pure science with a splash of black cat

I’m considering reading The God Delusion…

neildegrassetyson:

godlessscience:

matbroome1996:

…but I’m not quite sure if I will understand it, admittedly.  I guess my main question is:  Is the writing style and vocabulary something that I would find trouble understanding?  For example, Helter Skelter by Vincent Bugliosi was a little complicated for me to understand.

Also, my parents are religious (Christian) and I would appreciate if anyone could tell me or recommend books like The God Delusion, preferably ones that do not imply atheism in the title.

My parents are ministers so I can attest. If you’re in college, I’d recommend amazoning the God Delusion, and God is not Great and reading it there.  As for other titles that are atheistic, but not in title, I’d recommend:

• The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris
• A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss
• The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
• Darwin’s Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett

Edit: And I haven’t read the God Delusion, but the Greatest Show on Earth was an easy read vocabulary wise, and I would imagine Dawkins would use the same vernacular.  Dennett is probably the hardest to read, Krauss being second hardest.

The God Delusion is one of my favorite books! I find Dawkins writing to be very readable.. especially this book! Personally for me, I just went down to my local book store and bought a copy.. my father is a pastor so I keep behind my other books on the shelf :P Anyways, if you really are interested go down to your local library and check it out.. or if you’re really desperate just download a PDF online :) Happy reading! 

Buy the Kindle edition on Amazon and read it on your computer/phone, if you don’t have a Kindle. It’s $6 and no one has to see you doing it.

It’s readable, and very worthwhile. That said, while I love science, I still kind of wanted to fall asleep every time Dawkins walked into one of his lengthy explications of the evolution of whatever species, because often there was a point where I think he’d forget his own point, so to speak. To paraphrase the man in his own book, he has a tendency to ride off on his pet steed Tangent. This stuff is pretty skippable, though, especially if you’re already in the choir, if you will.

The only thing that annoyed me in the book (and I am in the choir) was that he has a sort of…not flippant, but almost, attitude toward the problem of molestation within the Church. He doesn’t say it isn’t a problem, it is true that it is a bit beside his point, but even in setting it aside, he could do a whole lot better. Doesn’t come off well. It’s brief, though, only about a page and a half in a later chapter.

If I may highlight some things:

• Chapters 3 and 4 are pretty dense, but they form a good guide for understanding the arguments for the existence of a deity, and the flaws in those arguments. Don’t be afraid of these chapters, do read them, with Wikipeida (yes, I know, but we’re talking the basics here) nearby if you need it.
• Chapter 6 is excellent for atheists who are often faced with explaining to people how they form sound moral judgement without the guide of religion.
• Chapter 7 is hilarious, and is where the book gets particularly good, all the way through to the end — these are the parts about specific passages in the Bible, deconstruction of various religious texts, religious hypocrisy, a liberal religious person’s penchant for cherrypicking what parts of the Bible they interpret literally and which they interpret metaphorically, and the issue of raising children. Even if you’re too young to have children, or don’t want them, that part may cast light on your upbringing or your friends’, depending on your experiences.

No, Dawkins is not a fluffy friendly atheist, and really, the movement needs that kind of people at times, to keep the rest of us who tend to be more accomodating in line. I don’t have to agree with him wholesale, or even at all, to find what he says valuable.

(via neildegrassetyson-deactivated20)

"And finally, I have concluded through careful empirical analysis that somebody is looking out for me, keeping track of what I think about things, forgiving me when I do less than I ought, giving me strength to shoot for more than I think I am capable of. I believe that they know everything that I do and think and they still love me and I have concluded after careful consideration that this person keeping score is me."

Mythbuster Adam Savage’s speech at the Reason Rally 3/24/2012 (via elyseexplosion)

(Source: youtube.com, via elyseexplosion)

On how you’re going to feel.

dearcoketalk:

Just out of curiosity here… How do you think you’re going to feel when it turns out there is a God, and a heaven, and a hell. I find the idea of atheism more amusing with each atheist I meet (only two so far), especially being a muslim. No judgment or anything, but seriously… How awesomely fucked up will that be for you?

I know how secretly terrified you are of your own death. No judgment or anything, but seriously… how awesomely fucked up will that be for you?

AHAHAHAHAHA

Passing a value judgment based on meeting two people? Piety ain’t what it claims to be.

If it turns out there is a God, any atheist with two brain cells to rub together will accept it, if it’s proven (and any atheist who doesn’t accept actual incontrovertible scientific proof of a deity, or of anything else, is a complete and utter fool). In the face of an increasing number of explanations for the phenomena of the world around us, however, withering the need for a supreme being in the story of life and history, otherwise rational religious people just circle the wagons. Funny how that works.

This isn’t the time, place, or opportunity to go into a rant about some other things this message makes me think about, but I will emphasize again the hilarious hypocrisy of hiding behind a shield of religiosity and then being as intolerant and judgmental as you claim the irreligious are. You make normal religious people look really terrible when you do that. It’s not helping the cause.

(Source: dearcoquette)

mc-xc:

Richard Dawkins nailed it, just freaking nailed it. We can’t afford to ignore these people because of the power they hold.

(via elyseexplosion)

heatburg:

I was a swaggering atheist until my mother died, when I started to pray. It was a denial of her absence—a way of communicating with her. As I began to co-exist with the loss, my faith left me; it outlived its usefulness. Lately, with the help of Dawkins, Hitchens et al, I’ve returned to total non-belief. I don’t know how long it’ll last, but God, it’s good to be back!

Robert Webb, The Independent, May 2008

(Source: extremeliking)

Be­liev­ing then that hu­man life is ac­tu­al­ly worth liv­ing, one can com­bat one’s nat­ural pes­simism by sto­icism and the re­fusal of il­lu­sion, while em­bel­lish­ing the scene with any one of the fol­low­ing. There are the beau­ties of sci­ence and the ex­traor­di­nary mar­vels of na­ture. There is the con­so­la­tion and irony of phi­los­ophy. There are the in­fi­nite splen­dors of lit­er­ature and po­et­ry, not ex­clud­ing the litur­gi­cal and de­vo­tion­al as­pects of these, such as those found in John Donne or George Her­bert. There is the grand re­source of art and mu­sic and ar­chi­tec­ture, again not ex­clud­ing those el­ements that as­pire to the sub­lime. In all of these pur­suits, any one of them enough to ab­sorb a life­time, there may be found a sense of awe and mag­nif­icence that does not de­pend at all on any in­vo­ca­tion of the su­per­nat­ural. In­deed, no­body armed by art and cul­ture and lit­er­ature and phi­los­ophy is like­ly to be any­thing but bored and sick­ened by ghost sto­ries, UFO tales, spir­itu­al­ist ex­pe­ri­ences, or bab­blings from the be­yond.

Christopher Hitchens (1949 - 2011)

(Source: thischarmingman1981)

(Source: little-bit-louder-now)

I know they do this periodically, but that doesn’t make me less annoyed.

The First Amendment? What’s that?

“I think we know by now that this Congress likes God. Can we move on?” said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

I am depressed that there has to be a thing called Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Rather than focusing on high unemployment, Republicans were pushing a “measure that has no force of law, only reaffirms existing law, and further injects the hand of government into the private religious lives of the American people,” the Democrats wrote.

Hey, guys, the thing passed 396-9. I don’t think there are 396 Republicans in the House. Although sometimes it feels that way. Anyway: stop pointing fingers, you’re all assholes.

“As our nation faces challenging times, it is appropriate for members of Congress and our nation - like our predecessors - to firmly declare our trust in God, believing that it will sustain us for generations to come,” he said.

Fuck. That. Noise.

History and facts are not relevant to Congress, but let me offer you one anyway. Declaring law based on present prevalence or majority never ends well. First of all, in this case, it’s nearly a violation of the Constitution (it’s not a strict violation but it’s not respecting the right to freedom of religion, either) and is obnoxious and disrespectful and awful. Second, back in the 19th century, Southern legislators championed the consolidation of power in the central government. Know why? Because they were the ones in power, and assumed they always would be. That’s as good a reason as any for doing anything, right?

Expatriatism looks more and more awesome every minute.

"You can’t just say there is a God because the world is beautiful. You have to account for bone cancer in children. You have to account for the fact that almost all animals in the wild live under stress with not enough to eat and will die violent and bloody deaths. There is not any way that you can just choose the nice bits and say that means there is a God and ignore the true fact of what nature is."

Stephen Fry (via mariachiman)

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Epicurus (via favouritequotations)

(via codylynnclark)