<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 140+ favourite atheist books</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/07/17/77-favourite-atheist-books/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/07/17/77-favourite-atheist-books/</link>
	<description>Happiness, Atheism and Life</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:35:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Julian</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/07/17/77-favourite-atheist-books/comment-page-2/#comment-77544</link>
		<dc:creator>Julian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:35:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=969#comment-77544</guid>
		<description>I read a number of those books but atheism still seems so unbelievable. Am I too human? 
 </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I read a number of those books but atheism still seems so unbelievable. Am I too human?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luke</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/07/17/77-favourite-atheist-books/comment-page-1/#comment-75757</link>
		<dc:creator>Luke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:05:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=969#comment-75757</guid>
		<description>There are objective reasons for law.  They are the stability of society, which is fundamentally an evolutionary concept, since humans happen to be social creatures.  Bears: not social, so I don&#039;t suppose they would need laws.  Even ants follow certain guidelines. 
 
Now while atheists like Dawkins may state that religion is delusional as a belief, this has nothing to do with whether or not you should believe in them.  Optimally, everyone would hold as many true beliefs and as few false ones as possible, but it doesn&#039;t look likely right now.  On a personal level, there is not that much damage in religion, as long as one doesn&#039;t take the Old Testament literally and kill people for capricious reasons.  There are people who do however: they are mostly Muslim fundamentalists, and this is the problem with religion, that these people can be theologically justified in their actions, because their holy book commands  them to do it!   
 
Here&#039;s where the delusional part comes back in though: if anyone were to write a book today which commanded wholesale slaughter of various ethnic groups, and someone proceeded to carry out those commands, no sane lawyer would work on a defense that the book told him to kill people.  They would plead insanity. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are objective reasons for law.  They are the stability of society, which is fundamentally an evolutionary concept, since humans happen to be social creatures.  Bears: not social, so I don&#039;t suppose they would need laws.  Even ants follow certain guidelines. </p>
<p>Now while atheists like Dawkins may state that religion is delusional as a belief, this has nothing to do with whether or not you should believe in them.  Optimally, everyone would hold as many true beliefs and as few false ones as possible, but it doesn&#039;t look likely right now.  On a personal level, there is not that much damage in religion, as long as one doesn&#039;t take the Old Testament literally and kill people for capricious reasons.  There are people who do however: they are mostly Muslim fundamentalists, and this is the problem with religion, that these people can be theologically justified in their actions, because their holy book commands  them to do it!   </p>
<p>Here&#039;s where the delusional part comes back in though: if anyone were to write a book today which commanded wholesale slaughter of various ethnic groups, and someone proceeded to carry out those commands, no sane lawyer would work on a defense that the book told him to kill people.  They would plead insanity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luke</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/07/17/77-favourite-atheist-books/comment-page-1/#comment-75755</link>
		<dc:creator>Luke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 21:51:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=969#comment-75755</guid>
		<description>And you&#039;re wrong.  Religion can hardly be considered to be based on a body of knowledge.  The Bible can hardly be considered a book of knowledge.  Do you honestly believe that Genesis has the best explanation for the origin and diversity of life, as well as of language (Tower of Babel story)? 
 
And, you wrote a bunch of paragraphs over one simple phrase.  Let me clarify by having the courtesy to give a clearer picture, instead of quote mining.  Actually, checking the book I read, you seem to have misquoted Hawking.  The quote is as follows: 
 
&quot;If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason &#8212; for then we would know the mind of God.&quot; 
 
So he was talking about God in a pantheistic way.  He was talking about the wonder of finding a complete theory of physics, which makes sense because that&#039;s what the chapter is about. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And you&#039;re wrong.  Religion can hardly be considered to be based on a body of knowledge.  The Bible can hardly be considered a book of knowledge.  Do you honestly believe that Genesis has the best explanation for the origin and diversity of life, as well as of language (Tower of Babel story)? </p>
<p>And, you wrote a bunch of paragraphs over one simple phrase.  Let me clarify by having the courtesy to give a clearer picture, instead of quote mining.  Actually, checking the book I read, you seem to have misquoted Hawking.  The quote is as follows: </p>
<p>&quot;If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason &mdash; for then we would know the mind of God.&quot; </p>
<p>So he was talking about God in a pantheistic way.  He was talking about the wonder of finding a complete theory of physics, which makes sense because that&#039;s what the chapter is about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luke</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/07/17/77-favourite-atheist-books/comment-page-2/#comment-75754</link>
		<dc:creator>Luke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 21:39:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=969#comment-75754</guid>
		<description>I recommend &quot;The God Delusion&quot; because it gave me enough ammunition to intellectually hold my own against theists.  And if you read it cover to cover, it can convert an open-minded theist into an atheist. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recommend &quot;The God Delusion&quot; because it gave me enough ammunition to intellectually hold my own against theists.  And if you read it cover to cover, it can convert an open-minded theist into an atheist.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: just Jack</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/07/17/77-favourite-atheist-books/comment-page-2/#comment-59370</link>
		<dc:creator>just Jack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:41:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=969#comment-59370</guid>
		<description>So that&#039;s it? 
 
Dawkins cannot be happy topping that list. The core if Dawkins&#039; argument is that science lead to the great enlightenment and the greatest defence against ignorance and prejudice is science. Yet there is hardly a scientific book on the list.  
 
Dawkins&#039; own hero, and greatest atheist book, comes 10th, social scientists are also-rans and the greatest science fraudster of all time, Freud, ranks equal to Darwin!  
 
Richard, you still have a mountain to climb!    
 
 
 </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So that&#039;s it? </p>
<p>Dawkins cannot be happy topping that list. The core if Dawkins&#039; argument is that science lead to the great enlightenment and the greatest defence against ignorance and prejudice is science. Yet there is hardly a scientific book on the list.  </p>
<p>Dawkins&#039; own hero, and greatest atheist book, comes 10th, social scientists are also-rans and the greatest science fraudster of all time, Freud, ranks equal to Darwin!  </p>
<p>Richard, you still have a mountain to climb!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Nugent&#39;s Poll of Favorite Books on Atheism</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/07/17/77-favourite-atheist-books/comment-page-2/#comment-57067</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Nugent&#39;s Poll of Favorite Books on Atheism</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:59:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=969#comment-57067</guid>
		<description>[...] 77 Favourite Atheist Books On Wednesday I asked on Twitter and Facebook about your favourite atheist-related books, and why. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins was recommended as many times as the next three books combined. The Bible took second place, with its power to convince people of atheism edging it ahead of God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 77 Favourite Atheist Books On Wednesday I asked on Twitter and Facebook about your favourite atheist-related books, and why. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins was recommended as many times as the next three books combined. The Bible took second place, with its power to convince people of atheism edging it ahead of God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: photojack</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/07/17/77-favourite-atheist-books/comment-page-2/#comment-54643</link>
		<dc:creator>photojack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2010 06:25:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=969#comment-54643</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s great that Dawkins topped the list and had other books here as well.  The same with the late, great Dr. Carl Sagan.  I was amazed that his &quot;Pale Blue Dot&quot; didn&#039;t make the list.  His pure poetry of science and evolution naturally includes many references to atheism and disbelief in all things supernatural.  He does it with such naturalness and class!  this list can&#039;t be complete without it.  Also, one of the best websites I&#039;ve come across is: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.edge.org&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.edge.org&lt;/a&gt;  It archives voluminous amounts of past articles and material and be sure not to miss the annual question posed to and answered by the best thinkers on the planet on atheistic topics.  Enjoy! </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#039;s great that Dawkins topped the list and had other books here as well.  The same with the late, great Dr. Carl Sagan.  I was amazed that his &quot;Pale Blue Dot&quot; didn&#039;t make the list.  His pure poetry of science and evolution naturally includes many references to atheism and disbelief in all things supernatural.  He does it with such naturalness and class!  this list can&#039;t be complete without it.  Also, one of the best websites I&#039;ve come across is: <a href="http://www.edge.org" target="_blank">http://www.edge.org</a>  It archives voluminous amounts of past articles and material and be sure not to miss the annual question posed to and answered by the best thinkers on the planet on atheistic topics.  Enjoy!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LibertarianAnswerman</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/07/17/77-favourite-atheist-books/comment-page-1/#comment-54047</link>
		<dc:creator>LibertarianAnswerman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:43:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=969#comment-54047</guid>
		<description>         While watching  panels and debates involving (on our side) the notables Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Grayling, Schermer,  I am constantly finding myself mystified by their non-use of the intellectual ammunition provided by  Walter Richard Cassels&#039; &#039;Supernatural Religion: An Enquiry Concerning the Reality of Divine Revelation&#039;, and David Friedrich Strauss&#039;s &#039;Life of Jesus&#039; (Das Leben Jesu) and its later edition retitled (and completely revised, simplified for laymen, as the earlier work was aimed at his professional colleagues among the various university theologians) &#039;A New Life of Jesus&#039;,  translated from &quot;A Life of Jesus for the German People&#039;.  I cannot here emphasize enough the monumental importance of these books, nor over-estimate the rapturous,  revelatory, epiphanies awaiting the readers of Strauss and Cassels.  
                        </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While watching  panels and debates involving (on our side) the notables Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Grayling, Schermer,  I am constantly finding myself mystified by their non-use of the intellectual ammunition provided by  Walter Richard Cassels&#039; &#039;Supernatural Religion: An Enquiry Concerning the Reality of Divine Revelation&#039;, and David Friedrich Strauss&#039;s &#039;Life of Jesus&#039; (Das Leben Jesu) and its later edition retitled (and completely revised, simplified for laymen, as the earlier work was aimed at his professional colleagues among the various university theologians) &#039;A New Life of Jesus&#039;,  translated from &quot;A Life of Jesus for the German People&#039;.  I cannot here emphasize enough the monumental importance of these books, nor over-estimate the rapturous,  revelatory, epiphanies awaiting the readers of Strauss and Cassels.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maureen </title>
		<link>http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/07/17/77-favourite-atheist-books/comment-page-1/#comment-44857</link>
		<dc:creator>Maureen </dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:38:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=969#comment-44857</guid>
		<description>Thank you so much for the list and reviews. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you so much for the list and reviews.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ming</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/07/17/77-favourite-atheist-books/comment-page-1/#comment-44353</link>
		<dc:creator>Ming</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:43:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=969#comment-44353</guid>
		<description>&quot;Why The Religious Right Is Wrong (About separation of church and state)&quot; 
By Robert Boston  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Why The Religious Right Is Wrong (About separation of church and state)&quot;<br />
By Robert Boston</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
