qwe3: Qweading | Sputnikmusic

qwe3 07.16.11	yeah so
qwe3 07.16.11	heres the passage re 9 "About half way between West Egg and New York the motor road hastily joins the railroad and runs beside it for a quarter of a mile, so as to shrink away from a certain desolate area of land. This is a valley of ashes — a fantastic farm where ashes grow like wheat into ridges and hills and grotesque gardens; where ashes take the forms of houses and chimneys and rising smoke and, finally, with a transcendent effort, of men who move dimly and already crumbling through the powdery air. Occasionally a line of gray cars crawls along an invisible track, gives out a ghastly creak, and comes to rest, and immediately the ash-gray men swarm up with leaden spades and stir up an impenetrable cloud, which screens their obscure operations from your sight. But above the gray land and the spasms of bleak dust which drift endlessly over it, you perceive, after a moment, the eyes of Doctor T. J. Eckleburg. The eyes of Doctor T. J. Eckleburg are blue and gigantic — their irises are one yard high. They look out of no face, but, instead, from a pair of enormous yellow spectacles which pass over a nonexistent nose. Evidently some wild wag of an oculist set them there to fatten his practice in the borough of Queens, and then sank down himself into eternal blindness, or forgot them and moved away. But his eyes, dimmed a little by many paintless days, under sun and rain, brood on over the solemn dumping ground."
Maniac! 07.16.11	6 ( the book ) is really great
WeepingBanana 07.16.11	I've read one of the essays from Consider the Lobster. it was cool also 9 is the shit i'm reading Cat's Cradle by Vonnegut right now and i'm enjoying the shit out of it. highly recommended
Relinquished 07.16.11	holy shit you have Meshuggah on your list wtf 9 is a good book
wabbit 07.16.11	I've never read 9...probs should. I'm reading Hemingway short stories. They are so so awesome.
qwe3 07.16.11	haven't read vonnegut in awhile but yeah cats cradle is so good. actually anything by vonnegut is good. i love breakfast of champions. that's prob my favourite
qwe3 07.16.11	and yeah anyone who has any interest at all in fiction should read 9
foreverendeared 07.16.11	I love a lot of these Robert Jordan - "The Eye of the World" - I'm currently on book 6. It gets really really good. Stick with it, well worth your time. Christopher Hitchens - "God Is Not Great" - yeah I read his one a while back. Great read. Hitchens is one of my favorite humans in general. James Joyce - "Dubliners" - I actually haven't read this one yet, but I've read Portrait of an Artist and Ulysses and I love both of those. Tom Stoppard - "Rosencrantz and Guildinstern are Dead" - what a fantastic read. F Scott Fitzgerald - "The Great Gatsby" - I need to re-read this one because I haven't read it since high school like ten years ago.
foreverendeared 07.16.11	It's really sad Hitchens doesn't have long to live now :[ If you can take a recommendation from a fellow book lover, try out Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke.
WeepingBanana 07.16.11	i'm gonna sound like a dumb ass here but i really have no patience to read those robert jordan books or ulysses or any ayn rand
foreverendeared 07.16.11	Definitely stick with The Wheel of Time, it really picks up and gets good. For the most part, it stays very black and white, good vs evil, no grey moral ground, but it's still an awesome series. George RR Martin actually draws pretty heavily from it at times in A Song of Ice and Fire, except that Martin focuses on the morally grey areas.
porch 07.16.11	nice list just finished reading scandal by shusaku endo and it's great
Relinquished 07.16.11	why is meshuggah here, this confuses me
porch 07.16.11	he picked meshuggah for the book he thought was boring
foreverendeared 07.16.11	"i'm gonna sound like a dumb ass here but i really have no patience to read those robert jordan books or ulysses or any ayn rand" Ulysses I can understand because it's a very dense and hard read, but the other two? You should be ashamed. Robert Jordan writes at like a 6th grade reading level, it's easy to breeze through his books, and Ayn is a pretty easy read too.
WeepingBanana 07.16.11	does it make a difference that i think the extent that Rand takes objectivism to is fucking retarded
foreverendeared 07.16.11	The only impressive thing about Robert Jordan's writing is how he keeps all those cities and people and towns and different plot lines together AND the history behind all the people and places. It's quite daunting the huge world he created, I have no idea how he did it. It's much more vast and in depth than even Tolkien's world
Relinquished 07.16.11	oh I didn't read that. I read "play" and I'm not interested in plays.
qwe3 07.16.11	"i'm gonna sound like a dumb ass here but i really have no patience to read those robert jordan books or ulysses or any ayn rand" jordan's not hard to read per se he's just detailed and introduces a lot of plot elements/characters in a sort of matter of fact way so you sometimes miss it. plus yeah he's not the greatest WRITER ever but the world he created is actually stupefying so far. i'd stick with it man. "just finished reading scandal by shusaku endo and it's great" dude that is such a good book. disturbing as hell but yeah. i read it when i was living in tokyo too so it was even more creepy. and ayn rand's books are atrocious. fuck that.
WeepingBanana 07.16.11	idk maybe one day when i'm older i'm gonna enjoy the fountainhead or something but right now i kinda just wanna read books that a 19 year old english major would enjoy
qwe3 07.16.11	the fountainhead sucks dick
Eko 07.16.11	a modest proposal ftw
wabbit 07.16.11	man I'm watching Christopher Hitchens' stuff on youtube and he's really really good.
foreverendeared 07.16.11	"man I'm watching Christopher Hitchens' stuff on youtube and he's really really good." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7wU9QJ5mOQ That is probably his best debate. He's pretty sick at this point, so he isn't as lively and biting as he usually is, but he just destroys this guy. DO NOT watch any of his debates with William Lane Craig though. That guy is too fucking good at debating and just manhandles Hitchens.
qwe3 07.16.11	lol william lane craig is a debater though like thats actually all he does. he basically throws out a bunch of red herrings that look impressive because he is schooling whoever hes debating but hes usually completely off topic. lol i watched this one where hitchens was like "name one moral act i could not do that a religious man could" and he was like "donate in church" and i was like HMMMMMM MORAL RELATIVISM HOW DOES IT WORK but i guess thats the problem most of the time
qwe3 07.16.11	oh and another where some guy was like "name me something science can never prove" and the dude rattled off like 6 things which made the dude look like a fool but its like uhhhh ok cool so science cant prove certain meticulously defined things GOD EXISTS
paxman 07.16.11	I love you, Qwe. That is perhaps, outside of the final passage ("borne ceaselessly into the past...") the most famous passage from Gatsby. One of my favorite novels (how original, eh?), and I've held long discussions on it, ranging from topics like the Godlike eyes of Eckleburg which you cited above to the way in which Fitzgerald describes the drinks coming in on a tray early in the novel, as if the person carrying the tray does not exist at all to these privileged people. Ayn Rand is only good for impressionable high school students. Some recs you might enjoy: Last Night At The Lobster by Stewart O'Nan Winter's Bone by Daniel Woodrell (also Tomato Red) The Terror by Dan Simmons (amazing horror novel about Sir John Franklin's ill-fated Arctic expedition to find the fabled Northwest Passage...there's a monster in the ice) or anything by Dan Simmons
KILL 07.16.11	"the fountainhead sucks dick" dude you didnt get it
paxman 07.16.11	Oh, I forgot to mention Henry James's Daisy Miller. Fantastic short read. Just spend a sunny afternoon reading it and you'll be a changed man.
qwe3 07.16.11	ayn rand irritates the shit out of me plus objectivism just plain doesnt work so wtf girl(?) jk that parenthetical question mark was mean "I love you, Qwe. That is perhaps, outside of the final passage ("borne ceaselessly into the past...")" yeah the end passage is really great too. i love rereading carraway's descriptions of the parties at gatsby's, the guests especially. "Godlike eyes of Eckleburg which you cited above to the way in which Fitzgerald describes the drinks coming in on a tray early in the novel, as if the person carrying the tray does not exist at all to these privileged people." i love you too thanks for the recs man
sublimefan1991 07.16.11	had to read "arcadia" by 5 last semester and it was actually really good.
qwe3 07.16.11	oi foreverendeared check out this vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8&feature=related hitchens is another level above craig dude, craig's all about the shoddy, looks-good-on-the-surface -arguments
foreverendeared 07.16.11	"he basically throws out a bunch of red herrings that look impressive because he is schooling whoever hes debating but hes usually completely off topic." UGGHH I know I fucking wish Hitchens would study on how to debate, I hate how he just lets Craig get away with those bullshit lines he always sneaks in.
foreverendeared 07.16.11	I don't think I've heard anyone on Sputnik recommend Invisible by Paul Auster. My kooky neurologist recommended it to me and it's a really fantastic novel.
qwe3 07.16.11	i actually like how hitchens does it. he doesn't fall for the high school debate team bullshit he just gets up says his piece and ridicules whoever disagrees with him in the most eloquent way it's perfect
MO 07.16.11	I agree, Chekov should stick to short stories. I read ward no.6 and other short stories (collection of his short stories) and it was really good.
foreverendeared 07.16.11	"hitchens is another level above craig dude, craig's all about the shoddy, looks-good-on-the-surface -arguments" So Hitchens actually out-debates Craig in this debate? I mean pretty much every debate I've seen of Hitchens, he wins easily, except when he debates Craig. Craig is just too skilled at debating even though basically none of the things he says are true.
foreverendeared 07.16.11	"he just gets up says his piece and ridicules whoever disagrees with him in the most eloquent way it's perfect" Yeah I also love how he NEVER lets anyone talk over him. He won't raise his voice or yell, he'll just keep on talking until he gets out everything he was going to say and won't let anyone throw him off his point.
qwe3 07.16.11	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6P1NQ7PkG4&feature=related this series is great "So Hitchens actually out-debates Craig in this debate?" i don't understand. i personally think that yes, hitchens does. but then, i find that hitchens always comes out ahead. i saw a debate where hitch was in the south debating against literally 6 other dudes. 6 on 1. craig was one of them. he held his ground fantastically and craig made lolworthy arguments. like he actually used the ontological argument for god. i was sorta embarassed for him.
wabbit 07.16.11	I do find it funny that this is one of the most debated subjects yet it is so much more abstract than almost everything else because one side has no real evidence.
foreverendeared 07.16.11	Oh yeah I've seen all of the Hitchslaps lol so great. I hope his experimental drugs he's taking kills the cancer.
wabbit 07.16.11	well Jesus is trying to kill him so I dunno man.
qwe3 07.16.11	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1DVWX96PNg&feature=related poor rabbi hahaha hes just like :\|
qwe3 07.16.11	oh and it was 4 guys not 6 mah bad
foreverendeared 07.16.11	that's a great hitchslap. this one is my favorite, what can you even say to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0eUd2DbAb4
thebhoy 07.16.11	I'm reading so much Joyce right now. Dubliners, A Portrait, and Ulysses. Read some Coetzee, particularly Foe and Waiting for the Barbarians.
qwe3 07.16.11	ya dude that the debate i was talking about haha cheers bhoy shall check coetzee out. keep forgettin tah
foreverendeared 07.16.11	I'm going to have to try to find that debate on youtube. Or somewhere.
wabbit 07.16.11	oh I'm also reading Richard Morgan who writes sci-fi/hard-boiled/noir stuff that is actually a lot better than most of the stuff of the same genre. But write now I'm reading a fanasty-noir book by him which has the most sterotypical testosterone filled red meat eating brooding outcast downtrodden protagonist that you find in all the stories but he is gay...like really descriptively gay. So that adds a whole pile of fun dialogue avenues.
Skweetis 07.16.11	Have you read The Pale King by David Foster Wallace yet? It's quite good, I found it to better than Infinite Jest.
qwe3 07.16.11	nah i haven't, ive heard good things though. and better than infinite jest big call hey feature
qwe3 07.16.11	rush
qwe3 07.16.11	whyd you put kimm on it fuck
foreverendeared 07.16.11	because she's so open to criticism and new music of coarse
Satellite 07.16.11	qwe have you read "the end of faith" by sam harris?
foreverendeared 07.16.11	have you cummed to meshuggah?
qwe3 07.16.11	"So you've succomb to meshuggah?" well the album matches what i thought about the play "qwe have you read "the end of faith" by sam harris?" no, but i've read articles by him and seen debates/discussions involving him. bright dude. good read?
Satellite 07.16.11	yeah, it's a good read. he's a bit extreme at times but i mostly find myself agreeing with him.
foreverendeared 07.16.11	I would just read Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris instead. It's basically a summary of End of Faith and a rebuttal to letters he received after writing it, and it's a really short, quick read. I still need to read The Moral Landscape by him which is about how science can answer moral questions. That seems really interesting to me.
Satellite 07.16.11	been meaning to read "letter" actually.
qwe3 07.16.11	i'll just read all of itttttt. i can e-book it. fckyeah
qwe3 07.16.11	the letter looks interesting. i like the rebuttal idea too.
Crymsonblaze 07.16.11	Only read 5, 7, 8, and 9. All good reads.
NOTINTHEFACE 07.16.11	When I read that exact passage in 9 I had the same reaction. Such a wonderful writer.
foreverendeared 07.16.11	I love descriptive passages like the one you pasted in the comments from Gatsby. I have a favorite as well, it's from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and it is just such a beautiful passage: "Out along the dim six-o'clock street, I saw leafless trees standing, striking the sidewalk there like wooden lightning, concrete split apart where they hit, all in a fenced-in ring. An iron line of pickets stuck out of the ground along the front of a tangleweed yard, and on back was a big frame house with a porch, leaning a rickety shoulder hard into the wind so's not to be sent tumbling away a couple of blocks like an empty cardboard grocery box. The wind was blowing a few drops of rain, and I saw the house had its eyes clenched shut and locks at the door banged on a chain."
AggravatedYeti 07.16.11	I like Three Sisters stfu qwe ; )
Torii 07.17.11	I read 6 some months ago and yes, it is extremely good.
Electric City 07.17.11	totally agree with you on three sisters. funny, i saw it at my older sister's college when i was 12 and thought the exact same thing
qwe3 07.17.11	anyone who hasn't read any asterix and obelix comics is seriously missing out. it's so great.
Oceanus 07.17.11	Three Sisters is a terrible play. The characters put me off more than most other characters I've encountered, and everything in that play takes a thousand years to minimally trudge along.
qwe3 07.17.11	yeah dude haha you know tolstoy was a friend of his and a massive fan of his writing, and even he was like bro just write short stories and i mean, his short stories are some of the best i've ever read
Kimm 07.17.11	sputlit.com Great list anyways.
liledman 07.17.11	fucking love dubliners. got ulysses lined up, but i want to read odyssey first. got a pile of awesome books just waiting to be read, if i wasnt working so much these holidays id be tearing through them ugh
76TVs 07.17.11	I'm gonna read some Asterix and Obelix today. Weird guys, those Romans!
vanderb0b 07.17.11	Just read the Great Gatsby yesterday, it's one of the best-written books I've ever read.
Kubrick 07.17.11	"A Modest Proposal" is hilarious. Good satire is basically always the best kind of comedy. Also "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins is really good if you have the patience for it. It essentially goes through every manifestation of religious thought and rationalizes it on a scientific and biological level. Also he has some really interesting things to say about the dangers of religious thought that are so much more foundational than what most people say in terms of war and violence.. essentially the dangers of complacency and thinking that we have the answers instead of examining our surroundings and learning. Complacency it comforting, but it does nothing to progress our culture and essentially restricts the minds of people who would otherwise be capable of extremely good scientific thought.
foreverendeared 07.17.11	The most important thing Dawkins has to say is his reproaching of the labeling of children based on their parents religious views.
Kubrick 07.17.11	You're right.. that's is an extremely important point. So many people are never given the opportunity to see religion objectively simply because of their upbringing. Everyone deserves the opportunity to think for themselves... the ultimate decision that people make isn't nearly as important as the freedom to arrive that decision on their own terms.
Kimm 07.17.11	I'm about halfway through The God Delusion and I have to say, I'm disappointed so far. I thought Dawkins would have more substantial arguments, but a lot of what he uses is easily discredited.
Kubrick 07.17.11	That's a pretty easy statement to make without giving a single example.
Kimm 07.17.11	I don't have the book in front of me right now, but when he's going over the "proofs" of God, he uses stupid examples. Like the plane going down and some of the passengers not dying. Who actually uses that as a proof for God's existence? That's one of the stupidest arguments he could have possibly used. Moat people will tell you that evidence of God's existence is in creation - which Dawkins did mention - but also that God's existence can't be "proved" because God reveals himself only to those whom he chooses to. As for the intelligent design argument - Dawkins argues that if we say the earth could not have been created without a creator, it does not make sense to believe in Gid because then, where was he created from? The difference is this: if there is no God, everything can be explained through logic because everything that happens is caused by something real and tangible. However, if Gid does exist, it stands to reason that there are things about him he do not understand. Plants don't interact with plants the way dogs interact with dogs. They don't have an understanding of that type of interaction. Dogs don't understand life as humans live it, nor can a fish appreciate good poetry, again because they just don't have the capacity to know it. So with that in mind, why should we think that we can understand the things of God, when in reality there just isn't that level of understanding within the human heart and mind?
Kimm 07.17.11	CORRECTION - when I said "most people will tell you..." in my second paragraph, I meant to say most Christians.
foreverendeared 07.17.11	Sorry, but it's really hard to see how you discredited anything he said. I think it's because your syntax and grammar need some serious work there, Kimm :]
Kubrick 07.17.11	Hmm.. I read through your comment three times but I'm not sure I took any explicit, developed arguments that discredit anything that was said in the book. Maybe I'm just not getting what you're saying. Here's what I took from it: "I don't have the book in front of me right now, but when he's going over the "proofs" of God, he uses stupid examples. Like the plane going down and some of the passengers not dying. Who actually uses that as a proof for God's existence? " This is a pretty minor thing that he mentions. But either way, there are plenty of people that make arguments for the existence of god that involve miracles and unexplainable occurrences. The plane scenario is simply meant to serve as one example of the "miracle arguments" that people make and how those arguments are logically inept (which they are.. because unexplainable or rare occurrences in of themselves prove absolutely nothing other than that rare, unexplainable occurrences happen). I really have no idea what point you were trying to make about his intelligent design argument. What I took from it is that you're saying something along the lines of human's can't understand god just as fish can't understand poetry or plants can't understand dogs. Okay. That's all well and good. But that isn't even what Dawkins is trying to say about intelligent deisgn. He is saying that the extremely complexity of life does not inherently indicate a creator. In fact, he points out that we already understand many of the processes through which the complexity of life arose. He's essentially saying the opposite of what you're arguing when you say we cannot understand how god works and how the earth came to be the place that we see now. He's saying we can explain the complexity of life without even needing to mention god at all.
Kimm 07.17.11	What's wrong with my syntax or my grammar? Spelling could use some improvement...I'm posting from my iPod so I frequently mix up 'i's with 'o's. =[
Kimm 07.17.11	Maybe "discredit" was the wrong word. Basically what I'm saying is that when Dawkins tries to speak from the Christian standpoint, he makes it sound really stupid. And when he is trying to discredit the argument of intelligent design, he fails to consider the aforementioned logic of limited human understanding. I wish I had my copy with me now so I could find more examples. Again though - I'm only halfway through the book.
SeaAnemone 07.17.11	"Basically what I'm saying is that when Dawkins tries to speak from the Christian standpoint, he makes it sound really stupid. " umm. maybe this is indicative of something though? something larger than Dawkins' perspective? some sort of trend, maybe? "And when he is trying to discredit the argument of intelligent design, he fails to consider the aforementioned logic of limited human understanding." Isn't that his point though, that humans DO have understanding of many of the fundamental aspects of creation? You saying something as vague as DOGS CANT TALK TO THE FISHIES doesn't discredit anything there. awesome awesome list qwe agreed hard on "A Modest Proposal" I'm reading Blood Meridian right now
foreverendeared 07.17.11	"What's wrong with my syntax or my grammar?" Just trying to be helpful. The grammar is actually okay, I was just being nit picky. Your syntax could use a lot of work, though. I only say this because you are trying to present an opinion and you do a very poor job of representing what you're trying to say.
SeaAnemone 07.17.11	"What's wrong with my syntax or my grammar?" and yeah that comment paragraph that forever is referring to was horrible syntax-wise. I had to read it a few times just to try and grasp what you were trying to communicate, as well as backtrack many times, and even then it wasn't very clear.
Outnumbered 07.17.11	Yeah Daisy annoyed me to no end as well.
Kimm 07.17.11	I know, I'm not very eloquent...especially when I can't read over what I'm saying beore posting it. In any case, I should really finish the book before having a discussion about it.
MO 07.17.11	Love 10, Asterix and Obelix are classics.
TheEnigma 07.17.11	I think what Kimm's trying to say is that when Dawkins presents the Christian perspective, he does so in a way that allows personal biases to show through; he lacks objectivity. But then, don't we all.
Kubrick 07.17.11	"And when he is trying to discredit the argument of intelligent design, he fails to consider the aforementioned logic of limited human understanding. " Not only does he consider the limits of human knowledge, it is one of the major points of the book that he explicitly emphasizes on a number of occasions. He calls this argument "The God of Gaps." Essentially, believers in god point to the numerous things that people have a limited understanding of today and that we cannot explain scientifically or even logically, and uses those things as positive proof for the existence of god. In other words, the gaps in our knowledge point to the existence of god. Dawkins points out, and rightfully so, that the lack of human understanding is not positive proof for anything at all other than proof that we do not understand something. In ancient times, people didn't understand what the sun was. So what did they do? The worshiped it, treated it like a god beyond human comprehension. People didn't understand lightning or droughts either.. so they attributed those things as acts of god. In modern times, we now fully understand why the sun rises and sets and clearly no one with that knowledge worships it anymore. But, there are TONS of things people still don't understand today. As the scenario with the sun suggests, the a lack of human understanding in something does not mean that something is beyond understanding, and it certainly isn't positive proof of anything such as a god. If humans last long enough as a species, I'm sure that a thousand years from now people will see the things we attribute to god now to be as silly as we see the worship of the sun.
Kimm 07.17.11	He does lack objectivity. He'll pick an argument for God, but he'll make it sound so stupid that people don't even need to read his rebuttal because the argument already has no standing. In other cases, he uses a Christian argument but then tries to argue it based on Atheist beleifs. When he says that we need to assign God a creator in order for him to exist, he's using the logic that everything can be understood in our minds. It can't be understood. Some things just can't be. God can't be "proved" or "disproved" to anyone by another person.
Crysis 07.17.11	god exists he's jamming in turntable to love beach with us
Relinquished 07.17.11	just what he should be doing instead of answering prayers
Crysis 07.17.11	obv
WeepingBanana 07.17.11	Well in logic, you're never asked to disprove anything. Lack of proof of something is enough to say that that thing does not exist. Thus, lack of proof of God means that there is no God. i don't consider myself an atheist but yeah
foreverendeared 07.17.11	"he uses a Christian argument but then tries to argue it based on Atheist beleifs" Atheism isn't a system of beliefs.
TheEnigma 07.17.11	A see a game of semantics going on here. "Limited understanding" Kimm uses these words in reference to a human incapability of ever understanding some aspects of God, arguing that we don't have the capacity. Kubrick uses these words in reference to what we know now, arguing that while we don't have the answers laid out before us at this specific point in time, we do have the potential to acquire knowledge of such things in the future. AMIRITE
Kubrick 07.17.11	"He does lack objectivity. He'll pick an argument for God, but he'll make it sound so stupid that people don't even need to read his rebuttal because the argument already has no standing." In what ways could you alter the arguments for god such as "It can't be understood. Some things just can't be." to make them sound more illogical than they already are? His analysis of the argument for god based on the presence of things humans do not currently understand is completely objective. The exact thing that you are saying is what he is arguing against.. it isn't watered down in any way.
WeepingBanana 07.17.11	i think what kimm is saying is that he only uses straw-man arguments i haven't read the god delusion so i can't attest to that
Kimm 07.17.11	"Atheism isn't a system of beliefs." Saying there is no God is a belief. It's not a lack of beliefs. "Thus, lack of proof of God means that there is no God." OR, from a Christian perspective, it enforces the idea that God has the power and will to reveal himself to some and not to others.
someguest 07.17.11	Why are we talking about this again? You're not going to change a prideful internet opinion on anything.
foreverendeared 07.17.11	"Saying there is no God is a belief." Atheism isn't saying "there is no God." There is no way to prove that. It's saying there is no reason TO believe in a god, and no evidence has been given that points to there being a god.
eternium 07.17.11	Kim's excuses are lol worthy.
Kimm 07.17.11	No. Theism says there is a God. Atheism says there is not. AGNOSTICISM says there is not evidence enough to support either end of the spectrum.
WeepingBanana 07.17.11	"OR, from a Christian perspective, it enforces the idea that God has the power and will to reveal himself to some and not to others." So you're basically saying that Christianity goes against logic. I think we're done here
Kimm 07.17.11	How does that defy logic?
Kubrick 07.17.11	"OR, from a Christian perspective, it enforces the idea that God has the power and will to reveal himself to some and not to others." Ugh. Yeah, ok I think is the point where I have to draw the line and just end this argument. I'm trying to approach the topic with objectivity and logic, but with that comment it's now obvious to me that you aren't approaching it from the same angle, which makes the entire thing futile. It doesn't make any sense to say that the lack of proof of something is ACTUALLY the proof that something exists, and that it must have the power and just chooses to remain invisible to us. I mean honestly, do I really have to point of the ridiculousness of that statement? That's like saying the fact that I have never seen a ghost living in my house is actually proof that he must be there, and that he is just choosing not to reveal himself to me.
WeepingBanana 07.17.11	Because logic states that if there is no proof of something than it's reasonable to assume that it doesn't exist. You yourself said that there is no proving God's existence.
eternium 07.17.11	So basically she's saying that God is the imaginary friend that will only show himself to those who already believe and not show himself to those who are skeptical. This is coming from someone who does believe in some sort of God but also that religion is a bunch of bullshit.
SeaAnemone 07.17.11	weepingbanana, stop trying to apply logic to Christianity. dogs CANNOT talk to fish, that much is clear. I really don't know what else needs to be said on this issue.
Kubrick 07.17.11	"dogs CANNOT talk to fish, that much is clear. I really don't know what else needs to be said on this issue." Hahaha... well said.
foreverendeared 07.17.11	"Theism says there is a God. Atheism says there is not." I don't have the arrogance to make such a claim. Atheism is just the non-belief in theism. Really, the argument that the term "atheism" should be abolished has some good points. You don't call people who don't believe in Santa "a-Santists" or people who don't believe in unicorns "a-unicornists." Agnosticism may be the belief that there is not, or will never be, evidence for or against a deity, but atheism is just the belief that NO evidence has been given to claim a belief in god.
foreverendeared 07.17.11	...not that there is NOT one.
Kubrick 07.17.11	"Atheism is just the non-belief in theism. Really, the argument that the term "atheism" should be abolished has some good points. You don't call people who don't believe in Santa "a-Santists" or people who don't believe in unicorns "a-unicornists." Thank you for making this point. Couldn't have been said any better.
foreverendeared 07.17.11	What Kimm fails to realize is that she's an atheist too. She doesn't worship Krishna or Ra, etc. As Hitchens says, I just go one god further.
WeepingBanana 07.17.11	"weepingbanana, stop trying to apply logic to Christianity. dogs CANNOT talk to fish, that much is clear. I really don't know what else needs to be said on this issue. " i was pointing out the disparity between logic and Christianity. unless you're being sarcastic. in which case, lol.
SeaAnemone 07.17.11	bawww, you think that little of me haha? ; )
someguest 07.17.11	"weepingbanana, stop trying to apply logic to Christianity. dogs CANNOT talk to fish, that much is clear. I really don't know what else needs to be said on this issue." I hate it when I agree with Eric.
WeepingBanana 07.17.11	okay i'll just assume you were being sarcastic
someguest 07.17.11	the assuming atheist
foreverendeared 07.17.11	lol
someguest 07.17.11	yeah he just shit on himself
WeepingBanana 07.17.11	i don't even
Oceanus 07.17.11	qwe recommend me your favorite one of Chekhov's short stories.
Klekticist 07.18.11	"Consider The Lobster"'s great
Uranium 07.18.11	Gatsby is ok. Found it rather bland all in all.
Oceanus 07.18.11	Gatsby gets better the older I get.
foreverendeared 07.18.11	I feel the same way about Catch-22.
Oceanus 07.18.11	Speaking of short stories, I don't understand how Faulkner can write such great novels as Absalom, Absalom! and As I Lay Dying but then churn out Barn Burning, one of the worst short stories I have read.
Pharoh 07.18.11	Read most of this in my senior year of highschool
foreverendeared 07.18.11	I didn't really pay any attention to the books I had to read in high school.
someguest 07.18.11	Chinga yo motha, chinga yo fatha.
qwe3 07.19.11	holy fuck
qwe3 07.19.11	""A Modest Proposal" is hilarious. Good satire is basically always the best kind of comedy." see i knew i'd like you Kubrick and yeah I've read the God Delusion and I agree that his best point is the whole "That is NOT a muslim child just the same way as it isn't a republican child or a libertarian child" thing. also I think he's at his best when he talks about the biological and scientific aspects of it, rather than the moralistic or philosophical. "I'm about halfway through The God Delusion and I have to say, I'm disappointed so far. I thought Dawkins would have more substantial arguments, but a lot of what he uses is easily discredited. " interesting that you commented about a novel's worth of words and managed to say next to nothing in rebuttal
qwe3 07.19.11	"also that God's existence can't be "proved" because God reveals himself only to those whom he chooses to." i'm pretty sure he says that this is a cop out and anyways saying "you cant PROVE god exists duh" doesnt exactly help your argument. "When he says that we need to assign God a creator in order for him to exist, he's using the logic that everything can be understood in our minds. It can't be understood. Some things just can't be." but that's the point. making up some divine being and then getting around the whole "his existence would defy physics/logic/reality" thing by just saying "yeah but hes god so he can do that" is pretty much a cop out. it's the whole Russell's Teapot thing. it can't be disproved but it doesn't mean it isn't the most unlikely explanation of reality we have (well there are worse i guess scientology etc /hyperbole) "And when he is trying to discredit the argument of intelligent design, he fails to consider the aforementioned logic of limited human understanding. " uh im pretty sure dawkins always always always mentions that humans know practically nothing about anything and then follows it up by saying believing in some supernatural being to explain things we dont know is retarded. it's pretty much one of the focal points of new atheist thought. "He does lack objectivity." of course he fucking does. everyone in the world lacks objectivity relative to what they believe. wtf. "Saying there is no God is a belief." that's not what atheism is though. and "a belief" isn't "a system of beliefs." don't pull the "atheism is a religion" card because it's so fucking dumb "God can't be "proved" or "disproved" to anyone by another person." definitely believe in him now then.
Uranium 07.19.11	"definitely believe in him now then" LOL Yeah, God's real. Why? Because I said so. - religion
Wolfhorde 07.19.11	Uh, 6 is good. We didn't really read the whole book but had some passages in our religion course we were discussing.
omnipanzer 07.19.11	10 is one of my favorite albums.
qwe3 07.21.11	hell yeah joe jack IS SHE REALLY GOIN OUUUT WITH HIMM
Kimm 07.22.11	"It doesn't make any sense to say that the lack of proof of something is ACTUALLY the proof that something exists, and that it must have the power and just chooses to remain invisible to us. I mean honestly, do I really have to point of the ridiculousness of that statement? That's like saying the fact that I have never seen a ghost living in my house is actually proof that he must be there, and that he is just choosing not to reveal himself to me." I'm not trying to prove God's existence to you, I'm simply explaining my stance from the faith perspective. I already said that it's impossible to prove God's existence.
Crymsonblaze 07.22.11	Arguing religion is pointless. Like seriously. No one will EVER convince the other, so argue about things that people can actually be objective about. Religion (or lack thereof) brings out the stubbornness in everybody.
Idnuf 07.22.11	Thanks for that nugget of wisdom Crymsonblaze
wabbit 07.22.11	"Saying there is no God is a belief. It's not a lack of beliefs. " no you dumb cunt I don't have to believe there is no pink spaghetti monster under my bed, because there is no evidence or possibility there is one. The fact I am not going to check doesn't mean there might be one.
Crymsonblaze 07.22.11	You are a gentleman and a scholar, Idnuf.
Kimm 07.22.11	The barrier to these discussions isn't a lack of objectivity, it's a lack of respect.
Crymsonblaze 07.22.11	Well that too, no further evident then right here: "no you dumb cunt"...
qwe3 07.23.11	it's definitely not a lack of respect, you just make retarded arguments kimm
Gilgamahesh 12.07.11	Dude kickass list. #3's really grown off me though, there are a lot of better writers in the fantasy genre. I can rec a few if you're interested. Not that Jordan's not good at the construction, but the dialogue and character interaction... meh. Brandon Sanderson's finishing up the WoT series, you should give his other works a try. Much better at a lot of the character stuff, plus the magic systems are really freakin innovative. I recommend Mistborn. Major props for #6. Extra props for the way you dealt with the morons above. #10: I thought I was the only one who knew of these comics damn you.
qwe3 12.07.11	yeah i totally agree with you about his dialogue and characters theyre so wooden esp. that girl witch person who thinks shes hot shit my god shes just like he downloaded "annoying girl on power trip" then translated her to a page ugh.
Gilgamahesh 12.07.11	Definitely try Sanderson's works, especially Mistborn. He's a bit better about that kind of stuff. Also I rec G.R.R.M.'s Song of Ice and Fire series, it's pretty much everyone's favorite gritty fantasy series. You may hate me for that though because the dude gets 1 book out every 6 or 7 years and he won't lay off the damn cheeseburgers. Common consensus is that he'll buy the farm without finishing given the fact that he's obese. But still, excellent writing. There's a bunch of other good ones haha, I had to have something to do when I was stuck in India without transportation.
qwe3 12.07.11	yeah i thought about starting ice and fire, gave my gf the first two for her bday she loves them. cheers man. also HBO's game of thrones is a major convincing factor
Gilgamahesh 12.07.11	Never seen it actually, but I take it it's really good. A bunch of my American friends like it too, I think I'll get it on the net or something. Yeah the 5th book came out in March and there's 2 or 3 to go, but you should definitely start it. If you like fantasy at all you'll get sucked right in.
liledman 12.07.11	reading god is not great right now. and ulysses. its literary bliss.