“A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Or…

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Anyway, as far as I can make out, your reply has little or nothing to do with what I said, which is that I do not see the point of having a belief whose truth or falsity will not affect me in any way. I was referring specifically to atheism, because, clearly, a belief in atheism would not change my behavior (except for motivating me to spend valuable time trying to convert others to atheism, maybe); while a religious belief would.

I do NOT believe that “verifiability matters so much”, or else why would I put Popper in my list?

BTW here are a few more books that I should have put in the list:
How to Win Friends and Influence People, by Dale Carnegie;
Winning the Games People Play, by Nathon Myron (probably the most underrated);
The Prince, by Niccolo’ Machiavelli;
The Art of War, by Sun Tzu.

Hotels are businesses, they are not there to try and influence the world view of their customers

—

On a completely different topic, I want to reply to the second paragraph of Neil B.’s comment 56. Defining God as “whatever the universe’s existence is contingent on” is the sort of tactic that makes atheists like me conclude that theologians and their fans are fundamentally dishonest. What if the thing that the universe’s existence is contingent on was a cellular automaton? Would you call it ‘God’? What if the thing that the universe is contingent on was something akin to a plant whose pollen develops into universes? Would you call it ‘God’? What if the thing that the universe is contingent on is a team of alien scientists (whose species evolved in another universe) who designed a universe-simulation? Would you call them ‘God’?

If you would call any of those things God, you’re being dishonest, because that’s not what people usually mean by the word. There is an infinity of things that our universe could be contingent upon that can’t be called God. A hypothesis’ number of rival hypotheses is what determines how a priori unlikely it is. Therefore, using analogies like a teapot orbiting the Sun beyond Mars’ orbit, or an invisible unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is perfectly warranted.

BTW I believe there’s something more “behind” the universe’s existence because of insights about contingent existence etc, whether I can be “sure” or verify it or not. What proves the notions about what we should or should believe or is sensible etc, claims that something is meaningless unless verifiable are themselves based on arguments as ultimately non-empirical as the existence of God. Finally, Penn’s arguments are so pitifully simple-minded: by definition “God” is whatever the universe’s existence is contingent on if such be needed, so comparing it to a random entity like “an elephant in a trunk” with no ontological function (that can be defined w/o just being a smart-aleck ass) shows the man’s philosophical illiteracy. Well, he’s just a performer, but I can’t imagine what the excuse is for like-minded “philosophers” who offer such puerile rubbish.

Nonetheless, I believe that there are some books that everybody should read, independently of faith and cultural background. These books include, but are not limited to:
The Logic of Scientific Discovery, by Karl Popper (anything that Popper wrote is highly recommended);
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, by Charles MacKay;
Learned Optimism, by Martin Seligman;
English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit, by Martin Wiener;
the Icelandic Sagas.

Additionally in answer to the Buddhist bible question I would suggest The Bodhichary?vat?ra, which is a fascinating read.

Adding atheism to the book list implies that it is a way of thinking akin to religion, which it most certainly is not.

It’s not, for people like Sean. It is, for people like Richard Dawkins.

As an atheist, I

In fact, many of the well-regarded scientists you might name weren’t atheists, because science and atheism do not necessarily go together. There are plenty of scientific atheists, scientific theists, nonscientific atheists, and nonscientific theists. The theist/atheist spectrum is independent of the scientific one, because theism/atheism are not amenable to scientific evidence.

It might actually help many atheists to separate their scientism from their atheism, at least for the purpose of helping theists understand that their morality can be independent of their theism.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

“I believe that there is no God. I’m beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God”