Best world history books according to redditors

We found 3,526 Reddit comments discussing the best world history books. We ranked the 1,211 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page


Jewish history books
Exploration books
History of civilization & culture books
Women in history books
Slavey & emanicaption history books
Religious history books
Maritime history & piracy books

Top Reddit comments about World History:

u/meekrobe · 209 pointsr/Showerthoughts

This book is similar. Basically, we're happier as hunter-gathers, but you could never go back unless you're OK with 90% of people dying off due to starvation.

u/RenixDC · 187 pointsr/history

I remember reading a book called Guns Germs and Steel back in the day that seemed to cover all of these developments!

u/DolphinLundgren · 92 pointsr/todayilearned

>Its the only biological difference between ethnic groups

Wrong. Evolution has produced a host of biological differences between ethnic groups after the interbreeding event. Here is a good introduction to the topic.

u/k3q3 · 85 pointsr/SubredditDrama

I too enjoyed reading Sapiens.

The book goes in-depth how much of the world is a "fiction" around us - LLCs aren't real, baseball's rules aren't real, capitalism isn't real. But if the reader's takeaway means that "fiction" == "not real and therefore meaningless", they've hugely missed the point.

u/US_Hiker · 61 pointsr/atheism

1 - Mostly correct. There aren't many details of the crucifixion, and I wouldn't expect there to be (relatively common practice then, most would know what was entailed). Not a big deal either way though.

2 - Wrong.

3 - Almost entirely wrong. Much misrepresentation of the Bible and Xtian theology.

4 - Lots of wrong.

5 - big whoop.

6 - The broad overview is correct in that the Rapture as we think of it today and the emphasis on it is a fairly modern concept. Decent bit wrong otherwise.

7 - Last paragraph is reasonable...our modern conception of Satan is definitely different than the Church Fathers/etc. Lots of wrong in here though.

8 - Largely correct. Popular ideas about these things go far beyond the sparse details in the Bible and even in earlier Christian theology.

9 - The title is debatable (you can interpret Revelation to mean almost anything you want). Most of the rest is entirely bullshit.

10 - The title is correct. The rest of the section rapidly starts to fall down. While I haven't read Ehrman (don't have any of his books, and none @ local libraries), I think his quotes are being made too much of. Yes, there is a huge amount of variance between manuscripts. There is still in the eyes of interpreters and theologians a relatively good consensus as to what the NT is. Sure, we don't have the earliest manuscripts, and there are many problems, but the situation is nowhere near as dire as the blogger states.

Edit to add to 10: Here is a link to Ehrman's book. From the synopsis and reviews, it would appear his quotes are being used in support of a conclusion he would disagree with.

u/jondavidbrooks · 54 pointsr/AgainstHateSubreddits

It should be mandatory that everyone either read or watch the documentary Guns Germs and Steel. Because on the face of it it wouldnt be a unfair question to ask why did Europeans become the most advanced and dominated other cultures. Guns Germs and Steel lays out a rock solid case on and to sum up the answer comes down to Geography and timing not because of superiority of any race. But the answer is even more complicated then that... andv to sit there and argue with these knuckleheads with this long complicated arguments is pointless. It would be better if kids learn young about why these discrepancies exist so we can shut down those questions early on.

u/AuroraAustralis · 42 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

There's a great book on exactly this evolution into religion called Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the prison of belief
The first chapters describe Hubbard's self invention, depression, his propensity for tall tales about his life and invention of Dianetics as a way to cure what he saw as his personal problems (impotence, bad eyesight, writers block) without the use of psychology, which he hated and believed held a conspiracy against him. It also follows the rise of Dianetics and the shaping of the church. A lot of those upper levels after Hubbard's death came from power struggles within the church between the circle closest to Hubbard, especially between David Miscavige and Pat Broeker. Many of the "OT" (operating thetan) levels were created AFTER his death to keep control of the church, and convince his followers that Hubbard had not died but merely 'dropped his body' to explore even higher OT levels. Scientology not only brings people into the religion emotionally, but physically and monetarily, up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases, and is aimed at moving people forever upward into these invented higher echelons, no matter how hard Xenu, etc. are to believe

u/LindsayHansenPark · 40 pointsr/exmormon

Great question. Again, I struggle with being concise but I will try.

Belief is hard. I'm still trying to understand it myself. The short answer is, at the end of the day- I still feel like a believer. Like, I wake up many mornings and feel like nothing has changed for me. I think this suggests that Mormonism is far more than just a belief system. I still feel Mormon. It's still a very natural instinct to pray when I'm stressed.

Logically, I don't believe in God, but I still feel like I do and so I still pray. I think this is the actual definition of Mormon faith- a hope for things. I hope that someone or something hears my prayers, but I know it is very unlikely. But it's a habit and practice I value.

I don't believe in the literal truth claims of most things, only because I have a very different understanding of how to view it thanks to my professional historian friends who have taught me how to think of things from a sort of dispassionate, scientific way.

That shows me, and experience has shown me that things don't have to be literal to have meaning. Have y'all read Sapiens? I love the way Harari talks about constructs and myths. Everything is a myth- everything- equality, human rights, religion, all of it. I sort of take that approach.

So what do I believe? It's hard to pin down. I have a testimony in the messiness of it all. I bear my testimony that humans are super illogical and messy and broken, acting out of hurt and scarcity sometimes, and other times acting out of generosity and kindness. I see this acted out through Mormonism daily. It certainly isn't specific to Mormonism, but I've learned it all through a Mormon lens and I really value that.

So I believe in the Mormon movement. In Mormon people to do good and bad things in a very Mormon way. I love the Mormon communities we have and actually feel spiritually fed in seeing the complexity of it all. To me, divinity is found in collective human experience and I see that in Mormonism.

I know that doesn't make a lot of sense and isn't sufficient. We want temple recommend answers to this sort of thing. Everything else feels like deflection. But the reality is, it's not deflection- I just am not sure how to articulate that my mind and body are very complicated in Mormonism. So the easiest thing to say is that I still feel Mormon and I still feel like a believer. My brain is just more naturally oriented towards belief than skepticism. That's caused me plenty of problems along the way.

I certainly also have a lot of harmful scripts I'm still unpacking but I'm committed in a very Mormon-dilligence sort of way to deconstructing that so i reserve the right to constantly change my mind.

Belief really is complicated and complex. But I certainly no longer believe in a literal, traditional way we usually define belief. But I think that sort of belief requires a very underdeveloped way of looking at the world and most believers I know these days don't subscribe to a sort of blind-faith, immature, take-your-word-for-it belief. There are certainly many that do, but there are also very smart and thoughtful people who let belief be complicated.

u/oppleTANK · 40 pointsr/todayilearned

Horses, steel weapons, steel armor against obsidian clubs, Inca weakened by disease,

ohhh and gun powder.

Guns, Germs and Steel

u/two_wheeled · 36 pointsr/samharris

Democratic reform needs to continue to be the corner stone of politicians we put in power moving forward. Sam's conversation with Timothy Snyder and Snyder's book On Tyranny have been really impact for me in how I approach the political world. The 20 rules he lays out, if more of us followed would create a strong resistance towards bad actors trying to take advantage of our political process. Things like defending institutions, pay for investigative journalism, speaking out and donating and participating to causes that matter to you.

u/organichewn · 34 pointsr/Drugs

You should read Sapiens, the author explains how the agricultural revolution was a horrible thing for mankind.

tl;dr : We stopped eating diverse foods, which were then more prone to parasites, began to live together and spread diseases among us, stopped running like our bodies are supposed to and began working with our backs curved, which gave us hernias and stuff, etc.

The book isn't just about the agricultural revolution, it's about the history of our species from the first homo sapiens to right now. Amazing book, very trippy.

u/ciarao55 · 33 pointsr/worldnews

I think part of the problem is really that people are looking at only granular parts of problems today and don't have enough historical context. Its useless to follow every story about everyone and every little thing. There are lots of ups and downs in politics and there's no reason to be so reactionary to every single new and probably manufactured "scandal".... that's what's exhausting. I like to keep updated on a few big issues, I follow the careers of a few people I find inspiring (and follow a few that do things that worry me), and spend the rest of the time reading up on topics in book form... they have the advantage of being written over time, and with more vigorous standards for accuracy. The news, while still important where immediate info is necessary, is essentially click bait now. You don't need to get caught in the rip tides that pull you everywhere constantly, just understand the general trajectory of the important things.

edit: to those curious about some book recommendations: I'm by no means an expert in anything really, and the books you read should really be about the topics you personally are interested in, so don't take my word as gospel (or any author's). I like American history, ancient history, international relations, and though I think they're more boring I force myself to read about the health care system and the American education system because I feel they're important. I'm also looking to read some books on the military industrial complex and cyber security/ big data because I don't really know anything about them other than the stuff I see in passing on the news or here on Reddit. So if anyone knows a good overview of those issues, feel free to let me know.

  • For a good start on human history and the beginnings of modern economics/ intl relations (basically why the West has historically dominated), try Guns, Germs, and Steel I believe there's also a documentary if the book is too dense for your taste (it is pretty dense).

  • Perhaps if you're interested in why people get so damn heated talking politics, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation

  • If you wonder why people vote against their own social and economic interest: What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America Full disclosure: I liked this book, but I lean left. I'm not sure if it matters, the point of the book is just to track how the Republican party went from being the party of elites, to the party of blue collar workers.

  • If the Supreme Court interests you at all, I liked Jeffrey Toobin's, The Nine

  • The achievement gap? Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria

  • Health care? There's a lot, but this one is an easy read and it compares the systems of Britain, Japan, Germany, and I believe Cuba (which is very good for their GDP!) and the US's. The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care by T.R. Reid

    This is just some stuff I've listed off the top of my head. Another thing that I find helpful to better understanding intl relations are books about the major genocides of the past few decades, which are hard to get through (because of the brutal content) but... What is the What (Sudan), First they killed my father (Cambodian genocide), Girl at War (more of a autobiography, but still chilling) there's a couple of others I've read that I can't remember now.

    Anyway, just go to Good Reads and look at Contemporary Politics. Perhaps Great Courses has a political philosophy course too that you can draw from if you wanna go even farther back into the origins of society's structure and political thought.

    Also podcasts! I've just discovered these but there's a lot of audio content (FREE!) that you can listen to on your commute and whatnot. I like Abe Lincoln's Top Hat right now.

    Edit edit: wow thanks for the gold!!
u/killall-q · 33 pointsr/Guildwars2

Queen Jennah and Exemplar Salia are brown. Besides select few NPCs though, it seems Ascalonians have completely pushed out both the Krytan gene pool and architecture. If real world history is any parallel, it's possible that native Krytans were wiped out by diseases they had no immunity to brought by the Ascalonian immigrants, though that doesn't make sense seeing that the two peoples were not isolated from each other before the exodus. More likely that Ascalonian food production technology outcompeted Krytans' such that Ascalonians multiplied so fast that Krytans were left with no resources and a diminishing population. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel.

u/WarwithintheWalls · 31 pointsr/writing

I like thinking about culture. We tell the story of people, real and imaginary, and we should know where they come from.
I believe culture is driven by the head, the heart, and the belly. So if an idea comes into my head for a culture I ask five questions:

  • What do they eat?
  • What do they believe in?
  • Where do they come from?
  • Where are they going?
  • What do they consider family?
  • How do they court, marry, fu...nction in a relationship?

    You'd be amazed how much you can inform yourself there.

    That gives me a nice start. Then I start to ask other questions on themes. Ask the 5W1H (Who What When Where Why How) questions about 6 random subjects based on what you now know

    For instance, Death:

  • Who handles the body?
  • What is done with the body?
  • When is this done?
  • Where do they put a body?
  • Why do they do these things?

    It's a never fails way of going about things. Now come up with the life of five people living in a society based on this information. Use Proust's questionnaire and Gotham's questionnaire to frame them.

    Do all of this with first thoughts. Look it over. Think about it. Look at common travel questions like "What's the best place to eat?" or "what should I not do to piss off the locals"?

    You can get the true feel for a society in hours. Then put your characters who are in that culture through those same questionnaires, same random questions. You'll know them from head to heart to belly, and you're golden.

    EDIT: I just saw some other information. DO NOT READ GENRE FICTION FOR WORLD IDEAS. Read history, philosophy, anthropology. Pick up a history of food ,Guns, Germs, and Steel, other books that give you overviews on specific topics in history and anthropology.

    Tolkien wasn't reading Kingkiller Chronicle, he was learning about hillbillies, ancient languages, and living in WW1 England. Pratchett was a polymoth. Heinlein dug in on so many topics it's unbelievable. Inform with ideas, write from your head and not someone else's.
u/Mharbles · 30 pointsr/videos

Cliff Notes video version of Sapiens (good book)

u/Matt2142 · 30 pointsr/soccer

Inverting the Pyramid - Jonathan Wilson
A pioneering book that chronicles the evolution of soccer tactics and the lives of the itinerant coaching geniuses who have spread their distinctive styles across the globe.

Teambuilding: the road to success - Rinus Michels
The late Rinus Michels, FIFA's Coach of the Century, offers his unique insight into the process of "teambuilding".

The Coaching Philosophies of Louis Van Gaal and the Ajax Coaches - Henny Kormelink and Tjeu Seeverens
Louis van Gaal, Frans Hoek, Co Adriaanse and fitness coach Bobby Haarms discuss their training methods and philosophies in this book full of creative ideas for soccer coaches at any level.

Dutch Soccer Secrets - Peter Hyballa & Hans-Dieter te Poel
This book is a first attempt to present expert knowledge of internationally proven useful and effective Dutch soccer coaching in theory and practice, based on qualitative data collection.

Attacking Soccer: a tactical analysis - Massimo Lucchesi
This book examines match strategies for creating goal scoring opportunities out of various systems of play.

Outliers: The Story of Success - Malcolm Gladwell
Gladwell takes us on an intellectual journey through the world of "outliers"--the best and the brightest, the most famous and the most successful. He asks the question: what makes high-achievers different?

The Numbers Game: Why Everything You Know About Soccer Is Wrong - Chris Anderson, David Sally
Innovation is coming to soccer, and at the centre of it all are the numbers—a way of thinking about the game that ignores the obvious in favour of how things actually are.

Football Against the Enemy - Simon Kuper
Kuper travelled to 22 countries from South Africa to Italy, from Russia to the USA, to examine the way football has shaped them.

u/zdaytonaroadster · 29 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Historian here, ACTUAL truth, because of the warm all year climate and abundance of food with small tribal populations divided by geography (for the majority of the time) there was no development to the advanced civilization the rest of the world did, and the ones that did, didnt last long (great Zimbabwe, Nubia, ect). The middle east had vast deserts, Europe and to a lesser extent Asia had winters, so food cultivation and thus tool making never really materialized in vast amounts of sub-Sahara Africa because they didnt have to overcome their environment as far as climate goes. (i am assuming thats what you are talking about as north africa is a different story, they arent poor).

Africa actually has vast amounts of resources, rare earths for example, but their governments corruption keeps any of the wealth out of anyone's hands but the government and military war lords.

The idea that things were just fucking dandy until colonial powers came to the shores is laughable and only a fool with no education would believe such non-sense. The few iron age civilizations that did developed were gone long before the Europeans arrived. And it was the Arabs who arrived first and began slavery and "exploitation" of Africa, not Europe. And for every augment for colonialism raping Africa, there is another Rhodesia to Zimbabwe story to counter it.

tl;dr-Its not always Whitey's fault, despite it always being blamed on him

^gives you a basic idea in layman's terms

u/kevomatic · 27 pointsr/todayilearned

His book is amazing and terrifying.

u/Lover_Of_The_Light · 27 pointsr/politics

The book On Tyranny goes into this. Every day becomes a new normal. What we tolerate today is drastically different from what we would have tolerated 6 months ago.

Edit: if you haven't read this book, you should. It's only 6 bucks on Amazon, and you can finish it in a few hours. It is incredibly insightful.

u/caffarelli · 26 pointsr/AskHistorians

How to Judge a Book Without Even Reading It

Do you think librarians read all those books they buy?? Heck no. Yes, collection development librarians rely heavily on library review journals, but you can pretty successfully judge a book before you even read the intro. And how!

1. Try a Little Intellectual Snobbery

Basically with this you need to try to smell out the people who are saying “I’m not a historian but…” when they start their books. Who wrote this thing and why? Is this a historian going for tenure, is this maybe a historian trying to write more popular history, is this a historian at the end of their life putting out a magnum opus, is this a journalist? Who published it, academic press or regular press? Does this person have Something to Prove with this history book?

Now, I’m a little leery of recommending this method first, because I’ve seen some pretty shitty books published by big academic houses from heavily degreed people, and I’ve seen some very nice historical work put out by tiny publishers you’ve never heard of or self-published, and written by people who just decided to write a book because they cared deeply about the history of something that few others cared about. Good work absolutely stands on its own merits, and independent scholars are important animals in the academic ecosystem. But there is a correlation here, and not necessarily a causation, between academics working with academic publishing houses and the production of rigorous history, and you can lean on it a little.

2. Give it the Vulcan Citations Pinch

Flip to the back of the book. Where does the actual book stop and the endmatter start? Basically the more endmatter the better. You want maybe a good solid half centimeter of paper between your fingers, preferably more. If you start seeing appendices in addition to citations and index that’s very good.

3. Scope-to-Cred Ratio

This one’s hard to quantify but basically, the more modest the book’s scope the more modest of arguments and credentials the author needs to pull it off. So a book about say the importance of paperback books for soldiers in WWII, this is a pretty modest scope, and it’s not making any very bold claims, there’s no real reason to be suspicious about the arguments made in this book, although it’s absolutely a popular history work. A book trying to explain the history of everything, get suspicious.

4. Read the Intro

Okay after the first three bits you’ve decided this book has merited your attention enough to open the thing. The intro to a book should give you the outline of the major argument and you can decide whether the argument passes a basic smell test of not being total bullshit. If you find the argument compelling and you want to see how they are going to argue it in the knitty gritty, it’s time to commit to checking out/buying the book and seeing what’s up. (Intros are usually available for new books on Google Books or Amazon previews.)

4b. Read the Acknowledgments

You can tell a lot about a person from their acknowledgments section. I’ve seen books where the author specifically thanked the ILL staff of their local library. They should ideally be thanking an archives or two if it’s a modern history book, because that means they’ve done Real Research.

5. Have a Good Idea of How One Does History

This one takes a little time investment, but having a basic idea of what makes a good historical argument and what makes a bad one will serve you well for judging any history book, from any topic. Maybe just spend some time on the logical fallacies section of Wikipedia. Just knowing to run away when you hear someone start yammering about glorious progress or indulging in extended hero-worship will serve you remarkably well in the history section at Barnes and Noble.

6. Nothing Wrong with Reading a Bad Book

Okay, so you did all this pre-judgement and you still managed to read a real turd. Ah well. You always can learn a lot from something done poorly. They’re a certain grim joy in hating a bad book, especially if you get to feel smarter than an author, so just treat yourself to a really firm critical dismissal of the work. Maybe leave a real stinker of a review here on a Saturday or /r/badhistory.

u/elnatre · 25 pointsr/soccer

Some years ago I was in France with Uni, we played a game against italians erasmus, and we're talking about a game of 5 vs 5 on a grain field. These fuckers played very deep on the field with lightning fast counterattacks. We lost 2-3.

u/Wonka_Raskolnikov · 23 pointsr/worldnews

Look no further:

The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering by Finkelstein.

And before you downvote me and call Finkelstein a self-hating Jew, read some of his work.

u/iCanon · 22 pointsr/atheism

Don't suggest a book you haven't read. If you pick your books you should read them first then give them to your mom. I recommend two books in this order. First, Second.

u/[deleted] · 21 pointsr/atheism

>I think it's pretty naive to just blithely assert

Well, sure, I was pretty casual (blithe) about it, but what's that got to do with naivety? You seem to be basing that on an appeal to popularity fallacy - which still doesn't make sense. That might make it arrogant or conceited, but not naive.

Splitting hairs aside, this acedemia you speak of; I feel you need to be more specific. A medical doctor is a scientist, but you wouldn't count the good Dr.'s opinion on climatology. What's the opinion among non-religious archeologists and historians? They would have to be non-religious otherwise they would be too likely to approach their analysis of the data from the pre-determined position that Jesus existed as the bible describes.

>It would be really fucking hard to build a religious cult around a non-existent person, not impossible just really fucking hard

Not that hard. It's been done, a lot (Scientology's Zenu comes to mind). Plus, even when it is based on a real person who actually existed, the character this person is described as never actually exists. It's just a regular guy.

>Do you have a good argument for his non-existence?

Getting into burden of proof territory here. I don't think I have to prove he didn't exist. Default position is non existence until it has been proven. I think there's not enough evidence to prove it and plenty of evidence to further doubt it. There is a lot of interesting historical and archelogical work that has been done on the Roman empire. You're never going to get an incontravertible yes he existed or no he didn't. It involves putting a lot of clues together. It's virtually certain the entire birth story was not only made up but plagiarised from other religions. Many of the facets of that story have been proven false. Then there's a huge gap and he suddenly turns up on the scene aged 30, performing miracles that have, once again, been plagiarised from other religions.

I'd suggest reading the following and deciding for yourself:
Book - Misquoting Jesus
Book - Caesars-Messiah
Wiki - Christ_myth_theory

There are literally dozens of books written on this. You could also try this website:

u/FSMFan_2pt0 · 21 pointsr/politics

I've been reading the book Sapiens, by Yuval Harari. It explains a lot about human behavior on a grand scale. Tribalism is part of our genetic makeup.

u/tianepteen · 21 pointsr/politics
u/WastedP0tential · 20 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

You wanted to be part of the intelligentsia, but throughout your philosophical journey, you always based your convictions only on authority and tradition instead of on evidence and arguments. Don't you realize that this is the epitome of anti – intellectualism?

It is correct that the New Atheists aren't the pinnacle of atheistic thought and didn't contribute many new ideas to the academic debate of atheism vs. theism or religion. But this was never their goal, and it is also unnecessary, since the academic debate is already over for many decades. If you want to know why the arguments for theism are all complete nonsense and not taken seriously anymore, why Christianity is wrong just about everything and why apologists like Craig are dishonest charlatans who make a living out of fooling people, your reading list shouldn't be New Atheists, but rather something like this:

Colin Howson – Objecting to God

George H. Smith – Atheism: The Case Against God

Graham Oppy – Arguing about Gods

Graham Oppy – The Best Argument Against God

Herman Philipse – God in the Age of Science

J. L. Mackie – The Miracle of Theism

J. L. Schellenberg – The Wisdom to Doubt

Jordan Sobel – Logic and Theism

Nicholas Everitt – The Non-Existence of God

Richard Gale – On the Nature and Existence of God

Robin Le Poidevin – Arguing for Atheism

Stewart Elliott Guthrie – Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion

Theodore Drange – Nonbelief & Evil

[Avigor Shinan – From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends] (

Bart Ehrman – The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings

Bart Ehrman – Jesus, Interrupted

Bart Ehrman – Misquoting Jesus

Burton L. Mack – Who Wrote the New Testament?

Helmut Koester – Ancient Christian Gospels

John Barton, John Muddiman – The Oxford Bible Commentary

John Dominic Crossan – Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography

Karen Armstrong – A History of God

Mark Smith – The Early History of God

Randel McCraw Helms – Who Wrote the Gospels?

Richard Elliott Friedman – Who Wrote the Bible?

Robert Bellah – Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age

Robert Walter Funk – The Gospel of Jesus

u/succhialce · 20 pointsr/TrueAtheism

I don't find that funny, I find it hugely disturbing. Learn about how your Bible was created and then see what that does for you.

Also please don't just downvote this guy because he's a religious person, that is counter-intuitive to the discourse here.

u/hnat · 20 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

If you would like a very detailed explanation of this, might I recommend the book Guns, Germs, and Steel, but what it boils down to is similar to what person132 said in another comment.

High population density, and larger populations as a whole, combined with city living and poorer diets, means that more Europeans got sick in general. To infect the surviving Europeans, diseases needed to adapt to be stronger, and more resistant to their immune systems. When these diseases came with them to the colonies, they were no match for the Native American's less/differently developed immune systems.

u/mikelj · 17 pointsr/books

Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. Great thesis on why different human societies have developed so differently.

u/0b_101010 · 16 pointsr/mealtimevideos

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. It's excellent.

u/NukeThePope · 16 pointsr/atheism

I second the suggestion of Letter to a Christian Nation. While I loved TGD, I think it's better received by people who already like science, and who enjoy having a professor talk at them through a book. LtaCN is shorter and more to the point, so it may be a better choice as a first and maybe only atheist book.

After being reminded by Murrabit, I also recommend Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World. It's gentler, not as aggressive as LtaCN and doesn't have the "eww, Dawkins!" stigma. To Americans, Sagan is more lovable than Dawkins.

u/APairofDocks · 16 pointsr/todayilearned

The discourse around Hitler, the Nazis, etc. is a product of American war propaganda; prior to 1967, it was the opposite, with few people in the United States, or, honestly, anywhere on our side of the Iron Curtain, addressing it properly. Raul Hilberg was one of the few. Indeed, many of the people who did speak out about their suffering during the Holocaust were labelled Communist sympathizers, as though the only motive behind their outrage over the incineration of millions of people could be opposition to the U.S. alliance with West Germany (which included many Nazis).

After 1967 it suddenly became a useful propaganda tool to justify America's one-sided support for the strongest military power in the Middle East. Because the Holocaust suddenly became the defining line between "us" and "them," these sorts of psychobabble witch-hunts for anyone remotely related to Hitler take place.

It is truly disgusting what Holocaust survivors have been dragged through. First their entire families were eliminated. Then they were forced to brood in private as others told them that if they mourned in public, they were somehow working for the Soviet Union. Then their suffering became cheap pabulum for Steven Spielberg movies and Israeli propaganda. Then their reparations were stolen.

I -- and Raul Hilberg, the founder of modern Holocaust studies -- both recommend this book, by the son of two Holocaust survivors to anyone interested in analyzing how truly ridiculous the way westerners discuss the Nazi genocide is. And NO, that does not mean that one should deny it, it means we should treat it with respect.

u/plokijuhujiko · 15 pointsr/history

Well, it was the deciding factor in the birth of human civilization. Without the shift to agriculture from hunter/gatherer societies, we could never have achieved the necessary population to create virtually every human innovation that has ever happened. It is true that agriculture led to most of humanity's woes as well: war, plagues...Glenn Beck, etc... But without that shift we would still have an average lifespan of 30-40 years, and our population would be in the thousands instead of the billions. There are pretty valid arguments for why that's not such a great thing, but it's really a moot point. We're here, we did what we did, so that's that.

On a side note, anyone who hasn't read this book is missing out.

u/brinstar117 · 15 pointsr/todayilearned

I'd imagine it's more of a generality than anything else. I'd wager that it is partly based on the fact that certain latitudes were more conducive for successful colonization by European powers. Those latitudes closely approximated the seasonal conditions in which their draft animals and crops thrived. This lead to a larger and more stable base in which to built wealth upon.

I recommend reading Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond as he details reasons why environmental factors are major contributors to why certain societies (ultimately countries) are wealthier than others.

u/maplemario · 15 pointsr/soccer

Traditionally the biggest symbols are,

9 - Striker

10 - Best playmaker

7 generally symbolizes a star winger or playmaker, 11 is the same way. Most of these trends come from the compression of the 2-3-5 into the formations we have today. If you haven't read Inverting the Pyramid I highly recommend it. It mentions this topic in passing.

u/baghdad_ass_up · 15 pointsr/The_Mueller

Well, during WW2, Zionist 'terrorists'/'freedom fighters' in Palestine fighting against British occupation teamed up with literally Hitler. Like, not 'LitTeRALly hItLEr', but literally literally Hitler.

The enemy of my enemy...


u/hassani1387 · 15 pointsr/politics

Israel EXPLOITS the Holocaust and uses it to justify its own aggression against the Palestinians. Normal Finklestein (whose parents were concentration camp survivors) has written about the Holocaust Industry

He also pointed out that a pro-Israeli book (by Joan Peters, entitled "From Time Immemorial", which argued that Palestinians were simply all recent arrivals and therefore could be justifiably ethnically cleansed by Israel, was actually a fraud.)

As a result of challenging the established pro-Israeli line, Finklestein was blackballed and his academic career at DePaul University was ended

u/AJs_Sandshrew · 14 pointsr/biology

For those who don't want to watch the video:

Big Ideas in Brief by Ian Crofton

Sapiens: a Brief History of Human Kind by Yuval Noah Harari

Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind by Sandra Blakeslee and Vilayanur S. Ramachandran

Do No Harm: Stories of Life, Death, and Brain Surgery by Henry Marsh

How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer

Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers by Robert Sapolsky

The Brain: A Beginner's Guide by Ammar Al-Chalabi, R. Shane Delamont, and Martin R. Turner

Ill go ahead and put in a plug for the book I'm reading right now: The Gene: An Intimate History by Siddhartha Mukherjee

u/aPinkFloyd · 14 pointsr/exmormon

Lots of love for you, here are some thoughts of mine...

  • it is a mistake to believe that you should be asking the question "What is the purpose of my life?" it's not a question you ask, IT IS A QUESTION YOU ANSWER! and you answer it by living your life as ONLY you can, having the adventure that is your life experience, discovering the magical miracle that is ONLY YOU in all of this vast universe!

  • After losing Mormonism and the understanding of the universe that goes with it, I find myself an atheist, which has made this little journey of life INFINITELY more precious to me. It's all and everything we have! (as far as we know).

  • I have pulled in many helpful, empowering, peaceful ideas from Buddhism, Philosophy, Science that has helped me start to form a new, optimistic, and amazingly open minded new world-view. I no longer have to believe anything that doesn't make sense, I get to believe only sweet things now, and that is SO nice.

    Here are some resources that I have been really grateful for on my journey, which I am 12 months into...

    The Obstacle is the Way

    The Daily Stoic this is my new "daily bible" I read a page every morning

    Secular Buddhism podcast

    Waking Up podcast

    End of Faith

    The Demon Haunted World

    Philosophize This! podcast OR Partially Examined Life podcast

    I wish you the very best in your journey, be patient with yourself, you have EVERY reason to be! Start filling your mind with powerful positive ideas, keep the ones that help you find your way, set aside the ones that don't.

    And remember, you are young and free and the possibilities of what your life can become are boundless!
u/worlds_of_smoke · 13 pointsr/occult

I don't think so.

I took an online class based on this book and it has a good theory in it. It's been a few years but, IIRC, Harari says that the followers of monotheistic religions are almost required to suppress or eliminate other religions and their deities. If your god is the only true god, all other gods must be false gods or your entire religion is false. Nobody likes their religion being called a false religion, especially when they're deeply emotionally invested in the religion.

Basically, IMO, calling pagan gods "demons" is the result of a smear campaign against those gods and religions tied to them by monotheistic religions. Polytheistic/pagan religions are much older than monotheistic religions, but one of the results of this drive to prove that YHWH is the one "true god" is that some of the other deities became "demons". And the Bible, of course, has to reflect this bias.

Yes, you have some people who believe in monotheistic religions and are more secular. But this smear campaign was run by the church and people who were/are deeply religious and fundamentalist.

u/GodfreyForCongress · 13 pointsr/WayOfTheBern

Absolutely. And furthermore, let me say this: if they push me to the point where I feel the need to filibuster, I will take the opportunity to educate them. How? By reading books on the floor of the House like Guns, Germs, and Steel (so they understand better where we came from), The Black Hole War, Bully for Brontosaurus (so they understand a little bit about science), and Subliminal, so they know how the NRA and Fox News is killing their minds.

u/TheAethereal · 13 pointsr/Objectivism

Depends how serious of a study you want to make, and if there is any particular area you want to focus on. If you want it from start to finish, read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff.

Rand herself never laid everything out in one work. It is kind of all over the place. The Virtue of Selfishness is more on morality, and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is more on economics.

The Ayn Rand Lexicon has excerpts by topic, and I think is available for free online somewhere.

u/OtherWisdom · 12 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

> There are other reasons for suspecting that Jesus’s prayer of forgiveness is original to Luke 23. Throughout both Luke and Acts, for example, it is emphasized that even though Jesus was innocent (as were his followers), those who acted against him did so in ignorance. As Peter says in Acts 3: “I know that you acted in ignorance” (v. 17); or as Paul says in Acts 17: “God has overlooked the times of ignorance” (v. 27). And that is precisely the note struck in Jesus’s prayer: “for they don’t know what they are doing.”

> It appears, then, that Luke 23:34 was part of Luke’s original text. Why, though, would a scribe (or a number of scribes) have wanted to delete it? Here is where understanding something about the historical context within which scribes were working becomes crucial. Readers today may wonder for whom Jesus is praying. Is it for the Romans who are executing him in ignorance? Or is it for the Jews who are responsible for turning him over to the Romans in the first place? However we might answer that question in trying to interpret the passage today, it is clear how it was interpreted in the early church. In almost every instance in which the prayer is discussed in the writings of the church fathers, it is clear that they interpreted the prayer as being uttered not on behalf of the Romans but on behalf of the Jews. Jesus was asking God to forgive the Jewish people (or the Jewish leaders) who were responsible for his death.

> Now it becomes clear why some scribes would have wanted to omit the verse. Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of the Jews? How could that be? For early Christians there were, in fact, two problems with the verse, taken in this way. First, they reasoned, why would Jesus pray for forgiveness for this recalcitrant people who had willfully rejected God himself? That was scarcely conceivable to many Christians. Even more telling, by the second century many Christians were convinced that God had not forgiven the Jews because, as mentioned earlier, they believed that he had allowed Jerusalem to be destroyed as a punishment for the Jews in killing Jesus. As the church father Origen said: “It was right that the city in which Jesus underwent such sufferings should be completely destroyed, and that the Jewish nation be overthrown” (Against Celsus 4, 22).

> The Jews knew full well what they were doing, and God obviously had not forgiven them. From this point of view, it made little sense for Jesus to ask for forgiveness for them, when no forgiveness was forthcoming. What were scribes to do with this text, then, in which Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing”? They dealt with the problem simply by excising the text, so that Jesus no longer asked that they be forgiven.

u/ChuckieOrLaw · 12 pointsr/instantbarbarians

No worries! Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind is a really good book if you're into this kind of thing.

u/Karl__ · 12 pointsr/todayilearned

Scientology is actually only afloat today because they started a massive litigation campaign against the IRS that lasted over 25 years, eventually they negotiated with the IRS for a tax exemption, in exchange for dropping their lawsuits, that prevented them from having to declare bankruptcy in 1993. Scientology's most powerful weapon is arguably their abuse of the U.S. court system. I've skimmed the comments on this thread and a lot of people are talking out of their ass, anyone who wants to know more about Scientology--and trust me, you do, because the more you read about it the crazier it gets--should read this book:

u/johnix · 12 pointsr/funny

This subject has been Jared Diamond's life's work. Guns, Germs, and Steel explains it all much more thoroughly.

u/recnvv · 11 pointsr/IAmA

> that is, the fact that the Bible has remained unchanged throughout the years

"Fact" - not at all. This isn't true. See Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

There have been errors introduced into the Bible by scribes copying it incorrectly.

Furthermore the Dead Sea Scrolls aren't much better:

>The scrolls are also important because they have enabled scholars to gather an immense amount of information about how the Bible was written and how it was transmitted from generation to generation. In many cases the scrolls show a remarkable similarity to the text of the Hebrew Bible currently in use. In some cases differences between the scrolls and the traditional Hebrew text help explain difficulties in the present Hebrew Bible, and most modern translations of the Bible (such as the NIV) incorporate some of the new information from the scrolls.

The Nag Hammadi find also casts some doubts on the idea of a unified Christian message and theology in the early years after Jesus was crucified. There is a lot scholoraly historical work on the differences betweeen various forms of Christianity from the 1st and 2nd century.

So there were a lot more Gospels, they just didn't make it into the Bible. The Christian Bible you see today was basically established by the early Roman Church. This particular form of Christianity was state sanctioned and thus other forms were driven out, if not outright persecuted.

u/the_sleep_of_reason · 11 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

Why should I believe a random Quora answer instead of a Yale Professor, or an actual textual critic?

u/YoungModern · 11 pointsr/exmormon

Reza Aslan is a fraud posing as a scholar and cannot be trusted. Anyone wanting to read authentic scholarship should read Bart Ehrman.

u/EhrmantrautWetWork · 11 pointsr/conspiracy

trust. Humans are unique animals in this way.

Read Sapiens by Yuval-Noah-Harari

Blows up and articulates how strange human culture is, and how weird that we just accept "the way things are"

u/sylvan · 11 pointsr/atheism

Sam Harris is good at being the "gentle" voice of New Atheism. Someone mentioned the End of Faith, check out Letter to a Christian Nation as well.

You might find it worthwhile to read the book your parents gave you, then sit down with them for maybe half an hour a week or so, and critique a chapter, pointing out flaws or logical errors.

After that, you can go through the book you gave them together.

u/NewUploader1 · 11 pointsr/MMA

If you're a Sam Harris fan, there are a few of his debates on the DebateGod podcast on iTunes. You don't have to be an atheist to like those podcasts either. Good points from both sides. Also, here is a great article he wrote about BJJ from his site. Lastly, feel free to read The End Of Faith. It is a HUGE eye opener.

Sorry to just get all teen girl on you guys... I just get excited when multiple interests of mine join together like Voltron.

u/quantumtraveller · 11 pointsr/worldnews

You know what won't give them the ability to believe whatever they want? If they release the actual fucking statistics instead of hiding it and spouting crap like "every human is the same, race doesn't exist" when modern biology and evolution has proven that is not the case. I recommend you read The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution. If the west refuses to acknowledge biology and evolution in its policy development, it will be in real trouble in the future.

In New Zealand, Europeans make up 74% of the population, but only 33% of the prison population. Where as 15% of the population is Maori, but they make up 51% of the prison population.

And you naive Europeans think that this won't happen to you as you haven't really had much experience of multi ethnic societies.

u/xNovaz · 11 pointsr/conspiracy

During the age of disease reduced deaths (mortality rate) was the most important indicator of health.

A primary notion of progress.

History has been rewritten. Most of the credit is unwarrantedly given to vaccines for the reduction of infectious disease. Not taking into account improved hygiene, nutrition, water, electricity, etc.

Right now this either sounds like a reasonable theory or an outrageous assertion. The book dissolving illusions documents the overall history and background of this claim. Makes a compelling argument.

> The overall improvement in the health of Americans over the 20th century is best exemplified by dramatic changes in 2 trends: 1) the age-adjusted death rate declined by about 74%, while 2) life expectancy increased 56%. Leading causes of death shifted from infectious to chronic diseases.

> At the beginning of the 20th century, the leading causes of child mortality in the 1- to 19-year-old age group were infectious diseases, including diarrheal diseases, diphtheria, measles, pneumonia and influenza, scarlet fever, tuberculosis, typhoid and paratyphoid fevers, and whooping cough. Between 1900 and 1998, the death rate from the major infectious diseases declined 99.7%, from 466 to 0.7 deaths per 100 000 (Fig 9). The percentage of child deaths attributable to infectious diseases declined from 61.6% to 2%. This decline incorporates the emergence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/AIDS which in 1998 accounted for 0.3% of child deaths. Once again, nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available.

> “Thus vaccination does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century.”

> During the first 8 decades of the 20th century, the infectious disease mortality rate in the United States declined substantially, consistent with the concept of epidemiological transition. Improvements in living conditions, sanitation, and medical care probably accounted for this trend.


> most people in power would rather do good

If the people in power would rather do good.

Why did pharma force congress to let them off scott free. Granting them total liability free from vaccine injury and deaths? They are not held accountable in the court of law.

This undermines the safety of a product. Civil liability products the consumer. It products us from wealthy corporations. Who sometimes sell us hazardous products that slide through federal regulation standards.

We could talk about Big Pharma. How it’s a destructive force.

But we would be here all day.

Vioxx stories -

u/AreUCryptofascist · 10 pointsr/atheism

How do you know it recorded a ministry of any person, period?

Do you have proof of this alleged characters death, burial, and resurrection? If not, I assert Rand Al'Thor as the avatar of the creator.

u/Iamstuckathope · 10 pointsr/exmormon

I'm no scholar, of course, but it seems like the majority of scholars believe that a man named Jesus existed in the first century C.E. and that he caused some trouble. Some of the New Testament (parts of Mark specifically) may be credible, but much of what we know about Jesus is myth. Pretty much everything written about him was written long after he died. The writings of Paul are some of the earliest Christian writings, and those don't go into much detail about Jesus.

I would recommend reading the book "Misquoting Jesus" if you are interested.

u/Fywq · 10 pointsr/oddlysatisfying

Yeah a pig is a lot worse for instance. I may also be influenced a bit by having recently read a book that goes a great way to question how we humans inflict pain on other sentient beings without thinking twice as long it is for food production. You get fined for kicking a dog, but we subject farm animals to all sorts of treatments that would qualify as torture if used on humans. Why is it not ok to have human slaves, but fine to enslave animals? In a monotheistic worldview god allows both. In a scientific world view we should have neither.

For those interested this is the book:

I can strongly recommend it though it may challenge your beliefs about who we humans are in the grand scheme of things.

Sorry that was a bit offtopic. And yes I still eat meat and consume dairy products.

u/jwmida · 10 pointsr/dancarlin

E.H. Gombrich- "A Little History of the World"

I used use chapters of this book as supplementals when I taught middle school history. I really like it. I think it keeps to the subject, is well written, and is accessible to children. Only issue is that it's eurocentric, but you can't win them all.

u/DeviousBluestocking · 10 pointsr/AskFeminists

> What you say would only makes sense if germs guns and steel would have been unrelated to immigration

My point is that immigrants to the US will not be able to colonize us using superior weaponry, resources, or immunity asymmetry. They will not be able to overpower us with their superior numbers. We are in no danger of going the way of Native Americans or Texas. With or without a more secure border.

>native Americans who were so stupid to think the refugees they helped would be grateful in the long run and treat them with respect and behave as guests?

Well, for one thing, Native Americans were so outmatched that they could not have prevented us from immigrating, as many attempted to do throughout the the Continent. Particularly after we unleashed several deadly plagues.

>By contrast the Africans who did resist immigration/conquest still have their culture and way of life

Your example of African is not nearly the gotcha you think it is. People on the African continent traded with Eurasia for thousands of years and built up an immunity to diseases like small pox, what's more many African regions had their own deadly diseases that Europeans were not immune to. A big part of the reason that Africa put up a better resistance to colonization was that they had the same type of immunity asymmetry that Europeans had in North and South America.


More info

>A lot of them quite prefer living under white rule and emigrate to white areas like South Africa and Europe and most people would say their life would be better off if we accept our way of life (doctors transportation jobs economy all around whiteness) as better, but they have a choice to live like their forefathers or not.

This really has nothing to with your point, but it is still a profoundly ignorant understanding of colonization. For one thing, South Africa is a majority black state. Doctors, transportation, and jobs are not exclusively the white way of life. Just ask China who had such advanced "transportation" that they could have make a trans Atlantic or trans Pacific voyage several hundred years before Europeans.

What's more colonization is the systematic pillage and dominance of another country. African countries did not have to be invaded and stripped of their sovereignty and resources in order to import European innovations such as cars.

There are many people all over the continent of Africa that do choose to follow a more traditional way of life. And, like you said, many African countries have economies that are prosperous and culturally more similar to European and Asian countries. There are also a number of countries and regions that are still struggling with the atrocities of the past five centuries, and do not "chose" to lack jobs, doctors, and "transportation"(cars?, highways?).

u/TheUndead96 · 10 pointsr/uncensorednews

Don't worry, I am actually reading Guns, Germs and Steel at the moment and I have read many of these details within the last 7 days.

I am not trying to name names and point fingers here. The point I am trying to make is that all nations have a history with race. Additionally, think about:

  • Australia and the Aboriginals
  • Native Siberians
  • South East Asians before the Austronesian expansion (this happened many hundred years ago, though)

    Apartheid was bad, but it was certainly not the Holocaust, and the world seems to think that we are all a bunch of white-supremists. Just because Americans killed with Germs instead of Guns doesn't not take the deaths away. But that also does not mean you need to feel guilty. White people were indeed slaves at many points in history.

    I didn't have anything to do with Apartheid.
    But I'm still prepared to say sorry for any harm my ancestors caused. And I hope that we can learn to love each other, despite our histories.
u/J_Webb · 10 pointsr/worldbuilding

Since you are looking for some reference books, here are some that I resort to using quite often in my world-building process.

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared M. Diamond

Plagues and Peoples by William H. McNeill

Weapon: A Visual History of Arms and Armor by Roger Ford

What People Wore When: A Complete Illustrated History of Costume from Ancient Times to the Nineteenth Century for Every Level of Society by Melissa Leventon

The History of Money by Jack Weatherford

If you need more, I can list more. I have a reference book for just about anything you could imagine in my ever-growing personal library.

u/MichaelJSullivan · 10 pointsr/Fantasy

They missed one of the most important ones!!

Guns, Germs, Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

u/bradnelson · 10 pointsr/pics

One of the leading Holocaust historians disagrees with you a wrote a book explaining how it can happen:

u/TWALBALLIN · 10 pointsr/conspiracy

Wow, the vaccine industry has the shills out in force. Here's some knowledge;

It's easy. Do NOT ever vaccinate. Ever. They are created by scum bag companies who DO NOT GIVE A FUCK AB HUMANS.

Mandatory vaccines are unreal. This is Brave New World stuff.

Big Pharma has the net crawling with trolls and the inherently brainwashed.

It boggles my mind how all these people GET MAD and attack people who don't get vaccines from Corrupt Corporations which have literally committed dozens of crimes and been convicted of these crimes.

Ignorance is bliss I guess.

Don't trust big PHARMA GUYS! I wouldn't trust these companies to wash my car let alone INJECT an unknown highly toxic cocktail into my body.

According to U.S. federal investigators, GlaxoSmithKline (

• Routinely bribed doctors with luxury vacations and paid speaking gigs • Fabricated drug safety data and lied to the FDA • Defrauded Medicare and Medicaid out of billions • Deceived regulators about the effectiveness of its drugs • Relied on its deceptive practices to earn billions of dollars selling potentially dangerous drugs to unsuspecting consumers and medical patients

Books for further research,

The whistle blowers are coming out in droves, protect yourself, protect your children/family.

u/WaywardWayfarer · 10 pointsr/conspiracy

This should be required reading for r/conspiracy. It's scholarly, sourced and written by a "self-hating" Jewish professor whose family had experienced the holocaust.

u/plaitedlight · 9 pointsr/exchristian

It seems likely that the original authors were recording the existing mythos of their people, and the myths were used in their society like myths are used in every society: to explain and give meaning to a world they didn't understand, to provide a cohesive narrative for the group, to pass along and reinforce values. I have found learning just a little about the common mythologies of the world extremely interesting and helpful in putting the bible into correct perspective. Like, how many times a flood myth pops up and the different interactions between the diving and humanity in those stories.

You might enjoy Bart Ehrman's writing on the new testament and Jesus as he explores the story of Jesus, who wrote, changed and codified it and why, and how it became a religion.

Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are

u/sleepygeeks · 9 pointsr/exmormon

Most of it came from classes and lectures. I don't have the class book list and sources anymore. I do hope you really, really like reading!

Forged writingss

Misquoting Jesus A well known book.

Introduction to the new testiment

The new testament: a historical intoduction

Revelation and the End of All Things Also a somewhat popular book

You can also do some Wikipedia reading on Gnosticism and other early Christen sects to get an idea of just how many groups their were and how differing their beliefs could be. Also look for things on the Q, M and L source.


You can likely find a number of online pod-casts (or whatever you call them) and lectures on these things.

I am not a historian so my access to books and memorized sources is very limited, I am a student and have been accused of reading serial boxes at least once when I accidentally quoted the wrong book name, It was too much fun to make the correction as no one had ever said that too me before and I felt special, like I had hit an academic milestone.

Also, Don't feel bad about asking for sources.

u/anomoly · 9 pointsr/atheism

Ok, I'll give it a go...

The first thing that got me questioning religion was seeing massive amounts of hypocrisy in church leadership. I was extremely involved as my father was a deacon and my mother worked at the church we attended. It was a common practice for us kids to go to one friends' house or another between morning and evening services, so I saw how the adults acted differently at home then they did at church. I realize not all religious people are like this, but it was the first step for my questioning. Once I was old enough I became a leader in the youth group and started seeing the same hypocrisy in myself.

Despite realizing my hypocrisy I continued to believe, even to the point in participating in multiple missions trips held by the organization Speed the Light. While on these trips we were told to write down our personal testimony so that we could present it during presentations and services. When I tired to put into words why I believed in God and, more importantly, why the audience should believe, I couldn't come up with a good reason. I sat in a bed in the country of Belize thinking, "If I can't come up with a good reason why these people should believe what I do, then why do I believe it?". Despite this thought I continued my charade for two more missions trips and a few more years.

Eventually I stepped down from youth leadership and entered a state of apathy towards religion. I didn't go to church, but I didn't really think about it much. Every now and then something really bad would happen and I'd wonder if God was punishing me, but they were more of fleeting thoughts than anything.

The next big hit for me was when I went to Iraq for a year. When you see good people with families who love them (some of which who were religious) die, the answer "God allows us to suffer so we learn/build character/build faith etc" just doesn't cut it anymore. About a year after I came home from the deployment I actually started looking for information that refuted religion. I'd say that was when my state started the path from apathetic to agnostic to atheist.

The book Letter to a Christian Nation was a big eye-opener for me. Along with other works of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christoper Hitchens, and other authors I'm sure you'll become aware of if you continue to question things. The more I investigated, the more absurd religion seemed; and the more science explained all of the things that I attributed to the supernatural. When I was a child I believed, truly believed, that when I was lying in bed one night I saw an angel appear in my room. It wasn't until I read The God Delusion that I realized there was a scientific explanation for things like that.

The more I found that science could prove things, really prove things, the more I realized that "it's true because the Bible says so" didn't work for me anymore. In the last few years I've learned things that have blown my mind. Things that I thought would take away the wonder of the world have actually enhanced it. I'm a good person because I want to be, not because I'll burn in hell if I'm not; I don't steal because I realize that it's unproductive in the long run, not because some ancient stone tablet and a preacher told me not to, etc.

I'm not saying I don't have personal issues like anger, sadness or depression. You can only fight evolution to a point, we are still human. I guess I'm just saying that the answers I found leading me to atheism were far more satisfying and comforting than anything religion ever offered me. Hope that helps.

tl;dr: it's basically a de-conversion story, read if you'd like I suppose.

u/jamesdownwell · 9 pointsr/pics

Actually, check out Going Clear. It's meticulously researched and touches on the Travolta thing matter of factly. A process Scientologists go through is called "Auditing", it's like a confession but it's frequently taped. The (apparently homophobic) leader of the church would joke about Travolta's homosexuality to his friends within the church. You get the impression that this information was held to use as a weapon should Travolta step out of line and when his stardom really exploded, he was moving away from the Church. It's very sad and I think Travolta is a very tragic figure.

u/3423553453 · 9 pointsr/ImGoingToHellForThis

There is no historical evidence of a written language in the entire sub-saharan region of africa at the time.

And no the slaves didn't come from the other regions of africa where was some written language called Ge'ez, they mostly came from Senegambia:

Also confirmed by my school textbook.

So you should really get out of your cucked history books, or maybe talk to actual historians:

[link removed because automod]AskHistorians/comments/1nz7k6/were_there_no_native_written_languages_in/

Also, there was no wheel and no two-story building and no vessel that could even dream of crossing the ocean, you want more ?

I know it's hard to swallow for liberals but humans are different, blacks have a bigger penis, better musculature, more testosterone = more inclined to violence = less inclined to get educated = lower IQ.

Asians have a smaller penis than whites but are also smarter so I don't see why blacks would have a problem acknowledging other differences.

Also, if you want to learn more about the history of humans on this planet: Great read.

u/d9_m_5 · 9 pointsr/politics

This is a good point, but we can't just rest on our laurels and assume speech in this country will always be free. I read On Tyranny yesterday, and its second lesson is quite relevant here:

> Defend Institutions

> [...] Institutions do not protect themselves. They fall one after the other unless each is defended from the beginning.

u/NewbombTurk · 8 pointsr/agnostic

There's a lot you have wrong here. I'm fairly sure your posting in good faith, so I'll try to hit all your points

> Yes I understand that some religion uses it as cover

They do. And it makes them and it makes them intellectually dishonest, at best, and flat out liars, at worst.

> and I also know that almost all atheists believe that life just started as a coincidence and evolved to where it is now

OK, so a couple of things here. The first is that atheism doesn't have anything to say on the matter of abiogenesis, or evolution. Atheist is the response to a claim. The lack of a belief in god(s). That's it. And second, while there are some common beliefs among atheists, no one is saying that life started as a "coincidence". The beginnings of life are largely unknown.

> and that intelligent design is a direct attack to that believe but still why the hate,

What do you mean by hate? I don't see that, and I've been a secular activist for 30 some odd years. ID isn't a direct attack on atheism, it's a concerted effort to rebrand creationism in an attempt to get it into class rooms. The liars at The Discovery Institute have admitted as much. And you not familiar with the Wedge Document?

> I thought they were supposed to be the rational ones

As I said, atheists aren't a monolith. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're rational. People can arrive at an atheist position for bad reasons.

> but every time a scientist releases their evidence for ID no matter how convincing and scientific it is

That has never happened. Ever. There's no such thing as a "creation scientist". Are you aware that organizations like The Discovery Institute create their own publications so they can call their work peer reviewed?

> you will still see it pasted on an atheist forum and shitted on with no real refutes but instead insults about how dumb and stupid the scientist ,

Insults are wrong, but there's typically nothing to refute.

> how intelligent design is just pseudoscience

It's not even pseudoscience. It's a religious claim that can't be supported. At all.

> or just the usual religion argument counters like if God created humans then who created God,

That's not the argument. The argument your referring to properly stated, would be "If everything has a cause, what caused god?". I'm not a huge fan of this response to the Cosmological Arguments, but it's a legitimate one.

> if god is perfect then why is the human body so terribly designed or other arguments like these that depends entirely on god being the Christian one or must be perfect, omnipresent etc.

We can only response, or refute, to the claims we're presented. Most Christians claim that god is perfect, and omnimax. Calling out the contradictions in these statements in, again, legitimate.

> In the end both theories are not 100% proven

OK, again, this is lack of understanding about what science is. A scientific theory isn't a guess, or unsupported conjecture. A theory in science is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

Also, science doesn't "prove" things, let alone to 100% certainty. And, when a conclusion can't be reached , that doesn't mean that all assertions are equiprobable. For example; if we have a large jar filled with jellybeans, but we don't know how many there are in the jar, is one billion as likely the correct answer as two hundred? Of course not.

> and both have their faults like an ID believer will also argue that if life randomly started then why has it no happen again

No one is saying that life start randomly. Please stop building this strawman. I bet if you googled this, you'd find many, many scientific responses to this question.

> or if life randomly started because of the different nature of early earth then why do we have only one common ancestor not hundreds.

We did have more than one. I suggest you read Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. It's brilliant, and it will straighten you out on some of this stuff. If you have a PO BOX, I'll send you a copy.

> So why the bias to ID, why is it that God must be imaginary and that is it?

Because there is zero evidence of ID. Zero. All they have to offer are strawmen, Arguments of Ignorance, and Incredulity. And attempts to poke holes in legitimate science. At best.

The time to accept a proposition is when it's indicated by evidence. Not before.

u/metatron-one · 8 pointsr/badhistory

I've been reading Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari, due to an interest in the history of the human species brought about by an Intro to Biological Anthropology class I'm in. I'm maybe three chapters in so far, but I'm engrossed. Harari theorizes that the reason that Homo Sapiens were able to outlive all the other Homo species is our ability to conceive fiction, our ability to conceptualise things that don't exist, like religions, nations, etc. This isn't really a historic text, but it's well written and seems to be worth reading if you have an interest in the topic. I'd like to read some critical reviews from experts in the field, though.

u/KenshiroTheKid · 8 pointsr/bookclapreviewclap

I made a list based on where you can purchase them if you want to edit it onto your post:

This Month's Book

u/Zero_Risk · 8 pointsr/history

At 15 years old he should be able to handle any sort of casual history book. A text book probably isn't up his alley, but when I was 15 I bought a Philosophy for Dummies book to help me understand some topics a teacher didn't clarify well enough for me. I was hooked on those For Dummies books for awhile. They're vaguely humorous and they explain topics in an easy to digest, non-tiring way.

Aside from that, A Little History of the World by E.H. Gombrich, and A Brief History of Time and the Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking were both wonderfully fun books that might appeal to his history and science interest without being belittling.

u/LRE · 8 pointsr/exjw

Random selection of some of my favorites to help you expand your horizons:

The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan is a great introduction to scientific skepticism.

Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris is a succinct refutation of Christianity as it's generally practiced in the US employing crystal-clear logic.

Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor by Anthony Everitt is the best biography of one of the most interesting men in history, in my personal opinion.

Travels with Herodotus by Ryszard Kapuscinski is a jaw-dropping book on history, journalism, travel, contemporary events, philosophy.

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson is a great tome about... everything. Physics, history, biology, art... Plus he's funny as hell. (Check out his In a Sunburned Country for a side-splitting account of his trip to Australia).

The Annotated Mona Lisa by Carol Strickland is a thorough primer on art history. Get it before going to any major museum (Met, Louvre, Tate Modern, Prado, etc).

Not the Impossible Faith by Richard Carrier is a detailed refutation of the whole 'Christianity could not have survived the early years if it weren't for god's providence' argument.

Six Easy Pieces by Richard Feynman are six of the easier chapters from his '63 Lectures on Physics delivered at CalTech. If you like it and really want to be mind-fucked with science, his QED is a great book on quantum electrodynamics direct from the master.

Lucy's Legacy by Donald Johanson will give you a really great understanding of our family history (homo, australopithecus, ardipithecus, etc). Equally good are Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors by Nicholas Wade and Mapping Human History by Steve Olson, though I personally enjoyed Before the Dawn slightly more.

Memory and the Mediterranean by Fernand Braudel gives you context for all the Bible stories by detailing contemporaneous events from the Levant, Italy, Greece, Egypt, etc.

After the Prophet by Lesley Hazleton is an awesome read if you don't know much about Islam and its early history.

Happy reading!

edit: Also, check out the Reasonable Doubts podcast.

u/ilikecakeandpie2 · 8 pointsr/scientology

It's actually more complicated than that, but your instinct is correct!

At one point after the war, he was trying to get help for certain "ailments" (not the ones he claimed he suffered during the war - just ulcers, and generally feeling bad etc.) and was denied disability several times by the Veteran's Administration. Then at one point pre-Dianetics, he requested psychotherapy (which was a new field then), and wrote a detailed letter requesting it and telling his symptoms. It was also denied. My understanding is that he was trying to get more money out of the disability department, it seems.

Then, when he wrote Dianetics, and some fans set up Dianetics groups and he went out doing demonstrations and lectures, he tried to get the American Psychiatric Association to pay attention and give him credibility. He wrote them letters, talked about his groundbreaking "research", and had hoped to become the new Freud or Jung or the rockstar of psychiatry. They investigated and denied him and most of them sort of called what he did pseudoscience and quackery.

THEN, he started coming out with ever-increasing tirades in writing and lectures that basically said that the "psyches" (psychologists and psychiatrists) were evil and out to get them, etc. He went on to say that Dianetics cured so many illnesses that it was taking business and credibility away from them, so they were out to destroy him. His writing and lectures got increasingly anti-psyche over time, leading to the current incarnation.

However, pretty much everyone was out to destroy him, if you ask him.

Those days (around when Scientology was formed, post-Dianetics), he was also on about the communists. He ghost-wrote what he claimed was a communist brainwashing manual and held it up as proof that they were awful - as well as wrote a plethora of letters to the FBI accusing his enemies of being communists (remember McCarthyism and the Red Scare of the 50s/60s?). Many of those people had just wronged him in some way - it's obvious that he was trying to use the FBI and red scare to destroy people he didn't like.

Then the FBI didn't respond as he wanted (they called him something like "unstable" or "unhinged" in internal documents), so they became the enemy.

Of course, by that time, he'd had more accusations about money issues against him. He stole and ran away with and misappropriated money from people like Jack Parsons, some early donors/supporters, and the people running his Dianetics Foundation, among others. Some of those money issues became criminal-ish.

And he'd run afoul of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) by making claims about what Dianetics and the e-meter could do health-wise (curing cancer, making the blind see, none of it true, of course). So when the FBI didn't listen to him and he was under scrutiny for a bunch of other stuff, the FBI and the government became the enemy. That was part of the advent of the religious cloaking (going from a pop-psychology thing and making it a religion), to decrease government scrutiny in many ways (and avoid taxes).

Basically, this was a man who didn't suffer narcissistic wounds lightly. When someone dismissed him, didn't listen to or believe him, or made him feel "less than", he used his followers as pawns to insult and hurt them (always making himself the persecuted savior).

The "psyches" were only one of his many "I want to be acknowledged by you and be seen as important by you" targets who didn't give him what he craved - admiration and attention.

Go googling around for some of his letters to the FBI and Veteran's Administration and stuff like that, there's lots of very interesting reading.

His hubris also really comes across when the government of Rhodesia was trying to form a new government post-colonialism, and he went and wrote one (some would say badly) and approached some officials (mind you, as an unknown entity, swaggering about with his secretive group and being cagy about who he was) and was like "here, I wrote the constitution for you, you can thank me later". He was incredibly depressed when they were like "who is this guy?" and dismissed him.

There's a great story about him getting two bottles of pink champagne and walking up unannounced to the door of one of the government officials there and rang the doorbell, expecting to sit and have champagne with this official's wife and thereby get his "in" into the government... of course he was turned away there too.

I mean, he approached everyone in that manner - like he expected to have his ring kissed and be granted medals and seen as important. And then when he wasn't, well, that person or entity became his next target.

It's interesting stuff. If you're interested, some of the stories are researched, documented, and told in books like A Piece of Blue Sky, Bare-Faced Messiah - which was recently re-released and is incredibly documented and researched, Going Clear, Inside Scientology. And others, but I think those are the works that are informative, with incredibly researched documentation of claims.

EDIT: Oh, I also forgot that he wrote to the US Government offering his incredible knowledge and research and said that it could solve all their problems, etc. Then, when he didn't get any response after trying mightily hard, he wrote again and threatened to defect to the Soviet Union. He said they'd offered him a sweet sweet deal, with some kind of research position and budget and teaching positions or something, and if the US Government didn't take him up on it he was going to go to the communists with it instead. Of course, that was an empty threat...

He also claimed later, in lectures and stuff, to have worked on the Manhattan Project with the leading scientists, to develop the Atom Bomb. Which was, of course, not true. And he claimed at various times to have worked undercover for the CIA.

u/RandsFoodStamps · 8 pointsr/EnoughPaulSpam

Ha. I just finished Going Clear so it made me think about it. Good book.

I'm not an historian, but I enjoy how it's less formal than /r/askhistorians. I browse /r/libertarian often enough I could flood that sub with Lost Cause shit all day long, but they get enough of it already.

u/SomeGuy58439 · 8 pointsr/slatestarcodex

Historian Timothy Snyder is doing an AMA now regarding his book On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, written following Trump's election.

In the aftermath of the election, he said in an interview elsewhere:

> We have at most a year to defend American democracy, perhaps less

I suspect it'll be interesting.

EDIT2: it's in progress so eliminating starting time info

u/planchetflaw · 8 pointsr/nrl

She listed her one source. Showed it to Bryce. He backed that one source. Was in a magazine a bit ago.

u/Doggies_of_War · 8 pointsr/nrl

TL;DR There are still, and have been a lot of changes. Because soccer is such a global game with different names for everything, a clash of cultures and an open field.

WALL OF TEXT WARNING. There have been some changes to the way certain positions operate making them almost unrecognizable from the way they used to operate. They are somewhat static, though, and I have a few ideas on why that is (I'll point out the soccer/AFL thing too, though I know more on soccer than AFL). Please not that I'm basing a lot of my earlier knowledge of league from old tapes and discussions as I wasn't there.

I don't know how old you are but no.3 used to be "outside centre" and no.4 used to be "inside centre" as in attack they would move to opposite sides of the field to attack. This has a good bit on why that is.

Another thing you'll notice is the modern emphasis on "spine" players. Fullback and hooker were both important positions, but that is nothing compared to today where if you have a good fullback/hooker combo you'll generally be in contention for a top 4 spot (Souths, Manly, Melbourne). Both these positions are now playmakers.

Back in the day you needed a hooker to be a good defender, who could pinch the ball at scrums (when was the last time you saw a hooker "hook" the ball), scoot from dummy half and have a pair of functioning ears to listen to his halfback (kinda oversimplifying). Cameron Smith and Robbie Farah would be halfbacks thirty years ago. They can pass exceptionally well, they can kick, have great vision, call the shots and often slot in to first receiver. Cameron Smith changed this role by kicking ass.

Fullbacks are also now playmakers. Jarryd Hayne would have played in the halves, ditto Boyd. They used to slot into the backline as an extra set of hands to try and get around the outside of a winger, now they are slotting in and given several options to make a play. I think this is because of the fitness of the players means they can play a better "out and in" defence which makes it VERY hard to get on the outside of a defensive line, but that's just speculation.

Halfbacks and five-eighths don't always play on the half and five-eighth line (first and second receiver. I mean Daly Cherry-Evans and Kieran Foran most of the time could be called "left and right halves". Benji was often the dominant half and usually played first receiver despite being a five-eighth.

The game is changing in the forwards quite significantly in the last few years. Look at the Dogs ball movement in the forwards from 2012. This came about (I assume) from a lack of quality halves so they HAD to change it up. They did well and we're seeing it a bit more. Teams are stuck on either side of the field more than they used to be. You used to, say, hit the ball up across the left, then have your backline across the right, with all but your winger switching sides but staying in position. You have left/right second rowers now which is different.

On to soccer, the game is based across the entire world, and has intercontinental competitions where playing styles are suddenly clashing. As a team gains ascendancy, everyone else plays "follow the leader". E.g. the Storm wrestled and won, so now everyone does it. Scotland beat England in the VERY early days with a very controversial tactic known as the "passing game". Rather than get the ball and run it up the field until you were chopped down, the womanly Scots actually passed the ball to players who were open, confounding the English. Eventually they gave in and copied it. This required switching up how you play.

These changes have been mirrored all over the shop: from "catenaccio" in Italy to "total football" from the Netherlands to combat it, which required "pressing" to be invented in (I think, but I'll check when I get home to my books) Eastern Europe. Each one of these required different formations: less forwards so you can press, a "sweeper" so you can play the old Italian style. These are quite obvious and all have different names, even though they are quite similar. If the changes happened in league they wouldn't change the name. Matt Scott and James Graham do not play the same role but wear the same jersey and are called "props". If it was football, you wouldn't call them the same name, ie if you are a striker you can be an "out and out", a "false 9", an "inside forward". If you want a better understanding you should read Inverting the Pyramid, you can borrow mine it if you want. I'd call Glenn Stewart and James Graham "forward halves" or something.

Also, bear in mind that Greg Inglish looks like a prop, as do most centres and wingers. I would argue we DO have different positions of props, who are also very quick.

From what I can gather, the old VFL/WAFL/SANFL teams used to "bomb the ball forward" and have tall forwards try and take a grab. Quite simply, they took soccer tactics and adapted them, interchanges helped them to "press" over the massive field, forwards dropped deep to help press and hold possession, etc. I think Kevin Sheedy went to Manchester to scout this but I'm not sure.

u/IDrinkBecause · 8 pointsr/FCCincinnati

Inverting the Pyramid is really solid.

u/Indemnity4 · 8 pointsr/chemistry

I took an undergraduate class called "History and Philosophy of Science (Chemistry)", but that involved multiple books.

I'd recommend you start with a popular science novel such as Napoleon's Buttons: How 17 Molecules Changed History.

The Chemical Tree by Bock and The History of Chemistry by John Hudson are more academic history texts of the development of chemistry. To read and understand these books you probably need to be a chemist yourself. They are more targeted towards teaching a class.

u/shenbaroostinks · 8 pointsr/chemistry

Napoleon's buttons is a pretty good one

u/shady_mcgee · 7 pointsr/history

Most of my knowledge comes from Misquoting Jesus, and Lost Christianities and a bit of resultant self study. Unfortunately my copies are out on loan right now so I can't pull out and direct examples. In lieu of that I did find some examples of changes/omissions between different branches of copies.

There's an entire field of study which seeks to discern the original from all of the different copies. It's my understanding that the result of this work has been the elimination of most of the copy errors which occurred after ~300AD or so, but as /u/TheIceCreamPirate states, we don't have any complete copies, and very few fragments, of the gospels prior to then, so any errors which would have been introduced prior to that time are hidden from us.

u/doosjoos · 7 pointsr/exchristian

Maybe you could try showing that the Bible really isn't a reliable document in the first place. I'm currently reading Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus which is opening my eyes to the problems with the accuracy of the text in the New Testament.

For example, the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 is not found in early manuscripts of John and was most likely added at a later date. If your family believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, it makes it hard to explain why something added by a scribe later should be counted as scripture. And if part of it has a dubious textual past, it calls into question the rest of it.

u/VitruviannMan · 7 pointsr/atheism

I've read the Letter to a Christian Nation and the Moral Landscape. Like the derpy gentleman below said, LTCN is very short and easy to read. I'd recommend starting with that over the Moral Landscape, which is a denser book.

u/uid_0 · 7 pointsr/HistoryPorn

He was a pretty good Sci-Fi writer, but he was full-on crazy. I highly recommend reading "Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief" by Lawrence Wright. Hubbard had some real next-level shit going on.

u/Vaxthrul · 7 pointsr/conspiracyundone

We need lots of the basics, MKultra, JFK assassination, Operation Northwoods, Iran-Contra, GLADIO, Project Paperclip, etc.

One thing I feel strongly about is history white washing, so I recommend A People's History of the United States, which is also available from amazon in book format.

Guns, Germs, and Steel is another good book to read once you understand the flows of political power.

Also a shout out to Noam Chomsky, Lots of his books are worth reading and going over, however for those that don't wish to read, I recommend the documentary based on his book Manufacturing Consent, which I hope you were going to include anyway :P

EDIT: Here's a decent source for ebooks -

u/spedmonkey · 7 pointsr/AskHistorians

While I agree that your question is quite subjective, I'd suggest taking a look at Guns, Germs, & Steel, the ubiquitous recommendation when dealing with this question. I'm not sure I agree with all of Diamond's ideas, but it's a thought-provoking book, and he makes some excellent arguments within.

u/rockne · 7 pointsr/todayilearned

Also, Collapse and Guns, Gems and Steel by Jared Diamond

u/that_cad · 7 pointsr/todayilearned

If you haven't, you should read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond ( Taking a very scientific, objective approach to civilization and the development thereof, it provides an interesting and, in my opinion, highly plausible reason why African countries have typically fared worse than Western-European countries over the past 500 years (and which has nothing to do with race).

u/juliebeen · 7 pointsr/books

Jared Diamond - Collapse and Guns, Germs and Steel

Both are great. Not at all boring. Both are favorites of mine.

u/Shisno_ · 7 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

What an absolutely idiotic response.

Whites weren't successful because they were white. They were successful because, their harsh environment and access to resources caused them to look toward innovation to overcome nature. After that mindset was established, they further advanced through structured warfare, and after that, colonization.

If you want to dumb it down and say, "cuz white ppl", then by all means...

Guns, Germs, and Steel can give you an absolutely masterful understanding of why white European peoples came to preeminence.

u/CrimsonGear · 7 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

So, all white people in America have the same culture? A culture that values education and politeness? What about the deep south, where, let's be honest, higher education is not overly stressed? Or how about the differences between a person from New York and a person from Idaho?

"White" is a homogenized term that refers to skin color only. The culture you speak of is "American".

I'll also just point out that Africa is not a uniformly shitty hellhole, and the parts that ARE hellholes are like that largely due to outside influences. I'd also point you toward places like Egypt, with cities like Alexandria that were the once the center of knowledge and learning in antiquity. If you're interested in learning why certain cultures seem to be underdeveloped while others thrive technologically, you should read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. There's also a movie version on Netflix.

Anyway, let's get down to brass tacks. When I see a "black cultural event", I see a group of people with common interests and common troubles who come together to support one another. The fact that they feel the need to do this tells us more about the environment they exist in than it does about their culture. If I were in another country - one that did not support or welcome me as an American - I would probably find other Americans or like-minded people to hang around.

During the time of slavery, the ONLY people that would support black people was other black people. They formed a culture that meshed (mainly southern) American elements with their African heritage. Because they had no real support from the outside, they had to support themselves from within, and that leads to a very strong cultural identity - one that still exists. And a big reason that it still exists is because, by and large, they are still not completely welcomed or accepted.

Now, when I hear a white American complaining about black events, I think of a child who has always gotten his way, who throws a tantrum when someone else gets to do something that he can't. Largely because he, and people like him, created a NEED for those sorts of things in the first place. Black people wouldn't feel the need to form these groups and events if the larger population accepted them the same way they accepted other cultures. And regardless of what you, personally, may feel or believe, there is still a very large group in America that sees blacks as foreign and thuggish. It's a foolish thing to think, and is clearly untrue.

And it's this "why do they get an event, I want an event!" mentality that makes anyone who wants to form a "white culture" event or group seem like a spoiled brat who wants something solely because someone else has it.

u/TooManyInLitter · 7 pointsr/DebateReligion

Here Star-Lord, let's put the quote-mined text you presented in context with the rest of the section of Sam Harris' book:


Sam Harris: The End of Faith

The Problem with Islam

Jihad and the Power of the Atom

For devout Muslims, religious identity seems to trump all others.
Despite the occasional influence of Pan-Arabism, the concept of an
ethnic or national identity has never taken root in the Muslim world
as it has in the West. The widespread support for Saddam Hussein
among Muslims, in response to the American attack upon Iraq, is as
good a way as any of calibrating the reflexivity of Muslim solidarity.
Saddam Hussein was, as both a secularist and a tyrant, widely despised
in the Muslim world prior to the American invasion; and yet the reaction
of most Muslims revealed that no matter what his crimes against
the Iraqi people, against the Kuwaitis, and against the Iranians, the
idea of an army of infidels occupying Baghdad simply could not be
countenanced, no matter what humanitarian purpose it might serve.
Saddam may have tortured and killed more Muslims than any person
in living memory, but the Americans are the "enemies of God."

It is important to keep the big picture in view, because the details,
being absurd to an almost crystalline degree, are truly meaningless.
In our dialogue with the Muslim world, we are confronted by people
who hold beliefs for which there is no rational justification and which
therefore cannot even be discussed, and yet these are the very beliefs
that underlie many of the demands they are likely to make upon us.

It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims
pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little
possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed
with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties
be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom
and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United
States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or
less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an
Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of
paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is
any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads
are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to
rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such
a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a
nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an
unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent
civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action
available to us
, given what Islamists believe. How would such an
unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the
Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a
genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make
it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war
with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat
of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just
described a plausible scenario in which much of the world's population
could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on
the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher's stone, and unicorns.
That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the
sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen.
Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith
enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly
likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are
every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get
their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in
particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent
it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say
that time is not on our side.


So Star-Lord, in your quoted text, why did you terminate the quoted text where you did and omitted the last 4 words of the sentence - "given what Islamists believe."?

> Do you agree with his position on launching nukes in the muslim world pre-emptively and causing mass genocide?

Strawman argument. Sam Harris does not endorse a first strike preemptive attack against the Muslim world. Nor does he condone genocide. At best you could claim that Harris proposes and considers a scenario where Muslims acquire long range nukes, and that combined with the inherent martyrdom and jihad zealot mindset demonstrated by so many Muslims (based upon their No-True-Scotsman interpretation of Islam, of course), provides little to no self-imposed restraint as shown, for example, between the US and the USSR based upon MAD - especially if "zealous [...] may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry."

Star-Lord, if ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham), with an ideology that aims first to reestablish a Caliphate system of governance across the entire Muslim world and then from there the intention is to spread the Caliphate across the entire world, were to acquire long range nuclear missiles, and given their expressed intent on taking their demonstrated murderous genocidal mission to the rest of the world, do you wish to attempt to make a credible argument that ISIS would not use these tools to further their mission and increase the scope of their genocidal actions already underway? To strike at the United States or other perceived threat?

I posit that if ISIS, or another of many Islamic ideology groups (or any group with the same type of genocidal expansionist goals), were to acquire long range nuclear missiles, in addition to diplomatic and economic and conventional arms options, a preemptive nuclear strike will also be considered as an option as such a scenario, e.g., zealots who worship martyrdom and jihad, represents a clear and present danger to the world. Under these conditions, a preemptive nuclear strike is an option under the military response doctrine of many countries that possess nuclear weapons capable of neutralizing the threat. Will this nuke option be utilized? I posit that such a response would be a last resort after all other options have failed, and probably would not be utilized regardless; and even if a group such as ISIS were to acquire and use nukes, there is a good chance that a nuke retaliation will still remain off the table as a viable response.

u/crunk_zig_ziglar · 7 pointsr/politics

On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder is also amazing because it gives you easy things you can do in your everyday life to fight tyranny.

u/QuirkyMagpie · 7 pointsr/greatawakening

You would think those were legit, but it's not so. This book by Suzanne Humphries does a great job of explaining.

"Not too long ago, lethal infections were feared in the Western world. Since that time, many countries have undergone a transformation from disease cesspools to much safer, healthier habitats. Starting in the mid-1800s, there was a steady drop in deaths from all infectious diseases, decreasing to relatively minor levels by the early 1900s. The history of that transformation involves famine, poverty, filth, lost cures, eugenicist doctrine, individual freedoms versus state might, protests and arrests over vaccine refusal, and much more. Today, we are told that medical interventions increased our lifespan and single-handedly prevented masses of deaths. But is this really true? Dissolving Illusions details facts and figures from long-overlooked medical journals, books, newspapers, and other sources. Using myth-shattering graphs, this book shows that vaccines, antibiotics, and other medical interventions are not responsible for the increase in lifespan and the decline in mortality from infectious diseases. If the medical profession could systematically misinterpret and ignore key historical information, the question must be asked, “What else is ignored and misinterpreted today?” Perhaps the best reason to know our history is so that the worst parts are never repeated."

She has some youtube videos too for anyone who wants to educate themselves.

u/terpin · 7 pointsr/Documentaries

I'm baking bread so I'm gonna be in and out!

The International Medical Council on Vaccination is a anti-vaccination group promoting the anti-vaccination agenda (they publish a lot on sites like Natural News, to boot). They've been active for a little while apparently

But let's not just take some guy's word for it, because we're analytical motherfuckers, yeah?

I googled them and found a LinkedIn page for them, this is a good sign. I've worked with a lot of nonprofits over the years and networking is vital to raising funds and keeping your nonprofit alive.

But their LinkedIn page is blank and they only have one employee listed on LinkedIn. None of the doctors listed on the site are associated with the organization, which is an enormous red flag. Networking is big for doctors and clinicians, they want their names on as many prestigous things as they can get, it makes them look good when applying for grants and the like (and there are anti-vax research grants up for grabs!) The website linked on their webpage as their official portal is an abandoned blank placeholder.

Well not everyone is on LinkedIn, right? The LinkedIn page gives us a zipcode that is linked to Racine Wisconsin, let's check it out and see if we can find their headquarters. A lot of nonprofits end up in little stripmalls and everything so it's not a red flag if we find some shitty storefront, that's just how these things go sometimes. Here's where I googled it to find information so you can follow along too

The first link that turns up is to a Dr Michael Berglund! Alright! A medical professional associated with the nonprofit actually exists, this is a good sign! And then you look at his page and he talks about fluoridation being a bad thing and lowering IQ and other quack shit. Fuck.

Well, let's look for other people related to this organization. One quack in the bunch doesn't mean they're all quacks, right? He might just be the one that slid in under the radar, it happens in every organization. Oh wait, he's not a doctor at all, he's a chiropractor. Goddammit.

Okay, let's keep searching.

Alright, found someone else associated with that organization! This is good. Oh shit, it's someone that lists themselves as being a graduate of the "National College of Midwifery a few years back". Crap.

Okay, let's keep searching.

See that link at the bottom with the IP Address and it's a WHOIS site? Let's check this shit out, for science.

Fuck it shouldn't take this much work to figure out stuff about a nonprofit. The same IP hosting an anti-vax site is also hosting a church and a doctor's website, looks promising, let's check that shit out. Alright! An actual doctor! Ehh... "Medical training"? "Participant in the conventional system from 1989 until 2011"? 2011 is about the time when news articles about the International Medical Council on Vaccination really started popping up. Alright, we're on the right track here, fucking finally. And it's the same Dr Suzanne that wrote that article! Rocking!

So I'm scanning her site and seeing a lot of the usual homeopathic woo-woo that I usually do on these kinds of sites. I see she gave a talk to something called ABF Sweden, so I click on the Vimeo link for the lecture Alright, let's see what Dr. Suzanne is all about, because I'm not going to take some asshole's word for it that she doesn't know what's what. Right off the bat she starts talking about "Allopathy" which is apparently heavily related to homeopathy. Not looking so great, Dr. Suzanne.

Let's check out her CV to see what her qualifications are on her website She let one of her licenses lapse in 2007, and her other one will lapse soon too. She's also selling a book but that's to be expected, she's a doctor on the anti-vax front of course she'd have a book.

Six loaves of bread later and we've finally gotten somewhere.

Most of what I'm seeing here is standard rhetorical and copywriting tricks. Borrowing credibility from PhDs in physics, cross linking stuff that may or may not be weakly related, using deceptive language (i.e. "medically trained", "allopathy", "vitamin C can cure everything", etc. etc.) Lots of emotional pleading too, especially in the vaccine article on her page.

It really sucks that you have to plow this deep into sources to figure out people's angle to see what lens they're presenting the data through. I couldn't find any other people connected to the organization, but it looks like anti-vaxxers use this website for a lot of their facts and it's not even updated all that often. From the information I pulled in the last hour it looks like the International Medical Council on Vaccination is headed by a doctor that no longer practices conventional medicine started to lose interest 8 years ago at the very least. The only people I could find associated with the organization currently is a midwife and a chiropractor that believes fluoridation causes retardation (I live on top of a naturally fluoridated water supply, I'm not retarded but I do have yellow teeth from it).

Her website has a testimonials page, which is very strange for a doctor, but not strange for an alternative therapy practitioner. The top testimonial talks about how the "doctor" cured her baby of whooping cough with Vitamin C shots. Holy mother of fuck.

TLDR; Spent an hour? doing research, found out how deep the rabbit hole truly goes. That doctor isn't really a doctor, and the International Medical Council on Vaccination seems to be as international as Racine, Wisconsin is cosmopolitan. Doctor is selling a book and massive Vitamin C injections, believes that people don't need antibiotics to cure massive bacterial infections, and other insanity. Damn.

u/therealsylvos · 7 pointsr/soccer

If you want more there's a well-known book on the subject:

u/Asco88 · 7 pointsr/soccer

Inverting the Pyramid: The History of Football Tactics by Jonathan Wilson is a book that I simply can't recommend enough. You learn a lot about the development of the game, not just tactics but the great early players, great teams, the significance of changes in fitness levels on pressing, the different philosophies of the biggest minds in football and how they inspire each other.

u/the-virgin-sangria · 7 pointsr/footballtactics

If you have the time, try to read Jonathan Wilson's Inverting the Pyramid. This is a really great read on football tactics, formations, why certain formations evolved and then fell out of style. Wilson does a much better job explaining all of this than a redditor could do in a post-comment.

Here is the Amazon link to his book:

Note: I am in no way affiliated with Jonathan Wilson or the publishing company. I am just a coach with an interest in understanding the game better to explain things to my players, and this is a good book to read to understand a bit beyond the basics.

u/sp1ke0kill3r · 6 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Bart D Ehrman Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted would be a valuable place to start.
There are also some videos on youtube of related lectures or debates.

Edit, I would add Dale Allison's book, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus.

u/George_Glass · 6 pointsr/atheism

> I believe the New Testament is literal

I think you might enjoy Misquoting Jesus.

u/astroNerf · 6 pointsr/atheism

You might check out Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. It's a good introduction to textual analysis - that may be a bit basic for you but I liked reading it.

For a broader look at Yahweh as a literary character, I'll suggest Karen Armstrong's book A History of God. She traces the evolution of Yahweh from his humble beginnings as one of many gods in the Canaanite pantheon, to the god of the Abrahamic beliefs today.

u/pianomancuber · 6 pointsr/exchristian

The Dead Sea Scrolls actually show that early Christians were very un-methodical in translation accuracy. I can pull sources when I get home, but the dead sea scrolls were in fact being produced by scribes in the process of copying and intentionally altering the text. Also they are just one of many hundreds of documents we've discovered. Even if they were somehow 100% like our modern Torah, the other hundreds which contain deliberate and huge negligent modifications show that in most cases they were not concerned with preserving the text's accuracy.

Early Christians commonly altered text on purpose, to support their own agendas. I really recommend you read some literary criticism of the Bible, like that of Ehrman. Certainly the vast majority of changes were of no theological significance--spelling errors, missed lines, etc--even though sometimes those innocent changes caused later scribes to misunderstand the text and then modify it even more in effort to "fix" it.

As just one example off the top of my google, John 8:3-11 is entirely a fabrication added by older scribes.

u/Ned_Shimmelfinney · 6 pointsr/PipeTobacco

Some personal favorites:

u/Aussiewhiskeydiver · 6 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Great question and a good answer. It's called the Cognitive Revolution and is described in more detail here

u/Catamount90 · 6 pointsr/barstoolsports

Sapiens is an excellent book about the history of humans and it is a super easy, thought-provoking read. Puts into perspective how short modern humans have been around in the scheme of all humankind

u/annagri · 6 pointsr/financialindependence

I'm currently reading Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, and he spends some time discussing the collective myths we invent (money, countries, religion, etc.). I would highly recommend the book, it's quite interesting.

u/CharlieBrownBoy · 6 pointsr/newzealand

According to the book Sapiens the Maori wiped out around 60% of NZ's native species before Europeans arrived. Similar story with the Aborigines in Australia.

Yes they like to claim they lived on the land harmoniously, but they first caused a lot of damage before they learnt to do so.

u/bagpipeninja · 6 pointsr/books

I certainly consider A Little History of the World an essential read. It's basically a summary of the human history, from cavemen to the end of WWI over 300 easily read pages. He touches on all major events, and touches upon most religions in a very easy to follow and fun writing style. It's essentially a World History for dummies if you will, but is still a very interesting read. one of those books I plan to buy future kids. Highly recommended! he also has a similar book - The Story of Art - but this is a lot bigger and more advanced, requires an actual interest in art history.

u/peninsuladreams · 6 pointsr/samharris

Letter to a Christian Nation is short, accessible, and always relevant. It's written as a response to the critics of Harris' first book, The End of Faith, but you certainly don't need to have read The End of Faith to appreciate what he says in Letter.

Sam is perhaps a generation younger than Hitchens, Dawkins, and even Dennett, but as others in this thread have pointed out, he tends to be more reserved, collected and cool in his talks, debates, and interviews. He does use some dry humor, often to pretty good effect.

I think Sam's address at the 2007 Aspen Ideas Festival is probably one of the most well-written and compelling anti-religion speeches I've ever seen. And although the moderator is pretty awful, he has some similar powerful talking points in the Truthdig debate against Chris Hedges of the same year.

u/heresybob · 6 pointsr/atheism

Congrats! You're officially on my "you're fucking ignorant" list.

Go read his books. Letter to a Christian Nation is a great place to start. And yes he does support his stance in many different positions. You can check it out of your local library.

Edit - added link to Amazon.

u/victoryorvalhalla · 6 pointsr/atheism
u/daveswagon · 6 pointsr/politics
u/conn2005 · 6 pointsr/Libertarian

It's already a police state. America has more people locked up in jail than China with less than a sixth of their population.

We live in a state of "happy fascism," I'd recommend you read Liberal Fascism.

u/dharmabum28 · 6 pointsr/Libertarian

My two cents....

Whoever labeled libertarianism as far right is completely off. Libertarianism itself tends to reject a left/right scale.

On that matter, fascism also rejects a left/right scale. In the 30s, fascism was considered by Americans and Europeans alike to be a wonderful new idea, a novel third way. Fascism was essentially authoritarian and totalitarian, to accurately describe it, rather than being placed on any political spectrum.

Authoritarian/totalitarian government can have a policy of rigid socialism, or also of free marketeering--the fact is just that either policy, or any other policies, are enforced by a central authority and the population is forced to participate, with no choice of it being voluntary.

In my mind, libertarianism is the anti-fascism, and fascism is present significantly in the platforms of both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans.

A good, thoughtful book on the topic is called Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. Pick it up for 86 cents plus shipping:

u/nc863id · 6 pointsr/politics

I strongly recommend reading this book. The super-short TL;DR for it is that Europe sort of hit the jackpot in terms of geography, biodiversity, natural resources available, etc., which gave the people settling there an inherent leg up versus other areas of the world.

u/gblancag · 6 pointsr/AskWomen

I'm traditionally more into literary fiction, but I've been exploring non-fiction recently.

Currently Reading: 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus

Recently Finished: The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America's Great Migration and Margaret Atwood's MaddAddam Trilogy

Next on the List: Either Guns Germs and Steel or Devil in the White City. Haven't decided yet

u/ShrimShrim · 6 pointsr/pics

Nope. 100% have a B.A. in history a B.A. in education and a B.S. in health science. Currently in graduate school.

I didn't respond to your "facts" because you didn't list any. You went on some schizophrenic rant about race. You've completely failed to understand how geography influences the success and failures of societies. If I had handed in a paper with your line of reasoning my professor would have handed it back and said "start over, this is trash."

I'd suggest you read the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond or the "Wealth and Poverty of Nations" by David Landes

You're going to have to go into reading those books with an open mind, because they might not fit your predetermined narrative that societies are only successful because of skin color.

u/TetraThemes · 6 pointsr/Objectivism

The best option is almost certainly Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" (aka OPAR), based on lectures Peikoff gave in the 70s with Rand's approval:

The other major option is Nathaniel Branden's "The Vision of Ayn Rand", which is essentially a transcript of an earlier set of lectures Branden gave in the 60s, also with Rand's approval (and before Rand broke ties with Branden):

u/timfitz42 · 6 pointsr/intj
u/kyleweisbrod · 6 pointsr/ultimate

I've been reading [Inverting the Pyramid] ( which covers the history of soccer tactics and it's gotten me thinking a lot about how we talk about the game. I think we need a better framework/language to process what were seeing/what teams are doing. There's so much potential out there. I feel like we as a sport are where Soccer was tactically in the early 1900's. I don't know the answer, but I'd love to see more effort made to explore tactics.

u/isthisisthis · 6 pointsr/soccer

A very nice Rupert Fryer piece on Riquelme, "The Quixotic Enigma"

Marcela Mora y Araujo on Riquelme's return to Boca

Part one of a story where the author flies from England to Argentina to watch Riquelme (featuring life endangerment)


Jonathon Wilson on Riquleme from Inverting the Pyramid

>It is Riquelme, mournful of demeanour, graceful of movement and deft of touch, who best embodies the old-style enganche. When Eduardo Galeano drew the comparison between footballing artists and the devotees of milonga clubs, it was to players like Riquelme he was referring, and it is upon him that the debate about the future of such players has focused. Riquelme has become less a player than a cipher for an ideology.

>‘In the pause,’ the columnist Ezequiel Fernández Moores wrote in La Nacion, quoting a phrase common in the blues tradition of Argentina, ‘there is no music, but the pause helps to make the music.’ He went on to recount an anecdote about Charles Mingus walking into a bar to see an impetuous young drummer attempting a frenetic solo. ‘No,’ the great jazz musician said, ‘it’s not like that. You have to go slowly. You have to say hello to people, introduce yourself. You never enter a room shouting. The same is true of music.’

>But is it true of football? Nostalgists and romantics would like to believe so but, Moores argued that Riquelme would have to change, that he would have to learn, like Messi, a directness. Can the game today cope with a player who does not charge and hustle and chase, but exists apart from the hurly-burly; the still point of an ever-turning world, guiding and coaxing through imagination rather than physique? ‘Riquelme’s brains,’ Jorge Valdano said, ‘save the memory of football for all time… he is a player of the time when life was slow and we took the chairs out on the streets to play with the neighbours.’ Perhaps his melancholic demeanour reflects his knowledge that he was born out of his time. Then again, perhaps his lack of pace would have found him out whichever era he played in: he is, after all, not a paradigm for theoretical debate but an individual with many very great gifts and one very obvious weakness.

>In Argentina, Riquelme is adored and despised in equal measure, the depth of feeling he provokes indicative of how central the playmaker is to Argentinian notions of football. The enganche, Asch wrote in a column in Perfil in 2007, is ‘a very Argentinian invention, almost a necessity’. The playmaker, he went on ‘is an artist, almost by definition a difficult, misunderstood soul. It would, after all, hardly seem right if our geniuses were level-headed’; it is as though they must pay a price for their gifts, must wrestle constantly to control and to channel them. Certainly there is that sense with Riquelme, who eventually frustrated the Villarreal coach Manuel Pellegrino to the extent that he exiled him from the club.

>‘We are not,’ Asch wrote, ‘talking necessarily about a leader. Leaders were Rattín, Ruggeri, Passarella or Perfumo, intimidating people. No. Our man is a romantic hero, a poet, a misunderstood genius with the destiny of a myth… Riquelme, the last specimen of the breed, shares with Bochini the melancholy and the certainty that he only works under shelter, with a court in his thrall and an environment that protects him from the evils of this world.’ Perhaps, Asch said, he should never have left Boca.

>Well, perhaps, but it is not that Riquelme cannot prosper away from the club he clearly adores. He struggled with Barcelona, but he was the major reason Villarreal reached a Champions League semi-final 2005-06, and his intelligence was central to Argentina’s sublime progress to the quarter-final of the World Cup later that summer. And yet he took blame for his sides’ exits from both competitions. He missed a penalty against Arsenal in the Champions League, and was withdrawn after seventy-two anonymous minutes against Germany. Some cited Riquelme’s supposed tendency to go missing in big games; but what is striking is that the coach, José Pekerman, replaced him not with a similar fantasista, despite having Messi and Saviola available, but with the far more defensive Estaban Cambiasso, as he switched to a straight 4-4-2. He either decided that Torsten Frings, the more defensive of the two German central midfielders in their 4-4-2, would get the better of any playmaker he put on, or, as many argued, he lost his nerve completely and lost faith in the formation because of Riquelme’s ineffectiveness. Little wonder that Riqelme has commented - as a matter of fact, rather than from bitterness - that when his side loses, it is always his responsibility.

>Riquelme is a wonderful player. He may prosper at Boca, to whom he returned at the beginning of 2008. He may even prosper for Argentina, for international defences are not so well drilled as those at club level, but he is the last of a dying breed, a glorious anachronism.

u/DeusExCochina · 5 pointsr/atheism

No answers yet?

Many of the atheists here agree on Bart Ehrman as a good source. He's a Bible scholar who used to be Christian but whose studies have left him an atheist. He's written a whole series of books about how the Bible was cobbled together and, self-plagiarized, forged and fiddled, and so on. There's a field or method of study called critical analysis that makes the Bible's authenticity problems apparent, and Ehrman writes that stuff into popular books.

Two of his hits have been Misquoting Jesus, Jesus, Interrupted and Forged. The latter is perhaps his most explicit indictment of the intellectual crimes behind the Bible. Lost Christianities and other books talk about the many gospels and other writings that never made it into or were excised from what's known as the Bible today.

Ehrman also has a bunch of talks on YouTube where he engagingly presents those same ideas.

There are alternatives, of course, and it could be argued whether Ehrman is "the best." But he certainly knows what he's talking about (mostly), is a recognized authority on this kind of stuff, and presents it well. Best of all (from our point of view) he doesn't Lie For Jesus.

u/jpguitfiddler · 5 pointsr/todayilearned

> Its kind of like how Jesus' apostles wrote the New Testament.

No they didn't. None of the gospels are eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life, and, they are all written in Greek and not in the native tongues of anyone who met and followed Jesus. Here's a good read..

u/verveinloveland · 5 pointsr/DebateAChristian

Yep, I recommend misquoting jesus. It talks in depth about the translation issues in the Bible.

u/regypt · 5 pointsr/TrueAtheism

The book you're looking for is "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why"

I'm about 70% though it and it's been a great read. It's thick reading, but super interesting.

Free (legal?) ebook links here:

u/Norenzayan · 5 pointsr/exmormon

If she's interested in books, Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman really dismantled my belief in the veracity of the New Testament. I haven't read his other books but I've heard they're good. Also, Mormon Stories has a really interesting series on the New Testament featuring religious academic Jared Anderson.

She might want to check out the New Order Mormon board for a safe place to ask questions. It might feel less threatening than this sub.

u/xyzerb · 5 pointsr/todayilearned

If you're interested in reading more about how the Bible changed over time, read Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.

It's a little on the dry side, but it's not a rant, and if you're unfamiliar with textual criticism, you may find it interesting on that point alone.

For example, while some stories sound very "Christ-like", the story of the good Samaritan doesn't appear in any of the earliest versions of the New Testament--it was added by monks hundreds of years afterwards.

Fascinating material if you have an open mind.

u/LaskerEmanuel · 5 pointsr/MultipleSclerosis

I have been struggling with the same thing, after years of being what some people might think of as a bit of a workaholic, once I got to “Now I can’t work, what do I do” (After I got done struggling with “Now I can’t work, who am I), this is what I came up with:


Exercise: Everything I have read thus far, highly encourages persons with MS to get as much exercise as they can get. All of the stories I read about MS that make you think “I would like to experience what that person is experiencing” start out with “I got MS, and I thought my life was over, but then I got very serious about sleep, diet, and exercise”) This gentlemen just posted a very nice one on this very subreddit:
One of the challenges for me was as someone who used to be fairly athletic years ago, for me exercise was a way to enjoy the wonders the human body was capable of, and going for a short, shuffling walk at the end of which I was exhausted felt… I don’t know, not great. At that point I went to a talk on MS and one of the doctors that was speaking talked about the importance of exercise, and relayed a series of stories about exercise and MS. One of them was about a gentlemen who had lost the use of everything but his left arm. His words were something like “That arm is one of the most important things going on in my practice, it’s the arm he uses to order food, to facetime with his children…”, and then he went on to describe the stretching and exercise he would do to try to preserve as much function as possible.
Some days of course are better than others, on the good ones I try to get in as much exercise as possible. On the bad ones, well I can do less, but I try to do what I can. One thing that has helped for me is thinking of the MS like a foe. It wants to destroy you, take things away, crippled you (I realize this is silly anthropomorphizing, but I feel like it helps me maintain a good state of mind). On the days I feel good, it makes it easier to go out and do what exercise I can, it feels like I am gaining on my foe. On my bad days, I think “Alright, you got me today, but let’s see how I feel tomorrow, perhaps the MS leaves a hole and I can slip through”. Somehow approaching it this way makes me feel slippery and determined, rather than crippled.


Reading: When I was younger I read a great deal, but it fell off as my career picked up. I got to a point where I would only read a handful of books a year. Now with more time, I have been spending more time with a book.
I recently finished Sapiens, and very much enjoyed it:
I am now working my way through the histories of Herodotus (and am finding them fascinating):


Watching: The wife and I watch some TV together, and we have both been on history kick. We have been watching some of the great courses, and really enjoying the experience. Some of our favorites: Everything I have seen by Greg Aldrete is good, he seems to conduct creditable scholarship (For example, he calls out when historians disagree on some topic, shares the views of both camps, and THEN shares his thoughts), and he tells a fantastic story. Robert Garland takes moments out of history and works to make them come alive. I would argue that (at least for me) he succeeds spectacularly in this series. The history of food, and history told with an eye to how everything has been shaped by food.
In addition to these, there are countless other good ones. As someone who purchased some great courses in the past (at what were some fairly exorbitant prices even on their sales), I very much like their new subscription model where you pay a fee each month and have access to everything. You can try out a lecture and see if you enjoy the lecturer style.


Gaming: Weirdly, being sick has destroyed a lot of the fun of gaming for me. Before I got sick, gaming was a thing I enjoyed “After I did my work”. Now that I don’t have work to be done with, someone how I don’t feel like I have “Earned the right to game”. Not saying this makes sense, necessary, but of course we feel how we feel. I have continued to play EVE Online (which I played before I got sick), albeit at a much lazier pace. I played through much of the latest Zelda with my 6 year old, which was fun, and recently played through FAR: Lone Sails which is a quiet, atmospheric puzzle solving game that involves piloting a vehicle through a post apocalyptic wasteland. Despite that description, I feel like the game is more soothing then it is anything else. It’s beautiful made, it was an enjoyable experience.


In addition to this jazz, I have of course been spending time with my wife and children. After my last flare I was spending a lot (almost all) of my time in the house, and more recently I have been making plans to see friends. Because my energy does not last so long, I have been trying to do lunches, perhaps meet a friend on their lunch break at work. The lack of outside the family adult contact once I stopped working has been weighing on me, and having a chat with an old friend has been a real boost.

u/reallyserious · 5 pointsr/Kombucha

If you're interested, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, is an incredible book where such ideas and many more are examined.

u/Mescalitoburrito · 5 pointsr/Showerthoughts

One of my favorite guests on the Joe Rogan Experience was Johann Hari who gets really deep into how depression and values interact. He pretty much talks about a lot of the same stuff at the beginning of that book Sapiens - for thousands of years we evolved to use whole villages to raise children and now we're at this point, at least in Western society, where (misquoting Hari here) 'most people don't have someone they can turn to in a time of need.'

Essentially, many of us are pushed like round or square pegs into the wrong hole our entire lives and yeah, of course you're going to be depressed. But our society values working hard at the sake of happiness so don't complain or you're a bitch. Annnd, depression should probably be treated with a healthy diet, exercise, free cows, and more - not just popping a pill.

This comment feels meandering and I wasn't sure what to say but this thread had a lot of pain. Seriously, this video helped me through a tough time a few weeks ago and then I quit the job that was making me miserable! Got an offer for an equivalent job today and probably a better one next week. Maybe don't quit your job but that was what I needed to do to make my life enjoyable.

Find something that intrinsically gives you happiness and go for it.

Edit: I cannot link. Also, don't let Bro Jrogan scare you off, he's chill

u/mystrdat2 · 5 pointsr/Cinemagraphs

Give a read to Sapiens, namely the gossip theory (which I'm quoting) and cognitive revolution fundamentals, it might give you another perspective.

u/soybobomb · 5 pointsr/booksuggestions

I've never read "The Selfish Gene," so I'm not sure my suggestion will be any good, but I loved reading "The Disappearing Spoon" by Sam Keane.

It's basically a collection of narratives that have to do with various elements on the periodic table. Loved every minute of it.

u/Occupier_9000 · 5 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

National Socialism AKA Fascism is a Far-Right political ideology. Although there has been some attempt to associate them with the left (primarily from far-right wingers who resent being associated with Hitler), the consensus of most scholars is that fascism is a Far-Right ideology.

u/InscrutableTed · 5 pointsr/todayilearned

Oh geez, who invited Stormfront?

If anyone would like a less bigoted examination of history:

(But if you would rather trust a GIF on the internet than a Pulitzer-prize winning book, go ahead. It's a free country. Be as dumb as you want.)

u/Carrue · 5 pointsr/Survival

Here is how I would organize it:

Physiological needs of survival.

  • Temperature
  • Water
  • Food

    Techniques for temperature

  • Basic principles of heat transfer, warmth, and cold
  • Techniques for clothing
  • Techniques for shelter
  • Techniques for fire

    Techniques for water

  • The importance of water purity
  • Water purification, sanitation, and filtration

    Techniques for food.

  • Foraging
  • Hunting
  • Trapping and fishing
  • Primitive cooking

    Miscellaneous techniques

  • Wilderness hygiene
  • Hiking properly
  • Land navigation
  • Things idiots do

    Psychology of survival

  • The importance of optimism and never quitting.
  • The parasympathetic nervous system and you.
  • Operant extinction and how it makes you crazy, plus how to survive through it.
  • The Basil Ganglia and automation, the strength of habits, and how to learn and maintain skills effectively.

    Each numbered section could be a book of its own, and some of them have already been written. I think this is a good way to organize wilderness survival for the short term. I think once you start thinking about preserving food you are entering a new realm where you'll need a new, more complicated organization. Maybe I'll write the psychology one some day, as I haven't seen a good survival psychology book out there, just a bunch of bullshit.

    Now I don't agree that society has failed us. I think you would really like to read Guns, Germs, and Steel. It will put societies into a perspective where they are just groups of people providing themselves with the same physiological needs of survival, in ways most efficient for their environment. But I also think it's best for society that individuals can carry on in the event of a problem. So I hear what you're saying. Anyway, I hope you find this helpful.
u/ErdeTyrenne · 5 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

Are you retarded? I'm saying & giving you a source for the fact that Natives were dropping like flies from diseases brought over by the survivors of said diseases, who had biologically developed immunities that prevented them from dying at nearly those high of rates. The natives had a far less varied, lower caloric intake diets than did the Europeans who not only had a wider selection of crops but also of cattle. They had steel weapons and steel armor that the natives did not develop as well as guns, all of these factors growing out of the generally higher level of diffusion of technology on the Eurasian landmass & it's east-west orientation as opposed to the more difficult to traverse, mixed climate north-south orientation of the Americas. It's very similar to how the north-south orientation of sub-Saharan Africa hindered greatly the abilities of it's people to develop relatively advanced societies as opposed to Eurasian societies. Read [Guns, Germs and Steel](Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond.

u/InhLaba · 5 pointsr/booksuggestions

Some nonfiction books I enjoyed that came to mind:

u/uncletravellingmatt · 5 pointsr/atheism

When I was a little kid I loved the Narnia books by C.S. Lewis. They are very Christian, but I just enjoyed them as entertaining stories. So I guess that's an honest answer to your question. (Although reading his apologetics like Mere Christianity now it just looks like a lot of double-talk and logical fallacies, it seems like it would only seem deep or meaningful to people who really wanted to smooth-over their own cognitive dissonance, and doesn't prove any points if you weren't already assuming his conclusions to be true.) If you broaden your question to "from a religious perspective" without requiring that it specifically be a Christian one, it gets easier to think of answers. I just read "The Story of God" and even though the author was a theist (Jewish) I thought he made a lot of good points in explaining the cultural and religious history of how monotheistic religions including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam came to be.

I think Sam Harris stands out as a very readable atheist author. His books such as "The End of Faith" and its follow-up "Letter to a Christian Nation" are short and powerful paperbacks. Watch this short talk and you can get an idea of his perspective before you buy any books:

u/zissouo · 5 pointsr/askscience

In The 10,000 Year Explosion, the authors, an evolutionary biologist and an anthropologist, argue that homo sapiens most likely inherited almost all the beneficial genes of the neanderthals, and that only a few dozen cases of interbreeding would have been enough for this to happen. It's an interesting read.

u/vectorjohn · 5 pointsr/politics

This is accurate. People have way too much faith in the "strength of our institutions." They aren't that strong and as we've all learned in the last few months, they depend on the good will of the people in those institutions. It is no laughing matter.

Edit: This podcast episode has an interview with the author of a book which was not written about Trump, but lays out some of the details about what leads a democracy to be overtaken by tyranny. It was interesting and worrying.

u/kixiron · 5 pointsr/Philippines

Yaman din lang at nabanggit na rin ang usapang history, nirerecommend ko itong aklat ni Timothy Snyder na On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. Napakarelevant nito sa atin. Read this book, please!

u/axolotl_peyotl · 5 pointsr/conspiracy

Further reading:

Smallpox Shenanigans (My own summary of the history of smallpox and the smallpox vaccine)

Dissolving Illusions (The best book you will ever read on the true history of smallpox and polio)

Emerging Viruses (This book will utterly demolish your trust in the CDC, NIH and their ilk. After reading it, you'll see that a few forgotten vials of smallpox are by far the least of our worries)

u/DynamoManiac · 5 pointsr/dynamo

Welcome, if you know absolutely nothing about soccer then you've got your work cut out for you. You can imagine knowing nothing about football and then suddenly tuning in. At first, just looks like a bunch of guys standing around and running occasionally. After a while, it will start to look like more but really understanding it in a deep sense to where you can stand around the cooler and talk plays, situational decisions, etc requires years and years, like growing up with it right? Europeans like to say that Americans don't understand soccer. They are snobs that way, but they are also not wrong. Most fans are in that intermediate step of watching the game and enjoying it but not being able to peel away the next layer of the onion with a detailed understanding of the tactical elements, etc.

If you're up for it, I'd recommend this book, one of the best soccer books out there which gives you both a detailed history of the game but more importantly a detailed history and understanding of tactics:

u/elliotravenwood · 5 pointsr/soccer

Other than Jonathan Wilson's Inverting the Pyramid, I recommend reading Michael Cox's Zonal Marking blog. Cox analyzes the tactics of recent games, from which I've learned a lot.

His Tactics in the 2000 series is also well worth a read.

u/qwertytrewq00 · 5 pointsr/conspiracy

did the zionists collaborate with the nazi party?

the never ending rabbit hole that is life. can't even discern truth from fiction everything is so obfuscated. personally I just want to find out the truth no matter how uncomfortable it is.

u/kavabean2 · 5 pointsr/ukpolitics

> He claimed there was "real collaboration" between Zionists and the Nazis

There was collaboration and it was definitely real.

You might be reading too much into the word "real". That's a biased semantic interpretation which you likely cannot defend.

As to your claim that he defended the joke itself. That is false. He declared the joke utterly rude and obscene but said that he had spent time with Shah and didn't believe she was an anti-semite.

u/Vein77 · 4 pointsr/atheism

My absolute favorite read. It’s in our recommendation list.

u/HaiKarate · 4 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

These are written on a more popular level

u/jdefriez · 4 pointsr/exmormon

Indeed. Such a person, however, would likely be unfamiliar with biblical textual criticism, the history of homosexuality in the Roman empire at the time of Christ, the history of homosexuality within the Christian tradition, the history of the interpretation of these scriptures, and unfamiliar with psychological literature that almost unanimously shows that people who live repressing same-sex attraction are nearly universally miserable.

Here's a to read list:

u/RockyIV · 4 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

I'm late to the party, so this comment may be buried, but /u/SergeantSully, I'd recommend you read some of the books by Bart Ehrman, a professor at UNC who attended Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College, and Princeton Theology School. His works describe in extraordinary detail the evidence that the New Testament is entirely manmade and contradictory. You might start with Misquoting Jesus.

u/surfingatwork · 4 pointsr/atheism

As far as Christianity goes, probably the best book I've read about the "unathenticity" of the Bible is "Misquoting Jesus."

I wrote the following book about Christianity that's less professional but still raises some interesting points. It's free. So don't accuse me of spamming:

u/lisper · 4 pointsr/Creation

> The same techniques that lead us to suspect the ending of Mark might not be genuine show us that the vast majority of the New Testament exists largely unchanged from the original manuscripts, save for the odd spelling error.

No, they don't.

But we might just have to agree to disagree about that. In any case...

> I believe only in the God of the Bible.

With or without Mark 16:17-18?

Either way, let me just ask you: does faith in the God of the Bible produce any measurable (by a non-believer) effect that faith in some other god does not? If so, what is it? If not, then in what sense can such a god be said to exist?

u/scottklarr · 4 pointsr/books
u/timojen · 4 pointsr/DebateAChristian

The point of my comparison was: It seems unstructured to me. And I am often confused by that lack of rules moderates live by.

I constantly meet people who consider themselves Christian or Muslim or whatever but do not follow the rules of that religion. For instance a good friend of mine who is a Catholic, like many american's, believes the sacrament is symbolically the body and blood of Christ and also uses contraception. These are big no-nos for a Catholic. Another friend is Muslim and he loves bacon and also uses contraception and does not believe his daughter should grow up thinking herself less than a male.

Essentially, these types of people make up the bulk of religious people I meet. So maybe they are a good %age of the religious in america. But effectively they are not religious. They simply believe in a god and pick the rules they want to follow based on a number of different criteria. Those criteria are almost always cultural.

This seems like sentimental (in the philosophical sense) religion to me. Why not drop the religion altogether?

EDIT: have you read this book?

u/TheFlyingBastard · 4 pointsr/europe

Np. If you like this kind of stuff, you should look into the books by Bart Ehrman. He's a New Testament scholar that writes about this stuff in a very easy to understand way. Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interrupted are the two books he became known for, and they have ruffled a lot of feathers, but his other books are very readable too.

u/avatar_of_prometheus · 4 pointsr/DecaturGA

Because making loose correlations between anecdotal observations is a lot easier than thinking about socioeconomic issues. Because humans are hardwired to be tribal, and most of our self selected tribes are monochromatic. Sapiens, Outliers, and The Tipping Point touch on these flaws in our wetware.

u/katsuhira_nightshade · 4 pointsr/DebateReligion

This is actually the thesis of Yuval Harari's book, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Essentially, he believes that what separates humans from other animals is our ability to create and collectively believe in common fictions, allowing for greater social cohesion.

u/rdar1999 · 4 pointsr/btc

As she said, the potential to do harm and to do good is huge. This is in all dimensions.

The good side is to make the world even more connected for mutual enrichment. Our species's great leap was the ability to cooperate with large amounts of unknown people, this means trade with them (see

We want to interact with other groups because we want to trade with them. To do this, we need communication, which is flexible but also standardized: languages. Trade is the biggest drive to language, the same way trade is the biggest drive to money (and only from this we derive the concept of store of value BTW).

All of this makes me pretty confident that we need bitcoin (cash), it is the natural step forward. We can only cooperate in higher degree if we can eschew the trust element, that's why national issued "cryptocurrencies" are an uninformed move to keep the obsolete alive, it won't work, I'm 100% confident of that.

The "evil" part of it is the perception that if I control communication, I control the economy. If I control money, I control trade, I control cooperation, I control an important part of communication.

Hence the tension.

ps: that's why I always agreed with Ver on how stupid core's concept of "bitcoin as reserve of value" really is, it is fundamentally flawed.

ps2: Teal Swan, whoa, what an alluring human being :D

u/Soperman223 · 4 pointsr/CGPGrey

So I recently read Sapiens, which is a book that attempts to explain human history from a bit more of a cultural perspective.

I found it absolutely fascinating (and started reading guns, germs, and steel afterwards because I wanted more), and I was wondering if you’ve read it and what you thought about it.

Also, in terms of relating to the podcast, I kind of agree with Grey on just disconnecting (from social media at least). I don’t think it’s psychologically healthy to be exposed to that as often as we are

u/pier25 · 4 pointsr/Psychonaut

In the academic world this is called the cognitive revolution.

I really recommend the book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind which touches this topic when the author talks about the formation of culture and civilisation.

u/what_u_want_2_hear · 4 pointsr/worldnews

For anyone interested, Sapiens is a good book to start.

u/jvlpdillon · 4 pointsr/40something

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind: This is the best book I have read in a very long time. This is about how our cultures, religions, and values were formed based on biology and psychology theories. I know that sounds boring but it is very interesting.

A Higher Loyalty: If you believe Comey your opinion will not change and if you do not believe Comey your opinion will not change. Meh, skip it.

[Dune] ( I do not read a lot of Sci-Fi but with the expected move coming u in a few years I thought I might get ahead if it. It was interesting but not exactly action-packed.

Leonardo Da Vinci The Walter Isaacson biographies about "geniuses" Steve Jobs, Ben Franklin, Albert Einstein are all interesting.

u/ShavedRegressor · 4 pointsr/atheism

You may not get far trying the argument route with your parents, but the fact that they’re willing to listen is a very good sign.

I strongly recommend Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation. It’s a great introduction to the idea that atheists aren’t evil. It’s a non-confrontational hugs-all-around sort of book, perfect for this sort of situation (assuming your parents are American).

u/Tbone139 · 4 pointsr/atheism

For Christians,

Sam Harris - Letter to a Christian Nation

u/scurvydog-uldum · 4 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Jared Diamond's masterpiece, Guns, Germs, and Steel had a chapter on this.

Zebras get nasty as they get older and don't stay tamed.

u/LE4d · 4 pointsr/InternetIsBeautiful
u/Banzeye · 4 pointsr/gameofthrones

Shit, some interesting reading material is Guns, Germs, and Steel.

It's an interdisciplinary work but it's pretty fascinating and its a good read.

Interested in a fun East Asian account? Try reading The Last Samurai: The Life and Battles of Saigo Takamori. This is the book that the movie of the same name was adapted from. (I seriously mean ADAPTED, by the way.) It's an interesting read about the Meiji Restoration and how the Japanese countryside reacted.

How about something from Africa? Read Sundiata: an Epic of Old Mali. It's an epic poem about the founding of the African state of Mali (MANSA MUSA DA GOD). Captivating read.

Get cracking.

u/Stubb · 4 pointsr/askscience

Go read Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Europeans lived in proximity with a far greater variety of domesticated animals than Native Americans.

u/NYC_summer · 4 pointsr/history

I would recommend you read Guns, Germs and Steal by Jared Diamond. Talks about this subject and it is an easy read.

u/TheTeachingMirror · 4 pointsr/Teachers

World History: Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. (It is also made as a documentary now)

US History: A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn

In regards to being sensitive for issues like slavery and the Holocaust, I recommend Teaching Tolerance. They have some good resources.

u/WRSaunders · 4 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

You might be interested in Jered Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel. He does a pretty thorough discussion of the subject. If boils down to white people coming in quantity from a content that's wider (East-West) than it is tall (North-South). This means temperate bands are longer, providing more opportunities to fight over crops and resources. This builds up the capability to fight, and when the advent of long-distance sailing comes into the picture, these fight-prone groups sail around the work, find less fight-prone people, and vanquish them.

u/p0x0rz · 4 pointsr/Fantasy

Gotta add Guns, Germs, and Steel to these, though it paints in much broader strokes. Fantastically interesting read.

u/jones1618 · 4 pointsr/history

I'd really recommend Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.

It's one of the rare history books that takes on the grand sweep of human history, upending a lot of what you were taught and weaving it all together in a highly-readable and entertaining way.

u/VetMichael · 4 pointsr/AskHistorians

If I may jump in here, /u/Mycd is making a similar argument to Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel. Though I am not sure about the claim that livestock were a significant source of disease. I know that they were a significant source of vaccination in the 18th century, but disease? Zoonotic diseases aren't usually small pox level variants (except for exotic ones which emerge well after the Columbian exchange).

There is a history of continual exposure to the major, and quite deadly, pathogens in Eurasian history that were the subject of medical inquiry from about 1000 CE onward; Chinese and Indian physicians, for example, experimented with blowing the dust from dried scabs of plague victims into the noses of people who had not gotten sick yet in order to inoculate them. It didn't work as well as modern science would have liked - the Black Death claimed tens of thousands of lives in Cairo alone - but it was better than nothing.

In Diamond's book, he makes the argument that since Eurasian trade routes were roughly east-west, the pathogens had similar enough environs - and continual human hosts - to survive and even mutate. On the other hand, Diamond points out, there was no equivalent to the Silk Road in the Western Hemisphere, thus preventing continual human-to-human transmission necessary for viral or bacterial mutation to the degree in Eurasia. Also, the fact that different latitudes often brought wildly varying environments, hampered potentially deadly plagues from emerging on such a vast scale in the Americas. He doesn't say, though, that Mesoamericans or other major empires didn't have plagues - they did - but compared to Eurasian ones, they were relatively weak or mild.

Other sources: Bernard Lewis Islam: From the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople

Arthur Silverstein A History of Immunology

Jared Diamond Guns, Germs, and Steel

u/Sword_of_Apollo · 4 pointsr/changemyview


>The dual wave/particle nature of matter is something that Rand has trouble with.

Not so long as the duality is accounted for in a non-contradictory way. It's self-evident that you will never find both sides of a contradiction existing in reality. If you could, you would never be able to know anything about anything. I explain this point further here.


>Rand's epistemology posits a fundamentally knowable world, so much so that we can draw strong conclusions about ethics and politics from principles founded on literally any observation.

I think it's pretty clear that this was not Rand's view of how principles are derived and grounded. It certainly isn't Dr. Leonard Peikoff's view of the induction of ethical and political principles, and he studied under Rand for 30 years and, to the best of my knowledge, agrees with Rand on every philosophical principle she wrote on, (and some she never wrote on.)

An individual's conceptual knowledge is an integrated whole, with a network of relationships between the different concepts and propositions.

Inductions of principles are not made by any random observation, but by multiple, relevant observations that are then integrated with each other and with other concepts, by a certain method (inductive logic) ultimately forming a theory that explains the observations causally. There is a whole lecture course and a book extending Objectivist theories to the issue of induction.

>I think there is a very powerful case that the complexity of the real world is such that drawing universal conclusions from a tiny base of priors will lead you far astray.

As I mentioned earlier, Rand isn't basing principles on "a tiny base of priors," but on concepts and theories that rest on a large number of perceptions and observations. But I also want to emphasize that complexity does not preclude the derivation of principles. Issac Newton derived principles from a tremendously complex physical world. And these principles still work in the context (including the precision of measurement) in which they were derived, (i.e. when things are not too small, too large, or too fast.) (That is another thing about principles that Objectivism recognizes: they are contextual with respect to evidence. See: Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.)

>She is also extremely uncharitable to Kant, who explores very similar ideas...

Not really similar, actually. Rand didn't take respresentationalism, or the causal theory of perception (in which external objects are the causes, but not the direct objects of perception) for granted as starting points. Nor did she make a distinction between "things-in-themselves" and "appearances," nor did she believe in the "synthetic a priori," nor did she posit that "objects must conform to our knowledge."

Rand was a direct realist (but not a "naive" one) about perception, and her philosophy goes on from there. (I recommend The Evidence of the Senses by David Kelley. If you want a more in depth explanation of what's wrong at the root of Kant's epistemology, I recommend this post, especially my last couple of comments: A Critique of Kant on the Noumenal World / Phenomenal World Distinction (“Thing-in-Itself” vs “Appearance”).)


>However, Rand's conception of human happiness seems at odds with what we see in actual human lives. The deep and lasting connections of love that form among people and the genuine sacrifice people will make for their loved ones are such a big part of human behavior that it pushes me away from Rand's philosophy here.

If this is supposed to be persuasive, you're relying on an argumentum ad populum. The fact that many people behave a certain way doesn't make it right.

Now, you might say that the great prevalence of certain behaviors in people makes theories that condemn that behavior, prima facie, counter-intuitive. But to oppose the theory on these grounds, in the face of solid philosophical argument, is succumbing to the ad populum fallacy.

I would also like to note, for clarity here, that a genuine sacrifice is one in which a person willfully does net damage to his ability to carry forward with life, when everything, including his mental (conceptual and healthy emotional) needs over the long term are taken into account. I must say that I doubt that genuine sacrifices are quite as common as you indicate.


>Interpersonal relations are maddeningly complex, and a political system which presupposes to answer nearly all questions from basic principles is going to fail to account for that complexity.

Again, complexity does not preclude principles. Things that are varied and disparate in perceptual reality can be organized and kept track of conceptually. Principles can be derived from them.

>The modern liberal democratic welfare state has in fact worked really well.

To what are you comparing it and what standard of measurement are you using?

Countries today that can be called "modern" in the sense of technology and prosperity appear to be so, largely to the extent that they have been good at respecting the principles of freedom (that is, individual rights: life, liberty and property.)

Welfare, (redistribution based on need) on the other hand, exists, not only in these prosperous countries, but also exists in abundance in places like Cuba, North Korea, the former USSR, Haiti, and Somalia. (In these last two cases, the redistribution is in the form of international aid.)

This video shows the correlation between economic freedom and quality of life: Episode One: Economic Freedom & Quality of Life. Explanation of the causation can be found in works like Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Bernstein's The Capitalist Manifesto.

As Bono said,

>Aid is just a stop-gap. Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid.

>In dealing with poverty here and around the world, welfare and foreign aid are a Band-Aid. Free enterprise is a cure.

>Entrepreneurship is the most sure way of development.

(Though I think that even calling welfare and foreign aid a "stop-gap" is giving them too much credit. I think it actually hinders economic progress by helping to insulate the county's people and--especially--leadership from the full consequences of their failure to uphold individual rights on principle.)

[Edit: Added the first sentence of the first response.]

u/dahudge · 4 pointsr/greatawakening

But you are totally fine buying into the narrative that you've been given that vaccines are safe, check out humphries book on amazon,

Just skimming through the free sample is enough to make me question things. Vaccines are a religion at this point

u/BBQ_HaX0r · 4 pointsr/reddevils

While not specifically United books, three books that I highly recommend and have increased my knowledge of the sport are:

  1. Money and Soccer: A Soccernomics Guide; by Stefan Szymanski

    I really recommend this one if you're interested in the financial aspect of the game. It explains a lot about Manchester United's dominance in that front and discusses how many other clubs have to go about obtaining success. It's a pretty easy and entertaining read. I really enjoy Stefan's writing and work and this was one of my favorites.

  2. The Numbers Game: Why Everything you Know about Soccer is Wrong; by Chris Anderson

    This is an easy read that uses advanced analytics to explain the sport. It goes into detail about how many times cliches and sayings (e.g. defense wins championships!) are often mistaken and breaks things down from an analytical point of view. Even if you're skeptical of advanced metrics, it provides an interesting view. Actually quite an easy read considering the subject.

  3. Inverting the Pyramid: The History of Soccer Tactics; by Jonathan Wilson

    This one is great from a tactical point of view. Not a lot about United. It focuses mainly on the evolution of the game and providing history and context. I found it very dense and labored through the book a bit. Still some very interesting stuff to help grow your knowledge of the sport and it's history from a tactical point of view. Louis van Gaal I believe gets quite a bit in it, mainly his time at Ajax and Barcelona, but it focuses primarily on 'innovators' of tactics. So the end is quite heavy on the possession tiki-tika style that is seen as the future of the sport. A little disappointed with the lack of SAF and United in this book, still a worthwhile read.
u/sir_tejj · 4 pointsr/soccer

My Turn: A Life of Total Football

By Johan Cruyff. I have still yet to read it, but I've heard good things about it.

Also, another one is Inverting the Pyramid, but its not by a player/manager though. Brilliant book on tactics, either way. Definitely worth the read.

Personal bias aside, My Story: Steven Gerrard is a very good read as well. Published after he left Liverpool, so you can imagine the weight of the words he writes.

u/dinvgamma · 4 pointsr/nfl

Just to add: the name "association football" was created to distinguish it from "rugby football," which was being developed around the same time (per Inverting the Pyramid).

u/shantebellum · 4 pointsr/soccer

It's a book written by Jonathan Wilson with brilliant analysis of how tactics have evolved throughout history. A must-have to all fans of football ;) The posts here are condensed chapters of it.

u/thelasian · 4 pointsr/worldnews

> you use inhabitants for Palestinians, while using Zionists as an aggressor, I would assume that you have a bias towards this situation.

Yes, I have a bias towards factual accuracy. Note that the Palestinians didn't arrive from Ukraine or Brooklyn, the Zionists did, and the Zionists didn't end up murdered, raped or forced into refugee camps there, the Palestinians did.


which had nothing to do with Palestinians, so...
But in fact the Zionist had themselves struck a bargain with Nazis to promote emigration to Israel

>those kicked out from middle eastern countries

You mean the Mizrahi jews whom Israel didn't even recognize as refugees until it became convenient to do so in order to counter the rights of palestinians

Palestinians who were, again, were not responsible for what happens in Morocco or Iraq... except in the fevered minds of Zionists for whom they're all just a bunch of Arabs and subject to collective punishment. And FYI lets not forget that the Zionist themselves probably bombed Jews in Baghdad to convince them to move to Israel

In fact according to CIA officer Wilbur Crane Eveland:

>>"In an attempt to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to terrorize the Jews, the Zionists planted bombs in the U.S. Information Service library and in the synagogues. Soon leaflets began to appear urging Jews to flee to Israel... most of the world believed reports that Arab terrorism had motivated the flight of the Iraqi Jews whom the Zionists had 'rescued' really just in order to increase Israel’s Jewish population."

And ...

>the Palestinians rejected it and then countered with a war which they lost

Actually the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians started before the 1948 war in places like Jaffa and Haifa, where the local population was gathered up into the village square, bombarded with mortar fire, and literally forced into the sea where British naval vessels picked up the survivors and took them eventually to refugee camps.

And the idea that innocent Palestinian villagers and women and children are somehow collectively responsible for the actions of the Jordanian or Egyptian military is yet another example of the Zionist racist tribalistic mind set of "heck they're all just Arabs"

PS the last time someone claimed that people who lost wars could be ethnically cleansed, he had a funny little moustache.

u/rogersII · 4 pointsr/todayilearned

Plenty of Jews object to Israels cooption of the Holocaust to promote its own political legitimacy and agenda

u/einTier · 4 pointsr/atheism

I came to atheism late in life. It was a strange thing for me, there was no story to tell like there is for those who suddenly find Jesus. I just woke up one morning and realized that not only did I not believe in God, I hadn't believed in quite some time. I always explain it like having a beach house and every year the ocean washes a little of the beach away. One day, you wake up, go out on the porch and realize there's no longer a beach -- the water is lapping at your back deck. When did the beach cease to exist? It's hard to say, even if you went and looked at the beach every morning, which you probably didn't. You just know there isn't a beach anymore and it's time for new plans.

Since I came to it so late in life, I got to look it from a much more adult perspective and got to really understand it. Hopefully, I can help you understand your son.

  1. First, understand that atheism isn't really a religion, though many try to classify it that way. You don't need a word that describes your disbelief in Santa Claus, the Chupacabra, or any other number of mystical beasts. However, because religion is so pervasive in our society, we need a word to explain that we don't believe the accepted narrative.

    That said, we're kind of all over the place. Some of us kind of disbelieve a little, like my girlfriend. She really wants to believe there's a God of some sort, and she tries continually to find evidence. I'm a little more strong in my atheism, I don't believe there's a God and I've stopped looking for Him. I'd be perfectly happy with a God worth worshipping, but I'm living my life as if there is no God. Others are more militant, and some are out to convert others. But there's no universal string that ties us together other than our lack of belief. We're as different as any other general subset of the population. You might as well ask what people who like Chinese food believe in.

    Because of that, you're not going to find the Tabula Rasa you're seeking. It doesn't exist. We don't have a holy book. We don't even have real tribal leaders. I can recommend some reading, though. I highly recommend Richard Dawkins as a primer, and in particular, I found The God Delusion to be really helpful in understanding my atheism. Before that, I was really uncomfortable with the label "atheist" and preferred the less loaded term of agnostic. However, after reading that book, I found that atheist really was accurate and it didn't have to mean "complete and absolute knowledge of the non-existance of God" or even "I hate religion".

    Dawkins doesn't suffer fools lightly and he can be sharp at times, but he generally wants people to understand and is trying to talk to all audiences, not just the already converted. Authors like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris can be fun to read for someone who has already acknowledged their atheism, but they are preaching to the choir and their books pull no punches. They aren't going to convert anyone. I highly suggest staying away unless you want to be angry.

  2. Almost all of us go through this phase. It's part of the reason why r/atheism is kind of considered a circle-jerk around here and why people generally don't stay very long. It's a very confusing time when you're newly atheist. You really don't know what you believe, only that you know you don't believe what you did before. I would say it's very similar to going through a divorce and you can expect a lot of acting out. There's a part of you that's bitter because you feel you've wasted some part of your life chasing something that doesn't exist. You've been lied to and that hurts. You probably denied yourself certain pleasures because you believed them to be sinful and that makes you angry because those opportunities are gone now. Quite frankly, some of it is just reveling in the blasphemy you were prohibited from engaging in before.

    However, there are some of us that are legitimately upset and angry. Many of us lose family members over our atheism. My mother has disowned me because of it, and that's not uncommon. All of us lose friends over it. Some of us lose jobs or won't be promoted because we're perceived as not moral. A friend of mine has told me that while he likes my company, he could never hire or work for an atheist because he doesn't trust them. For all the talk of religious persecution, try walking around just one day as a vocally out atheist. There's a reason why the majority of us are silent and only talk openly about it in safe places such as this.

    Your son is probably looking up anti-religious articles and books and such because it's the easiest way for him to find confirmation of his disbelief. A lot of the anti-religious stuff he's posting is probably helping him understand why he stopped believing the way he did. Understand that he may be going through a period where he hates religion, but it's not that he's anti-God. It's very difficult to be against something you don't believe in, and this includes the devil. He may well be anti-religion and that may or may not pass. Atheists often find that religion seems to do a lot of evil in the world (terrorism, hateful laws, justification for immoral acts such as slavery) and that can be painful to witness.

    If it's any consolation, I find myself fascinated by religious objects and I tend to collect them. My bookshelf is filled with religious texts and I have many representations of religious beings in my apartment. I find it incredibly interesting the power that someone can ascribe to a mere object or idea.

  3. Understand that atheism isn't a lack of moral character. This is one of the first misconceptions that I find that the religious have. When you believe that your moral character derives from a holy text, it's hard to understand how you could derive it absent that text or one similar to it. But that's not true, and you do it every day. There are moral judgements you must make every day that your religious text cannot help you decide. There are moral judgements you make that your religious text would mislead you about. For one, you would never condone slavery, yet your Bible tells you exactly how to treat your slaves and which people are ok to keep as slaves. You don't need your Bible to tell you that slavery is wrong. I don't need my Bible to tell me that stealing is wrong. I know that I would hate it if someone stole from me, and therefore, I do not steal from others.

    If anything, I feel more moral and more obligated to be moral now that I'm an atheist. I know that sounds odd, but please hear me out. I feel this is the only life I get. This is the only life you get, and the world as it is today is the only world we get to experience. Because there is no better place, I want to make sure I leave this world better than I found it. I want to leave you with a life that is as good as it could have been while still living a life that is equally good for me. I suspect your son feels the same way, because moral people are moral without religion.

    I know you want to reach your son and teach him good values and good morals and how to make good decisions, and quite frankly, it is your obligation to do so. However, you will have a harder task because you can no longer argue from authority. You're right that you can't say, "do this because God says so." It won't matter to him any more than "do this because Santa will love you" would matter to you. No one could point to Christmas stories or point out that bad kids get coal because you don't believe and you've seen plenty of bad kids who didn't get coal at all. Instead, you'll have to make logical arguments about why things are bad. For instance, you don't want him to have sex. That's probably unrealistic, because studies show that kids have sex whether they are religious or not. We are simply built to have sex when we hit adolescence and our bodies compel us to do it. Abstinence worked fine when we all got married at 15, but it works much less so now that we're waiting until our late 20's. Instead, explain that people can legitimately be hurt by sex when its done for amoral reasons. Explain that at his age, he doesn't have the experience to understand the complex feelings and emotions that go into it. He probably won't understand that, so you'll also have to council him that if he is going to do it, here are many ways to do it safely so that he doesn't end up with a kid. Explain that having a child at a very young age requires tremendous sacrifice and is emotionally and financially difficult. Doing it when you are not prepared likely means that many of his dreams will be unachieveable.

    Of course, this doesn't help you if you think premarital sex is sinful. He is going to have a different idea about that and there's not a good logical argument that can be made. However, you can make sure that his decision to have sex doesn't result in terrible consequences. That's kind of how you'll have to frame everything from now on.
u/PRiles · 3 pointsr/funny

According to Misquoting jesus there were several meetings of the curch to decide what was allowed in the bible and what wasnt, on top of there being arguments about how to word things in each book and what to cut out of books. Some stuff in contradicted its self and they had votes to make changes that would support the position of the church at the time.

u/napoleonsolo · 3 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Misquoting Jesus. It's by a highly regarded New Testament scholar and covers the history of the creation and development of the New Testament brilliantly.

u/getzdegreez · 3 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Mistranslated and completely rewritten in many instances. Misquoting Jesus is an excellent book on the topic.

u/Scary_The_Clown · 3 pointsr/atheism

By the way, anyone interested in learning more about the Bible as a historical book of legend, I highly recommend Misquoting Jesus - written by a very spiritual man who considers the Bible a book written by man, not God.

u/Decium · 3 pointsr/atheism

Good books. Did you have any particular subjects within atheism that you would like to read about?

If I can make 2 recommendations for what to read next;

Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman

Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan

The FAQ has a nice little section on books.

NukethePope also has a nice list.

u/AHarshInquisitor · 3 pointsr/atheism

>Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). Anthony DeStefano uses this Bible quote toward the end of his new book Inside the Atheist Mind: Unmasking the Religion of Those Who Say There Is No God, pointing to the resiliency and truth of Christianity. “You can hide it, persecute it, denigrate it, scoff at it, lock it up, even murder it—but all to no avail . . . those words of Christ have not passed away.” He talks a bit about the book and why he wrote it.

Um. Actually, now that I think about it, "Jesus'" "words" did pass away. Pretty well documented in the book, Misquoting Jesus, too. If you take the traditional view, that "Jesus" is also "God" and it's the same "words", that point is driven home, especially with the Old Testament.

For the New, one knows if he existed, or what this "Jesus" even said anymore, if he did, with any confidence.

I consider that another failed prophecy.

u/Sansabina · 3 pointsr/exmormon

just remember that (well read) mormons don't interpret polygamy as a flaw or a problem, it is viewed as a critical core doctrine that is not currently practiced due to historic government interference (even though the modern PR driven church does everything to avoid discussion of it and minimise attention to it).

Also, while you can easily see the flaws in her religion (I mean it is kooky and obvious) don't forget to apply the same critical eye to your own Christian beliefs which appear equally kooky and obvious to outsiders.

If you haven't already I'd recommend Ehrman to start

u/xconde · 3 pointsr/todayilearned

The Bible was badly translated for 1,500 years, not just "at one point".

"For almost 1,500 years, the New Testament manuscripts were copied by hand––and mistakes and intentional changes abound in the competing manuscript versions."

u/Supergeckodude · 3 pointsr/politics

You should give the book Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman a read. He walks the reader through the process of textual analysis to determine how the bible has changed from its original form, and ultimately casts doubt on the idea that it is the literal word of god. For example, there's evidence to suggest that the story of Jesus sparing the adulterous woman ("Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone") was a later addition.

u/FunkyFortuneNone · 3 pointsr/exchristian

I highly recommend Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.

Ehrman is a legitimate academic focused on the New Testament. Misquoting Jesus (and his other books) are great if you find yourself asking questions like this.

u/nicolaslloyd · 3 pointsr/atheism

this book is what finally pushed me over the edge into atheism / freedom. it's about how the bible as we know is completely inaccurate. this naturally led me to ask myself, if what we base our worship and knowledge of god is inherently inaccurate, then that's as good as believing a fiction. quite simply, believing a lie.

u/Diabolico · 3 pointsr/atheism

Many instances in which Jesus is referred to as actually being God or of divine origin in the bible were antiadoptionistic changes made to the texts by theologians in order to discredit a group best described as messianic Jews (the Ebionites). They believed that he was born via the natural union of Joseph and Mary, and that he was given a special calling by God that invested him with divinity only after his birth.

By this theology Jesus did not preexist creation and was truly a normal human being until after his crucifixion. The prevailing Christian groups who opposed this wen to extreme measures to wipe the group out, especially because they demanded that all Christians would also have to be Jews, as Jesus was, and this required circumcision and kosher eating practices: two things not very popular in the classical Roman empire.

See these excellent books for extensive details about Biblical alterations and pre-orthodox Christianity:

Misquoting Jesus

Lost Christianities

u/jaywalkker · 3 pointsr/atheism

Inconsistencies begs the question of how they got in there, so I'd reference [Misquoting Jesus]( "eye opening") by Bart Ehrman. You can tie his work in with the modern equivalent [Conservative Bible Project]( "Cognitive Dissonance").

u/handlebartender · 3 pointsr/atheism

I'm in Texas now, but I grew up in the Toronto area. The church isn't quite so tied to the public school system, although it wasn't always so. I remember part of the daily opening exercises would include standing and singing along for O Canada, followed by recitation of the Lord's Prayer. Due to the growing cultural mosaic, they finally did away with the latter.

Then there was the Separate School system, where the Catholic Church was tightly interwoven with the school. Church doctrine was taught as part of the standard curriculum. Teachers needed to be Catholic in order to have/keep their teaching job. I also seem to recall hearing about one teacher whose husband wasn't Catholic and she was at risk of losing her job if he didn't convert.

I don't know if it's still the case, but the Separate School system somehow got additional government funding and/or tax breaks. Details escape me now. I just remember hearing time and again how they would have smaller classes, better school resources, and never on strike whereas the public school teachers would end up on strike every so many years.

To your previous point, I also find I have to watch what I say when folks here inject conversations with "I'll pray for you/him/her" or quote sections of the Bible. Certainly when I see it posted on Facebook I'm tempted to go try and dig up a Buddhist quote or possibly something from The Art Of War or some other non-religious but recognized quote (or simply post this link). Then the moment passes and I decide not to be a dick about it, and just move on.

u/alanX · 3 pointsr/atheism

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is a wonderful and much more complete picture of where we stand in textual criticism of the Bible.

And what the author fails to point out is that if you take the best translations of the best texts (many not available when the King James Version was written) and compare them, you just don't get that many differences.

The King James is often more poetically written, even with some slight inaccuracies in the process.

As a theist, I find the process of textual criticism fascinating, and it reinforces my belief that the very heart of Christianity isn't in its theology, but in the First and Second Commandments (as reportedly taught by Christ):

  • Love God with all your heart
  • Love your neighbor as yourself

    Nothing there about making my neighbor conform to my morals and ethics. Everything there about me treating my neighbor with respect and honor, as I would want to be treated myself. Coupled with other teachings of Jesus, and clearly the idea that we are supposed to police the behavior of others is not Christian, despite any issues of textual criticism. We are instead to police ourselves.

    Edit tl;dr: Anyone who invests heavily into theological concepts that hinge on just a word or two in these texts is already playing with fire. On the other hand, committing to the core ethical and moral teachings in these texts is pretty safe.
u/lesigh · 3 pointsr/books

Actually, I think Jesus Interrupted and Misquoting Jesus By Bart D. Ehrman would give better insight to christianity/bible.

u/Imatros · 3 pointsr/warfacts

I just searched using a string with a couple unique words; specifically, I just searched for the quote "Henceforth [...] engines"

u/mesosorry · 3 pointsr/BeAmazed

Read this book. It'll blow your mind :)

u/kindness12 · 3 pointsr/dataisbeautiful

Got the timeline of the universe from here, here, and from the book Sapiens by Yuval Harari. The years are not exactly the same from all sources but I tried to triangulate. Also it doesn't make a big difference since I'm converting it to a 72 year period (made all the conversions on excel). Average lifespan of a human being is 71.5 years over the 2010-2015 period according to this Wikipedia article; this is the primary source.

u/albino-rhino · 3 pointsr/AskCulinary

Coming to this a little late but wanted to say that (a) I completely agree, and (b) I'd take it a little further.

The thought that there was some Valhalla of wonderful food in earlier days is easily proven wrong. We live in the best time for eating there has ever been. For instance this article explains at some length and convincingly to me that food has only improved. Think about it - name one major city in the US where food was better 15 years ago. I can't think of any.

And if you go back further in time, you find that agriculture is coincident with higher population but also with malnutrition. This book is awful in some parts but it explains at length the accepted knowledge that agriculture = more people, but is also = disease and malnutrition at significant levels.

Skipping forward, I think 'modern' agriculture starts with crop rotation, Source, and pretty soon you have the British Agricultural revolution that kickstarts the industrial revolution.

Coincident with that you have the greatest rise in per-capita GDP there has ever been. Source, The Great Divergence.

And then that's why I get to work at a desk instead of doing mind-numbing, back-breaking work in the fields, and that's why I enjoy more material plenty than anybody could imagine 200 years ago, and why I can choose among multiple places, in my major urban center, to get pretty damn good pho. Lo those many years ago when I was young, sushi was a foreign concept. Now I can get it (or a rough approximation of it) in a strip mall in the middle of nowhere.

There is a downside to removing people from their food. There is also a downside to industrial agriculture. A lot of folks eat out more often. We have lost the spiritual connection to our food in large part that is created by hunting for your food or growing it and shepherding it the whole way through. We don't take food as seriously, and we don't contemplate as closely where it came from. We are complicit in the dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi and in the overuse of antibiotics in, and ill-treatment of, our livestock, to name but a couple examples.

But come the fuck on. I more than likely owe my life to my forebearers moving away from the fields and working in factories. I certainly owe my material comforts to that. I don't have to wonder whether I'm going to have a crop failure and starve to death.

That some of us can turn back and re-discover a better connection with food is a wonderful luxury. Appreciate it as such.

u/TheInfidelephant · 3 pointsr/seancarroll

"Sapiens - A Brief History of Humankind" - also by Yuval Noah Harari

u/OrbitRock · 3 pointsr/onehumanity

Book list:

Nature and the Human Soul by Bill Plotkin. The author discusses this same theme of The Great Turning. Argues that people in modern western society are pathologically orientated towards adolescent things, and among our main problems is that few of us mature fully, and few of us can ever be considered elders who guide each other towards a wise way of life. He also argues that we historically have developed equally in both nature and culture, but modern people spend their lives solely in culture, and lack understanding of the natural world.

Future Primal by Louis Herman. The author lays out a big picture view of human history and how the solutions for the future we face can be found in the past among primitive cultures. He links his own personal struggles to the planetary struggles we face, and shows that it is true that the personal and planetary are linked.

The Ascent of Humanity by Charles Eisenstein. Lays out huamn history, and "how the illusion of a seperate self has led to our modern crisises".

Sacred Economics by Charles Eisenstein. Looks at how primitive economies differed from our own, and how we can come to a different understanding of economics and wealth in our own society.

The More Beautiful World our Hearts Know is Possible by Charles Eisenstein. Lays out a vision for what the world could be and how we could organize ourselves in a wiser way.

Limited Wants, Unlimited Means an analysis of the economics of hunter-gatherer societies by an actual Economist. Very in depth look at the different foundational beliefs and practices. This is the most scientific and in depth book I've ever come across on this subject.

Eaarth by Bill McKibben. Goes into great detail on the the stark reality of the effects that climate change have already had and will likely have over the next decades and century. Finsihes by making reccommendations for how to make a life on a rough new planet.

Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari. A look at the deep history of our species. This book presents an understanding about what humans are and where we've come from that I think is hard to get anywhere else, really great work.

Blessed Unrest by Paul Hawken. Very similar to the theme of my above post, the author explains how this new movement is much larger than you might think, and could soon become one of the largest cultural movements in all of human history.

Active Hope by Joanna Macy. On "how to deal with the mess we are in without going crazy".

Greening of the Self by Joanna Macy. An exploration into the idea that we are interdependent with the ecology around us.

Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawken and others. A look at how we can start a green industrial revolution.

The Green Collar Economy by Van Jones. Lays out the idea that one solution- work on constructing a sustainable infrastructure- can fix our two biggest problems: the ecological crisis, and the rampant poverty and inequality in our society.

Spiritual Ecology: the cry of the Earth by Thich Nhat Hanh, Joanna Macy, and others. Outlines a spiritual perspective of what is happening to the world, and how we can remedy it, rooted in Buddhist thought.

Changes in the Land by William Cronon. A look at how the ecology of New England has been altered since Europeans first set foot there.

A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold. This is one of the classics of nature writing by a great naturalist. I include it here because I think it fits, and shows how much of this in not new thinking. Leopold talks about his experiences in nature and from living off the land, and lays out his own 'land ethic' for how best to coexist in nature.

The Evolving Self: a psychology for the third millennium by Mihaly Czikszentmihalyi. Explains the authors view of psychology and how to find meaning in the modern world. Talks about playing an active role in the evolutionary processes of life, and linking that up with your own personal evolution.

Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimerer. Brings together scientific understanding, indigenous wisdom, and respect for nature and for plants, in a very poetic book.

The Future of Life by E. O. Wilson. Wilson is one of the greatest biologists of our time, and gave us many of the foundational concepts that we use today, such as popularizing the idea of "biodiversity" and the desire to preserve it. Here he talks about the future of life and the challenges we face in preserving the Earths biodiversity.

Half Earth by E.O. Wilson. Here Wilson lays out his strategy for saving the biodiversity of the Earth and preserving it through the hard times it will face in the future, by devoting fully half of the surface of the Earth to wildlife habitats. This book just came out so you might not be able to order a copy yet.

If you know of any other books or media in this sort of genre feel free to post it.

u/attofreak · 3 pointsr/india

Wow, I didn't know he wrote a book dedicated specifically to "the Grandest Society of Merchants in the Universe". East India Company has been a subject of intrigue for me since the first time I got to know of its exploits during school. This company had an army (not mere mercenaries) to fight kingdoms! Imagine that in today's time. In Sapiens, Harari briefly mentions them, and the trinity of Imperialism-Capitalism-Scientific Revolution that swept the entire globe from Europe. Reading John Keay's unbiased narrative and propensity to be poetical in A History, The Honourable Company looks like an amazing read. And something that I naturally want to know more of, once getting at least some idea of the grand history of this country. Thank you!

u/confusedneuron · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

As far as the book recommendations go, it would be good if you could qualify what kind of books you're interested in (e.g. philosophy, psychology, history, science, etc.).

Books I recommend:

Psychology (or: On Human Nature)

The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime

Thinking, Fast and Slow (my personal favorite)

The Undiscovered Self

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature


Strategy: A History

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism


Economics in One Lesson

Basic Economics


Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government

As always, the list of books to read is too long, so I'll stop here.

u/davidsa35 · 3 pointsr/Israel

>Who/which are the best Israeli musicians/bands in your opinion?

I like Avraham Tal (singer) he has unique and stirring songs

>How much can you understand Arabic (or other Semitic languages) just basing on Hebrew?

While watching "Fauda" last year (an Israeli tv series about Israeli unite disguised as Arabs to collect intelligence and make operations and arrests in the Palestinian authority) I realized that there are many words in Arabic which resemble Hebrew

>How are the relationships between the Mizrachim and the Ashkenazim?

As the time goes by the differences between the two are blurring more

>How are the Ethiopian Jews treated in your opinion?

There is some racism from private people and not from the government which gives them many privileges as scholarships and affirmative actions

>What's the greatest thing about living in Israel? What's the worst thing about living in Israel?

The greatest thing in my opinion (as one who had also lived abroad) is to feel Jewish pride, to see the renascence of the ancient Jewish identity in Israel (Judea) after 2000 years and having our own country and military to take care of ourselves
The most irritating thing in my opinion is the feeling that here is too much corruption, especially on the municipal levels, I've seen many bribery and such stuff that I feel that it's not fair for the law abiding citizens who work their ass off for a decent salary. I also think that some of the public sector is not efficient in that there is much hidden unemployment. People who literally contribute nothing and get large salaries just because they have "connections" with the right people - although those phenomenons here aren't as bad as in 3d world countries and I think there is some improvement and efficiency under Netanyahu's tenures

>Got any good (and translated) Israeli poets or writers to recommend?

Edit: in second thought I remember that Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by prof. Yuval Noah Harrari was a good read

>Why are Israeli girls so cute?

I think that it's because of 2 main causes:

  1. "Intermarriages" between Jews of different backgrounds in Israel (Europeans with North Africans and so) which make some amazing kids with unique facial features - reminds me a little of Brazilians

  2. Military/civil service - this period in their lives is shaping their personalities and make them grown up women in their early 20s

    >I've got to say that your national anthem is sick wicked. Fucking a+ music.

    This is my favorite performance, by the Jewish community in Moscow

    I hope I was informing, take care.
u/fallflight · 3 pointsr/Anthropology

For books, The Fossil Trail and The Complete World of Human Evolution are good overviews, while Sapiens and Lone Survivors are interesting accounts of evidence about the emergence of our species.

I also really recommend the CARTA lectures available on YouTube -

You can browse through that playlist to look for interesting topics, or search for something like 'carta university california' or 'carta uctv' or 'carta uctv [topic]' to see what's popular, or follow YouTube's recommendations between videos. Each one is pretty short at ~20 min, with 3 sometimes linked in hour-long videos.

There's a wide range of evidence and interpretations about things like coexistence of varieties vs intra-population diversity, the general nature and causes of genetic structure between populations, extinction due to direct conflict or competition vs. other factors, and so on - so it helps to see the range of viewpoints between different researchers, and range of evidence and interpretations from different fields.

These are some examples:

Emergence of Homo:

Sapiens origins, population movements, non-sapiens admixture:





u/23143567 · 3 pointsr/rational

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind and Good and Real - each could be considered a canon of rationalist thought on evolution of humankind and ethics respectively.

u/CEZ3 · 3 pointsr/askscience

In his book, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, the author speculates on this question. Check the "Cognitive Revolution" section.

Brain size, use of fire for cooking and communication were all part of the explanation.

u/akwakeboarder · 3 pointsr/Neuropsychology

There are two great books that talk about exactly this.

  1. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind which focuses on social issues.

  2. Story of the Human Body which focuses on biology and medical issues.
u/blackcatkarma · 3 pointsr/history

Sapiens is a general history book about humanity, not so much traditional countries' history. It explores things like how did agriculture and warfare start, why is homo sapiens the only surviving human species etc.

For fun reading about history, I recommend anything written by Robert K. Massie. This is not general history; he wrote mostly about Tsarist Russia, but Dreadnought: Britain, Germany and the Coming of the Great War is a good starter for pre-WW1 European history.
I say "a good starter" because Massie's approach is very biographical - he mostly tells the story through the lives and actions of the decision makers, with less "modern" emphasis on economic factors etc. But he's a really good writer and it's the kind of history book you can read on a beach.

u/citizen511 · 3 pointsr/atheism

Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation is probably the simplest, most concise atheist treatise directed towards christians. It's short, to the point, and very convincing in its arguments (and definitely not inflammatory).

u/baxter45 · 3 pointsr/atheism

Letter to a Christian Nation is a fun, light read. It's also fun to lend it to your religious/christian friends.

u/BiniahCara · 3 pointsr/WTF
u/Y_pestis · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions

The Disappearing Spoon: And Other True Tales of Madness, Love, and the History of the World from the Periodic Table of the Elements

And I'll second Green_Army's recommendation of The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat- I'm a 'hard' scientist and even still I enjoyed this book.

u/oomps62 · 3 pointsr/chemistry

You could look into The Disappearing Spoon. This series of blog articles will give a bit of a preview of how the book reads.

u/RideandRoll · 3 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon
u/mynuname · 3 pointsr/DebateAChristian

Many of these facts I read about in "Guns, Germs and Steel" and "The Fall", both written by non-Christian anthropologists. These statistics and generalizations were confirmed by friends of mine who's are in the field.

u/100dylan99 · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

None of these answers are good. The reason why light skinned people have succeeded more than to darker skinned people is because of geography. Before I start, it is face that the farther you get from the equator, the lighter skinned people get. Now, while I don't remember exactly what diseases, I do remember that the farther you get from the equator, the lighter skinned you generally become, and vice versa. That was a simple answer.

Now, people started farming around nine thousand years ago in many places around the same time, like in China, North America, and the Middle East. However, while farming was a big advancement and led to to things like villages, war, and diseases, which are very, very important for the development of humanity, there were two big factors to how successful a civilization got. The second was how many domesticated animals you had in your area. In the middle east, where humanities first big civilizations started, you had four domestic animals. They had sheep, cattle, pigs, and horses. In other places, you only had one dmosticated animal. For example, the Inca had one domesticated animal, which was the llama. The Middle Eastern's got lucky, because they had horses, and cattle, two very strong animals. This allopwed them to have a plow, which revolutionized farming and was used from prehistory all the way up to the industrial revolution. Not only that, but they could move faster on their horses, which allowed them to hunt and war better. About a thousan years after the middle easterns developed farming, they started migrating because their land was similar to the US's in the 30's. Some of them went west, to conquer Europe, and some East, to conquer China. I can elaborate further, but I am a mere freshman. If you want more information I reccomend:

Bill Nye's The Eyes of Nye, Episode 108, "Race"

Guns, Germs, And Steel. Also a documentary on Netflix.

Mankind, the Story of All of Us. A truly wonderful History Channel documentary that was released this year, covering all of humanities's achievements.

Also: This was all of the top of my head, so please tell me if something I said was inaccurate or wrong. And if you want me to elaborate more on something, ask.

u/MalignantMouse · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

Guns, Germs and Steel - Jared Diamond

Have you ever wondered why the world is the way it is? This book basically answers that question. It's so broad-reaching it's amazing.

u/symonsays · 3 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Most animals cant be domesticated. In history i think only 14 animals have been fully domesticated. In the book Guns Germs & Steel you can find more info on this

u/aRealNowhereMan_ · 3 pointsr/TiADiscussion

Understanding that they are saying something out of pain is one thing, being expected to shut up and apologize for something I didn't do, while simultaneously being something else all together. So tell me, when did you read Guns, Germs, and Steel? I'm sure you have, given the sanctimonious way with which you preach your superior understanding of history and the development of modern societies.

Also, the notion that someone is likely prejudiced for not "understanding history" or "understanding privilege" is a non sequitur; you are essentially saying anyone who doesn't agree with you is likely a racist, and that's absurd.

You know who keeps contributing to the problem of racism? People who see everything in terms of race; you know...racists. People who inject race into situations where it would otherwise be absent, or people who justify bigotry against a specific subset of people, because those people are somehow less deserving of basic human decency, kindness, and empathy.

It is not the kind-hearted but impoverished white man, nor is it the kind-hearted but impoverished black man who perpetuate racial tensions. No, it is the man who acts as the self-appointed champion, the man who would claim to speak for those who are fully capable of speaking for themselves; It is the man who would burn our bridges rather than help build them, the man who prefers the ease of antagonization over the difficulty of ingratiation. It is these men who stoke the fires of racial animosity, it is these men who are truly racist.

u/celeritas365 · 3 pointsr/changemyview

This is a really complex question that doesn't have a single answer. I do think it is a stretch to say that the exploitation didn't help at least a little bit. There are also other factors than economic policy, innovations, and social institutions. You should check out Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond if you are interested in this kind of stuff. I don't agree with all of it but it is pretty interesting. If you are more into documentaries PBS made some documentaries based off of the book that are also pretty well done. CGP grey also made a video summary of a small section of the book's argument.

u/BionicTransWomyn · 3 pointsr/DebateFascism

>And how can colonization make the African nations all inferior to the European nations?

Because when you litterally enslave millions of people and force them to work for you without providing their offpspring with education, it might harm their long term potential for a bit. As for Africans themselves, are you even kidding? We basically took over their entire continent and kept them in abject poverty, actively creating colonial institutions that worked against their betterment. What African kingdoms were actually doing well, we quashed with superior technology (ie: Zulus)

>Why are Europeans richer and brought up in better circumstances than Africans? Who creates these circumstances? Europeans built the strongest nation on Earth today, the USA, on the same land that Native Americans lived on for thousands of years while accomplishing little. Africans or Native Americans have done this no where.

A combination of geography, access to natural ressources and communication with every part of the world. This is a question that would require a small book to answer on its own, so I'm simply going to link you to some of the more prevalent theories:

>I don't know if I should bother arguing with someone who just claimed that most of Europeans great generals were of African descent.

What? Can you even read. Here's the quote for you, emphasis mine:

>Some of Europe's most talented generals and officials were of African descent.


>Surely the Africans wouldn't have been so badly defeated and enslaved if they were truly equal with the Europeans.

Actually, it turns out that when they are given a good education and the tools to succeed, they can hold their own quite well:

Also, it might surprise you that for a long time, Europe was basically irrelevant and weak. Its ascent really doesn't start until the 16th-17th century, and even then, most empires were able to marshall, by then, ressources that Europe could not dream to match. Already, Western Europe is weaker than China and Russia, and depends on the US to prop itself up.

>The different races of humans are certainly genetically different and have different traits.

Physical traits certainly, but there's a marginal difference between a half-black/half-white kid and a kid from either ethnicity.

PS: You should probably source your claims, I'm sure Darwin would love to have a word with you about the misinterpretation of his theories.

u/Rab-bit · 3 pointsr/science

If anyone is curious about this stuff, there's a good book that goes into great detail about this called Guns, Germs and Steel: The fates of human societies.

u/Pertz · 3 pointsr/geography

I think you're mixing up two visually similar maps, with two highly different concepts.

This one that you're talking about.

And this that I think you should be focusing on:

Also: here is a rough map of your observations about general wellbeing.

Countries with low levels of prosperity generally have relatively recent history of slavery or other types of subjugation effecting large swathes of the population. Africa is a perfect example as shown on the second and the third map.

There are exceptions to everything, but countries with high quality of life were either colonizers (Spain, UK, Holland), or were colonized mainly through genocide (Canada, US, Australia, some southern countries in South America).

The purposeful destruction of culture and the devaluation of whole peoples seems inseparable from the process of colonization, and it sets back the people effected for over a hundred years. Take a look at what has happened to remaining native populations of Canada, the US, and Australia, and you'll see the same patterns as what you're observing in what is called "The Global South".

I could go on forever but I think studying colonization and oppression will help you explore the concepts you brought forward. This is a good resource on oppression:

Remember the important difference between correlation and causation!

A different question you may also be asking now is "Why did the Northerners get to oppress the Southerners?" A lot of it has to do with luck (to have metal, to learn to use it, and to be accustomed to filthy diseases), and I think this book gives a really interesting starting point.

u/this_is_poorly_done · 3 pointsr/SecurityAnalysis

1)Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1926-1945 - David Kennedy

2)From Colony to Superpower: US Foreign Relations Since 1776 - George Herring

3)History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective - E. K. Hunt and Mark Lautzenheiser

4)When Washington Shut Down Wall Street: The Great Financial Crisis of 1914 and the Origins of America's Monetary Supremacy - William Silber

5)Guns, Germs, and Steel - Jared Diamond

6)A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present - Howard Zinn

7)20th Century Baseball Chronicle: A Year-By-Year History of Major League Baseball (what? you asked for history books sitting on my shelf)

8)Gunpowder: Alchemy, Bombards, and Pyrotechnics : The History of the Explosive That Changed the World - Jack Kelly

and currently I've just started working on U.S. Bank Deregulation in Historical Perspective - Charles Calomiris. Should be interesting since it was published in 2000...

edit: I like Drited's idea, so I'll take some time to add on some stuff. 1, 2, 4, and 6 give me perspective on how government institutions interact with each other and with the public they are supposed to serve as time and events take place, shaping the history of the US. 3 has given me insight into the evolution of Neoclassical and Labor-value (Marxian) economics. Though Hunt writes with a very heavy labor bias, his book has shown me how a persons beliefs affect there analysis, even when claiming to be value-free. In it he discusses the origins of marginal productivity and efficient markets, and his writings have allowed me to grasp in economic terms why certain ideas are flawed, even though I already knew them to be false after I had studied Psychology. 5 and 8 are a bit different because to me, they remind me that it's not what actually happened that matters, our interpretation of history relies solely on the importance we give those events. All and all, the above texts give me a longer time frame in which to view current events. In fact that's why I like companies such as GOOG and GS so much is because the above readings allow me to look beyond balance sheets, and gives me alternative ways to judge a potential investment. I understand GOOG's importance to the internet world, and the internets importance to our world, and how that relationship might continue on into the future. Stuff like that

u/CalvinLawson · 3 pointsr/atheism

Honestly, "The Greatest Show on Earth" is WAY better. Dawkins on religion isn't nearly as good as Dawkins on biology.

You want to read a devastating book on religion, try "The End of Faith". Or better yet, this.

u/atheistcoffee · 3 pointsr/atheism

Congratulations! I know what a big step that is, as I've been in the same boat. Books are the best way to become informed. Check out books by:

u/lanemik · 3 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

Recommended reading material:

God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

The End of Faith

If Christians were closeted, if they kept their morality judgments to themselves, if they did not push for laws to enforce this version of morality, if they did not actively seek to disparage atheists for no other reason than for refusing to believe in the invisible thing in the sky that they believe in, then I'd have no reason to give a shit about what Christians believe. What does or does not happen to my consciousness after I die is absolutely immaterial.

u/seriously_chill · 3 pointsr/Objectivism

> Perhaps you'd care to disclose the particulars of the metaphysical pincicples that cash out capitalism, and what the rational/axiomatic justification is for accepting them, then?

This is a start -

I know I sound like a broken record but it really helps to read and grok before seeking out discussions or debates.

u/ktool · 3 pointsr/evolution

The 10,000 Year Explosion answers your exact question.

> Scientists have long believed that the “great leap forward” that occurred some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago in Europe marked the end of significant biological evolution in humans. In this stunningly original account of our evolutionary history, top scholars Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending reject this conventional wisdom and reveal that the human species has undergone a storm of genetic change much more recently. Human evolution in fact accelerated after civilization arose, they contend, and these ongoing changes have played a pivotal role in human history. They argue that biology explains the expansion of the Indo-Europeans, the European conquest of the Americas, and European Jews' rise to intellectual prominence. In each of these cases, the key was recent genetic change: adult milk tolerance in the early Indo-Europeans that allowed for a new way of life, increased disease resistance among the Europeans settling America, and new versions of neurological genes among European Jews. Ranging across subjects as diverse as human domestication, Neanderthal hybridization, and IQ tests, Cochran and Harpending's analysis demonstrates convincingly that human genetics have changed and can continue to change much more rapidly than scientists have previously believed. A provocative and fascinating new look at human evolution that turns conventional wisdom on its head, The 10,000 Year Explosion reveals the ongoing interplay between culture and biology in the making of the human race.

u/css4517 · 3 pointsr/slatestarcodex

Since it hasn't been mentioned, Cochran has a blog called "West Hunter", which I consider recommended reading -- although many posts are sadly a bit low effort, compared to e.g. SSC, Overcoming Bias, or other favourites among the rationalist crowd. Still definitely worth adding to your blog roll.

And his book with Henry Harpending, "The 10'000 Year Explosion", is required reading for anyone curious about the HBD debate, of course. :)

> (2:07:00) A few people bet on Trump winning after Greg wrote predicting the “shy Trump voter” would put him over the top despite the polls, and then tipped him for it.

Just to pat my own back here: I made about $4000, betting on Trump winning. Not because of Cochran, I hadn't read his post, but because I noticed there was a huge gap between the bookmakers and the exit polls reported at Nate Silver's 538. So betting big on Trump late on election day seemed like a no brainer. In particular so because exit polls usually underestimate the most controversial pick, due to social desirability bias.

Also, I've never seen such an edge at a bookmaker before, compared to an "expert opinion", and I bet professionally on sports for about a year (until I quit when it became too much effort to work around the bookmakers' restrictions on winning players). IIRC, bookmaker odds had Trump at about 16-17% of winning, late on election day, while the exit polls indicated about a 28% chance of winning.

By the Kelly criterion I should have bet way more on the outcome than I did, btw. Assuming the exit polls were right, I should have gone in for about 13% of my betting bankroll. Considering the known bias of exit polls, I should probably have pushed for more like ~25% of my bankroll. But I chickened out, for personal reasons. Being a father of 3 young kids combines badly with being a gambler, so I just played my scared money and bet the $600ish I happened to have sitting around in an online bookie account from old.

u/homo_homini_lupus · 3 pointsr/PurplePillDebate
u/DrDerpberg · 3 pointsr/worldnews

>I see your point, and it makes sense, but belies the logic of your post in saying he is trying to be a dictator because he is opposing the other two forces. Isn't the tug just part of the balancing that takes place for those three bodies?

A little bit, sure. I would freely agree that the executive branch has probably become quite a bit more powerful than "intended" by the founding fathers (though I'm not a constitutional scholar). But I think there's a difference between tugging a little on the chains and trying to find a big enough sledgehammer to free yourself entirely.

President's implementing policies that are eventually struck down in court, or trying to convince Congress to do what they want Congress to do, or trying to dodge the media when they've done something unpopular, are common. But it's a question of extents - can you name another president who publicly sought to undermine confidence in something as important as the intelligence community or FBI? Or who labeled everyone who didn't stand and clap for him as traitors?

> Maybe you're right, though, you seem to know more about this than I do.

If you have a couple hours to burn I'd highly recommend you read the book [On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century] ( It's a quick read, and is essentially a list of warning signs governments have given along the path to tyranny. While not specifically about Trump, the commonalities between his behaviour and various tyrannical governments from the 20th century are shocking. I went into the book convinced he was little more than a xenophobic moron and finished it completely convinced that the only thing standing between him and total authoritarianism is the robustness of American institutions.

One thing I do agree with you in terms of the balancing act, however, is that the system only works if the other branches actually use their powers. I think Congress and the Senate have massively failed in their duties to stop the President given how early and how often he's crossed the line, but even that is due in large part to Trump appointing people loyal to him to the roles that normally would oversee him. Devin Nunes, for example, should not be on the intelligence council, and has sabotaged it from day one.

>When I was talking about the Iraq etc war, I meant the military-industrial complex and corporate dictatorship and other special interest groups at play, from which Trump is seen by some as an outer entity

Is he though? His tax cut was a giant handout to rich corporations, the FCC under Ajit Pai is pretty much the definition of regulatory capture, he's always talking about how many more nukes the country needs and he's done nothing to cut back on some of the negative things the US does. I think he played up the outsider role during the election but the agenda he's actually followed is exactly what mega-corporations want.

u/solaceinsleep · 3 pointsr/Documentaries

That's apathy talking. If you have an hour or two to spare, I recommend this book:

u/thegreatvaux · 3 pointsr/centrist

It absolutely is. Yes norm breaking is bad. But this specific aspect of departing from norms is how tyranny takes over a democracy.
Take an hour and read Timothy Snyder's On Tyranny.

u/Falco98 · 3 pointsr/DebunkThis

The book: Dissolving Illusions by Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk.

Until recently, this book had ~90 completely perfect/positive reviews and only 2 critical reviews, and the comments on both of those reviews was overwhelmingly packed with antivaxxers to shout down any opposition.

Recently some science-minded folk have reopened the debate in there, both helping out in the comments as well as posting some additional critical reviews.

In the thread I've been watching mainly, one antivaxxer in particular challenged us to explain the author's claims on page 306 with respect to Whooping Cough. I realize full well that very little will convince these zealots, but I've been hoping that someone might take on that specific claim (or perhaps others made in the book), just so I can see personally what the real answers are.

I was able to have Amazon's free book preview to jump around randomly until I got page 306 and the two preceding pages, hence the image link.

u/nota999 · 3 pointsr/Christianity

I just finished reading Inverting the Pyramid: The History of Soccer Tactics by Jonathan Wilson. It's really interesting, assuming you're into the history of soccer and soccer tactics.

u/ScubaStevo99 · 3 pointsr/MLS
u/Diggery64 · 3 pointsr/footballtactics

Jonathan Wilson wrote a book called "Inverting the Pyramid" that does a nice job of weaving the strengths and weaknesses of different formations with their histories in world soccer. Here's a link to it:

u/koptimism · 3 pointsr/LiverpoolFC

An Epic Swindle is the best book on the ownership and direction of Liverpool under our former American owners Hicks & Gilette. An excellent read, and honestly very important in terms of setting the stage for FSG's tenure - elements of the H&G reign are still affecting Liverpool as a club today, and part of what made last season's title challenge so special was that it came less than 4 years after we almost went into administration.

The Anatomy of Liverpool is one I'm reading at the moment. Written by The Guardian's Jonathan Wilson, author of another highly recommended football book called Inverting The Pyramid (a history of football tactics), The Anatomy of Liverpool picks out 10 matches in the club's history and uses them as the basis to discuss that era of the club - the players, the manager, the seasons, the direction of the club, let alone that match itself. Bear in mind that both this book and Inverting The Pyramid can occasionally be very dry reads, but worth persevering with!

And then, of course, LFC players' autobiographies. There's also Pepe Reina's autobiography, in addition to the ones on that list, which also has some insights about the club under Rafa & Hicks & Gilette

u/MarylandBlue · 3 pointsr/MCFC


Please May I Have My Football Back by Eric Alexander

Manchester: The City Years by Gary James

Gary James also wrote The Big Book of City, I can't find an Amazon link and it's a difficult book to find in general.

I'm Not Really Here by Paul Lake


Blue Moon Rising

I'm currently reading a biography on Bert Trautmann, and next up is Uwe Rosler's autobiography.

If you want to really understand football, I'd recommend Inverting the Pyramid by Jonathan Wilson It's a bit dry, but it's the history of football tactics, and of the game itself. I love tactical discussions and talking about the game, so I really enjoyed the book, but some people find it boring.

There's an old BBC documentary on Youtube, I think it's from the early 80's. Also on Youtube the 1999 match vs Gillingham, and the 2002 match against Blackburn that secured promotion back to the Premier League. Both very important to the clubs history.

u/meechu · 3 pointsr/soccer

Someone's been reading Inverting the Pyramid.

u/bmangan · 3 pointsr/footballtactics

Which is named after a book which is an even better primer

u/StaticUnion · 3 pointsr/DCUnited

Just in case any other curious folk stumble across this thread, here is the season preview post that OP mentions.

>I've only a casually watched soccer so I don't know all the rules, strategies, formations, etc so I'll be looking forward to learning everything as the season goes on.

If you're a nerd like me who wants to dive straight into the deep end and learn everything on the subject I would recommend Inverting the Pyramid by Jonathan Wilson. It is the definitive, go-to book for understanding soccer strategy and tactics.

u/Common_Man · 3 pointsr/india

Some black groups in America supported the slogans "Africans back to Africa", these people are ones who are willing to sacrifice people from their community to meet their political objectives. Same was the case with the zions who had collaborated with Hitler.

Poor Muslim labourers cannot afford this because they are the ones losing first if secularism goes while Muslim businessmen would vote for right or liberal or right wing agenda.

u/Spider__Jerusalem · 3 pointsr/worldnews

Really? Check out the history of Zionism and the Nazis...

Hell, Google the history of the Lehi. Or, check out this link and the sources provided...

Or downvote facts? Rebel against knowledge. "Ignorance is strength. War is peace. Freedom is slavery."

u/arostrat · 3 pointsr/worldnews

It seems all literature about Arabs sympathizing with Nazis revolve around Al-Husseini, a marginal man in exile who lost his status several years before he knew Hitler. The connections that one man and few others - who they had their own motives - had with the Germans is not enough to call every Arab literally a Nazi.

By your logic, a lot of other nationalities and races took more active role in the Axis. [Jews] ( and Zionists, Christian Chruch. But don't see much hate directed to them.

u/homegrownunknown · 3 pointsr/chemistry

I loved that book! I think the author has a few others - I remember liking the Violinist's Thumb as well by the same dude.

I also really liked the book Napoleon's Buttons: How 17 Molecules Changed History.

I have some more on my bookshelf, let me run up and check what I've got. I also found I like reading about non chemistry but still science things. I'm getting a Ph.D. in organic and sometimes it's nice to break out of chemistry. I tend to like reading about plagues, or anything by Oliver Sacks.

u/MrFrumblePDX · 3 pointsr/ScienceTeachers

On a much more basic note than the previous comment:

In the book Napoleon's Buttons there is a very good introduction to organic chemistry notationand how organic molecules are drawn. I recommend it to anyone who is learning any level of chemistry. I need to re-read it to determine if it is accessible (i.e. - can it be easily understood) for a high school audience. It is certainly accessible to any college level student.

u/vaneshnevest · 3 pointsr/chemistry

You should read Napoleon's Buttons !!

u/iloveyoujesuschriist · 3 pointsr/pics
u/Mablun · 2 pointsr/exmormon

Why Evolution is True

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (free online!)

Guns, Germs, Steel

The God Delusion

Misquoting Jesus (Conceptional this is very compatible with Mormonism--the Bible not being translated correctly so we need the BoM!--but the specifics about what got mistranslated are devastating as Mormonism doubled down on the mistranslated parts. oops.)

Don't even both learning anything more about Mormonism. Just be widely read and you'll soon see that the Mormon version of history is in incongruent with reality. This will cause cognitive dissonance and when you're ready to resolve it, go back and read independent sources about Mormonism and it will be very obvious that the narrative they indoctrinated into you as a child doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

u/r271answers · 2 pointsr/religion

> Are there any articles I can read about parts/chapters missing or stuff that's been added throughout the years?

I mentioned this in another post in this thread too but I'm not sure if you get updates on new posts so I'll put this as a reply also:

You might want to pick up a copy of the revised translation of the Nag Hammadi Library and check out where you can find a lot of the stuff you are looking for. You might also like the book Misquoting Jesus

u/i_am_a_freethinker · 2 pointsr/exmormon

If this is your first time hearing of pseudopigrapha, you're one of the lucky 10,000.

You should definitely check out Misquoting Jesus by Bart Erhman, or any book by him, really. It will blow your fucking mind.

u/Morpheus01 · 2 pointsr/atheism

You are doing it wrong. Never agree to read a book without getting them to read one in return. And they will not read a Dawkins book. Instead go for a Rachel Held Evans book (Faith Unraveled), where the author is still a Christian.

Also, Peter Enns (The Bible Told Me So) is a Christian theologian and is another one to challenge their view of the Bible. Again both are Christians still, but it will challenge their fundamentalism. That's the first step just to get them to learn to safely ask questions of their own faith.

Review by Rachel Held Evans of Peter Enns' book:

Pick one of those books, and promise to discuss it with them afterwards, in exchange for reading a book they pick.

The key is that you want them to realize that you know more about the Bible than they do. When you are ready for it, I recommend Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus).

And finally, watch more Street Epistomology videos on youtube. You need to focus more on the "Why" of what they believe. You are spending too much time arguing, and not enough time trying to learn about "why" they believe. For most, it's fear of death.

u/MalcontentMike · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Yes, if changes from the original transcript were propagated in the period where things were in flux, and the "settled" version included those changes, it absolutely changes future translations.

This book is a worthwhile read on how we can see and find many of these changes and even reverse some of them by comparing different manuscripts and through knowledge of the original languages and their sources:

I recommend it, if you're curious about the topic.

u/jacknbox · 2 pointsr/atheism

Uh, pretty much all of them. But some gems:

> The New Testament is far and away the best-attested manuscript from antiquity. The next best is Homer’s “Illiad,” for which our earliest extant copy was scribed 500 years after the original writing. For the New Testament, that time lapse is less than 50 years.

She offers no facts whatsoever here. On the contrary, scholars who actually research the bible for a living have shown that this is patently false. See Bart Ehrman or Karen Armstrong for examples.

> While the four Gospel writers chose different events of Jesus’ life to write about, they all gave a clear description of the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus.

No, they all gave conflicting accounts of important details surrounding his death and resurrection. All one has to do is read the relevant parts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to see this. You'd think she's never actually read the bible before.

u/VaccusMonastica · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Fallible humans writing over many years of what they believed to be true regarding Nature and the Universe that got copied and recopied sometimes with scribes making honest mistakes while others actively changing the Bible to suit their needs making it say what they thought it should say and cutting out parts they didn't want in it.

Book Suggestions:

[Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus)](]()

Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them)

u/Irish_Whiskey · 2 pointsr/atheism

There's a Skeptic's Annotated Bible online. You can simply read the text, then just look to the right if you have questions. There's also a printed Annotated Bible that discusses things in theological terms. Or you could just read the copies lying about in hotel rooms. Either before or after though, I recommend reading books about the Bible (they're much shorter so it shouldn't be a problem) like this or this.

> How can i decide to not believe in god without first hearing how the Christians can prove he is real. If that makes sence.

I hope you understand why that doesn't make sense. There's literally an infinite number of possible definitions of God, and thousands that are major beliefs on this planet. The Christian definition isn't any more important or relevant than others.

You don't need to read any or every book on vampires, in order to not believe in vampires. Disbelief is the default position, until given a reason to believe. It's up to the people making the claim to present the evidence.

As for why you don't need to know all the details of a religion to reject it, PZ Myers put it thusly:

>I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

>Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

u/Jswizzy84 · 2 pointsr/atheism

Bart D. Ehrman use to be a conservative Bible Scholar and he has written several books that summarize the errors and contradictions in the bible. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

Honestly though the New Testament is virtually untouched and unmodified when compared to the text of the Hebrew Bible. Literary critics, scholars , scientist and archeologist have proven time and time again that the stories in the Hebrew bible prior to Chronicles, Kings and Judges are pure invention of myth.

u/spinozasrobot · 2 pointsr/atheism

For a very readable book about how the Bible was formed try Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. Highly recommended for those who haven't already read it.

u/lilbowski · 2 pointsr/Freethought

An easy and informative read of many such errors and additions is Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. I recommend you check it out if you haven't yet.

u/spoiled_orange · 2 pointsr/exmormon

You're right, I was snarky.

An eye opening book for me was Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman on biblical textualism. I think by the end of his studies Erhman was no longer christian and perhaps an atheist.

Strangely enough, COLDS realized sometime in the early 1900's they had nobody educated in the church on biblical issues with advanced degrees. They sponsored a number of students from BYU to attend University of Chicago to pursue divinity degrees. I believe wrote on it. They did have problems with the program because many students would end up leaving the church.

You mentioned being a history major. I can understand studying religion as a historical phenomenon and the influence it has on society. Critical thinking would be involved. However, I had too many Institute teachers that would happily tell you about the validity of pillars of fire/smoke/vapor that lead the Israelites through the wilderness. Critical thinking takes a vacation on that one. We have a fellow in my ward that is highly respected for his understanding of the scriptures and is consistently called to be the GD teacher or an institute teacher. He will tell you unequivocally that when the 2nd coming happens that the moon will literally be turned into a giant drop of blood. I tried to talk him off that particular ledge with no success. I now listen to what he says on any subject with a huge grain of salt if his thinking skills are that highly impaired.

Edit to add words.

u/moom · 2 pointsr/atheism

There's all sorts of evidence of significant corruptions in what we currently think of as the Bible. Off the top of my head, here are some seriously major things, fundamental core beliefs of modern Christianity, that are known to have been simply inserted into the Bible many years (centuries, in some cases) afterwards:

(1) The main passage which is used to support the concept of the Trinity - i.e. that the three are one but three yadda yadda - says absolutely nothing about the Trinity in any of the known early copies of the Bible; someone at some point much later just inserted some unrelated words, and voila, Trinity. More info: The Comma Johanneum

(2) The famous story of the woman taken in adultery ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone") is not present in any known early Bible. More info: The Pericope Adulterae

(3) The ending of the Gospel of Mark (where Jesus, risen from the dead, appears before the disciples) is not present in any known early Bible. In the original (actual) Gospel of Mark, no one witnesses a risen Jesus (one man who is not identified claims to have witnessed him, but presents no evidence, and risen Jesus certainly doesn't show up). More info: Mark 16

And there are all sorts of other things, ranging from more outright insertions like the above all the way down to transcription errors which propagated; even some of the transcription errors have significant theological implications.

If you're interested in this sort of thing, I heartily recommend the book Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman.

u/PeeGump · 2 pointsr/atheism

Misquoting Jesus by Bart Erhman:
Great read, very fascinating!

u/Fuzzy_Thoughts · 2 pointsr/mormon

The book list just keeps growing in so many different directions that it's hard to identify which I want to tackle next (I also have a tendency to take meticulous notes while I read and that slows the process down even further!). Some of the topics I intend to read about once I'm done with the books mentioned:

u/raintree420 · 2 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

I had been reading this book, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why and it was very integral in my final transition into full blown atheism. It was written by an evangelical too. I really try not to debate ppl, whatever they want to believe is fine with me, but when it infringes on my personal space I'll open my mouth. I read it for my own interests, not to shoot ppl down. I'm not a typical reddit atheist.

u/Pi4Ra · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Misquoting Jesus might be of interest to you, albeit maybe not from the perspective you wanted.

u/Dilatair_Clear · 2 pointsr/askgaybros

I’m a gay atheist. At first when I finally accepted I was gay, I tried my best to reconcile my being gay with Christianity until I read the Bible cover to cover (OT and NT, New International Version) until I found out the glaring errors, contradictions and repugnant deeds and sayings by God himself, his prophets as well as Jesus Christ and that made me look into more until I found four books that made me realize that the Abrahamic god is a man made one and not someone who is all-powerful and all knowing.

The books are here:
Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of the Christ
Misquoting Jesus
Is It God’s Word?
The God Delusion

u/Parley_Pratts_Kin · 2 pointsr/mormon

Read these books in this order:

  1. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Harari. Overview of the history of humanity. Fascinating.
  2. God: A Human History by Reza Aslan. Overview of the development of religion and ideas about God.
  3. The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein. Overview of the archeology of ancient Israel and historical criticism of the Old Testament.
  4. Authoring the Old Testament by David Bokovoy. Overview of textual criticism of the Old Testament.
  5. Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. Overview of textual criticism of the New Testament.

    This mini library is a sort of behind the scenes peek into humanity, religion in general, and the Bible specifically. You’ll never look at these things the same way again.

    Now, after reading these, return and report and give us word.
u/B_Master · 2 pointsr/atheism

The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings - Bart D. Ehrman

I didn't see anything by him in the FAQ but I think he's a great author on the topic of Christianity and The Bible; he started out as a biblical scholar before becoming an atheist.

Edit: That book is actually a bit heavy to start with, it reads like a text book. I'd recommend starting with Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why or Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible

u/beatle42 · 2 pointsr/Christianity

> Your assumptions about not looking for discussion are silly at best and spiteful at worst.

I didn't say you weren't looking for discussion, I said it seems the type of discussion you're looking for is likely better served in a different forum. I hardly think that's thoughtless or disrespectful.

Regarding legislation that is religiously motivated I'll first site gay marriage which attempts to limit people's rights because (in most cases) of religiously motivated "morals."

Second, I'll point out that (typically) religiously motivated opposition to stem-cell research is almost certainly condemning people in this world to addition suffering and death.

A third example is the increase in STDs and unwanted pregnancy caused by the instance, often by religiously motivated people, that only abstinence only sex education be taught.

I'll certainly accept your argument that good intentions do not equate to good outcomes, but certainly they don't necessarily require that they lead to bad outcomes. Does everyone do bad or wrong things at various points throughout their lives? Of course they do. Does that automatically define them as bad people? I would argue of course not. They are factors to be weighed, but to think that we are all born evil and have no hope of being better without having someone continually watching over us is a bleak view of human nature. Hobbes might agree with you, but I think that humans have the capacity for goodness as well, and that we can do good simply for the sake of being good, not because there's someone watching us or because we expect a reward for being good. That was more the point of my argument that atheists (and all people by extension) do good things. We are all capable of being good, at least most of the time. We need not have fear of, or hope for, what comes next to do so.

> You're presumptuous to speak for the billions of people you don't know.

So your claim, then, is that the people who live short unpleasant lives are the luckiest of us all? They have the most capacity to approach god because, like Paul, they suffered the most? Or, am I faulting God for being ignorant and there really are not billions of people suffering every day because they lack the basic necessities of life? I am pretty confident that it's true that they do lack such things, and I don't think it's much of a stretch to point out that that leads to suffering. Beyond that I don't think I did anything to "speak for [them]" as you suppose I did. I pointed out that the majority of people in the world are living short lives of nearly continual suffering. That isn't really putting many words in their mouths.

Interestingly about your point about pain being necessary and then suggesting I read, I just finished a book by Bart Ehrman on the topic of Biblical explanations of why people suffer (your view is only one of several presented in the Bible by the way). He's the dean of theological studies at UNC at Chapel Hill if you're unfamiliar with who he is. It's a very interesting read, and I would like to recommend you pick up your own copy of God's Problem. I think that many people who know me would be surprised to hear that I lack basic reasoning skills. I, obviously, disagree with your assessment there. As for your slight against the American education system, I'll point out that my University education anyway was in Canada.

I wouldn't say that I know nothing of Jesus' anger, although one of the most famous examples (throwing the money changers out of the temple) is probably not actually original to the Bible. We could get into a lot of textual criticism but I'll confess I only have knowledge of that from a single source (another Bart Ehrman book called Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

If you think the Bible as you read it is the original way it was written you would do well to read that, just for the introduction into the search for the original text of the NT in particular.

u/mycroft999 · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Been reading Misquoting Jesus lately. It's a basic and well written introduction to biblical scholarship. The author does point out that the KJV did not use the best possible sources available so there is that. The author gets into some depth involving the earliest source material for the bible being letters written in Greek being copied and recopied to be circulated among the faithful throughout the known world. Because of this, there are many small errors over the centuries and not a few large ones as well. I won't get into too much detail, but he does make the statement that there are more discrepancies between the source material, than there are words in the new testament. It's definitely an eye opener.

u/jmynatt · 2 pointsr/exchristian

Thanks for the feedback and thoughtful reply! "Condemns most" refers to several indications that the (currently) 2/3rds of the world that does not believe in Jesus will be lost.


I do think it's a position reasonably supported by the text. Not that I agree -- I find it morally reprehensible that any "good pagans" and/or the vast billions raised without much exposure to Christianity would be lost due to being born in the wrong place/time. William Lane Craig, a leading apologist, has written a thoroughly repulsive response on the topic: God already knew they'd be lost, so he put them in those places -- and, he says, for all we know, the ratio of saved-to-lost is is perfectly optimal. Ugh!


To your point, I'd have a hard time agreeing that Mk 9:40 and Lk 9:50 "whoever is not against us is for us" indicates Jesus believed people could be saved without him. For starters, he contradicts this in Mt 12:30 and Lk 11:23 "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." In context though, both seem to refer to doing miraculous works (casting out demons) and aren't discussing how to be saved at all.


In addition, there are ample NT verses saying Jesus saw himself as the only way to be saved:

  • Jn 3:18 and Mk 16:16 "whoever believes in Him will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned"
  • Jn 14:4 "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
  • Jn 3:36 "whoever does not obey Him does not have life; the wrath of God remains on him"
  • Mt 7:21-23 "And they will say 'Lord, did we not do many mighty works in your name?' And I will declare 'Depart from me; I never knew you, you workers of lawlessness'"
  • Mt 7:13-14 "the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. The gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."
  • Acts 4:12 "there is salvation in no one else; there is no other name given among men by which we must be saved"
  • Jn 17:3 "and this is eternal life: that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent"
  • Rm 3:22-23 "The righteousness of God is through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. There is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus"


    Many contradictory religions claim exclusivity. If Christianity let go of the idea of needing Jesus to be saved, it's a slippery slope to not needing him for anything -- just be a decent person and live your life. But in holding onto the need for Jesus, it ran headlong into another huge problem: if it's all about "accepting God's free gift of love", then a serial rapist can accept Jesus and be fully saved on death row, while a lifelong moral non-theist will go to hell for not accepting the gift. This completely devalues any of our actions and puts all the emphasis on "believing on bad evidence" instead of what you actually do with your life.


    It's all a moot point, however -- as it's likely "Jesus", if he existed, never said most of the things attributed to him, and some epistles attributed to Paul were written pseudonymously also. The whole idea of a "final judgment" wasn't from the Old Testament (which focused largely on earthly kings and national victories); rather, it was borrowed from Zoroastrianism eschatology during Babylonian/Persian captivity, which is around the time the Jews rewrote their national history to better fit their unfortunate circumstances, leading to inclusion in Jewish inter-testamental scripture such as the Book of Enoch, which was accepted as scripture for hundreds of years and was quoted by and influenced the thinking of New Testament writers who were making all this stuff up at the time.


    So, yeah -- who cares what Jesus said anyway, it's a lousy plan that wasn't even original! :-)
u/_stuntnuts_ · 2 pointsr/TrueAtheism

A bunch of good books have already been mentioned, so I'll throw this one in the mix. Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus does a very good job explaining how the documents that make up the Bible were compiled, altered, and repercussions of that process.

u/throwawayaccount94 · 2 pointsr/ReasonableFaith

We have 4 things written 30+ years after an event, based on oral stories, that all say the event happened differently. It isn't a fact, because we don't for sure know it happened. We don't have video evidence, we don't have living witnesses. I can write something saying 30 years ago my friend was Batman, doesn't mean it's a fact.

I suggest you look at these two books.

u/bdw9000 · 2 pointsr/Christianity

If you want to get intellectual, it is worth looking into how exactly the New Testament came together..rather than just learning the theology within it. This book is a good place to start.

u/redbenn · 2 pointsr/lectures

Its a good book too

u/StardustSapien · 2 pointsr/AskScienceDiscussion
u/MyDogFanny · 2 pointsr/atheism

In his book Sapiens, Harari talks about this issue at length.

>As far as we know, only Sapiens can talk about entire kinds of entities that they have never seen, touched, or smelled. Legends, myths, gods, and religions appeared for the first time with the Cognitive Revolution. Many animals and human species could previously say ‘Careful! A lion! Thanks to the Cognitive Revolution, Homo sapiens acquired the ability to say. ‘The lion is the guardian spirit of our tribe.' This ability to speak about fictions is the most unique feature of Sapiens language…You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

>Any large-scale human cooperation — whether a modern state, a medieval church, an ancient city, or an archaic tribe — is rooted in common myths that exist only in people's collective imagination. Churches are rooted in common religious myths. Two Catholics who have never met can nevertheless go together on crusade or pool funds to build a hospital because they both believe God was incarnated in human flesh and allowed Himself to be crucified to redeem our sins. States are rooted in common national myths. Two Serbs who have never met might risk their lives to save one another because both believe in the existence of the Serbian nation, the Serbian homeland and the Serbian flag. Judicial systems are rooted in common legal myths. Two lawyers who have never met can nevertheless combine efforts to defend a complete stranger because they both believe in the existence of laws, justice, human rights, and money paid out in fees.

Blog source for the above quotes and an excellent review of this topic from the book.

A quote from the above blog:

>Harari is quick to point out that these aren't lies. We truly believe them, and we believe in them as a collective. They have literal truth in the sense that if I trust that you believe in money as much as I do, we can use it as an exchange of value. But just as you can't get a chimpanzee to forgo a banana today for infinite bananas in heaven, you also can't get him to accept 3 apples today with the idea that if he invests them in a chimp business wisely, he'll get 6 bananas from it in five years, no matter how many compound interest tables you show him. This type of collaborative and complex fiction is uniquely human, and capitalism is as much of a collective myth as religion.

u/usnoozer · 2 pointsr/ukpolitics

Reddit is no good for this - especially this sub which is informed by the right-wing press, which in turn is owned by right-wing billionaires - the press basically sells audiences to advertisers, its no good as a news source - especially the Telegraph, Mail and Sun. Read as much as you can from everywhere - and never forget to check who owns what you are reading and what they want you to think and why. is worth a go as background.

u/PDXPTW · 2 pointsr/makemychoice

Sapiens! Based on your library this might be up your alley.

Follow it up with Homo Deus if you like it.

u/SardineePackage · 2 pointsr/DiaryOfARedditor

ps. The books I mentioned are kinda embarrassed to tell, but I do really like Pop science books!

My books are including Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Gulp: Adventures on the Alimentary Canal, More Forensics and Fiction: Crime Writers' Morbidly Curious Questions Expertly Answered, (Thai) The war that never won: History of fighting between humans and germs and more. Also I bought the complete series of The Famous Five, because I loved it since childhood and the artwork for this edition is really cute! It gives me the nostalgic feeling.

But as I told, I can just open some pages and leave it behind. Such a long journey to be an adult I guess. :/

u/unruly_bernoulli · 2 pointsr/NoStupidQuestions

Here's the amazon page

u/cihmapoutlisce · 2 pointsr/LateStageCapitalism

Excellent book.
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind Harari, Yuval Noah

u/ma-hi · 2 pointsr/Paleo

Here is a good write-up of some of the evidence. I have seen it mentioned in other places too - Sapiens maybe, but I could be misremembering.

I know that Weston A Price did a bunch of work in this area too.

u/nate_rausch · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

I should add, the thing I am finding is that postmodernism has a lot of overlap with what you can read in this book Sapiens. It's just that, while Harari stops at saying social concepts are socially constructed, the postmodernists say everything is. And while Harari says these stories are useful ways to coordinate - postmodernists say all language function only to dominate.

That last thing is another thing Peterson finds objectionable, and where I believe he thinks marxism was snuck in the backdoor -postmodernists seem to make an exception from "the world is made of words, even words"-view of the world, when it comes to one thing, which is power. Power is real (but chairs are not).

This is what Foucault brought to the table, with the concept biopower, which is that "language is oppression". "meaning that language functions in such a way as to render nonsensical, false, or silent tendencies that might otherwise threaten or undermine the distributions of power backing a society's conventions—even when such distributions purport to celebrate liberation and expression or value minority groups and perspectives."

Which leads to his "his rejection of what he deemed to be Enlightenment concepts of freedom, liberation, self-determination, and human nature. Instead, Foucault focused on the ways in which such constructs can foster cultural hegemony, violence, and exclusion."

So, there you have it. If you believed that. That the world is made of words, and words are made of words. And not only that, but words are only used to foster violence and suppress people - so naturally dialogue is not something you want, you would basically just setting yourself up to being dominated without knowing it sort of.

And there is no objectivity or truth to figure out really, since all words are just pointing to other words. I mean this is a really bleak, dark view of the world, that just happens to have some truth in it, very well described in the book Sapiens.

u/artearth · 2 pointsr/ranprieur

In Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari writes about the birth of language as instrumental to human cooperation beyond the tribal level, including the capacity to create and share complex stories that create meaning for people beyond food, shelter and sex.

This ties into the idea of Egregores, autonomous psychic entities created from groupthink who take on a life of their own.

u/charlie_mar · 2 pointsr/NoStupidQuestions

There is a great chapter about this in the book Sapiens. If this is your kind of thing, you will probably love that book. Basically, humans drove them to extinction through hunting and habitat loss due to farming and agriculture. As humans became better hunters with more advanced tools, it became more advantageous to be smaller and hide than it did to be large and able to fight. As human communication and cooperation advanced, they became better hunters through teamwork and coordination. They also began to desire a greater prize (a large kill that could feed their booming population). The evidence in support of this is the fact that large species thrived in places where humans were not. As humans expanded across the globe, the large species began to vanish from those places.

Highly recommend the book, but you can read about it here too.

u/Ainatuoretta · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

I highly recommend read this book about this topic : Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari. This book is very easy to reed and explain a lot about Religion and gods.

u/rualive2day · 2 pointsr/exmormon

If you like to read - I suggest you pick up a copy of “Sapiens”, it helped me sort out who I am and where I came from and how we deal with the world around us.

u/xandarg · 2 pointsr/IAmA

I know exactly what you mean! I'd call myself a monkey when explaining my desires/belief structures all the time, even before my first experience with hallucinogens.

I think my thought process in nightclubs or parties was always more self-scrutinizing, due to approach anxiety, so it was easy for me to sit there and start philosophizing about the social dynamics, and how this guy was trying to seduce this girl, and whether it seemed to be working or not, and what signals I was putting out by acting uncomfortable, etc. And how weirdly simplistic it was, on some level (and I'm sure there was also some aspect of belittlement out of sour grapes as well).

You'd probably like this, if you haven't read it yet. It sort of gives me hope that even though we might all be monkeys clamoring for power now, there are other, more healthy ways for monkeys to feel good and live in harmony with each other, too:

Oh, and you might also like the book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (it's soooo interesting!!)

u/chromeragnarok · 2 pointsr/indonesia

It's this one Ada bagian where he talks about how spices and other common food source like potato move around the world.

u/whatelsedoihavetosay · 2 pointsr/worldnews

I can’t take credit. The book “Sapiens”, by Yuval Harari uses it to describe the way human beings use imaginary ideas to control our collective and individual behavior:

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

u/rectorium · 2 pointsr/booksuggestions
u/TheAbyssGazesAlso · 2 pointsr/starcontrol

I highly recommend both Sapiens, and also The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker (which Bill Gates calls "the most inspiring book I've ever read")

They'll make you think (a lot) but they're good reads and super interesting.

u/Waylander84 · 2 pointsr/sexover30


I'm a few chapters into it; so far it's been an explanation of how many human species there initially were, how they interacted, and how ours (Homo Sapiens) came to be the only one still present. It's good reading on a topic that interested me, but it hasn't really grabbed me, so I'll pick it back up after we finish Come As You Are.

u/neverabadidea · 2 pointsr/books

Gombich's A little history of the world is aimed at kids, but a fun read that goes up to WW2

u/LordoftheScheisse · 2 pointsr/politics

I don't have much to add, except that I finished rereading ASHoNE for like the sixth time last night. If you enjoyed it, I'd also recommend E.H. Gombrich's A Little History of the World. From what I recall, it's less science-focused, but just as engaging.

u/munchingman · 2 pointsr/books

Never read it but a quick search brought up this

u/MillardKillmore · 2 pointsr/atheism
u/KoDCBP · 2 pointsr/atheism

For starters, what's your time limit? This is a topic that would take a while to unpack and make a convincing case for. If you decide to go through with it, read Hitchen's book, Harris' two books, and watch some debates to determine how you want to deliver your speech. Make a list of different arguments that the religious use for when your audience asks the standard questions and have a response for them. Have a list of examples of problems that different religions have caused and the source for that information.

u/gbCerberus · 2 pointsr/atheism

Letter to a Christian Nation (Amazon, more quotes)

u/OuRR_World · 2 pointsr/IAmA

I'm not sure if Jerry's gotten to this one yet, but I'll post also just in case.

  1. The God Virus
  2. Godless
  3. The Magic of Reality
  4. Letter To A Christian Nation

    Also there are great podcasts, of course we are partial to Living After Faith (our official Podcast with Deanna and Rich Lyons), and there are many others as well. For blogs there is always Hemant Mehta's Friendly Atheist, and we're starting our blog this weekend as well, but there are tons of just quality folks out there who have so much to share and offer to the secular world.
u/ralph-j · 2 pointsr/changemyview

> 1) He initially states that his issue is specific with the Islamic ideology itself, not Muslim people. Okay, following so far...

> 2) But then he supports his argument by referencing polls. Polls have to do with people; You can't poll an ideology. He references a few poll results that show a significant number of Muslims believe in oppression or violent acts.

> So, already he's stuck. You can't make the argument that an ideology is dangerous and that we need to do something about it without bringing Muslims into it.

He isn't saying Muslims don't need to change. However, there's a difference between being against people for who they are and being against the things they believe and do. He wants those Muslims who hold extreme views to change those views. This comes from a stance of well wishing, not ill wishing, so to speak.

According to Affleck it seems that any criticism of the beliefs of Muslims automatically falls under Islamophobia and thus racism. Yes, you can make a case that by its effects, such criticism predominantly happens to target non-white people. That however, would only be hypocritical if Harris refused to criticize white people for holding equivalent beliefs, which is definitely not the case. He is known to criticize all unreasonable religious beliefs, e.g. Christian beliefs and others. His frequent comparison to Jainism (which arguably lacks fundamentals that could lead to violence) shows that he really cares about the things people actually believe, and the consequences he presumes those beliefs to have on the world.

u/AlSweigart · 2 pointsr/atheism

"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins doesn't really go into anything new or original, but the strength of the book is that is a great, concise summary of all the beginning arguments for atheism.

I'd follow it with Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell", also a good recommendation. Same goes for Carl Sagan's "A Demon Haunted World"

Christopher Hitchens is a bit vitriolic for some, but "God is not Great" has some nuggets in it.

I personally didn't like Sam Harris' "End of Faith" but I did like his "Letter to a Christian Nation".

For the topic of evolution, Talk Origins is great (and free)
Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" is also a good read (and short). Not so short but also good are Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker", "Climbing Mount Improbable" and "Unweaving the Rainbow"

u/SecretAgentX9 · 2 pointsr/atheism

I was a Jehovah's Witness for the first 24 years of my life. Very devout.

It's hard for me to know what these particular folks' motivation for being in the JWs is.

Here is what helped me:

Problems With a Global Flood, 2nd Edition: Witnesses are very literal about their interpretation of the bible. If they actually read this page it will go a long way toward dislodging the cornerstones of their faith.

Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller: A book about evolution that is not directly threatening to religion. It's written by the head of biology at Brown University. The science is solid. The theology is unsurprisingly weak. This book changed my life.

If they make it that far, give them this one: Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris. Not all of it applies to witnesses directly (they're not young-earth creationists, for example), but a lot of it still applies. This will supply many final nails for the coffin.

One thing to keep in mind is that they're very unlikely to seek any of this out on their own. They'll view it as a sin. Your best bet is to print these texts out or buy them. Both books can be purchased on Amazon in used condition for almost nothing. Tell them you'll read their books if they read yours and hold them to it. That culture has a very strong intellectual conscience. Most witnesses are really decent people. They're just stuck in a totally stupid mind-trap.

Good luck! You're doing a great thing by trying to help these people.

u/cbelt123 · 2 pointsr/atheism

I recommend this book to learn more.

u/TheMoonIsFurious · 2 pointsr/atheism

If you're interested in following the origins of Scientology or all of the disturbing rumors that surround it - this book has been an eye opener: [Going Clear] (

u/docbaily · 2 pointsr/atheism

For anyone interested, the book Going Clear is a pretty good insight to Hubbard's life.

u/jerryonimo · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

Lawrence Wright, in his new book "Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief" provides detail on the IRS infiltration and how it was so effective that the IRS immediately afterwards gave Scientology its tax-exempt status by recognizing it as a church.

The Wright book is a really good bit of journalism and a great read.

u/mcrom · 2 pointsr/dataisbeautiful

There's a good book on this that tells the story of each element and how it was discovered. And yes it was a nationalistic pissing contest. Some mad scientists were involved. The Disappearing Spoon

u/brianjdamico · 2 pointsr/chemistry

The Disappearing Spoon. I absolutely loved reading it.

u/Prayden · 2 pointsr/chemistry

The Disappearing Spoon: And Other True Tales of Madness, Love, and the History of the World from the Periodic Table of the Elements by Sam Kean is a really good book and covers a lot of chemistry. It is well written and engaging and has a lot of fun facts and accounts of scientists.

u/peter_lorres_lorry · 2 pointsr/relationships

>I'm very liberal minded.

You mean modern American liberalism (which isn't liberal in the slightest), or do you mean Classical Liberalism (ie, modern day Libertarianism)?

Perhaps you're the one who needs to read up on the roots of your political philosophy.

u/Jibrish · 2 pointsr/Conservative

> There is no such thing as 'right wing' fascism, since the american right wing is about individual sovereignty.

This is just not a statement of fact. There are examples of left wing and right wing fascist societies. I'm also not sure what the american right wing has to do with the political spectrum as a whole (seeing as how it's universal). Mussolini's fascism most certainly pushed more right than it did left as well as some religiously inclined right wing fascist societies specifically in the middle east.

> Mussolini was a Socialist all his life. He was not a right winger.

This is also factually untrue. 2 He was a socialist in his earlier years than got kicked out of the socialist party. He then proceeded to invent fascism as "A third way". He often stated that socialism was dead and only hung on because of a grudge. This is why fascism isn't really a left/right thing but rather it's specific to the individual state. Meaning, a state can be left wing fascists or right wing fascists. This was a book point in the book Liberal Fascism.

Note that two core principles of fascism reject both egalitarianism and all class warfare. Two key principles for a society to be socialist, communist, or even far left.

> See, this is just an excuse. Hitler's National Socialism was essentially a form of Socialism that used as its binding glue a national fervor. How does one change throw something onto the other end of a spectrum when he was 99% similar to Stalin, who is ostensibly a left-winger, just because Stalin wanted International Socialism instead?

No. Nazism is not socialism. Hitler's Germany was socialist as well as Nazi. Socialist is an economic system whereas fascism is a social system. This is like saying leftist Netherlands are far right because they are capitalist. His economic system was certainly left wing, his social / government system was not.

> Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler were all Collectivist, materialist left wingers.

This is also factually untrue - specifically the bit about Mussolini. Mussulini's fascism was utilitarian by nature and individualistic at the same time. Essentially this blend was authoritarian right wing. Think Augusto Pinochet for something similar (though he was not fascist, but rather authoritarian and right wing).

> Hitler hated the Communists first from their attempted coup d'etat of Bavaria (Later Hitler's source of political power for a reason), and the Jews as a byproxy of that, and his views on race as a byproduct of that.

You keep talking about hitler and Nazism. I understand this is an off-shoot of fascism I suppose but this is like talking about a mixed-market welfare state when discussing free market economies.

u/markth_wi · 2 pointsr/history

Hitler ran on a family values campaign against Paul Hindenburg and characterized himself as returning to Prussian/Junkers conservative values.

His funding largely came from the Junkers/Industrialists who saw him a a return to those exact values.

More importantly, The Prussian/German conception of conservativsm is no where NEARLY as constrained as the US libertarian/conservative view, by way of example we need only look at arch-conservative Otto Von Bismark - who was - very nearly one of the top 4-5 politicial/military geniuses of our species, in the last 500 or 1000 years.

What was he notable for among many other things.
Implementing more or less Universal Healthcare in 1891 - in an effort to short-circuit one of the socialist political points in a parliamentary election.

Of course if you've read Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" or any of the more recent "revisions" to fit Hitler in a "liberal" light, then I'm sorry to say - you've been misinformed.

u/petri_dish · 2 pointsr/politics

Intelligent critiques of progressivism do exist. Glenn Beck doesn't provide any, though. This is a good book. I don't agree with everything Prof. Watson says, but he does a good job of examining some of the philosophy behind the progressive movement. And despite its dumb title (which I think is a little hyperbolic, though not completely off-base), Jonah Goldberg's book does a decent job as well.

u/Tundrasama · 2 pointsr/politics

I've heard that Malkin's book In Defense of Internment is pretty spectacular. This site provided some refutations.
Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg should be a riot too.

u/jz_ · 2 pointsr/programming

Looking forward to

  • writing more tests for my half-finished interpreter
  • getting my work-in-progress video game to the point where it actually resembles something
  • if not too stressed try and read Tonal Pitch Space and Liberal Fascism
u/Nrussg · 2 pointsr/AskThe_Donald

No problem - like I said, history is my jam so I never mind talking about it.

In terms of history subs - I think /r/AskHistorians is great, and usually really well sourced - they have an FAQ that is fun to browse and a cool collection of best answers.

In terms of books, I would recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel - it is far from a perfect book (I don't agree with a lot of it) but it presents a very interesting perspective, and based of the types of things you were asking, I think you would really enjoy it. It's also fairly accessible as far as these types of books go. Just make sure you think of it as a starting point rather than an end point.

I would also recommend both Mike Duncan's podcasts (the History of Rome - dealing with Roman History, and Revolutions - dealing with various historical revolutions) Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast is also pretty good and spans a lot of topics.

If you're in college or have the opportunity to attend classes, I'd also recommend just trying out a class on non-European history.

If you ever have any questions feel free to message me.

u/jaghutgathos · 2 pointsr/opieandanthony

Yo, dopey. Do some research. Believe it or not, languages are often related. Think of a set of grandparents. In Europe you might have two sets of grandparents and in Sub-Saharan Africa you might have 6 sets of grandparents. Even if Europe has more languages, if they are related (as they are) its easier to communicate than with fewer languages that are totally unrelated.

As to the animals - why do people not ride zebras? Do you think its from lack of trying? The domesticated animals that we have now were domesticated because they COULD be domesticated. Dummy.

Here is a good book related to the subject - its a wonderful read (seriously):

u/veringer · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Thanks for clearing all that up. I think your perspectives are deeply flawed and it's likely fruitless to debate with you. However, you might want to read Thomas Sowell's "Black Rednecks and White Liberals". He's one of the primary sources for my above comments and incidentally a black libertarian-conservative economist and social commentator. I think his work, and that book in particular, would resonate with you. From there, I'd recommend "Guns, Germs, and Steel" as a counter-point to you opinions regarding Africans, but you'd have to be open to challenging your current (pathological) memeplex.

> you can cry me a river and i still will not change my mind

This is not the sign of a wise person. You should try harder.

u/Rose1982 · 2 pointsr/booksuggestions

Your dad sounds like my dad, and he loved this book that I got him- Guns, Germs and Steel.

It has great reviews.

u/Neodamus · 2 pointsr/worldnews

There so many other factors. If you want to feel superior, you'll find some reason to. But that doesn't mean it's objectively correct. You may need to do some reading on the subject of why those cultures are "better" than others. You'll probably find it has absolutely nothing to do with the color of people's skin. Try reading this. It's a book about why cultures are the way they are.

u/Zelazny7 · 2 pointsr/asoiaf

The answer to your "why did it start here instead of there" questions can be answered by reading Guns, Germs and Steel.

u/vinterzun · 2 pointsr/shittyaskhistory

If you really want to know, read Guns, Germs and Steel
Your question is what this book is all about. It's super interesting and the author does an amazing job of explaining it.

u/Sad_Wallaby · 2 pointsr/AskReddit
u/WikiRelevance · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

The relevant wikipedia article on domestication explains that there are several traits that a species typically possess that enables them to become domesticated. For animals they should preferably have: a flexible diet, reproduce in captivity, fast growth and reproductive rate, pleasant disposition and good temperament, and should have a social hierarchy that humans can become apart and "alpha" of.

Some species don't have these traits, for example the Indri lemur of Madagascar does not breed in captivity. Another good example is the Zebra: "Attempts to domesticate many kinds of wild animals have been unsuccessful. The zebra is one example. Despite the fact that four species of zebra can interbreed with and are part of the same genus as the horse and the donkey, attempts at domestication have failed. Factors such as temperament, social structure and ability to breed in captivity play a role in determining whether a species can be successfully domesticated".

Domestication differs from taming. "the process whereby a population of living organisms is changed at the genetic level, through generations of selective breeding, to accentuate traits that ultimately benefit the interests of humans. A usual by-product of domestication is the creation of a dependency in the domesticated organisms, so that they lose their ability to live in the wild. This differs from taming in that a change in the phenotypical expression and genotype of the animal occurs, whereas taming is simply an environmental socialization/behavioral trait; the process by which animals become accustomed to human presence."

In actuality only a handful of animals have been truly domesticated. "In human history to date, only a few species of large animal have been domesticated. In approximate order of their earliest domestication these are: dog, sheep, goat, pig, ox, yak, reindeer, water buffalo, horse, donkey, llama, alpaca, Bactrian camel and Arabian camel." Jared Diamond's book guns, germs and steel explores how the natural distribution of these species influenced how cultures arose and how some gained dominance over others...simply because they were located in the right area where a domesticable species lived. It is one of the explanations he gives for the development of great city states in Eurasia, as opposed to say...Africa. Guns, germs and steel has also been made into an excellent movie by PBS

Domestication and Evolution

Domestication is an event, not a trait. There are certain heritable traits that make a species better suited for domestication (e.g. flexible diet). In those specific species these traits were selected for other reasons (e.g. a flexible diet is a good thing in a highly variable habitat where food resources fluctuate), specific to that species within its niche - not for some unforeseen future domestication event by humans. Remember that evolution has no goals or directions. And evolution cannot select something from nothing. First a trait or behaviour must exist within the population, then selective forces within their social or natural environment will dictate whether that trait remains or disappears. Domestication can also be described under aritifical selection which differs from natural selection in that the actor is not nature, but humans.

u/GornoP · 2 pointsr/CasualConversation

The 100

Guns, Germs and Steel -- there was also a 3 part series on the history channel that condenses this.

Basic Knowledge -- I was given this as a gift, it's Dry as shit to try to just sit around and read, but super handy to look up stuff.

u/fallenpollen · 2 pointsr/arabs

This author is right on the money! So many of us blame the current Arab situation on some kind of moral failing on the part of the people, but the reasons are usually tied to the bigger picture and the world around us.

'Guns, Germs, and Steel' by Jared Diamond expands on this so much in terms of the basic idea. Although its not specifically about the arab world and about all societies in general, its a fantastic read and i recommend it wholeheartedly.

And the take from all of this is quite positive in my opinion. The Arab world is currently undergoing a fundamental shift in terms of demography, economics, and education. As the Arab world starts to reach its full potential in these areas in the coming decades, I foresee wonderful advancement in our societies and resurgence of our historical status in the world as a whole.

u/poopascoopa69 · 2 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

Oh, jeez. Just one?

I might as well say the one I'm reading now. It's Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. Everybody knows that Western Europe took over the world because they had better technology. Diamond tries to find out what factors led to that state of affairs, though. He gives a biologists' view of the last 13,000 years while also drawing on his experience with history and language.

u/gibberfish · 2 pointsr/Documentaries

Haven't yet watched the documentary, but the description reminds me of Guns, Germs and Steel, an excellent book on the same subject.

The fact that Western culture dominates the world (for now) seems a given, but it's not so easy to explain why it wasn't, say, Sub-Saharan Africans or Native Americans that conquered the world.

If you're at all interested in how geography defines societies, why inventions were or weren't made by them, why conquests happened or didn't, and so on, I can really recommend this book. Easily one of the most fascinating I've ever read.

u/UtimateAgentM · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

Guns, Germs, and Steel. Why the world is the way it is.

Personally, I'd also choose To Kill a Mockingbird. It's accessible, engaging, and has real depth.

u/Ilickexpectedthings · 2 pointsr/Documentaries

>But why didn't they develop industry?

a book with hypotheses on that:

u/alpacIT · 2 pointsr/geography

You've already had some good suggestions, which I'd suggest following. I have a BA in geography and even after school found these interesting reads.

Cultural and Historical Geography

Eratosthenes' "Geography"

The World of Gerard Mercator: The Mapmaker Who Revolutionized Geography

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

Race And Culture: A World View

Technical, GIS, Cartography

How to Lie with Maps

Thinking About GIS: Geographic Information System Planning for Managers

An Introduction to Geographical Information Systems

I know most of these won't be of much use with a BS degree, but gives you a good foundation for thinking geographically. For the more science aspects; a good understanding of physics, chemistry, and to a lesser extent biology, will really give you a leg up when starting out.

u/bwv549 · 2 pointsr/exmormon

Thank you. I acknowledge that the topic is deep (far deeper than my training and study, and I've been studying the topic for quite some time).

I think Guns, Germs and Steel is great for exposing a person to lots of the data that scientists use to make these models and with some of the way these models are arrived at and reasoned with.

Other than that, I mostly go at it one wikipedia article, or one Young Earth Creationist debate, at a time. :) For real, I think that engaging in thoughtful debate with someone who holds an opposing viewpoint is a very quick way to bring yourself up to speed on the issues (gives you the opportunity and motivation to study one issue at a time). It's definitely still a work in progress for me.

u/golden_canary · 2 pointsr/TrollXChromosomes

Not u/misyo but I'm also a historian. Best overarching history series is [Blood, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond] ( imo. It touches on a bunch of different historical eras and locations so it's pretty diverse. It is western-centric however, so you won't learn too much about any eastern history. That being said, the book doesn't ignore it either, so if it's relevant you'll get it. :)

u/WhineyThePooh · 2 pointsr/suggestmeabook

I remember really liking Lies My Teacher Told Me, which debunks common misinformation found in U.S. History text books. Though it might be not be as intellectual as he likes. Check it out, though.

There is another one my father-in-law gave great reviews, but I can't remember the title. I'll ask and edit if I figure it out.

Edit: Guns, Germs, and Steel!!! I haven't read it myself but it sounded interesting.

I also thought of The Master and Margarita, if he hasn't read it already. I bought this version, and a lot of the footnotes go into how the Russian political climate at the time influenced the novel. I thought it was very interesting.

u/Vladha · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

It was a combination of multiple factors. In short, humans have reached North America and the American continent in general much later than humans reached Europe. By the time Native Americans managed to develop crops and livestock, Europeans were way ahead of them with much better food, weapons and with diseases that the Native Americans were not used to.

If you are interested in this topic, I would recommend this book,
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies.

u/WhiteDove · 2 pointsr/atheism

If you are very curious I'd recommend reading Guns Germs & Steel for a fairly accurate (and interesting) summery of why Europe pretty much won Civ V. If you are only moderately curious the documentary is pretty informational as well.

TLDR; Europe is wide, and had more resources due to natural selection having more contiguous territory to play with.

Edit: Also, the southern hemisphere mostly consists of narrow landmasses. The argument is essentially that because the basic biomes are much larger in the northern hemispheres they had more 'advanced' plants and animals, essentially wolves, cattle(cows, sheep, pigs etc...) and grain. This jumpstarted northern societies so they were able to have the excess resources to develop technology (the guns and steel part). The germs were because they domesticated (and lived closely with) animals as well as traveled extensively. Once the oceans were conquered it was pretty much settled.

u/alarmmightsound · 2 pointsr/SubredditDrama

Holy fuck, man.

> Typically they're defined by factors like economic performance, social stability, resources, political structure, etc.

So what made their economic performance, social stability, and political structure that of a 4th grade level? Who did that?

Here's something you should read to help you, and here's another, and I guess even this one, although it's not nearly as good. But I'm sure you won't- you just stumbled into a very complex topic with the faintest of knowledge- so it really doesn't matter. What you'd learn from it is that geography is about the only thing that is really deterministic in human development- everything else is what you decide to do. And geography isn't what's determining the difference between North and South Korea, so...

It seems as if we should be comparing them all, instead of infantilizing whole nations of people so you can make some awkward and cringeworthy conspiracy that isn't even correct anyway.

Wow. Just wow.

u/Deradius · 2 pointsr/AnythingGoesNews

>Remember when MTV filmed ODB on a limo ride to "get paid" at the welfare office with his welfare and foodstamps?

You believe that a disproportionate number of parasites are black because of one guy behaving irresponsibly?

Do you also believe that all black people are astrophysicists?

Let's get to the root of why you believe what it is that you believe.

>Nobody knows why all 47 sub Saharan countries in Africa are hellholes of disease, famine and poverty.

You should check out Guns, Germs, and Steel, if you're interested in this topic and you haven't read into it already. It does an awesome job answering this question, though I'd not have phrased it quite the way you did.

To sum it up, Africa, unlike Europe and the US, is situated on more of a North-South axis. Interestingly, this can make it much tougher (as a society) to transport resources and ideas from one place to another, stifling production and innovation and making it very difficult for industrial societies to develop. I don't do the concept justice, really, but it's a pretty cool concept and I highly recommend you check it out before you dismiss it out of hand.

There's also the exploitation of and tampering with these countries by first world nations that can make it tough for them to develop. It can be tough to develop a free and enlightened society when some first world power is buying ordnance for the oppressive regime du jour to accomplish whatever political goals they might have in the region.

And as you well know from following U.S. politics, corruption is certainly not exclusive to these nations.

>African American children are more than three times as likely as white children to be born into poverty and to be poor, and are more than four times as likely to live in extreme poverty.

Yep, and let's take a minute to talk about why.

Let's say that the first slaves arrived in the US in 1619.

Let's figure slavery ended with the emancipation proclamation, even though it didn't, which took place in 1863.

Let's suppose that oppression of blacks ended with the civil rights movement, which we will say happened at the nice round figure of 1960.

So you've got 244 years of slavery, in which, on the basis of their skin color, blacks were maintained almost exclusively as a servant class. They were deprived of education. They were deprived of any economic opportuniteis whatsoever. They were kept poor and undereducated specifically for the purpose of having them perform menial labor jobs.

From 1863 to 1960, you've got 97 years in which they were specifically targeted for oppression by society and government on the basis of their skin color alone. They were deprived access to equal facilities, they were deprived access to education, they were deprived access to educational opportunity.

The deliberate intent here was to create and maintain an economic servant class through the imposition of economic constraints, since it could no longer be done directly through legislation.

The effect was to create and perpetuate a system of generational poverty.

Black Americans could not obtain a quality education. They could to obtain quality jobs. As such, they could not amass financial resources either for themselves or for their offspring.

Those who lack education value education less and encourage it less in their offspring.

Those who have fewer resources are not able to provide resilient support networks for their offspring.

While having a car transmission die might be a bad thing for you or I, for someone stuck in generational poverty, it can be a catastrophe. Three jobs won't help you when you can't get to any of them, and not only do you not have the funds to fix the car - but neither does anyone in your support network.

You don't snap your fingers and get rid of three hundred and fifty years of baggage overnight. The grandparents of today's high schoolers, many of whom are directly raising those high schoolers, experienced direct educational and economic deprivation at the hands of an oppressive system.

It is, therefore, not particularly surprising that we see widespread problems in the African American community. They are the result of a deliberate and artificial imposition of educational and economic poverty, assigned along racial lines.

Affirmative action is an attempt to reverse the impact of negative racial poicies of the past by instituting 'beneficial' race-based policies in the present.

I (likely) agree with you that affirmative action is a bad idea.

Racism in the present, whatever form it takes, cannot possibly hope to correct racial injustice in the past.

Young people today do not need to be taught the lesson, "You deserve a leg up because of the color of your skin,", or "Because of the color of your skin, we don't think you can hack it, so you're being given a leg up." Both lessons are false and damaging.

Instead, policies should be instituted that differentially benefit artificially impoverished minorities until the disparities are resolved.

For example, a college scholarship that targets individuals who are the first in their family to go to college and whose parents fall below a certain income threshold will benefit a disproportionate number of African-American youths until the disparities are fixed, but will neither exclude eligible whites nor convey the wrong message to anyone.

>12.5% black population.

I was afraid of that.

Going back to the original quotation:

>How can a minority that does not work hard and is not as smart as the majority win the battle for scarce resources?

Please provide support for your generalization that black people, as a whole, do not work hard and are not as smart as 'the majority' (who I take to indicate white people based upon your reasoning - correct me if I'm wrong).

>60% of black students don't graduate high school. In NYC, that figure is 75%.

Does this have more to do with their capacity to achieve or with unstable home lives that are a product of generational poverty combined with an ongoing tradition of imposed racial inequality at the hands of police and school officials?

>72% of black babies are born to single mothers.

Does this have anything to do with the disproportionately high incarceration rate of African American males, stemming at least in part from differential enforcement of the laws?

u/Virnibot · 2 pointsr/aznidentity

Virnibot has detected a misspelling or incorrect use of grammar in your comment.

> I am also a white devil and tbh I think only morons idealize the culture and advancement of whites without looking at the blood that was spilt to propogate it, white people colonized and enslaved millions throughout history to get to where we are today. However the only people that think 18th century china were backwards are also morons and I doubt that they opened a single historical textbook.
> That being said, human nature is violent and opportunistic, you can't judge our ancestors with the world view of today, their simply wasn't the infrastructure in place for people to be co exist peacefully in the same manner as today. There was no antibiotics, no internet, no welfare, no democracy, limited legal and policing systems, no easy transport, no supermarkets the list goes on and on. Without these systems in place, people become greedy and mistrustful of each other.
> If one cut on your knee can get infected and kill you, leaving your family destitute and the average life expectancy was 30 then people are going to act alot more sociopathic, it becomes about survival, like actual life or death survival.
> The reality is human history is dirty and messy and violent, and pretending that any race or ethnicity is innocent from that is completely ignorant, its in our genes to be opportunistic and violent, its evolution and natural selection at work. We only became largely peaceful in the last 50 years because a) we developed to such a degree that working together economically was in our better interests than military and b) the deterrant of nuclear war and mutually assured destruction
> I recommend you read the following books:
> Basically how all human societies are violent and
> This book gives the reasons why civilizations rise and fall and why European culture became the dominant one post 19th century
> Essentially there are deterministic factors that are needed for any culture to prosper and white people inherited them all just because of geography and luck

  • You wrote alot which should have been a lot

  • You wrote propogate which should have been propagate

    <3 Good day Courtesy | Of | User Virnios
u/CKtheFourth · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

There's a really good book that answers this question and a whole lot more

Jared Diamond - Guns Germs and Steel

u/roconnor · 2 pointsr/canada

> Maybe the laws of nature just don’t allow for industrial efficiency principles to be applied to living beings.

Or maybe nature has been evolving epidemics ever since the neolithic revolution.

u/mementomary · 2 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

I pretty much only read non-fiction, so I'm all about books that are educational but also interesting :) I'm not sure what your educational background is, so depending on how interested you are in particular subjects, I have many recommendations.

Naked Statistics and Nate Silver's Book are both good!

Feeling Good is THE book on Cognitive Behaviour Therapy.

The Omnivore's Dilemma is good, as is Eating Animals (granted, Eating Animals is aimed at a particular type of eating)

Guns, Germs and Steel is very good.

I also very much enjoyed The Immortal Live of Henrietta Lacks, as well as Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman :)

edit to add: Chris Hadfield's Book which I haven't received yet but it's going to be amazing.

u/mykart · 2 pointsr/TheRedPill

Oh jeesh this is embarrassing. Go read Guns, Germs, and Steel if you really want to know the thousands of reasons why North America and Europe is more stable than Africa and Asia.

Hint: Variations in female sexuality is not mentioned.

u/Rhianu · 2 pointsr/Alabama

Actually, their ancestors DIDN'T start out in the same socio-economic situation as everybody else. In fact, there isn't even a standard starting point for anyone. Each continent had different natural resources, and those people who happened to be lucky enough to be born on continents with better and more plentiful resources became more prosperous. The only reason white people became the most prosperous race is because Europe had better natural resources than any other continent on Earth (though Asia was a close second). The book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond reveals the absurdity of racial meritocracy.

Also, legal rights mean nothing if those in power still want to keep you down. The book The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander exposes how white politicians have used all sorts of creative and underhanded methods to keep black people uneducated and poor, despite the passage of apparent equal rights in the legal system.

u/DavidByron · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

For politics there's a lot of heavy heavy stuff which is good but if you want something light and more story orientated but still good try Confessions of an Economic Hitman It's about how America came to dominate and exploit the third world.

If you can handle something a little heavier I'd suggest the free on-line copy of A People's History of the United States. It's an upbeat history of ordinary people struggling for their rights against the rich - stuff you don't get told at school.

Many people will suggest George Orwell's 1984 which is also free on-line but I'd read only half way through if you want to keep it a bit lighter because the ending is pretty goddam nasty and all the buzz words that the book entered into the English language (apart from "Room 101") are in the first half of the book.

For a great book on pre-history try Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel. Famous book with ideas you'll find very useful in conversations. It answers the question as to how come it was White Europeans going and beating up on everyone else instead of vice versa?

If you're not a conservative (and why would you be) you'll enjoy Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians. It's his research on why some people seem to act in irrational ways and it's free on-line again. Bonus: his writing style is very easy to read and it's short.

u/braincow · 2 pointsr/askscience

The wiki article I linked to has a few decent references on why the hypothesis is incorrect (and also references to supporting evidence).

> The original "thrifty gene" hypothesis argued that famines were common and severe enough to select for thrifty gene in the 2.5 million years of human paleolithic history. This assumption is criticized by some anthropological evidence.[14][15][16] [17] Many of the populations that later developed high rates of obesity and diabetes appeared to have no discernible history of famine or starvation (for example, Pacific Islanders whose "tropical-equatorial islands had luxuriant vegetation all year round and were surrounded by lukewarm waters full of fish.").[15][16] Moreover, one of the most significant problems for the 'thrifty gene' idea is that it predicts that modern hunter gatherers should get fat in the periods between famines. Yet data on the body mass index of hunter-gatherer and subsistence agriculturalists clearly show that between famines they do not deposit large fat stores [17].

Also, Guns, Germs, and Steel devotes a couple chapters to discussion regarding the theory.

u/cspayton · 2 pointsr/exchristian

Thanks for responding!

I think that there are a few books which have influenced me greatly, but I have a much more expansive list of books I want to read than ones I have already consumed.

To start, you should try the greats:

u/Lordsnoww · 2 pointsr/agnostic

Book [The End of Faith] ( By Sam Harris
-This book was the support I needed to feel comfortable saying I do not believe in organized religion. (I felt guilty for never being a believer but this book helped me find my voice to explain why.)
-He also has a fascinating podcast on the topic along with youtube videos, just type in Sam Harris and you will easily find it.

[Stephen Fry Annihilates God] ( Short video but fantastic.
EDIT: The link I posted for this all you need to watch is the first two minutes.

Other than those two sources that is pretty much all I have. I am fairly new to giving a voice to my lack of belief in organized religion so I do not have many sources yet.

Hope this provides some use to you.

u/M_Dupperton · 2 pointsr/infertility

I was raised Catholic, became an agnostic before IF, and am now an atheist. I believe in physics, evolution, and maybe random chance grounded in chaos theory, but I haven't explored that last one deeply. It doesn't matter much to me. But not believing in god matters is a core value of mine. At best, the idea of an all knowing, all loving, all powerful god is just impossible. Look at the world, all the suffering. People starving to death, families being ripped apart, kids and others suffering from abuse. Life can be nasty, brutal, and short. If god is all knowing, he knows about all those horrors. If he's all powerful, he could prevent them. If he's all loving, he would. But... he hasn't. So yeah, at least one of those isn't true.

I believe there is no god. It's no coincidence that "miracles" have become scarce with scientific knowledge. That demonic possessions are essentially over now that we know about mental illness. God just seems like an outdated fable for understanding a confusing world. Science has replaced that fable with truth.

If there is a god, I think he's either extraordinarily limited in power (which makes no sense given the definition of god) or he's indifferent to us or he's actually just an asshole. I've seen too much suffering in the world to believe otherwise. Just look at the sadistic people who get kids easily compared to all of us in this community. Or go to the pediatric ICU and see some of the kids there who have no quality of life due to horrible congenital illnesses, and never will have any. It's worse than any horror show.

I get SO much peace and happiness out of not believing in god. When bad shit happens, I don't have to wonder why or what lesson I'm supposed to be learning. I don't have to feel like the god who "loves" me is also putting me through horrible experiences, like some sadomasochistic father figure. Some religious/spiritual people rationalize suffering by saying we grow from it. I think that's twisted. If we analogize to parenthood, good parents don't beat up their kids, starve them, give them horrible diseases, etc. God does all of those things. YES, challenges bring growth. But there's a fucking limit to the horror. Giving your kids chores to do is one thing. Giving them horrible painful illnesses is another. Just look at shit like Tay Sachs, osteogenesis imperfecta, etc.

Some people say that God isn't responsible for horrible things, but "man's sin" brought evil into the world. To them, I say that if you believe god created the universe, then he created a universe that allows for one person to be punished for the actions of another. Where is the justice and love in that?

As for finding meaning in life, I've never felt compelled to find some grand plan in why I'm here or what my life is about. More important is that I'm here and it's up to me to make the most of it. And if there's no god, then we can only count on each other for help and kindness. I think that's a better motivation to be a good person, and a more altruistic motivation, than being a good person out of fear of god's wrath.

I think I've missed out on very little by not believing. Maybe the only thing is a church community, but even that is a double edged sword - so much gossip and judgment in most of them. Other than that, I can't think of anything that I've missed. I've never longed for god's "love." I've never wanted an indefinite afterlife. When I was five, I asked my mom if I could have god make me disappear when I'd had enough of all that heaven had to offer. It's not that I was depressed, I just didn't and don't want ANYTHING forever, except maybe to be with any future kids. I love my husband buckets, but I'm sure that eventually we'd want to disappear together, too. The idea of eternity is daunting, not particularly appealing. And the idea that the afterlife matters more than the present just seems like a tool to maintain a shitty status quo in this world - wealth inequalities, social inequalities, etc.

I just want to say that a life without god is not necessarily something to be afraid of. It can be so liberating and fulfilling. If you're looking for books on the subject, I'd recommend The End of Faith by Sam Harris. It's an eye opener. All the best to you.

u/slosmoothsmoothfast · 2 pointsr/Atlanta

This is true. Based on your comment, you might like a book called "The End of Faith".

"In The End of Faith, Sam Harris delivers a startling analysis of the clash between reason and religion in the modern world. He offers a vivid, historical tour of our willingness to suspend reason in favor of religious beliefs―even when these beliefs inspire the worst human atrocities. While warning against the encroachment of organized religion into world politics, Harris draws on insights from neuroscience, philosophy, and Eastern mysticism to deliver a call for a truly modern foundation for ethics and spirituality that is both secular and humanistic. Winner of the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award for Nonfiction."

u/fookhar · 2 pointsr/agnostic

When it comes to understanding evolution, Why Evolution is True is a very entertaining, easily read introduction. I would also recommend The End of Faith by Sam Harris.

u/voodootribe · 2 pointsr/booksuggestions

If you enjoyed the God Delusion you would probably enjoy either God Is Not Great by Hitchens or The End of Faith by Sam Harris

u/Indubitablyz · 2 pointsr/changemyview

I am as ardent an anti-theist as you'll find, however, few points

>I am not trying to offend anyone who is religious

Not up to you, they're going to get offended anyway.

>I know religion is responsible for many of our moral values

Is it though? Morality is still an incredibly rich area of study and thought (along with consciousness.) There are many competing theories such as:

In any case- religion certainly teaches that some things are bad and other things are good. I reject the claim that it is responsible for "many of our moral values." (Reference the Old Testament- morality isn't the word I would use to describe stoning people to death for transgressions.)

>Religion is responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history.

I would say that close-minded adherence to bad ideas are the root of the worst atrocities in human history. Religions are among the worst ideas and the most deeply held convictions people have and have contributed mightily (and have been the primary factor for a lot of the atrocities) however, people are responsible for the worst atrocities in human history.

>I don't understand how people are willing to die for something that they have been told and never actually seen.

Philosophy Psychology of` religion is pretty useful here. You may find the following concepts interesting:

  • The Backfire Effect
  • Cognitive Dissonance
  • Confirmation Bias

    It is important to note that religious adherents often grow up being taught these dogmatic systems as truth. To them it is common sense and they attribute their good feelings and positive experiences to the religion.

    >We are not born believing in religion it is taught to us.

    Someone along the way came up with the idea. Generally these days we cannot tell because not many people can get to age 18 without being subject to religious ideas. Although, I tend to agree with this hypothesis in a modern sense.

    >I believe that any religion, whethever it's monotheistic (one god) or polytheistic (many gods) that believes in a divine creator is a plague and gives evil people justification for committing awful crimes againist others (molesting children, terroist attacks, etc).

    Well, polytheistic religions have a history of being tolerant and intolerant of other gods/faiths. Monotheism has a horrific track record here.

    Jainism is non-violent:

    >I think social philosophies like confucianism which are built on more ethical and natural principles should replace religion.

    Secular Humanism sounds like it would float your boat:

    What people find irreplaceable about religion is its answers to big questions, comfort, and "spiritual fulfillment."

    Whether you believe in spirituality or not, there have been many hypotheses about what spiritual experience is, or where exactly it comes from. Personally, I think religions are middle men between you and whatever those experiences are. Meditation and other methods have been suggested.

    >Religion is an evil plague apon society CMV.

    Ultimately, I agree with you. Although, I do think that some people get things from religion that are good or benign (things that could be gotten from other sources IMO.) Your view just needs a bit more nuance, respectfully. The following sources would be interesting to you:
u/aynrandfan · 2 pointsr/Libertarian

Funny, I often brought this to school during my AP American History and AP Psychology class as well, er, in fact, all my classes when I was 16. That and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand:

u/Sunlighter · 2 pointsr/atheism

Hmmm, let's see.

On emotions, I can quote Peikoff in OPAR:

>Emotions play an essential role in human life, and in this role they must be felt, nourished, respected. Without such a faculty, men could not achieve happiness or even survival; they would experience no desire, no love, no fear, no motivation, no response to values. The epistemological point, however, remains unaffected: the role of emotions, though essential, is not the discovery of reality. One casts no aspersion on eating or breathing if one denies that they are means of cognition. The same applies to feeling.
>Objectivism is not against emotions, but emotionalism. Ayn Rand's concern is not to uphold stoicism or abet repression, but to identify a division of mental labor. There is nothing wrong with feeling that follows from an act of thought; this is the natural and proper human pattern. There is everything wrong with feeling that seeks to replace thought, by usurping its function.

Ayn Rand wrote about charity herself.

Objectivism is also not against children, either against having them or against taking care of them once you have had them.

u/logicisfun · 2 pointsr/MGTOW

He's an objectivist who took it one step further to anarcho-capitalism. His reasoning appears sound to me. I've never seen anyone take down his reasoning, only make personal rhetorical attacks against him. I can see how people would think he is a cult of personality because he is charismatic. Yet being a man of reason I have to judge a man on his reasoning, not on my "feelings" about him.

If anyone is interested in the logical reasoning why the initiation of the use of force against others is unethical I'd recommend this primer

u/yoyokng1 · 2 pointsr/truecirclebs

Have you read this?

I have a pretty big box filled with philosophy books that I bought when Borders closed two years ago. This is part of my little collection. I'm not particularly conservative, but I was a little interested. Do you read any other philosophers?

u/LarParWar · 2 pointsr/TheRedPill

Words such as "race" are used to draw dividing lines between genetically dissimilar populations. How dissimilar varies over time. Europeans and Africans are clearly of different races, for example. Nor would Europeans and Arabs ever be mistaken. When you compare West Europeans (core Europeans) and Eastern Europeans (Slavs, mostly), the water gets a little murkier. They certainly fall under the "white" umbrella, but how much? For instance, I have a good eye for this, and can tell them apart with ease. The average white person cannot. So is there a grand unified White Race™? Probably not. But there are white races, of which the label "white" can be reasonably applied to all of them.

What seems to have happened to most of the ancient world—through Europe, Asia, the Middle East—is that the Indo-European people(s) swooped down and conquered, established civilizations, and then gradually, over many generations, "melted" into the conquered peoples. The white phenotype was probably as fragile to intermixing then as now, and besides, though most similar to Europeans (or "whites") they were forerunners, "prototypes".

Historical genetic overlap, though important, is not the whole story, as evidenced by convergent evolution, which can form nearly the same structure from totally unlike ancestries; see sharks, which once were fish, and dolphins, which once were deer-like ungulates. Not the same, but remarkably similar in some important ways. Put differently, a group of stone-age Europeans living in Africa would lose their essential European characteristics over time, slowly becoming more and more like Africans.

And the ancient Romans were right: the tribes that inhabited the island of Brittania were incapable of being civilized. They are the ancestors of modern Britons, yes, but not the same. They have changed—genetically; they literally evolved—rather substantially in the past two millennia. Read The 10,000 Year Explosion for a better idea, it's quick and easy.

Re: Iraqi vs Iranian. I can tell them apart, but again, convergent evolution.

Yes. Do you have two thousand years to wait while the harsh European environment civilizes the Semitic tribes currently colonizing it? I don't. (And even then they'll still be largely Semitic in nature and temperament, just see the Ashkenazi jews.)

The Japanese are indeed distinct from all other Asian races. They alone were subject to similar environmental conditions as Europeans over the millennia. The small island of Japan just off the Asian continent is remarkably similar to the small island of Britain just off the European continent.

u/justwasted · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

It's not really likely that either modern day or ancient peoples would be ravaged by diseases in the same way that native americans were by the sicknesses introduced by european colonists.

The book "The 10,000 Year Explosion" goes into detail on how the native american populations had uniquely specialized and homogenous genetic approach to fighting illness that was totally overwhelmed when the europeans introduced new sicknesses into the environment. It's a very good and easy-to-read book for dealing with such technical matter, highly recommended.

Although back on the subject, the marines would probably suffer much more due to illness simply because their unit is much smaller.

u/SerratusAnterior · 2 pointsr/TrueReddit

There are lot of popular books that venture into these type of topics. I recommend The 10,000 Year Explosion, which is about how civilization and agriculture shaped recent human evolution. It's very interesting, though at the same time it sometimes creeps me out thinking to much about human biology in this way. I might add that they have a chapter on human intelligence which is controversial because of the nature of the topic. Anyway it's a good read, just don't turn into an eugenicist. ;)

I also the often recommended Guns, Germs and Steel on my reading list, which looks on how biology and illness shaped human civilizations.

u/katabaticpat · 2 pointsr/suggestmeabook

I suggest, if you have an interest in human evolution from an anthropological or biological perspective, that you check out The 10,000 Year Explosion.

I don't know that it discusses human love or relationships, but it does focus on variations in populations in build, problem-solving ability, etc., and hypothesizes on how they might have arisen. If you have more of an interest in looking at the biology or evolutionary side of things, you could always take a look at The Selfish Gene by Dawkins (depending on how you feel about him).

u/AwesomePurplePants · 2 pointsr/FragileWhiteRedditor

Mostly just googling, combined with half-remembered facts from reading.

The 10,000 year explosion was good for info on this IIRC. Though mostly focused on the European evolution of lactose tolerance.

Everything is educated guesses. The known fact is that Africans have more genetic diversity than Europeans. Simplest explanation for that would be that humans started in Africa and left.

u/llllIlllIllIlI · 2 pointsr/politics

Well it's definitely a firehose but it's also scary because unless you're talking to a rabid anti-Trump kinda person, you get told to shut up.

The pro-Trump people tell you to shut up because you're wrong and a stupid librul.

The formerly pro-Trump people tell you to shut up because "they're tired of all this" and "both parties are the same."

The "apolitical" people say that you're just annoying them with all these stories and you sound insane, don't you know that?

And so on. So if you're like me and you glom onto every Trump story because nearly EVERY Trump story is insane and a violation of our political and ethical norms and because it seems like EVERY Trump story is worth following so that we don't become some kind of disgusting authoritarian shithole.... well.... you "sound crazy."

Which... well we were told would happen over a year ago. Timothy Snyder taught me this. Masha Gessen taught me this.

But those of us who take the current admin both seriously and literally and take this whole horrific shitshow for what it is.... we're the assholes. And me personally I'm sick of it. If and when my madness for the past year is proven correct, I'm going to rub it in everyone's faces for years. Fuck 'em.

u/oneders · 2 pointsr/politics

What is crazy is that a lot of folks do not care if the RNC is working directly with Fox News. State run media is something they welcome.

There are a shocking number of people out there who welcome authoritarian rule if they think it aligns with their beliefs.

This short book digs into this concept a bit. Every American should read this:

u/LiberateJohnDoe · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Along those lines, I also recommend Timothy Snyder's "On Tyranny", a small but significant book. It gets down to basics and points out what we can actually do to stave off dictatorship and tyranny.

u/ElevenAndCounting · 2 pointsr/politics

Very interesting. I'll give this a read later, thank you.

If you haven't already read it, the mini-book "On Tyranny" by Timothy Snyder is eerie.

u/KillaB33z · 2 pointsr/politics

Everyone left or right please read this book. It's cheap and a very short read. I'm begging you

u/10b-5 · 2 pointsr/nyc

On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, written by a very respected history professor at Yale who is specialized on the Holocaust.

That being said, I'm not sure I want to spend any time on this converastion with a /r/the_donald leak.

u/igor_47 · 2 pointsr/AskALiberal

i think the argument "be extra vigilant, because Trump is a wanna-be dictator" is a cogent and effective one. i recommend on tyranny by timothy snyder for a more in-depth look at this argument

u/narnia- · 2 pointsr/soccer

Inverting the Pyramid by Jonathon Wilson

An extensive book about football tactics, regarded as the best around

u/GeistFC · 2 pointsr/MLS

So one way to get started is this book but its not necessarily newbie friendly. I find this series of videos to be fun and interesting. Lastly I recommend when watching a game to have a drawing of the starting formation handy and periodically (after a big play or near miss) take a look at where each player is on the field in relation to their starting position it will start to become clear the rolls different spots have. Also look for triangles, boxes and diamonds. Hope this gets you started.

u/OccamsRZA · 2 pointsr/soccer

If you're interested in a bit of reading, I suggest Inverting the Pyramid, by Jonathon Wilson. All of his books are really good, he's got a really interesting one about the Soviet Top League during the U.S.S.R., but Inverting the Pyramid probably is most comprehensive for tactics and how the fundamentals of the game work. As a Napoli supporter you'd probably like it, it talks about a lot of the history around Italian football! : )

Also, Football Manager. Take how it rates players with a grain of salt, but it's fantastic for learning how tactics work. Just... be prepared to deal with the amount of time you'll sink into it.

u/martineduardo · 2 pointsr/Gunners

Also, after watching Thierry Henry's goals, watch his statue unveiling (bonus: Dennis Bergkamps statue unveiling), Henry and Bergkamp are two of the most influential players from the past three decades in Arsenal who represent both attacking style and finesse, as well as having a big heart for the club. If you enjoy reading, maybe you'd like Wenger's biography and if you're interested in footballing history, Inverting the Pyramid by Jonathan Wilson is a good read.

To get a bit of insight into why the matches against Tottenham can be very intense, maybe this can help you: "I Hate Everything About Them" - North London Derby

u/ModernSpiderman · 2 pointsr/TheMassive

Ah I'm glad you asked!

My next project coming up is actually to create a site for analyses like this, aimed towards teaching others, like yourself, how to think tactically. Unfortunately there aren't many resources available for “a beginners approach to tactics”, per se, which is a shame; as the initial learning curve can definitely be steep and intimidating.. but, I'll share with you the process I used to learn about tactics and hopefully I can give you some ideas on how to learn to think tactically!


  1. Pick a team / manager whose style you like and follow them. Watch games of various teams in various leagues. Like how a certain team plays? Follow the team, watch games of them when you can, and look for analyses of some of their bigger games online. (If you are a Crew fan and you want to analyze Crew games, watch the game the first time to “enjoy the game”, then watch it again in-depth to dissect it. It also helps that you know what is going to happen; ask yourself: What led to the Union’s goal? What events happened prior to it? Did the Crew make adjustments later on to fix an obvious problem? - I bought MLS Live specifically so I could do this.

  2. Focus on the positioning of players. - one part of the field / position at a time. Ask yourself the following questions when watching a game such as: what formation are both teams using? How are players finding space? Are the teams playing wide or narrow? Fast or slow? Possession or counter? Fluid or rigid? etc. - (I’ll provide a complete list in an article later this week)
    Once you learn a tactic, pay attention to how that tactic fares against other teams' tactics (ie. 4-3-3 v 4-3-3; 4-3-3 v 4-4-2; etc.).

  3. Follow the players when they leave said team This will naturally branch out your tactical knowledge, and allow you to compare and contrast the different systems.

  4. Choose high profile games to watch, with big-name coaches. There are quite a few distinct styles today; Tiki Taka ([email protected]), Juego de Posicion (Pep @Bayern), and Gegenpressing (Klopp @ Dortmund & Liverpool) being the most talked about, but there are many that exist.


    Some really interesting reading materials and resources:

    Inverting The Pyramid : This book is what I call my “soccer bible”. It gives an incredible scope into how soccer has changed throughout its existence, and while it only lightly covers modern tactics, as it was written in 2008, it explores the intricacies of various tactics, why they are used, and how to identify them. Its long, and very detailed so it may be a tough read but if you can get through it you will be gold.

    Football and Chess I mentioned in another comment how soccer is analogous to chess, as this book taught me. A good starting point as it is a very accessible book to any reader.

    Pep Guardiola: Another Way of Winning A fantastic read by itself, but with many parallels between Berhalter and Pep, this book can help understand some of Crew SC's tactics. : The “Tactics in the 2000’s” section is almost an extension to the aforementioned book; it outlines the current trends in football really well. The author of the site also does very detailed statistical and analytical recaps of matches. (bonus content if you speak German- the German side of their site .de has even more info): The “Tactical Theory” section is a good place to start - While they are rather advanced articles, they do a good job at defining some of the key concepts in modern football. The writers are all very knowledgeable about tactics, and do in depth game analyses regularly.

    The Number 6 Role : His last post sadly was 2 years ago, but his pieces are fantastic. Of course I'm biased, but Sean’s analysis of Frank de Boer’s Ajax team is incredible, and I would completely recommend a read as Berhalter employs similar offensive tactics (defensively totally different, but the situational pressing application is fascinating).

    Think Football : Site focused on providing a wide range of info, content has declined in recent years as the site has sort of turned into a news site with brief articles, but it provides a bit more insight into world football happenings than say sky sports or fox sports; Good intro material.


    I hope this helps, and feel free to contact me if you have any questions as I’m happy to help you learn! Also I have begun writing a rather lengthy piece that will expand on the 6 points highlighted above, it’s far too long to post here but I will be sure to let you know when I have it up on my site. For now you have a reference sheet you can save and hopefully I set you up with a good place to start!
u/poplex · 2 pointsr/fulbo

Yo leí el famoso inverting the pyramid, si no te jode leer en inglés (es lo que más se consigue en internet) te recomiendo: Brillant Orange y why england lose. Bien bien táctico leí hace poco attacking soccer y está bueno, aunque a algunas de las ideas se les notan los años.

u/cheeZetoastee · 2 pointsr/ussoccer

I would go to r/footballtactics or other similar subs. The False 9 is a decent resource. But real quick a note on formations

The important thing to keep in mind is that there are 3 phases in the game and the shape varies based on the phase. For example if the lineup card says 4-4-2 you can expect 2 banks of 4 in the defensive phase and fullbacks overlapping the wingers in the attacking phase with one DM and one hybrid midfielder in the center. With 5-3-2/3-5-2 in the defensive phase you will usually see 5 at the back and then 3 at the back in transition and when in attack you will almost always see 2 at the back (unless American players coached by Klinnsy are running it but I digress) with your ball playing defender stepping into a DM spot.

Also to understand Guardiola's system I would look up grid theory (4-4-2 actually had a surprisingly decent article on it) and to understand the 4-2-3-1 run to perfection I would read up on Jose's Inter squads.

Edit: Also, there are more exotic formations like the old Mexican 4-3-1-2 and the Zambian (IIRC) Christmas tree when they won the Africa Cup of Nations some years ago. The latter formation is something you can probably find a couple decent articles about and it's a good one to use when you know your squad is inferior. Hell, Dortmund broke it out today. I know they won't run it the same way the Zambians did but it's still fun to see.


Edit3: - Inverting the Pyramid by Jonathan Wilson

u/larry_b · 2 pointsr/soccer

Here you can find all the previous chapters, and you can purchase the book here (that's a non-referral link, by the way.)

u/valaranin · 2 pointsr/soccer
u/CesarShackleston · 2 pointsr/WayOfTheBern

It's more complicated than most people realize.

In a way it makes sense: Zionists are ethno-nationalists. For example the Christchurch killer was an avid Zionist and stated in his lame manifesto that Israel had the right idea.

But I understand your deeper argument. It's sort of like when a person is abused as a child and grows up to become a child abuser. People are incredulous: YOU WERE ABUSED, WHY ARE YOU DOING THE SAME THING? I don't really understand it either; my parents are saints. But apparently it's pretty common.

In the case of Israel I think there's a very strong tribalistic aspect. Jews are taught from infancy that they are destined to be both persecuted and great. That's some heady stuff.

u/willthechem · 2 pointsr/chemistry
u/P1h3r1e3d13 · 2 pointsr/history

Napoleon's Buttons contends it may have had a hand in the fall of Rome.

u/Die_Stacheligel · 2 pointsr/chemistry

Napoleon's Buttons is worth checking out. It's not really a book about chemists but rather a book about how molecules/compounds have had a broad impact on human existence. Furthermore, even though the authors are each chemists, the chemistry in the book is not daunting at all, especially if you already have some background in chemistry.

u/reddy97 · 2 pointsr/chemicalreactiongifs

It isn't exactly only because of the buttons, for sure. But this is a really interesting read if you're into history and science.

u/MartialLol · 2 pointsr/medicine

Napoleon's Buttons might be a good choice.

u/byrdgang · 2 pointsr/Economics

I haven't read The Holocaust Industry in a while, but if I am not mistaken, it rejects what you're saying and offers a completely different perspective. Please read the book in its entirety before criticizing it or me.

u/Quock · 2 pointsr/exchristian

Popular Richard Dawkins books are The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene. I haven't read the Selfish Gene yet, but I have read the God Delusion, and it is a very good book. It may be a tad technical if you aren't well versed in science, but it's still very manageable.

The late Christopher Hitchens wrote a very famous book called God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Admittedly, I have not read this one either, but it's an atheist staple.

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is next on my reading list (as you can tell, I have a HUGE reading list...), but also widely regarded as an amazing piece of literature for rational thinking.

I'm sure others can suggest more specific books, but these are the basics as far as I know.

Edit: Definitely forgot to mention that the Skeptic's Annotated Bible can be found online. I assume that this is in it's entirety?

Edit 2: Found this list on Seems to be another good resource for finding books :). Happy reading!

u/fduniho · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

For Atheism:

  1. Superstition in All Ages by Jean Meslier - a comprehensive treatise against religion, written between 2 and 3 centuries ago.

  2. The Religion Virus: Why we believe in God by Craig A. James - explains how religion and particularly belief in God is due to memetic evolution.

  3. Atheism: A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin - a comprehesive overview of arguments for and against the existence of God.

  4. Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett - explains why the idea of evolution is so powerful an explanation of things, it acts as a universal acid against supernatural beliefs.

  5. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins - specifically addresses the idea of God as a supernatural creator

    For Christianity:

  6. The Five Great Philosophies of Life by William De Witt Hyde - covers Epicureanism, Stoicism, Plato, Aristotle, and Christianity, explaining the value in each.

  7. Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas - a comprehensive and detailed examination and defense of Christian beliefs

  8. The End of Religion: Encountering the Subversive Spirituality of Jesus by Bruxy Cavey

  9. Unspoken Sermons by George MacDonald

  10. Descent Into Hell by Charles Williams - a novel
u/happyface710 · 2 pointsr/TrueAtheist
  1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

  2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

  3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

  4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

  5. Leaning towards Atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

  6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

  7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

    Read this book:
u/scorpionMaster · 2 pointsr/kindle

Only good ones I've found Are Dawkins' The God Delusion and America's Test Kitchen: Pancakes and Waffles. Second one is a bit borderline on the "science" genre, I suppose, but it's better than nothing, right?

u/tfmaher · 1 pointr/DebateAChristian

It's not stupid at all. When you're dealing with a text that is (parts of it, anyway) roughly 3,500 years old (assuming the pentateuch was completed in roughly 1,500 BCE) AND wasn't available for wide release until the creation of the printing press in the mid-15th century during which time illiteracy was the norm and- until that point- was copied by scribes, then of course you have to wonder about the veracity of today's bible.

I read a really interesting book called Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman that helped me understand this very problem. Note: he is a biblical scholar and practicing Christian, lest you think this is an attack on the bible.

u/Aquareon · 1 pointr/Christianity

>I've examined other texts and other religions and found them unconvincing.

Non-Christians have examined the Bible and also found it unconvincing.

>This statement of yours means nothing unless the person in question is wholesale ignorant of other religions and other religious claims.

It isn't so much that you're ignorant of their claims, but that you're not in those religions. A religion looks very different from the inside than it does from the outside. This is why people on the inside cannot see certain things about it that are obvious to you as an outsider.

>Despite the fact that it is very possible that there is a legitimate argument here, you are choosing to outright deny it upon mention simple because you have created this group in your head of examples of poor YouTube apologetics.

Youtube in general isn't a valid scholarly source, I am not being unreasonable in saying so.

>Some are sketchy. I've already admitted that Christian apologetics are sometimes bad. Very popular arguments are bad ones including the very popular Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Modal Ontological Argument, and any iteration of the Teleological Argument.

What I hoped to convey there is that the apologetics of a given religion generally seem much more airtight to someone actually in that religion than to an outsider. This is unrelated to the quality of the arguments.

>Show me where the Bible has one of these long "he said she said" introductions outright stated.

You can read about it here.

u/ChurroBandit · 1 pointr/DebateAChristian

Holy shit, dude. That sounds like the exact opposite of fun. If they've got something important to say, then summarize it here.

Just for fun, why don't you read Misquoting Jesus or The History of God, if you're not afraid to expose yourself to some scholarship that will challenge your most cherished illusions.

u/srg2k5 · 1 pointr/AdviceAnimals

>>What tangible evidence would that be exactly?

Me repeatedly telling you I don't care to talk about it anymore.

Alright Mr. Fair Shake At All Sides I will give you 4 books you should read. You say you are well versed, prove it. If you have read counter points to your beliefs, go ahead and list them for me. Otherwise you should read these 4 books:

Atheist Material:

Dawkins - The God Delusion

Harris - End of Faith

Actual Scholar Material:

Friedman - Who Wrote The Bible?

Ehrman - Misquoting Jesus

Actually Ehrman has many books, but I don't want to overload you.

Until you actually READ the counter material, you won't get anywhere.

u/TruthWinsInTheEnd · 1 pointr/Christianity

Bart Ehrman has a number of good books on this subject. I just finished Misquoting Jesus and am in the middle of Forged. Ehrman has a nice writing style that is easy to read.

u/LIGHTNlNG · 1 pointr/islam

> I just want to research it as much as possible before I commit myself.

Here are some resources that were recommended by users on this subreddit. Check out the ones that you might be interested in.



u/fragglet · 1 pointr/atheism

> EDIT Thanks for the thoughts so far. I see that disproving God was probably the wrong way to put it. Could anyone point me to some material that clearly, logically shows fallacies in the bible? That would be appreciated.

If you want to see what shaky material the Bible is, do some reading on textual criticism. I can recommend Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus - he's a biblical scholar who was once a fundamentalist and eventually abandoned his belief when he realised they could not be supported by evidence.

You might also want to take a look at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, which annotates the text with comments that point out all the fallacies and contradictions.

u/otakuman · 1 pointr/aaaaaatheismmmmmmmmmm

Fun fact:: 1Tim was most probably a forgery and not written by St. Paul. There are other passages regarding women that even contradict St. Paul where he does allow women to speak publicly, and he regarded women as very promiment in the Church in other passages. In fact, this isn't the first occasion that the text of the New Testament was altered by scribes with a specific agenda. If you guys haven't read
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman, I really recommend you to do so.

u/limbodog · 1 pointr/AskReddit Noah's Flood had some very interesting information brought about in part by the mapping of the sea floor in the black sea for the US Navy. This book was fantastic. If you ever wanted to know how the bibles (because there are many versions) came to be the way they are, this is where you start. The author truly gets into great detail about the documents on which we based our current bibles.

u/mcandre · 1 pointr/atheism

There is a positive correlation between becoming a biblical scholar and becoming agnostic.

Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman

The Evolution of Confusion by Dan Dennett

u/johninbigd · 1 pointr/atheism

The History of God

Misquoting Jesus

You could also go to Yale Online Courses and watch the courses on New Testament and Old Testament history.

u/peepholeofreddit · 1 pointr/exmormon

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

u/trixx1 · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

>Assertions from church fathers and theologians have NO BEARING bearing on what textual scholars have discovered over the past 19 centuries my friend.

That is a ridiculous statement. The gospel of John for example was completed around 98CE. You believe what contemporaries of John wrote just a few years later in the early 2nd centuries doesn't matter? That is ridiculous. You say you believe in textual examination to determine the author, then why did you dismiss exactly that. Here's what certain textual scholars have said:

>Since Matthew had been a tax collector, it was natural that he would be explicit in his mention of money, figures, and values. (Matt. 17:27; 26:15; 27:3) He keenly appreciated God’s mercy in allowing him, a despised tax collector, to become a minister of the good news and an intimate associate of Jesus. Therefore, we find Matthew alone of the Gospel writers giving us Jesus’ repeated insistence that mercy is required in addition to sacrifice. (9:9-13; 12:7; 18:21-35) Matthew was greatly encouraged by Jehovah’s undeserved kindness and appropriately records some of the most comforting words Jesus uttered: “Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh you. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and you will find refreshment for your souls. For my yoke is kindly and my load is light.” (11:28-30)

I also mentioned how 42% of Matthew's account is not to be found in any other gospel.

>I love the way you emphasized the Matthew specific material while leaving out the fact that 50% of his gospel is copied WORD FOR WORD from Mark

58% of what he wrote is also written about by one or more of the other gospel writers. However, the claim that he copied word for word from Mark has no basis.

>On top of that there are verbal cues in the text that show beyond doubt it was originally composed in Greek..with many of the so-called OT prophecies referenced by Matthew worded (and mistranslated) exactly as they were in the Septuagint, which was a Greek version of the OT that the author used for a source.

Matthew was actually written in Aramaic and Koine Greek. So when the book of Matthew refered to OT prophecies it used the Greek septugent OT translation. I do agree with that but I fail to see how you are claiming this proves Matthew did not write the book that bears his name.

>There are a myriad of other reasons why mainstream scholars believe that all of the gospels were composed by anonymous Greek-speaking Christians long after the death of anyone who knew Jesus. If you are sincerely interested in how the NT came together, rather than bolstering conclusions you have arrived at for other reasons, this book is a good starting place:

I have in fact read a good part of that book as well as other books of Bart Ehrman. He takes things people have known all along and tries to sensationalize them. His basic argument is that the new testament has hundreds of differences with many early manuscripts. What he doesn't tell you prominently is that almost all the differences are attributed to trivial things like misspellings which don't in fact change the meaning of the words. I invite you to share with me two or three points that absolutely convince you that the Bible was altered. You will quickly realize the book is largely designed to make huge claims through sensationalizing of things we already know.

> I refer you to this site, created by Christians, maintained by Christians, and used by students in every major seminary on earth for research purposes.

I fail to see why you refered me to this site. A majority of it is talking about writings of early christians after the first century. Are you claiming these writings are also part of the Bible?

u/bdwilson1000 · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

Assertions from church fathers and theologians have NO BEARING bearing on what textual scholars have discovered over the past 19 centuries my friend. I refer you to this site, created by Christians, maintained by Christians, and used by students in every major seminary on earth for research purposes.

I love the way you emphasized the Matthew specific material while leaving out the fact that 50% of his gospel is copied WORD FOR WORD from Mark, who was most certainly not an eye witness. This is not what you would expect from someone who actually witnessed the events. On top of that there are verbal cues in the text that show beyond doubt it was originally composed in Greek..with many of the so-called OT prophecies referenced by Matthew worded (and mistranslated) exactly as they were in the Septuagint, which was a Greek version of the OT that the author used for a source. There are a myriad of other reasons why mainstream scholars believe that all of the gospels were composed by anonymous Greek-speaking Christians long after the death of anyone who knew Jesus. If you are sincerely interested in how the NT came together, rather than bolstering conclusions you have arrived at for other reasons, this book is a good starting place:

u/DetentionMrMatthews · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

Misquoting Jesus is a good one

u/trailrider · 1 pointr/atheism

There's more to chrisitinty than just the resurrection. What about Adam/Eve? Moses and the Exodus? Pretty much the rest of the OT? I mean, if Adam/Eve never existed, then why the need for Jesus? Basically there's no reason to think they did exist. There's no evidence for them. Same for Moses and the Exodus. No evidence of ~2M people wandering around for 40 yrs. To put that into perspective, that would be like everyone in modern day Austin, Tx picking up and roaming the mid-west without leaving a trace. Can you imagine that? And I don't even need to talk about Noah's flood, do I?

As for your other specifics, #1: There is no contemporary accounts backing up the bible's claim of a resurrection. Nothing about about the temple curtain ripping, an earthquake, the sky going black for 3 hrs, or (and this is one of my fav's) not a PEEP about dead saints coming out of their graves and were "seen by many". All of these were certainly note-worthy events but yet...*crickets*. The historians who do mention are people who lived after Jesus's time and were not eyewitness's. They're just relaying what was told to them and even that can't be considered reliable. The one that Christians like to point out is Josephus where he talks about people worshiping a guy named Jesus. Aside from just saying there were christians, which means nothing because it's like pointing out we have scientologist today, most historians consider that passage a later addition because it doesn't fit within that particular works. Kinda like seeing Darth Vader appear in a Star Trek film.

#2: What were their names? Where do they live? Where's their accounts? 10 million people saw me fly around in the air by me flapping my arms! Must be true because soooo many people saw it. Oh, who are they? Just ... people. No, I don't know any of their names but trust me, they saw it!

See how that works?

#3 & #4: Whether he was even buried by no less than a member of the Jewish high council who was calling for his death just the night before is a matter to cause one to raise their eyebrows but let's go with it. Let's assume he was. Which do you think it more likely: That someone removed the body? Or that he rose from the dead?

#5: Read up on the Heaven's Gate cult. All died for their beliefs but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and declare that there was no UFO waiting for them behind the Hale-Bopp comet. Seriously....if you never heard of it, this was back in '97 so may be before your time, read about it. Then I can point out the 9/11 hijackers. They obviously died for their belief's yet I don't see christians rushing to convert to Islam. I don't doubt the sincerity of their beliefs but that doesn't make it true. I can believe that I can fly if I flap my arms hard enough but something tells me that if I jump off a cliff, gravity is gonna prove that belief off.

There's a lot more to this than what I've written here. Books have been written. I would recommend that, if you're interested, start with anything from Dr. Bart Ehrman. He's the chair of the Theology Dept. at the Univ. of N. Carolina. He's a proper authority on this issue. I've read/listened to pretty much every book he has. Might want to start with "Misquoting Jesus". It's the first book I read from him and the stuff I read in there blew my mind. Stuff that you're not likely gonna hear at your school. There's other accounts of Jesus outside the bible and most christians would certainly clutch their pearls over the "Greater Questions Of Mary" account. There's also numerous Youtube vids of his lectures, talks, and debates. He runs a blog as well that you can access for $25/yr which he's pretty good at updating regularly. Money goes to charity.

Might also want to look up Candida Moss who wrote " The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom" She's a NT scholar as well and I learned a lot by reading her book. Like, did you know there were ISIS like groups of christians roaming the area back then? That groups of christians demanded to be killed?

One last book I'd like to recommend is "The Dark Side of Christian History" by Hellen Ellerbe. While I've not found much on her, she does a great job in citing her sources. What will you learn? Know where the phrase "Kill them all, let God sort them out" came from? While I can't recall the specifics, there was basically two groups of christians fighting and the leader of one, when asked how will we know our own from them, proclaimed to kill them all, God will know his own! This book helps to disabuse people of the notion that christianity has been nothing but loving and caring, not to mention persecuted, through the centuries.

Hope this helps and good luck!

u/ResearchLaw · 1 pointr/atheism

I highly recommend two key books by renowned New Testament scholar and professor Bart Ehrman. Professor Ehrman is among the most respected authorities on New Testament Studies and Scholarship in the United States.

(1) Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them) (2010);


(2) Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (2007).

u/hedgeson119 · 1 pointr/atheism

There is no single argument to deconvert a person. For a person to go from theist to atheist is potentially hundreds of hours of research, debate, and argument, the the biggest one is, they have to be open, truly open to change.

I can offer a few resources but pretty much none are comprehensive to attack each different point of a theist's belief.

Here are some:

Why I am no longer a Christian

Christianity Disproved

Anything by Bart Ehrman:

Youtube Books: Misquoting Jesus, [Jesus, Interrupted] (, Lost Christianities

A History of God by Karen Armstrong

Mistakes of Moses by Robert Ingersoll, which I think is free on the internet.

There are tons of things listed in the Recommended reading and viewing

I will update with more if you want, there are tons of things out there. do a youtube search for Christopher Hitchens, or any other atheist.

Keep in mind these will not work unless she is actually open to considering their arguments.

u/MarcoVincenzo · 1 pointr/atheism

The only "original" biblical account of Jesus appears to be from Mark. All the other accounts of Jesus in the bible seem to have been written at an even later remove in time and used Mark as the primary source--variations on a theme if you will. Take a look at Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.

u/squeaker · 1 pointr/tipofmytongue

You're killing me. I read about this exact phenomenon a while ago here but can't find what it's called anywhere onlibe. Now it's driving me crazy.

I'll look it up in the book when I get home.

u/mystikphish · 1 pointr/atheism

I'm curious how can possibly relate the study of programming to the study of the Bible?

In my mind (obviously as an atheist) there are only two ways of approaching the Bible:
As an interpreted text.
As a literal text.

If you are taking the "interpreted" route, then you can hardly compare the Bible to learning programming. You don't interpret the meaning of a using pointers to reference memory, you do it in one of several well understood ways. If you are implying that logic can b applied to the interpreted Bible then you have to take the historicity of the Bible into account, especially the New Testament. I recommend you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman before using your programming skills to interpret the Bible any further.

On the other hand, if you are attempting to imply that you can use the logical training afforded by studying programming to study the LITERAL Bible, then you're either insane or are not studying your programming hard enough. Too many inconsistencies in the Bible to even bother going though, here's a starter list.

u/CreationExposedBot · 1 pointr/CreationExposed

> The same techniques that lead us to suspect the ending of Mark might not be genuine show us that the vast majority of the New Testament exists largely unchanged from the original manuscripts, save for the odd spelling error.

No, they don't.

But we might just have to agree to disagree about that. In any case...

> I believe only in the God of the Bible.

With or without Mark 16:17-18?

Either way, let me just ask you: does faith in the God of the Bible produce any measurable (by a non-believer) effect that faith in some other god does not? If so, what is it? If not, then in what sense can such a god be said to exist?


Posted by: l****r

u/TonyBLiar · 1 pointr/Christianity

>Yet while he never delineates Gospel specifics (other than the Last Supper, the Crucifixion & Resurrection- three of them you claimed he doesn't)

Sorry, I should have been clearer when I said…

>the only part of the Jesus story Paul does write about, just so happens to match almost exactly the same death and resurrection arc attributed to hundreds of hero warrior gods throughout antiquity

…that this is exactly the part I was referring to. The death and resurrection narrative is, contrary to your assertion, littered throughout ancient folklore.

>I suggest you read the early Church Fathers objectively. Seems as if you're actively looking to prove a thesis you already have (that Jesus never existed or that he wasn't what Christians claim he is or whatever). Early Church history is actually quite fascinating.

I couldn't agree more on that—and I'm sorry if I seem 'pre-convinced', because I'm not. The historicity of it is, as you say, truly fascinating stuff. But as I'm sure you'll also concede that doesn't necessarily make any of it true. And I don't mean that in a small way. I mean how, for example, would you explain to someone in 2000 years time what the narrative of the Superman story was supposed to impart, if you were to travel forward in time and arrive in a future where astronomers who could prove there was never a planet Krypton were accused of being selective, or "actively looking to prove a thesis [they] already have"?

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to have noticed by now, incidentally, that I might just as easily say the same about Christianity's truth-claims as you say about mine to the contrary—which I would like to assure you extend much further than having watched merely a few direct-to-web documentaries, however well the one to which you refer to happens to have been made. I was born and raised for the first 16 years of my life a Catholic and "got saved" at around 10 or 11. I've been religion free for the best part of the last 20 years and an atheist since September 11th 2001.

u/chrisjones74 · 1 pointr/atheism

Misquoting Jesus is a reasonable resource about the historical history of the bible, as in the bible the book not 'the bible' the scripture.

u/extispicy · 1 pointr/Christianity

You might be interested in "Misquoting Jesus: The Story of Who Changed the Bible and Why", which was written my one of the leading NT textual critics. I don't know that you are going to find a vast conspiracy where anyone has altered the text radically, but there certainly are variations in our early manuscripts.

If you are interested in the Old Testament, I recommend "Who Wrote the Bible?".

u/Neanderthal-Man · 1 pointr/Christianity

>If the bible is errant, the whole thing falls apart; not just bits and pieces. It's like the entire concept of Christianity: there is no in-between, you're either saved or you aren't.

Not necessarily. Numerous biblical scholars accept the errancy of the biblical texts but remain Christian, consider Marcus Borg, NT Wright, John Dominic Crossan, among many others.

Their practice of Christianity may be unfamiliar or they may not retain all the doctrines you think essential but there are ways to hold a realistic, historically-informed perspective on the Bible while considering yourself a Christian.

Recall that the earliest Christians would not have even had the New Testament (since it hadn't been written), much less regular access to the Hebrew Scriptures. When Paul's letters first went out to church, they probably weren't consider inerrant or infallible scripture (modern concepts which emerged in response to the perceived threats of modernism, Darwinism, and higher-criticism of the Bible).

I'd recommend the following:

u/EllieMental · 1 pointr/exchristian

That "double think" may never completely go away for me. I've made peace with it, though, by trying to understand the psychology behind it.

All of the books recommended so far are a great place to start. A book that made a big impact on me was Bart Erhman's Misquoting Jesus. I was always taught that the bible was infallible, so reading about how it was actually written helped peel away some of that double think for me.

u/hallonkatastrof · 1 pointr/RandomActsOfGaming

If you like reading I highly recommend this book! It's taught me some very valuable things and increased my understanding of society, as well as giving me a new way to look at society. :)

u/tekvx · 1 pointr/movies

Wiki only mentions three, but the book I'm reading mentions around 6.

u/blippyz · 1 pointr/Bitcoin

Thanks, I'll check it out! Just to clarify this is the book you're talking about?

u/Corporatecut · 1 pointr/exmormon
u/Messiah · 1 pointr/AskMen

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind It is a factual book with a cynical overtone, which is why it worked so well for me.

Brave New World by Huxley. One of the best dystopian novels out there.

u/BitcoinAllBot · 1 pointr/BitcoinAll

Here is the post for archival purposes:

Author: Jebick


>A few of my assumptions.

<li>The oldest coin currency that we know is a Sumerian bronze piece dating from before 3000 BC. </li>
<li>The Sumerians also created writing which was a basic form of accounting. </li>
<li>Humans were able to grow, in part, beyond what normal forces of natural selection because our ability to believe in intersubjective</strong> realities. The are subjective realities shared between many people. Such realities are money, gov., and countries. (talked about in Sapiens by yuval noah harari)</li>
<li>These intersubjective realities allowed us to cooperate in scales unknown to other animals. </li>
<li>Money is an intersubjective reality</li>
<li>Money only has value because people all believe it has value (intersubjective)</li>

>These intersubjective realities take decades to build and are a function something like this:
time to build = ((impact on people) * (inherent trustworthiness)) / (quantity of people involved in the reality)</strong>. The problem is Bitcoin's trustworthiness is low, because it's not backed by an established asset such as gold. The impact on people is critical, because money... and the quantity of people in the reality is **everyone on earth</strong>. If Bitcoin can provide legitimate value to our world and annihilate other currencies, I think it will take decades for the world to adopt it.

>Next, the electricity per transaction is 524kWh per transaction (on average) per this . That's enough energy to power 5000+ 100 Watt lightbulbs. How is that sustainable when you scale up to billions of transactions per hour on a global scale?

u/damoncarr · 1 pointr/Psychonaut

I highly recommend the book Sapiens for a discussion of how we got here. His latest book is also great on describing the severe challenges we will face in the near future.




u/capitancheap · 1 pointr/changemyview

Yeah no high density living means filth, communicable disease could not exist. Hunting-gathering means that they had variety of food and plenty of exercise. Read Sapiens: a brief history of humankind

u/MattieShoes · 1 pointr/politics

Sapiens suggested it's a characteristic of monotheism.

u/JimDixon · 1 pointr/atheism

The author's name is Harari, not Harris.

u/Trama-D · 1 pointr/aoe2
u/manatee1010 · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

If this sounds interesting to anyone, I highly recommend the book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.

It covers a lot of early evolutionary characteristics around and after the Cognitive Revolution (when we arguably "became human"). Some of my favorite parts are in depth discussions around how evolutionary prepositions like a belief in the supernatural/religion may have increased odds of survival (although may or may not have improved individual life quality).

u/Your_Favorite_Poster · 1 pointr/history

There are all kinds of obscure forces at play. You'd probably love this book - it's written by a historian, and it's one interesting story after another, all tied up tightly with a few bows (also a top pick by Obama, Gates and Zuckerberg):

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

u/Folkariffic · 1 pointr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

Hey! This is my kind of contest. Here's my list:

  1. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Horari -
    From a renowned historian comes a groundbreaking narrative of humanity’s creation and evolution—a #1 international bestseller—that explores the ways in which biology and history have defined us and enhanced our understanding of what it means to be “human.”
    One hundred thousand years ago, at least six different species of humans inhabited Earth. Yet today there is only one—homo sapiens. What happened to the others? And what may happen to us? (copied from the Amazon page)

  2. [Name of the Wind - Kingkiller Chronicles by Pat Rothfuss] ( -
    My name is Kvothe.
    I have stolen princesses back from sleeping barrow kings. I burned down the town of Trebon. I have spent the night with Felurian and left with both my sanity and my life. I was expelled from the University at a younger age than most people are allowed in. I tread paths by moonlight that others fear to speak of during day. I have talked to Gods, loved women, and written songs that make the minstrels weep.
    You may have heard of me. (copied)

  3. [The Golem Cypher: T.R.I.X. by B.V. Bayly] ( - Once one of the best assassins in the galaxy, Cadell is now the hunted. The Ascendency, the ruling galactic empire and Cadell’s ex-employer, has stripped him of everything and placed a significant bounty on his head. Forced to live with the shadows of his past, Cadell hides on the backwater planets of the outer rim. Away from anyone who would recognize him.
    When his old friend and mentor, Salis, dangles a job in front of him that will get him an Ascendency pardon and let him clear his name, Cadell is ready to take it on. Armed with his constant companion, a strange alien symbiote named T.R.I.X. and his skills as an assassin, Cadell sets off to complete the strange job. ( A nifty book but a relatively new author, worth the read!)

  4. [I'm Thinking of Ending Things by Iain Reid] ( - All I'll say about this is that it's quite volatile when it comes to the reviews it's received. I enjoyed it, but many other didn't... It's quite a ride if you end up enjoying it.

  5. [Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer] ( - In April 1992 a young man from a well-to-do family hitchhiked to Alaska and walked alone into the wilderness north of Mt. McKinley. His name was Christopher Johnson McCandless. He had given $25,000 in savings to charity, abandoned his car and most of his possessions, burned all the cash in his wallet, and invented a new life for himself. Four months later, his decomposed body was found by a moose hunter. How McCandless came to die is the unforgettable story of Into the Wild. (One of my favorite books/stories of all time. I
    also hold the movie close to my heart.)

    This took me a good few minutes, I hope you find something you like through this contest :)
u/rukus23 · 1 pointr/INTP

A great book. Awesome big picture perspective and helps put so many different ideas in place. Almost done reading it.

u/the_other_brand · 1 pointr/TrueReddit

No, that's a very broad overview of the latest findings in the Political Sciences on how Dictatorships work. The Dictator's Handbook is a pretty informative book on the structure and ,holding of power. Power is rooted in voting blocs for Democracies and money for everything else. Any structure used to maintain or use power results in governance.

This governance structure is something deeply wired into humanity. This was the conclusion to another book I read called Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. The premise of the book is that there has to be a reason why Homo Sapiens came to be the dominate Homo species on this planet. And it was the best guess of the author that it was Homo Sapiens ability to collectively believe in fictional structures that allowed them to unite in groups bigger than tribes. These fictional structures are what we today would know as laws, governments, states, nations, corporations, etc.

It was a long way around, but in short you can't separate government and power. One concept always induces another. Its a fundamental part of human nature.

u/I_just_made · 1 pointr/BlackPeopleTwitter

>"Fake news" and "alternative facts" actually prove that you can't revise recent history. Regardless of what you say, you can't change the events if people are alive who witnessed it. That's why any one who uses those terms aren't taken seriously.

The problem with this is that people read what agrees with them and disavow any differing opinions. If people look no further than their normal news source, then they could be misunderstanding current events. Have to read multiple several news sources, as many different angles as possible, to infer what you believe is an accurate representation of the event.

>Then why even provide the source?

I do not want to pretend to be an expert. This is provided as an entry point for people interested in further reading and what the current state of the situation is.

>The fact is Egypt is in Africa, and Europeans/Arabs didn't invade until millenia after the pyramids were built. Things are a black and white issue because it's the world we live in. I'd never have to even make this argument, if it weren't about black & white to begin with. Ancient white civilizations are credited with these discoveries and advancements, not because they were first, but because they were white.

This saddens me to read it. We will never get past these issues when people are too stubborn to see it any other way. And I never debated that humans didn't originate in Africa. Science agrees with that, and I'd hope most people are in agreement as well. For an interesting read that goes into a bit more detail about this, check out "Sapiens:
A Brief History of Humankind"
. Issues will always be black and white as long as you use a filter to see them that way. And to briefly revisit your response about white civilizations stealing Egyptian discoveries; that is just patently false. You learned about papyrus and mummification for instance? Egyptians were hosts to all sorts of discovery that is to their credit.

>Yes, because those events are fairly recent in human history and include genocide, slavery, and oppression of my ancestors. I can't move on from it because the ancestors of the people that committed the atrocities, and their descendants, never made things right.

And does the same go for genocidal events throughout history like that in Rwanda?

>You don't know that for sure, and even stated that you can't say with absolute certainty that some other ethnic or racial group would have done the same thing, because there's no reset button.
Violence is a part of our nature, but so is the dignity, compassion, and love that comes with "helping your fellow neighbor" that you speak of at the end of your argument.

And you don't either. That's the point. If you push the reset button time and time again, you may get a different outcome. But given how human history evolved during those critical points, it is a reasonable assumption that any group outstripping their competitors in weapons and innovation would have done what they could to secure their dominance/future.

>I'm not gonna pretend like I have the solution, but I know at the very least, reparations and the end of white supremacy is where it begins. These two things lie in the hearts of white people, and aren't something black people can give themselves.

You see the white supremacists on the news right now, but those people are not what we feel. We abhor those people, we want just as much for them to go away, and I do think that we need to do more to stand up to them and move them out. People need to understand that Trump has done this nation no favors by giving them a voice.

Social reparations are a great idea. But monetary reparations are not. Who gets it, how much? Who has to pay? What if there is no trace of slave ownership in your history? What if you are a recent immigrant? What happens to the people who don't get the money?

>We can build our way out of poverty, rebuild our communities, end drug addiction, and gang violence...but there'll still be a white person somewhere to call us all niggers.

Sure, there will always be a racist somewhere. It is a numbers game. There will always be someone believing something; that is the problem we face with religious extremism. But how do you effectively combat it? That is not so simple, and it is a problem we all desperately want to solve.

>The solution to the revision of history being carried out is to educate our children at home. Buy them books and teach them about the other ancient civilizations.
There are more and more black people doing that every day, and there'll come a time, when they'll show up in your classrooms and correct the teacher when they begin their lessons on revised history. How do you think those teachers are going to treat them?

YES YES YES YES YES!!!!! That is EXCELLENT! We have to realize that education does not stop at the parking lot of the school! Foster curiosity, education, learning in the home, it will benefit everyone. Can you imagine what this world would be if people did that? It would be so much better. We wouldn't have many of the petty divides that exist today. Creationism vs Evolution as an example.

>White supremacy is a problem, and it's ubiquitous. It's not just the cross burning, violent shit you see on TV, or at Charlottesville. It's in our education, our media, our tastes, it's to a point where even non-white people unknowingly take part in it through their own language, beliefs, and attitudes.

I agree with the first part, and want to do everything reasonable to put an end to it. But your second part edges on a racist remark. Where is the line drawn between white people allowing to have a culture and it becoming white supremacist?

>That's the truth, no matter how many accounts you long on to downvote in disagreement with.

I only have one account, I could care less whether there is a positive or negative number there. It is about discussion.

>I'll leave you at it. You can have the last word and log onto your other accounts to downvote me if you want.

Again, not doing that. I'm sorry this is your first thought.

>You clearly just wanna argue and gaslight. You've moved so far from my original point, that I've had to argue prehistorical remains, textbook publication, human nature, and what we're doing to fix it.

Come on, really? Why does an opposing viewpoint have to lead to petty insults and character attacks? There is no gaslighting here. I saw you said things that I believed were very biased in a way of misrepresenting historical events, I responded with a point of view to counterbalance that. If you treat everyone who doesn't hold your view as a gaslighter or agitator, then you are closing the door to open discussion; and that is exactly what this country needs right now. I'm really sorry you feel this way, I do not deny that there is a lot of work to be done. But let's work together to do it right, and to be proactive in avoiding these events in the future.

u/Everything_and_More · 1 pointr/Harmontown

Interesting. I've always assumed Dan drew his evolution rants from [Sapiens] ( Do you know if Harari uses Lamarckian ideas?

u/Darkeyescry22 · 1 pointr/samharris

Have you ever read Yuval Harari's book, Sapiens? This isn't really an answer to your question, but based on this post, I think you would like it.

u/JaccoW · 1 pointr/todayilearned

Shot put is a very specific athletic sport to stack hunter gatherers against? It's like complaining that they are not the greatest basket ball players, are noobs in eSports or suck at cycling.
Of course a trained professional will win from a layman especially in areas where skill becomes more important.
Certain martial arts such as Jiu Jitsu and Wing Chun favor smaller or more skilled performers.
But even the best female female martial artist will struggle against a stronger opponent if she is 1.50m (4.9feet) and up against a 2.2m (7.2feet) male. Myths of the short person in martial arts

All I am saying is, when given similar training, ancient hunter gatherers would dominate our current day athletes.

Fossil records shows that after we started with agriculture our bones and muscle mass started to dwindle. We did get very efficient in specialised areas such as our brains which shrunk 10% in the past 20,000 years and processing certain food that became important to ancient famers such as corn and milk. (Though to be fair it is uncertain if our minds became more efficient or if we basically domesticated ourselves)


u/TroyMendo · 1 pointr/exjw

For anyone interested, this TED Talk is awesome. It talks about turning on genes in chickens to bring back some of their dinosaur traits.

EDIT: On an ever so slightly related note, I am currently reading Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind and it's fascinating. It points out how what differentiates homo sapien from other species (there are around 15 in all) was the cognitive ability to use fiction in everyday lives.

Typical primates stay in groups of a few dozen or so, and they all know who they can and can trust. Any groups larger than that tend to have problems because there is no way to control the group.

The ability to create mythologies and stories (religion) allowed for far greater control of much larger groups of people because they collectively believe in the entity (whether good or bad) on a collective level where no one has proof of the story or myth, but everyone around you believes so it's all good.

u/bethelmayflower · 1 pointr/exjw

I listening to which i'm pretty sure you would like.

One point that was of interest to me is that the whole point of science could be said to be the acceptance of ignorance.

During the dark ages even up to Christopher Columbus most people believed that old sacred texts contained all knowledge that would ever be needed.

As soon as the idea became popular that it was important to admit not knowing and just looking and seeing where the evidence leads that real progress happened.

If you only pick and choose evidence that supports your preconceived conclusions knowledge stops.

The fundamental problem is the idea that the Bible is true.

u/ejpusa · 1 pointr/nyc

Don't know. But now, all those outstanding warrants for low-level charges have been retired.

At one point in time, 42% of New Yorkers had slaves. That's a mind blowing number. Almost $170K a year (and those numbers are 4 years old now) now to put a kid in Rikers for a year. That's another mind-blowing statistic. So we have some history to work through.

Highly recommend "Sapiens", somehow all of us "tribes" survive in places like NYC, it's so amazing.

> NEW YORK — New York is indeed an expensive place, but experts say that alone doesn't explain a recent report that found the city's annual cost per inmate was $167,731 last year — nearly as much as it costs to pay for four years of tuition at an Ivy League university.

u/Loga-rhythm · 1 pointr/Stoicism

Ill check that out, that's right up my alley.

I think it is definitely important to recognize just how removed from nature humans have become, especially in a philosophical context. Arriving at hard line to define what is or isn't natural is quite difficult though.

If you like this sort of stuff I have some book recommendations too that are along the same lines: (author of this one is a bit opinionated, but still the book is very worh it.)

u/Mythpunk · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

What would be considered safe for retirement plans? There aren't any other investments available that can be liquidated on the spot at the decision of the retirees that also provide the amount of growth necessary to have a retirement plan worth anything.

I don't really see how this law would destroy Comcast, at all. It would radically harm working class people with retirement plans, but the wealthy people in control of Comcast would develop complex legal arrangements via contracts and insurance to ensure that their business would continue otherwise.

For example: suppose such a law passes and all shareholders are held directly liable in proportion to their ownership. This effectively destroys limited liability capitalism. Share prices of every company would drop as every charity, retirement fund, investment bank, and regular person sells as fast as they can. The economy suffers another Great Depression due to the sell-off. Smaller firms die. The larger ones, like Comcast, will have the capital to buy back their shares and "go private." The individuals owning those shares could then put the shares into a trust - they would be the grantors and trustees, but the beneficiary (the individual with legal title to the property) would be a well-paid fall guy. That fall guy would likely never have the money necessary to cover any of a company's legal obligations; the company would become judgment proof.

Destroying limited liability capitalism in this way would not kill Comcast. But it would essentially halt all economic growth and cement wealth even more firmly into the upper classes. Before limited liability, economic growth was essentially zero. Limited liability capitalism (read: the distribution of risk and reward behind an artificial legal entity) is the engine that enabled the global economy to grow so rapidly since the 1500s. This is what enables the vast majority of humans to have the wealth necessary to be something besides subsistence farmers. Check out Sapiens for an explanation.

u/Ziggote · 1 pointr/Showerthoughts

This is an actual discussion in Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind!

Something about how one Nomadic traveler accidentally dropped wheat seeds as he traveled and humankind flourished along that path due to the easy cultivation of the Wheat. The author obviously explains the theory much better than I can.

u/anditcametoass · 1 pointr/exmormon

Homie you must have gotten the cliff notes version.

Amazon Link

For the record I listened to it on Audible so I didn’t know it had 464 pages, I just knew it was about 15 hours long.

u/Lord-Talon · 1 pointr/unpopularopinion

Yeah I agree.

It's also really, really unnatural.

A lot of people don't believe it, but with every human step we actually had to work more. Initially a farming society might have worked less than a hunterer & gatherer society, but after a few decades they actually had to WORK MORE than earlier, mainly because of the growing living standard and society. Same goes for the industrialisation.

If you compare our live to that of a stone-age civilization, you'd actually find that we work far more than them. Obviously that has granted us a FAR higher living standard, but it's still unnatural.


u/SanguineHerald · 1 pointr/DebateAnAtheist

I am a particular fan of the Atheist Experience. It is a weekly call in show that takes calls from theist and atheists to discuss whatever is on their mind.

I am currently reading [Sapiens](sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind This books takes a deep dive into the origins of humanity. It's not particularly about religion but it does make some mention of it. I really like this book because it addresses why Humans are the way we are, what seperated us from our ancestors, how the way we think influences every aspect of our society today.

Talk Origins is an excellent resource that has cited knowledge for just about any topic you could think of.

I am not gay and don't have any real insight into that situation nor have I done much reading or research into that. I do know that the Bible is not friendly to the LGBT+ community, particularly those of the Baptist variety.

Never stop looking for the truth. Evaluate whether the facts you find mesh with your beliefs, if they don't, evaluate your beliefs to see if that is something you can actually believe in.

Remember your parents may never come to accept you as you. I hope they are able to see past their beliefs to still love you but they might not. I have been unable to convince my Father, who is an otherwise brilliant man, that evolution is an actual fact and that the earth is older than 6,000 years old. And I might not ever be able to. You cannot allow your families unwillingness to seek truth and accept you as you to dictate your life. The people I consider my family now are unrelated to me, my brothers and sisters are the ones I have chosen.

Remember, even if you conclude that Christianity is the truth, there is not a single atheist I know that will condemn you for being you. We may argue against beliefs we view as false, but that will not change your value as a human being.

tl;dr seek out facts, evaluate your beliefs against the facts. Repeat till you die. Find people worthy of your time that respect you for you, not their vision of you.

u/Drgrant · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

I'm currently reading this book. It seems to be a good read.

u/Rieuxx · 1 pointr/history

A nice, general overview for this sort of thing is

Gombrich's "A brief history of the world"

But any such book has got to be a diving off point. Something *like" the 'bibliotherapy' program offers by school of life would be great for this, though this happens to be London based.

u/katadotis · 1 pointr/IWantToLearn

If you like reading this book would be a perfect and fun start
A Little History of the World

u/el_tonio · 1 pointr/Christianity

If you can pick up a copy of E. H Gombrich "A little history of the world". He attempts to explain history from a neutral point, I found his sections of the appearance of religions really interesting and he manages in 5-10 pages to explain their cores really well. Also on the science, I am a scientist, the course of action is to be actively skeptical about everything, try to be less literal with the bible and more application based

u/karma-toes · 1 pointr/books

The Story of Art by E.H. Gombrich. Passionate, precise, a clear and accessible view of thousands of years of art history. Alternatively, by way of introduction to the author, he has penned the informative A Little History of The World in a bright and accessible style that nobody could resist.

u/boholikeyou · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

I've been collecting the books in the Little History series.

I'd start with A Little History of the World, and there are ones on the United States, economics, philosophy, science, religion, and more.

Check 'em out:

u/old_dog_new_trick · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

A Little History of the World by Gombrich. Original version was written in German for young adults back in 1937 and was rewritten and published in English in the 2000s with an additional chapter addressing the author's own escape from the Holocaust. One of the best general history books I have read.

u/JabbaCat · 1 pointr/norge

Havnet tilfeldig innom Tronsmo i dag, de har et vell av bøker så klart.
Noen har kjøpt denne til meg, den er superkort og var skrevet for ungdom midt på 30-tallet, men er visst en veldig fin liten oversiktsbok og en smule legendarisk som verdenshistorie i kortversjon: A Little History of the World - Ernst Gombrich
Kanskje en kuriositet men skal lese den nå, virker fin. Finnes på norsk også, feks [her.] (

Ville bladd litt gjennom Tronsmo sine kategorier forresten - ikke alt i bokhandelen finnes på nettsiden, men ganske mye.

Denne gav meg lyst til å lese klassisk engelsk historie, den virker gjennomført og underholdende:

Adam Hochschild har jo skrevet noen populære bøker, mest kjent kanskje King Leopolds Ghost - om den brutale belgiske kongen og Kongo under belgisk styre.

Tenkte finne en bok om silkeveien en gang, men ikke kommet så langt.

Har hørt at Salt - A World History av Mark Kurlansky er bra.

Og: Jeg fikk nettopp denne i gave, Andrea Wulf - The Invention of Nature: Alexander von Humboldts New World.

Humboldt var med på å forme hva vi tenker på som natur, han dro på mange ekspedisjoner og var svært berømt i sin samtid. Navnet hans er jo også knyttet til idealer om læring og dannelse, Darwin var stor fan av Humboldt. Det kan du lese en snutt om her

Av andre ting i samme gate er dette en interessant skjebne, handler om Maria Sybilla Merian som i 1699 (!) i en alder av 52 tok med seg datteren og seilte fra Amsterdam, over Atlanterhavet til Surinam - for å utforske og illustrere planter og insekter. Lenge før Humboldt og Darwin. Fascinerende at det i det hele tatt var mulig for henne.

u/tikael · 1 pointr/atheism

Sam Harris wrote a book that is a pretty good summary

u/darth2 · 1 pointr/atheism

Both of you should read "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. Short, easy read. Then move on to the more weighty stuff.

u/robisodd · 1 pointr/atheism

Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation:

It's a quick read (96 pages; so there's much more of a chance he will actually read it), he probably has never heard of Sam Harris either which will restrict some close mindedness and it packs quite a punch.

u/morrison0880 · 1 pointr/atheism

Letter to a Christian Nation
Sam Harris takes a firm but personal approach to explaining away religious faith. Use this as an introductory book to a much more straightforward and aggressive book like The God Delusion, or as a closing argument to a primer in rationalism that begins with a softer book by Sagan or the like. It depends on the approach you want to take, although I would suggest going the later route. Demon Haunted world was an excellent suggestion. Your parents will obviously agree with him when he dismisses ancient myths and beliefs, so when he shows their own beliefs to be on the same level, that skeptical thought process will start to catch hold of them and hopefully make them question those beliefs.

u/Dorrin · 1 pointr/atheism

Coming out is a big and unpleasant step. Kudos for planning.

Also, welcome to the party.

Many stay in the closet for years for good reason, coming out to religious family can rend that family to bits. No amount of logic, documentaries, or articles can bridge the fundamental gap if they decide you aren't family anymore. End result=huge unpleasantness.

That being said, there are two general trajectories for this type of thing. Fast and hard, or slow and kind. Both have their value, sometimes a swift thwap to the skull can break down barriers, for others a slow approach can provide better results over time. Slow and kind isn't my forte and others can help with that. Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris and Dear Christian by JT Eberhard are the top of my list for kicking down doors and taking names.

u/larynx1982 · 1 pointr/atheism

Christianity was not mentioned in the submission title, the Abrahamic religions were.

The majority of religiously motivated stoning nowadays most likely falls with fundamentalist Muslims but modern/moderate Christians are easily blamable for the extreme actions of the fundamentalist Christians such as killing abortion doctors, taking away women and LGBT rights, helping spread AIDS in Africa by denying people access to condoms, etc.

By calling themselves Christians (even though they don't follow their own holy book's rules) and tithing they enable (and in-turn justify) the actions of the fundamentalists who are more in-tune with the fundamentals of their religion.

You should check out Sam Harris' Letter To A Christian Nation which explains this very astutely.

u/ikevinax · 1 pointr/Advice

On the rare occasion when I have little to do (cough), I purchase a book on Kindle and read it on my monitor using my browser at . I'm currently reading The Vikings: A History. The last one I read, which I highly recommend, was Letter to a Christian Nation.

u/BustyMetropolis · 1 pointr/atheism

My one-stop book recommendation would be Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation. It's a short read, but nearly every paragraph is its own distinct argument, and it covers a lot of territory.

If you're aiming to construct your paper around a set of the most popular arguments, here are some common refutations to arguments for the existence of God. Keep in mind that many of our arguments are in the form of refutation instead of assertion, since the burden of proof is on the claimant:

Ontological Argument (Argument from experience) - We assert that feelings do not equal facts; revelation is not a reliable basis for a factual claim. We also realize that to criticize someone for feelings that are personal can seem like a personal attack. Most of us wouldn't tell someone who claims he/she had a spiritual experience that it didn't happen, but we would try to find a scientific explanation rather than coming to the immediate conclusion that it was God's doing. As a brief example, a friend of mine said he "felt the touch of God" when his daughter was born, but we interpret his feeling as a normal, natural high that most people feel at such an emotional moment.

Teleological Argument (Argument from design) - We accept the evidence for evolution and realize that it is inconsistent with the biblical creation story. For further reading about what proof we have for evolution, I'd personally recommend The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, and he promotes Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True though I haven't read the latter yet.

Cosmological Argument (Causal Argument) - This is a case of people assigning the "God" label to something difficult to comprehend. The best we have to go on so far is the Big Bang Theory, and scientists will continue to test the theory. We don't have evidence that the beginning of the universe was brought about by an omnipotent/omniscient being outside of what is claimed by religious texts, and that goes back to the. We might also ask, "who/what made God?" inviting an infinite loop of "which came first" questions.

Moral Argument - We believe (normal) people are able to tell the difference between right and wrong without religious guidance. In turn, it seems that the Christian Bible teaches, excuses, or condones actions that our enlightened society would deem immoral, such as slavery, killing of children and non-heterosexuals, oppression, rape, and genocide. Interpretations of the Bible differ, of course, and most modern Christians don't believe they should actually kill their disobedient children (or that the laws of the Old Testament no longer apply since the coming of Christ, which is another conversation). Regardless of arguments from the Bible, we believe that science can tell us a lot more about morality than we give it credit for.

Lastly, here is a wikipedia list of lots more arguments in case you'd like to ask about specific ones: link

Good luck, and I hope you enjoy writing your paper. Not that you should necessarily crowd-source coursework, but you'd probably get quite a strong response if you posted up a final draft, too.

u/My_Toothbrush · 1 pointr/atheism

I upvoted because you're asking a(n at least sort-of) respectful question. I'm sure others could answer you better or more completely, but I'll take a stab.

I firmly believe that no one here wants to "destroy any reference" to Yahweh. Many of us enjoy the Greek pantheon, and a few of us like the Norse better.

The problem with Christianity is that it encourages faith, which is not only pretty much useless as a decision making paradigm, but also cripples us in regards to making sane, rational decisions. I'm sure I don't need to harp on the extensive list of atrocities committed that would have been impossible without faith.

You might be interested in reading Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation.

u/MWrathDev · 1 pointr/atheism

> For the past 2-3 years, I've grown uneasy with the things I've heard and have been taught over the years.

From our perspective this is a good sign! Throw another baby on the BBQ lads, one of us, one of us /s ;)

> I'm feeling pretty lost and a little scared since pretty much all of my family is religious (they would never abandon me or disown me if they knew but the thought of disappointing them hurts...a lot).

Be careful! When it comes to religion you don't know what people are capable of and this sub is littered with tragic stories of people who thought they knew their families, but didn't expect what happened when they let on they were doubting, came out, or were outed.

To sum up if you don't have some kind of independence (namely financial) be discreet in your movements to keep the peace. That doesn't necessarily mean lie (though you can if you want), it means don't reveal all at the drop of a hat, gotta look out for #1.

> Which leads me here. Both sides of this religious debate hold biases

Unfortunately that's not really true, we don't hold bias when attempting to ascertain the truth regarding gods existentialism.

In fact most atheists (being skeptics) hold religion to the same standards of evidence as everything else, and try to remove as much bias as possible i.e. you'll hear the scientific method (methodological naturalism) bandied about a fair bit in atheism, because that's the best method we have for reliably producing results.

Oh yeah that's one other thing you gotta reconcile. Absolute truth (or falsity), doesn't exist. You can only say what is true with X amount of certainty based on how good the evidence is (i.e. how much there is, quality/standards, etc).

> So I'm looking into maybe some books, documentaries, research papers...anything really addressing the validity of the bible, the historical evidence, the contradictions, etc.

Be my guest :

That's notes regarding what's contradictory in the bible when read literally, can't remember if they included the "poetic" bits in it. The thing is though most of the bible is supposed to be read literally, there are a few poetic bits yes, but just like any book the author sets the context for reading.

So whenever you hear a Christian saying : no it's supposed to be "interpreted" like this... that's generally code for

"oh shit bible says something wrong, better try and make excuses by putting it in a different context (than the author intended) that makes sense for the modern day".

Which is completely wrong, you don't get to read Harry Potter and put him in the star wars universe (although that would be kinda fun), nope JK determines the context.

Sorry got a bit ranty there, but it's one of my pet peeves.

> I'm trying to find sources that are mostly impartial, so nothing that goes into the subject that actively tries to prove or disprove.

Self-contradictory? You just said you're looking for resources addressing the validity of the bible... that's literally asking to prove / disprove things in it.

No one's forcing you, and it can be scary / frustrating. But you should know that even if you don't accept the bible as true anymore it doesn't make you an immoral monster i.e. morals are independent of religion...

But you gotta make up your mind, you either care about "the truth" or not, you're either going down the rabbit hole or not. Pandora's box once opened is not so easily closed and once you see, it's difficult to unsee.

If you want some "softer" titles, i'd recommend:

Or any of Bart Ehrmans books:

To save you some time, most of the bible is either:

  • Made up e.g. story of moses/egypt, genesis, etc.

  • Stolen... "appropriated" from other religions, mainly zoroastrianism which influenced all the messianic religions of the time : judaism, islam, christianity e.g. Ahura Mazda = God, Angra Mainyu = Satan (responsible for demons), Zarathustra = Jesus.

  • The result of "chinese whispers" i.e. where there could be a story that was based on some truth (e.g. Noah's Ark / epic of gilgamesh / Atrahasis / King Ziusudra), but it was retold over and over again so many times by word of mouth before it was recorded in writing that it only faintly resembles the original story.

    All the best, feel free to ask questions here.
u/bigger_than_jesus · 1 pointr/DebateAChristian

> Daniel 9 is a big one... Christianity was written about within decades of the events.

Within decades? Most studies do not show this to be true. But even if your statement were true, aren't the gospels supposed to be written by those who lived with Jesus? This is clearly wrong even when reading the first few verses of Luke.

>Joseph Smith was tried and convicted of being a con man...

No doubt he was a con. But I'd venture to guess that even if you discovered Jesus was tried and convicted of being a con, or any of his apostles, your faith would still be in tact. The fact Joseph Smith was a con does not mean that God did not talk to him, right?

Whenever I read these justifications, it screams of an inadequate attempt to confirm your beliefs, not challenge them. Who taught you about Daniel 9? I can safely guess that you either found it on the internet or were taught by some other influence. You didn't read the book of Daniel and come up with this calculation yourself. You were looking for proof and someone gave it to you.

Why do you believe Jesus resurrected in April? Because it's Easter? Do you know the history of Easter? Did you know that pagans used to celebrate Spring with a god or goddess of fertility? And how is fertility represented--a bunny. Christians adopted these customs in order to convert pagans. Just like December 25. You do know that, don't you? If you do know that, then why would you even for a second pretend to know Jesus resurrected on "Easter Sunday."

I promise to read The Case for Christ, if you read Letter to a Christian Nation. It's only about 100 pages long.

Here's the point. You say "Daniel 9 is a big one." I can guarantee, if Daniel 9 proved to be false, your faith would still be in tact. You would rationalize some way to believe the entirety of Christianity. If I believe in UFOs, and I research all of the evidence with a hidden attempt to confirm my belief, I will ignore evidence to the contrary. But if I don't believe in UFOs, and keep an open mind to all possibilities, and rationally examine all the evidence presented before me, my conclusions can be more objective.

u/xanos5 · 1 pointr/atheism

I couldn't recommend Richard Dawkins The God Delusion enough.

it's a fantastic entry point for somebody that is skeptical about religion.

also Sam Harris Letter to a Christian Nation is a great short read about morality and religion in America.

u/quicksilversnail · 1 pointr/atheism

I would highly recommend Sam Harris. He can be quite verbose at times, but his logic is impeccable. You might want to try Letter to a Christian Nation to start. It's directed to a Christian audience and was a real eye opener for me. Plus, it's pretty short (144 pages).

Edit: His YouTube videos are excellent as well.

u/ThePressman · 1 pointr/TrueAtheism

I listed a few common logical flaws that are proposed by the existence of a deity in this thread that was posted right before yours. To add on to it, the existence of a God is a positive assertion, and the implications that follow from the existence of an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient being raise a whole lot more questions than most theists want it to answer.

All in all, it's hard to present the entire case for atheism; if you have specific problems that are holding you back from leaving your faith, we might be able to provide more assistance if we knew specifically what you need addressed.

That said, you mentioned fear of hell; the existence of hell raises even more absurd questions than the existence of God:

First, it requires the existence of an eternal and immaterial soul, which doesn't bode well with our current understanding of the way the brain works. Our understanding of the human brain is still lacking, but we understand enough of it to know that pretty much every perception, personality function, thought, and impulse that we experience can be traced back to their respective parts of the brain. If our personalities and consciousness are defined by our brain, on what basis can an immaterial soul possibly function? Not to mention, we feel pain through our nervous system, so the idea of an individual's immaterial essence suffering in hell without a nervous system or brain to perceive those signals is non-sensical.

Second, the idea that many otherwise good individuals will be suffering the exact same eternal punishment as people like Hitler, Charlie Manson, and Ted Bundy simply because they chose not to believe in God, chose the wrong God, or were never even put in a position to learn about God (isolated island tribes) seems illogical and unethical. Could you really enjoy eternal paradise while completely aware of the fact that billions of souls are suffering eternal agony? The ethics of this just don't make sense.

If you want a good starting point outside this subreddit, I highly recommend Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris. It's relatively short, but comprehensive.

Once again, if there's any specific issues that are preventing you from letting go of your faith, let us know.

Good luck!

u/dustershorty · 1 pointr/atheism

For an intro into the atheism, anti-religion genre, I would recommend A Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris. Short, to the point, and gets your hungering for more information. Have fun!

u/laserinlove · 1 pointr/worldnews

I'm sorry that I don't have it in myself at the moment to carry this conversation where it should head but if I tried the attempt would half hearted and you deserve a more rigorous explanation than I'd provide. As a consolation I'll suggest you read Letter To a Christian nation if you really want to hear an outsiders view on Christianity and some well reasoned arguments of how Christians might advocate violence. It's a cheap book ad pretty quick to read and he's got better prose than I ever would. If you're not interested that's fine too. Best of luck.

u/facelook · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook

Going Clear by Lawrence Wright. Engaging read, couldnt put it down. Not depressing, just slightly bewildering

u/calibrated · 1 pointr/videos

Hopping on the top comment to suggest the book Going Clear. It's a phenomenal piece of journalism that looks at the church's completely insane history (Scientologists made a fake navy and tried to conquer Morocco) and the even more insane present (they have internment camps!).

Oh, want to know why they have religious status? Because they literally sued the IRS so much that the IRS ran out of money.

u/nonhiphipster · 1 pointr/todayilearned

It's true...except for the famous litigation the Church of Scientology is responsible for. They have teams of lawyers to sue the shit out of people whenever they publicly say anything negative about the church. Furthermore, they are responsible for harassing the US government to bully their way to getting tax-exempt status as a religion.

Also, they abuse their followers. Documented in many places, lately in the fascinating book Going Clear by Lawrence Wright.

u/theamazingroberto · 1 pointr/WTF
u/RachelRTR · 1 pointr/WTF

It can be very confusing. If you are really curious read a book on it, like this one, this one, or this one. It's honestly a fascinating subject. The things they have done and do are pretty crazy.

u/nongermanejackson · 1 pointr/news

Lawrence Wright's "Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief" is the most-recent must read book on this pernicious organization.

It's a good complement to Janet Reitman's "Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion" which was published just a couple of years ago.

u/BellatrixLenormal · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Chemistry kinda IS physics on a tiny scale. Try reading 'The Disappearing Spoon'. It presents chemistry in a very exciting way.

u/kouhoutek · 1 pointr/askscience

In the same vein, I also recommend The Disappearing Spoon.

u/SigmaStigma · 1 pointr/askscience

There were also several layouts proposed for the table, and debates on how best to arrange the elements.

It's also easier to see that they fit in this configuration because it's a human invention. Elements as we know them are just electrons, protons, and neutrons. Certain electron shells convey certain properties, and have been arranged to show the most in common properties.

For a good read on this topic, check out The Disappearing Spoon. It has some history behind the discovery of various elements.

u/Schwoopty · 1 pointr/AskReddit

The Disappearing Spoon is a great book if you are interested in how the periodic table shaped the history of the world. It's a really easy read and offers a lot of history and science facts that you may have not otherwise come across.

u/MontyHallsGoat · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

The Disappearing Spoon. Also anything by Mary Roach, especially Stiff.

u/hatespugs · 1 pointr/AnimalRights

Part of how the USA promoted a Cold War consensus was through the conflation of fascism with communism, through a common root of "totalitarianism" that liberal states are ostensibly immune to. The logic isn't very sound to either group internally, but commonalities do exist: common origin of thought in Hegel, similar criticisms of liberalism, centralization of power to a particular bureaucracy, valorization of revolutionary violence, a sort of transcendentalist logic that removes the need for a constitution, etc. The fact that there are about 0 policies that fascism and communism have in common was not considered particularly relevant.

Oh also this idiotic book exists.

u/liatris · 1 pointr/TrueReddit

>Its as if fascism is making a comeback but people aren't calling it that.

You might enjoy the book Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. The LA Times hired him on a while back to write an Op-Ed column for them. It was enough to make Barbra Streisand write in to cancel her subscription! Here is Goldberg's response to that flattery. Her main complaint was that replacing Robert Scheer with Jonah Goldberg made the paper less diverse even though Goldberg is basically a demographic carbon copy of Robert Scheer aside from Goldberg being a conservative.

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning by Jonah Goldberg

>“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”—such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?

>Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.

>Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

>Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

>Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism.

u/almodozo · 1 pointr/politics

In America, that's where .. a fairy recent phenomenon too, but one that seems to be making great strides among libertarians and conservatives .. thanks to Jonah Goldberg for that. :-(

u/spaceghoti · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

> Wow. You sir are basically just compassionless. You assume the worst in people who were fighting against horror and oppression, and force them to adhere to your narrow world view for some ideal "truth" that doesn't actually exist.

Compassionless? Because I'm willing to call a spade a spade? Because I'm willing to call out a lie rather than preserve someone's feelings? You've got a rather strange concept of compassion, one that I'm not interested in.

> You haven't shown me why I should believe the authors wanted their texts to be taken literally. Your points basically amount to "They are liars because I want them to be liars." I'm astounded at the delusion you exist in.

You want another example? Have you heard of Jonah Goldberg? He's primarily a political pundit, and a reactionary one. Not too long ago he published a book, non-fiction, entitled Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. He's not engaging in allegory, here. He's claiming that fascism as conceived and run by Mussolini and Hitler is an inherently liberal concept that has been at working secretly in the US for some time. This idea is quantifiably false and his historical analysis has been pretty much laughed off by the historical and political analysis communities alike. The book isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

But he wrote it and published it. We have every reason to think that he believes every word in it. And what's more, he used it to galvanize like-minded political partisans in the US. Nobody takes him seriously except his target audience. It's a lie, and they believe it.

Sound familiar?

u/JRuskin · 1 pointr/pics

"Just look at how the extreme left has been attacking its own over the last few years".

It's not the last few years, it's literally the entire history of the left. After the French anti monarchist leftists ditched the royals (the term left came from the side of parliament the anti monarchists sat on) they almost immediately turned to purging their own. Name a socialist or communist government that didn't purge from its own leadership, if not population and or rival factions.

The only real part of the left that doesn't fit the mould historically is trade unionists. There is always a bit of infighting within unions and between competitive unions, but in general they tend to back the idea of strength in solidarity.

I disagree with you that the extreme left are somehow less dangerous. It's an over simplification, but I'm a believer in horseshoe theory (

I think extremism regardless of the side of the political spectrum can be very dangerous...

Also some food for thought,

  1. it was the (mostly southern) democrats who delayed civil rights reform in the senate for 50+ until LBJ forced one through for his own politician aims

  2. By modern western standards, nazis weren't right wing. They were left wing. National socialism has so many concepts that modern right wing (mostly small government, "muh freedoms" conservatives) would be vehemently opposed to. The "right wing are nazis" trope is quite inaccurate, this is a good read on the subject, personally I suspect it came about because post WWII / Cold War there was an active effort by "the left" outside of Germany (and in it) and the USSR to distance their ideology from the nazis and soviets.

    I also think modern day nazis are far more comfortable on the far right with "free man of the land" hick farmer types who hate the government, foreigners, etc as much as they do vs trade unionists and university students who dress like they are at Woodstock and who are still naive enough to think communism might work next time.
u/eadmund · 1 pointr/politics

The article makes the mistake of assuming that fascism is a right-wing phenomenon. It is actually a left-wing psychosis, as rather amusingly pointed out in Liberal Fascism, a book which details how it was so-called progressives who supported euthanasia, fascism, state power over the individual and so forth.

u/s3ddd · 1 pointr/books

Guns Germs & Steel by Jered Diamond

u/jchiu003 · 1 pointr/OkCupid

Depends on how old you are.

  • Middle school: I really enjoyed this, this, and this, but I don't think I can read those books now (29) without cringing a little bit. Especially, Getting Things Done because I already know how to make to do list, but I still flip through all 3 books occastionally.

  • High school: I really enjoyed this, this, and this, but if you're a well adjusted human and responsible adult, then I don't think you'll find a lot of helpful advice from these 6 books so far because it'll be pretty basic information.

  • College: I really enjoyed this, this, and started doing Malcolm Gladwell books. The checklist book helped me get more organized and So Good They Can't Ignore You was helpful starting my career path.
  • Graduate School: I really enjoyed this, this, and this. I already stopped with most "self help" books and reading more about how to manage my money or books that looked interesting like Stiff.

  • Currently: I'm working on this, this, and this. Now I'm reading mostly for fun, but all three of these books are way out of my league and I have no idea what their talking about, but they're areas of my interest. History and AI.
u/Just1MoreYear · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Which time periods and which parts?

This has already been explained throughouly by so many people. A great resource is this book:

There are several factors including geography, environment, and so on.

I'm certain you've never been to the Middle East or Africa.

u/DrImpeccable76 · 1 pointr/HistoryWhatIf

Why exactly do you think that North America, Europe and Asia have so much more cropland than Africa and South America?
What do you think people do when they are more fertile land which requires fewer farmers to keep them alive? They become more educated, develop more advanced infrastructure, create technology at a much faster pace, etc. Just as an example, about 2% of the US population works in agriculture, 15% of Brazilians do the same.

And since you seem to like books so much (despite not even linking one that backs up your statments):

Anyway, I don't want to act like cultural factors don't make any difference in the economic development over long periods of time becaue they certainly do, but you should not ignore the fact that certain parts of the world (such as Europe and North America) have climates and natural resources that are much more conducive to economic development.

u/Morazan1823 · 1 pointr/history

Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York:Norton, 1999. Print.

Paperbacks on Amazon selling from $5.50


If you're into Mythical Legends, The Nobel Literature Prize winning author, Miguel Angel Asturias wrote Legends of Guatemala, a collection of Mayan Mythical Legends. I highly recommend it, it's a bit trippy, and surreal. $13 on Amazon.

... And there's Popol Vuh, The 'Book of Genesis' for the Mayan people. It's FREE via PDF, starts at page 51. If I recall my favorite story, two brothers (Xb‘alanke & Junajpu) avenge the demons who killed their father. They are summoned to the seven level of Hell and are forced to play an ancient form of what is soccer (World's first sport, Mayans invented the rubberized ball), for their lives... they failed purposely and escape with their lives to accept harder challenges, in order to find the head demon and obtain sweet revenge, It's an epic.

u/Gorm_the_Old · 1 pointr/history

There's a lot of discussion on this subject, and a lot of debate between academics, but no real consensus. Some people think they have the answer - William McNeill is an older example and Jared Diamond is a more recent example - but the debate is still ongoing.

I would say, though, that at a very basic level, the Old World was simply larger and more interconnected than the New World. With more people in the Old World and more people connected to each other, technology was developed more quickly and transmitted across a wider distance. That meant that even though the Old World had its ups, like the dramatic technological advancement of the Roman Empire, and its downs, like the Mongol conquest, it more or less moved forward.

The New World actually had significantly better technology several hundred years prior to the arrival of the conquistadors. The Mayan civilization was much more advanced than the Aztec civilization, including a much more sophisticated system of writing that let them preserve knowledge. But the Mayans went into a long-term decline for reasons that are still not entirely clear. They didn't have as much contact with neighboring groups as civilizations in the Old World did, so when they went into decline, they took much of their technology with them. Contrast that with the fall of Rome - even as Rome fell, much of its knowledge and technology was preserved in the Islamic world or in the monasteries of Europe. That didn't happen for the Mayans, and so the native peoples that were met by the conquistadors were significantly behind where they had been a thousand years previous.

u/frooben · 1 pointr/DebateFascism

If you can read German get Solzhenitsyn first, it has not yet officially been translated into English because the Jews control all publishing. I have also refrained from providing books on science and philosophy and kept it to history because it would become too expansive:

u/dizzyelk · 1 pointr/Christianity

So far the best book I've read has been Guns, Germs, and Steel. Right now I'm reading Botany of Desire, which is pretty interesting. And after I finish that I think something old-fashioned and cheesy would be nice. So I'm probably going to read Edgar Rice Burroughs's Venus series.

u/Reputedly · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

Something like that! There's a lot more to be said on the topic, if you're interested. Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel talks about a lot of what I mentioned above in greater detail (there's also a pretty good PBS Documentary based on the book).

u/kingkong672 · 1 pointr/history
u/KillYourHeroesAndFly · 1 pointr/books
u/CleverPunWithBadWord · 1 pointr/AskSocialScience

I think you might enjoy some books that often serve as a learning tool for many sociology students.

A Shopkeeper's Millennium by Paul E. Johnson.

Obedience to Authority by Stanley Milgram.

Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.

War and Empire by Paul Atwood.

Each book is either a study to prove or present a hypothesis, so naturally tries to present evidence in a simple and clear way. No extended parts on boring sociological theory. The books are all easy to read and understand, and most importantly they are all a pretty good read.
One thing they all have in common is that their value or methodology is often controversial and highly debated in many crowds.

For instance, the Milgram book is the foundation for the famous Milgram Yale Shock Experiments in the 60's, so naturally there is the issue with ethics and methodology. If I remember correctly, this study is the reason any scientist today has to have his/her work approved by an Ethics Committee every time human subjects are involved.

War and Empire is a bit far-fetched at times, but is still very engaging, and at times hard to put away. Some might argue that it falls under 'History' more than 'Sociology', but because of how recent a lot of the topics are, I think there is real value there within sociology.

Guns, Germs and Steel is basically an overly simplified answer to a very complex and multidimensional question, but it's still a very fun idea to explore when you read it. Most people in the social sciences have heard of this book, and with it most people have also heard a lot of criticism.

The Shopkeeper's Millennium is probably the "best" of the four, as it often used as a "benchmark" for many sociology students on how historical research is conducted and used to present a study. The book is old, but it's still taught at many colleges to this day.

Based on your request, I think the Milgram book would be the most interesting for you to start with. Simply put the purpose of the study was to see if there is a correlation between obedience and the presence of authority.

I've also read a few books on poverty and unemployment in the Black and Latino communities. If that sounds interesting, let me know and I'll see if I can dig up some titles and names for you.

EDIT: Fixed some words.

u/glennerooo · 1 pointr/askscience

this won't address your question thoroughly but it talks a lot about these kinds of topics and even mentions a very similar question in the first few chapters: Guns, Germs and Steel.

u/Nixon737 · 1 pointr/AskReddit

You're right, but only in the technical sense. Even today, in smaller chiefdoms and tribes in places like New Guinea, the murder rate per capita is much higher than in 'civilized' countries. This isn't so much an evolution of human civility, but a result of organized government. If someone wrongs you, there is a system in place to exact retribution, where as in the above mentioned areas the only recourse is often direct physical action, often reciprocated a few times before settling down.


Personally, I think it's more important that you know where your food comes from, something too many people don't seem to care about. I eat meat, but luckily I can afford to buy from local farms where I know the animals were treated with care up until their slaughter. Sources of non-meat food can be just as bad if not worse than the killing of an animal for a meal. If the source of your daily cereal comes from an industrial farm dumping fertilizers and chemicals into a gulf, or employs horrendous working conditions, it's really not much better than buying a Tyson chicken breast.

u/lifestream87 · 1 pointr/history
u/machete_io · 1 pointr/history

If this topic really interests you, you'll really like the book "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. It discusses the multitude of ways that make some civilizations spread and dominate others. IIRC, a contributing factor for the "migration" to Europe was that originally the Tigris/Euphrates had a ton of forrest and as the society advanced they essentially cut it all down and it turned into a desert.

Here is a link to the book:

u/Comet7777 · 1 pointr/worldnews
u/Keeping_itreal · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

> absent the necessary punishments of parasitism?

Are you claiming that this can only be provided by a State? Come on man, you're better than that.

>Your guys' political economy has no other explanation for why Africa is so low trust other than "they were brainwashed, man!"

I don't know which "guys" you are referring to, but I personally find the issue far more complex than that. In my opinion, there are environmental, cultural and ultimately genetic reasons why we Africans are so damn poor. We were not just "brainwashed, man".

u/Canadian_Infidel · 1 pointr/canada

The fact white people took over was basically chance. You should read the book Guns, Germs and Steel.

u/yo2sense · 1 pointr/AmericanPolitics

> "Why did Europeans rule the world, more or less, at one time? Because of Evolution and they were superior, or because God blessed them?"

So either whites are naturally superior or are superior because God has given some special blessing to whites? I reject both racist options. And so does science. Guns, Germs, and Steel is a good place to start informing yourself about these things before you put your foot in your mouth again.

u/Hollowgolem · 1 pointr/history

If you want a book that takes a look at this dynamic, regarding pack animals, check out Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond or Why the West Rules—for Now by Ian Morris.

u/The-zKR0N0S · 1 pointr/new_right
u/walkswithwolfies · 1 pointr/pics
u/-MadGadget- · 1 pointr/ArtefactPorn

You should read Guns Germs and Steel! It's a super interesting analysis of why it happened that way.

u/Klaatuprime · 1 pointr/pics

That's not quite the way it happened. I'd suggest reading Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, but I'm guessing you aren't letting any information in that you didn't get off Stormfront.

u/dshakir · 1 pointr/MurderedByWords

Are you referring to when human development was at a standstill? Sure, caveman.

We didn’t start progressing until trade routes and the exchange of values, ideas and cultures became prevalent though.

u/brownribbon · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

There are too many reasons to post here. I recommend reading the book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond (or at least the miniseries--available on Netflix last I checked).

Some of the main reasons include:

  • No domesticable pack animals in the Americas to do work. Eurasia has things like cows, horses, etc. that could be tamed and trained to do hard labor like plowing fields and hauling carts. The closest such animal in the Americas is the llama/alpaca, native to northern South America. This made food production in the Americas more human labor intensive which took away time from other endeavors.

  • The Americas are "taller" than they are "wide." That is, they cover a greater range of latitudes than longitudes. The opposite is true of Eurasia. As it turns out, crops, technology, and people diffuse less efficiently north/south than they do east/west. This is primarily due to climates being more even along latitudes than longitudes. This retardation in trade would slow the exchange of ideas, and therefore technological development.

  • The Americas have fewer cereal crops (rice, wheat, barley, corn, sorghum, etc.) native to them compared to Eurasia. These are the crops that are responsible for the establishment of agriculture and, as a result, sedentary societies. A sedentary society (i.e., one that is not picking up and moving itself every few months to follow food supplies) is one that can allow for specialization. Some people will become really good farmers and can produce enough food such that others can pursue different fields. With fewer available crops there were fewer opportunities in the Americas to establish such societies.

    Again, there are reasons beyond these and everything I just listed is conjecture. Human development was an incredibly complex process and for every example supporting one argument there is another example that refutes it.
u/PMme_Your_Problem · 1 pointr/pics

Ahahaha. Ha.
Your bullshit theory that you use to justify the blatant racism of yours is not going to get you far, amigo. Stop trying.

Have you ever heard of the Guns, Germs, and Steel theory? I don't count on it, so I'm going to educate you on it if you would like to consider some truth for a change. Guns, Germs, and Steel (hereafter referred to as "GGS") states that no race is superior to another due to its genetics or culture, but rather due to being incredibly lucky in geography, wildlife, plant-life, and their culmination with farming and so forth. The GGS theory is constantly getting stronger with every circumstance it is applied to. It does state that Caucasian people have essentially 'won' the literal human race, as Caucasian people were the ones to settle an entirely new continent, have won every colonial battle, and have propagated their religions the furthest.

To start off with a very shortened version of world's history with relation to man, people first moved out of Africa and into the Middle East. There they let go of their nomadic lifestyles and settled next to rivers and took advantage of crops like barley and wheat, which could have multiple harvests, easy planting styles, and could last long times in grains reserves before becoming inedible. They also were the first to domesticate animals that were around them, like cows, sheep, goats, pigs, horses. This was due to them being herd animals, and once they controlled the leader of the herd they could control the entire herd. Thus they had plentiful food, plentiful meat and milk, and this created a loop of positive feedback, with animals feeding on harvest leftovers and then fertilising the fields. This eventually allowed room for creativity within the small communities, as there was no need for every person the a farmer now. They started specialising in different skills, and then invented plaster, by hearing rock rubble and mixing with water (my knowledge of plaster is limited, correct me if needed). These skills branched out widely. But eventually they had to move out of the Fertile Crescent. Evidence suggests that this was due to over-farming and unrestrained use of surrounding natural resources. They moved eastwards and westwards. In this they had their second major advantage; their continent itself, Eurasia. Eurasia is spread out majorly on the east-west axis. This provides an advantage in that those people could take their crops and animals with them and not worry about growth of them, as the climate does not change greatly along line of latitude, but not so for longitude. This allowed them to settle in the Europe proper and east Asia.

So to summarise so far, the early people have had advantages with agriculture, domestic animals, and geography. But it only goes further. Some of the broader ideals is that due to their close contact with animals, these people contracted diseases from their animals, but eventually gained immunity to these diseases. People they would eventually come in contact with would contract these germs, and because they have no natural immunity, would start dying off. Guns have been instrumental in their progress, as there has only been one battle in history where the side with guns lost against those without guns (The battle of blood river). Steel has led to the production of guns, of plate armour, and of trains which have been vital to the creation of larger empires and countries.

So read up on the topic! Educate yourself! I'll make it easier. Here: Buy a copy of it on Amazon, its worth it. , or just read the Wikipedia page, I'm not a cop. So maybe one day, instead of posting on a thread like this, you can post on a thread like this

No one needs to 'win' this debate. We can both leave with newer opinions, not necessarily for worse or for better.

u/_WishIThoughtOfThat · 1 pointr/history

Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond covers pretty much most of these details, while looking at how different societies progressed differently.

u/Nobusuma · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

As stated Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. The region played a factor. Focusing on Europe, Europe had easy access of travel due to the Mediterranean sea. In broader view they had the silk road. There is a book called Why Nations Fail. A very interesting read. Out of dozens of examples the book shares, I will point out two that help shape Europe; the first being the story of Hercules and second the Black Death. The story of Hercule enabled a change in thought over the centuries as greek men went to the Olympics trying two win fame and glory for themseleves. The individual. The Black death on the other hand destroyed the working class and enabled a change in the current western system.

u/fiendlittlewing · 1 pointr/AskHistory

According to historian Jared Daimond, it's because of geography and resources. In his book, Guns Germs and Steele, Daimond argues that Eurasia had more species of domesticateable animals and plants, and could spread these resources and ideals better because the continent existed on an East/West orientation rather than the North/South orientation of the Americas and Africa. (this is an advantage because climate is more similar across the same latitude than it is across the same longitude.)

For some details, the youtuber CGP Grey has some good videos. For all the details, you could read Dimond's Book.

u/MiffedMouse · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

Not books, but I recommend CGPGrey's videos on topics such as the formation of the commonwealth for some anecdotal discussion of how modern states are structured. Crash Course World History is another good series that gives extremely quick (~10-15 minutes) overviews of a variety of topics historians like to discuss.

As for books - many of the more interesting books are on specific topics. Guns, Germs, and Steel is an interesting discussion on why some societies do better than others. Stuff matters is a neat discussion of how modern materials came to be. Honestly, I think it is more fun to pick a topic that interests you and dig into that topic specifically. You will probably learn about other things as necessary along the way. One of Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcasts, Controlling the Past, discusses this very idea.

Some of my favorite "history" books aren't even sold as "history" books. The Emperor of all Maladies is a fascinating look at the history of cancer. As a kid I loved David Macaulay's Building Big, which discusses large structures in America. And an embarrassing amount of my knowledge on other countries comes from folktale anthologies.

If you are interested in international politics specifically, I would suggest looking for books on the UN and NATO (two of the biggest international organizations right now).

u/hulahulagirl · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook

I enjoyed the audio version of Don't Know Much About Mythology and have heard good things about other books in the series as well.

Guns, Germs and Steel is another one that covers a lot of ground but ties it all together.

u/simmelianben · 1 pointr/writing

> do you know of any helpful formatting guides?

Here's a google search
that may help you get started. That said, just getting the words onto paper will be the hardest, longest portion of the work.

I would also suggest reading some non-fiction books for ideas of how you can layout your ideas.

"Group Theory in the Bedroom" for instance uses essays with postscripts/afterwords for each chapter. Each 'chapter' is it's own, self-contained work. You could yank out any chapter and have a cohesive work.

Meanwhile, "Guns, Germs, and Steel" breaks down more by topic/question and ties them together for a summary "the whole is greater than the parts" ending. You cannot take out a portion and still get the whole idea. They all intertwine.

Then you have biographies of all sorts that basically start with "So and so was born" and tell the story from there. You can yank out a portion and get a cohesive idea about "so and so's" high school years or education, but not the entire person.

I'd suggest leaning towards a Guns, Germs, and Steel style if you can. Tying together how fried chicken carries across cultures, connects huge portions of the planet, and carries an huge amount of "cultural capital" in popular culture and real life would be huge.

Some examples you can borrow/develop:

  • KFC is huge in China, bigger than McDonalds even.
  • The Japanese celebrate Christmas by eating KFC
  • The film "The Help" includes Fried Chicken as a crucial plot point as a black woman teaches her white employer how to make it properly. Fried Chicken is a form of "Cultural capital" in the film.

    Last words: You're looking at the phenomenon of Fried Chicken, so sociological concepts like Phenomenonology and other Sociological terms will help you in the research phase of your question. Cultural rifts about fried chicken and "the right" way to make it for example will likely be discussed using terms like "cultural lag" and "norms".
u/kandoras · 1 pointr/books

The (mostly complete) collection of works by Mary Roach. They're pop science, but great reads.

Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond. Both great books on how different cultures either became more or less powerful than others (how come large civilizations took longer to rise in sub-Saharan Africa than in Europe) and why some societies just failed completely (Easter Island).

Lies My Teacher Told Me. It shows a lot of details that a typical high school American History textbook just glosses over or ignores.

u/Mercury_NYC · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

If you have a chance, read "Guns, Germs and Steel", it goes into detail exactly how we got to the industrial revolution and what factors caused it.

u/cantidokun · 1 pointr/BlackPeopleTwitter

Troll or not. The best book on the issue you're so wrong about.

u/MercuryChaos · 1 pointr/race

There's more to it. I don't really have the time or desire to explain it all to you, and it'd probably be just as easy for you to read the book yourself anyway. Your local library probably has it, or you can get used copies on Amazon for around $5.

u/MisterE_MD · 1 pointr/history

After I graduated high school/college, one of the first books I picked up for myself was A Short History of the World by H G Wells. It's ~300 pages and, I'm sure, is not a perfect account of world history... but, Wells takes the universe back to its origins to his present day (post WWI).

If you just want an explanation as to how civilizations formed and why some seem more successful than others, I loved Guns, Germs, & Steel. My world history teacher used it as a template for our course, and I read it after. Excellent book.

u/haroldp · 1 pointr/gifs

>Sometimes, you can even pry open the peach pit and see something that looks just like a shelled almond inside. You probably don't want to eat that though. I believe they have cyanide in them.

So do almonds, or WILD almonds did, anyway. But the cyanide producing gene switches off frequently and it was relatively easy to domesticate them.

Oak tree acorns are ALSO poisonous to humans, but sometimes that gene switches off and they aren't. Story is, in hard times, people used to know the oak tree in town that was ok to eat. However, oak trees were never domesticated because they take so long to grow, and also squirrels ruin everything.

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

u/terpichor · 1 pointr/geography

Great Maps seems to come up sometimes when people are talking about good geography books, as well as Maps: Their Untold Stories. I have a list somewhere of good map books, I'll check when I get home.

For geology, Assembling California is pretty accessible, as are most of his books.

If they haven't read it, Guns, Germs, and Steel is pretty great for people who are interested in geography. It's more anthropology, but he talks a lot about how the physical spaces people built settlements in affected how they developed.

Do you know any more details of what kind of geology in particular they like?

u/fridgidfallus · 1 pointr/alaska

I agree with you that equality is a fallacy that doesn't really exist. Some people are simply born with better tools in their toolbox. Some people are nicer, smarter, better looking, and some people are are dumb, ugly, assholes. That's just the way of the world. However, the notion that race determines any sort of objective intelligence characteristic has been roundly rejected by the anthropological, biological, and sociological communities (read: all of credible science). Yes, race can determine your height, color of your skin, your hair type, but it does not determine your intelligence. Any studies that claim that race does this have been show to be using a biased test. Giving a kid from the Sahara a #2 pencil and asking him to complete an IQ test in English, isn't really a fair measuring stick. One also has to remember that race and culture are two related but different things. You are born WITH your race INTO your culture. There can definitely be cultures that place different levels of value on certain types of intelligence, decorum, physical beauty, etc and therefore cause their cultural members to strive for/away from those certain characteristics. But the thought that onc group is inherently better or smarter based on their race is the textbook definition of racism and asking for a separation of people based along these lines is extremely racist. Most of the differences that are apparent today have a lot more to do with opportunity, access to resources, geography, and well.. simple luck. I recommend Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. In there he very eloquently explains a lot of the factors that lead to Europeans finding their way to the top of the heap.

That being said, if you want to have one country that is whites only that's totally fine for you to want it. But you gotta realize that's a pretty racist thing to want. I don't accept the notion that a homogeneous society is inherently better than a mixed race one. I have heard you claim that no one has provided tangible evidence of the benefits of a mixed race society. That is very difficult because the main benefits are acceptance and open mindedness and those are not very tangible benefits in the sense you are looking for. But I would ask you to explain to me the credible and tangible benefits to a homogeneous society. And we have to remember that correlation does not equal causation. Show me something credible that proves the link.

u/Fireclave · 1 pointr/worldbuilding

This might be overkill to suggest, but you might be interested in the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel", by Jared Diamond. It's an archaeological exploration of causes behind why power, wealth, and technology became so unevenly distributed around the world. It explores factors such as environment, resources, agriculture, and culture. It's certainly good food for thought for these kind of questions.

u/RochnessMonster · 1 pointr/history


Book I read last year after a deep dive into Carlin's Hardcore History podcast. I got curious about how and why certain civilizations form the way they do and how quickly they advance, and I knew if you toss out the obvious, wrong answer (racism) there had to be a whole bucket of knowledge exploring it.

u/russilwvong · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook

"The March of Folly" is a pretty easy read. A good place to start. The focus is primarily on the Vietnam War, though.

Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel argues that the origins of civilizations are closely tied to the invention and spread of agriculture. Also an easy read. Won the Pulitzer Prize.

I'd also recommend William McNeill's A World History for a broad overview of human history, starting with the ancient civilizations.

u/Heyorant · 1 pointr/uwaterloo

>Again, name a non-asian stable country.

>not knowing when our stability started, not knowing Western history, forgetting what nuance is yet again

>White people built the cities and their wealth

Fuck off. Don't reply to me anymore. I'm done with this White Pride^TM historically revisionist bullshit. Non-white people aren't people to you, and any of their contributions, innovation, or leadership in the Western world since its inception are invalid, so frankly, you aren't a person to me either. Your brand of culture that you express is trash.

It's cultish vomit, you should kys, and you should export yourself elsewhere where you aren't enjoying the fruits of past immigrants' labour out of ethical commitment.

Not completely on this topic (I don't have the time to find literature on hand for our conversation), but because of your illiteracy (combined with brash, dehumanizing extremity) I've noticed in some areas, here are a few accessible books I'd recommend reading in general

and, just to really get on your nerves, here's some interesting triggering history of philosophy

Islamic scholars also scoured the earth to obtain copies of books and texts so that they may build on that knowledge and share it with future generations. But progression in society is not always a certainty.

u/apullin · 1 pointr/AdviceAnimals

That's where it starts to get pretty tricky. I assume that you've read Guns, Germs, and Steel, wherein the domestication of plants and animals is talked about, and reminds me of the very point that you're raising.

I'm not sure. Would the corn propagate without our intervention? There are seedless plants that wouldn't, for example. But I'm not sure, I don't have a great answer here.

Consider the native American Three Sisters method, where they specifically use systems of natural occurrence for the benefit of the crops.

u/rogue417 · 1 pointr/AskReddit

You should read this

u/kalimashookdeday · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

There are lots of different theories out there, some stronger than others. One that you may find interesting and that I enjoyed reading and getting more insight on is that of Jared Diamond. He has a book called, Guns, Germs, and Steel I would recommend as a good read for a theory about this. There are some criticisms of Diamond, but most theories have a few.

Diamond's book discusses plenty of reasonings and ideas for why societies in Europe/Asia developed. He starts by explaining ideas of a hunter gathering society's limitations on technological advancement as well as the society/cultural connotations versus those of agrarian societies (who invented farming). A huge difference being farming societies had more time to develop other areas and skills (technology, art, etc.).

Another one of his compelling ideas is that horizontally oriented societies benefited more from similiar plants, animals, and trade versus societies who were oriented vertically. Due to climate and simliarities in culture (in horizontally oriented societies) the spread of technology, domestication, and availability of different animals and resources aided man's ability to develop faster than Native cultures on North America for instance.

u/Captain_Waffle · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. One of the best-written books I've ever read, a historical look at how geographical and environmental factors shaped the modern world. Basically how we (societies) can all come from the same place and yet be so drastically varied from place to place over the course of thousands of years. Not only is it immensely interesting and thoughtful, but the writing is exquisite.

u/ocktick · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Jared Diamond - Guns Germs and Steel would disagree, it's incredibly interesting, you should consider reading it.

u/Iamaleafinthewind · 1 pointr/todayilearned

You keep focusing on race.

It had nothing to do with magic race powers. White folks aren't magically superior, Islanders aren't magically inferior.

A low-tech culture encountered a high-tech culture. It had nothing to do with the specific cultures in play - the dynamics are universally bad for the low-tech / undeveloped culture in these situations, from the perspective of retaining independence.

The reality is that they now have self-rule, which monarchy ISN'T, and access to all the benefits of the higher-tech culture, which are desirable by people in general, regardless of WHO manages to develop them first. Yes, new problems arise as technology advances, but that's part of life.

In any case, my point stands - race isn't a determinant in the outcome of these situations. Read Guns, Germs, Steel sometime if you want a better idea what is.

u/Poland_Is_Kill · 1 pointr/worldnews

Any history text book ever and literally a quick google search would confirm what xboxmodscangostickit (sorry if I misspelled that) said but anyways if your really interested I recommend this book Guns, Germs, and Steel it goes into detail on why the native Americans did not develop technologically as much as Europe and how foreign diseases helped wipe them out.

u/antonbe · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

I've immersed myself in science and history my whole life and quite possibly the best book I've ever come across that condenses everything in a sequential order is "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.

> In A Walk in the Woods, Bill Bryson trekked the Appalachian Trail—well, most of it. In A Sunburned Country, he confronted some of the most lethal wildlife Australia has to offer. Now, in his biggest book, he confronts his greatest challenge: to understand—and, if possible, answer—the oldest, biggest questions we have posed about the universe and ourselves. Taking as territory everything from the Big Bang to the rise of civilization, Bryson seeks to understand how we got from there being nothing at all to there being us. To that end, he has attached himself to a host of the world’s most advanced (and often obsessed) archaeologists, anthropologists, and mathematicians, traveling to their offices, laboratories, and field camps. He has read (or tried to read) their books, pestered them with questions, apprenticed himself to their powerful minds. A Short History of Nearly Everything is the record of this quest, and it is a sometimes profound, sometimes funny, and always supremely clear and entertaining adventure in the realms of human knowledge, as only Bill Bryson can render it. Science has never been more involving or entertaining.

The book is simply amazing. I learn something new from it everytime I read it and I highly recommend it to everyone from an uneducated teenager to a PhD carrying senior!

While you're at it, I would also recommend the rest of his books. Bryson is an amazing nonfiction writer (I daresay one of the best in the world) and his penmanship will captivate you. Just search for him on Amazon and pick another one of his books up in a category that interests you as he writer about a very broad range of topics.

Edit: Also, I highly recommend "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared M. Diamond. and Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt

u/HolyRamenEmperor · 1 pointr/atheism

As others have said, reading the books themselves is the ultimate illuminator. Seeing first-hand the insanity, dissonance, and hostility evident in the original documents is invaluable.

I recently finished Sam Harris's The End of Faith, and while somewhat meandering at times (and confusing in his usage of the word "spirituality" to mean "sense of wonder" or "self-consciousness" or even a sort of "high"), he focuses on rationality vs religiosity, often going very in-depth into those holy books of the Abrahamic religions (remember that Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, and even Islam claim to rever the same character, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob).

Another book that I just added to my wishlist is Asimov's Guide to the Bible... apparently it's pretty "understanding" of religion, but he's a brilliant author and a staunch atheist, so I'm very interested in what he had to say about the historicity of the Bible.

u/DidntClickGuy · 1 pointr/pics

Ah, so the real problem here is that you don't know anything about Buddhism and its function as a religion. Here is a good introductory book about it written by one of its best-educated scholars. And while we're at it, you may be interested in this well-known atheist's views about the difference between faith and meditation.

u/LordUa · 1 pointr/Christianity

I would suggest reading The End of Faith by Sam Harris. This may be helpful to you, or it may not. I had lost my faith by the time I read this one, but I think it would be a good read for some one in your situation.

u/ohisuppose · 1 pointr/worldnews

Everyone commenting here should read this book:

u/Dem0s · 1 pointr/atheism

I like them both and have strong points that compliment each other. I would suggest reading both and then moving on to The Greatest Show on Earth, The End Of Faith and Unweaving the Rainbow in no particular order, but all great books in their own right.

u/Shizuma_Hanazono · 1 pointr/Destiny

It's a direct quote from The End of Faith on page 41.

>There may even be some credible evidence for reincarnation.

He cites as a reference for this "evidence": Stevenson, Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, Unlearned Language New Studies in Xenoglossy, and Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect.

u/super__mario · 1 pointr/TrueAtheism

If you will read only one book read The End of Faith by Sam Harris.

This is the best critique of faith that really explains why believing on bad evidence is itself a problem, but also why omnipotent, intelligent being would not demand it from other sentient, intelligent beings.

u/ManWithGoldenGun · 1 pointr/todayilearned

Please elaborate. How is a moral code where man's life is the standard to determine that which is good or bad an improper starting point for a moral basis? Which other starting point would be preferable? Be specific.

People who follow Rand aren't suggesting that nobody before has thought out a system of morality. What many -myself included - have determined is that morality has historically determined by religious institutions like the Catholic Church, or political systems which did not recognize or uphold the concept of individual rights.

Because Rand is not recognized by a few prestigious, Ivy League institutions, she deserves no credibility?

Where by the same institutions would hold up a thinker like Kant- who offered to the world a secularized version of the Catholic Church code of morality- is recognized as an important thinker? I think your basis for objectivity and validity is flawed, especially when you rely on Ivory Tower thinkers to determine which philosophy is relevant or applicable rather than take the time and energy to think for yourself.

More over, have you ever actually read any of the more in depth works, exploring her philosophy? Or just cherry pick a few chapters from VoS and decide you don't agree?

u/Arguron · 1 pointr/philosophy

The justifications you are interested in have been concealed from you in the following books: They were first presented in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology(1979) and were further expanded in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand(1991).

Many contemporary Philosophers are continuing her work. Including Douglass B. Rassmusen, with his Groundwork for Rights
and Tara Smith with Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist.

The fact that you were previously unaware that this information existed does not discredit her Philosophy. That is what we call: The argument from personal incredulity.

u/the_calibre_cat · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

>Evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years.

I love it when liberals invoke arguments that, in other arguments, creationists invoke. Basically, humans have been around for more than thousands of years (2 million, approximately), human civilization has been around for more than thousands of years, and honestly? If we can see significant changes over thousands of years, we can see less significant changes over hundreds of years - and we do.

It should also be noted that more interacting samples increases the rate of mutation, and tests of fitness - which is exactly what happened during the agricultural revolution. More food meant more humans meant more evolution, and this is the premise behind the book The 10,000 Year Explosion discusses.

>By that logic, if choose to rob a bank, to home and fuck my wife and get her pregnant, my kid has a higher chance of growing up to be a bank robber. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

No, not whatsoever, since that crime was likely motivated by aggression and a lack of respect for social norms that is behaviorally coded for somewhere in your genetics - and that will be carried on if you planted your seed in a woman who bore your child.

Rather than ridiculous, it's basically "the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior," which apart from being true within generations, is pretty fucking true across generations thanks to our awareness of genetics, which demolishes blank slate theory that nonetheless dominates the cultural signaling apparatus.

u/thenamtab · 1 pointr/TheRedPill

No offense, but this is not true. There has been enough time for genetically-based differences to have possibly emerged.

Here’s another example of evidence suggesting otherwise.

u/hailmurdoch14 · 1 pointr/TopMindsOfReddit

Race IS a euphemism for sub-species. Saying "no it's not" isn't exactly a compelling counter-argument. Every species has sub-species within it. Have you really not ever noticed that we don't call anything else on this planet another human sub-species? Do you think we are the one species on earth that is magically not subject to evolution, and that we don't have any diversity? The reason you never hear this is because we use the term race, to de-animalize the language when dealing with people.

And if you don't deny that the African Lion and the Asian Lion have real and meaningful differences between them, then why would you argue that an African Human and an Asian Human have no difference between them. The African Human and the Asian Human are MUCH more distinct than an African Lion and an Asian Lion are from each other.

And humans DID need to adapt. Obviously. Why do you think some groups developed light skin and dark skin? Because in different parts of the world, people needed different melanin levels to appropriately let in the right amount of vitamin D, while also guarding against harmful UV rays. Why do you think some people developed an epicanthic eye fold and some did not? The East Asians, evolving on the desert steppe there in Asia, had to deal with an unusual amount of glare compared to any other human group, which lead to more narrow eyes. You are deeply underinformed if you aren't aware of the fact that the different human groups faced vastly different selective pressures, having traveled to wildly different environments. You think that a Black African moving up to icy Scandinavia wouldn't need to adapt to the new environment? Are you twelve?

And they DO die out, that's how evolution works. The creature doesn't morph like a pokemon. Ones that are maladapted to the new environment do not survive and do not reproduce, and the few that ARE properly adapted bottleneck the genome and reset the species at a new normal, in a relatively quick time.

You think meaningful evolution takes millions of years? At least learn something about the subject before attempting to speak with some authority. Evolutionary changes happen very quickly, they are just usually few and far between due to the relative stability of environments. As soon as a massive environmental shift happens, evolutionary adaptation to that change will happen very quickly. An animal species can change core attributes within a very short time, as humans have proved through breeding wolves into all the different dog breeds we have today. Or by experiments where we put creatures in certain environments, and find that they can physiologically adapt within decades.

"Rapid Evolution Changes Species in Real Time"

"Instant" Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches, Study Says

"Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island"

Watching Evolution Happen in Two Lifetimes

Lastly, interbreeding and producing fertile children in absolutely NO WAY interferes with the fact that the different human populations are all branching evolutions of the species Homo Sapiens. By definition, sub-species of the same species can of course interbreed with each other and produce fertile offspring. That's what makes them sub-species, and not different species.

Two animals are considered sub-species of the same species, when they could interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but are still distinguishable from each other with over 80% accuracy. So the African Lion and the Asian Lion are both obviously Lions, they could both obviously breed with each other and produce fertile offspring, but they are also distinct enough from one another, than humans can tell the two breeds apart with over 80% accuracy.

Now ask yourself. Can African Humans and Asian Humans interbreed and produce fertile offspring? Yes, they can. Which means we know that they are the same species. Now ask yourself, can you distinguish between an African Human and an Asian Human with over 80% accuracy? Then you know that by the rules of science, African Humans and Asian Humans are both members of the species Homo Sapiens, and are two different sub-species of that species.

Also, your implication that there aren't major genetic differences between the races is false. Scientists, forensic anthropologists, and other important fields regularly use DNA evidence to determine the race of a subject. The race of a person can be determined from their DNA with extreme accuracy, and can even tell what race the father was (by checking the Y chromosome), and what race the mother was, (by checking the Mitochondrial DNA).

You really should read a book called "The 10,000 Year Explosion" by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending.

This book details how humans have evolved a great deal over the past 10,000 years. I really hope you take a look, because your idea that evolution is a slow process that takes millions of years is just patently wrong, and your idea that humans didn't evolve and adapt to wildly different environments in isolation from each other over a long enough period to become distinct enough from each other to be worth mentioning is ridiculous.

u/Darwins_Beard · 1 pointr/evolution

If you're really interested in the evolution of the human brain and how evolution has shaped our psychology, I suggest reading Steven Pinker's "How the Mind Works." It's not a light read, but it's incredibly fascinating.

For a more general look at recent human evolution, I enjoyed "The 10,000 Year Explosion." The authors argue that genetic changes have led to higher than average IQs among European Jews.

u/CharlesAnonymousVII · 1 pointr/atheism

Now I hate to break up the like-fest, but a theist could argue maybe that modern man is not exactly or substantially the same as the species of homo sapiens which inhabited the earth during those hundreds of millenia of which Hitchens speaks. Cochran & Harpending's The 10,000 Year Explosion (an excellent, relatively new publication garnering high-acclaim) truly provides a lot of evidence for the idea that Man has evolved rapidly since as recent as the advent of agriculture and argues that we're actually quite different from the typical human who lived just 10 centuries ago. So I see no reason to think that homo sapiens couldn't have undergone any subtle alterations, throughout those 98,000 years of miserable "indifference", that could've been important re: the farming revolution(s) and nonetheless significant enough to undermine the sentiment behind this quote. Along similar lines, then, this devil's advocate might object that God perhaps waited until the end of earth's last major ice age before instituting some grand change and fulfilling the divine plan in question.

A number of explanations/rationalizations could plausibly survive definite -- i.e., undeniably compelling -- debunkery; and that'll forever suffice to sanction faith for the majority of religious believers. But the difficulty w/the atheist's logic here, for me, lies w/the apparent imposition of thoroughly anthropomorphic standards upon this alleged, presumably super-ethical deity of Christianity (viz., one which would probably not be held to the same norms of morality and justification as we social humans of fragile civilizations are and always need to be). Ultimately, in this case, if I were Hitch I would've restrained my urge to announce any bold claims about which theoretical notions are indubitably out of doxastic bounds for what's supposed to amount to the entire class of existing rational agents.

u/stcamellia · 1 pointr/AskScienceDiscussion

Environmental factors are surely important. Culture is hard to tease out of other research.

There is some emerging work on how humans have evolved int he past 10,000 years. This book for instance that talks about how humans have been changing.

While this might seem to contradict the consensus in the thread that the "races" are not really races, I don't think its a stretch to acknowledge differing selective pressures in humans across the planet but still note that a) interracial genetic variance is on the same order as variance between races and b) humans are all still one human race.

It is also worth pointing out that the "white race" or the "black race" is not very descriptive. Are Egyptians as "black" as Somalians or Kenyans? Are Spaniards as "white" as Brits or Russians?

u/JCCheapEntertainment · 1 pointr/aznidentity

>As for your “race realist” beliefs, the way I see those theories is that they are backwards rationalization of “innate” human capacities based on results of recent history (a time period that accounts as a mere tick on the entire span of human time-line). It also does not take account the effects of disparity in starting points of geography and environment, and different available starting packages offered by said environments.

They're not backwards rationalizations for the results of recent history. Evolution never stopped, different selection pressures have been placed on different lineages of humans ever since they diverged some 40-50k years ago when the group that became our ancestors (all none Africans) marched out of Africa. And the theory of course takes into account varying geography and environments, in fact they were the very driving force behind the evolution of different population traits or averages. Culture and biology are intertwined, they can and in fact have co-evolved with each other throughout our evolutionary history. If you're open to learning more about this, The 10,000 Year Explosion is a good primer on the topic of recent human evolution. It is an easy (even if you have little knowledge on genetics) and succinct read, but is definitely compelling in the theories it puts forth as they are backed up by ample evidence.

>if you want to subscribe to “race-realist” beliefs, then you might as well save the effort and just kowtow to the white man's self-researched “Goldilocks superiority”, and accept your current lot in life as a second/third class worker drone. After all, if “race-realism” is real, then everything as manifested in the status quo is the natural order of things right? Why struggle instead of just accepting the world order? It's yet another comfortable trap of contentment to curl up in after all.

You speak of "subscribing to 'race-realist' beliefs" as if it's some religion one can just choose to follow or not. It's either science or it's not, and if the former, then I have no choice but to "subscribe" to it. For every group of people, there are theories in the race realism framework that would make them uneasy and perhaps feel some sort of immediate revulsion to. But at the end of the day, how one feels about these theories are completely irrelevant, if the research methodologies are sound (which after having read many books and studies on both sides of the debate, I've deemed to be so), then the ensuing results and conclusions must be incorporated into our understanding of the world. Admittedly not all aspects of racial differences are well studied, which is exactly why they should be, science and knowledge in itself is neither good nor evil, morality only comes into play when it's time for their application. And again, just as evolution never stopped at the advent of human cultures, it continues to enact itself even today, and will continue to do so for as long as humans exist. So just because the white man might be the "Goldilocks" currently, doesn't mean Asians cannot become strictly better in every genetic metric that matters via the application of science. So no, understanding race realism does not at all necessitates one to "just accept the world order".

>Empathy could be useful for knowing your enemy, know what makes them tick, and devise how to deal with them. Going beyond that becomes sympathizing with them, a pit of no return where you become their useful idiot.

Yes point taken. But again, I'm not at all advocating for Asians to put their necks out on the line for them right now (or ever if one chooses not to), but rather once our position is secured, why not help the other groups of people? It is the moral thing to do. There's little to be gained from being cruel masters.

>As for morality, I got only one word: Lol. We Asians are family-oriented though, so save that morality for your loved ones.

This ties back to my earlier point that humanity is an extended family. You don't treat all members of your family the same, do you? Of course not, that would be impossible. Some you like more, some you like less. Some you treat better and help out more, others you're simply indifferent to. But at the end of the day, they're still your family members. Barring unforgivable transgressions, you would not usually wish irreversible ills upon any member. And so it goes for me when it comes to humanity.

>Why is it always individuals from the losing side that talks about reconciling with everyone to sing cum bah yah? Why is it that Asians, the most ridiculed race on planet earth, who have the least reason to want to reconcile, have most people among them that want reconciliation?

Hopefully you realize by now that's not the message I was trying to convey. No illusions of pleading and begging the victor for pity and scraps on my end here. The future goal is exactly that, for the future, after we get our own shit taken care of. East Asians are well on their way to reclaiming the throne for the top civilizational center of the world. The dominance of the West over Asia is an aberration through the lens of history.

>You want to change the rules of the game from zero-sum (the way history and nature had operated since inception) to something else? At the very least, you have to be in charge in order to have any chance of changing the rules.

Precisely. This was implicitly stated in my previous comment, guess it wasn't clear enough.

>And all this without even having to look at how all utopian ideals fail to address how to change human nature to make that utopia work.

I don't believe in Utopias, because that implies there is some idealized final destination for society, which goes against science. And yes human nature needs to be changed for the better, it will continue to evolve, just as it has always done so. But if science and technology grants us the choice to direct it to a course that would be beneficial for all of humanity, why not take it?

>then we are eagerly wanting to break bread and seek commonality with white nationalists.

In general, Nationalists (who love their own) are not Supremacists (who hate and oppress others), this applies to nationalists of all races, whether they be Asian, white, brown or black. And if they follow similar core beliefs as those that I outlined, which many do, then they can definitely be reasoned with and made into allies for the common Human Nationalist cause. I'd die for my family, have love my people, and do good for humanity.

>What “unique strengths” would that be? Whites are more adept at leadership? Asians at being mental workhorses? Blacks at being physical workhorses? Latinos at keeping the spaceship decks immaculate?

Lol. Not everyone needs to work or even be on the spaceship. In any case, by the time such efforts become feasible, the state of science and technology (especially wrt automation) would likely be very different from that of today, so it's rather pointless to speculate about it now.

u/umbrellapower · 1 pointr/asianamerican

So Nigerians aren't representative of African-Americans despite your entire argument being based on race? I agree that these two groups shouldn't be compared, but you're the one who brought up race. If I'm not mistaken, the majority of African-Americans can trace their lineage to West Africa.

Of course intelligence has a base in genetics, but genes mutate all the damn time. And there's now evidence that civilization contributes a significant portion. Take a look at this:

What I'm trying to get at is that intelligence - as defined by Western academia - may not be distributed evenly across the races, but it's not magic. It is cultivated and it is most definitely not an inherent property of any race, contrary to what racists might believe.

>You stated that the school a student goes to results in similar kinds of students.

Take a look at the usernames.

u/RobertGreenIngersoll · 1 pointr/exatheist

>rather suddenly, came abstract thought, art, religion, jewelry, and eventually things like language and alphabets. Our consciousness greatly leaped forwards, and began exponentially increasing on such a level that it still hasn't stopped. Interestingly, interference from something like Set is by far more parsimonious than the entire humans species magically sharing the same mutation which overwrites the previous genetic makeup of the whole species, or even worse, having a massive leap forwards as some sort of uncaused event.

Some have argued that not all ethnic groups were equally involved in that leap, and that we only know of the advances of those which did.

>Scientists have long believed that the 'great leap forward' that occurred some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago in Europe marked the end of significant biological evolution in humans. In this stunning account of our evolutionary history, top scholars Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending reject this conventional wisdom and reveal that the human species has undergone a storm of genetic change much more recently. Human evolution in fact accelerated after civilisation arose, they contend, and these ongoing changes have played a pivotal role in human history. They argue that biology explains the expansion of the Indo-Europeans, the European conquest of the Americas, and European Jews' rise to intellectual prominence. In each of these cases, the key was recent genetic change: adult milk tolerance in the early Indo-Europeans that allowed for a new way of life, increased disease resistance among the Europeans settling America, and new versions of neurological genes among European Jews. Ranging across subjects as diverse as human domestication, Neanderthal hybridization, and IQ tests, Cochran and Harpending's analysis demonstrates convincingly that human genetics have changed and can continue to change much more rapidly than scientists have previously believed.

u/JacksonMiholf · 1 pointr/beholdthemasterrace

Except yes:

Evolution and biology explain the differences much better.

> comparing tests from the 20's to the tests of the 70's as if the testing hasn't changed at all since then

> socioeconomic status improved

So if it's just culture then why did Jews and Italians increase in SES but so many others didn't? Wouldn't they all increase since the environment is shared? Why just them?? Seems like a hole in your narrative.

u/ThrongSong- · 1 pointr/ufc

You have no fucking clue what the "research shows." Again, you're a brainless NPC spouting politically convenient gibberish. If only all humans had an equal capacity for high intelligence the world would be a much better place, but that's not how it is.

Where do you get the idea that because the brain is complex it would be less susceptible to mutation as opposed to more susceptible? After all, which would you say has had the greatest impact in the past 100,000 years, our legs, our opposable thumbs, our livers, or our brains? As Harpending and Cochran demonstrated in 'The 10,000 Year Explosion' humans have been under intense evolutionary change in regards to the brain most of all.

Here you go, if you weren't a dogmatic dimwit who wants to believe idealistic lies, you could always start here:

u/Obelisk57 · 1 pointr/DebateAltRight

Do you deny that the various races experienced different selective pressures over the last few hundred thousand years? If you accept this, do you also accept that evolution also works on humans as well.

BTW here is a book on recent human evolution

u/MetaMemeticMagician · 1 pointr/TheNewRight


Darwin’s Enemies on the Left and Right Part 1, Part 2 (Blog Post)*

The History and Geography of Human Genes (Abridged edition) – Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza
The 10,000 Year Explosion – Gregory Cochrane
Race, Evolution, and Behavior – Rushton
Why Race Matters – Michael Levin


Intelligence and Mind

The Bell Curve – Charles Murray
The Global Bell Curve – Richard Lynn
Human Intelligence – Earl Hunt
Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence – Robert Sternberg
A Conflict of Visions – Thomas Sowell
The Moral Animal – Robert Wright
The Blank Slate – Stephen Pinker
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature – Murray Rothbard (essay)



Real Education – Charles Murray
Inside American Education – Thomas Sowell
Illiberal Education – Dinesh D’Sousa
God and Man at Yale – William Buckley
Weapons of Mass Instruction – John Taylor Gatto
The Higher Education Bubble – Glenn Reynolds



u/Dat_Gentleman_ · 1 pointr/politics

Have you read On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder? I bought this book about a decade ago (last year, when it came out). If I remember correctly, he wrote it shortly after Trump was elected as a list of 20 warning signs to look out for to ensure that it doesn't go the fascism route.

Chapter 2 is titled: Defend institutions. The idea of this chapter is that institutions have to be protected or they will fall. My favorite anecdote in the book is in this chapter. He talks about how a german jew newspaper wrote an editorial in 1933 more or less telling it's readers to calm down, there was no way that the Nazis would be able to actually follow through with the horrible things outlined in nazi newspapers. Describing balances of power and such that would keep it from happening. Eerily similar to people today, and this book rings true more and more each day. It is less than 100 pages, everyone should read it.

Timothy Snyder WIKI if you would like to know more about the author

Edit: I made myself want to read it again to see how well it held up over all, a year later. I just wanted to post this from the chapter mentioned above regarding institutions.

“Sometimes institutions are deprived of vitality and function, turned into a simulacrum of what they once were, so that they gird the new order rather than resisting it. This is what the Nazis called Gleichschaltung.”

u/joeyisdamanya · 1 pointr/conspiracy

Yes, that is the goal. It happened before, and it's happening again now. Check out On Tyranny

u/bostonbruins922 · 1 pointr/politics

I am of the firm belief that something major is going to happen here by the end of the summer. I don't think it'll be something set up by the government, but I think they will know in advance and they will allow it to happen. Trump wants as much power as he can and after a catastrophic event he will be able to strip us of so many freedoms. I hope I am wrong, but my gut says I am not.

EDIT: From Timothy Snyder's fantatic book On Tyranny
>Be calm when the unthinkable arrives. When the terrorist attack comes, remember that all authoritarians at all times either await or plan such events in order to consolidate power. Think of the Reichstag fire. The sudden disaster that requires the end of the balance of power, the end of opposition parties, and so on, is the oldest trick in the Hitlerian book. Don't fall for it.

Seriously, if you don't have a copy of this book yet, get one. Even if we are way off about Trump, it is still an important read.

u/get_stupid_answers · 1 pointr/politics

If you want something meatier, I recommend this or you can just read the review for free here.

We're in the middle of a culture war because the President encourages violence at his rallies and encourages chants to lock his political opponents up. We're in the middle of a culture war because the President mocks a woman whose account of sexual assault he says is credible, has dozens of sexual assault allegations against himself, and bragged about committing sexual assault. We're in the middle of a culture war because the President has been implicated in multiple federal crimes. We're in the middle of a culture war because the President finds no difference between fascist neo-Nazis who murder people and the counter-protesters who show up to combat them.

Spare me your incredulity of the left. You're part of the problem, but admitting you're wrong requires an iota of courage and a commitment to the principles of liberal democracy.

You want a book? Maybe read something other than Mein Kempf. Better yet, read it so that you can understand where Trump's coming from, because it's the only book I've ever heard it reported that he's actually read.

u/carolina_snowglobe · 1 pointr/politics

Also read On Tyranny by Snyder. A quick read that’s very much worth your time.

u/beatenwords · 1 pointr/alberta

Work in the oil patch, and political cesspool is perfectly accurate. Your comment has been my daily life for the last 4 years of Liberal government. I have social anxiety and never used to speak up in the lunchroom, preferring to just bury my face in a book and tune out the nonsense. But I can't not speak out anymore.

After the US election in 2016, a tinder girl I liked but never met up with recommended a book to me that changed my life and how I view my place in society. "On Tyranny" by Timothy Snyder is the shortest, and most important book that I have read in the last couple of years. I think I've purchased at least 6 copies, giving it away freely to anyone I've thought might be interested in what it has to say.

The world is changing, and certain trends are bringing us closer and closer to a darker and darker version of the adjacent possible. Our politicians are paying close attention to what works on our poor neighbours to the South, and are using those tactics to incite hatred at home and radicalize our friends and family members against their own countrymen, all for their own political gains. They have no intention of bringing this country together. That is left to us, the silent ones keeping our heads down for fear of standing out against the mob. We must speak up, and bridge the divide.

So I've stopped biting my tongue. It's not always pretty. Sometimes people blow-up at you, or insult you directly. Those are usually the ones that can't think outside the box their Facebook memes have them trapped in emotionally. The argument devolves quickly. But I don't lose my patience. I might not get through to the loudest guys in the room, but there are always others who are capable of genuinely listening to what I have to say. They don't even have to agree with me, I just encourage them to listen and think about it, and to educate themselves instead of just parroting memes and talking points. These people are being lied to every day, and they are afraid for their futures. Be understanding and receptive to their complaints, admit when you don't know the answers, and correct them when they are spreading propaganda.

Remember, I'm pulling for ya, we're all in this together.

u/maryet26 · 1 pointr/politics

If you like the article, I definitely recommend you read the full essay (where this was excerpted from). It is a quick read (maybe 1.5 hours) and really contextualizes the reasoning behind each point into lessons learned from the 20th century. I cannot recommend it highly enough: On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century

u/tortugavelozzzz · 1 pointr/conspiracy

Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History

u/PrestigiousProof · 1 pointr/DebateVaccines

Vaccines are a $35 Billion year business. That buys a lot of shills and trolls. Yes, people who like making $35 Billion a year attack scientists who put children first.

I recommend everyone read Dissolving Illusions. One of the most important books ever written.

u/SuperShak · 1 pointr/conspiracy

Dissolving Illusions came out pretty recently and does a great job of covering the history of vaccination.

u/imfalliblek · 1 pointr/MLS

Anyone interested in understanding the tactics would do well to read Inverting the Pyramid, a history of soccer tactics. It's an intereting and informative read, and pairs well with your browser and youtube. It's fun to pull up clips (when available) of games and moves the author mentions. For example, when he talks about Kruyf - just find kruyf on youtube and enjoy.
Wonderful combination.

u/xibalba89 · 1 pointr/ranprieur

If you like the patterns, I would recommend this book:

u/Jamie_Gerrard · 1 pointr/LiverpoolFC

Simon Hughes' Red Machine, Men In White Suits, and Ring Of Fire are all interesting and great books.

Jonathan Wilson's The Anatomy of Liverpool was a very good read. Of course, Wilson is best known for Inverting The Pyramid, which is a staple football book.

I also enjoyed David Goldblatt's The Game of Our Lives, which chronicles the Premier League from it's birth to roughly 2014-15 I believe (at least in the paperback edition).

u/SKaigo · 1 pointr/soccer

Well listen to Carragher and Neville when you can.

Read articles on Spielverlagerung when you can, they are written to increase interest much like Cox's are. If you understand German then read the German Spielverlagerung, which has more content and is updated more frequently as it doesn't have to be translated.

In my opinion that's where basic analyses that are found online stop being useful. Spielverlagerung is better than Zonalmarking for match analyses in my opinion, but neither are suitable replacements for tactical knowledge. There are lots of other match analysis sources online but the rest are usually just submitted by less-practiced amateurs.

Jonathan Wilson writes about general tactical trends and is very well known for his book Inverting the Pyramid. By all means check that book out, as it's considered a gateway book to developing your own tactical sense of the game.

So if you're just looking for match analyses then keep reading Zonal Marking or Spielverlagerung, but if you really want to increase your knowledge of the game then read up and develop your own views on tactics.

u/vette91 · 1 pointr/SoccerCoaching

This book, Inverting the Pyramid which is a great start for tactics.

As far as positions and tactics go, how much soccer do you watch? Watching is the best way to learn.

As far as tactics at this age group I usually would stick to a 4-4-2(4 defenders, 2 central midfielders with 2 wide midfielders, and 2 forwards. One of the forwards should drop deeper and play a more of a CAM. They are creative, need to be able to dribble, shoot, have "vision" to pass to open players or play through balls.

As far as teaching them the technical side(dribbling, trapping, shooting ect). The best way to teach them is to let them get as many touches on the ball as possible. Do drills(or games) where you match up two players(of similar skill) and they get one ball and dribble around a cone(or jersey or towel or water bottle or whatever) and then have to find the person they are paired up with. Do that drill but add a couple of defenders in there who put a little pressure on them and it makes the person who is off the ball learn good movement to get open.

Another one I did when I was at that age was we'd have two people one ball and they would dribble up the field, pass it a couple of times, you'd be standing at the top of the box with your back to goal and eventually you'd yell "pass" and whoever has the ball passes it to you and then the two over lap and you randomly choose one side to pass it to and they can take one touch and then they have to shoot the ball. This helps them learn to use both feet, learn to take good first touches as if they take bad touches they won't be in the position to shoot. After they shoot one of them gets the ball and dribbles back and gets in line. (note the line shouldn't be long, you don't want them standing ever really, you want them constantly moving, passing, dribbling ect)

If you PM me I'd love to help talk you through some tactical stuff. I'll look for some websites that I know have good drills. Also, I'd like to thank you personally for taking the time to spend time with young men(or women) and mentor them!

u/djoliverm · 1 pointr/FIFA

If you REALLY wanna like dive deep into soccer and understand everything about formations and the history of the game, get this book:

Inverting The Pyramid: The History of Soccer Tactics

But really if you go on YouTube and with videos that explain the basic rules, subscribe to some great YouTube soccer channels (uMaxit is one, Kick TV another), and start following a team and watching matches you'll be well on your way.

I've always been a Real Madrid fan, but catching games can be tricky if you don't have beIN sports. Download the go90 app and you can stream La Liga and Serie A matches for free, and cast to a chromecast or apple tv. If you wanna get into the premiere league it's pretty easy with NBC Sports, carried by most cable networks. Cheers!

u/porkchameleon · 1 pointr/Barca

"Fear and Loathing in La Liga" is essential, a must read.

Non-Barça, but still interesting read (but hey - if anyone writes about futbol - there will be mentioning of FC Barcelona and their players):

"Inverting the Pyramid" - evolution and analysis of game tactics.

"Soccernomics" is more general, but a very interesting read as well.

Didn't see electronic version, but this one is worth mentioning: "Angels with Dirty Faces", history of Argentinian football.

u/FuckAllOfYouFagets · 1 pointr/todayilearned

>Oh, your point is 100% correct. Israel is the Jewish state.

No. It's a racist ethnostate, much like that envisioned of Adolph himself. And before you retort with some more puerile name calling, take a quick peek at Lenni Brenner's 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis.

>Oh, what a tangled web we weave when our hate for Israel and Jews supersedes all logic and morality. A person that helps someone commit a crime is more guilty than the person who actually commits the crime? You got a legal precedent for that?

First of all, I don't "hate" teh joos. In fact, in some respects, I have the utmost respect for a people who have pulled off some of the shit they've managed to pull off. Your request for legal precedent indicates that you must agree that the law makes no distinction between principle and aider and abettor. We'll just leave it at that since you like the law so much. Israel may plead guilty now - to murder. Again.

>I directly addressed the merits of your point, it appears you simply aren't intelligent enough to understand me.

So, you fancy yourself a logician, eh? Then you must recognize that your attempt to draw a general rule from the atypical case of the Reform Jews is the quintessence of the Hasty Generalization Fallacy. And some of your other points are textbook examples of argumentum ad logicam, and argumentum ad ignorantiam. And of course you've proven yourself the master of argumentum ad hominem.

Just because you cannot countenance the horrific deeds of your race-nation does not mean you have to disparage me by attempting to affiliate me with a white supremacist group. Interestingly, when Identity Christian groups mirror the exact claims of jews by claiming that they too are G-d's chosen people albeit from the Lost Tribes of Israel, they are considered a racist organization. What does that say about judaism? So you see, judaism is much more aligned with Stormfront than am I, which again explains Lenni Brenner's 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis.

u/chupanibre25 · 1 pointr/WTF

I believe it's from Napoleon's Buttons

u/weezer3989 · 1 pointr/AskAcademia

I've heard good things about Napolean's Buttons. Haven't read it myself, but for a few months I kept seeing people reading it around the department.

u/dnacrosslinker · 1 pointr/chemistry
u/GlorifiedPlumber · 1 pointr/ChemicalEngineering

I don't know of any that compare, but, the Napoleon's Buttons is SUPPOSED to be good.

Other books, engineering related, that I liked are:

Norm Lieberman's Process Troubleshooting books, the guy cracks me up!

Working Guide to Process Equipment (3rd edition probably cheaper):

Process Equipment Malfunctions (not as good as the other one, some overlap, but still worthwhile, and covers more breadth for individual issues):

The Prize (mentioned above):

The Quest (Follow on to The Prize):

Oil 101:

The Mythical Man Month (Not engineering directly as it pertains to software, but, projects and project management are huge in engineering, though this book is timeless):

Piping Systems Manual (You can NEVER know enough about pipe!):

Pumps and Pumping Operations (OMG it is $4, hardcover, go buy now! This book is great... did you know OSU didn't teach their Chem E's about pumps? I was flabbergasted, gave this to our intern and he became not a scrub by learning about pumps!):

Any good engineer needs to understand MONEY too:

The Ascent of Money:

It's Nial Fergesuon, who has had his own series of dramas and dumb stuff. The Ascent of Money has a SLIGHT libertarian tinge... but it wasn't bad enough that I didn't enjoy it. I consider it a history book, and he attempts to write it like one.

Have fun!

u/cdcox · 1 pointr/askscience

The substance of civilization. Technically about materials, but this is a great read.

Napoleon's buttons more a collection of stories about how chemistry mattered in society. Very enjoyable though their little briefs on how chemistry works might bore you, but they are quick. and the book is a lot of fun.

Molecules of murder I didn't have time to finish this one, but the parts I got too were quite good. He is an analytical chemist and it comes across in his writing.

u/Andyrr · 1 pointr/worldnews

Yes, I agree with you the survivors and their relatives deserve better.

I back this up with the in-depth writings of Norman Finkelstein . I think his book has been mentioned, but I'll repeat it:

Antisemitism shouldn't be allowed to be used like kryptonite to silence reality.

Perhaps you're familiar with Moshe Feiglin? He is advocating for the "temporary" installment of "concentration camps" and the diaspora of the Palestinians.

u/mphatik · 1 pointr/worldnews

I don't think they are "denying" the holocaust, but again, after reading Dr. Norman Finkelstein's (Who's parents both perished during WW2) book, Holocaust Industry, I have my reservations on the term, "Holocaust".

I don't think Iran is denying the fact that Jews were persecuted just like lots of other races/religions during WW2, but certainly they are debating and discussing this so called, "holocaust".

P.S. Read the book, Holocaust Industry by Dr. Finkelstein.

u/Katholikos · 1 pointr/CasualConversation

No problem, friend.

For an argument against religion, I'd highly recommend the famous The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It's very well-received and typically considered one of the best arguments against.

For an argument in favor of religion, I haven't read it yet, but I've heard very good things about Five Proofs of the Existence of God by Edward Feser.

They go well together, because the Five Proofs book tries to make arguments with specific reference to The God Delusion, but of course there are tons of other resources you could use instead. Either way, if you do decide to read through them, hopefully it at least gets you thinking a bit, even if it doesn't sway your opinion at all! :)

u/iamtimeless · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Children do not have the mental capacity to detect bullshit, hence the need to proactively inoculate them against religious beliefs. Evolution has bestowed an innate belief in God and a sense of an afterlife because of the way our social structures evolved. There are two separate parts in the brain that deal with others.

  • The Lateral cortex deals with perception of self and others bodies and physical attributes

  • The medial frontal cortex deals with perception of self and others emotions, beliefs, desires and intentions

    If you attack me and I hit you with a rock and kill you, my lateral cortex knows that you are dead. However, there was no need for my medial frontal cortex to have the same notion. In fact, believing you are still alive, though not physically, allows my brain to think about why you tried to attack me so I can take further action. It wouldn't be very advantageous to cease to be able to think about why you attacked me the split second you died. These parts of the brain, seemly providing incongruent information, are the basis for why people believe in "souls." The person you are thinking about is both dead and not dead to you, at the same time.

    I won't debate religion with you because it will be a waste of my time. However, I encourage you to read the following books:

    Why We Believe In Gods

    The God Delusion
u/sektober · 1 pointr/atheism

Try this link instead.

u/ethicsengine · 1 pointr/atheism

Oh man, you've hit on a really hard topic.

First off, before I get into any of the juicy topics, let me say this: Consider where your parents are coming from based on their views. An analogy: If you were evacuating a building on fire and saw someone who didn't know they are in danger, would you try to notify them? For the sake of argument, let's say yes (I expect so). They see this world as a building burning down and they view themselves as trying to warn us of the danger we are supposedly in. Expand this to the fact that they are your parents and as their kid, you told them you are walking back into a burning building. They are literally scared for you. Irrationally scared, but still scared non the less. I am not sure if your short term situation or plans, but in the long term you need to accept that they are not going to share your views and may not accept you. Don't let them abuse you! They have to independently accept you for who you are or you need to distance yourself if they don't. Take care of yourself, maintain your dignity and self respect, and make decisions that make you happy and lead you towards living a happy and fulfilled life.

Some information on their reaction:

> I tried to be gentle about it and not criticize her but she kept telling me to defend why I didn't believe in God, and then when I answered she was like "you're trying to disprove God and attack my beliefs" . she later said I was being rude, (I was being as respectful as possible) when I explained that she said I was being "politely rude"???? But because of my beliefs I obviously thought she was a moron and I reject her values. (I never called her a moron and I said that I respected her faith and I didn't want this to be a source of contention for us)

Let's step back and parse this. Typically, strongly religious people follow a form of ethics called "Theological Ethics." The theological ethics system may incorporate other forms of ethics such as utilitarian, kant or phenomenological, but it is ultimately rooted in theology. Do [Action] because god demands it in or through [insert religious book, prophet, etc...]. In their view, all ethics and morality flow only from god. If god says give to the poor, you give to the poor. If god says kill that tribe, you kill that tribe. All ethics and morals are literally rooted in their version of god.

So, when you say "I don't believe in god," many people will imply "therefore I am not a moral person" OR "you think I am an idiot because I need god to work out what is right or wrong." In some cases, a person "without god" is seen as downright evil. However, we know that people can be moral and develop an ethics system without attributing it to or believing in god. We often follow heuristics such as the golden rule, informed consent or "no person is a means to an end."

Some theologians argue that this is only by the grace of god that he has allowed us to be a tool for good despite disbelieving, never mind that in many religions we are still considered doomed to eternal torment no matter how much good we do in the world and that an immoral or amoral person who believes in god has a higher chance into being accepted into paradise over an atheist who genuinely wanted to help others.

A few things you can do is work out why you can continue being a good person without needing to believe in a god. I personally see value in both society and individuals. I want the world to be a better place so that I can enjoy less violence, longer healthier lives. I want to see people individually succeed because it betters our society. Society is made up of individuals. Because life is precious, and this is our one life, we must make the most of it but not at the expense of others because their life is precious too. Informed consent is incredibly important. A society following informed consent reduces or prevents rape, murder, irresponsible or malicious human testing, robberies, etc...

Anyways, if you are interested in ethics and morality in the context of atheism and why reason will likely lead to a more just society, you should pick up a copy of The Moral Arc by Michael Shermer.

If you're interested in why atheism and why you don't need religion to be moral, you should pick up a copy of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (who is giving an AMA this may 27).

I personally think you will have a hard time converting your family to atheism, but if you want to shore up some of your arguments about why atheism, you should pick up a copy of A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghassian. I don't recommend you actively seek out these conversations with your family at this point, but they can help give you a better grounding about your belief system (yes, atheism is a belief system).

To conclude, don't stop loving your parents but don't let them abuse you either.

[edits for minor typos and formatting]

u/Ohthere530 · 1 pointr/TrueAtheism

Atheism is spreading and seems to be getting more socially acceptable in many parts of the US. That is a social phenomenon worth studying.

Atheism itself (non-belief in any gods) isn't much of a belief system, but it is often associated with other beliefs. In that sense, there are "atheistic mindsets" worthy of study. Some atheists focus on the reliability of the scientific method and skeptical thinking more generally. Others focus more on the discovery that their childhood religion seems not to make sense. There are probably other clusters of "atheistic thought".

I don't agree with everything they say, but "prominent atheists" like Dennett (link and link) and Dawkins (link) have certainly influenced my thinking.

There are interesting polls (link and link) that give a broad-based sense of what people think about religion and atheism.

How to keep up with atheism? My three main sources are amazon, google, and reddit.

u/theclapp · 1 pointr/atheism

The God Delusion for Kindle for $6.29.

There are Kindle clients for Windows, Mac, iPhones, and several other platforms.

u/ftctkugffquoctngxxh · 1 pointr/clevercomebacks

Most atheists don't actively work on "intensifying" their belief like some religious people do. But if anyone wants a serious suggestion check out The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

u/NeverForgetTheFuture · 1 pointr/atheism

Utter bullshit. The Kindle version of God Delusion is right here. It's the very first result when you search through the Kindle App on the iPhone/iPad. God Delusion is very much available to US readers through both the Apple and Amazon distribution channels. To the extent that people outside the US do not have it available, well, that's on the publisher(s), not Apple/Amazon.

u/xlava · 1 pointr/atheism

No problem. Yeah I feel like thats a question people harp on. If god does exist and he seriously is so close minded that he'll send me to hell for not believing in him, but he'll send a mass murderer (who went to confession right before he died) to heaven.... lol fuck that, I don't even know what to say to such a distorted system of justice.


Buy the ebook/kindle book. You can access it via kindle app for your iPhone, and on on your PC. Simply create an account through paypal to pay for it, or buy a visa gift card from a store so you don't have to use parents credit card.

Then log off amazon, clear your history, and nobody will be the wiser.

u/Apokolyptyk · 0 pointsr/changemyview

Oh, I AM correct in my criticism and evaluations.

>It's known that all Bible translations have the same message, so it doesn't particularly matter which version you use. On top of that, there are thousands of manuscripts, among other scripts, of various books of the bible, which shows that the bible has had an extremely consistent translation across time.

Bullshit. Read this book written by a well known bible scholar.

>You cannot conclude that since the bible doesn't talk about same sex marriage then it could be okay

Didn't say that, the bible is clear, homosexuality is sinful according to the texts.

>There is no need to study Jewish history

There is always a need to study Jewish history if you wan't to argue on the internet about the bible, or even understand the context in which the book is written.

>being gay is identified as a sin by the bible, further indicating that gay marriage is wrong.

The bible says gay marriage is wrong, I believe the bible to be immoral and hateful. It is your book that is wrong.

>I do agree that there are many people who like to "interpret" the bible to their liking, but that means they are going against the text, so it doesn't matter what they believe, since it's already outside of the biblical teachings.

Religion is today's world isn't always practiced "by the book" because the many errors in the book make it obvious to any person that possesses even the tiniest bit of logic and common sense that the text can;t be trusted. Therefore the church is backed into a corner to find other means to explain and interpret the problems.

>Also, if you are idiotic enough to just toss aside all the passages that talk about being saved and going to heaven and those that talk of damnation, then you are hopeless

You are misinterpreting the bible and doing exactly what you say is wrong for other people to do. If you are going to go by the text, you must agree that the bible has no clear concept of what happen's to a non saved person after death. Point to to a place in the bible that makes it clear that a non saved person is punished in hell for eternity after death. The western idea of hell came from Dante's Inferno.

>Many people that like to say the bible contradicts itself, are also the same people that don't have much a clue about the bible.

>Just cause you browsed anti-christian threads on r/atheist and looked up "contradictions in the bible" doesn't make you an expert.

I never said I was an expert, but I do live in the bible belt, went to church all my life, and even went to a christian school where I had 2 bible classes a day every day. These things are things we talked about in class constantly as there ARE problems with the bible that can't be dismissed as easily as you would like to. I did my research over the course of many years and came out the other end an atheist and I am all the happier for it because my life has been 1000x better since I found a way out of the constant brainwashing that is religion.

u/AppleLion · 0 pointsr/Libertarian

You are so dangerously naive. Is your first name Neville?

This false concept of policy is one of the biggest obstacles for libertarians. It’s why they think we are crazy. And honestly your belief is crazy. It only works if the entire world is filled with stoners like yourself with the same motivations, culture, religion, and priorities.

You simply can’t understand that people do place missile launchers on the rooftops of elementary schools and hospitals. It’s so far outside of your personal logic that you assume that it’s false, and that western civilization is a fright blight.

You are two steps away from being a leftist demanding white genocide. It’s insanity.

If you still have the ability to reason, instead of emotioning your decisions through life, there’s some very important concepts for you in this book:

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

u/HardCorwen · 0 pointsr/todayilearned

Someone has been reading "The Disappearing Spoon" I take it.

u/londubh2010 · 0 pointsr/collapse

Do you know what Jonah Goldberg's claim to fame is? Nothing. His mother persuaded Monica Lewinsky into hanging onto a semen stained dress. Jonah got a writing gig riding on his mother's coattails.

Here's a good piece from Harper's debunking the piece of crap that Liberal Fascism is.

If that's not amusing enough I suggest you check out the Amazon tags for Jonah's book. They include such masterpieces as:

books written while high on cheeto dust

ein volk ein reich ein bag von cheetos


cheeto macht frei

cheeto-erotic asphyxiation

cheetohouse five

gulag archipecheetoh

mein fuhrer i can type

u/this_is_who_I_am · 0 pointsr/todayilearned

I'm not citing anything, I'm saying that this technology hasn't even been around long enough for us to study the long-term effects! Long-term doesn't mean 3 years. It doesn't mean 20 years. By long-term, I mean:

What genetic mutations might take place our offspring, and in turn, THEIR offspring, due to the strange games we're playing with food today?

You have to look at this from an evolutionary perspective. Man has been cultivating and eating wheat, and unintentionally modifying the wheat we eat, for 40,000 years. Same with fruits and vegetables - by planting the seeds of the best looking fruits from the best looking fruit trees, and not the worst-looking fruits from the worst-looking fruit trees, man genetically modified that fruit, albeit completely unintentionally.

That is a completely different kind of modification than taking the DNA from an animal species and splicing it into the DNA of a plant species. Just because there haven't been any negative side effects yet does not mean that years or decades down the road we're not going to see a bunch of issues from it.

Cancer has been around for a long, long time, and we have linked some things to be possible causes. But cancer has become so widespread in recent years because of the terrible things we put in our bodies and the things to which we expose our bodies over and over again. Every cell we have in our bodies gets its nutrients from what we consume, and if we consume things that our bodies aren't supposed to consume, it causes problems!

Here's your citation - Guns, Germs, and Steel - the Fates of Human Societies

u/Electric2097 · 0 pointsr/CringeAnarchy

Now, I know you probably make it a point not to read anything written by some filthy no-good Jew, but you should take a look at this book.

u/internetcamel · 0 pointsr/todayilearned

Hey you should really [read this] ( I mean yea maybe this one instance is wrong but for sure Native Americans were purposefully infected. It doesnt take a statistician or modern doctor to realize how much more deadly the disease was for them.

u/OB1-knob · 0 pointsr/politics

I appreciate that you're coming at this with an open mind and asking reasonable questions. That's a great start.

The problem is that you've "listening" to the people on the right instead of reading a variety of material. There's way too much background manipulation going on in right-wing media, and what it does is create urgency and rage to open up your limbic brain (the part that controls feelings) to attach emotion to what the speakers are saying to your neocortex (the part that processes reason and language).

This is how marketing works. It's how branding messages bypass our rational thought and make us identify with the brand. It becomes a part of us. It's how commercials are designed to make you want that brand of fast food right now.

By reading, you use your rational brain to decide what you agree or disagree with. I personally feel that if the right had any actual good ideas they wouldn't have to resort to this kind of propaganda technique (Rush Limbaugh's drive-time-rage-show), gerrymandering, vote suppression and election voodoo, and other kinds of dirty tricks.

If they can't compete on a level playing field in the battle of ideas, then their ideas are simply too weak. They had 9 years to replace ObamaCare, so where is it? It doesn't exist because they lied to you. They never wanted a better plan at all.

If you want to understand the reality of what's going on today, stop listening to these talking heads and read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, Al Gore's The Assault On Reason and Sam Harris's The End Of Faith.

These three books are excellent primers to understand the issues facing us today, how we got here and where we need to go.

u/HeavyMetalStallion · 0 pointsr/skeptic

Ah, that is difficult. Middle Eastern conservative conspiracy theorist parents are the most convinced that everyone outside the Middle East is the "enemy". It becomes very hard. They sometimes even believe in many Jewish conspiracies, and may even pretend it has nothing to do with their religious beliefs but it does.

He believes this because he thinks Muslims are incapable of committing evils if they "truly believe in his Islam" (his being his own beliefs). This is very common, even among secular Muslims.

The only way to combat this thoroughly, is if they can read in English, buy them books by Sam Harris (to undo his religious indoctrination from childhood upbringing; and he specializes in understanding Islam better than most), Bernard Lewis (to undo his historical indoctrination, as Arabs are very historically-aware people and they love to cite history. Bernard Lewis can also explain the positive sides of Westernization and how due to religion, Muslims try to explain every fault in the Muslim world, by blaming external enemies).

These guys know the Middle East and Islam better than any westerner. I tell you this as an ex-Muslim. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise as there are people who think that criticizing Islam is wrong but criticizing an idea is NEVER wrong. Criticizing people who believe strongly in an idea stubbornly, is also never wrong.

As a side note, I believe your father can indeed be convinced. However, it will take a monumental effort on your part to flood him with information to undo his Islamic-Arab indoctrination. He could even be an atheist Arab currently, but that Islamic indoctrination is hard to undo. It makes them biased to be sympathetic to Middle Eastern governments/peoples.

Because books are difficult for someone to read and finish...

I might suggest some other options:

u/justinmchase · 0 pointsr/atheism

You should try reading The End of Faith by Sam Harris. He makes some pretty compelling arguments about the assumption that religiously motivated killers are especially mentally ill. He argues that many of them seem to be as rational as anyone else absorbed in faith, they simply believe what their holy book is actually saying.

u/warmrootbeer · 0 pointsr/atheism

counter-counter clockwise... and yeah. I live in the south, and it seriously isn't a stereotype. It really is about 90% Bible thumpers. There's a special place in my heart for any post related to Christians whining about being oppressed, when every few months I'm made to feel extremely uncomfortable about my lack of faith. And I'm not a preaching atheist, I grew out of that after a couple years of falling on purposefully deaf ears.

(I mean like, I'll comment on my Facebook something funny and atheist in response to someone on my page, always, and rarely, if ever an OP from me re: atheism. And every once in so often I'll get a roommate pissed at me cause her grandma read it and was offended... no joke, or one of my 'bros' will randomly decide to pseudo-debate (read: trash talk) me because he knows no one else is atheist, or would admit to it publicly. High school shit.)

Sam Harris' book The End of Faith kind of re-kindled my openness to... well being open about it, but it was much worse. Once I hit my 20s and it really just settled in to my mindset and my regular day-to-day thoughts were no longer bogged down by faith and whether I had it, whether I really believed in all of it and then apologizing to Jesus for driving a fresh nail into his skin for having sinful thoughts...

I don't know. Once you hit that stride it becomes really, really difficult to have any patience for perfectly intelligent people who are also... fundies. Of course there are the samaritans and the non-denominationals and the small churches where the Real gospel is preached and those people tend to be awesome people. People I love dearly. But their small percentage of good deeds in the name of a false god legitimizes extremist sects of the same faith, whether they denounce extremism or not. Which means the blood shed by extremists is ultimately on the hands of us all: the extremists for the sword, the moderates for defending the faith, and the non-believers for demanding a stance of non-involvement.

It's a simple fact that by globally refusing to reject the teachings of moderate religous sects, we grant that same acceptance to extremist sects of the same religous affiliation. They will always continue to co-exist, because the teachings of Islam and Christianity, for example, literally demand the conversion at the cost of death of every other sect on Earth. As long as moderate faith persists, there will be extreme faith. As long as there is extreme faith, there will be war.

That's fine and fucking dandy when we're all scimitars and swords. But we live in a global world now. I don't need to spell it out in put-you-on-a-list keywords, but holy shit man. What else do we drop the big bombs for? We're pretty well settled up on land- the only people callin' nukes these days are Ahmadinejad (yes I know he has no real power) and wild card-ass North Korea. Israel doesn't even have to call em, everyone knows they got em and Big Daddy 'Murica got em all day, come GIT SOME!! GIT SOME! 'MURICA!

TL;DR The world needs atheism, but isn't ready for it, and will probably end in nuclear fire while we all pretend it's not over fucking fairy tales so as not to offend. Oh and also, I should really go to sleep because the sun's coming up.

u/Scottmk4 · 0 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

> You can judge people, but you're judging them by your standards (or your group's standards), not an absolute standard.

Such a judgement, absent a reference to reality as you insist it must be, is just irrelevant personal preference. George Washington = Stalin in this paradigm.

>In fact, the only places I've ever seen the idea of an absolute standard being defined is in religious texts.

May I suggest you look into Objectivism then.

Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand


The Virtue of Selfishness

are probably the most relevant.

u/jarmzet · 0 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Objective means based on facts. Subjective means not based on facts.

The Is-Ought problem asks how do you get shoulds (or oughts) from facts. If you could solve that, you'd have an Objective morality. You'd have a morality based on facts.

There is great disagreement about about this. Is it even possible? If it is possible how do you do it?

I think the answer is as follows. You can get a morality based on facts if you base the morality on what kind of creature humans are. If a human chooses to live and live as a human, he should do certain things and live a certain way.

To get an understanding of what I mean, imagine that spiders had free will and could make choices like humans. If they could do that, they'd need a morality.

Imagine a spider that tried to live like a beaver. It tried to chew down trees to build a dam and a home. It would not be very successful. It would die pretty quickly.

Imagine a spider that tired to live like a lion. It chased gazelles across the plains looking for a meal. It too would not live very long.

Imagine yet another spider that sat around and did nothing. It wouldn't live very long either.

Now imagine a spider that lived like a spider. It built a web. It patiently waited for bugs to get trapped in the web. Etc. That spider would have a chance to live a full spider life.

So, in light of the above facts, a spider that wanted to live should do certain things. It should live as a spider lives. It should build a web. It should wait for bugs to get trapped in the web. Etc. So, with this example, I was able to get a list of shoulds from facts. I was able to get a morality for spiders based on facts.

By a similar but more complex process, you can get an objective morality for humans.

What I outlined above is essentially the answer given by the philosophy of Objectivism. If you want to read more about it, this a good book:

u/ipeonyou · 0 pointsr/australia

> If complying with the law results in profit, the company will comply. If it results in loss, the company will not comply

That's the whole point of law. Cause and effect. That is what most people on this planet called preventative. Congratulation for discovering the basic concept of law, though taking a long winded road to it. You are still extremely confused about it though.

> The next time somebody comes to kill you go ahead and hold that law out in front of you and see if it stops a bullet or a knife blade. Then we'll see who is living in reality.

What the fuck are you talking about? Law isn't a physical object you moron. How the fuck are you going to "hold that law" out in the first place? The fact that law is in place deters people from coming to my place and trying that in the first place.

> Well my society isn't lawless, so I find this to be a moot point.

Laws in your society is fucking useless and thus lawless. Law in your society is no different commandments from the Bible.

> Whose repercussions? The governments?

Yes. Governments prevent me from hitting your face.

> I could fly to your house, punch you in the face, leave immediately, and if your lucky an officer might take your statement.

Yea, do that. I have cameras set up that provides enough evidence for the officer to hunt you down. Obviously the threat of being in jail (criminal law) doesn't deter you from hitting people but it deters you from cheating taxes (tax law). You contradict even yourself.

> You've placed me in a situation where I am forced to concede property in order to protect my freedoms or my life.

No shit moron. I'm place in a situation where I am forced to not punch you in order to protect the freedom of my life. This is the whole point of the law. You don't like to concede property, I don't like to not punch your face. But we both have to follow the law due to repercussions.

> I must give money to the government or I lose more money, freedom (prison), or death.

Yes. That is the law and thus it prevents you from trying to not pay tax. See how preventative it is? It works because it has repercussions. This is an example of law preventing you from acting out a behaviour (not paying tax).

> Explain to me how a mugger with a gun to your head ("Your money or your life") is different from taxation.

LMFAO, every idiotic libertarian always trot out this bullshit like it's on automatic playback. Explain to me how a mugger with a gun to your head ("Your money or your life") is different from paying rent to your landlord.

> You used a word made up by a comedian with a satirical political show to insult my argument

Yes, that's the point. Your arguments are based upon nothing but GUT INSTINCT. What you lack in knowledge, you made up in confidence. That word, "truthiness", describes you extremely well.

> It's an insult made up by a different person.

It can't be an insult when it is true. Calling a fat overweight person "fat" is not an insult. Likewise with you. You are IGNORANT and you WANT TO and LIKE TO remain IGNORANT.

> These types of law do not prevent anything.

Holy fuck you are dumb. Two sentences ago you admit to having to pay tax. The tax laws prevents you from cheating tax. That's what it prevents. The environmental laws prevent companies from polluting due to financial disincentives. That's what it prevents.

> Tort law is by definition only relevant to disputes. Two parties who settle their differences on their own are completely outside the purview of the law. The case must be brought to court before the law applies.

No you dumb idiot. Tort laws specified a companies or a person can be fined for misconduct. THis is made aware to everyone and thus prevent people and companies in engaging in misconducts.

> You moved the goal posts here.

Wrong. 1+1 is not 5.

I said laws encompasses MANY (M for Mary, A for Asshole, N for nelly, Y for Yellow). MANY, not ALL (A for Asshole, L for Lily, L for Lily) but MANY. See how I have to spell it out for you?

> That's largely irrelevant though, seeing as you missed the point entirely and provided a faulty example of your own point.

Er no dumb ass. I didn't miss my own point. I set the point and you missed it and interpret into something else. You purposely moved the goal post and you blame me for missing my own point. Do you see how fucking stupid you are?

> In your example the law recognizes marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for homosexuals.

Yep, support both set of moralities - people who hates gay, and gay people who want to be recognized as couple.

> What if I believe gays shouldn't have civil unions? What if I believe marriage should be outlawed? What if I believe government recognition of union, marriage or civil, should be banned? Maybe only gays should be allowed to marry.

So fucking what? What you show is only an example of a subset of ethics.

> The law can only support ONE ethical and moral outcome.

Nope. It supports many morality and ethics. It takes some from each group. Do you understand SET Theory? Each morality and ethics contains a set of beliefs. For example, Morality of person A has { BeliefA1, BeliefA2, BeliefA3, ...} Morality of person B has { BeliefB1, BeliefB2, BeliefA3, ...}

The law accommodate some beliefs from each morality. It is an intersection of belief sets. It never has to accommodate ALL beliefs from everybody or one set of the other beliefs.

> You repeatedly ignore my attempts to provide detailed resources that explain how a DRO type system might form in order to enforce law.


I'm not going to waste time and read your bullshit if you never bother to pick up a book and read about the core concept of the legal systems and the foundation of human civilizations.

> Once again: The Machinery of Freedom

Yea, read these first: Concept of law, Republic, The Prince, Das Kapital, History of Civilization

Yea read those books first and understand that you are a complete fucking moron, before you even suggest to me to read your filthy masturbatory junk literature.

You've purposely throughout this ENTIRE conversation dropped arguments you cannot addressed. You are ignorant and are intellectually dishonest with me as well as yourself.

  • You dropped the point where Google is used instead of the US.

  • You dropped the point where the Mother having the enforcement power to carry out justice.

  • You dropped the point where Murdoch and his massive empire could easily take your land in your shitty society.

  • You dropped the point where your entire family actually want to stay in this country despite your insane lunatic ass.

  • You dropped the point where you have to pay to use roads regardless of your private property.

  • You dropped the point where you in fact never actually own a property, read the fucking property contract and only argued from ignorance.

  • You dropped the point where bitching about signing contracts "under duress" is no different to all renters who are "under duress" when they have to signed contract for rent.

    Fuck man, you're like a child with a leaking diaper. You purposely dropped so many fucking points that inconvenient the way you think in your shitty bubble of alternative reality.

    > so I'm done arguing this point with you.

    Meh, I don't really give a fuck in continuing this conversation with a wilful moron, who is most likely a shittiest of engineer, whose ideology is nothing but a fucking fairy tale for adults.

u/Fraek · 0 pointsr/Conservative

"no scientific consensus that black people are genetically predisposed to lower intelligence"

The report is by the APA from 1996. The APA in 96 to even acknowledge that there was a gap was a huge thing, considering its bias. Discoveries have ramped up in the last few years so I don't know why wikipedia is relying on sources from 94 & 96 considering the human genome mapping wasn't completed until 2003. Discoveries since then have been one after another.

It's no surprise wikipedia comes to the PC conclusion, but it suffers from problems. It acknowledges that the black-white test gap exists. Either it is genetic, or environmental. There has been decades of money, and time thrown at fixing the environment by rich billionaires like Gates, and others. Dozens upon dozens of education, nutrition, parent swapping (giving black babies to whites), and other experiments, and they all failed. There is not a single study in the world that can claim lasting gains in the IQ gap. This bit of evidence would point to a genetic basis right? That and the fact that twin studies (the only proper studies that can control for genes) shows intelligence, among other dispositions, are highly heritable. In that wikipedia page, they link to the actual numbers from the APA study: "A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence."

Finally, does that statement even pass the laugh test? "Science" doesn't work by consensus, but if it did, wouldn't it be relevant to ask the actual scientists involved in intelligence research?

There are people with very high intelligence, very low IQ, and everyone between. Most people can recognize that height is highly heritable, but it isn't a guarantee, sometimes you are taller than your tallest parent, sometimes you are shorter than the shortest parents. Most times you regress towards the mean. The idea that the brain is a blank slate has been discredited by Steven Pinker, Noam Chomsky, and others. The brain comes with innate abilities, abilities that are partly inherited from your parents genes.

If you are actually concerned with finding the truth you can read Nicholas Wade, who writes for the NYTimes. The 10,000 Year Explosion. Or Gene Expression1. Or Gene Expression2. Rather than having your views filtered by whoever happens to be editing one of the many wikipedia pages.

u/magusj · 0 pointsr/science

yes, among other things (selection over past 20k-50k years, larger population size in certain populations over past 10k years leading to more mutations and adaptations, etc.).

I'd highly encourage reading :

Cochran was one of the first to hypothesize sapien-neanderthal interbreeding. He touches on several interesting topics in the book.

his blog (WestHunter) is a must read for speculation, comments, etc.

u/malaboom · 0 pointsr/The_Donald
u/BigSnicker · 0 pointsr/metacanada

I'm pointing out history.

I'm not sure what part of that you need me to 'prove', but it's all easily available on the internet or in your public library.

Heck, here's a good start for you, if you're interested.

It would be useful for /u/KEKconfusa as well, to try to get him to break out of all of that non-stop NPC messaging.

It has some very useful guidelines, if you're interested in protecting democracy against fear-mongering demagoguery.

u/jardineworks · 0 pointsr/insanepeoplefacebook

I like how you completely ignored my comment about how the medical communities "treatment plan" for people who were gay... You know, to cure them of their "sickness" or "desease". Yes, it's not about vaccination, but it highlights the fact that "your gods" are nothing more than men and women like the rest of us. As such, even the almighty medical professionals have been known to make mistakes -- shocking, I know!

Vaccines are not drugs by the way. They are blue prints for viruses to teach your immune system how to recognize them. Giving a 10 week old a polio shot doesn't protect them from getting polio the next week. You need to have a fully developed immune system in order for the viruses to be recorded to begin with. I take it you don't have children, so you might not know that the vaccination schedule runs for many years with the same vaccines delivered over and over. Vaccines are not free either... Even if you don't pay for it, someone does (for example I am in Canada and we have "free" healthcare.. the government pays for every visit someone makes to the doctor). So, if you think that the cycle is limited to just public health alone, then I'm sorry but it's you that has your head in the sand. There are several industries and hundreds of millions of dollars in the wheel of this machine.

Your dismissal of naturopathy is a little disconcerting as well. Many medical professionals, you know, the ones that did biology and chemistry in school? Beyond the basic level? Even many of them are aware of the importance of things like probiotics and raw foods etc. Naturopathy is not about rubbing plants all over your body, it's about understanding the chemistry .. the NATURAL Chemistry of your body. How can you so quickly dismiss thousands of years of healing? Modern medicine has made some astonishing discoveries and advancements, but it is still in its infancy compared to traditional medicines ... Would you call Traditional Chinese medicine bullsbhit? My son recently had an ear infection and the doctor asked me to wait almost three weeks before prescribing an anti biotic because the antibiotic is known to completely erase your immune system and it can take up to two years to recover it. His suggstion was to keep the ear dry, and eat pile of probiotics to boost his immune system through a healthy gut, and give it some time. We followed his advice and in the end, yes it took a little longer, but my son's ear infection cleared and he didn't have to take any drugs. My point is, you don't always need Chemistry to solve the problem. Sometimes time and the right balance of diet is all you need.

All bashing aside here, one of the last books I read before making my choice was this one:

I had read dozens of items on both sides of the argument before getting to this one. Before starting this book, I was still in favour of vaccinating my children. This book changed my perspective. Some might find it a little dull in parts because it can be really numbers heavy, but if you like math you might enjoy it. The book, I thought, was very well written and covers the topic from the inception of vaccines though to modern day using published facts to support their arguments. For me, even if I don't agree with someone's point of view, I like to atleast make the effort to understand their perspective and their position. If you are the same then you might enjoy this book.

For the record, humor is not lost on me. You're the funniest person I've ever met! Or at least .. you seem to think you are. Couldn't end the topic on a serious note! ;).. bro.

u/stefgosselin · 0 pointsr/worldnews

This tid-bit I learned from Eustace Mullens. Is it true? I don't really know. He was on the FBI watch list for most of his life though, so we can imagine he was on to something.

What is thouroughly documented though, is the fact that there was close collaboration between the 2.

By the way, you forgot to label me as anti-semite for speaking out against Zionism.

u/mynameishere · 0 pointsr/entertainment

God, I hate explaining simple things.

All of the holocaust-themed books, movies, television productions, and history lessons have, as an undercurrent, the idea that the holocaust wasn't a condition of certain circumstances (ie, a particular regime during a losing war) but that it was a natural result of man's inherent evil. All of the above materials aim to make the viewer [1] feel guilty. I don't want to get into it too deeply, but let's say that the Jews have had considerable leniency regarding foreign policy activity as a result of the understanding that 1) they are all victims, and 2) everyone else is a criminal.

The performance being covered by the bbc is rather shamelessly doing the same thing.

[1] NOT JUST ME, but everyone including me, hence my original comment.

u/AQUA2 · 0 pointsr/pics

I don't particularly agree with everything Norm Finkelstein has to say, but this book nailed it.

Essentially, what he argues is that some Jews have turned the Holocaust into a business and monopolized it. They use it to blackmail governments and stifle any criticism of Israel (or Judaism for that matter - not that you hear any of's always either Christianity or Islam).

These people have cheapened the holocaust...they've reduced it to an excuse for them to influence world opinion, and it seems that more and more people aren't willing to be pushed around any more as they feel the zionists have depleted their moral capital.

Anyways, talking about the holocaust is never a pleasant topic. It degenerates into a petty political mudsling very quickly and insults all those who died during its course, Jews and non-Jews alike.

u/mredd · 0 pointsr/worldnews

Norman Finkelstein has also written eloquently about this in his books "The Holocaust Industry" and "Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History".

u/boothofthebeast · -1 pointsr/soccer

Probably, I'm not religious and tend to agree, but compared to what? So is football - do you think it was given to us in the primordial soup or something? So are lots of other stuff, from Manchester City, human rights, Peugeot the automotive mfg, the French state, genders and to a large extent race. All that stuff are human constructs that depend on the unique ability humans have of constructing non-natural narratives and holding common beliefs about them - it's actually what separates our species from other animals and what separated the homo sapiens from other species of homo (other human species that used to exist), like the neardental, etc, and the reason why the Sapiens species ended up dominating the planet. I strongly recommend Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Harari (an atheist historian and scientist) which is very much about this.

Anti-Catholic bigotry was a staple of the KKK; and Stalin and Mao; and Nazis - so you're far from alone.

Anyway, one doesn't need to be erudite or get philosophical or resort to historical analogies to know what's wrong with that: it's just the lack of basic decency, aka, not being an unhinged asshole. There's simply something to be said about not acting like a jerk to other people because of different systems of beliefs. It's called common decency. I don't know, it's just about being a good person, or at least the normal, okayish, one, and not the demented lunatic going around throwing slurs and insults.

u/JeremiahMRA · -1 pointsr/politics
u/Scrybblyr · -1 pointsr/pics
u/d38sj5438dh23 · -1 pointsr/politics

There is actually a really great book about this point, definitely worth a read.

u/SnarkLobster · -1 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

May I suggest: Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared M. Diamond

"Fascinating.... Lays a foundation for understanding human history."―Bill Gates

In this "artful, informative, and delightful" (William H. McNeill, New York Review of Books) book, Jared Diamond convincingly argues that geographical and environmental factors shaped the modern world. Societies that had had a head start in food production advanced beyond the hunter-gatherer stage, and then developed religion --as well as nasty germs and potent weapons of war --and adventured on sea and land to conquer and decimate preliterate cultures. A major advance in our understanding of human societies, Guns, Germs, and Steel chronicles the way that the modern world came to be and stunningly dismantles racially based theories of human history.

u/iStandWithBrad · -1 pointsr/politics

Okay, first of all, there was a long period of time where Asia, the Middle East and the Mediterranean was booming and Europe was in the dark ages. So I find it's generally best to specify what time period you're talking about when making blanket statements.

Secondly, you're wrong when you say always a "festering shit-hole" compared to the rest of the world. There were major cities with sea ports on both the West coast and the East coast of Africa, where people came from other parts of the world to trade. This was before Europeans ever managed to settle Africa. I recommend a couple of books for you:

Where do I get my connection to this issue? Anthropology major in college, with a concentration on Africa. Also lived in an African city for 5 months. Happy to answer questions about that.

u/DEM_DRY_BONES · -1 pointsr/todayilearned

Hey! I just read about this last night in Guns, Germs, and Steel. Hit that up for more on domesticating wild plants!

u/Kirkaine · -1 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

That's a monster of a question. Hell, development economics is an entire academic field, you might as well ask 'ELI5: Physics'. Anyone who seriously thinks they can give you an answer here is lying to you, and probably to themselves as well.

That being said, for my money there are three books that are really required reading on the topic of how countries end up poor, plus two books that are required reading on why it's so hard to fix. I'd call them the bare minimum to call yourself literate on the subject.

  1. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, Jared Diamond. Essential reading on the big (i.e. several millennia) question of how the world ended up broadly split between rich and poor. I think they made it into a documentary, that's probably worth checking out.

  2. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson. If you only read one of these, make it this one. Perfect blend of big picture history and modern policy analysis.

  3. Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty, Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo. Much more micro-focused, this one is about poor people more than it's about poor countries. I mainly include it because Esther is a beast, and this is one of my favourite books of all time. Definitely worth the read.

    Two that you should read on why it's so hard to fix global poverty (Poor Economics sits at the intersection).

  4. The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for our Time, Jeffrey Sachs. Jeff Sachs is one of those names that everyone in the world should know. Read this book, end of story.

  5. The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good, William Easterly. Easterly is another name everyone should know. To be honest, I don't agree with him on a whole lot of things. But pretending the other side of the debate doesn't exist is utterly moronic, and you can always learn a lot from people you disagree with.
u/maoiguy · -1 pointsr/aznidentity

I am also a white devil and tbh I think only morons idealize the culture and advancement of whites without looking at the blood that was spilt to propogate it, white people colonized and enslaved millions throughout history to get to where we are today. However the only people that think 18th century china were backwards are also morons and I doubt that they opened a single historical textbook.

That being said, human nature is violent and opportunistic, you can't judge our ancestors with the world view of today, their simply wasn't the infrastructure in place for people to be co exist peacefully in the same manner as today. There was no antibiotics, no internet, no welfare, no democracy, limited legal and policing systems, no easy transport, no supermarkets the list goes on and on. Without these systems in place, people become greedy and mistrustful of each other.
If one cut on your knee can get infected and kill you, leaving your family destitute and the average life expectancy was 30 then people are going to act alot more sociopathic, it becomes about survival, like actual life or death survival.

The reality is human history is dirty and messy and violent, and pretending that any race or ethnicity is innocent from that is completely ignorant, its in our genes to be opportunistic and violent, its evolution and natural selection at work. We only became largely peaceful in the last 50 years because a) we developed to such a degree that working together economically was in our better interests than military and b) the deterrant of nuclear war and mutually assured destruction

I recommend you read the following books:

Basically how all human societies are violent and

This book gives the reasons why civilizations rise and fall and why European culture became the dominant one post 19th century
Essentially there are deterministic factors that are needed for any culture to prosper and white people inherited them all just because of geography and luck

u/xbayuldrd · -1 pointsr/AskHistorians

This book talks a lot about that stuff. I recommend it.

u/lamamafia · -1 pointsr/MapPorn

For anyone interested in what /u/cos_dasis saying... read Guns, Germs and Steel.

There's also a movie which you can find easily...

u/mughat · -1 pointsr/Nietzsche

Ayn Rand was a writer and philosopher. Objectivism is the philosophy.
I imagine you have never read the no-fiction about the philosophy or you are just dishonest.

u/skelefal · -1 pointsr/MensRights

>This is an appeal to consequences.

Yes. Your actions have consequences. Welcome to adulthood.

> I do not argue in favor of discrimination against any individual

That's all very fine and well, but when you use your platform (how many subscribers do you have? Hundreds of thousands?) to argue that blacks have inferior intelligence it doesn't really matter whether you qualify your statements or not. You're just pouring fuel on the fire of racial conflict.

One of the sticking points here is that you have gone out of your way to promote a white supremacist while offering nothing in the way of criticism except to cover your own ass by (unconvincingly) claiming you don't share his views. You know what would have been more productive? You could have invited on a leftist concerned with workplace safety issues and discussed whether right-libertarianism and the destruction of unions are conducive to reducing deaths in the workplace. Apparently you would prefer to hob nob with Neo-Nazis and gutter trash like Roosh V.

>IQ may indeed be a factor in prison populations in general

Certainly not among the upper classes, considering that very bright fellows like Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan and Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs have yet to be imprisoned (or hanged, as occurred with currency speculators in the middle ages). Or did you mean to say that high IQ folks are better at evading justice? Turns out dumb rich folks don't have much to worry about either, otherwise George W. Bush would have been executed at the Hague.

>(ambition, perseverance, industriousness, rule-consciousness, risk aversion, openness, etc)

Hilarious that you didn't mention the single most important factor -- inheritance. Also hilarious that you think "rule consciousness" is associated with wealth. Haven't you ever heard the expression "nice guys finish last"?

>IQ is correlated with success, but it's not the only factor.

Not by a long shot. Jordan Peterson's claim that IQ = success is pure hogwash.

"In fact, when Zagorsky charted IQ against people’s likelihood to have financial struggles like paying bills late, declaring bankruptcy and maxing out their credit cards, people with the highest IQs were more likely to have financial instability than those with just slightly above-average scores.

"In a paper last year, Wai wrote that many of the world’s wealthiest benefit from familial largesse. “Highest average net worth appeared to be linked to inheritance, showing the wealthiest people also tended to not have been the ones to have earned their own way, even in part,” he said.

As for billionaires -- don't even get me started. The richest people (who aren't even listed on the Forbes 500 -- see Michael Parenti "the Super-rich are out of site") inherit their wealth. The greatest artists in history mostly died poor. We don't live in a meritocracy. We live in a plutocracy.

>blacks are superior in some ways to whites

What, in terms of athletics? That's debatable.

>I don't recall him arguing that they are less than human.

And here you are again defending this piece of trash.

>I have argued that in terms of psychology, a black man has more in common with a white man than a black woman, and vice versa.


>As for your assertions about how this is all a plot by billionaires and the CIA or whatever, what the FUCK does that matter?

It would seem to matter quite a lot, considering that people of your ilk seem to be under the mistaken impression that "the left" is responsible for feminism and identity politics. As it turns out it was the far right that bankrolled the whole affair -- the same class of people you support.

>It's not billionaires rioting in the streets destroying the property of people who don't even have anything to do with this.

Again I encourage you to read up on the history of this sort of stuff. I'd be happy to provide you with a list of resources, including by former CIA officers like Philip Agee (though I should warn you that some of them are in book form). The CIA, incidentally, was founded by a bunch of Wall Street bankers and lawyers. You're effectively blaming the hitman while ignoring the Mafia Don.

>Calling a Jew a Jewish supremacist and human excrement... how very nazi-esque of you.

Zionists got along just fine with the Nazis. They were both supremacists.

Tell me, do you agree with Shapiro that the Palestinians should be be expelled from Gaza, even after most of their land has already been stolen and their people ethnically cleansed? And keeping in mind that this would be violation of the Geneva Conventions?

I repeat that Shapiro is human excrement. And talk about neoteny! ;)

Edit: few words

u/malakistiri · -1 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

It really comes down to "marketing". It might sound crazy, but if you want to learn more about this topic you should read this Norman Finkelstein's book:

u/TASagent · -2 pointsr/atheism

I wonder how the theist in question would respond to finding out that that particular referenced passage was added to the bible much later. Any mildly intellectually honest bible includes a footnote on this entire story stating that "our earliest and most reliable sources do not contain this passage", meaning "this passage was added later, by other people." If anyone is interested in reading more about it, they can look here for a quick resource, and here for a much better one.

Edit: Sorry, my intent with this comment was a little unclear. I am certainly glad to see theists who use more of their brain and accept people for how they are, rather than the two typical responses: 1) spewing hateful dogma or 2) distancing themselves (superficially) from the 'twisted ideology' that would cause such an attack. I would much prefer to see many mild Christians than no change at all, obviously. This response, however, presents me with two problems. First, the passage doesn't say the gay person did nothing wrong, simply that we are in no position to judge someone who does something wrong. That is not actually a particularly progressive view. "Yes, homosexuality is a problem, but who am I to judge you?" the ideology says. Second, this passage is so often used to justify accepting homosexuals, yet was not actually in the bible, originally. It would be more accurate to attribute it to Anon., which would make it meaningless to most Christians.

Anyway, I hope that makes my intent more clear.

u/Leisureguy · -2 pointsr/wicked_edge

Synthetics started getting actually good around 2011, with at least some if not most of the impetus coming from a feeling that the EU might prohibit the use of badger hair (cf. ivory prohibitions). Mühle took an early lead, but quite a lot has happened. Check out, for example, these articles in Sharpologist, and note the dates.

Memes (in the Richard Dawkins sense—cf. Chapter 11 of The Selfish Gene) are subject to the Darwinian laws that follow from inheritance with some variation and limited resources, which brings natural selection into play: those memes with variations favoring reproduction will survive, just as is true for lifeforms, only memes evolve at a MUCH faster rate. The recent book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind is, in effect, a history of the evolution of memes. It seemed to me that many of his insights and much of his account required looking at things from a meme point of view, though he doesn't even mention memes until the middle of the book, and then only briefly and diffidently. (Bayesian statistics was initially looked down upon by classical statisticians as not quite the thing, but quite a few found that Bayesian statistics actually worked really well, so they started using it in secret and, when publishing, translated their results back into classical statistical terminology and methods. It seems that the same dynamic is at play here, with a reluctance to talk explicitly about memes, even though they explain a lot.)

u/thugl1fe · -3 pointsr/funny

Jewish intellectual lays out how the Holocaust has been turned into an "extortion racket."

Bloggers who have spent years debating Holocaust deniers admit that a modern Holocaust celebrity (featured prominently in a recent Spielberg Holocaust documentary) is a complete liar.

Most people are pointing out the obvious like this, they arent denying it happened.

u/IAmInLoveWithJesus · -5 pointsr/politics

It is somewhat true, read Jonah Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism. I found it intriguing, he traces all the stances of Fascism and relates it to the liberal beliefs like abortion and other things.

u/buddhafig · -5 pointsr/AskHistorians

Sorry I don't have the short answer, but Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared M. Diamond is a good source for crop development over history and how it affected various cultures.

u/chrezvychaynaya · -5 pointsr/worldnews

You mean how each year there are more holocaust survivors for whom lawyers discover new claims to be compensated for while they collect the profits?

No, I don't think satisfied is the correct description for the German feelings towards that shakedown.

>The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering

u/somerandomcnsguy · -7 pointsr/funny

He was on par with Mussolini and the other socialists in Europe. Read people. Get an education.

u/mnbvc77 · -10 pointsr/worldnews

It's amazingly sad how many redditors support something so terribly evil. Today it's forced vaccines, tomorrow maybe it will be force fed GMO's because "it's better for the economy". Then next maybe forced executions for anyone with a low IQ.

It doesn't really take a lot of critical thinking skills to realize how terrible vaccines are. Just look at the