Abrahamic Faiths: The Worst Species That Evolved From An Atheist Genus.

Introduction

It may seem strange, but theists are atheists. Theists are actually the worst kind of atheists. The following themes are criticised by the three Abrahamic faiths against atheists: (1) godlessness, (2) confusion and feeling ‘lost’, (3) lack of direction, (4) discrimination and segregation of the innocent, and (5) violence. Upon analysis, this essay will demonstrate how theism shares all of these characteristics that it condemns under its own guise of ‘religion’. On the first level, theists and atheists agree that ‘other’ religions are based on an illusion. On a second level, theists and atheists agree that those ‘other’ religions share negative traits that are damaging to humanity. Where they split is when the theist then embraces aspects of what he condemns as his absolute truth, whereas the atheist sticks with his initial logic without change. The theist and atheist are quite identical until this third level. This is why theism and atheism share the same genus, but they just evolve into a different species. Scholars rightly point out that atheism and theism are two different species, but I will argue that this is a misleading dichotomy and we should look further back to the common genus of the two species. The species comparison and genus comparisons are both logical, even though they lead to completely different answers. But if we’re trying to understand a higher truth of the theist and atheist mind, an analysis of the genus would be more helpful and lead to fewer distortions.

 Genus and Species Theory

These are biological terms applied by anthropologists. I have applied this theory to memes, or ideas, to show a similar map of development.

Evolution works by starting with a common ancestor. We may call this seeing things as they really are, which would be atheism by default. When each ‘thing’ reproduces, it will never be a clone. Small changes here and there occur, which as generations continue can branch off into new ideas. When one idea is no longer compatible with another idea from the same ancestor, they become a different species. For too long, scholars have compared the differences in species of ideas. But just as chimpanzees share almost 100% of the same DNA as humans, so too does theism and atheism. Although humans are homo sapiens, they biologically remain within the single genus of the ape family, of which there are roughly 200 separate species. Similarly while there may be 200 versions of theism, atheism and agnosticism, they all remain within the same genus. As atheism was and remains the original idea, it remains the original genus. Biologically it’s impossible to re-produce clones for eternity, but as atheism is ‘nothingness’, it remains possible for atheism to remain unchanged. This is why unlike in biology, the atheist species remains identical to the idea genus, while the theist species has evolved to have that 2% difference from its origin; but its ‘DNA’ retains 98% of the atheist gene it evolved from.

The Atheist Genus & Atheist Species 

 

Proof That The Theist Species Retains Atheist DNA

 

Why Speciesisation Is A Misleading Comparison

 

The difference is that the atheist is able to change; change is difficult if not imposible for the theist, because he follows ‘divine’ and ‘holy’ words that can’t change, because they’re perfect. While atheists have no problem admittting past atheists were wrong in believing the earth was flat, the theist bends over backwards to interpret his flat-earth scriptures to mean the opposite. 

 

Even in all the theist’s criticism, he/she still cannot even raise the most horrid theme that’s inherent to theism- the psychological trauma of the threat of hell.

 

 

. (1) Its lakkana (characteristic) is feroristy; (2) its function is to burn up other people’s pillars and supports; (3) its manifestation is argument and persecution; (4) its padathana (proximate cause) is seeing people enjoying another religion.

The truth of this statement is quite easily seen when reading the theists own holy books and statements of renowned theists throughout history. When the theist essentially asks me “why don’t you believe me?”, essentially I do believe in what he says, but only in a back-fired way that blows away his own theory while joining his atheist approach to my response is that I do believe what he says; I just happen to also believe what those other religions say about his.

I do not bow to statues or images as the Buddhists, Hindus and Taoists do, because the muslim told me it’s wrong;
I do not do prescriptive prayer as the Muslims and Jews do, because the Christian told me its wrong;
I do not worship a man as the Christians, Mahayana Buddhists and Hindus do, because the Jew told me it’s wrong;
I do not believe animals should be killed as the Jews and Muslims do, because the Jain told me it’s wrong;
I do not believe in asceticism as the Jains, Orthodox and Buddhists do, because the Muslim told me it’s wrong;
I do not believe in celebacy as the Buddhists, Jains, Sadhus or Catholics do, because the Muslim told me it’s wrong;
I do not bow to rocks as the Muslims and Hindus do, because the Protestant told me it’s wrong;
I do not believe in facing Makkah as the Muslims do, because round-earth scientists told me it’s wrong;
I do not believe in treating people unequally as the Jews, Muslims and Hindus do, because the Christians told me it’s wrong.
I do not believe in having to donate money to the religious authorities as the [all religions] do, because the followers of other religions told me it’s wrong.

So I really do agree with theists. They’re as passionate about their atheism as many self-declared atheists are. We’re all atheists to some degree, and I thank theists for pointing out the errors of those other religions, just as those other religions have pointed out the errors of theirs.

On Celebacy

Celebacy is not about action. It is about freeing yourself.

The Catholic church had a history of eerie tools for self-flaggelation and torture to deal with this matter. No doubt other celebates also take things into their own hands in other ways, so to speak. But this is missing the whole point.

A person who tries to be celebate but can’t find the willpower is a slave to it, because they struggle and fail. A person who struggles with celebacy and manages to uphold it is still a slave to it. Celebacy is about freedom. If you’re stuggling to uphold or break celebacy, you’re already a slave to it. Focus should not be on whether you’ve managed to uphold it for the day. This is like checking a cancer which sometimes grows, sometimes stays the same and sometimes regresses. The focus should be on whether the feeling has arisen and whether you have attached to the feeling or not.

There are different ways to overcome the ‘problem’ of celebacy, and hopefully noone any longer resorts to the ways devloped within the Catholic church. Be observant of the feeling, and just don’t cling onto it.

What Life Really Means

Only one thing in life is certain, and that is death. Death is not seen as desirable. People are not indifferent to it. Death is something fearful. Death is even compared with evil.

We should firstly contemplate the reality of this before moving on. This is the most important, nagging reality present always in our subconscious. Our brains are naturally wired to avoid death by seeking nourishment as a baby, and our bodies are naturally wired to avoid death at all costs. Take for example the role of the spinal chord when your finger touches a hot surface: the message doesn’t run from your finger to your brain that there’s a hot surface, only to await an active command to remove it. The message runs to the spinal chord which automatically moves the hand for you; only an active brain can override this natural reaction. But I digress. Further anatomical and psychological studies, as well as the amazing feats people have gone to in extreme conditions to preserve their life (such as cutting off their own arms to escape from under a trapping object) attest to the fact of the body and mind’s natural instinct to survive at all costs. So everything only points to one thing: to live.

I was waiting for my order of noodles to arrive so I had time to contemplate this reality. If only death is certain, and we don’t want to die, then how do we deal with it? The answer was quite simple. Make a story nicer than the reality. Believe the story’s true. Then integrate the story into other aspects of your life to reaffirm that your role in this life is in comformity with the storyline so that it all goes as planned.

This, ultimately, is the what religion is. We argue about the branches (which religion’s right right one and why?), we look deeper to the trunk (is there a god?), and death is the root of it all (what will happen to me after detah?). Earlier I wrote about man’s natural regression to infancy in times of distress, and even that ultimately comes down to survival, because the utter failure of everything (failure to eat, protect ourselves from the elements, to be healthy) results in death. All natural things exist to avoid the only true reality of this universe. It’s quite fascinating. The mere thought is enough to tempt one to look away and think of something else, but we should think of this deeper with one-pointedness; upon realising this, we may come to try accept death without a story attached to it (the stories come with fine print, which is quite shocking to the thinking person). Yet we can’t accept death, because we’re biologically wired to reject the only true thing of our existence.

When children have a wild imagination, it’s not uncommon for parents to make up a story of something more grandiose than reality. Its grandieur has several functions: it distracts from the reality; it creates a new reality; it differs so markedly from the true reality that its desirability becomes absolute. Remember that death has no positive to it, so its opposite is absolutely positive in outlook.

Most of us don’t contemplate death, because death isn’t real until you truly think it’s coming right now. Instead we subconsciously think we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it, despite us housing the innumerable fears associated with it. Others who do contemplate it will turn religious. One reason we have so many religions is that they ll invariable have a positive answer for death. Without it, it wouldn’t be ’spiritual’. Theists are so immersed in this alternative reality that they devote themselves in a show of distain for their present state into a preparation for death and its afterlife. The person harbouring fears of death who lives a “let us drink and be merry” may find themselves in an unfortunate opinion later in life that life was “for nothing”. It had no purpose. This is what I felt when I became religious again. But I have discovered that the true answer to the fear of death lies in between: it is neither to be a hedonist by pretending death doesn’t exist, and it isn’t becoming a theist who lives by an alternative reality so flimsy that at best it’s unprovable and at worst it’s no more reliable than a child who believes santa is real.

The theist is so caught in their story that they may even pity atheists. The theist knows he has eternal life afterwards (conveniently, he believes his will be a positive one), and pities the atheist who views life as limited and without hope. “I don’t see the benefit of atheism” some say. This only shows how far their new reality has taken them.

It’s an queer paradox that religion was made to comfort fear of death, yet results in death of the follower and others. This is essentially like the lover that loves their partner so much that they take a bullet on their behalf. You fall in love to be happy, but it can misfire and result in your death. Similarly religio can lead to your own death, but it’s largely because you would have been so absorbed in the story that you liked it more than even life itself. People have fascinations for different things, and a love for a religion because of how amazing its story to answer the problem of death is doesn’t mean the religion is right or that my hypothesis is wrong; it merely shows how powerful the story is, like a person who should be sleeping right now but is so immersed with acquiring knowledge and developing his thoughts that he’s still awake.

My god’s better than your god (my god harms people more than your god)

Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is increasingly popular for incorporating the effectiveness of other martial arts forms into one superior style. Maybe god would be considered even more loving and merciful if your religion adapted the most frightening aspects of other religions’ hell? Let’s see:

Upon death, your soul is very painfully stripped from the body by the Angel of Death, starting from the toes with the most painful part being at the shoulders upwards (quran). An angel comes to you and starts hammering your face when you give the wrong answer to ‘who is god? what was your religion etc.’ (Islam hadiths). 

You’re given your preliminary judgment within 40 days (Orthodox Christianity) and you’ll then watch with fear the gates of hell waiting for you (Islam hadiths). An additional torment of seeing followers of the right religion lying in comfort looking at heaven (specifically pearly gates- Protestantism, Catholic theologians) will make this worse. Anyway, it’s too too hard to focus, because scorpions and snakes start biting you in your grave; one bite has enough venom to poison the whole earth (Islam-hadiths). This is all a bit too elaborate; let’s just send them to hell immediately after death (Catholicism). But how are they sent there?

First we need a divine judgment (Zoroastrianism). On this judgment God will be told by satan (Judaism) or two angels that recorded our deeds (Islam) of all the sins of our past life. God will immediately wipe many sins off the record immediately (Judaism), but he does as he wills (quran). Maybe he doesn’t even care what you did, so long as you believed in him (Protestantism). If you didn’t believe in god, then you won’t even be given a hearing and are automatically condemned to hell (Protestantism), but he’s just so he’ll judge based on acts too . It’s said that people reap what they sow (Jainism) which would mean karma- which is unbiased and rational (Buddhism). Noone can say anything in this whole process anyway even if we try (quran). This day is so horrible that everyone will abandon their friends, family, anything because the terror is so great (bible, quran). Of course, this may all just be an illusion where the weak-minded fall for these bardos but the wise person sees none of it is real (Tibetan Buddhism).

So you’ve now been sentenced to hell. We may just be born there (Buddhism), travel there on our journey (Tibetan Buddhism), or walk to hell (Christianity) in ranks and files with chains around our necks (quran) like slaves. Hell’s beneath the earth (Buddhism), so we could be thrown off bridges that go over hell (zoroastrainism; Islam hadiths) while the righteous walk over the bridge to heaven. What a lovely god of love (bible) who is most merciful (quran) and just (Torah). Weep and gnash your teeth as much as you will (bible) because no mercy will be shown to you (bible); in fact, the penalty will be increased for weeping (quran).

Religion- The Unfortunate Bi-Product of Natural Selection: A Psychoanalysis

American philosopher Daniel Dennet has offered a helpful three-way classification of the stanes that we adopt in trying to understand and predict behaviour of entities such as animals, machines or each other. They are the physical stance, design stance and the intentional stance.

The physical stance always works in principle, because everything ultimately obeys the laws of physics (religious people, take note). But working things out using the physical stance can be very slow. By the time we have sat down to calculate all the diction of its behaviour will probably be too late [interestingly, Buddhist meditation is devoted to understanding the physical stance in full detail, particularly the Abhidhamma. Perhaps seeing things as they are- a combination of atoms and temporary feelings, is the answer to true understanding and thus happiness?]. For an object that really is designed, like a washing machine or crossbow, the design is an economical shortcut. We can guess how the object will behave by going over the head of physicas and appealing directly to the design. So anyone can predict when an alarm clock will sound by casual inspection of the exterior. One doesn’t know or care to know whether it’s spring wound, battery driven etc.- one just assumes that it is designed so that it is designed so that the alarm will sound when it is set to sound. The intentional stance is a further shortcut. An entity is assumed not merely to be designed for a purpose but to be, or contain, and agent with intentions that guide its actions. When you see a tiger, you had better not delay your prediction or its probable behaviour. Never mind the physics of its molecules, and never mind the design of its limbs, claws and teeth. That cat intends to eat you, and it will deploy its limbs, claws and teeth in flexible and resourceful ways to carry out its intention. The quckest way to second-guess behaviour is to forget physicas and physiology and cut to the the intentional chase.

Where does religion fit into this? Just as the design stance functions even for things that were not actually designed as well as things that were, so the intentional stance works for things that don’t have deliberate conscious intentions as well as things that do. It seems to me entirely plausible that the intentional stance has survival value as a brain mechanism that speeds up decision-making in dangerous circumstances and crucial social situations. (Dawkins, the God Delusion, pp211-2).

Consider how religion created the following agents out of ignorance and fear:

1) the ’soul’. The soul is what a person truly is. A better word is ‘agent’, and we make quick judgment of the agent of the thing we encounter.

2) the devil. We have unhappiness, therefore it must be caused by a creator. But the creator is perfect, so we must create an opposite. Call him shaytan, lucifer, belzebaab etc.- this agent then extends to anything negative that *humans* do to us. Fortunately, the religious aren’t foolish enough to ascribe the satan agent to animals, natural disasters or other ills (wait, cats were persecuted throughout Europe for being demonic. My mistake).

Dualism-Monism: Dennett speaks of a third-order intentionality (the man believed that the woman knew he wanted her), fourth-order (the woman realised that the man believed that the woman knew he wanted her) and fifht-order intentionality (the shaman guessed that the woman realised that the man believd that the woman knew he wanted her).  Natural selection has shaped brains to deploy the intenational stance as a short cut. We are biologically programmed to impute intentions (fictional and non-fictional) to entities whose behaviour matters to us. Paul Gbloom quotes experimental evidence that children are especially likely to adopt the intentional stance. When small babies see an object apparently following another object (for example, on a computer screen0, they assume that they are witnessing an active chase by an intentional agent, and they demonstrate the fact by registering surprise whent he putative agent fails to pursue the chase.

While intentional stance has clear benefits, it also misfires by imputing intentions to weather, waves, currents, falling rocks, fires, earthquakes and more. All of us are prone to do the same thing with machines. This is what Justin Barret coined HADD- hypactive agent detection device. We hyperactively detect agents where there are none, and this makes us suspect malice or benignity where, in fact, nature is only indifferent. Other my-product explanations of religion have been proposed by Hinde, Shermer, Boyer, Atran, Bloom, Dennett, Keleman and others.

Irrational religion may also be a byproduct of falling in love. Neurologist John Smythies notes significant differences between the brain areas activiated by religious and sexual love, but also the similarties: “One facet of the man faces of religion is intense love focused on one supernatural person, ie God, plus reverence for icons of that person. Human life is driven largely by our selfish genes and by the processes of reinforcemeent. Much positive reinforcement drives from religion: warm and comforting feelings of being loved and protected in a dangerous world, loss of fear of death, help from the hills in response to prayer in difficult times etc.  Romantic love can also be triggered by icons of the other, such as letters, photographs etc. Misfiring results in falling in love with the rain-god YHWH, Neo-pagan godess Diana (now the ‘Virigin Mary’, the moon-god Allah) and performing irracitonal acts motivated by such love.

Look at the aurora borealis. We know, of course, that people would have seen it as a sign from the gods at one time. I don’t know what causes it, and without a rational mind I would also claerly believe this a sign from the divine creator of his presence. I now know better.

 

My recommended methods:

1) Learn the abhidhamm (Buddhist philosophical psychology)

Hindu Timeline

GUPTA DYNASTY

• Temple-worship and Puranas consolidated.
• Brahmans give up Vedic sacrifices
• Kshatriya philosophy of Upanishads is adopted
• National heroes Rama & Krishna are adopted as religious system
• Kshatriya epic the Bhagavad Gita is incorporated into the Mahabharata
• Buddha becomes an avatar of Lord Vishnu
• “Brahmanism has never stood for any religious doctrine or faith. Its life and soul, then, as it is now, was the Caste System with the Brahman as the highest sacerdotal caste, and its vital interest was priestly exploitation. These two measures were achieved in an abundant measure by the new arrangements- in fact in a greater measure than was ever possible in the past, and Brahmans must have felt exhalted by the great victory of their cause” (DC Ahir, p42).

 

Sankaracharya is regarded as having restored the supremacy of Hindu religion over the ruins of Buddhism.

Buddha lays out 10 actions of moral conduct (right action 3, right thought 3, right speech 4). This gets copied almost verbatim in thhe Chapter XII of Manu Samhita. Even the terminology was copied, as it was perculia to Buddhism and Jainism.

Later Buddhists develop the ideal of Bodhisattvas who pass their lives in endless rebirths in moral activities. This is the essense of karma-yoga preached in Bhagavad Gita, the latest exponent being Swami Vivekananda who puts moral actions in right spirit above meditation or worship of god.

Bengali Hindus continue the practice of eating meat. Upper Caste North and Southern Hindus give the derogatory terms ‘masyhari’ (fish-eating Brahmanas) as hardly deserving the name Hindu, even though Bengalis are the ones sticking to orthodox Hindus and the others have adopted Buddhist/Jain ideals. Bengali Vaishnyas have even become vegetarian: so wide-spread did Buddhism & Jainism seep into Hinduism without Hindus even realising.

Today, all five Hindu pilgrimage sites were once Buddhist shrines: Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh, Sabrimala in Kerala, Pandharpur in Maharashtra, Puri (Jagannath temple) in Orissa and Badrinath in Uttaranchal.

1590- Mahant Gosain Giri occupies the Great Maha Bodhi Temple at Buddha Gaya. He uprooted the Buddha image and instals a Shiva lingam. Anagarika Dharmapala in 1891 launches a movement to regain control of the temple from Hindu Mahant. In 1949 the Government of Bihar passes the Buddha Gaya Teple Management Act with 5 Hindu and 4 Buddhist Committee members. The eyesore of the Shivalingam remains in the sanctum sanctorum fo the Temple.

Buddhism VS Hinduism

Spiritual brotherhood VS Hereditary priesthood
Personal merit VS Distinction of birth
Logical reasoning VS Vedic revelation
Moral life VS Ceremonial piety
Perfected sage VS the Gods
Anyone can study VS Shudras can’t study
Natively Indian VS Born from foreign Aryanism

Soul is non-existent VS Soul is existent

Buddha refuted the Brahmin claim that only they could attain spiritual virtues. Ashvagosa, the well known Buddhacarita (1st-2nd C AD), said:

- As all sons born of the same father (ekapitrkatvat) do not belong to different varnas, the Brahmanas and others can not be different varnas because they originate from the same Purusa (ekapurusot punnanam).

- There is no distinction (visesa) of any kindin the body of the Brahanas and other varnas as found int he animals, in respect of their feet (pada) or their pudendum (bhaga), organ (linga), colour (varna), shape (samsthana), dung (mala), urine (mutra), smell (gandha) and sound (dhvani).

- There is no distinction in them as in thei apperance (rupa), colour (varna), tail (oma) and beak (tunda) of the birds.

- There is no dinstiction in them in regard of body or its parts.

- Ashvaghosha says “all that I have said about brahmanas is equally applicable to kshariyas; the doctrine of the fourfold order is alteogtether false. All men are of one grade (caste)”.

- In a bold statement, Dharmakirti, a great Buddhist saint-scholar who lived in 7th C AD, says “accepting the authority of the Vedas and someone as the creator, the disire of getting merit throught he holy dip, the vanity of caste, and torturing the body to redeem the sins: these are the five characteristis of stupidity”.

Buddhist Timeline

BC

400-300BC

Sona & Uttara introduce Buddhism to Burma at Suvannabhumi.

AD

• 300’s Asanga, a might Yogacara philosopher, introduced the Hindu gods into the Buddhist pantheon of bodhisattvas to personificate powers/qualities of the Buddha.
• 1197 Fort Bihar is captured by only 200 Muslim horsemen who rushed through the eastern gate. Great plunder was gained and the ’shaven headed Brahmins’ were slaughtered. It turned out that the city wasn’t a fortress; it was a Buddhist college, and in the Hindi tongue they call a college ‘Bihar’.
• Muslim invaders destroy India’s Buddhist libraries of Nalanda, Vikramasila, Jagaddala, Odantapuri & more.
• Monks flee to Nepal, Tibet and elsewhere.

Smart & Dumb Quotes From Respected Thinkers. My Favourite Philosophers.

Philosohers

Camus, Albert. The ultimate existentialist, Camus said Husserl, Kierkegaard, Karl Jaspers and Sartre all shied away from the inevitable conclusion of existentialism of the unreasonable silence of he world is as pointless as Sisyphus condemned by the Gods to eternally push a boulder up a hill only to have it roll back down again as he reaches the summit.  Camus backs himsef, and the reader, into a niesapable cordner that the attempt to resolve the conflict between human need and reality is irresolavable,given the very natue of human existence. To resolve it is to deny the very phenomenon one began with. Like Buddha, Camus says in the face of this absurdity we must ‘revolt’, meaning accepting the crushing fate but without th eresignation that ought to accompany it. What I don’t understand is why he rejects suicide as an option as we cannot solve the problem of the absurd by negating its existence and must imagine Sisyphus happy for ‘being aware of oen’s life, and to the maximum, is living, and to the maximum’. Perhaps he just focuses on the aspect of living and not any purpose, other than existence itself. Perhaps existence is life’s purpose.

the brilliant…

SARTRE “I believe that…the small movement which makes of a totally conditioned social being someone who does not render backcompletely what his conditioning has given him”

CAMUS OR RUSSELL “All the labour of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday birghtness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death fo the solar system, and the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins.”

 

 

the dumb…

EPICURUS: ” For truly there are gods, and knowledge of them is evident” (this is harder to even prove than one god).

MARTIN LUTHER “Religion is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, by more frequently thatn not stuggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates form God… Whoever wants to be Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason… Reason should be destroyed in Christians”  (Perhaps Luther wasn’t so dumb after all, that is if his intention was to strip humans of their minds to become the sheep the bible constantly implores them to be).

BOOK REVIEWS

‘Against Happiness’. I liked the differentiation between prettiness and beauty. Prettiness is shallow, picturesque and worth nothing. Beauty is embracing things as they are. Without melancholy, we’d have been deprived of many great things.

‘Buddhism Declined in India: How and Why’, DC Ahir (2005). A proofreader either wasn’t used or wasn’t qualified and it’s evident in each chapter. A vehemently anti-Brahmanic explanation of how Hinduism managed to destroy Buddhism through deceit, violence, discrimination and cunning. If only half of it’s true, it’s still shocking and important for anyone interested in historic Buddhism.

‘The Denial of Death’, Earnest Becker. The book speaks for itself. One of the few books I will buy having already read a library copy.

‘Philosophers Behaving Badly’, . Proof that a life dedicated reason does not result in an enlightened, a reasonable, or even a positive life. 8 philosophers with their own flaws, eccentrictrities and philosophical outlooks on about 25 pages each. I find it easier to understand their philosophy when I understand them by their personalities with all their failings. It’s also uplifting to see intellectual giants so prone to frailties like contemplation of suicide (Wittgenstein), arrogance (Sartre), stinginess, grumpiness and isolation (Schopenhauer) etc. Truly, the search for wisdom doesn’t seem to include the search to be a good human being for some philosophers (and their admirers).

‘Philosophy: The Great Thinkers’, Philip Stokes (2007). An A-Z of 112 Philosophers of 2-3 pages each. My first book on philosophy.

‘God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything’, Christopher Hitchens & ‘The God Delusion’, Richard Dawkins. Both are interesting reads. Dawkins is more scientific, more in depth, more psychological. Hitchens is more like a journalist and related to current events. We’re not talking about Judaism and Christianity here, so you can actually read and agree with both of them.

‘Introducing Mind & Brain’, Angus Gellatly & Oscar Zarate. Short, easy-to-read introduction to neuroscience (but still complicated. Lays out the main areas of the brain, what is ‘mind’, and various dysfunctions of the mind and why they are.

‘The Meaning of Life: A Very Short Introduction’, Terry Eagleton (2007). A hundred intense pages of how philosophers address the meaning of life. Modernists, post-modernists, existentialists, theists, anarchists, dramatists and others are thrown in to essentially the meaning of ‘meaning’. A few highly insightful thoughts, some which never came to my mind before (eg. perhaps the meaning of life is neither to do with god nor ourselves, but a third thing that we haven’t realised yet). Helps to think about it but doesn’t answer the question, if it’s even a valid question to begin with or even meant to have an answer.

‘Staring at the Sun’. Irvin Yalom. Not really worth reading. I did like his references to Epicurus as I didn’t know of them before, and it helped show how what some might consider ’sinful’ thoughts like lusting over someone can essentially be the product of a deep-seated alternative fear like that of unresolved anxiousness of death.