Books You Want Horribly Destroyed.
- Thread starter Blind Sight
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I agree on the right to believe in whatever. However, you note Christianity as primitive. Not trying to be a dick at all, just ranting on a point.The Austin said:
Believing in a religion is more than superstition. Superstition is primitive because it is created by one's own imagination rather than genuine thought, and can be disproven.
Nobody has disproven whether there is a god or not, whether there is a soul or not. And a lot of philosophical and logical process goes into apalogetics(defending the validity of the religion). My best example is that psionics fit in with quantum theory, but psionics(the ability of the mind to interact with quantum fields, possibly because the mind is a quantum field) are neither matter nor matter-based energy that can be measured. Yet it affects matter and energy. Is this what the soul is made of? Psionics? A conscious essence that is somehow neither matter nor traditional energy, but influences both?
Whether this is true or not is yet to be found, but is it not a valid science? Therefore not primitive. Admittedly, there are "primitive" christians, but I believe psionics make the soul, and therefore the supernatural, possible as quantum entities.
Same here, no matter how vile or horrible a book is, I could never advocate destroying a book (Even garbage like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or as it was publish in America as the International Jew. Basically that book is what partially inspired the massive wave of anti-Semitism which led to the Holocaust). Still even garbage like that can teach us a lesson, mainly the lesson of why you shouldn?t trust everything you read.jwien001 said:
Even Twilight has some importance to people, even if it is incredibly shallow and clique, but think about it like this, if we didn?t have Twilight to kick start the new popularity in Vampires, would we have gotten the new wave of media inspired to jump start the other good vampire genres (or bring more popularity to Charlene Harris?s True Blood series).
Wouldn't burning people's religous text just make them angry and even more violent?Wakikifudge said:
Usually religon's just the excuse to convince people to go to war when the reasons are more likely to just be greed or fear.Dango said:
Actually, I was only calling it primitive because it is referred to as such in Mr. Dawkins' book.Nieroshai said:
I don't at all believe that Christianity is primitive.
Ok most terrorism is based on religious fanatic views. The World Wars were politics but the war on terror is mainly religious.Romidude said:
Hooray for silliness! Without whimsy and ridiculousness everything would be so boring! (makes me wish I was a Wizard)The Austin said:
Aren't pleny of terrorists just pshycopaths, criminals and certain groups of Anarchists? (Wait isn't a group of Anarchists an oxymoron?)Wakikifudge said:
Girls need to fantasize about something sexy too like you probably do tooMikeyfell said:
<.<
And so no one can argue with me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4uuGvmAxTI
I'm not about to take a stand and say I support atheism, but you may be right, but also think about the past and even today.
The Crusade is a prime example. Men, women, and children slaughtered over relgious belief. Wars may exist, but take the Middle East as well. Iran was assaulted because their neighboring countries didn't agree with their religion.
Religion gives people hope though, but it is not religion itself, but peoples' intolerance towards other religions.
The Crusade is a prime example. Men, women, and children slaughtered over relgious belief. Wars may exist, but take the Middle East as well. Iran was assaulted because their neighboring countries didn't agree with their religion.
Religion gives people hope though, but it is not religion itself, but peoples' intolerance towards other religions.
Please do not talk down to me merely because you disagree with me. You know nothing of what I study, learn, or read, and simply saying that Gladwell's thesis is too complex for me to understand reflects poorly on you, not me.SimuLord said:
The fact is that the book is pretty much re-using theories from previous sociologists and stating them like they're brand new. He basically takes pre-existing ideas and dumbs them down to the point where 'Ma and Pa' examples can be used. His statistical analysis of almost everything in the book is incorrect and poorly handled, and his research abilities are limited to that of a first-year university student. In short, Gladwell makes claims that make very little sense at times, backs them up with poor data, and takes the bare roots of certain concepts in order to back his theories. The problem with this work is that he shifts his data in a way that supports his thesis, despite much of it being inaccurate.
I'm not the only one who disagrees with Gladwell's theories, the Outliers was a component in my Social Movements and Globalization class, where my professor pointed out that the book lacked any kind of critical thinking, and he also noted that all his examples and metaphors were very obviously picked in order to support his thesis, and thus could be easily picked apart.
