Thread: Nice books for atheists

Originally Posted by graphicsgriffin

Hi everyone,
2. I am a muslim, so any offence towards Islam, Christianity, or Judaism (or any of the prophets) will not be accepted.

Being an agnostic, this offends me. Everyone is allowed free speech, and if we want to call your gods false gods, we can do as we wish. I reserve the right to call you on poor reasoning where I see fit, and you can reply as you will. This is the only way intelligent conversation can occur.

Originally Posted by graphicsgriffin

Also see this page http://www.welcome-back.org/profile/jeffrey_lang.shtml

Interesting, but you can never get proof for or against the existence of a god - it's kind of pointless to reference anything at all when trying to convert an atheist (agnostic, really), as we already know that you can never convince us one way or another.

theGnome54, I would have guessed that you are an atheist from other posts you have made. Are you saying it can't be proven but god may exist?

Gnome, you always have to have confrontation don't you?

I am personally not an atheist but intend to do some research about this Lang guy. Its always interesting to see someone who is religious turn away and deny any superior being, and then after learning science; go back to a more religious outlook. It sounds like thats what he has done although I'll have to read to be sure.

Originally Posted by Stupified

theGnome54, I would have guessed that you are an atheist from other posts you have made. Are you saying it can't be proven but god may exist?

Precisely.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Gnome, you always have to have confrontation don't you?

I am personally not an atheist but intend to do some research about this Lang guy. Its always interesting to see someone who is religious turn away and deny any superior being, and then after learning science; go back to a more religious outlook. It sounds like thats what he has done although I'll have to read to be sure.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, it just aggravates me when people expect their opinions to be regarded as sacred by everyone.

It is indeed an interesting story, but my point was simply that you can never have evidence for or against a god's existence - whatever convinced this guy was not science, no matter what his educational background says about his intelligence level.

I have some interesting books for all flavors of theists:

god Is Not Great - Christopher Hitchens
The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins
Letter to a Christian Nation &
The End of Faith - Sam Harris

The New Atheists, also known as the Unholy Trinity. All of these books kick ass.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Precisely.



I'm not trying to be confrontational, it just aggravates me when people expect their opinions to be regarded as sacred by everyone.

It is indeed an interesting story, but my point was simply that you can never have evidence for or against a god's existence - whatever convinced this guy was not science, no matter what his educational background says about his intelligence level.

If theres one thing you can be counted on, its baseless speculation and hearsay.

Originally Posted by graphicsgriffin

A professor in the Department of Mathematics will not write meaningless things.

I'd just like to add that I've had plenty of math professors who did nothing but say and write meaningless things. Hell, I've had profs who couldn't deliver a decent lecture if they'd understood the material.

Originally Posted by graphicsgriffin

2. I am a muslim, so any offence towards Islam, Christianity, or Judaism (or any of the prophets) will not be accepted.

<--people who believe in Islam, Christianity, or Judaism.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Gnome, you always have to have confrontation don't you?

Looks who's talking!

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If theres one thing you can be counted on, its baseless speculation and hearsay.

How was what he said "baseless speculation and hearsay"? He pointed out his right to freedom of speech and he said there is no proof of god, so he deserves to be criticized by you?

Originally Posted by Needcatscan

The New Atheists, also known as the Unholy Trinity. All of these books kick ass.

I believe the bold in the post I quoted makes it clear enough what I was referring to.

A) Lack of evidence proving or disproving the existence of a god is not in itself proof that such evidence does not exist.

B) He has no knowledge as to what exactly it was that may or may not have convinced the author one way or the other about the existence of god. In fact, many people gain religious/spiritual beliefs after studying the sciences.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

A) Lack of evidence proving or disproving the existence of a god is not in itself proof that such evidence does not exist.

That's not at all what I'm implying.

My point is that the concept of a god is inherently both scientifically unsupportable and irrefutable.

This god should be omnipotent, so obviously no evidence can be brought against it, assuming it exists - the evidence could simply be a fabrication by this god.

This god should also not be a part of the space-time continuum, or at least not be a physical being. Therefore, any evidence which could be used as evidence of a god (short of a god actually directly contacting us) should be considered an indication of our current scientific ignorance, by Occam's Razor.

There is just no way to get scientific evidence for or against the existence of a god.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

In fact, many people gain religious/spiritual beliefs after studying the sciences.

Well, that doesn't mean that they do so scientifically. That's like saying 'many statisticians prefer to always use multiples of eleven when playing the lottery', and implying that this lends some mathematical credence to this habit. Statisticians are just as subject to non-statistical reasoning as scientists are to non-scientific reasoning.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

A) Lack of evidence proving or disproving the existence of a god is not in itself proof that such evidence does not exist.

While this statement is true, logical contradictions of a being's existence is evidence. The standard "all-loving, all-powerful" god idea basically disproves itself by the sheer impossibility of being all-powerful, and also that such a god, if it could even exist, is incompatible with our world. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. It just doesn't fit.

Only if you operate under the assumption that finite human logic applies to everything in the universe, which in itself is a ridiculous supposition.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Only if you operate under the assumption that finite human logic applies to everything in the universe, which in itself is a ridiculous supposition.

How presumptuous of me. I'll just go carve the number 672 into the bottom of my foot as punishment.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Only if you operate under the assumption that finite human logic applies to everything in the universe, which in itself is a ridiculous supposition.

You're right, in reference to Mark. However, my point still stands - it is impossible to use this finite human logic and science to find evidence for or against the existence of a God.

Mark, we cannot hope to know whether or not a generic god exists. However, you're right in that we can find contradictions and impossibilities in specific descriptions of gods. This allows us to conclude, at the very least, that these descriptions are flawed. It does not allow us to discount a god in general, though.

This thread sucks.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Only if you operate under the assumption that finite human logic applies to everything in the universe, which in itself is a ridiculous supposition.

OK then, people know nothing, all discussion is irrelevant, good-bye.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

However, you're right in that we can find contradictions and impossibilities in specific descriptions of gods. This allows us to conclude, at the very least, that these descriptions are flawed. It does not allow us to discount a god in general, though.

Well if we go thru the list of 10,000 or so human-described gods and find all the flaws and contradictions and rule them out, that's a good start. The complete lack of necessity for a supernatural being to explain anything helps too. I think discounting gods "in general" is pretty safe, since no gods appear to be acting in any dimension or using any energy that we can detect (admitting that we can't detect or know everything, or <1&#37; of everything, but since we're limited to our senses, gods better use those to communicate if they want to be known, otherwise they're entirely irrelevant anyway). The only place for the hypothetical gods is in discussions which are entirely based on logical rules like "since I can't prove it's not there, it may be there" along with every other fantasy.

This thread sucks.

I thought Mark's threatened self-mutilation was kind of funny.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

OK then, people know nothing, all discussion is irrelevant, good-bye.

Phew. Back to Senseless Banter for us all then?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I thought Mark's threatened self-mutilation was kind of funny.

Slight redemption.

I am personally not an atheist but intend to do some research about this Lang guy.

I see some people already started their own research. This is good.


What is interesting, is that every atheist is saying that you cannot prove existence of god. You don't have to see god personally in order to believe. But you are an intellegent creature, use your brain. For example, if you were walking and saw some smoke behind a wall. Then after some while you reached the wall and found some burnt leaves and wooden sticks. OK, you did not see the fire, but using your brain you knew there was a fire.

Look, if everyone could see god, then everybody would believe. But god wants to award his believers, so there should be some difficulities.

OK, I want you to imagine for now that you believe in god. And there are the laws of our universe. And there are the diffenent sciences. Why you think god has nothing to do with those laws? Why you think that science has nothing to do with relegion? God created the universe and created the laws for this universe to operate. You think god knows nothing of nuclear fusions? Or do you think god knows nothing about networking? Don't ever think that god is only there to be worshiped while he knows nothing about the sciences.

In fact, many people gain religious/spiritual beliefs after studying the sciences.

Exactly, science has to lead you to god in the end!

Dear lucid dreamers, what you say if I tell you that you can use science to to know there is a god?

Do you know that most of the prophets were chosen by god after they looked at the majesty of this universe and kept asking themselves: how this can be so accurately designed? God then awarded those and made them prophets.

Try this site, http://www.harunyahya.com/
Don't tell me you don't like reading about scientific topics. This site is interesting, even if you don't want to be convinced about god.
Really this site is full of scientific facts.
Try the books section, then ATLAS OF CREATION. (try other books also and other sections). there are mp3 files as well.

Again, I don't like to make arguments out of this thread. I show you what evidence I have, and in the end you are totally free to believe or not.

Please do understand, it is not my intention to prove you wrong or right. After this thread is closed, you will be where you are, and I will be where I am. We won't be less or more.
Do try it. If you are totally convinced with your beliefs, then you should not fear reading. I feel you are intellegent and clever. Give it a try.

And btw thegnome54, I feel you are a clever person, you should be the first to try it. Don't judge anything without trying it.

Bye and have nice LDs.

Originally Posted by graphicsgriffin

What is interesting, is that every atheist is saying that you cannot prove existence of god. You don't have to see god personally in order to believe. But you are an intellegent creature, use your brain. For example, if you were walking and saw some smoke behind a wall. Then after some while you reached the wall and found some burnt leaves and wooden sticks. OK, you did not see the fire, but using your brain you knew there was a fire.

No. You did not know there was a fire, you inferred this fact using your past experiences and resulting expectations. No one has experienced another universe they know to have a god, and so no one has the proper experience to make inferences about a god's existence in this universe. Even if they did, they could still be wrong - the smoke could be dry ice sublimating or something.

Occam's razor always rules out the explanation 'God did it', because any other theory at ALL will make less baseless assumptions than the theory of a god.

Originally Posted by graphicsgriffin

Look, if everyone could see god, then everybody would believe. But god wants to award his believers, so there should be some difficulities.

If this god wants to play games with me, he's not worth worshiping. What sort of petty being creates entities simply to hide from them so he can reward them for noticing him later??

Originally Posted by graphicsgriffin

OK, I want you to imagine for now that you believe in god. And there are the laws of our universe. And there are the diffenent sciences. Why you think god has nothing to do with those laws?

Because that is a massive assumption and it's unnecessary. Why do you think that Thor has nothing to do with those laws?

Originally Posted by graphicsgriffin

Why you think that science has nothing to do with relegion?

Because it doesn't. Science is the process by which we gather knowledge through empirical study and testing. Religion has nothing to do with science, it is a blind assumption which is neither testable nor falsifiable.

Originally Posted by graphicsgriffin

God created the universe and created the laws for this universe to operate.

That's what I would call a 'baseless assumption'. I could say 'Thor created the universe and created the laws for this universe to operate'. What do you say to that?

Originally Posted by graphicsgriffin

You think god knows nothing of nuclear fusions? Or do you think god knows nothing about networking? Don't ever think that god is only there to be worshiped while he knows nothing about the sciences.

If a god existed, it would no doubt know everything there is to know. However, it is impossible to get evidence to indicate that a god does exist.

Originally Posted by graphicsgriffin

Exactly, science has to lead you to god in the end!

No, it does not. I don't believe you know what science is. Please do your own research, we should all be better informed on these matters.

Originally Posted by graphicsgriffin

Dear lucid dreamers, what you say if I tell you that you can use science to to know there is a god?

I say that you don't know what science is.

Originally Posted by graphicsgriffin

Try this site, http://www.harunyahya.com/
Don't tell me you don't like reading about scientific topics. This site is interesting, even if you don't want to be convinced about god.
Really this site is full of scientific facts.
Try the books section, then ATLAS OF CREATION. (try other books also and other sections). there are mp3 files as well.

That site is full of pseudoscience and nonsense. There is an entire section about refuting Darwinism, one of the most successful theories in all of science. One of their 'arguments' is that organic molecules could not have formed from carbon, oxygen and hydrogen because those atoms are not conscious and so could not purposefully come together in such ways.

Pure ignorance. I suppose these people only ever get one flu shot, because there's no way the strains of influenza could evolve, right?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just want you to realize that no one has all of the answers - make sure that you have all of your facts straight before you try to show others a truth you may not know yourself.

Happy LDing!

Us humans' limited communication skills have helped us evolve, and is a great contribution to our ignorance.

My post's point? Barely existant.

I love you thegnome54.
I sometimes yearn for logic to see fallacy.

Goodnight.

OK, I see you have made out your points.
But you did not read the full articles. You replied in less than one hour!
Read.

Again, some nice sites:

http://www.welcome-back.org/profile/jeffrey_lang.shtml
http://www.harunyahya.com/

Some nice books:
1. Struggling to Surrender: Some Impressions of an American Convert to Islam
2. Even Angels Ask: A Journey to Islam in America
3. Losing My Religion: A Call for Help

Bye.

Originally Posted by graphicsgriffin

OK, I see you have made out your points.
But you did not read the full articles. You replied in less than one hour!
Read.

Again, some nice sites:

http://www.welcome-back.org/profile/jeffrey_lang.shtml
http://www.harunyahya.com/

Some nice books:
1. Struggling to Surrender: Some Impressions of an American Convert to Islam
2. Even Angels Ask: A Journey to Islam in America
3. Losing My Religion: A Call for Help

Bye.

So essentially you agree he's right then?

I don't get it. So this guys says that Islam is the way, and science led to it, but yet he believes in flying horses with prophets on their back??? I'm confused.