Thread: [Books] What are you currently reading?

Ayn Rand and Christopher Paolini? Come on.

Originally Posted by Kealran

By the way, whats wrong with A God Delusion by Richard Dawkins? I liked it, not that I needed to read it since I was already athiest...

Statements like: The status of atheists in America today is on a par with that of homosexuals fifty years ago.


hahaha yeah, ok. atheists are not being villified or beaten for their beliefs, no matter if some of those who are religious find them distasteful, or even bash them. People are, on a singnifigantly smaller ratio, more tolerant of those who are atheistic than homosexual, even today. I can see why he would want to say something like this, because there is nothing that forms a bond like a mutual foe, and him implying 'you and me - they hate us, but i understand you and am here for you' is pretty obvious and also a ploy of evangelism.

also


[The purpose of religion is] ...to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'.

This is not the general definition of God in any context. There is no question of whether or not God is appropriate for worship. The general consensus is that we worship (to feel an adoring reverence or regard for) the Creator and the giver of life. The concept that he who gives life to us is granted surpemacy over us (for example, reverence to our parents because they bore us) is not alien to anybody, and I find it strange that people find it strange that we should not give thanks to any force (Deity or otherwise) that gave rise to us as we are today.

and that is just from the preface.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

There is no question of whether or not God is appropriate for worship. The general consensus is that we worship (to feel an adoring reverence or regard for) the Creator and the giver of life. The concept that he who gives life to us is granted surpemacy over us (for example, reverence to our parents because they bore us) is not alien to anybody, and I find it strange that people find it strange that we should not give thanks to any force (Deity or otherwise) that gave rise to us as we are today.

Is he only talking about monotheism or what?

Monotheism is more advanced than polytheism. I know this from playing Civilization.

If you think angels are the reason one might mistake Christianity for polytheism your grasp of either Christianity or polytheism is laughable.

Kealran, Robert Jordan is a pretty terrible author, and Martin is a good one, but he is either lazy, unmotivated or he just totally lost his grip on the best story he had, so that casts some aspersions on him as well.

If you want some good fantasy stories, let me know.

Originally Posted by Pepsi

Kealran, I'd just like to point out that the majority of Christian denominations don't raise up Angels to the level of God. They see Angels as servants of whose purpose is to worship and obey God. You named a saint to be prayed to, not an angel. Saints are not angels.Denominations such as Catholicism use the Saints as mediums between them and God, not Angels(not that I agree with either).

I go to a non-denominational(just named a Christian Church) and we denounce praying to angels and saints and whatnot.

You can't dump every denomination of Christianity into one large pot. They are all unique and have different beliefs....just like you cannot dump all religions together because they are all different...which is what a lot of atheists do.

Do some research next time, please.

tidus yuo can call your church non-denominational, but if it has a different name from every other sect, it is just another sect, preaching beliefs that are slightly diffrent.

christianity is like wine - there's a lot of different kinds, some tastes better, but all wine is still wine, no matter how or where it's made.

You guys should read American Psycho.

Originally Posted by jack burden

You guys should read American Psycho.

Oh hey.. One trick pony. I get the feeling this is the only book you've ever read in your entire life.

Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy

Oh hey.. One trick pony. I get the feeling this is the only book you've ever read in your entire life.

No, no. I'm not here to act like a pretentious douche like you in a thread about books on the internet. I just happen to recommend it to people on this site.

(Flaming and hijacking stops here )

Warhawk knowing what you do about me, would you say I'd enjoy American Psycho?

No. The satire is good but the violence and sexual explicitness of it would probably be too much for you.

I get that feeling. I mean I'd probably read it and go "That was great -- what a masterpiece -- I hated every second of it."

If you can handle the Internet you can handle American Psycho. But then again it's not something I read in public places where strangers could look over my shoulder.

Due to not finding a few of the really good books by certain authors, I picked up "All Tomorrow's Parties" by William Gibson. I'm only about 40 pages in, but it's a so far a neat, compelling look into the shitastic future we're gonna have. Drug smuggling, cyberspace, and all in all, a deep look into how technology is shaping our lives. I think it takes place at least fifty years in the future, but I haven't gotten to a point in the book where it mentions the exact date. Unless I missed it right away.

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

If you can handle the Internet you can handle American Psycho. But then again it's not something I read in public places where strangers could look over my shoulder.

I assumed he meant "too much for you to like" rather than "too much for you to handle". I don't know if there's a book out there I "can't handle".

Just finished After Dark by Haruki Murakami and it was excellent. There's not really much of a plot but that felt intentional due to it's post-modernistic prose and film-like tone. It's a book that's clearly written with the medium of film in mind but this isn't done in a shitty way (like with the Da Vinci Code where the idea was to write a piece of populist pulp fiction that could easily be turned into a money making blockbuster, this is more like an arthouse movie written as a novella). The characters are realistic and fleshed out well and the writing is elegant and beautiful.

I'm now reading Tokyo Five Zero by David Peace. I suppose you could call it post-modern historical fiction or something but it's too early to tell whether it's any good or not.

Currently reading:

Do Travel Writers Go To Hell?

Up next:

Stephen Kings's On Writing

and Physics of the Impossible

Prisoner without a Name, Cell without a Number

It's a short book, I'll update in a couple days.

I don't read too much but I used to so I am trying to get back into the groove of it.

Picked up World War Z, we'll see how that goes.

Originally Posted by Infernus

Picked up World War Z, we'll see how that goes.

IT'S AWESOME. Seriously, seriously awesome.

I just finished Vernon God Little, which was very well written.

I am also working on Freakonomics, which is interesting enough. I still have issue with that book and others in it's grouping (stuff like the Outliers), but I can't quite put my finger on what about them bothers me.

Oh I am still not working on the god delusion. I intend to read it still, but it gets on my nerves so much I can't stand more than a few pages at a time. Soon enough, I suppose, I'll man up and finish it, but seriously fuck Dawkins for being a pretentious cocksucker who is more full of himself than sycld is full of dick.

you haven't read 1984 yet what is wrong with you tidus

the game was actually a fairly interesting read

If you liked the da vinci code, angels and demons was imo much better. Brown has a tendency to get preachy in his books, more so in this than the others, which i wasn't too fond of, but it was still a stellar little ride. I liked all of brown's books, in spite of how formulaic they are

also the alchemist was fantastic for all the wrong reasons and was terrible for all the right ones

Finished reading All Tomorrow's Parties about a week ago. Just realized there was a prequel to it called Idoru. Dammit. May still read that later on, but for now I have also finished up Robert Heinlein's first unpublished novel called "For Us, The Living". It's about this guy who tragically gets killed in a car crash in 1939, but somehow instantaneously awakens in 2086. Considering the book was written in 1939, there were a lot of political overtones and other particulars that were out of this world for the time. Some, like space travel, were brought into later into the book, and in this particular timeline, hadn't really developed like they have in reality (the moon missions, etc.). Overall a very good read.

I'm now gonna focus back to William Gibson, and read his first novel, Neuromancer. Following that, I'm tackling a bevy of short stories by Heinlein again, and follow that up with Starship Troopers, to see how well the movie held up to the book.

God I love free time and train rides. I know I could probably be focusing on something better, like homework, but this is still pretty good. I have enough time to divide it as I please. However a new job may be coming up soon, so time may be of essence sooner or later.

I'm about half way through The Brothers Karamazov

I just read Ring for Jeeves, one of the very few Jeeves books to not be narrated by Bertie. It had all the Wodehouse fun but none of Bertie's offbeat vocative charm.

Right now I am reading God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, and am finding it an intensely pointless read. I don't much care for Hitchens's voice (in writing, I mean; hearing him speak is teriffic), and everything in it can be found in The God Delusion which is much more useful -- if, as coq is finding, annoying. I'm also reading Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker, which is delightful.

The Hobbit

A coworker lent me Into the Wild. She said it inspires her. I just cant seem to finish it. I just get so angry at McCandless. Nearly ever choice he made seems to be an unnecessary risk.

Also my coworker ran away from home. Lets hope it didn't inspire her too much.

Originally Posted by piranhas

A coworker lent me Into the Wild. She said it inspires her. I just cant seem to finish it. I just get so angry at McCandless. Nearly ever choice he made seems to be an unnecessary risk.

Also my coworker ran away from home. Lets hope it didn't inspire her too much.

From wikipedia:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Alaskan Park Ranger Peter Christian wrote: “I am exposed continually to what I will call the ‘McCandless Phenomenon.’ People, nearly always young men, come to Alaska to challenge themselves against an unforgiving wilderness landscape where convenience of access and possibility of rescue are practically nonexistent […] When you consider McCandless from my perspective, you quickly see that what he did wasn’t even particularly daring, just stupid, tragic, and inconsiderate. First off, he spent very little time learning how to actually live in the wild. He arrived at the Stampede Trail without even a map of the area. If he [had] had a good map he could have walked out of his predicament […] Essentially, Chris McCandless committed suicide.”

While I really enjoyed the book, I disagreed with a couple of his actions. He did live very well for the first couple months.. until he ate those blasted seeds. He did go on a very cool journey even before he set foot into Alaska.

HP Lovecraft - The Call of Cthulhu and Other Weird Stories

This is my third time through the book, he has such an amazing style of writing.