Does anyone know of any good atheist authors like Dawkins, Hitchens or Bertrand? or any modern day philosophers?

JayFK:

Does anyone know of any good atheist authors like Dawkins, Hitchens or Bertrand? or any modern day philosophers?

Walter Kaufmann, http://www.amazon.com/Critique-Religion-Philosophy-Walter-Kaufmann/dp/0691020019/ref=sr_1_131?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208547042&sr=1-131
Kai Nielsen, http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Philosophy-Kai-Nielsen/dp/1591022983/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208381499&sr=8-12
Owen Flanagan, http://www.amazon.com/Problem-Soul-Visions-Mind-Reconcile/dp/0465024610/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208192048&sr=8-1
Paul Draper, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/
A. C. Grayling
Antony Flew
Michel Onfray, http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Manifesto-Against-Christianity-Judaism/dp/1559708204
Daniel Dennett
George H Smith
William Harwood
Richard Carrier
Michael Martin
J. L. Mackie
Sam Harris
Julian Baggini
Theodore Drange
Nicholas Everitt
David Eller
David Mills
Dan Barker
Bart Ehrman
Victor Stenger
John Allen Paulos, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/books/22kaku.html?8dpc=&pagewanted=all
Bruce A. Smith, http://www.amazon.com/Path-Reason-Philosophy-Nonbelief/dp/0875865801/ref=pd_ybh_11?pf_rd_p=280800601&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=ybh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=03YYVKMZ5AWA3GTFFMZJ

John Allen Paulos, http://www.amazon.com/Irreligion-Mathematician-Explains-Arguments-Just/dp/0809059193/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

Colin McGinn, http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/watch_mcginn.html

Also check out the book "Philosophers Without God" on Amazon. All the above authors can be got from Amazon.

http://www.philosopedia.org/
http://philosopedia.org/index.php/Who%27s_Who_in_Hell

Have added some more authors. Enjoy!

Thanks dude. You know Flew became a deist and accepted Jesus' resurrection?

I fail to see how Dawkin's is a good atheist author. I thought his latest offering, 'The God Delusion' was especially rubbish. Rubbish with some of the daftest arguments I've ever heard delivered in a ranting style that has served to drive some previous atheists into investigating religion again.

Pastor AIO:

I fail to see how Dawkin's is a good atheist author. I thought his latest offering, 'The God Delusion' was especially rubbish. Rubbish with some of the daftest arguments I've ever heard delivered in a ranting style that has served to drive some previous atheists into investigating religion again.

Dawkins is a good author and well respected in his field. I agree though "the God Delusion" was more of a rant, but it was still a pretty good book. Now "the selfish gene" that was great.

But the Selfish Gene was not about atheism. The God delusion was rubbish and it's arguments were rubbish. He tip toed around a lot of points and chose to pick and choose where he would engage with religion which were at those points where he felt he had the the stronger argument. Yet any discerning reader will tell you that he repeatedly fails.

JayFK:

Thanks dude. You know Flew became a deist and accepted Jesus' resurrection?

Yes, am aware of the so-called conversion of Flew to deism. But he wrote some very influential works about non-belief and are still difficult to refute. Flew is very old now and has been exploited by some christains to make a case for their fraudulent religion. I doubt Flew accepts the resurrection as historical.

Bruce A. Smith, http://www.amazon.com/Path-Reason-Philosophy-Nonbelief/dp/0875865801/ref=pd_ybh_11?pf_rd_p=280800601&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=ybh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=03YYVKMZ5AWA3GTFFMZJ

Read Theodore Drange at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html

hey huxley what part of the country are you from?

JayFK:

hey huxley what part of the country are you from?

Hello,

Am not from Nigeria. Am actually from Cameroon, where I was born and lived until I was 20. I now live in UK. Many many years ago, I lived in a small Cameroonian town close to the borders with Nigeria. In fact, my family used to do the weekly shopping in the Nigeria town (I think it is called Ekom). There's a well establish Nigeria community in the southern regions of Cameroon and I have spent all my life amongst Naija people. I have Nigeria in-laws, aunts and uncles. My next door neighbour here is Nigeria. My wife and her friends are great fans of Nollywood movies although I remain to be convinced.

In my current worldview, nationalism and national affiliations play a very insignificant role. To paraphrase Tom Paine, "The universe is my country and to do good is my religion"

I see you express atheistic tendencies. Can explain how you came to this view?

huxley:

I see you express atheistic tendencies. Can explain how you came to this view?

lol full blown atheist here!!

Anyways, I guess I've always been skeptical of the whole thing. I never bought the whole idea that God created the world, I used to be like "the who created God?" I was raised anglican then pentecostal so its been ingrained in me not to ask questions or question "god" which is quite ridiculous. I figured also that "the god of the bible" didn't exist either since the bible has always been contradictory. So you could say I've been slightly agnostic.
Anyways, when I entered Uni, bout 3 years ago I took philosophy class, saw the questions that men have been asking since the dawn of time, saw how the properties of god essentially contradict themselves and I figured well, if god must exist then either he is a narcissist or he doesn't interfere in the affairs of men(deist) now if you keep on asking the questions "who created god" from the deist perspective, it becomes redundant and if God is a narcissist or sociopath he can't be god now can he?
The 2005 Loyola crash, (that was at the end of my first year) my friend lost his brother and sister and I was crushed, these are people Ive known since I was a kid, I was really faced with my own mortality and then I heard someone say "its God's will" and that just pushed me over the edge. I was so depressed I stopped going to school and my grades suffered and the more I started asking myself questions about Africa, how the world works, all the problems in the world I got even more depressed. Then it came to me, we don't need god to explain anything that has happened whatsoever, its man's doing. I came to the conclusion that god is man's creation and there is no evidence for a first course. I've never been happier.

I'm an atheist, secular humanist and socialist and I'm goddamn proud of it.
However concerning Nationalism, I feel Homogenous societies usually do a bit better at least in terms of governance and economy. However this doesn't apply to such "melting pot" countries like the U.S.

huxley:

My wife and her friends are great fans of Nollywood movies although I remain to be convinced.

lol, I sympathise with you I hate Nigerian movies matter of fact I hate movies. I'd rather read the book the movie is based on or watch cartoons. I currently live in Canada, though Id be coming back to start Uni all over again.

I am extremely glad and please you have seen the light relatively early in life and not be mired by the scourge that is religion and superstitious belief. Freedom from religion is really liberating. In fact, for the thoughtful atheist, it seem to endow a better understanding of reality and a healthy mind state.

I came to non-belief at about 20 years old, although I had starting doubting the religious claims much early, about 12/13 when I realised that much of the christian claims were really not dissimilar from the tradition African myths. I really started question when I was about 16 and for me the final straw was the issues of SIN and EVIL. I lost what remaining belief when I realised that sin and evil cannot be reconciled with a good god.

I spent many years in the 90s reading the bible and scholarly biblical works and am very much into philosophy and philosophical scrutiny of religious claims. This study has illuminated my understanding of reality no end.

My greatest regret is that my close African friends and family are trapped in this barbaric belief system. I have brothers who are doctors and engineers but when it comes to scientific understand, they are no different from 10 year old children. They are scared to read anything scientific that might in any way contradict their belief.

I think the intellectual fabric of any society is at risk if that society founds it guiding precepts on premises that are not rationally defendable. Just see how many people are exploited today by such religious claims in Africa and the world at large. See how the religious are hampering medical and societal development by impeding stem cell research, banning the use of condoms, teaching unscientific dogma etc. The sooner religions is eradicated form the face of the planet, the better the human condition.

To finish, I will quote one one my hero, Voltare (hope you have learnt some French over there in Canada)

Ecrasez l'infame.

JayFK:



I'm an atheist, secular humanist and socialist and I'm goddamn proud of it.
However concerning Nationalism,  I feel Homogenous societies usually do a bit better at least in terms of governance and economy.   However this doesn't apply to such "melting pot" countries like the US.

. . in which case we don't stand a chance in Africa.  Especially not in Nigeria.  We are the most heterogeneous place in the entire world.  Have you heard the analogy that if the gene pool of Africa is a swimming pool then only one drop out of this swimming pool left africa to populate the rest of the world.  In other words there is more genetic diversity in Africa than in the rest of the world many times over.  Or to put it differently there is, in more cases than not,  a bigger genetic difference between one african and another than between, say, an englishman and a chinese man.  And the difference between african's is not just genetic.  Our cultures are remarkably different from each other.  Europeans and Asians have found a common prototype for their language and culture that stretches from northern europe all the way to the indian subcontinent.  This 'Aryan' language is the links latin, to german, to hindi and more.

In comparison to this it is much harder to find a common link between the languages of neighbouring african tribes.  Of course they may borrow words from each other but it is much harder to find deeper links that would suggest common prior source.  groupings such as the Kwa languages are, I believe, not taken seriously by scholars.

For anything other than physical and biological health, I think the genetical similarity/variations are just a relic of our evolutionary past. As our societies advance in the understanding of our past, these difference will pale into insignificance.

The important thing is cultural homogeneity and empathy. It is not long ago that most of western Europe was fragmented into little kingdoms, clans governed by warlord and little kings. The imperialism of the Romans (with their road, common language in latin and currency) essentially opened up Europe and help lay the foundation for many of what seems today like a homogeneous culture. A common religion too, in Xianity helped forge that similarity.

huxley:

For anything other than physical and biological health, I think the genetical similarity/variations are just a relic of our evolutionary past. As our societies advance in the understanding of our past, these difference will pale into insignificance.

Aren't you being rather hopeful? Of course hope is a good thing, but only in appropriate measure.

huxley:


The important thing is cultural homogeneity and empathy.

And just how do you suppose that we are going to arrive at this homogeneity and empathy. where in africa have you ever seen homogeneity or how do you expect that we will arrive at it?

huxley:


My greatest regret is that my close African friends and family are trapped in this barbaric belief system. I have brothers who are doctors and engineers but when it comes to scientific understand, they are no different from 10 year old children. They are scared to read anything scientific that might in any way contradict their belief.

This is just weird to me, that people dont actually question their beliefs. You don't have to study quantum theory to see the contradictory elements of the bible and yet you've been taught not to question it because it is absolute. I think its just human nature, the uncertainty of death. I guess people need to know that something awaits them after they die. However a religion that says "Believe in god or die", if you deny the holy spirit or question it at all no forgiveness for you. Like that dude Brian Flemming said "The biggest sin in Christianity is to thinkt".

huxley:

I think the intellectual fabric of any society is at risk if that society founds it guiding precepts on premises that are not rationally defendable. Just see how many people are exploited today by such religious claims in Africa and the world at large. See how the religious are hampering medical and societal development by impeding stem cell research, banning the use of condoms, teaching unscientific dogma etc. The sooner religions is eradicated form the face of the planet, the better the human condition.

The thing that really bothers me is, people like Benny Hinn and the other idiots who make money off people and actually believe that they have powers from "god". Even though their routines are remarkably similar to stage Hypnosis. Give 10 percent of your income to god? Fukc me thats just awful. Banning the use of condoms? executing gays? executing people who have sex? Yeah I think we'd be a lot better off without religion. Man's problems are already enough.

Pastor AIO:


And just how do you suppose that we are going to arrive at this homogeneity and empathy. where in africa have you ever seen homogeneity or how do you expect that we will arrive at it?

If we're going to arrive at homogeneity, Intermarriage or secession. I dont see the first one happening anytime soon, so I pick the latter.

JayFK:
Yeah I think we'd be a lot better off without religion. Man's problems are already enough.

That's like saying that one would be better off without a penis. Afterall, consider all the trouble that it has brought your way in life. Dalliances with errant women, staying up all night when you know that you have an early start the next morning. . . etc etc.

Religion is a key part of homo sapiens sapiens. It is one of the things that marks our species apart from the others. Language, Art, the opposing thumb , religion . . . No other creatures have these things.

IF you think you are going to argue religion away good luck. I believe it is hardwired into us. If it was something arbitrary and made up, how come it is so universal. There is no human society that is not religious. There is actually a project being set up at the moment that hopes to find the cause of religiousity in humans. I think it is simply called Explaining Religion. http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10875666


“Explaining Religion”, as the project is known, is the largest-ever scientific study of the subject. It began last September, will run for three years, and involves scholars from 14 universities and a range of disciplines from psychology to economics. And it is merely the latest manifestation of a growing tendency for science to poke its nose into the God business.


Religion cries out for a biological explanation. It is a ubiquitous phenomenon—arguably one of the species markers of Homo sapiens—but a puzzling one. It has none of the obvious benefits of that other marker of humanity, language. Nevertheless, it consumes huge amounts of resources.

This, I believe, is a better means of getting rid of, or establishing, religion than a million rational arguments which in the end are just an exercise in futility.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

-- Albert Einstein

imhotep:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

-- Albert Einstein

ad verecundiam

Pastor AIO:

That's like saying that one would be better off without a privates. Afterall, consider all the trouble that it has brought your way in life. Dalliances with errant women, staying up all night when you know that you have an early start the next morning. . . etc etc.

Religion is a key part of homo sapiens sapiens. It is one of the things that marks our species apart from the others. Language, Art, the opposing thumb , religion . . . No other creatures have these things.

IF you think you are going to argue religion away good luck. I believe it is hardwired into us. If it was something arbitrary and made up, how come it is so universal. There is no human society that is not religious. There is actually a project being set up at the moment that hopes to find the cause of religiousity in humans. I think it is simply called Explaining Religion. http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10875666


“Explaining Religion”, as the project is known, is the largest-ever scientific study of the subject. It began last September, will run for three years, and involves scholars from 14 universities and a range of disciplines from psychology to economics. And it is merely the latest manifestation of a growing tendency for science to poke its nose into the God business.


Religion cries out for a biological explanation. It is a ubiquitous phenomenon—arguably one of the species markers of Homo sapiens—but a puzzling one. It has none of the obvious benefits of that other marker of humanity, language. Nevertheless, it consumes huge amounts of resources.

This, I believe, is a better means of getting rid of, or establishing, religion than a million rational arguments which in the end are just an exercise in futility.

Privates are necessary for reproduction. What is religion necessary for?
I hope eventually we'll get the biological explanation for religion though

JayFK:

ad verecundiam

Not quite.

All the scientists that want to suppress religion will never be as great and as influential as Albert Einstein. In fact, most of them are still battling to fully understand his works!!!

Einstein was not a practicing Jew, but he knew that there was Much More to the universe he was studying.

More Einstein quotes -->

"I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."


"I can not accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I can not prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar."


"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."


"I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe." or sometimes quoted as "God does not play dice with the universe."


"I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."


"My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, [/b]with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."



"[b]What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the inquiring and constructive mind."



"The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior."



"The relativity principle in connection with the basic Maxwellian equations demands that the mass should be a direct measure of the energy contained in a body; light transfers mass. With radium there should be a noticeable diminution of mass. The idea is amusing and enticing; but whether the Almighty is laughing at it and is leading me up the garden path - that I cannot know."

Imhotep
Einstein was a brilliant man no doubt, but does the fact that he said those things mean it is true?

From Einstein also,

Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. In it he says:

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”


"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

JayFK:

Imhotep
Einstein was a brilliant man no doubt, but does the fact that he said those things mean it is true?

From Einstein also,

Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. In it he says:

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

“I believe in[b] Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”[/b]


"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Yes, he did not believe in a personal God. But he knew Something was at work in the universe beyond complicated equations and elaborate theories.

I laugh when I see scientists (most of whom are confounded by Einstein's works) think that they can be better simply be denying the existence of God.

Rejection of God does not necessarily lead to better science.

imhotep:

Yes, he did not believe in a personal God. But he knew something was at work in the universe beyond complicated equations and elaborate theories.

I laugh when I see scientists (most of whom are confounded by Einstein's works) think that they can be better simply be denying the existence of God.

Rejection of God does not necessarily lead to better science.

so your point is, no one is smarter than Einstein? still ad verecundiam mon frere

Many scientists are puzzled by these questions:

1) Where are the boundaries of the universe?
2) What exists beyond these boundaries?
3) And beyond, ?

JayFK:

so your point is, no one is smarter than Einstein? still ad verecundiam mon frere

If someone as smart as Einstein was humble enough to recognize the hand of God in the universe he studied for so long; what justifies others (who get confused just by reading some of Einstein's works) to deny God just because He cannot fit into their skull??

imhotep:

Many scientists are puzzled by these questions:

1) Where are the boundaries of the universe?
2) What exists beyond these boundaries?
3) And beyond, ?

Yeah they are puzzled. First you must understand human beings are incapable of imagining what is too small or too big, isnt it possible the universe, just is? Does that mean that it must be God that exists beyond those boundaries? What exists beyond "god"?

Ad Verecundiam
1. A makes claim about B
2 A is something positive
3 Therefore B is true

JayFK:

Yeah they are puzzled. First you must understand human beings are incapable of imagining what is too small or too big, isnt it possible the universe, just is? Does that mean that it must be God that exists beyond those boundaries? What exists beyond "god"?

Good questions. Now you see the limits of logic. Logic CANNOT completely explain the physical universe. What can you learn from this?

JayFk:
Ad Verecundiam
1. A makes claim about B
2 A is something positive
3 Therefore B is true

In this case A = Albert Einstein.
B = God at work behind the scenes in the universe.

No one has ever studied the structure of the universe more than Einstein; and he contemplated God at work behind the scenes.

Many other scientists are still studying his works till this day. What can you also learn from this?