly do. It's also a good outliner for the different Brahmanist traditions (or at least the major trends in Brahmanism).

Finally, probably the most accurate to your original question though it has a broader focus and a point to make, Karen Armstrong's *The Great Transformation remains one of my favorite books on the Axial Age in which she covers the religious shifts that occurred more or less simultaneously in Greece, the Levant, India, and China. Of interest to you would be the Vedic response to the growth of Buddhism and Jainism, the development of the Mahabharata, and the changing understandings of the Vedas and Upanishads. It's a pretty great book, and Karen Armstrong can of course lead you further down the path of Indian religious history.

Hope that helps at all.

>Would you mind if you suggested a list of books I may read to get a different perceptive on Islam?

I can certainly try. I was a voracious reader as a teenager, but much of what I read went over my head. For example, Huck Finn is an entirely different read at 25 than at 14. Still, you are most certainly smarter than I was as a teenager :). Here's a few things that ought to help. Of course, take it all with a grain of salt and, as always, you are not obligated to agree with everything. Nuance is a subtle, lost art these days.

I'd first start with Huston Smith's Islam: A Concise Introduction. It's basically the chapter on Islam from his seminal classic, The World's Religion. Also, he felt compelled to publish it separately after 9/11. Smith is easily one of the foremost scholars of religion for the last 100 or so years. While deceptively small, this book provides a generous overview of Islam devoid of partisanship and doctrinal quibbles. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the book. I certainly was.

Another small book that allowed me to begin exploring the vital role women played and continue to play in Islam is Amina Wadud's Quran and Woman. Do I agree with all that Wadud says? No, but that is not the point when we explore. The aim is discover, not to find corroboration to previously held ideas - that is the vital imperative to learning and to growth.

Another quite controversial and sometimes acerbic site that has many important things to say about Islam and what so many of us have sometimes falsely construed to be Islam is the following site: https://asharisassemble.com/ Certainly posting it here all but insures downvotes followed by some flaming. I think you will find reasonable answers to many of your questions that will also reaffirm your faith in Islam. Again though, none of us have to agree with all that is being said, it's about pursuing knowledge and exploring.

>“Go in quest of knowledge even unto China.” - Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

>“One learned man is harder on the devil than a thousand ignorant worshippers.” - Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

Again, start small. You have your whole life ahead of you to explore and grow. There are headier books available and in time you may find those more palatable and to your liking as you grow. Salaams :).

The difficulty here is that it isn't always clear whether or not the religious explanation ever stood in the place of more pragmatic explanations. To understand what I mean, it's best to look to some competent history of religion and compare it to competent history of science for the same periods. In [The Forge and the Crucible][1], for example, Mircea Eliade looks at the roots of alchemical belief in the origins of metallurgy. He argues -- and I don't see anyway around the logic of his argument -- that a practical understanding of the processes of metallurgy had to have pre-dated their religious interpretation. That is to say, we had to have a practical understanding of the way in which metallurgy worked before it could be significant enough to society to make it an attractive motif for religious interpretation.

The same goes for something like agriculture, and with it astronomy and weather. If you compare what the know of hunter-gatherer cultures with agricultural societies, the religion of the former has markedly fewer references to weather and practically no use for astronomy. The reason is that meteorology and astronomy aren't particularly useful disciplines when you're living mostly off of game. They become much more important once you're practically invested in agriculture, which is why we see the development of astronomy (and later on, astrology) in agricultural societies like those of the Babylonians and Egyptians. The thing about both societies is that they leaned to treat the heavens as regular and consistent processes before they overlaid that knowledge with a layer of religious symbolism. As [Jane Sellers][2] has shown, the Egyptians had long known how to chart the future course of the stars, predict eclipses of the sun, and so forth.

It's unlikely that these cultures developed the religious associations first, stumbling into correct practical knowledge of material phenomenon by sheer luck. Which leads to the general principle that at least some etiological myth develops, literally, after the fact.

That notion is anathema to the argument that a lot of critics of religion would like to bring to bear. They see religion as an attempt to explain the material world, but the historical view deflates that a bit. If nothing else, it's hard to see what etiological myth would add to an already sophisticated understanding of the phenomenon it apparently seeks to explain, particularly if the explanation is raises more questions than it answers. And that's problematic for the science-v.-etiology line of argument, since the underlying premise of that line of attack is that, if religion is an attempt to explain the natural world, providing a better means of explanation will make religion obsolete. But if, as the work of historians like Sellers and Eliade suggests, religion isn't an attempt to explain the natural world, then the the difference between science and religion isn't just one of improved methodology. And, in fact, etiological myths give us much more information about the gods they purport to describe than they do about the phenomenon that presumably explain.

With regard to your request, what I'm getting at is that science may not ultimately have broken down the attribution of certain phenomenon to religion. Ancient farmers likely viewed the heavens in roughly mechanistic terms before they built that knowledge into astrological practice. Ancient metallurgists were using sophisticated techniques to make charcoal and smelt iron before they developed the symbols by which alchemists hoped to turn lead into gold. The advance of scientific knowledge is a stunning and wonderful thing, but if history is any indication, modern day advances are as likely to furnish the symbols of tomorrow's religions as they are to discredit the myths of yesterday.

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/Forge-Crucible-Origins-Structure-Alchemy/dp/0226203905/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253042808&sr=8-1
[2]: http://www.amazon.com/Death-Gods-Ancient-Egypt/dp/1430317906/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253043496&sr=1-1-spell

To be honest, if you're interested in learning about the Baha'i Faith in broad terms, the best way to begin would be with an introductory book. The classic of this genre is Esslemont's Baha'u'llah and the New Era; other good books include those by Smith, Momen, and Bowers (this last one is targeted specifically to a Christian audience).

Of the books you mentioned, The Hidden Words is probably the most accessible (and shortest!), and it's usually what I recommend to people who are interested in the Baha'i Faith. However, it's not always useful to look at the Baha'i Faith through the same lens as we may look at, say, Christianity or Islam, as having one or two "Holy books" that are central to all understanding. The Baha'i Faith is blessed with having many pieces of writing from the central figures of the Faith, and it's not possible to gain a full picture of the religion just by reading the four texts you mentioned.

Edit to add: The other excellent way to learn about the Baha'i Faith, which I heartily recommend, is to meet with some Baha'is from your area and talk with them. There are (relatively) a lot of Baha'is in Ontario (although I don't know where you are specifically), and there are usually ways to go about contacting them via the web.

>He is not just some guy who write crazy books, or makes a name for himself for talking off cuff on television.

Actually that is exactly how he made the name for himself, mocking believers on television and in his books - which were specifically directed as a punch to believers, I mean the title itself "The God Delusion" speaks volumes about that man's real motives.

I never claimed to be a scientist (my husband does have a BA in physics though and he is a Christian same as myself, he used to be a staunch atheist like you). However what I learned from my research (before I even became a Chrisrtian) is that science is not as clear cut as you try to make it out to be and I have read books by PhD's in various fields of science who actually got saved during their studies because of that realization.

If you aren't scared to read one of those books please do read this one - Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life. It's written by this man Alister McGrath who has a PHd in molecular biophysics from Oxford University. His book is a brilliant critique of Dawkin's ideas as well as the statement you just wrote here. And I think by your own standards he is definitely qualified to speak on this matter, he does have a PhD in biology, not just an MA in engineering like Chuck Missler.

As for the last few sentances in your post - you know before I got saved I also thought I had it all figured out, and thought I was so clever and superior to those stupid Christians, now I look back at some of the things I used to say and really do wonder how such a person could have been me.

Like I said before I am not a scientist and I do not pretend to be one, however I have learned enough about science to realize that absolutely nothing in it can definitively exclude the possibility of God, only militant atheistic scientists such as Dawkings come to that conclusion. And the only reason for that conclusion are narcissism and pride, because if there is a God you are accountable to Him for your actions in this life and that makes a lot of people who love themselves above everything else very uncomfortable.

I do some street evangelism, and one of the main reasons people who do not believe in God close themselves to it is because they just want to be their own god in life (their words not mine). Many people we talk to "sorta believe in God" aren't interested to go any further for the same reasons.

I have seen how God works in my own life and in the lives of my brothers and sisters in Christ plenty of times. When I look at the prophetic verses in the Bible which talk about our times and I see it all line up like a puzzle that is being put together I tremble. So even if I decided to become a biologist and put all of my efforts into study, it still would in no way cause me to lose my faith.

Before I became a Christian so many things in the world did not make sense to me I was very lost and confused, I feared many things. God opened my eyes, He made me His child, Jesus says in the Bible:

John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

At the end of the day you can either open yourself up to the possiblity that there is a God, and He is a personal God who seeks a relationship with you, or you can choose to turn away from Him, the choice is always yours there is nothing I, or anyone else, can say to change that. But I know that God is working even on your heart.

Thank you for not swearing, and I'll pray for you (and no I do not mean this in any deragatory sense).

A few good books that I found helpful, at least for my own benefit (mid-20s, similar situation):

• "The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth" by Dr. M. Scott Peck
  
• "Further Along the Road Less Traveled: The Unending Journey Towards Spiritual Growth" by Dr. M. Scott Peck. In this book he discusses his four stages of spirituality, from (1) sinner to (2) churchgoing/religious to (3) skeptic/freethinker and finally (4) independently spiritual.
  
• "America's Four Gods: What We Say about God--and What That Says about Us" by Paul Froese and Christopher Bader is an intriguing look at people's views of God along a two-dimensional plane describing God's judgmentality and activity in human affairs, and how that affects their politics, morals, religion and other viewpoint (with atheists for control). This would be great for both your friend and her parents.
  
• Getting a little deeper into ethics and morality, "Justice: Rights and Wrongs" and "Justice in Love" by ethical professor Nicholas Wolterstorff can be good, especially for the parents, in highlighting the need to respect people as rational moral agents with the right to make their own decisions—as well as a rights-based system of justice that is different from authoritarian Christianity (without being moral anarchy).
  
  EDIT: Link formatting issues.

The Kitab-I-Aqdas means The Most Holy Book, but I don't think it's fair to equate it with being the Baha'i Bible or Qur'an. It is one of literally hundreds of books and tablets which comprise the Writings of Baha'u'llah, the Prophet-Founder of the Baha'i Faith, all of which are sacred, all of which are equivalent in importance to the Bible for Christians/Qur'an for Muslims. It's also not the best reading for someone completely new to the Faith, as it is speaking to a Baha'i audience who is asking for laws, some of which might not be understood out of context.

On top of that, the Baha'i Faith has the Writings of the Bab (the Prophet-Founder of the Bab'i Faith, Predecessor to the Baha'i Faith) and 'Abdu'l-Baha (son of Baha'u'llah, authorized interpreter of the Writings of Baha'u'llah) which are given nearly equivalent weight. That brings the total volume of sacred Writings of the Baha'is to several orders of magnitude greater than that of most any other world religion. It can be difficult to know where to start, and overwhelming when someone heaps book after book after book upon you. We're not even getting into Shoghi Effendi or the Universal House of Justice yet.

God Speaks Again by Kenneth Bowers is a great starting point for someone who knows nothing.

Baha'u'llah and the New Era by J.E.Esslemont was the starting point for decades before this.

The Hidden Words by Baha'u'llah is my choice for a first read of the Holy Writings.

The Kitab-I-Iqan/Book of Certitude by Baha'u'llah is much heavier reading, but is the core of Baha'i Theology, if you want to dive into the deep end.

Thief in the Night by William Sears is my starting point for people who are intimately familiar with Christianity and the Bible.

My advice is to start with only one book, then move to others. Have fun!

Edited for grammar

Hello, and welcome to the club!

The four people considered the "founding fathers" of "New Atheism" are also known as "The 4 Horsemen," and they are:

• Richard Dawkins is a biologist specializing in evolution and public awareness of science, especially atheism. Books: The God Delusion and many other good books on biology, evolution, science, atheism and so on.
  
• Daniel Dennett is a philosopher. His best known book is Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.
  
• Christopher Hitchens is a journalist, author and amazingly competent debater. His best-known atheist work is God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
  
• Sam Harris is a neuroscientist with philosophical leanings. His best-known book is The End of Faith. Another interesting one is The Moral Landscape, where he tries to show how morality can be studied by science.
  
  ----
  
  Here are more people who have gotten respect in the world of atheism, in no particular order:
  
  
• Carl Sagan, meanwhile deceased popular science educator to the masses. Though he never took up the banner of atheism, he tried to make people aware of the benefits of science and the folly of superstition, including religions. Look for his videos on YouTube!
  
• Victor Stenger, physicist. God: The Failed Hypothesis. He's a competent philosopher and I enjoyed watching him tear William Lane Craig to pieces in a debate once.
  
• Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist. A bit of a modern-day Sagan, he's more of a scientist in his message than an atheist.
  
• Dan Barker, former evangelical preacher. Goes around telling people how he lost his faith. He's also written a book, Godless.
  
• Matt Dillahunty, host of the radio show The Atheist Experience where he does live telephone debates with callers. Quick on his feet and very knowledgeable on his former faith.
  
• Richard Carrier, historical scholar active on The Secular Web and author of Sense and Goodness Without God, a defense of Metaphysical Naturalism. He's working hard to raise awareness for the historical theory that Jesus never actually existed.
  
• ZOMGItsCriss, hot looking atheist activist on YouTube. Don't let her good looks fool you: She's a very smart cookie. And she's funny, too. Well worth a look even if not only for the obvious reasons.
  
  ----
  
  You'll find a few more atheist authors on my book page and even more in the book and video recommendations in the /r/atheism FAQ.
  
  

If you research Christianity with the same goal to find the truth most of us researched Mormonism, it's pretty much the only conclusion. Christianity has just been around a lot longer so the apologists have an easier time. Christians by and large also have no interest in researching anything which might challenge their faith in Christ.... Kinda like Mormons.

Edited to add: History of God did it for me as far as the historical claims, but The End of Faith and Why I Am Not a Christian are good too. History of God is really heavy, but also an amazing experience in itself. I've read it twice. I read The Spiral Staircase by the same author first, which is a much easier read. It is a memoir of her own loss of faith. She was on the verge of graduating from novice to full nun. Studying apologetics did it for her, much as it does for exmormons. It's the beginning of the end for the critical thinker.

You can also read Mother Theresa's letters wherein she often questions her belief in god pretty strongly and for long periods of time. One of the most interesting things Armstrong discovers in her research is that many of the most learned leaders and aesthetics of all 3 monotheist religions are virtual atheists themselves. She interviews several from Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It's just something that happens when you study it to that degree. She is a really interesting person and an aesthetic in her own right.

You should vote :-)

Sure, politics and the associated suffering or relief from such are relative, but that does not make them unreal or unimportant. Just like how taking care of this ephemeral, nonself body is important. These conditioned things are not merely roadblocks on the path; they are tools.

We have a responsibility to engage with this world and its fabrications. Yes, this begins at home, moment to moment, but mindful engagement in politics is a great way to practice equanimity and compassion. To write off others' suffering because it is temporary is irresponsible, a lost opportunity to reduce suffering in the world while cultivating the heart. When you are hungry, you eat, no? When you are tired, you sleep. To disengage from politics is akin to ascetic practice, not the middle way.

Check out Mindful Politics: A Buddhist Guide to Making the World a Better Place, a collection of essays including ones by HHDL and Thich Nhat Hanh, for more.

I hope everyone on this sub, who has the ability, votes.

Please don't cheapen that word "consensus" with frivolous usage. The origins of religion is a highly contentious topic, and those who study it are absolutely not in full agreement with each other. You are trying to prop up your arguments with the authority of science while denigrating my intelligence. You don't convince people by arguing that way; you only satisfy your urge to crush an opponent.

Here's where we agree, and where you think we disagree:

1. Religion is a natural phenomenon.
   
2. Religion has been a part of human behaviour for tens of thousands of years.
   
   There. Half your post wasn't necessary, Mr./Ms. Read-More-Carefully.
   
   Where we disagree:
   You think religion... "exists because people believe the immaterial intentional entities (minds without bodies, gods.)" In a related concept, you indicate that we naturally ascribe agency to the natural world.
   
   Just so this is abundantly clear: I was arguing that gods are not required for religion. You misread Buddhism is but one example. "Most" Buddhists isn't "all" Buddhists, and "involves" is a far cry from "being the central element of the religion that defines its existence." Many totemic religions from tribal societies also lack gods. You end up having to redefine "gods" to "any supernatural agent" just to get this idea to work.
   
   But let's focus on the idea that it's natural for us to impose agency to things in the natural world, and this leading to the formation of religion. This also is not done in every religion. When it is done, it isn't relevant to every aspect of the religion in question. Even among Christianity, a great deal of worship is devoted to the saints, who were entirely human. Ditto with ancestor worship in Taoism.
   
   We have also seen the rise of new religions, and we know for a fact this idea of ascribing agency to the natural world was not involved in the creation of many of them: Scientology, or the various cults that are centred around extra terrestrials, or people from the future, or not eating (seriously!)
   
   Finally, it doesn't explain why we have the ability to feel transcendence; that feeling we get when our individuality melts away and we "give ourselves" to something greater. Where does that come from? How does that evolve?
   
   But for the sake of completeness, you would likely need to hear an alternative, so here is where I'm coming from. I ascribe to Emile Durkheim's theory of religion. He's a classic sociologist, and formally founded the field of sociology itself.
   
   Just to provide the brief gist:
   
   His definition of religion: "A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
   
   The faithful believe in a force that is outside of themselves, and greater than themselves that enters into them usually during moments of collective ritual, giving them the feeling of transcendence. All religions have this force. It is often called a "god," though other terms are used (mana, ch'i, etc.) This force is the "energy," if you will, of the society of the faithful. In other words, god and society... are one and the same. Society is exterior to the individual, and greater than him. If you denigrate this symbol of their society, you are denigrating the society itself, and they will react accordingly. The morals preached by the religion are the morals that the society unifies under. They hold rituals to reinforce this collective bond, and that is really its purpose. Some things are made sacred (objects, values, people), and the community collects around those things, which become a sort of emblem. Rationality will serve the purpose of the community's religion. And, as I initially stated in my first post, the religion of the day will change as the needs of the society changes. Sometimes the religion itself alters, and other times it is simply abandoned for another one.
   
   We see religious behaviour in cruder moments all the time. The feeling of transcendence occurs among soldiers that fight and die together. They often describe their individuality melting away and becoming "whole" with their brothers in arms. They create a small system of morals and beliefs that are specific just to them. And they even sometimes have rituals.
   
   The same religious behaviour can be seen in revolutionaries who rationalize their oppressors as the ultimate evil. Or in nationalistic patriotism (why does a flag make someone cry? Why does it matter what the founding fathers thought?). Or college fraternities with their initiations and pledges. Or the obsession with all things natural and organic, and neo druidism, and Gwenyth Paltrow getting people to stick odd things up their vaginas. Or Trump supports who see Donald Trump as their saviour from the evils that plague them.
   
   We have evolved the innate ability to unite under an emblem and operate as a cohesive whole. That is religion, and no other animal seems to have it. It's the evolutionary trick that made us the dominant species on earth. It's utter shit for finding the truth of things, but it massively serves the purpose of our survival.
   
   Now, if you want religion to just go away so we can have a purely secular society based on reason, then what you want to believe is that religion is just some kind of fluke originally made to explain the world (and it clearly does a poor job of that). I admire that cause, but I doubt it's viability, and I certainly doubt the premise that's justifying it. Or perhaps I'm just making assumptions about your point of view. A purely rational society is one that I think a lot of skeptics dream of, and you are in this subreddit.
   
   Further reading, if you're interested: Emile Durkheim's "The Elementary Forms of Religious LIfe." Also, Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion."

Here are some videos and books that you might find beneficial:

• [Video] The DeenShow - a talk show that introduces many of the basic teachings of Islam and addresses common misconceptions. Their website here.
  
  
• [Video] The Purpose of Life - Khalid Yasin, gives a comprehensive lecture on the fundamental question that every human being must ask: "What is the purpose of life?"
  
  
  
• [Video] Foundations of Islam -Hamza Yusuf, discusses Quran compilation & preservation, articles of faith, ihsan, and the signs of the Last Day.
  
  
• [Video] Understanding Islam Video Series - Abdal Hakim Murad, discusses the Qur'anic view of Christianity & Jesus, historical Muslim tolerance of Jews, free will vs. determinism, the problem of evil, etc.
  
  
• [Web] Quran - The Noble Quran in various translations.
  
  
• [Book] Quran - Abdel Haleem, if you're looking for the Quran in book form, this one is written in clear and extremely simple English that makes it easy and pleasurable to read.
  
  
  
• [Book] Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources - Martin Lings, very detailed and thorough biography based on the earliest sources. Recommended by many, (but relies on a few unauthentic sources).
  
  
  
• [Book] The Quran: With or Against the Bible - Ejaz Naqvi, systematically analyzes and compares the similarities in the paths of guidance the two scriptures have bestowed upon mankind.
  
  
• [Book] Understanding Islam: A Guide for the Judaeo-Christian Reader - Jerald Dirks, holds Master's degree in Divinity from Harvard University, offers a timely correct alternative to understanding Islam.
  
  
• [Book] The Road to Mecca - Muhammad Asad tells of his initial rejection of all institutional religions, his entree into Taoism, his fascinating travels as a diplomat, and finally his embrace of Islam.
  

I'll just leave my book recommendations here, because it took me years to track down books that explicitly engage politics and dharma:

• Mindful Politics: A Buddhist Guide to Making the World a Better Place. A series of essays by well known Buddhist authors on the subject of politics. Bit of an American skew but still speaks I think to a global audience.
  
  
• Radical Dharma: Talking Race, Love, and Liberation. Written by three very black, very queer authors, two of whom are women, but a great read for anyone interested in liberating the world.

Great! My best advice for you is to start your reading with Sam Harris' The End of Faith. You can buy a hardcover of it on Amazon for $3.11 plus shipping and in my opinion, it gives an excellent overview of the subject.

Another one I would read concurrently is Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. Both are excellent for beginning your exploration.

I'm preaching verse by verse through the whole book for the next year. I just finished 3:7-12 this morning. Two commentaries and one book have been especially helpful.

First, Pillar is a reasonably technical one. It's still pretty accessible but does interact with languages and other scholars.

Second, NIVAC is a good application focused option. It does not get as scholarly as I like, but it does the job it tries to do, very well.

Finally, Keller's King's Cross is not really a commentary, but does an exceptional job of fitting the account of Jesus in with a whole Bible understanding.

Those three have been my go to resources so far.

First of all, can I just say how much I love giving and receiving book recommendations? I was a religious studies major in college (and was even a T.A. in the World Religions class) so, this is right up my alley. So, I'm just going to take a seat in front of my book cases...

General:

1. A History of God by Karen Armstrong
   
   
2. The Great Transformation by Karen Armstrong
   
   
3. Myths: gods, heroes, and saviors by Leonard Biallas (highly recommended)
   
   
4. Natural History of Religion by David Hume
   
   
5. Beyond Tolerance by Gustav Niebuhr
   
   
6. Acts of Faith by Eboo Patel (very highly recommended, completely shaped my view on pluralism and interfaith dialogue)
   
   
7. The Evolution of God by Robert Wright
   
   Christianity:
   
   
8. Tales of the End by David L. Barr
   
   
9. The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan
   
   
10. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography by John Dominic Crossan
    
    
11. The Birth of Christianity by John Dominic Crossan
    
    
12. Who Wrote the New Testament? by Burton Mack
    
    
13. Jesus in America by Richard Wightman Fox
    
    
14. The Five Gospels by Robert Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar (highly recommended)
    
    
15. Remedial Christianity by Paul Alan Laughlin
    
    Judaism:
    
    
16. The Jewish Mystical Tradition by Ben Zion Bokser
    
    
17. Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman
    
    Islam:
    
    
18. Muhammad by Karen Armstrong
    
    
19. No God but God by Reza Aslan
    
    
20. Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations by Michael Sells
    
    Buddhism:
    
    
21. Buddha by Karen Armstrong
    
    
22. Entering the Stream ed. Samuel Bercholz & Sherab Chodzin Kohn
    
    
23. The Life of Milarepa translated by Lobsang P. Lhalungpa
    
    
24. Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism by John Powers
    
    
25. Zen Flesh, Zen Bones compiled by Paul Reps (a classic in Western approached to Buddhism)
    
    
26. Buddhist Thought by Paul Williams (if you're at all interested in Buddhist doctrine and philosophy, you would be doing yourself a disservice by not reading this book)
    
    Taoism:
    
    
27. The Essential Chuang Tzu trans. by Sam Hamill & J.P. Seaton
    
    Atheism:
    
    
28. Atheism by Julian Baggini
    
    
29. The Future of an Illusion by Sigmund Freud
    
    
30. Doubt: A History by Jennifer Michael Hecht
    
    
31. When Atheism Becomes Religion by Chris Hedges
    
    
32. Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith

> Evolution is not a fact

WRONG.

> it's a highly supported theory

Yes. It is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

From the article;

> A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

As for this...

> It hasn't been tested, it can't be.

Yes it has. Many times. You'll find explanations of several tests in The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins or Why Evolution Is True by Jerry A Coyne.

> Besides, Genesis was written by Moses

No it wasn't.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344627342&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-God-Karen-Armstrong/dp/0099273675/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344627361&sr=1-1

Both of these books go into various depth on the authors of Genesis (which was actually written by two different people then mashed together later, hence the two different creation accounts in the text). Moses didn't write anything because he never actually existed. The Exodus never happened - there were never any Jewish slaves in Egypt.

For a brief overview of who wrote Genesis see the Wiki article here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis#Composition

In order of likelyhood of pissing off your friends:

.

Christopher Hitchens: "God is not Great"

This is a brutal and unforgiving deconstruction of theism. It won't make you any new friends, and might alienate your existing friends. I really enjoyed it.

Sam Harris: The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

Another brutal deconstruction, this one is gentler and easier to stomach. Think mail fist in a velvet glove. This is only gentle in contrast to Hitchens.

Lawrence Krauss: A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing

A more positive, life affirming approach. Still ruthlessly atheistic, but less evangelical than Hitchens and Harris. Warning: Complex ideas, complex writing, it's not an easy read. Fun, but not easy.

Richard Dawkins: An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist

Similar to Krauss' book, but even easier to read. Dawkins does have a reputation for outspoken atheism, which will turn off some readers.

> Science. Religion has been fighting it for thousands of years.

I'm afraid that to even assume that science and religion existed as distinct concepts or endeavours thousands of years ago is a bit naïve, and this idea that they are eternally opposed is a very simplistic view that reflects the biases of anticlerical 19th Century historians more than the actual facts—it's only really been defended by people with a grudge against religion since a reappraisal of the subject in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s (and especially since the reappraisal by James Moore in The Post-Darwinian Controversies). Here are a few books that could help you develop a richer understanding of the historical relationship between science and religion.

• David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450 (University of Chicago Press, 2007)
  
• E. A. Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science (Routledge, 1931)
  
• Gary B. Ferngren, ed., Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction (John Hopkins University Press, 2002)
  
• Ronald L. Numbers, ed., Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion (Harvard University Press, 2009)
  
  These would probably be illuminating reading as well.
  
  
• Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, 1962)
  
• Brian Davies, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Oxford University Press, 2004)
  
  > Here is just another surrender by a guy at the top of the money chain.
  
  No one interested in the subject should be under the impression that what the Pope has said is anything new. Eminent Catholic theologians like John Henry Newman found Darwin's theory of natural selection consistent with Christianity when it was published, and Pope Pius XII very famously affirmed that there was no intrinsic conflict between them in his 1950 encyclical Humani generis. As for the Big Bang, it is downright foolish to characterise the Church as "surrendering" to a theory that was formulated by a Catholic priest in the first place.

I recommend these books:

• Jeffery Lang (3) books: Struggling to Surrender, Even Angels Ask and Losing My Religion.
  
  
• Jonathan Brown Hadith- Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World
  
  
• Muhammad Asad The Road to Mecca
  
  
• Tariq Ramadan In the Footsteps of the Prophet
  
  
• Karen Armstrong (2) books: Islam: A Short History
  and Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time
  
  
• Martin Lings Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources
  
  
• John L. Esposito Who Speaks For Islam?
  
  
• Nathan Lean The Islamophobia Industry
  
  
• Malcolm X The Autobiography of Malcolm X by Malcolm X, Ossie Davis (Afterword), Alex Haley (As Told to)
  
  
• Sherman Jackson Islam and the Blackamerican: Looking Toward the Third Resurrection
  
  
• Dr. Ejaz Naqvi The Quran: with or Against the Bible?
  
  
• Hamza Yusuf Purification of the Heart
  
  
• Imam Zaid Shakir's translation, commentary and notes on Imam al-Harith al-Muhasibi's Risala al-Mustarshidin Treatise For The Seekers Of Guidance
  
  
• Al-Nawawi Nawawi Forty Hadiths
  
  Side note on Quran translation:
  
  Stay away from
  
  
• The Penguin Koran (The Koran -Penguin Classics- by Anonymous and N. J. Dawood). Its been written by non-Muslim who also changed the order of the Suras. In fact, Dawood's translation might as well been written by Robert Spencer!
  
  Try:
  
  
• The Gracious Quran: A Modern-Phrased Interpretation in English
  
  
• Mona Siddiqui How to Read The Qur'an
  
  
• Bayyinah Podcast for a comprehensive tafseer with Nouman Ali Khan (The iTunes Podcast URL)
  
  
• Muhammad Asad The Message of The Quran
  
  
• Muhammad Abdel Haleem Understanding the Qur'an: Themes and Style
  
  Misc:
  
  
• Terry Alford Prince among Slaves: The True Story of an African Prince Sold Into Slavery in the American South
  
  
• Omar Ibn Said A Muslim American Slave
  
  
• João José Reis Slave Rebellion in Brazil: The Muslim Uprising of 1835 in Bahia
  
  
• Ahmad Dallal Islam, Science, and the Challenge of History
  
  
• Use this link to download Misc resources.
  
  
• Use this link to download copy of Quran translation by Muhammad Asad on on scribd.
  
  
• Use this link to download copy of Quran translation by MAS Abdul Haleem OXFORD WORLD’S CLASSICS
  
  
• Use this link to download copy of Quran translation by Saheeh International (PDF)
  
  
• The Purpose of Life - Jeffrey Lang
  
  Movie:
  
  
• Journey to Mecca

Those guys are horrible at history. I would recommend going to /r/badhistory for rebuttals, in the meantime I found some books that I think can really help out debunking this myth.

Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction

Philosophy of Science: An Historical Anthology

Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion

When Science and Christianity Meet

The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution

The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450

The Savior of Science

For the Glory of God

The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science

The History of Science from Augustine to Galileo

Yes this is a long list but that's because it's studied so often ;). I hope this helps.

Tim Keller has some good advice about approaching new atheists in general.

You might try some things by Alister McGrath, on Dawkins views in general or specifically on the Dawkins Delusion. There's several links here, and the correspondence with Mike Poole takes on some of the more aggressive claims down the bottom of the page. William Lane Craig makes points on who designed the designer. In fact he has quite a few videos like that which can at least be a starting point.

But really the best defence against Dawkins is simply to get to know the facts. Get a book or two on the historic relationship between science and Christianity. Get to know about Christianity and what historic Christians have actually said, and it will be harder for people to present you with strawmen. Get to know what you think first, and then you know what to defend.

Jesus the King!

Beautiful description of why The Trinity is vital to the Christian faith as well as history, the cosmos, and more

My sister bought online through (I think) carsdirect.com. She got a better price than she could get from local dealers. (She tried. She wanted to buy local, but none of the dealers would match the price.)

Don't Get Taken Every Time by Remar Sutton (an older edition) helped me when I bought a new car in 1996.

I actually did my research online and most of my shopping on Sunday when the dealerships were closed. By the time I talked to a salesman, I already knew what I wanted, what I was willing to pay, and what they had in stock.

In general, used is probably better. In my case, the banks would not finance a used car for me but were happy to finance a new one.

I just read Graham Schweig translation and I thought it was amazing. He kept it as literal as possible (especially in terms of word order) but still managed to make it clear and poetic.

Bhagavad Gita

He's coming from the Vaisnava tradition, a disciple of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami and with a Harvard degree in Sanskrit and Indian Studies.

For me, the essential verse, summing it all up as it were is 18.65. Check it out for yourself :)

A History of God by Karen Armstrong would be a great start. It is pretty comprehensive/thorough and not hugely biased.

> I suppose what I'm trying to get to the bottom of is: How to best address what I feel is the completely baseless claim that Islam is inherently violent (I often point to a wider context of colonialism and oppression as an explanation), and also how Islam and Buddhism can benefit each other.

A great place to start is Huston Smith's seemingly innocuous little book entitled Islam: A Concise Introduction. It quickly dispels the notions of Islam as 'inherently violent' without being mired in some doctrinal labyrinth. It's taken from his chapter on Islam in his monumental work 'The World's Religions.' He published it as a separate book following 9/11. His credentials speak for themselves. As a side, I had the honor of meeting him not long ago at LMU when he received the university's Bridge Builder award.

Misinformation and ignorance fan the flames of Islamophobia more than anything else. Put another way, imagine what the world's perspective of Buddhism would be during WWII if there was as much access to (mis)information as there is today. Similar rhetoric used by the likes of ISIS was present in Japan. Take this quote from a Zen monk exhorting the virtues of Japanese imperialism during WWII:

"If ordered to] march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [now under way]." - From Zen At War

I hope that helps a little :).

Literally 30 seconds on Amazon (Subject: History, Keywords: Religion) gives a ton of good-looking books:

Of course! Comparitive Religions for Dummies

Huston Smith is a fairly famous writer in this area: The Illustrated World's Religions

Nat Geo should be neutral: National Geographic Concise History of World Religions

By the author of the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, World Religions: The Great Faiths Explored & Explained

GBH said all that stuff about why we don't use the cross. This is a much better answer from lds.org guide to the scriptures:

"The wooden structure upon which Jesus Christ was crucified (Mark 15:20–26). Many in the world now think of it as a symbol of Christ’s crucifixion and atoning sacrifice; however, the Lord has established his own symbols for his crucifixion and sacrifice—the bread and the water of the sacrament (Matt. 26:26–28; D&C 20:40, 75–79)."
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/cross?lang=eng&letter=c

Also, to add to your comment about Catholics, Banishing the Cross by Michael G. Reed discusses the episode in Utah history where the Catholic church and the LDS church were butting heads. According to him, that is why we don't use the cross. Interesting book, though.

http://www.amazon.com/Banishing-Cross-Emergence-Mormon-Taboo/dp/1934901350

EDIT: /u/jdovew mentioned the same book. Should have read the thread... haha

There's a lot of social science literature about images of God. Folks "see" God differently and one of the scales actually does measure on a "Mother" and Father" dimension. There's also a loving vs. judging dimension. You would be really surprised how much diversity there is.

I could dump a ton of cites on this as I was attempting to write a paper on the topic a few years ago. If you really want a decent, non-academic introduction you could look at a book called "The Four Gods" by Paul Froese and Chris Bader.

Amazon is a good start. This book is Mircea Eliade could be a title and if you like visuals, buy Alchemy & Mysticism, 576 pages with color images and some explanation. From there on, try to see what it is that interests you.

For those interested:

• The Little Prince
  
• Eating Animals
  
• The Hero With A Thousand Faces
  
• The Illustrated World's Religions
  
• Jihad vs. McWorld
  
• Collapse
  
• Just And Unjust Wars
  
• Descent Into Chaos
  
• The Landmark Thucydides
  
• A People's History of the United States

You've already received a few suggestions regarding philosophers. So, with regards to your interest in a point of view that "religion is a institution worth conserving and not because religion is true or false", you may want to have a look at the sociologist Durkheim's, The elementary forms of the religious life.

https://www.amazon.com/Elementary-Forms-Religious-Life/dp/0199540128

You are starting from flawed assumptions.

1. That god is the god you agree with because of the Christian denomination you just happen to follow.
   
   2)That is god is the god you agree with because of the religion you just happen to follow vs Islam, Hindu, Jewish, Zoroaster, Christian, Buddhist, Jain, Native American, ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc, etc etc.
   
   What I find annoying with your question is you presume to talk about god from your set bias. Its a done deal when you talk about god as automatically being Christian.
   
   America's Four Gods: What We Say about God--and What That Says about Us
   
   Even with Christians have differences concepts of what god is and isn't.
   
   As a non believer its not about god its the issues with Christianity that sustains my doubt.
   
   

There is a fantastic book about car dealerships titled Don't Get Taken Every Time. I highly recommend you read it then go try and buy a new car. It is funny to watch them try some of the same crap as described in the book.

I know this is a facetious thread but Amazon has The Zen Experience ebook for free (I believe you can download it to the kindle PC client if you don't have a kindle / android / iOS device). It's an abridged but still somewhat lengthy history from Lao Tzu and the Buddha to Hakuin so be warned

If you really want to learn about car buying and enjoy a good book Don't get taken every time
Fantastic information and very entertaining book by an insider in the car industry. Written a while ago but everything still applies. Can't recommend this enough!

Yes quite a few if you are really interested. I have some books you can check out as well. Warning on this though is that you really need to sort through the bullshit. Docu's like Ancient Aliens for example contain a lot of good points and a lot of really crazy ones. I have a folder with a bunch of stuff I have compiled and I can share some of it with you. I will get some together today. One book you may want to check out is called Uriel's Machine. The Author presents a lot of science and facts to back up his theories.

I will work on getting some links together in some kind of order if you want them.

Thanks! I'll give them a try. I also recommend:

Dancing Naked In A Mind Field - Kary Mullis

The Mayan Factor - Jose Arguelles

Uriel's Machine - Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas

Yahweh was once one of many gods within the Hebrew pantheon, which included gods like Asherah and Ba'al. At some point, the relevant books of Old Testament went through a period of editing by Yahwists who were intent on cementing their particular god's supremacy. Yahweh absorbed some of the other gods in the bible, which explains why he seems to have multiple conflicting personalities at times, and explains why he was jealous. The first commandment is a good example of this jealousy.

Karen Armstrong's book A history of God is a really interesting read, for those interested. You can find a decent video/animation summary of parts of the book here.

Ah yes, thank you for reminding me. This comes from the book, "The Zen Experience" by Thomas Hoover.

I've noticed that much of the internet ascribes that quote to "unknown" or "anonymous", which is quite unfair to Mr Harris. Therefore, I would like to add a plug for his book, from which the quote originates:

http://www.amazon.com/End-Faith-Religion-Terror-Future/dp/0393035158

It's an excellent read, and practically a must-read for any atheist who engages in debate on the subject.

I am an active latter-day saint, and I wear a cross. I have a cross that I made on the wall of my home, as well. I started when I received one on my mission in Russia, and I have continued to wear one because of what it means to me. If you want to read some of the history of crosses and the church, check out this book by an LDS grad student. I've read it and discussed the central theory with a BYU professor; the research seems sound, too, and fits with the other things I've read in the historical periods discussed.

Moreover, the cross is a symbol. Read some scriptures about what it means. Think about what it might mean to you. If you don't want to wear it don't. But there is nothing taught in Mormonism that says you should not wear one, just the remains of some anti-Catholicism and some garbled thinking. It is not the symbol of the Mormon faith, but it is a symbol of Christ.

I've seen variants of the story with the "man" replaced by "angel", for some reason. To be exact, it was here.

Same book (which is otherwise wonderfully written, refreshingly non-judgmental and such) also says Buddha's teaching was devoid of the supernatural and traditions, even though reading other parts of the book carefully already contradict this.

Blyth's Mumonkan

The Zen Experience by Thomas Hoover

and these

if looking for Ch'an/Zen those are great starting points, but don't miss the moon for the finger pointing at it. That which is before you is what you are looking for.

I highly recommend reading Banishing the Cross, a book about changing attitudes toward the cross in the LDS Church.

I recommend you get the used paperback of this - you can get it for $6 shipped. Or you can get ones w/o illustrations for $4 shipped. Or you can probably find it at your library.

https://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Worlds-Religions-Wisdom-Traditions/dp/0060674407

The cross/crucifix was only officially repudiated by the church in the 1950s under David O. McKay, though there was grassroots opposition to it starting around the turn of the 20th century.

It was seen as a primarily Catholic symbol, apparently. There's a book about it that I haven't read:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1934901350/

Bruce R. McConkie went perhaps the furthest and called it a mark of the beast, or something like that.

Oh Morb - I was trying to give you something interesting to think about and debate, not ideas that are already fully formed. It was ideas from my head, not an article that I had read, but I didn't want to say it all myself and leave nothing for anyone else to say...

Anyway - seeing as you asked so nicely:

Here is a history of religion:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Of-God-Karen-Armstrong/dp/0099273675

and here is an article for you to read:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/is-religion-man-made/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

There is plenty more out there if you want it?

What's up dude.

www.amazon.com/dp/1934901350/

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww yeah.

>PROTIP: He's not a moderate Muslim.

Yes he is. Grab a copy of Harris' The End of Faith and check it out. He explains quite well how our definition of "moderate" simply does not exist in Islam.

There is a book on this very topic. OldManEyeBrow posted the link but gave no additional information so I have no shame in reposting it with a little more elaboration on how it is relevant.

Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo.

Also, [BYU religion professor Alonzo Gaskill wrote a book review about it](
https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=9274&linkURL=52.4GaskillBanishing-18d7a555-db97-4acf-90ac-10c1e3e79c5d.pdf
) tl;dr: "Well reasoned," "well supported," "light read," "interesting and engaging."

Read Don't get taken every time

The cross only became taboo in Mormonism under David O. McKay. It was an anti-Catholic gesture in response to Catholic's efforts to proselytize in SLC and other anti-Catholic sentiments.

Read Banishing the Cross: Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo https://www.amazon.com/dp/1934901350/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_c_api_JSKzzbH8KQ8TC

And then there's a book on the same subject:

Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo.
https://www.amazon.com/Banishing-Cross-Emergence-Mormon-Taboo/dp/1934901350

http://www.amazon.com/End-Faith-Religion-Terror-Future/dp/0393035158

Why would you steal from someone who's work you enjoy?

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Get-Taken-Every-Time/dp/0143038885/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268789307&sr=1-1

Here is the mobile version of your link

Probably. The Mormon aversion to the cross did not stem from the founders but started in the early 20th century. It became institutionalized in the 1950's under David McKay. Here is a book that explores this. I have not read the book so I do not know how good it is

Get this book. I used to think I was pretty savvy at car buying, but I was wrong. This guy tells you how dealers work and what you can do about it, step by step.

I know they made him take it out in Mormon Doctrine.

Banishing the Cross talks about how the early Mormons had crosses but because they were connected to the Catholic church they eventually were banished. As an example, some early church buildings in SLC have crosses in them and the this is the place monument almost was a cross. The hate used to run deep.

https://www.amazon.com/Banishing-Cross-Emergence-Mormon-Taboo/dp/1934901350

>there are no legitimate religious terrorists, only terrorists, who fail to follow the teachings of their religion, or else misinterpret it.


Where are you coming up with this? Where does anybody come up with this. Have you read the Bible? How about the Koran or the hadiths? Religious people who show restraint and tolerance are the ones not following the teachings of their religion. Islam and Christianity both perpetrate and tolerate absolute bullshit including violence toward innocents. We need to all stop believing the TV when it tells us that Islam is a religion of peace. It's absolutely not. I recommend that you and madcaesar read some of Sam Harris' books.. Google him and listen to what he has to say.

Edit: quoting