Good non-fiction books

[Blaster86]

"The Dark Side"

Stories about how politics can rape your life if you throw your hate in the ring.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

That last one is just hilarious to me. I knew it was only a matter of time before we saw an atheist bible. I chortled for quite some time when I saw that one sitting in Chapters in the "Religion" section.

Why is that "hilarious"? Why is it an "atheist bible"? It's a collection of essays based on reason, not faith.

[Knut]

"The Heroin Diaries" - Nikki Sixx

Eventhough Motley Crue is all kinds of Suck... this is a great read about battling addiction. Basically it is Diary entries from a one year period in the 80s when Nikki Sixx was doing thousands of dollars in drugs a Day.

[BuzzardsWife]

I like all Ann Rule books. I'm reading Green River Running Red right now. She's my fave true crime writer.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

Why is that "hilarious"? Why is it an "atheist bible"? It's a collection of essays based on reason, not faith.

Or a collection of stories based on experience that can be interpreted through reason or through dogma.

It's essentially a collection of atheistic mythology. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but the more I see of atheism the more it reminds me of religion. I just wish atheists would stop pretending otherwise.

[Burninator]

Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

Or a collection of stories based on experience that can be interpreted through reason or through dogma.

It's essentially a collection of atheistic mythology. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but the more I see of atheism the more it reminds me of religion. I just wish atheists would stop pretending otherwise.

So you've read the book, eh? I haven't.

What myths are in there?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by peter12

but the more I see of atheism the more it reminds me of religion. I just wish atheists would stop pretending otherwise.

explain

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So you've read the book, eh? I haven't.

What myths are in there?

I haven't read the book in its entirety, but I think I've read almost all of the entries in it at one point or another.

Just because something is referred to as a myth, doesn't mean it's untrue. It's simply a story which purports to understand the greater complexities of human society. It serves as a cognitive mind map for understanding life.

You can't tell me that specifically selected stories for the purpose of supporting a world view such as atheism or secular humanism don't serve that purpose.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Burninator

explain

We have to differentiate dogma/religion from theology. A religion is based on a community. That is, to bring together a group of similar-minded people and enforce bonds between them.

A religion also has dogma. Simplified versions of the philosophy behind the belief. Dogma pretends to have the answers with an all-encompassing world-view without being forced to prove it with scientific testing.

Atheism does this quite nicely. I'm sorry, but the breadth and complexity of the human experience cannot be summed up so neatly but the principles of neo-Darwinism or of Enlightenment humanism. It's just simply not possible.

Not too mention the emergence of specific leaders in the movement, such as Hitchens and Dawkins, who serve as the mentors for a large portion of people.

Or the organization of atheist groups such as "The Brights."

Atheists are even adopting utopian/millenarian thinking which is a hallmark of religious movements. This is expressing itself in classic dualism, such as the often-seen atheist assumption that theistic religion is a disease.

I don't have a problem with any of these things, except for the last one.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

I haven't read the book in its entirety, but I think I've read almost all of the entries in it at one point or another.

Just because something is referred to as a myth, doesn't mean it's untrue. It's simply a story which purports to understand the greater complexities of human society. It serves as a cognitive mind map for understanding life.

You can't tell me that specifically selected stories for the purpose of supporting a world view such as atheism or secular humanism don't serve that purpose.

I think we have a different understanding of what a myth is.

Anyway, can you describe a specific myth that is in the book?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I think we have a different understanding of what a myth is.

Anyway, can you describe a specific myth that is in the book?

The modern understanding of a myth differs from the classical understanding.

Well, I see Marx is in there with a discussion of Hegalian philosophy. The notion of Hegalian "end of history" cannot be tested by science, but is definitely capable of helping to form a worldview.

[J pold]

28 stories of AIDS in Africa....Absolutely heartbreaking

FIASCO, a great book on the war in Iraq

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

The modern understanding of a myth differs from the classical understanding.

Perhaps. I've got a modern OED sitting here though and myth is roughly defined as a traditional narrative usu. involving supernatural or imaginary persons bla bla bla.

That's how I've always thought of it.

I guess my point was I find it hard to believe that a book about atheism would contain a bunch of what I consider "myths" to explain the world.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Perhaps. I've got a modern OED sitting here though and myth is roughly defined as a traditional narrative usu. involving supernatural or imaginary persons bla bla bla.

That's how I've always thought of it.

I guess my point was I find it hard to believe that a book about atheism would contain a bunch of what I consider "myths" to explain the world.

I think modernism really misunderstands the nature of myth and its intrinsic binding of the human experience. I would go so far as to say that it overrides logic and reason as the primary source of understanding in all humans.

A myth may certainly use supernatural or imaginary circumstances, but they are symbols to explain a greater truth than what is just read literally.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think modernism really misunderstands the nature of myth and its intrinsic binding of the human experience. I would go so far as to say that it overrides logic and reason as the primary source of understanding in all humans.

A myth may certainly use supernatural or imaginary circumstances, but they are symbols to explain a greater truth than what is just read literally.

Okay then, what symbols are used in the book to explain a greater truth than what is just read literally?

What myths do atheists use to explain a greater truth?

That Hegel/Marx bit above didn't quite do it for me -- I don't know anything about Hegel.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Okay then, what symbols are used in the book to explain a greater truth than what is just read literally?

What myths do atheists use to explain a greater truth?

That Hegel/Marx bit above didn't quite do it for me -- I don't know anything about Hegel.

I certainly don't want to go out on a limb and put out individual entries as being part of an "atheist mythology." A lot of those authors are certainly very valid and represent a portion of the Western philosophical tradition. Except for Penn Jillette... what's a clown doing in there?

I think that when they are accumulated into a handbook with little logical connection or justification, they create a much larger myth. Namely that the experiences of these varied and often disconnected authors are representative and symbolic of the atheist experience.

That's religious dogma, in my mind.

[fatso]

Well Hegel's Christianity, and ethnocentrism, drove much of his work. His "end of history" thing is certainly informed by his spiritual beliefs - what is the end of history if not the achievement of "Spirit"? - so of course any philosophical reliance on him (Marx all the way through post-structuralism) has to reckon with that. Still, I think it's his methodology - dialectical reasoning - that is most relevant, and that is used by rational thinkers who consider themselves working outside of a religious teleology.

I think I know what peter12 is getting at... that Enlightenment principles have created their own narrative of progress and development. While they may be devoid of explicitly religious aims, their structure and logic mimics the religious narratives of progress or historical development that preceded them. I may be way off, peter12, and certainly do not want to misrepresent your view. In any event, the argument is out there that the Enlightenment has created its own tyranny of thought, and rather than liberating individuals from repressive knowledge structures (like religion) it's simply created its own under the guise of neutrality or science.

But that's WAYYYYYY off-topic and totally not thought-out on my part.... my apologies to the OP.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by fatso

Well Hegel's Christianity, and ethnocentrism, drove much of his work. His "end of history" thing is certainly informed by his spiritual beliefs - what is the end of history if not the achievement of "Spirit"? - so of course any philosophical reliance on him (Marx all the way through post-structuralism) has to reckon with that. Still, I think it's his methodology - dialectical reasoning - that is most relevant, and that is used by rational thinkers who consider themselves working outside of a religious teleology.

I think I know what peter12 is getting at... that Enlightenment principles have created their own narrative of progress and development. While they may be devoid of explicitly religious aims, their structure and logic mimics the religious narratives of progress or historical development that preceded them. I may be way off, peter12, and certainly do not want to misrepresent your view. In any event, the argument is out there that the Enlightenment has created its own tyranny of thought, and rather than liberating individuals from repressive knowledge structures (like religion) it's simply created its own under the guise of neutrality or science.

But that's WAYYYYYY off-topic and totally not thought-out on my part.... my apologies to the OP.

Hey, that's what pretty much what I wanted to say, but I didn't want bring this thread too off-topic. It is certainly a valid argument and one that has never explicitly been addressed by the neo-Darwinian atheists.

I think Marx is probably one of the main intellectual fore-fathers of the current atheist movement. Their methodology seeks to differentiate themselves from other religious believers, but their language is essentially the same.

It can actually be quite funny. Occasionally, I will debate an atheist friend of mine and will be met by a quote from Harris or Dawkins in response to my questions.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

I certainly don't want to go out on a limb and put out individual entries as being part of an "atheist mythology." A lot of those authors are certainly very valid and represent a portion of the Western philosophical tradition. Except for Penn Jillette... what's a clown doing in there?

I think that when they are accumulated into a handbook with little logical connection or justification, they create a much larger myth. Namely that the experiences of these varied and often disconnected authors are representative and symbolic of the atheist experience.

That's religious dogma, in my mind.

In your mind.

How atheism is not like religion:

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...l_religion.htm

Religion is a means of understanding our existence. Atheism fits that bill.

Sorry, wrong yet again. As the term is normally used, atheism means not believing in any gods. That's as far as "understanding existence" goes with atheism. Other than gods, there's a lot of room for differences among atheists as to what they think about existence. Thus, atheism itself is not an "understanding", but a single commonality. Any two atheists might have as much in common as a Christian and a devout believer in Odin - both of whom are obviously theists. Although some person's understanding of their existence might contain a principle of atheism, that atheism is not itself the means to understanding.

Religions has its leaders, the preachers of its tenets. So does atheism (Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx).

All of those philosophers disagreed in many ways - thus supporting my contention that atheism, as such, does not have any set of "clearly defined rules" and is not a single religion. Many atheists, in fact, have no interest in those authors.


To try and claim that atheism is a religion requires, it should be pretty obvious from the above, a radical ad hoc redefinition in what it is that "being a religion" is supposed to mean, resulting in a radically equivocal use of the new term-- if atheism is a religion, then just what isn't a religion?

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/11/29/075801.php

http://www.atheistalliance.org/libra...m_religion.php

http://www.atheists.org/faqs/atheism.html

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/athe...mreligion.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...hew/intro.html