Best reference & collections of biographies according to redditors
We found 58 Reddit comments discussing the best reference & collections of biographies. We ranked the 21 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
No "mate"?
I see you're also a Christopher Hitchens fan.
I'm going to preface this by saying that this probably doesn't help you much in your quest to understand the best way to be morally repugnant to enter lichhood, however, as someone who has studied a lot (and boy do I mean a lot) of both primary and secondary sources concering Nietzschean philosophy, I'd like to clear up some misconceptions that it looks like you have.
>in the end it demands that empathy is not worthwhile whatsoever. Lichdom generally extolls the virtue of power, and the likewise irrelevance of empathy (something something Nietzsche?)
Nietzsche's problem with empathy is not "ye who feel feelings about people are weak sheep" as many people portray him to be. The actual critique Nietzsche makes is of pity - the "I'm glad it's not me" brand of empathy. Nietzsche thinks pity is the ugliest and weakest of human emotions, rooted in narcissism and self-obsession, a quality that the Ubermensch doesn't have.
As far as the virtue of power, Nietzsche's conception of the Will to Power is not a "fuck you, got mine" Rand-esque belief in an egoistic world where the I is the only being that matters, it's a mode of psychologically elevating the human condition associated with the doctrine of eternal recurrence for those who are healthiest and wish to live life to the fullest. Achievement, ambition, the striving to reach the highest position in life, these are manifestations of the Will. But not through what Nietzsche calls Kraft, or the primordial strength all things have, and what we use to physically dominate others, instead it is through macht, a conscious channeling of the kraft in a form of self-overcoming and sublimation for creative purposes (hence when the Nazis appropriated Nietzschean philosophy, they overlooked the distinction between the two and just kind of exerted their kraft on like, jews, gays, black people, and cripples, instead of themselves. maybe if hitler had channeled his kraft inwards, he would have made it into art school.)
Raw physical or political (or in this case, I guess, magical power) was not what Nietzsche meant when he talked about the Will. In fact, if you want to learn more about that, I think Heidegger had a lecture series about Nazi appropriation of Nietzschean philosophy (which is ironic, since he himself was also a Nazi).
>Similarly to Nietzsche's work, the ideal Lich is a being of amazing power, but with little concern towards the common, weak man. And that's something I want to incorporate. What can I do to a player already willing to sacrifice an NPC that his character is "extremely attached to" that will impress further on the player than he ever thought possible the ideals of Nietzsche's existentialism, and just the general concept of absurdism?
That's a bit of a misrepresentation of the Ubermensch. The Ubermensch isn't "evil Superman", the strong guy who punches people just for shits and giggles, the ubermensch is a being who smashes the traditional ideals of Christian normativity and transcends the master/slave morality division by forging a new, Dionysian type of morality. Basically, consider traditional metaphysics like Kant's pure reason - there is the Master (pure reason), and the Slave (us, the people abiding by the Categorical Imperative). A clear and aggressive hierarchy that can't change, is immutable, and impermeable. Then, consider Zarathustra, Nietzsche's "prophet", a man who has transcended the laws of the Church and forged a new normative path, so to speak. He doesn't demand that others follow him and bow down to him as his slaves, but he doesn't follow anyone else. He just does. Not a master. Not a slave. Something in between.
As far as the parts about Nietzsche's existentialism and conceptions of absurdism, I think you miss the point a bit here - Nietzsche is a nihilist in the most typical sense. He believes in the complete and abject lack of any and all meaning or value intrinsic in the world (which is a pretty absurdist concept to begin with), but instead of falling to despair, Nietzsche argues that value is an emergent property of a thing that can only occur in a world where we suffer, not one that is smooth and frictionless, because that's inauthentic, and leads to a recreation of the master/slave dichotomy that he argues we need to break free from.
tl;dr I think you might be misreading Nietzsche.
Suggestions for further reading (that is easier to decode than German source) include Gilles Deleuze's "Nietzsche and Philosophy", as well as his collaborations with Felix Guattari on Capitalism and Schizophrenia (although to truly decode that book there's a whole nother list of shit you've got to read). Katsafanas' stuff on Nietzschean Internalism is really good too, plus it's a pretty easy read. If you want to read source Nietzsche though, I'd suggest also picking up a companion/read along book like the Cambridge Companion or something similar.
Also, if you want to make your friend's character do something that's really tough for him, just get him to kill one of his own party members. Killing some fake, made-up woman or child doesn't really have any impact on him. But seeing the look on a party member's face when he gets betrayed and the character he's spent so much time on destroyed is legitimately gut-wrenching and sometimes people really get mad and feel betrayed. That way, he has to actually commit a real, damning, and permanent action against someone he really does know and care about, and it feels real because it's someone the player knows and cares about outside of the game, instead of just some fake woman or father that their character is supposed to have a good relationship with.
This one is designed for kids but it's a good read: https://www.amazon.com/Raoul-Wallenberg-Man-Stopped-Death/dp/0827604483
I wouldn't call you a theist apologist, just poorly informed. You subscribe to the naive view that all religions and atheism are equally suited as vehicles of morality and a better existence for humankind.
Many of us here see things differently: Humans are pretty much the same all over, with a baseline of decent folks and a handful of psychopaths and other assholes thrown in. So, plainly stated, some people are good and some people are bad. However, the vast majority of religions, and certainly the Abrahamic religions, add a special set of motivations which are demonstrably harmful to their adherents and to humanity as a whole. Here is my list of problems uniquely caused by religions; here is somebody else's.
Nobody here says that getting rid of religions will turn the world into a utopia. Many of us do claim, though, that getting rid of religions will solve a large set of problems as shown above, and that we would be better off to do so. Do you think people like Christopher Hitchens are just pulling things out of their ass when they claim "religion poisons everything?" Sam Harris wrote a whole book explaining how it's possible to objectively assess morality of human behavior, and that some societies are decidedly worse than others, for reasons often directly attributable to religion.
You're not alone; my poll came up with about 50% accommodationists like yourself. It seems they find this sub interesting enough to put up with the religion bashing. You are of course free to go where you want. A quieter, more cerebral alternative is /r/Freethought; a less biased one is /r/religion.
Upvoting for valid question, even though I don't agree with your views. Maybe we can change your mind.
Christopher Hitchens talks about this tragedy in god is not Great (available at fine bookstores everywhere)
Here are the sources themselves. You can buy them on amazon, the paper referenced in the first reference is also available as a PDF. Go ahead and read through them and tell me how wrong they are, since they are so wrong.
http://www.amazon.com/Peace-Building-between-Muslims-Evangelical-Christians/dp/073913521X
http://repository.berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/060801OmarRightReligiousConversionBetweenApostasyProselytism.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Islam-The-Concepts-Routledge-Guides/dp/0415396395
http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Dictionary-Islam-Paperback-Reference/dp/0195125592
I wish I could tell you that all you need to do is to stop believing in God and suddenly things will become much clearer. Unfortunately, this is not really the case.
Think of the God idea as a piece of malware, which is running on the computer of your brain. It's malware because it takes up your resources to do something that isn't beneficial to you. Once upon a time you installed the Loving Parents And Social Circle software, and it asked you to install the God program as part of it. You clicked OK at the time, but now you've figured out it's malware, and you need to find a way to get rid of the malware, but you don't want to uninstall the Loving Parents And Social Circle software too.
This is a very touchy process and I can't guarantee you'll be successful. Some people give up and simply decide to go without the Loving Parents And Social Circle software, because the licensing requirements are just too restrictive. I don't recommend this path. Even if the requirements are pretty rough, it's good software.
But here's the kick that no one tells you: by getting rid of the malware, you don't just suddenly have an awesome computer you can use for anything. You have to find and download lots of other software now. Getting rid of the malware was just the beginning, and now the real work begins. You're already way behind people who got rid of their malware ages ago, or maybe never had it to begin with. You need to play catch-up.
Here's the good news: most people, once they've finally gotten rid of the malware, wake up the next day and get really excited about all the new things their computer can potentially do, and they find themselves staying up all night downloading and running new stuff. There's a burst of energy that comes with suddenly finding all these free resources.
Maybe there's some old software sitting there that you never really used, and now you can run it much better than you did before. That was the case with me, and this was the software I ran. Then I started downloading more and more and more. Now I feel like my speeds are better than most and about as fast as the people I find interesting to talk to.
The Nietzsche Reader and The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche are both great resources to dive into!
Aussie here.
I'll add my vote to sunscreen, most foreigners have to learn the hard way. Least you can do is give a heads up.
Also, something like this goes a long way: http://www.amazon.com/Wordbook-Australian-Idiom-Aussie-Worries/dp/1412062608
We have quite a lot of slang in our vocab that gets lost on a lot of people, especially from the states.
Sandals are only good if you're in northern Australia. If your friend is coming to Melbourne or Hobart then they probably won't need to use them so much.
>The refutation is begging the question.
Incorrect. The refutation is:
>"An atheist would say, 'False premise. God is not a being greater than anything that can be imagined. God, a fabrication composed of nothing more than brain matter and parchment scrawl, is neither a being nor greatest.'"
It is not:
>"False premise. God is not a being greater than anything that can be imagined. God, a fabrication composed of nothing more than brain matter and parchment scrawl, is neither a being nor greatest."
The refutation is that the OA is begging the question. It explains this by offering the alternate premise (which you then recognized as begging the question, but doing so for the "other side"). The fact that you accused this refutation of begging the question means you realize that the premise is in dispute.
In other words, the OA assumes that God exists in the premise (but masks this fallacy in an "innocent" so-called "definition"). Having an atheist present his position is an effective way of pointing this out.
Take this argument:
Depending on the audience, this argument may have a disputed premise. An atheist, of course, would say, "False premise. Not everything the Bible says is true."
The OA is just as impotent versus an atheist as the leper argument. The OA says, "God must exist, since he exists by definition (a being having universal greatness, including in terms of existence)." A completely sufficient refutation is "Actually, that definition is disputed."
>1. There exists the idea of a greatest being.
>2. Existing in reality is greater than existing merely as an idea.
>3. The greatest being exists
>4. BTW, this greatest being is what we call God.
That's not the Ontological Argument. 4 doesn't follow from anything, and might as well be, "BTW, the greatest being is Arnold Schwarzenegger. He's not perfect, but he's been in awesome movies, is pretty strong, has a cool accent, and is concerned about the environment." You can talk about whatever metric you want to measure "greatness," and as long as that metric measures something of which an existent being is capable, you're guaranteed that a greatest being in those terms will exist. 1, 2 and 3 are perfectly valid, but 4 is clearly a non sequitur (and, again, a claim disputed by atheists -- atheists don't believe God is a being, let alone a great one).
One that stands out in my memory is a book called One Boy's Struggle. It really put things into perspective, and also taught me a lot of coping mechanisms his brain had no choice but to create as a child.
If you're interested in pandas and how zoos learned to care for them, read The Lady and the Panda. Lots and lots of pandas died before we figured out that they aren't quite like other bears...
Hitchens put it pretty well: "Religion poisons everything".
http://www.amazon.com/Hitch-22-Memoir-Christopher-Hitchens/dp/0446540331/ref=pd_sim_b_5
or
http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807
what is this, vital reading?
Original Wild Ones
Hunter S Thompson Hell's Angels
Technically I was wondering what Eric Wagner listed in the back of this book
Yeah, this is one of those stereotypes that exists in every profession I've been a part of. In every case, it's had significant, major exceptions. See the book Tolstoy's Bicycle for many, many examples. I shot most of my best photos 2-3 years ago. I'm now 45.
Alternate, much better theory: religion poisons everything, it is harmful to society, and we have a lot to be angry about. We're trying to make things better by fighting against the lies and bigotry.
Please remember that the will of Alfred Nobel states that the peace prize should go to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses" in the preceding year. It isn't supposed to be a 'lifetime achievement award'. And just because she was 'up for it' is meaningless. Hundreds, if not thousands are 'nominated' for the award every year because the process for doing so is fairly open.
If you want to read about the history of the prize and its recipients, this is a great book by Jay Nordlinger:
http://www.amazon.com/Peace-They-Say-History-Controversial/dp/1594035989
No sorry. It's actually referencing this guy who you should totally read about in The Book of the Dead (very good read).
I would not wear a bow-tie with this. You have two fairly odd stand out items, the monks and the seersucker suit. another "novelty" (I use quotation marks because it's not a novelty item, just items that are novel and out of the norm) item might be overdoing it. Maybe just a more saturated tie, with a pretty plain patter. For instance navy with small diagonal red stripes or a nice burgundy with a plainish print would go well here.
"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.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004
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"
http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/0143038338
http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469/
Christopher Hitchens is a bit vitriolic for some, but "God is not Great" has some nuggets in it.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807/
I personally didn't like Sam Harris' "End of Faith" but I did like his "Letter to a Christian Nation".
http://www.amazon.com/Letter-Christian-Nation-Vintage-Harris/dp/0307278778/
For the topic of evolution, Talk Origins is great (and free) http://toarchive.org/
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"
http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Introduction/dp/0199291152/
http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/
http://www.amazon.com/Climbing-Mount-Improbable-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0393316823/
http://www.amazon.com/Unweaving-Rainbow-Science-Delusion-Appetite/dp/0618056734/
I have not read it, but this book, Writing Your Legacy looks like it would fit the bill.
HERE is another decent read.
The Lady and the Panda
The true story of Ruth Harkness, a socialite who married a rich adventurer. He died alone in China on a quest to be the first westerner to bring back a live panda. She took over and succeeded.
The Worst Hard Time
Stories from survivors of the Dust Bowl. It's less a "journey adventure" book than the others listed, but a pretty epic tale of what these people endured.
well, i guess you aren't learning anything new from this post then. How about this:
The Coolidge Effect is named after President Calvin Coolidge.
President and Mrs Coolidge were visiting a chicken ranch. Mrs Coolidge asked whether the rooster copulated more than once a day. "Yes. dozens of times a day" replied the farmer.
"Tell Mr Coolidge" said Mrs C. Later in the tour, the farmer had opportunity to mention this to the president.
"Same hen every time?" asked Calvin Coolidge
"No, a different he each time" answered the farmer.
"Tell Mrs Coolidge" said the president.
Hence, the Coolidge Effect is the technical term to describe the re-arousal of a male animal by a new female.
Source: The Little Brown Book of Anecdotes, Clifton Fadiman editor, 1985
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Brown-Book-Anecdotes/dp/0316273015
I once read a couple of really great books about early Alaskan hunters( like early 1900s).
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/088240427X?pc_redir=1405493383&robot_redir=1
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1575100479?pc_redir=1406012779&robot_redir=1
I would recommend these two to anyone.
Zarathustra is a great place to start. You won't get all the nuances, but that's okay. If you've got access to a library, I'd also try to track down something like the Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche to help you read through his major works. Or maybe Robert Solomon's Reading Nietzsche
If you can find someone with database access, secondary literature might help you. Try these:
Eventually, you'll want to start branching out into his other works. If you're interested in the Uebermensch, then I'd suspect you're interested in ethics and "good life" type stuff. Try On the Genealogy of Morality, Beyond Good and Evil, Human All too Human, and The Gay Science.
For Nietzsche I think a breadth of secondary sources and interpretations are useful. Like Firework said, Kaufmann's Nietzsche: Philosophy, Psychologist, Antichrist is good. Alternatively both the Cambridge Companion and the Oxford Handbook are decent secondary sources, with more contemporary essays on him. Robert Pippin has an introduction as well, but I'm not sure about the quality.
On another note, both Karl Jaspers and Giles Deleuze have books on him, but they are less 'introductions' that interpretations.
Here's a list, off the top of my head - I know all these are on my bookshelf, but I'm probably missing a few more:
Hell's Angel: The Life and Times of Sonny Barger and the Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club by Sonny Barger
Freedom: Credos from the Road by Sonny Barger
Ridin' High, Livin' Free: Hell-Raising Motorcycle Stories by Ralph Sonny Barger
Dead in 5 Heartbeats by Sonny Barger
Under and Alone by William Queen
No Angel: My Harrowing Undercover Journey to the Inner Circle of the Hells Angels by Jay Dobyns
Hell's Angels: A Strange and Terrible Saga (Modern Library) by Hunter S. Thompson
Street Justice by Chuck Zito
The Original Wild Ones: Tales of the Boozefighters Motorcycle Club by Bill Hayes
Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road by Neil Peart
The Masked Rider: Cycling in West Africa by Neil Peart
Against the Wind: A Rider's Account of the Incredible Iron Butt Rally by Ron Ayres
Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry into the Value of Work by Matthew B. Crawford
Honda CB750: The Complete Story by Mark Haycoc
Shovelhead Red The Drifter's Way by Roy Yelverton
Shovelhead Red-Ridin' Out by Roy Yelverton
A Twist of the Wrist 2: The Basics of High-Performance Motorcycle Riding by Keith Code
Total Control: High Performance Street Riding Techniques by Lee Parks
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values by Robert M. Pirsig - Still my favorite. A high school english teacher bought it for me when he found out I had just passed my motorcycle road test. I've read it at least 15 times, and get something new from it each time.
But the best recommendation - Buy the FACTORY SERVICE MANUAL for your bike and read it. Read it often, until you can almost turn to the exact page for each procedure.
Get a copy of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens. There's a "Discussion Questions" section in the back, starting with this gem:
A bit longer, but all are solid suggestions, and although I could add two dozen more, I'm sure others will take up the cause.
God is Not Great, by Christopher Hitchens
lol, I'm actually using the Bible as a reference, along with http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/. I've also been looking through God Wants You Dead and God is Not Great. Unfortunately, this is a fifteen page paper that I need at least 2 book sources, 2 periodicals, and 2 web sources.
Absolute pain in the ass.
I mean seriously, what's the harm?
http://shaunphilly.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/is-christianity-good-for-america/
Hitchen's book: God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
>If you know as much about science as I hope, then explain how everything came out so perfect out of (insert atheist way of creation)!
I will refer you to 3 books for that one, but then I will explain why that is not a valid argument and then explain why god does not answer that question either.
First the books: the first two will explain the big bang and inflationary cosmology (this is actually what took over or heavily modified the big bang theory from its original form) they are both by Briane Greene and I highly recommend them if you are interested in physics at all (they are not about god) the fabric of the cosmos and The hidden reality. There are also NOVA specials you can watch from the Fabric of the cosmos and his earlier book the elegant universe though I do not remember if they cover the big bang or inflation. The third book is specifically about the argument you just put forward. It is The fallacy of fine tuning:why the universe is not designed for us by Victor Stenger.
The reason that the argument you made is fallacious involves logical fallacies. Now, I don't want to seem like I'm talking down to you at all (I'm not) but I'm not sure how familiar you are with the intricacies of logic. Basically every argument has a premise, logical steps, and a conclusion. The argument you made (that the universe is perfect) has three flaws.
1: False premise - The universe is not actually perfect, far from it in fact. The reason why we are accustomed to the universe as it is is due to evolution. We evolved to fit the universe, not the other way around. If you mean something specific like how could the constants have got to the exact values we have please read the hidden reality, it answers that question by explaining multiple instances of how the universe can be fractured into slightly variable universes. The god delusion also answers this question but from my experience most theists are not willing to read it.
2: False premise - The burden of proof is not on me to prove or explain anything. I don't know is a completely acceptable answer if I had no evidence to put forward (We do actually have evidence, see the three books). Saying that I don't know how the universe came about does not immediately cede the argument to god. God has to answer to the same standards of logic and evidence that I would require of my own pet hypothesis. Burden of proof was explain in analogy by [Russell](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot "This is why our logo is riding in a teapot")
3: Logical fallacy - Argument from ignorance. I already explained this one a little but basically this is the part that says you cannot use what we both do not know as evidence. If we come to a cave, and you ask what is in the cave and I say that I don't know but I bet it's a dragon then I would be using our shared ignorance to try and put forward the idea of a dragon as the inhabitant of the cave (sorry this analogy is bad, I have a flu right now so I'm kind of worn down)
Now, the reason that god fails the logic test (before he fails the evidence test, which he also does) is that if you say that god created the universe then you have put a terminator on the infinite regression that is causality (there are some hypothetical reasons that causality could be violated before the universe but I am skeptical of many of them and it would take me too far off track to get into them). The problem here is why do you give god a break from needing a cause? If we both agreed that there must be a first cause, why the hell should we give it sentience, and intelligence, and supernatural powers? If we also put forward a first cause that did not have those things then we would have an explanation that used fewer assumptions (many fewer assumptions). One of the best logical tools is occam's razor, which says that when we have multiple competing hypothesis we remove the ones with the most assumptions. Now it is only a logical tool and does not guarantee we will be correct but it is still a good probability chooser (remember how I said science is about probabilities).
So anyways, if you read this far I really hope that your takeaway is at least to read the three books i recommended (they are complicated but very interesting). I would also ask that you read the FAQ and probably The God Delusion (as it covers more of the faux science arguments for god than God is Not Great).
yeah, to pick up where that leaves off, I'd recommend biographies on Sam Giancanna and Tony Spliotro. awesome reads on Chicago organized crime.
God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807
http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807
No, but close to it.
Read Shadows On The Koyukuk, by Sidney Huntington.
He was an Athabascan elder who was involved in a lot of things in Alaska, including a hunt gone wrong, where he had to kill at least a couple of bears with an axe in hand-to-hand combat.
I would personally get this book and this one too. I've always found obituaries fascinating.
I have a really great simple, introductory philosophy book called A World of Ideas if you're interested. Philosophy really sharpens the critical thinking skills, makes you think and view the world from different perspectives, and gives you good ammo for an argument. I think it's a great thing for a 20 year old guy in college to read.
If you're not interested in that, I could send you some fiction. I will try to choose something that I think would be fitting for you.
Little known? Are you quite sure?
I hope that no one has brought up this point, but considering that there are many comments, I would not be surprised if it has already been said. mirsir, as you had said, it is human nature to want to worship something. This is entirely correct. Why? Because it is more comforting to believe that something is controlling things, that there really is a purpose for this fucked up place called Earth and all its inhabitants. Really though, the main question should not be, "What is the purpose for life?" Rather, it should be, "Is there a reason for life?"
Now, the problems I have with religion are numerous, but I will try to bring up the best ones. One of my biggest points is obviously going to be that religions are the cause of almost all wars. War on Terror, caused by religion (and most likely economic reasons as well), almost all medieval wars, WW2, etc. While religion is not the main cause of some of these wars, it is essentially one of the main fire starters.
Secondly, religion causes and fuels hate. Most religions, save for a few (eg. Buddhism), have spread and continue to spread ideas of hate, especially towards gays, atheists/non-believers, believers of other faiths. And even the notion that religion shunned all scientific endeavours for hundreds of years. And guess what, those scientific endeavours have proved religion wrong many, many times. For example, some of these scientific endeavours include evolution, the Ptolemaic system, the works of Galileo Galilei, etc.
Thirdly, I would like to bring up just how wrong religion is. It is obvious, and "one must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody...had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from thee bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs)" (Hitchens p.65). That, and how many times has the Church (only one religion) reformed their beliefs. Yes, I do agree that one must update some of their beliefs to fit with the times, but many times the Church has changed their beliefs because of new scientific evidence which proves otherwise. One of the major examples include the Ptolemaic vs. Copernican System.
Now, please understand that I do not go out of my way to bash religion. While people may still believe this, mainly because I posted this, please understand that I am posting this for discussion. I don't like religion, but that does not mean that I am allowed to demean you because you like religion. In my eyes, in order to advance in a more proper way (advancing properly is just impossible), we need to abolish religion. Notice how civilizations have greatly advanced in the last five hundred years, when religion was slowly becoming less and less prominent. Over the last hundred years, huge technological improvements have been made, thanks to the lack of religion in many places. Again, I will say, these are only my opinions. I am not trying to demean you, as I know that it is only a small percentage of people who will kill over religion. However, just one last thing....last time I heard of an atheist killing over his/her beliefs was....well, I have never heard of such a thing.