What are you reading?

[Tumnus Truck-Tour]

Reading Leonardo Music Journal Volume 19.

[Fuuma]

Cigarettes are sublime.

[Fade to Black]

mine is parliament menthol lights.

oww, we want the funk! give up the funk!!! owww we need the funk, we gotta have that funk...

[laika]

Cigarettes are sublime.

fantastic book.

I'm reading 100 handwritten essay based midterms.

[Aleks]

bought this fashion magazine called BMM the other day (due to my teacher making us buy magazines) and I have been relatively impressed with most of it and the fact that it is written in 3 or so languages.

The cover even says zeitgeist and has the same definition as the first page here.

[Faust]

the koran

Why read the imitation? Go for the originals. By the way, I have a good book for you, here. I think you will find the chapter, "The Koran is borrowed," very helpful.

[dolochov]

Besides of the chapter on the origins of the Koran, would you recommend this book? I don't want to be biased but I've read the review of the Washington Post featured on the Amazon site and it reinforced my presumption based on the lurid title that this is yet another oversimplifying critisicm of religion, that fails at providing a well-balanced analysis of the social role and purpose of religion and instead is even more dogmatic than the institutions it criticizes.

[Faust]

That depends on you, not on the book. If you are clear about whether you are an atheist or a believer, books on religion are pointless, except for giving you more weapons to use in an argument (and Hitchens clearly has done his homework there). I don't care about arguing about religion anymore, really.

As for this book, yes, I think it is a largely successful attack on religion that raises valid questions that religion has not been able, and never will be able to answer in order to defend not only its origins, but its crimes. More to your point, yes, the book successfully attacks the "social role and purpose" of religion, not only arguing pretty well that we don't need it in this day and age, but also offering an alternative set of values to live by, an enlightened and humanistic one.

I think where Hitchens fails is the tone of the book - it is rather impatient and irritable. I can understand totally understand that, but it's not a good tone to take when you are writing a book on such a sensitive subject for a broad audience. No wonder it only antagonizes the devout. Still, it doesn't matter - even though Hitchens's ostensible purpose is to address the religious, I doubt that this book, or any other book for that matter, will cause anyone to stop believing in god.

[laika]

Aeschylus, Agamemnon

thus he went down, and the life struggled out of him;
and as he died he spattered me with the dark red
and violent driven rain of bitter savored blood
to make me glad, as gardens stand among the showers
of god in glory at the birthtime of the buds.

[Faust]

Aeschylus, Agamemnon

thus he went down, and the life struggled out of him;
and as he died he spattered me with the dark red
and violent driven rain of bitter savored blood
to make me glad, as gardens stand among the showers
of god in glory at the birthtime of the buds.

You would love Pirsig.

[zamb]

That depends on you, not on the book. If you are clear about whether you are an atheist or a believer, books on religion are pointless, except for giving you more weapons to use in an argument (and Hitchens clearly has done his homework there). I don't care about arguing about religion anymore, really.

As for this book, yes, I think it is a largely successful attack on religion that raises valid questions that religion has not been able, and never will be able to answer in order to defend not only its origins, but its crimes. More to your point, yes, the book successfully attacks the "social role and purpose" of religion, not only arguing pretty well that we don't need it in this day and age, but also offering an alternative set of values to live by, an enlightened and humanistic one.

I think where Hitchens fails is the tone of the book - it is rather impatient and irritable. I can understand totally understand that, but it's not a good tone to take when you are writing a book on such a sensitive subject for a broad audience. No wonder it only antagonizes the devout. Still, it doesn't matter - even though Hitchens's ostensible purpose is to address the religious, I doubt that this book, or any other book for that matter, will cause anyone to stop believing in god.

I went to a debate with him and the Jewish Rabbi David J. Wolpe (the author of Why Faith matters) earlier this year at the Jewish Synagogue on Fifth Ave. While I found him to be an engaging, articulate, well read and skillful debater, some of his ideas and arguments lack a real solid foundation. there were questions asked to him that he skilfully dodged beause he seemed not prepared to address them. He also significantly misunderstands some of the key aspects of religion (Christianity, new testament in particular) that he attempts to attack. In all fairness to him he raises profound questions, and make some valid arguments about some of the lowest points and darkest days of Religion. But I think there ought to be a distinction made in what are the principles of a particular religion and what is believers (imperfect man) actually practice.....................
There are also many who claim to be of a particular religion, for whom religion is only a tool to gain an advantage for other goals, and thus the misuse of religion.

I have only read excerps of the book and should really get myself a copy of it, if only to better understand his arguments................

While I disagree with him strongly, I like him though, if for no other reason than the fact that he keeps us Christians alert and thinking.................

[laika]

You would love Pirsig.

pray tell more....

[Faust]

pray tell more....

Pirsig thought that Quality was ingrained in the ancient Greek society through their concept of arete, which he thought was commonly misinterpreted as "virtue," but really meant "human excellence." It was the underlying concept that drove everything, from craftsmanship to warfare. There is a whole chapter on that, where he analyzes the Illiad (the passage where Hector knows he will be killed, but is going to battle nonetheless). Then, according to him, Socrates came in and fucked everything up by displacing the sophists who taught arete with his concept of "virtue." I just thought your quote was fitting, because it acknowledges death and celebrates life in the same moment.

[Magician]

Htichens is fantastic. Really witty while still well-researched. It's a shame some of his political views are so distasteful.

I'm excited for the forthcoming book by one of Hitchen's lesser known contemporaries: PZ Myers, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Minnesota. He has this great blog about rational thought, skepticism and evolutionary biology.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

[Faust]

Htichens is fantastic. Really witty while still well-researched. It's a shame some of his political views are so distasteful.

I'm excited for the forthcoming book by one of Hitchen's lesser known contemporaries: PZ Myers, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Minnesota. He has this great blog about rational thought, skepticism and evolutionary biology.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Yes, some of them are. But others have been demonized simply because they transcend partisan squabbles.

I usually would not put a non-fashion article on SZ, but since a few people seem to be interested, here you go.