The Books/Reading Thread

[Einherjar86]

Reasonable contempt for religion in general leads to (on this forum) contempt for Christians in general. I see it frequently. Andy's honestly not that bad; that statement just made me think of dozens of other times I've seen comments similar to that.

Finding no reason to believe in Christianity (or any form of spirituality) or take it seriously is no reason to hold contempt for those who do choose to practice it. It's similar to anti-Semitism because there is no direct relationship between Judaism and what constitutes a specific Jewish person's negative characteristics. Finding fault in a human being's personal ideology is no reason to find fault with that human being. However, on this forum Christians are continually berated for being irrational and idiotic. More often than not, these criticisms are meant for Fundamentalist Christians; but general comments blur the lines and can lead to contempt for Christian individuals.

Maintaining Christian (or any spiritual) beliefs does not discount a person's capability to think logically or rationally. Martin Heidegger, frequently considered one of the twentieth century's most important philosophers, believed in God. He was also (to be even more extreme) likely an anti-Semite. That being said, he produced some of the most important texts in the history of philosophy.

Generally claiming that a Christian couldn't compose a self help book that utilized rational and logical techniques is fallacious.

 

[sevag00]

^well said.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Dude, just admit you're a hypocrite and we can move on.

Um...no?

There is an inordinate amount of Christian-bashing that goes on on this forum.

No, there isn't really. Try r/atheism on Reddit for that. I'm an atheist and I think a lot of the people there are just fucking annoying.

People don't seem to realize that they're practicing the same intolerance they blame Christians of.

Dude, just fucking no. Christians (generally) disdain logic, science and reason and maintain that spiritual inner healing and inner peace are the most important things. It has been consistently biologically shown that people benefit more from leading a healthier lifestyle and/or surrounding themselves with more positive, fulfilling experiences than praying or thinking positively. Many depressed people suffer from an inability to think positively. Joel Osteen shit isn't going to help those people. Science and reason are. I'm not saying that all Christians are like that faggot Osteen, but many self-help books professing "faith" as a healing tool are exactly like that, and they're full of shit. My ex "turned to Jesus" to help her heal an emotionally-scarring childhood and all it did was fucking brainwash her; I couldn't even talk to her anymore, and eventually it became so impossible to deal with that I had to leave her. It is a real problem; I'm fine with Christians in general, but too often they let their narrow-minded, antithetical-to-logic views consume their worldview and, when applied, let these views effect change in reality, change that is often dangerous and harmful to the interests of progression.

tl;dr, fuck Christians for good reason.

Am I being general and shit? Of course I am, I don't have the time nor energy to critically analyze all Christians in the world, nor do I even want to, but I think it's fair to say that most of Christianity's main beliefs (and even MORE than most sometimes, depending on biblical interpretation) are harmful to reason, bad for progressing society and full of shit.

btw dude, measuring someone's Christianity isn't just a matter of going "yo Heidegger believed in God and wrote some great shit using logic/reason so obviously he was a Christian using logic and reason, duh." There is a world-spanning gradient of devotion to Christianity, from pedestrian Christianity to hard-fucking-core bible-bashing Christianity and we are not sure where Heidegger was on that gradient. Given that we know he was anti-Semitic, and we know that generally, hardcore Christians aren't really anti-Semitic (I suppose some probably are, of course), we might possibly conclude from that that Heidegger was probably a professed Christian who happened to believe in a god, and he wrote philosophy, which was probably divorced from the ideas of god that Christianity tends to incorporate.

 

[Einherjar86]

Dude, just fucking no. Christians (generally) disdain logic, science and reason and maintain that spiritual inner healing and inner peace are the most important things. It has been consistently biologically shown that people benefit more from leading a healthier lifestyle and/or surrounding themselves with more positive, fulfilling experiences than praying or thinking positively. Many depressed people suffer from an inability to think positively. Joel Osteen shit isn't going to help those people. Science and reason are. I'm not saying that all Christians are like that faggot Osteen, but many self-help books professing "faith" as a healing tool are exactly like that, and they're full of shit. My ex "turned to Jesus" to help her heal an emotionally-scarring childhood and all it did was fucking brainwash her; I couldn't even talk to her anymore, and eventually it became so impossible to deal with that I had to leave her. It is a real problem; I'm fine with Christians in general, but too often they let their narrow-minded, antithetical-to-logic views consume their worldview and, when applied, let these views effect change in reality, change that is often dangerous and harmful to the interests of progression.

tl;dr, fuck Christians for good reason.

Am I being general and shit? Of course I am, I don't have the time nor energy to critically analyze all Christians in the world, nor do I even want to, but I think it's fair to say that most of Christianity's main beliefs (and even MORE than most sometimes, depending on biblical interpretation) are harmful to reason, bad for progressing society and full of shit.

I'm sorry I started this, because I don't expect you (or anyone) to admit anything. Personally, this rant just proves your intolerance of Christian sentiment. Your "spare-no-expense" condemnation of Christianity sounds eerily similar to the Radical Enlightenment, and it does nothing to progress society if you believe we need to vanquish any form of Christian spirituality.

 

[Cythraul]

He's clearly speaking his mind which is definitely not a Christian trait.

How is that not a Christian trait? And what do you mean by "Christian trait" anyway? Are you referring to something about self-identified Christians or are you referring to something about Christian doctrine?

the complete evil that is religion

Complete evil? Are you sure you really want to commit yourself to that claim?

social pressures through fairy tales and exploitation ( i.e telling someone they are going to burn in hell ) is another.

Just out of curiosity, are you offended by the idea of telling people they're going to hell per se, or are you offended by it because you think it's false that anybody is going to go to hell?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I'm sorry I started this, because I don't expect you (or anyone) to admit anything. Personally, this rant just proves your intolerance of Christian sentiment. Your "spare-no-expense" condemnation of Christianity sounds eerily similar to the Radical Enlightenment, and it does nothing to progress society if you believe we need to vanquish any form of Christian spirituality.

I don't have a spare-no-expense condemnation of Christianity; I have a spare-no-expense condemnation of idiots who let a millenia-old book guide their mindset throughout today's infinitely more complex, challenging world.

 

[Einherjar86]

I have a spare-no-expense condemnation of idiots who let a millenia-old book guide their mindset throughout today's infinitely more complex, challenging world.

My primary criticisms of Christians is that they project a set of ideals onto a figment of their imagination. They come under the illusion that their ideal virtues and morals exist beyond their own consciousness and are embodied to perfection in the image of God. This presents an ideal of perfection they must try to live up to.

Although this may be a flawed conception of morality, I don't think it's particularly negative. It provides people with a set of priorities for operating in the world. That's the purpose of religion. Labeling it "evil" is merely to fall prey to the same illusion you accuse Christianity of promoting. Religion is not "evil," and its origins spring from a system of order that allows a people to navigate society and the world.

The worst we hear of Christians (i.e. hate crimes, anti-gay propaganda, picketing soldiers' funerals, etc.) are limited to a small percentage of Christians. Many of them are extremely tolerant, liberal, respectable members of their communities. The current sentiment pushed by people such as Bill Mahr and Dawkins is that Christians are harmful to the progress of enlightened society because they practice an irrational religion. The majority of them aren't harmful at all, however, and contribute many beneficial, progressive elements to society.

 

[Zephyrus]

Christianity is Platonism for the people.

 

[MasterOLightning]

Does anyone want to talk about fun books?

I read Natsuo Kirino's Out and Grotesque. Good stuff if you want to get into Japanese housewives covering up murder. Lots of prostitution. Out is really tightly plotted and seems somewhat realistic about what might happen if some friends tried to cover up a murder.

Bonk by Mary Roach was the funniest book I read in recent memory. It's about the history of sex research. Feather-light tone, and the real science is broken down enough to make this a really easy read. Well, other than the chapter on penis surgery.

 

[Badbird]

A People history of The United States of America by Howard Zinn

 

[Death Aflame]

Just finished a book called The Rebel Sell. It's about how the countercultural critique lacks any real methodology to achieve the changes it desires. The authors argue for a return to conventional democratic politics to enact change at an institutional level, rather than wasting time 'jamming the culture'.

They have some fair points, such as their emphasis on collective action problems inherent in modern consumerist economies and they also raise an important question about coercion that I hadn't really considered: is it a necessary evil? But overall, the book often comes off as amateurish due to its constant polemical ridicule of radical ideologies and politics (often without much supporting material to back up their claims). The economics in the book are also shaky at best. It also lacks references to many of the ideas they use in the actual text, which is annoying to say the least.

I have just started Aldous Huxley's Island, been wanting to read it for awhile since I read Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited, since it is supposed to serve as an antithesis to BNW's dystopian future.

 

[JontRevolting]

Reading 'The Necronomicon Files'(harms & Gonce),have'nt been able to put it down since I started reading it.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

"In the Beinecke Rare Book Library at Yale lies one of the most enigmatic manuscripts in the world. Classified as Manuscript 408, it is a manuscript of nine by six inches and 235 pages (though some pages may have been lost). Its lettering is unique to the manuscript, and its pages are illustrated with a wide variety of diagrams: plants, nude women in baths, astronomical charts, and other unlikely subjects. The Voynich Manuscript has become the focus of intense scholarship ever since its discovery, and some of the world's best cryptographers have been attempting to read it for decades.

Over time, the "most mysterious manuscript in the world" has become intertwined with the mythology of the Necronomicon, to the point that many people have hopelessly confused the issues regarding the two."
-- necfiles.org

 

[Einherjar86]

There's a novel about the Voynich manuscript called The Book of God and Physics, I think. I have no idea if it's any good.

 

[JontRevolting]

There is a section on 'The Voynich Manuscript'in 'The Necronomicon Files'.Amazing how so many supposedly real Necronomicons have appeared over the last half a century,of course none are real.Also amazing is how many believe them to be true.If anything I believe Kenneth Grants explanation,that some have read or seen the book(Crowley and Lovecraft,a few others),via dream or astral travel and that the book if true only resides in the Akashic records.

 

[Zephyrus]

Hoping this comes in the mail today:

 

[Einherjar86]

Back at class again, but hopefully I'll have time to finish this. I'm about sixty pages in and hooked:

 

[unknown]

sloughfeg...you do know the Necronomicon is fake, and that Lovecraft himself admitted to creating it, yes?

 

[JontRevolting]

Yep.It's still an interesting read,mainly concerned with the Simon 'Necronomicon'...which is a mishmash of mistakes but is still known to be somewhat dangerous.The book is more about explaining how this fake grimoire became a pop phenomenon.Some have had weird occurrences with the book and it's supposedly loaded with booby traps intentionally,similiar to those found in Crowleys works.In light of recent studies into Summerian history it is easy for scholars to pick apart though,like I said still a great read.

 

[unknown]

okay just makin sure. I have a copy of Simon's Necronomicon around here somewhere...I think...may have lost it

finished reading From the Earth to the Moon by Jules Verne. It was fun, silly, easy reading. Surprisingly, there was quite a bit of science and math type stuff involved. Pretty interesting stuff.