(Part 2) Best world history books according to redditors

Jump to the top 20

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 products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.

Next page

Subcategories:

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/When_Ducks_Attack · 179 pointsr/todayilearned

A fantastic book on this very story is Go Like Hell by AJ Baime. Goes into a lot of detail on the relationship Ford and Iacocca had with Shelby, and how much they all wanted to beat Ferrari at his own game.

Great read, even friends of mine who aren't racing fans have enjoyed it.

u/tomaburque · 137 pointsr/politics

It's not rhetorical hyperbole to say that Fascism is what about 40% of the US population (the part that still supports Trump) wants for the US. Recommended reading https://www.amazon.com/How-Fascism-Works-Politics-Them/dp/0525511830 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

​

  1. Charismatic leader who leverages fear and hatred of immigrants and minorities to gain support.
  2. Tells the people they are threatened and questions the patriotism of anyone who disagrees.
  3. Despises the free press and has his own propaganda alternative (Fox News - Limbaugh - Goebbels)
  4. Paramilitary thugs in the street to intimidate opposition (Proud Boys - Brown Shirts)
  5. Adored by most conservative Protestants, those who disagree intimidated into silence ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Evangelical_Church )
  6. Calls opposition socialists or communists.
  7. Wants to take country back to an earlier time before minorities and decadent liberals messed things up (Make America great again)
  8. Master race (Shit hole countries)
  9. Blames foreigners for the country's problems (Trade war)
  10. Tells the country the good people live in the heartland (Red States) as opposed to disgusting cities like New York and Los Angeles full of inferior minorities and immigrants and decadent liberals.

    I could probably think of more but that's a start. A common refrain on the right is that Liberals want to destroy America. But the reality is the opposite - the hard right wants to destroy Democracy because they are afraid of it, all those minorities voting. So they do everything they can to rig the elections - voter suppression, gerrymandering, unlimited money in politics, and worst of all, gladly accepting help from Vladimir Putin, until recently a enemy of America, to win the last presidential election.
u/SnapesGrayUnderpants · 135 pointsr/collapse

It is not uncommon for a fascist dictator to obtain power this way. The book How Facism Works: the Politics of Us and Them by Jason Stanley describes how this process works and gives examples from history.

u/SurlyJason · 91 pointsr/worldnews

Camera's aren't the problem. Those are probably inevitable. The real issue will be who can access the footage. If you haven't read David Brin's The Transparent Society I would recommend giving it a look.

u/ShootTheChicken · 28 pointsr/gardening

Is that by the same guy that did this book? Because that book is excellent, I highly recommend it.

u/dsmith422 · 26 pointsr/technology

You cannot link to David Brin talking about privacy without linking to his book on the subject.

The Transparent Society - wiki

>The Transparent Society (1998) is a non-fiction book by the science-fiction author David Brin in which he forecasts social transparency and some degree of erosion of privacy, as it is overtaken by low-cost surveillance, communication and database technology, and proposes new institutions and practices that he believes would provide benefits that would more than compensate for lost privacy. The work first appeared as a magazine article by Brin in Wired in late 1996.

amazon link

u/HippyCapitalist · 22 pointsr/collapse

Plants pull CO2 out of the air and use around half of it to build their bodies. They exude the rest of the carbon into the soil as simple sugars to feed the microbes that live in the soil. The microbes eat the sugar and excrete acids into the soil, breaking down the rock to get the minerals they need in addition to carbon to build their bodies. When the microbes die, the plants can absorb the minerals the microbes collected.

People have degraded topsoil so much that we have a huge opportunity to remove CO2 from the air and store it in soil by restoring soil health, which would happen if we could/would restore the native ecosystems. David Mongomery has some great books and videos explaining where we are and how we got here.

Trees have an enormous amount of solar collecting leaves powering the photosynthetic machinery that converts atmospheric CO2 to wood and carbon in the soil. Compare that to the photosynthesis a lawn cut a few inches high can do. People need to plant as many trees as possible, and even more importantly save every bit of old growth ecosystems we can.

u/[deleted] · 22 pointsr/AntifascistsofReddit

"And she, my family, and our friends are not fascists but they often support fascist ideals without know it." - there, that's it. EVERY leftist goes through this at some point.

One of the first things you could do is educate them on the origins of fascism. I mean this in a non confrontational sense. The unlearning process can be a painful one though so many people will disengage. It's tricky, all you can do is supply the information. Through learning the origins of what fascism is, they may grasp how it never went away and how it still effects us, daily. You could start with the following quote:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Giovanni Gentile

Few more useful links below:

How fascism works

The new faces of fascism

Antifa Handbook

Alt America

​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8AcmzqFdPM&t=11s - on Nazism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFvG4RpwJI&t=1108s - again on Nazism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5ClScOsE-4&t=78s - on fascism & socialism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1O3DWDzyv8&t=7s - capitalism & fascism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_rto6JPYQ8 - neoliberalism & fascism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6Nb3wbpljo - fascism & the political compass

​

​

u/waistlinepants · 21 pointsr/changemyview

https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households

> No single program explains immigrants' higher overall welfare use. For example, not counting subsidized school lunch, welfare use is still 46 percent for immigrants and 28 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 44 percent for immigrants and 26 percent for natives.


> The welfare system is designed to help low-income workers, especially those with children, and this describes many immigrant households. In 2012, 51 percent of immigrant households with one or more workers accessed one or more welfare programs, as did 28 percent of working native households.


> The high rates of immigrant welfare use are not entirely explained by their lower education levels. Households headed by college-educated immigrants have significantly higher welfare use than households headed by college-educated natives — 26 percent vs. 13 percent.

You said, "scientific and intellectual progress could be heightened with more people [from those in Central America]". What data are you using to base such a claim? 97% of all innovations have been from Europeans from 800BC to 1950AD.

u/shickoshicko · 19 pointsr/AskHistorians

Not sure if this is the definitive theory, but I read that women became the "subjugated sex" during the transition between nomadic society and agrarian society.

The reasoning goes that for the survival of a nomadic/hunter-gatherer society, women would usually forage while men would go out and hunt. As opposed to hunting which was quite physically intensive and required being out long stretches of time in the wilderness, foraging could be done whilst caring for the young - thus childbirth/taking care of the young by no means prohibited them from participating from gathering necessary resources for the survival of the village.

When farming came about the labor to produce crop, changed - requiring large amounts of intense physical labor and not at all conducive to child rearing. So women were often relegated to the home to care for their kids while the men went out and farmed. Thus, their role went from being crucial to the village economy to being shunned completely from it, once the transition to agriculture occurred. In that way men became the breadwinners - and as a result commanded a far more important role in the economies of agrarian societies.

Elaborating on that - as farming allowed nomadic tribes to settle into smaller towns and cities, laws and practices set up by the municipalities enshrined these biases through traditions, religions and other ethic codes.

I don't think this is a definitive answer and glazes over a lot of areas, but I think it's a good starting point. A good place to read up on this is the People's History of the World which has a whole chapter dedicated to the subject. -

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-World-Stone-Millennium/dp/1844672387/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345854393&sr=8-1&keywords=People%27s+history+of+the+world

u/saydrahdid911 · 18 pointsr/SubredditDrama

What are you talking about, clearly more quality output from the organization founded by the man who wrote Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism.

u/pencilears · 16 pointsr/TrueReddit

to be fair, while a giant monocropping farm can produce a shit-ton of corn or soybeans, in terms of efficiency of soil conservation and total possible calories to be derived from that soil, small multi-crop mixed farms do a lot better both over the short and long term.

source

over the next century I expect a return to traditional farming methods as we run out of oil and need to produce more calories per acre as the population continues to grow.

u/DoubtingThomas50 · 16 pointsr/exmormon

The cross only became taboo in Mormonism under David O. McKay. It was an anti-Catholic gesture in response to Catholic's efforts to proselytize in SLC and other anti-Catholic sentiments.

Read Banishing the Cross: Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo https://www.amazon.com/dp/1934901350/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_c_api_JSKzzbH8KQ8TC

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/mrsiesta · 13 pointsr/politics

>Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2][3][4] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.

There's plenty of parallels that could be made to support the assertion that Trumps base leans Fascist. Even the Trump slogan, "Make America Great Again", is a tenant of fascist politics. Alluding to a mythic past. This same sort of messaging is found around the world where fascism has made a foothold.

You are correct that authoritarianism is part of the equation.

Edit: "How Fascism Works" by Jason Stanley. While this book is wordy, it does a good job of explaining fascism and how it relates to the MAGA movement.

u/Okigofuckmyself · 13 pointsr/movies
u/weirds3xstuff · 12 pointsr/changemyview

There are two books that I have read that have done a great deal to help me understand the dynamics that allowed Europe to rise to dominance starting in the 17th century: Guns, Germs, and Steel, and Why Nations Fail. The former talks about the geographical and ecological considerations that stifled development outside of Europe. The latter talks about the role if extractive institutions, set up by colonial powers, that remained after decolonization and prevented previously-colonized nations from developing. I can't do their arguments justice here, but if you are sincerely interested in changing your view I strongly recommend reading those books. I'll try to address your specific points:

> it seems to me that those of European heritage have made the most long-lasting and significant contributions to mankind. To name a few: space travel, internet, modern technology and medicine.

All of these marvels are founded in the scientific method, which developed during the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment has been successfully exported to multiple non-European countries, most notably Japan. So, it's not just Europeans who are able to appreciate Enlightenment values. But the Enlightenment did start in Europe. So, to believe that the Enlightenment proves that Europeans are superior you must prove that the cause of the enlightenment was the innate character of Europeans, and not any contingent factors. That is...very difficult to do. And, yes, the burden of proof is on you, here, since the null hypothesis is that the biological distinctiveness of Europeans is unrelated to the start of the Enlightenment.

> I realize Arabs of ancient times also contributed a lot in the realms of mathematics and medicine.

Yes. Different civilizations have become world leaders at different points in history, which makes the idea of some kind of innate superiority of one civilization really hard to believe. It just so happens that the Islamic Golden Age occurred at a time when it was impossible to communicate over large distances, while the European Golden Age (which we are now in) occurred at a time when communication is instantaneous and we can project military power across the entire world. In other words, the global dominance of Europeans is historically contingent, not an immutable fact of biology.

>One argument I frequently hear to counter this position is that other nations have failed to develop due to colonization and exploitation.

This is an excellent argument, and is, essentially, correct.

> if they were on the same level as Europeans intellectually and strength wise, why couldn't they have found the means to fight back and turn the tables?

Although they were at the same level as Europeans "intellectually and strength wise", they were not at the same level technologically. Europe was in a golden age, Africa, India, and China were not. Again, the key here is that the European Golden Age occurred at a time when it was possible to travel the oceans and project military power worldwide. That was not the case in the Islamic Golden Age or the Indian Golden Age, which explains why those civilizations didn't conquer the world in the way the Europeans of the 19th century did.

>Instead of Europeans doing what they've done to others, why couldn't it have been the other way around?

Guns, Germs, and Steel does the best job of explaining this. In short: Europeans were blessed with livestock that could be domesticated and a consistent climate that allowed them to produce lots of food more efficiently that other regions of the world could, which allowed them to spend more time on other things, like technology. Again, the full argument is the length of a (very good) book, so I suggest you pick it up to get more details.

u/patron_vectras · 11 pointsr/teslamotors

Mightaswell reccomend a book while we are off topic.

Dirt: Erosion of Civilizations by David R Montgomery.

The story of humanity and how it has been changing the climate since the dawn of agriculture.

u/seagoonie · 11 pointsr/spirituality

Here's a list of books I've read that have had a big impact on my journey.

First and foremost tho, you should learn to meditate. That's the most instrumental part of any spiritual path.

 Ram Dass – “Be Here Now” - https://www.amazon.com/Be-Here-Now-Ram-Dass/dp/0517543052 - Possibly the most important book in the list – was the biggest impact in my life.  Fuses Western and Eastern religions/ideas. Kinda whacky to read, but definitely #1

Ram Dass - “Journey Of Awakening” - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006L7R2EI - Another Ram Dass book - once I got more into Transcendental Meditation and wanted to learn other ways/types of meditation, this helped out.

 Clifford Pickover – “Sex, Drugs, Einstein & Elves…” - https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Drugs-Einstein-Elves-Transcendence/dp/1890572179/ - Somewhat random, frantic book – explores lots of ideas – planted a lot of seeds in my head that I followed up on in most of the books below

 Daniel Pinchbeck – “Breaking Open the Head” - https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Open-Head-Psychedelic-Contemporary/dp/0767907434 - First book I read to explore impact of psychedelics on our brains

 Jeremy Narby – “Cosmic Serpent” - https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Serpent-DNA-Origins-Knowledge/dp/0874779642/ - Got into this book from the above, explores Ayahuasca deeper and relevancy of serpent symbolism in our society and DNA

 Robert Forte – “Entheogens and the Future of Religion” - https://www.amazon.com/Entheogens-Future-Religion-Robert-Forte/dp/1594774382 - Collection of essays and speeches from scientists, religious leaders, etc., about the use of psychedelics (referred to as Entheogens) as the catalyst for religion/spirituality

 Clark Strand – “Waking up to the Dark” - https://www.amazon.com/Waking-Up-Dark-Ancient-Sleepless/dp/0812997727 - Explores human’s addiction to artificial light, also gets into femininity of religion as balance to masculine ideas in our society

 Lee Bolman – “Leading with Soul” - https://www.amazon.com/Leading-Soul-Uncommon-Journey-Spirit/dp/0470619007 - Discusses using spirituality to foster a better, more supportive and creative workplace – pivotal in my honesty/openness approach when chatting about life with coworkers

 Eben Alexander – “Proof of Heaven” - https://www.amazon.com/Proof-Heaven-Neurosurgeons-Journey-Afterlife/dp/1451695195 - A neurophysicist discusses his near death experience and his transformation from non-believer to believer (title is a little click-baity, but very insightful book.  His descriptions of his experience align very similarly to deep meditations I’ve had)

 Indries Shah – “Thinkers of the East” - https://www.amazon.com/Thinkers-East-Idries-Shah/dp/178479063X/ - A collection of parables and stories from Islamic scholars.  Got turned onto Islamic writings after my trip through Pakistan, this book is great for structure around our whole spiritual “journey”

 Whitley Strieber – “The Key: A True Encounter” - https://www.amazon.com/Key-True-Encounter-Whitley-Strieber/dp/1585428698 - A man’s recollection of a conversation with a spiritual creature visiting him in a hotel room.  Sort of out there, easy to dismiss, but the topics are pretty solid

 Mary Scott – “Kundalini in the Physical World” - https://www.amazon.com/Kundalini-Physical-World-Mary-Scott/dp/0710094175/ - Very dense, very difficult scientific book exploring Hinduism and metaphysics (wouldn’t recommend this for light reading, definitely something you’d want to save for later in your “journey”)

 Hermann Hesse – “Siddartha” - https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/siddhartha-hermann-hesse/1116718450? – Short novel about a spiritual journey, coming of age type book.  Beautifully written, very enjoyable.

Reza Aslan - “Zealot” - https://www.amazon.com/ZEALOT-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/140006922X - Talks about the historical Jesus - helped me reconnect with Christianity in a way I didn’t have before

Reza Aslan - “No god but God” - https://www.amazon.com/god-but-God-Updated-Evolution/dp/0812982444 - Same as above, but in terms of Mohammad and Islam.  I’m starting to try to integrate the “truths” of our religions to try and form my own understanding

Thich Nhat Hanh - “Silence” - https://www.amazon.com/Silence-Power-Quiet-World-Noise-ebook/dp/B00MEIMCVG - Hanh’s a Vietnamese Buddhist monk - in this book he writes a lot about finding the beauty in silence, turning off the voice in our heads and lives, and living in peace.

Paulo Coelho - “The Alchemist” - https://www.amazon.com/Alchemist-Paulo-Coelho/dp/0062315005/ - Sort of a modern day exploration of “the path” similar to “Siddhartha.”  Very easy and a joy to read, good concepts of what it means to be on a “path”

Carlos Castaneda - "The Teachings of Don Juan" - The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge https://www.amazon.com/dp/0671600419 - Started exploring more into shamanism and indigenous spiritual work; this book was a great intro and written in an entertaining and accessible way. 

Jean-Yves Leloup - “The Gospel of Mary” - https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Mary-Magdalene-Jean-Yves-Leloup/dp/0892819111/ - The book that finally opened my eyes to the potentiality of the teachings of Christ.  This book, combined with the one below, have been truly transformative in my belief system and accepting humanity and the power of love beyond what I’ve found so far in my journey.

Jean-Yves Leloup - “The Gospel of Philip” - https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Philip-Magdalene-Gnosis-Sacred/dp/1594770220 - Really begins to dissect and dive into the metaphysical teachings of Christ, exploring the concept of marriage, human union and sexuality, and the power contained within.  This book, combined with the one above, have radically changed my perception of The Church as dissimilar and antithetical to what Christ actually taught.

Ram Dass - “Be Love Now” - https://www.amazon.com/Be-Love-Now-Path-Heart/dp/0061961388 - A follow-up to “Be Here Now” - gets more into the esoteric side of things, his relationship with his Guru, enlightenment, enlightened beings, etc.

Riane Eisler - “The Chalice and the Blade” - https://www.amazon.com/Chalice-Blade-Our-History-Future/dp/0062502891 - An anthropoligical book analyzing the dominative vs cooperative models in the history and pre-history of society and how our roots have been co-opted and rewritten by the dominative model to entrap society into accepting a false truth of violence and dominance as “the way it is”

u/TomatoHere · 9 pointsr/badscience

> 1. 'The EU center" Yes, trust the EU's report, they clearly have no agenda whatsoever, especially when considering Juncker's recent statement in which he asserted the EU would try to block democratically elected right wing parties from power. Even if Sweden over-reports rapes as compared to the rest of the world, there is still the crucial statistic of quantity of rapes by race. The fact people of foreign background are so over-represented means there is clearly an issue. Something like 91% of rapes in sweden are committed by people of foreign background, and the percentage is similar in pretty much all European countries that have experienced Islamic immigration in recent years.

Poisoning the well.

> 2. Actually, it's quite obvious that this is primarily a result of immigration. If old racial proportions had not changed, whites becoming a minority so soon would not have even been a possibility. Whites made up over 95% of most European countries following the end of WW2.

Read my other comments. I don't deny that.

> At worst, the population would slightly decline or stagnate as a very small minority of the population reproduced faster than the majority.

This is a major problem across Europe. In only a few years, we will have a
major economic problem, due to low birth rates.

> While I don't care to discuss race mixing because I doubt there is actually much science behind claims either pro or anti it,

There is significant evidence pro it.

> there are quite significant racial IQ gaps. Whites and Asians have an average IQ of somewhere between 100 and 110, those inhabiting Middle Eastern countries have an average IQ of between 80 and 90, and those inheriting Sub-Saharan Africa have an average IQ ranging from 60 to 80.

This can be explained by environmental factors.

> A quick google search on the matter yielded quite a few interesting results. Here is one: https://jaymans.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/sw3jig.jpg This book does a great job of covering human achievement through the ages http://www.amazon.com/Human-Accomplishment-Pursuit-Excellence-Sciences/dp/0060929642 and this set of graphs should say it all https://i.imgur.com/ySaBlBA.png

That book is incredebly eurocentric, and really low-quality IMO.

u/global_domer · 9 pointsr/DebateReligion

Before I get to my main point, I would just like to briefly comment upon this short phrase,

>another case of philosophy failing to keep up with modern science

which demonstrates a patent lack of understanding of what philosophy and science are, and what distinguishes them, as disciplines. Science's domain is the empirical -- it is concerned with physical stuff, with things that can be physically (and usually quantitatively) observed, measured, and examined. Philosophy is concerned with metaphysics, that is, with non-empirical reflection, and for that reason can never really 'keep up' with science. You cannot derive from empirical foundations the principles of moral behaviour, nor what constitutes a 'just' political system, nor whether there is an immaterial God. There is no 'keeping up' between philosophy and science. They deal with fundamentally different subject matter.

To the main point: Arguments to the effect of modern science (in any field, not just cosmology) definitively disproving the existence of God are short-sighted. Even recent developments in the field of cosmology are insufficient to demonstrate the non-necessity of a God, for the reason that they do not broach the fundamental question of why anything at all exists. The classical theist, drawing upon Aristotle, would consider the notion of a godless universe as patently bizarre. Any universe is necessarily 'contingent' in philosophical terms, which means that there is a distinction between what it could be (its potentiality) and what it is at any given moment (its actuality). Since any universe (or any set of pre-universe laws or constants) is necessarily contingent, subject to either change or the mere theoretical possibility of existing in some other way, its existence is not necessary as such.

The theist would then say that, to explain all contingent realities, we must posit some ultimate non-contingent reality in which no distinction exists between potentiality and actuality. In other words, all contingent, non-necessary reality must derive from some necessary reality, which cannot be any particular universe nor any pre-universe state of contingent laws. In theological language, this necessary entity which is fully actual (the 'I AM who am' of the Jewish tradition) is termed 'God.'

Edit: To quote from the great David Bentley Hart,

>Hawking’s dismissal of God as an otiose explanatory hypothesis, for instance, is a splendid example of a false conclusion drawn from a confused question. He clearly thinks that talk of God’s creation of the universe concerns some event that occurred at some particular point in the past, prosecuted by some being who appears to occupy the shadowy juncture between a larger quantum landscape and the specific conditions of our current cosmic order; by “God,” that is to say, he means only a demiurge, coming after the law of gravity but before the present universe, whose job was to nail together all the boards and firmly mortar all the bricks of our current cosmic edifice. So Hawking naturally concludes that such a being would be unnecessary if there were some prior set of laws — just out there, so to speak, happily floating along on the wave-functions of the quantum vacuum — that would permit the spontaneous generation of any and all universes. It never crosses his mind that the question of creation might concern the very possibility of existence as such, not only of this universe but of all the laws and physical conditions that produced it, or that the concept of God might concern a reality not temporally prior to this or that world, but logically and necessarily prior to all worlds, all physical laws, all quantum events, and even all possibilities of laws and events. From the perspective of classical metaphysics, Hawking misses the whole point of talk of creation: God would be just as necessary even if all that existed were a collection of physical laws and quantum states, from which no ordered universe had ever arisen; for neither those laws nor those states could exist of themselves. But — and here is the crucial issue — those who argue for the existence of God principally from some feature or other of apparent cosmic design are guilty of the same conceptual confusion; they make a claim like Hawking’s seem solvent, or at least relevant, because they themselves have not advanced beyond the demiurgic picture of God. By giving the name “God” to whatever as yet unknown agent or property or quality might account for this or that particular appearance of design, they have produced a picture of God that it is conceivable the sciences could some day genuinely make obsolete, because it really is a kind of rival explanation to the explanations the sciences seek. This has never been true of the God described in the great traditional metaphysical systems. The true philosophical question of God has always been posed at a far simpler but far more primordial and comprehensive level; it concerns existence as such: the logical possibility of the universe, not its mere physical probability. God, properly conceived, is not a force or cause within nature, and certainly not a kind of supreme natural explanation.

from The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss (https://www.amazon.com/Experience-God-Being-Consciousness-Bliss/dp/0300166842)

u/Supervisor194 · 8 pointsr/exjw

I'm very sorry for your situation but the unvarnished truth of the matter is that your relationship with your father as you knew him is probably over, at least for a while. This is a high-control religion that values membership in itself as the highest of priorities. Your father will likely be unable to stop himself and in the short-term it will adversely affect your relationship with him.

My father has been a Witness all his life and we have a great relationship, so the good news is that it is possible. But my father has been jaded by many years of listening to unfulfilled promises of imminent paradise, so the religion is not clouding his thinking as deeply as it is clouded in a new convert like your father. With time, he will - as all humans do - get subconsciously bored with it all and while he won't likely be shaken from his beliefs he won't be as forward about them.

In the meantime, I suggest that you reconsider your supportive attitude and especially as regards your children, make it very clear that any attempts at indoctrinating your children will NOT be tolerated. With regard to families, this is perhaps the most dangerous of religions, as it perversely destroys them in the most unnatural of ways. It may behoove you to understand the religion a bit so I recommend that you obtain and read a copy of the book Crisis of Conscience so that you can understand why your father's decision to be a part of it does not deserve your support.

I'm sorry you have to be put through this, but do become educated and do be vigilant. This religion is a dangerous mind virus.

Edit: holy smokes, Crisis of Conscience is out of print it seems and those prices are crazy. Here is a pdf of it.

u/stevep98 · 8 pointsr/IAmA

Living out in the boonies doesn't necessarily make you less consumptive.

Read this new book about cities:

http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/159420277X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300486734&sr=8-1

u/alfin_timiro · 8 pointsr/latterdaysaints

I highly recommend reading Banishing the Cross, a book about changing attitudes toward the cross in the LDS Church.

u/truthredux · 7 pointsr/milliondollarextreme

Hate to be that goy, but actually the conservative whites are gaining in numbers. They have more children than liberal faggots, they are generally healthier, and have higher reported life satisfaction (urban/rural).

https://www.amazon.com/Shall-Religious-Inherit-Earth-Twenty-First/dp/1846681448

u/Dr-Wonderful · 7 pointsr/Reformed

Any standard work on the subject, whether literary or archeological, would point away from the basic framework of your interpretation. (The best evidence, of course, is always the Bible, properly interpreted in its context, itself).

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195167686/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_TbmWBbGQ5HYF1


The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (The Biblical Resource Series) https://www.amazon.com/dp/080283972X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_9dmWBbD268FCN

Stories from Ancient Canaan, Second Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/0664232426/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_BemWBb5ADVYJF

The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures https://www.amazon.com/dp/019060865X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_5fmWBb77Z4SP3

The Oxford Handbook of the Abrahamic Religions (Oxford Handbooks) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0198783019/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_KgmWBb7AE7EC5

History of Religious Ideas, Volume 1: From the Stone Age to the Eleusinian Mysteries https://www.amazon.com/dp/0226204014/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_ahmWBb97P6K64

Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide (Harvard University Press Reference Library) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674015177/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_.hmWBbFMA52Z7

None of these propose an exact duplicate of this simplistic model, but they triangulate to something very similar.

u/NDAugustine · 7 pointsr/DebateReligion

Faith and reason are not opposed to one another. For a Catholic perspective, read John Paul II's Fides et Ratio. One of the ways that rationality helped me move from being a Nietzschean atheist to being a Catholic is the philosophical incoherence of materialism. I would recommend a recently-published book by the Orthodox Philosopher/Theologian David Bentley Hart titled, The Experience of God, which has one of the best arguments against materialism as a philosophy I've ever seen.

u/lorenzomiglie · 6 pointsr/MapPorn

You also read Jared Diamond, am I right?

Great Book.

u/makoConstruct · 6 pointsr/newzealand

I'd be more worried about the manipulation of social media, nowadays. Especially astroturfing stuff that isn't distinguishable from the actions of regular anonymous political fanatics. Good luck policing that without just flat out making all exchanges of money between anyone public (actually do consider making all transactions public though, I'm fairly sure that society wouldn't be a bad place to live)

Also: Sufficiently advanced civic analysis is indistinguishable from a service that people would pay money for.

You have to just pay attention to where people are getting their information and try to make that thing democratic imo.

u/ambiturnal · 6 pointsr/technology

Which book?

edit Found The Transparent Society

u/aphrodite-walking · 6 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

Oh wow that is so awesome of you! My kindle stopped working a few weeks ago :( I loved that thing. Idk what happened to it but it wouldn't turn on even though it was charged. But I would love a fancy HD one. I had the old kindle fire which worked really well but I want to see the new bells and whistles! I love reading on the kindle because it's like carrying an entire library with me in my bag. It'd be nice to be able to read while I'm on vacation! I've been wanting to read this book for a while. I looove science and this is a collection of true stories that have to do with the periodic table of elements. I like hearing the history and the strange things in science!

Thank you again for the contest, it is so kind of you 186394!

u/OrvilleSchnauble · 5 pointsr/exmormon

GBH said all that stuff about why we don't use the cross. This is a much better answer from lds.org guide to the scriptures:

"The wooden structure upon which Jesus Christ was crucified (Mark 15:20–26). Many in the world now think of it as a symbol of Christ’s crucifixion and atoning sacrifice; however, the Lord has established his own symbols for his crucifixion and sacrifice—the bread and the water of the sacrament (Matt. 26:26–28; D&C 20:40, 75–79)."
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/cross?lang=eng&letter=c

Also, to add to your comment about Catholics, Banishing the Cross by Michael G. Reed discusses the episode in Utah history where the Catholic church and the LDS church were butting heads. According to him, that is why we don't use the cross. Interesting book, though.

http://www.amazon.com/Banishing-Cross-Emergence-Mormon-Taboo/dp/1934901350

EDIT: /u/jdovew mentioned the same book. Should have read the thread... haha

u/amodrenman · 5 pointsr/latterdaysaints

I am an active latter-day saint, and I wear a cross. I have a cross that I made on the wall of my home, as well. I started when I received one on my mission in Russia, and I have continued to wear one because of what it means to me. If you want to read some of the history of crosses and the church, check out this book by an LDS grad student. I've read it and discussed the central theory with a BYU professor; the research seems sound, too, and fits with the other things I've read in the historical periods discussed.

Moreover, the cross is a symbol. Read some scriptures about what it means. Think about what it might mean to you. If you don't want to wear it don't. But there is nothing taught in Mormonism that says you should not wear one, just the remains of some anti-Catholicism and some garbled thinking. It is not the symbol of the Mormon faith, but it is a symbol of Christ.

u/greatjasoni · 5 pointsr/slatestarcodex

This seems like a word salad of assertions without any actual derivation from first principles. A first principles faith would be Thomism and it's already extensively mapped out with all sorts of variations. Maybe look into analytic Thomism? Physics, the multiverse, etc. would have to be first derived from metaphysical principles which aren't established here. I don't know what the first principles of the article are. It seems more like an aesthetic than a coherent set of beliefs.

You're trying to untangle what can and cant be coherently said about God. Sophisticated theology mapped out all these linguistic issues thousands of years ago, and in the analytic tradition continues to get more and more precise statements. It engages with the multiverse, the probabilistic logic of good/evil, what does and doesn't fit in a word game, all of that. You're unnecessarily reinventing the wheel here. I personally think analytic thomism is misguided and you're better served by a classical picture. But it is a whole field that seems to share your interests and made lots of rigorous logical progress.

u/sojjos · 5 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

This is a loaded question. As you can expect, there are many reasons, some of which are still being debated.

One main thing to remember about the Native Americans is that they, until the first Europeans began to come (1500s ish?) and interact with them, didn't have any contact with the the rest of the world. Contact between Asia and Europe and even Africa spread many cultural ideas and innovations. The native Americans didn't have the Silk Road. Simply put, it's hard to be as advanced as the rest of the world when you're working all by yourself.

Why didn't the inuits in the north trade and diffuse "advancement" with the Iroquois in modern New York, or with the Incans and Mayans? An interesting (and probably true) theory is that this is due to the axis of the americas versus the axis of the rest of the world.
Throughout the rest of the world, people spread and migrate easily because they generally are moving on an east to west axis with much less change in latitude. The Americas are relatively narrow in comparison to the "Old World," and most "spreading out" would be done on a north-south axis. This is MUCH harder to do on a large, noticeable scale because different latitudes come with different temperatures, climates, etc. People in modern day New Mexico did not have the necessities to travel to modern day Alaska, and vice versa.

It's important also to note that while the native Americans as a whole weren't as "advanced" as the rest of the world, certain societies (specifically the Incas and Aztecs) built massive and advanced cultures and civilizations that awed even the Spanish conquistadors.

Edit: I'm so happy that everyone is mentioning Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. This is truly a great book that broadens your world view!!

u/phire14 · 5 pointsr/reddit.com

I just leave this here.

Personally, I think that we will realize how little we care what other people are doing.

u/NomadicVagabond · 5 pointsr/religion

First of all, can I just say how much I love giving and receiving book recommendations? I was a religious studies major in college (and was even a T.A. in the World Religions class) so, this is right up my alley. So, I'm just going to take a seat in front of my book cases...

General:

  1. A History of God by Karen Armstrong

  2. The Great Transformation by Karen Armstrong

  3. Myths: gods, heroes, and saviors by Leonard Biallas (highly recommended)

  4. Natural History of Religion by David Hume

  5. Beyond Tolerance by Gustav Niebuhr

  6. Acts of Faith by Eboo Patel (very highly recommended, completely shaped my view on pluralism and interfaith dialogue)

  7. The Evolution of God by Robert Wright

    Christianity:

  8. Tales of the End by David L. Barr

  9. The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan

  10. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography by John Dominic Crossan

  11. The Birth of Christianity by John Dominic Crossan

  12. Who Wrote the New Testament? by Burton Mack

  13. Jesus in America by Richard Wightman Fox

  14. The Five Gospels by Robert Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar (highly recommended)

  15. Remedial Christianity by Paul Alan Laughlin

    Judaism:

  16. The Jewish Mystical Tradition by Ben Zion Bokser

  17. Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman

    Islam:

  18. Muhammad by Karen Armstrong

  19. No God but God by Reza Aslan

  20. Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations by Michael Sells

    Buddhism:

  21. Buddha by Karen Armstrong

  22. Entering the Stream ed. Samuel Bercholz & Sherab Chodzin Kohn

  23. The Life of Milarepa translated by Lobsang P. Lhalungpa

  24. Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism by John Powers

  25. Zen Flesh, Zen Bones compiled by Paul Reps (a classic in Western approached to Buddhism)

  26. Buddhist Thought by Paul Williams (if you're at all interested in Buddhist doctrine and philosophy, you would be doing yourself a disservice by not reading this book)

    Taoism:

  27. The Essential Chuang Tzu trans. by Sam Hamill & J.P. Seaton

    Atheism:

  28. Atheism by Julian Baggini

  29. The Future of an Illusion by Sigmund Freud

  30. Doubt: A History by Jennifer Michael Hecht

  31. When Atheism Becomes Religion by Chris Hedges

  32. Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith
u/if_and_only_if · 5 pointsr/islam

I was a Catholic. I had issues with certain parts of the faith that I didn't think too much about since I didn't really have a way to answer them, such as reconciling the idea of the trinity with monotheism.

I've studied the church's stance on it but it doesn't FEEL like the two beliefs are compatible and it never has. The explanations I was given and that I thought of myself always seemed a bit unsatisfactory like technicalities. That and the idea that I had to accept the teaching of a church whose members consist of fallible people. How do I accept creeds and beliefs laid down by other people throughout history hundreds and thousands of years after Jesus lived? It was, in fact, the vow of obedience to the church that dissuaded me early on from contemplating joining the clergy.

The last reticent doubt I had was about the authenticity of the bible, having studied a bit about the Documentary Hypothesis and the different authors of the bible. It became a bit hard for me to believe it could be very factually accurate or (more importantly) have spiritual authority for me to base my beliefs on. Different people throughout hundreds of years wrote different documents and I'm supposed to follow this specially compiled group of them as an authoritative fact? It would require me to accept the authority of the people who wrote them, and the people who edited them, and the people who compiled them, the authors and the church. So I ended up not reading too much of the bible after a point.

When I learned about Islam (completely by happy accident, I enjoy studying world religions anyways and realized reading through the Islam wiki I had no idea what this huge religion was about or how it originated, etc) I found that I agreed with Islam's teachings about Jesus as prophet. And then the Qur'an (in Islam) does not present the same difficulties as the bible does in Christianity IF you believe in the prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ. That came to me upon reading the Qur'an and reading a short biography about the prophet's life and the origin of Islam source

If you'd like to talk more about this please feel free to PM me :)

u/AHRoulette · 5 pointsr/exjw

Maybe he is (like many) afraid of the consequences of choosing to challenge and/or walk away from the cult. JW's are really good at shunning friends and family members and most people can't deal with losing everyone and everything they have ever known.

Using the internet is not against the rules and he might think that he can convert Atheists by talking to them and debating them. He also probably thinks that doing this makes "Jehovah" happy.

Try to sneak this or better yet, valid points from it, into conversation. I wouldn't be very blatant about it, but if you're digging in, then that book is a GREAT place to dig. Be careful though, because he is trained to adamantly reject "apostate" (aka any former member who says JW's are NOT the one true religion) material. The author of that book was shunned as an apostate and is/was loathed by any JW who knows of him. THAT is how you know it's such a good book! ;-)

All in all, the JW cult is full of A++ mind control...you're friend is probably a victim.

u/ziddina · 5 pointsr/UnethicalLifeProTips

Hah! Just mention Ray Franz and his first book, "Crisis of Conscience", in which he strips the mask off of the Watchtower Society leaders. Ray Franz was one of the leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses until he was driven out in a real witch hunt, whereupon he wrote a tell-all book that exposes most of their dirty secrets.

https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Conscience-Raymond-Franz/dp/0914675044

u/joeblessyou · 4 pointsr/TrueAtheism

There is historical evidence that religion has been the direct cause of political change and influence. Ancient India is a good example where Jainism and Hinduism influenced the balance of power, shifting the role of the state rulers from one that exerts power, to one that is supposed to serve and protect religious leaders. This meant that the Brahman priests of the time, could have great influence, if not direct dictating of the laws. They (now and then) believe in "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world", which is just an example that their ideas weren't necessarily rooted in physical reality. They valued virtues and spirituality almost above physical prowess. This difference allowed India to create a very politically different state than the rest of the other Asian civilizations.

To think that religion is a secondary player in how people think, behave, and rule others is easy to do, and it is something that we should consider dangerous. It is understandable to want to give the benefit of the doubt to Islam, given the gruesome history of the other religions, but 1) Islam isn't a young religion, and 2) that is no excuse anyway. Christianity is probably a lot more damaging if we were to tally up all the scores, but that's more reason to stop the next religion.

source: The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution

u/Awlq · 4 pointsr/pcmasterrace

Well, here it is on Amazon if you want to preview it:
http://www.amazon.com/History-Influence-Cambridge-Paperback-Library/dp/0521316235

u/stupidusername · 4 pointsr/formula1

Always a good opportunity to plug this incredible book which really goes into Surtees

https://smile.amazon.com/Go-Like-Hell-Ferrari-Battle/dp/0547336055

u/donkeytime · 4 pointsr/AdamCarolla

At some point maybe a year and a half ago Aceman mentioned that he had been inspired by the book, [Go Like Hell](Go Like Hell: Ford, Ferrari, and Their Battle for Speed and Glory at Le Mans https://www.amazon.com/dp/0547336055/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_D01yyb56CM2VK)

u/ambivalentacademic · 4 pointsr/biology

The Selfish Gene is of course great, but I thought Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker was a better written book.

However, a new and really really great book is "The Gene" by Siddhartha Mukherjee. Just a gorgeous book, and full of history that any biologist should know.


u/liatris · 4 pointsr/news

If you're interested in the topic check out the book by the British political scientist Eric Kaufman "Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?"

He explains that demographically social conservatives and religious fundamentalist in countries around the world are quickly beginning to dominate due to their large population expanses. The Orthodox Haredim will soon outnumber the Reformed Jews in Israel, evangelical Christians are overtaking Anglicans, the Amish population is doubling every 20 years, Hutterites are exploding in population, Mormon populations are growing very fast as well as is the Quiverfull movement.

If you combine high birth rates with very low rates of people leaving these extreme forms of religion, then you can see how it's religious moderates who are being destroyed, not extremist.

Interview with Eric Kaufmann, Author of Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?

>Question: This trend of “quiverfull” Christian families and large Catholic families (to name a couple) has been around for a while… And yet, the percentages of non-religious people keep increasing according to recent polls. Does that contradict your thesis?

>Answer: No. The composition of a population is always a product of the relative pace of secularisation and religious growth. I use the analogy of a treadmill.
Seculars are running on a treadmill that is tilting up and moving against them because of their low fertility and immigration. The religious — notably fundamentalists — are standing still or walking backward, but their treadmill is pushing them forward and tilting downhill. So in Europe in the late twentieth century, seculars were running fast enough to overcome their demographic disadvantage and overtook the faithful. But today, secularism is slowing down outside England and Catholic Europe, and is facing a more difficult incline from the treadmill of demography. London is a good example: it is more religious now than 20 years ago despite secularisation, simply because of religious immigration and fertility.**

Here are some interviews with the author...

Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century

Battle of the Babies - A new book argues that liberal secularism and high birth rates are fuelling a revival of religious fundamentalism. Caspar Melville speaks to its author Eric Kaufmann

u/Jlas · 4 pointsr/conspiracy

Real? yes , but evidence could lead one to believe its artificial

Who Built The Moon

Robin Brett, a scientist from NASA stated, “It seems easier to explain the non-existence of the Moon than its existence"

u/SlothMold · 4 pointsr/suggestmeabook

The Poisoner's Handbook is about the chemistry behind traditional poisons and the development of modern forensics in New York.

I have also seen Napoleon's Buttons and The Disappearing Spoon recommended, but I haven't read them yet.

u/satanic_hamster · 4 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

Socialism/Communism

A People's History of the World

Main Currents of Marxism

The Socialist System

The Age of... (1, 2, 3, 4)

Marx for our Times

Essential Works of Socialism

Soviet Century

Self-Governing Socialism (Vols 1-2)

The Meaning of Marxism

The "S" Word (not that good in my opinion)

Of the People, by the People

Why Not Socialism

Socialism Betrayed

Democracy at Work

Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA (again didn't like it very much)

The Socialist Party of America (absolute must read)

The American Socialist Movement

Socialism: Past and Future (very good book)

It Didn't Happen Here

Eugene V. Debs

The Enigma of Capital

Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism

A Companion to Marx's Capital (great book)

After Capitalism: Economic Democracy in Action

Capitalism

The Conservative Nanny State

The United States Since 1980

The End of Loser Liberalism

Capitalism and it's Economics (must read)

Economics: A New Introduction (must read)

U.S. Capitalist Development Since 1776 (must read)

Kicking Away the Ladder

23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism

Traders, Guns and Money

Corporation Nation

Debunking Economics

How Rich Countries Got Rich

Super Imperialism

The Bubble and Beyond

Finance Capitalism and it's Discontents

Trade, Development and Foreign Debt

America's Protectionist Takeoff

How the Economy was Lost

Labor and Monopoly Capital

We Are Better Than This

Ancap/Libertarian

Spontaneous Order (disagree with it but found it interesting)

Man, State and Economy

The Machinery of Freedom

Currently Reading

This is the Zodiac Speaking (highly recommend)

u/glmory · 3 pointsr/urbanplanning

I am rather a fan of Green Metropolis, and Triumph of the City. These are more written for a general audience rather than people planning to work in the field, but are still worth your time.

I should second the statement of The Atlantic Cities. That is a really great site.

u/MildlyAgitatedBovine · 3 pointsr/atheism

check out Eric Kaufmann: Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?. Lecture doesn't touch on all the numbers you want, but he take a good look at the issue from a number of angles. (not just conversion rates, but disparity in birth rate among various religious groups)
His book of the same title will probably have the numbers you're looking for.

u/Qwill2 · 3 pointsr/socialism

>"I have had many people ask me if there is a book which does for world history what my book A People's History of the United States does for this country. I always respond that I know of only one book that accomplishes this extremely difficult task, and that is Chris Harman's A People's History of the World"

-- Howard Zinn

Another candidate would be Leo Huberman's Man's Worldly Goods: The Story of The Wealth of Nations.

u/xoNightshade · 3 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

The Disappearing Spoon has been on my list since they made it a monthly deal - it looks so interesting! Thanks for the ebook contest. :)

u/nexted · 3 pointsr/Seattle

For what it's worth, cities are generally safer than suburbs.

Just an exerpt:
>But guns — whether used accidentally or with intent — are much less likely to be the cause of death than another tool: cars. And people drive more, drive longer, drive faster and drive drunker in rural areas than in urban ones, where they can walk or take public transit. Motor-vehicle crashes led to 27.61 deaths per 100,000 people in most rural areas, and just 10.58 deaths per 100,000 people. Those are stark statistics, and they don’t even take into account the cardiovascular benefits that may accrue to urbanites who spend more time walking than riding in cars. It’s not for nothing that New Yorkers, who live in the densest urban area in the U.S., live about 2.2 years longer than the national average.

If you're interested in a deeper exploration of the topic, check out Triumph of the City.

u/thatcat7_ · 3 pointsr/HOLLOWEARTH

Moon was likely put into perfect orbit around earth and perfect distance from earth and the Sun for perfect eclipse. I think moon was a natural satellite of some another planet, moon was turned into a spaceship and it wandered through space for long time until earth, and perhaps seeded earth.

Check https://www.amazon.com/Who-Built-Moon-Christopher-Knight/dp/1842931636

u/PublicolaMinor · 3 pointsr/politics

Not OP, but based on the words on top of each page, it looks like it's taken from Charles Murray's book "Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences".

Presumably, pages 252 and 296. Just guessing.

u/CertifiedRabbi · 3 pointsr/DebateAltRight

Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 by Charles Murray (of The Bell Curve fame).

Alt-Hype made a great video which referenced Charles Murray's work and convincingly debunked the popular leftist argument that non-White civilizations greatly surpassed White Europeans technologically in the past. As you'll see in the video, virtually all of the technological developments that were made before the White European Industrial Revolution were relatively insignificant in comparison. And even the so-called "Dark Age" of European history really wasn't as backwards and primitive as popularly claimed by the left. As soon as civilization reached Europe, Europeans have pretty much always been on par with India, China, and the Middle East. And then White Europeans left everyone in the dust with the Industrial Revolution. And only a couple of Northeast Asian countries have caught up to White Western countries in the last few decades.

u/Sorrybeinglate · 3 pointsr/AskAnthropology

History of religious ideas by Mirca Eliade. The book is structured around several ideas by the author that are both catchy and outdated, but still skimming through all three volumes is the best way to put things into perspective.

u/Ibrey · 3 pointsr/Christianity

You're right to ask how we know God exists and that Christianity is true. Contrary to what many believe, "having faith" does not mean believing in something for which there is no evidence, and Christianity hasn't survived for nearly two thousand years just because nobody ever thought to question it. You shouldn't envy anyone for their ability to shove these questions aside; their faith is founded on sand.

I think the best way to start forming an answer to questions like these is to find out how others have answered them in the past. So I suggest that you read a textbook like An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion.

A recent book with a heavy focus on the kind of wonder you describe at the existence of the world is The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss by David Bentley Hart. It has a great bibliography for further reading.

u/G01234 · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

I highly recommend this book for you:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Experience-God-Being-Consciousness/dp/0300166842

In it's way it's a philosophical defense of the idea of God or the Divine in response to Dawkins et al. The author is Orthodox, but the argument in defense of God is undertaken philosophically, without being tied to any one faith or denomination.

u/nostalghia · 3 pointsr/Christianity

I've been reading a really great book on God and humanity, and how it is that we come to know ourselves, others, our environment, and God through interpersonal relationships. It's called The Face of God, written by the English philosopher Roger Scruton. He's an Anglican Christian, though he doesn't believe in the traditional dogmas of the Church (like the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Trinity), and he re-interprets traditional doctrines like the real presence of the Eucharist to fit a more philosophical perspective (which I completely endorse, but the average orthodox Christian may not).

Anyway, I think he offers some very valuable insights into the nature of God and the human response to God, hinting at ways in which we come to know God through the knowledge of ourselves, others, and the sacredness of life around us. It's not necessarily "personal" in the way the typical Evangelical might define that word, but it certainly is personal in that it supports a view that we must ask God to forgive our transgressions against him and against others, and to realize that we encounter God in the experience of love and beauty.

If you enjoy philosophical reading, I would also encourage you to read David Bentley Hart's book The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, which demonstrates the existence of God who gives the necessary ontological grounds for existence, consciousness, and the transcendental virtues. One reviewer of this book said that it made him realize that God is "the most obvious thing of all."

u/DarthRainbows · 3 pointsr/history

Not been too many great replies here. I have the perfect book for you. Susan Wise Bauer's History of the Ancient World. It takes you from the dawn of history (~3,000BC) to Constantine, and is a really easy read, in fact it reads almost like fiction. A real pleasure. She also has two more, taking you up to 1453, but you can decide if you want them after you have read the first one.

I'm also going to suggets Francis Fukuyama's Origins of Political Order. This was the book that made me realise I didn't understand history or politics (most people go through life without ever realising this). Its also a history book, but focusing on the theme of the origins of our political institutions. A real good one. BTW ignore the boring cover that makes it look like a dry academic read; it isn't.

u/FitzGeraldisFitzGod · 3 pointsr/worldbuilding

I'm afraid I don't have the ability to break down political and social orders into a few short, easy to digest paragraphs of general advice. Political worldbuilding is what interests me the most and is a focus of my world, but I wouldn't have the first idea how to give lessons on how to learn how to do it.

The best I can do is suggest a book, [The Origins of Political Order] (https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Political-Order-Prehuman-Revolution/dp/0374533229) by Francis Fukuyama. It attempts to understand and explain why political institutions developed as they did, why in some places and not others, and why some institutions survive and others don't. It is, in my opinion, the single best book a layman on the subject who seeks to improve their political worldbuilding could read on the matter. It attempts to tackle Big History and give general rules on institutional development and is probably the closest thing to a pageturner the field of political theory has ever seen, perfectly readable at the college freshman level. It will teach you to think in terms of political cause and effect far better than I ever could.

u/ChaosFearsNone · 3 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

And done!!!

  1. Blue the best for obvious reason.

  2. Summer what’s better than beer pong? Pool beer pong.

  3. Usual Food the best because it’s a local thing.

  4. Gift for another for my love of Disney animation.

  5. Book to read great insight into the human race.

  6. Cheap because yummy.

  7. For the doge because adorable.

  8. Useless yet so awesome.

  9. Movie because it’s my favorite.

  10. Zombie to destroy their brains.

  11. Life changing to adapt to in work life.

  12. Add on because my kids are always getting sick.

  13. Fandom because it’s an awesome show and these are in apparently.

  14. Pricey for when the lights go out.

  15. Sharks because it’s badass and my daughter would love it.

  16. Good smells one of my favorite scents.

  17. Childhood feels spent so many playing games on this.

  18. Writers was helpful for me once upon a time.

  19. Obsessed my life of Disney is strong right now.

  20. Weird because lol.
u/rasterbated · 3 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

In addition to the previous answers, I would mention that Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, while not highly regarded by academic historians, contains a long discussion about the scholarship leading to the numbers of indigenous population deaths from European-borne disease that we can cite today. If you're interested in understanding the subtlety of the conversation, you'll find a good summary there.

The book's overall thesis, which is far from a consensus, is that Europeans were able to spread so widely and successfully across the globe because they had a unique mix of natural and animal resources, as well as a variety of disease immunities that were not shared by other cultures. So, the guns, germs, and steel were all on the side of the Europeans, thanks to the random distribution of minerals and resources around the globe. Again, not really a consensus, but it explains how you can have this conversation without falling back on which culture is "better" in some false way.

One important element of Diamond's argument is that it is perhaps impossible to know exactly how large indigenous population centers were, and therefor how many people were killed by disease. The invading Europeans weren't exactly interested in keeping track, and probably couldn't have done so even if they wanted to. Indigenous American cultures were also structured far differently from Europeans, not in small part because the Americas are enormous and everything was a big more spread out. This contributed to their lack of disease immunities common in Europeans, but how could an entire hemisphere of people be completely smallpox-naive?

Some historians might answer that, because the continent of Europe had a somewhat unique mix of livestock and because that livestock lived in close quarters with Europeans, disease jumped from animals to humans more quickly, and there were many more diseases in all the animals that Europeans lived with. As a result, there was a much richer tapestry of disease flooding through Europe, and that same domestic animal disease vector was almost completely absent from the Americas, which have virtually no useful native livestock species apart from the llama.

So Europeans, especially children, died from infectious disease a lot. The ones that survived carried diseases that European adult society was largely immune to, since the surviving adults had almost certainly been infected with and survived the same diseases in childhood.

Smallpox, for example, was startlingly common in Europe at the time of the American invasion. The disease is deadly, virulent, impossible to cure with contemporary medical techniques. (sidebar: Even today, smallpox is a terrifying disease. If a terrorist somehow released an airborne infectious smallpox virus in Times Square, modern Americans could expect an terrifying near-epidemic before the disease was contained, very similar to the Spanish Flu of the early 20th century. Part of that is because we don't have many doses of smallpox vaccines, and another part is because there is no known cure for smallpox infection, even today. But the biggest problem is that no one is immune to smallpox anymore because no one gets it—the last known case was in 1977 in Somalia—putting us in virtually the same immunity situation as the indigenous American populations during the European invasion.) As might be expected, it shredded the population of the Americas, which not only had no immunity to the disease, but were likely utterly unfamiliar with how the disease spread.

I hope I haven't made too many errors in my blunt summary of the topic, but hopefully this can give you a sense of an answer to your question.

u/tilther · 3 pointsr/worldnews

The problem is applying a (albeit excellent) novel to the entire hell that was the dust bowl. I dislike a lack of conversation and it's obvious the above poster read The Grapes of Wrath and is using it as the basis for feeling holier-than-thou. I'm a farmer and I'm passionate about soil fertility and stewardship of the land - to portray the dust bowl as financial genocide is to ignore the giant mismanagement of the midwest loess.

I highly suggest this book - http://www.amazon.com/Dirt-Civilizations-David-R-Montgomery/dp/0520248708 "Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations". It deals partially with the dust bowl, but covers the overall story of our species' mistreatment of our soil and how it ties in to the survival and demise of numerous civilizations.

u/Billmarius · 3 pointsr/Futurology

>TIL solar and other progress in reducing CO2 aren't progress.

You claimed that the technological triumph over "Peak Oil" was a good thing. There has been no reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere, and very little reduction in emissions (which continue to rise, year by year.) Meanwhile the growing Chinese and Indian middle classes - hundreds of millions of people - will intensify both CO2 emissions and the over-consumption of natural resources.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters

> food security is getting better and better over time.

This is a temporary phenomenon. See the sources I cited, the ones you haven't read yet. 20% of the world's arable cropland has been ruined due to salt degradation. This trend is accelerating due to the pressures posed by exponential population growth.

>I much prefer academics. Please cite those instead.

I did, but you didn't bother to read the multiple sources I cited. You haven't cited a damned thing while making sweeping claims.

Ronald Wright was chosen as the 2004 CBC Massey Lecturer and delivered his lecture series at major universities across Canada. All were sold-out, standing-room only. Here's his introduction written by the former Master of Massey College. He has done graduate-level work in both Archaeology and Anthropology, has published several books, and was awarded an honorary Doctorate by the University of Calgary. I don't have to defend this man; physically half of the print version of A Short History of Progress is bibliography. You can look up the sources by using the citation numbers in the text and finding the corresponding citations in a physical copy of the book.

http://www.bcachievement.com/nonfiction/intro.php?id=4

I can't argue with pie-eyed optimism. Global civilization is lurching from crisis to crisis and will do so until we reach a breaking point (see the Oxford report I provided). The soil is going saline; it's why we have to talk about eating bugs now. It's sad- if we had been conscientious about our reproductive and consumption habits we wouldn't be in this mess, or it would be going a lot slower.

Edit: My sister is a Master's level geologist focused on soil science. Here's a book she recommended to me that corroborates Mr. Wright and the other sources I cited.

https://www.amazon.com/Dirt-Civilizations-David-R-Montgomery/dp/0520248708

u/Hegelun · 3 pointsr/Denmark

Hvis du ikke mener det, synes jeg du skulle læse Yale professor Jason Stanley's nye bog How Fascim Works

u/ReefOctopus · 3 pointsr/Music

It’s music. Are you expecting a treatise? You could read this:

https://www.amazon.com/How-Fascism-Works-Politics-Them/dp/0525511830

u/ashowofhands · 3 pointsr/cars

Slightly related- if you enjoy reading, I highly recommend the book Go Like Hell. It's an excellent retelling of the Ferrari/Ford battle for LeMans in the 1960s. The original Ford GT40 is a main character in the story.

u/TheResurrection · 3 pointsr/racing

Black Noon is a book about the tragic 1964 Indy 500 where they had to stop the race due to a massive crash and the death of two drivers.

Beast is about the 1994 engine that Penske created with Ilmor that found loopholes in the rulebook and allowed them to dominate the Month of May at Indy.

Go Like Hell is a fantastic book about the legendary Ford vs. Ferrari rivalry in the 1960's at the 24 Hours of Le Mans race.

The Limit: Life and Death on the 1961 Grand Prix Circuit is a book about Phil Hill and his journey from California midget racing to Formula 1.

All of these are great reads that your dad would find some enjoyment in I'm sure.

u/MachinShin2006 · 3 pointsr/reddit.com

David Brin(yes, the science fiction author) talked about this years ago in his book : "The Transparent Society"


It was a incredibly good book, and i wish it had gotten more press and reception.


http://www.amazon.com/Transparent-Society-Technology-Between-Privacy/dp/0738201448/ref=pd_bbs_sr_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220249895&sr=8-10

u/TheGhostOfTzvika · 3 pointsr/The_Asylum

>Ever wonder why so many people hate Jews?

This book is a good, simple explanation Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism, by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin.

u/yafeh · 3 pointsr/dataisbeautiful

You should check out the book Why the Jews. It's pretty comprehensive on the origins and reasons for anti-semitism.

u/deadflow3r · 3 pointsr/exjw

I can't stress to you enough. However you can get Raymond Franz's book Crisis of Conscience you can find it here http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Conscience-Raymond-Franz/dp/0914675044

heck I'll but it for you if you can't purchase online. It is a must read for anyone like you who need help seeing things more clearly.

u/Zulban · 3 pointsr/nottheonion

I'm currently reading this good book on the history of genetics, that's certainly my impression. Very surprising.

u/Summit_Calls_All_Day · 3 pointsr/biology

The Gene by Siddhartha Mukherjee.
Well written and explained book about genetics, medicine, and progression of our understanding of biology.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1476733503/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_4.ZQDbBHFP3J4

u/TimShitPants · 2 pointsr/milliondollarextreme

>unquantifiable discoveries

Retarded.

>predisposed vested interest

r/iamverysmart


https://www.amazon.com/Human-Accomplishment-Pursuit-Excellence-Sciences/dp/0060929642

Either buy the book or read the fucking article. You have absolutely no leg to stand on here and are literally resorting to Islamic Golden Age and Moore memes.

u/polakfury · 2 pointsr/The_Donald

> 80% of the greatest things in the world

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Accomplishment-Pursuit-Excellence-Sciences/dp/0060929642

Its more likely around 90 % + range.

u/orsr · 2 pointsr/atheism

I think it's because people run from their old faith, they don't want to understand it. When I look back I'm sure I wasn't really a believer at no point, I simply did what my parents wanted me to (going to church etc) and made the best of it, I had a lot of fun being a ministrant, found a lot of friends blahblah. But I never really believed those things. So I never even had to start asking my faith. Then we had religious courses at high school, and the teachers taught us mostly christianity, the other religions were only shortly mentioned and treated like potentionally dangerous cults. That was a rebelious time in my life, so I started to look into different religions and ask the teachers questions. Needless to say, I wasn't very popular with our religious teachers. But it was growth, as you put it.

The most objective sources I would recommend you are not Hitchens or Dawkins, those are biased. Try to look up books on comparative religion. I'd highly recommend the four volume History of Religious Ideas by Mircea Eliade, or Masks of God by Joseph Campbell. And you might want to read a history of the Catholic Church, it's always good to know one's history.

u/bobbleprophet · 2 pointsr/AncientCivilizations

History of Religious Ideas (3 Vols)- Mircea Elidae Link

Treasures of Darkness - Thorkild Jacobsen Link

Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia - Jean Bottero Link (damn I got this for $20 a few months back, great book though)

Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study - Ian Hodder & VA Link

Egypt Before the Pharaohs - Michael Hoffman Link

u/mistiklest · 2 pointsr/Christianity

The Experience of God by David Bentley Hart.

u/NYCCfan16 · 2 pointsr/worldnews

This is a great list to start, but I would also suggest Francis Fukuyama's The Origins of Political Order and Political Order and Political Decay, which I think are as if not more accessible than Guns, Germs, and Steel.

u/Bluebaronn · 2 pointsr/geopolitics

I really enjoyed The Origins of Political Order. Its focus is historical but all of the discussion parallels modern states.

u/NewMaxx · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

A good book on the subject is Poland: A History. I'm only answering since no on else did, so I will do so generally: for much of its history it had weak central authority and geographically powerful neighbors. The former was for a variety of reasons but ultimately due to a strong nobility. For a more general view on how political balance affects the state, I would suggest Fukuyama's The Origins of Political Order - he speaks of Poland's failed oligarchy but moreover about the balance of parliament versus a monarch, etc. The powerful neighbors for their part would consistently meddle in the country's (and Commonwealth's) internal affairs and war was nearly constant. Its presence as a buffer state with overlapping cultures made it a constant bargaining chip in the European "balance of power" until after the French Revolution.

u/solters · 2 pointsr/history

This question seems to be driving at how wealth & power was organized historically - although I'm not sure that most experts would agree with the claims that
>a hereditary oligarchy has wielded almost all of the wealth & power.

and the claim that
>the decisions they make are almost always for the benefit of themselves & their cronies & not the societies they rule

What follows is an attempt to give an answer framed around how political power has been structured historically.

There are and have always been different power centers in society, and the balance of power among those actors determined exactly who benefited from the state's monopoly on force. Usually one power center was a single executive (monarch, Roman consuls, etc), based on some sort of divinity doctrine, and they usually had enough power to ensure kin inherited the executive authority - and it took civil war/invasion to break the line of succession. But even in monarchies like that there were other power centers that had enough power that the state usually benefited them (examples include the Janisary armies in the Ottoman empire, sometimes the professional bureaucracy in China, the nobles in England and Ukraine, the Roman Catholic Church in Western Europe, etc)

India is an interesting example historically in that Hindu religion was dominant over even the heads of state very early in its history (India had lots of them - its current single state (...caveat: Pakistan) is a historic anomaly). So in that case there really wasn't a hereditary oligarchy holding power in most Indian states (monarchy wasn't uncommon and monarchs were usually wealthy, but oftentimes didn't actually hold a lot of power). But the system did create very rigid castes, and society was structured such that the lower casts ended up with the short end of the stick.

It's very difficult to answer your question because it is very difficult to even define what "benefitting the society they rule" even means. Arguably the fascists of the early 20th century did a reasonable job at this by defining society so narrowly that they could treat everyone not part of their definition of society as animals with no rights (to be tolerated at best, killed at worst). Liberal democracies are structured to do this by declaring universal rights enforced by strong courts that bind a democratically elected legislature (and the executive authority, which may or may not be independent of the legislature) - and succeed to differing levels.

I'm fairly confident there is no example in history where every individual in a nation-state benefited equally, so you could make the argument that an oligarchy is always the beneficiary of state power - but there has been a strong trend of making that oligarchy more and more inclusive (in theory, and not necessarily year-to-year, but definitely century-to-century).

Most of the above is based on "The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution" (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0374533229/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_3uMiDbF4CN8EE), which is a dense read but really interesting and covers state power and organization across the world up until the dawn of liberal democracy. Definitely worth a read if you are interested in the history of political organization throughout the pre-industrial era. He also wrote a second volume that focuses on industrial era state organization, bit I found the 2nd volume to be more opinionated and subjective (the author has been involved in US government, and so has a bias when it comes to contemporary political structure that I felt showed in the 2nd volume. But the 1st volume is much less relevant to current government policy and seemed to be pretty objective - although I'm just an interested layman, not an expert).

u/ResonantPyre · 2 pointsr/slatestarcodex

A work I recently finished that you might find interesting was King Leopold's Ghost. It was a rigorous study and explanation of Belgian colonialism in the Congo under King Leopold in the 19th and 20th centuries; I found the book gave a very vivid summary of that, and filled in a bit of a blind spot of mine to the exact horror European colonialism could reach to. I was familiar with colonialism in the general, but I think it furthered my understanding to see such a detailed work on just one example of colonialism in history.

A couple books ago, I also read The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution which, although a work of historical analysis primarily, still informed me in the process of elaborating its historical analysis of quite a bit of history to which I was hitherto unaware. I've heard its arguments come across even better if you're acquainted with Francis Fukuyama's other political philosophy work (famously, The End of History and the Last Man), but I had not read that and its arguments still came across well. It was fairly wide-spanning in history like the title says, but as a fairly long work it was still able to go into detail. The book shined the most for me when it was exploring state building in India and China, while relating and contrasting these processes to the mechanics of European state building, something I was more familiar about. He describes the story of state building in all these areas, starting from the very beginning, and attempts to answer why it went certain directions in some places but differed in others. He makes the very convincing argument that religion was an essential factor, relating it to the rule of law and informing me in the process a lot of the details of how religion operated in India and China historically. I'm not really qualified to accurately evaluate the book's core theses, but disregarding them, the journey to those theses was still very enlightening.

Also, I think I've seen you mention elsewhere on this subreddit your interest in phenomenology and philosophy at large. I was wondering how you would recommend approaching the canon to say, have a good understanding of someone like Heidegger. It feels a bit overwhelming to look at the sheer complexity of later philosophy like that and confront it. Do you think it would be best to try to start at the beginning of Western philosophy and move up from there, work by work? I have a basic knowledge of some philosophy, mostly gained at random from secondary resources and occasional primary sources I found really interesting, but it's all very scattershot and not super rigorous. I'm currently reading through a history of Western philosophy which I hope will give me a broader perspective, and some more insight into how all the ideas relate and developed. Anyway, I was just hoping you might have some thoughts or advice on this, thanks.

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/INTPClara · 2 pointsr/INTP
u/snarfalarkus · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

Hmm, I suppose it would. But the Potato is a most unique and interesting item, deserving a whole book about it's influence.

u/bicholoco1 · 2 pointsr/HistoryMemes
u/3dmontdant3s · 2 pointsr/formula1

Haven't read it yet, but it's on my list: https://www.amazon.com/Go-Like-Hell-Ferrari-Battle/dp/0547336055

About Ford and Ferrari at Le Mans

u/TheSliceman · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

> No. Privacy is more important than ever, precisely because the Internet is a ravenous copying and archiving machine. A photo, once leaked, can never be destroyed. It is copied billions of times and stored in millions of repositories around the world with no hope of auditing or tracking.

My only disagreement with you is here.

I dont think its more important than ever across the board. I would say it is much more important in a few areas (stuff that is encrypted like Bitcoin keys, Smart Phones ect) but less important in most things. People are sharing intimate details about their lives current day that most people would never dream of 100 years ago via social media like FB and Twitter.

The Transparent Society is a great book that goes into great detail about how its in our nature to voluntarily sacrifice privacy in return for the massive benefits of doing so.... and it was written 15 years ago. The dude really knew what he was talking about.



u/Nonsensei · 2 pointsr/The_Donald

Hate to break it to you, but David Brin came up with the same idea like 20 years ago.

https://www.amazon.com/Transparent-Society-Technology-Between-Privacy/dp/0738201448

u/grego23 · 2 pointsr/Jewish

I’m glad you were able to get an apology from her. Maybe she will indeed learn something. Which is amazing. Also you are amazing for wanting to educate your class.

Although you probably saw it in your research, this entry from the US Holocaust Museum is quite good:
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/antisemitism

If you can find it, the book Why The Jews? by Joseph Telushkin and Dennis Prager might be an interesting resource.

u/pompandpride · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

It's the subject of many books (like this one ) and countless doctoral theses.

u/PostHipsterCool · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

You're not the first person to ask that question.

Here's a book exploring the answer

u/gamegyro56 · 2 pointsr/ELINT

I'll try to give an unbiased view:

  1. Yes, before and after, as you can see here. The most famous of which is Simon bar Kochba, though he was slightly after Jesus. It is also the mainstream historical view that Jesus did not claim to be Messiah (though there are some that disagree).
    The main thing about Jesus is that, even though he was executed, his followers (mostly Peter and Mary, and Paul later) had visions of him. This allowed it to be continued after his death.
    Another major thing is that Christians (especially through Paul) reached out to Gentiles. Paul said that Gentiles did not need to conform to any Jewish law to be Christian. This made it much easier for others to convert, and in just a few hundred years, we see tons and tons of Gentile Christian writers.

  2. Christianity was known in the time, though it was a type different that what was in the west (though both types are equally old). The makeup of Arabia varied. There were Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Arabs. Arabs worshiped lesser divinities (that is, not the supreme God), or they were monotheistic hanifs. There were also non-Arab polytheists.
    As far as I know, Muhammad's early community was made up of mostly Arabs, and no Jews. Though he did view Jews as People of the Book (Jews were given 3 of the 4 major books in Islam: Moses, David, and Jesus). It's hard to explain why an individual Jew would convert to Islam, as religion is tied up with politics and culture. But Muhammad's early community didn't have any Jews in it (I think).

  3. As far as I know, Muhammad didn't claim to be the Messiah. In Islam, Jesus is still the Messiah. The difference is that he is not God. As for Jews and Jesus, you can read some reasons here. The Gospel writers had their own view of the prophecies. They seemed to make the story of Jesus fit into the prophecies, even if those prophecies are based on a bad translation, or even if those prophecies aren't even talking about the Messiah. There are unfulfilled prophecies. Modern Christians say they will be fulfilled when Jesus returns. This is not in the Tanakh, and Jews don't seem to believe in the Second Coming.
    The reason Jews generally don't think the Messiah went unknown is because the prophecies have some extravagant claims (as you can see in the link). The whole world will have knowledge of Yahweh and worship him.

    For question 1, you can read more in the book How Jesus Became God. For question 2, you can read more in the book No god but God.
u/danielpants · 2 pointsr/worldnews

http://www.amazon.com/god-but-God-Updated-Edition/dp/0812982444

I thought this book was quite good at explaining the different schisms in Islam in the different countries throughout the middle east. Wahhabism, radical islam, etc. Not really the why, so much as the what, but it makes it a little more clear about how ISIS came about.

u/vfr · 2 pointsr/atheism

Buy this book and read it fast, it's on the JW history of ridiculousness. None of them probably know their own church's history.

http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Conscience-Raymond-Franz/dp/0914675044

> Franz does not detail doctrinal problems with the Watchtower. Franz most likely holds to many of his old Watchtower doctrines. The Watchtower does have doctrinal problems when compared with the beliefs commonly held by the Church throughout Christian history. In fact the Watchtower is in my opinion just another apocalyptic group founded in the mid-late 1800s. However, Franz is not concerned with issues like the Trinity or Christ's divinity. He is more concerned with what makes a group truly a cult, which is control by the leaders over its members. Franz details this marvelously, and explains how the Watchtower even monitored its members bedroom activities. He speaks of disfellowshippings where families were encouraged to "shun" other members who had been kicked out of the Watchtower, effectively ruining the lives of thousands people. Franz also documents and explains failed prophecy, which caused many trusting members of the "truth" to sell homes, postpone college, and other goals in order to be ready for the end. The entire book is a calm and sober, yet highly personal, account of Franz's life deep within the Watchtower and his eventual exit.

u/SecretAgentX9 · 2 pointsr/atheism

Well, I was a Jehovah's Witness until I was 24.

If you're serious about trying to get to them, the book that finally woke me up was Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller. It's about evolution but since he's a nominal Catholic (and also head of Biology at Brown University) it isn't at all antagonistic toward religion (though it is insanely badass in shooting down all of the intelligent design arguments).

http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497

That's only going to work if the person's faith is evidence-driven. As the old adage goes, you can't reason someone out of an idea that they didn't come to through reason.

This one's good for witnesses, too: http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Conscience-Raymond-Franz/dp/0914675044

u/ragsoflight · 2 pointsr/biology

My favorite text on science as a whole is Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, by Ludwik Fleck. He describes the evolution of scientific ideas (and the cultural morass surrounding them) in elegant anecdotes that are, to me, more effective than many other philosophers of science that came after him.

In terms of recent popsci, The Gene: An Intimate History by Siddhartha Mukherjee was exceptional.

u/NonSarcasticMan · 2 pointsr/pics

Sure! I'm halfway Triumph of the City wrote by Edward Glaeser, an urban economist at Harvard University. Is a really insightful book which explains interesting phenomena such as suburbs, the fall of Detroit, the second rise of New York, Texan cities and the success of Shanghai, Mumbai and Rio de Janeiro.


I highly recommend it!

u/DooDooDoodle · 2 pointsr/tucker_carlson

It's a reference to "revenge of the cradle" a plan put in place by Catholics in Quebec to out birth other groups in Canada as a way to shift politics through demographics. Considering most demographic studies are showing that religious radicals of every stripe are having more children than secular folks, that phrase might strike fear into your average, atheist leftist in Canada.

Great book on the topic....

https://www.amazon.com/Shall-Religious-Inherit-Earth-Twenty-First/dp/1846681448


>Dawkins and Hitchens have convinced many western intellectuals that secularism is the way forward. But most people don't read their books before deciding whether to be religious. Instead, they inherit their faith from their parents, who often innoculate them against the elegant arguments of secularists. And what no one has noticed is that far from declining, the religious are expanding their share of the population: in fact, the more religious people are, the more children they have. The cumulative effect of immigration from religious countries, and religious fertility will be to reverse the secularisation process in the West. Not only will the religious eventually triumph over the non-religious, but it is those who are the most extreme in their beliefs who have the largest families.

>Within Judaism, the Ultra-Orthodox may achieve majority status over their liberal counterparts by mid-century. Islamist Muslims have won the culture war in much of the Muslim world, and their success provides a glimpse of what awaits the Christian West and Israel. Based on a wealth of demographic research, considering questions of multiculturalism and terrorism, Kaufmann examines the implications of the decline in liberal secularism as religious conservatism rises - and what this means for the future of western modernity.

u/SammyD1st · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

Yes, it absolutely does.

ITT: lots of atheists saying "it's not because we're atheists, it's because we're so smart and educated!"

Another excellent source summarizing the many, many studies showing atheism is causative of lower birth rates is "Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth" by Eric Kaufmann.

(For more on this topic, come check out /r/natalism.)

u/KaNikki · 2 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

Ohhhh, look at the pretty green cover of this ebook! Look at it. You know you want to :)

u/digitalsciguy · 2 pointsr/urbanplanning

I think I get what you're saying - you wish /r/urbanplanning would acknowledge the fact that we have suburbs and post more things like the Build a Better Burb design challenge for Long Island, which does still endorse many of the things that do get discussed and posted here on the subreddit, like better transit access, increasing density (the slippery slope argument against density is that we want skyscrapers...), and improving a sense of place.

I'll definitely say that there's a lot to be had from the influence of land-use policies that could be changed to encourage transformations of suburbs to European-like strong towns linked by rail with greenspace in between, as is discussed in this article. However, a lot of these ideas aren't as easily applied elsewhere in US suburbs where suburbs came in after the decline of the railroads; Long Island is unique in its mostly electrified commuter rail services and lends itself better toward the idealistic transmogrification we'd love to see across the US. Perhaps this is the space of the discussion you're looking for?

On top of that, you still do have the issue that people do live in the suburbs for one or more of the features one finds/expects to find there. Actual implementation of land use policy can be very difficult when dealing with many individual property owners, even if those policies encourage the improvement of transport access, community amenities, public spaces, etc.

I've always been intrigued by the book Retrofitting Suburbia but haven't pulled the trigger on buying the book yet - I'm still going through the Shoup bible and my signed copy of Triumph of the City.

u/luff2hart · 2 pointsr/suggestmeabook
u/OldManEyeBrow · 2 pointsr/exmormon

What's up dude.

www.amazon.com/dp/1934901350/

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww yeah.

u/Al_Tilly_the_Bum · 2 pointsr/exmormon

Probably. The Mormon aversion to the cross did not stem from the founders but started in the early 20th century. It became institutionalized in the 1950's under David McKay. Here is a book that explores this. I have not read the book so I do not know how good it is

u/bunnysoup · 2 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

This ebook has been on my wishlist for ages! Awesome, now its cheap!

u/DrTxn · 2 pointsr/exmormon

I know they made him take it out in Mormon Doctrine.

Banishing the Cross talks about how the early Mormons had crosses but because they were connected to the Catholic church they eventually were banished. As an example, some early church buildings in SLC have crosses in them and the this is the place monument almost was a cross. The hate used to run deep.

https://www.amazon.com/Banishing-Cross-Emergence-Mormon-Taboo/dp/1934901350

u/NonSumDignus · 2 pointsr/ExMo_Christianity

And then there's a book on the same subject:

Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo.
https://www.amazon.com/Banishing-Cross-Emergence-Mormon-Taboo/dp/1934901350

u/margalicious · 2 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

I don't even know what to say o_o

Could I have this $4 book from my books list and this $3 book from my digital list?

Or if you'd like just one item, can I have these keyblades in my $5 - $10 list?

Thank you 0_0

u/alexgmcm · 2 pointsr/unitedkingdom

To be honest after learning about Operation Gladio it's hard to believe anything.

I doubt they'd assault the Embassy tbh, that'd be insane - they'll just pressure Ecuador into handing him over, or let him go and just focus on destroying Wikileaks. Although tbh, most people don't know about the stuff on Wikileaks anyway - bread and circus is as successful as ever, still "The beating heart of Rome lies not in the marble of the Senate but the sand of the Coliseum".

It disgusts me that Julian Assange is holed up in an Embassy seeking refuge from the law enforcement forces of my own country, whilst men like Bob Diamond and Fred Goodwin walk free, rewarded even!

Have you read The People's History Of The World it's pretty good, I can pm you it in pdf.

Also the Julian Assange Show is pretty awesome. As is Culture in Decline and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward by Peter Joseph.

The old Zeitgeist films are pretty awful though - don't bother watching those.

It reminds me of the preface to V for Vendetta by Alan Moore, where he explains why he wrote the graphic novel, describing how bad the Thatcher administration had gotten, with some ministers openly suggesting they quarantine HIV sufferers in camps on remote islands and so on. And using belligerent foreign wars to drum up nationalist fervour and retain power as you described.

The drones are making extra-judicial killing a fact of life, and that's just the DoD ones that we know about - the CIA ones don't have to declare what they are doing. And I don't trust the CIA left with little oversight..

It seems more and more like the future is a mix of Huxley, Moore and Gibson's dystopias. But as we come down on the steeper, bad side of Hubbert's peak and face the spectre of Climate Change it hardly seems likely that things will improve :/

u/NAM007 · 1 pointr/Christians

I'd suggest first reading a book called "Who Built the Moon" and then watch a video called "The Real Star of Bethlehem", and posit the idea that from the beginning of time, God may have provided and did in fact provide, a recognizable message or a signature, yes right here in the Earth/Moon/Sun configuration, so that it would be unambiguous and unmistakable that mankind was created and included, by anticipation and with intent, along with the Son of God / Son of Man to make the predicament of standing right next to the Godhead less prone to possible satanic outcomes and more enjoyable, let us say, within the framework of reconciliation/atonement.

I realize you were talking about something in contrast to so-called Christian reality, but the truth of the matter is that Christian reality might be rather far reaching in it's cosmological implications..

You could then have these observers or watchers who "left their estate" (that's somewhere in the Bible) and became jealous of God's latest and greatest creation, whereby Satan, as their leader, refused to bow (I can find the reference for that if you like, which I think is from the excluded book of Enoch), once at the time of Adam and then again at the cross of Jesus Christ, the first time perhaps seen as not unreasonable (since we are newer and 'younger') and thus the rebellion of other angels and/or created beings, the 2nd time, caught up in a double-bind from which there's no escape, within a satanic 'blindspot' that was anticipated by God and Jesus from the beginning of time or "before the foundation of the world".

You could then have this Universal Controvery surrounding the issue of Spiritual Authority resolved by what might be thought of as Jesus Christ's Superdeterministic, Cosmological, Magnum Opus (Great Work).

So that might be part of a Scifi/Fantasy as seen within a Christian worldview, that isn't out of congruent alignment with the funamental principal at the heart of it, nor with the Biblical narrative of the Gospels themselves.

If this interests you and you'd like to learn more, just read my posting history over the last month or so, and/or PM me for more ideas.

Good luck with your project - wouldn't it be fun though to confound many self-professed 'Christians' while placing the context and framing in a Cosmic/Scifi setting or a "world" that works and that jives perfectly with scripture?

The climax could involve the rising of the lunar eclipse at the 6th hour with Jesus crying out the first line of Pslam 22.. oh, they must have been so freaked out by that and the timing of the eclipse... those who were there, or were observing.. OMG it was a HOODWINK!!! We're screwed what do we do what do we do?!!

The resolution then becomes like a cosmic practical joke seemingly told at the expense of human ignorance (and resulting sin and evil), but in truth only using us as a foil by which to "punk" the devil and the watchers, so while it might orginate here, it's good enough to traverse the whole of it all, and ring a note that might still resound to this very day about 35 human generations later, throughout all the spheres of the heavens, both to laughter, and, sadly for some, to groans. Elements from C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" could also be employed. So it would be a type of scifi humor or satire in it's assessment both of the human and the non-human condition.

What do you think?

u/random_story · 1 pointr/pics

I read a whole book claiming the moon was man-made, or alien-made. And no it wasn't by that guy from the history channel. Ah, here it is:

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Built-Moon-Christopher-Knight/dp/1842931636

u/bgny · 1 pointr/conspiracy

Here's Lloyd Pye’s Intervention Theory Essentials that discusses evidence of DNA manipulation and terraforming of earth. If you are looking for moon stuff there's the book "Who Built the Moon."

u/coup321 · 1 pointr/Biochemistry
u/acuteskepsis · 1 pointr/exmormon

The cross/crucifix was only officially repudiated by the church in the 1950s under David O. McKay, though there was grassroots opposition to it starting around the turn of the 20th century.

It was seen as a primarily Catholic symbol, apparently. There's a book about it that I haven't read:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1934901350/

Bruce R. McConkie went perhaps the furthest and called it a mark of the beast, or something like that.

u/fadan · 1 pointr/AskReddit

It is indeed so. I think that atheism today is doomed, because atheists have too few children, which gives them strong evolutionary disadvantage. There's a good book about it:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shall-Religious-Inherit-Earth-Twenty-First/dp/1846681448

u/drb226 · 1 pointr/latterdaysaints

There is a book on this very topic. OldManEyeBrow posted the link but gave no additional information so I have no shame in reposting it with a little more elaboration on how it is relevant.

Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo.

Also, [BYU religion professor Alonzo Gaskill wrote a book review about it](
https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=9274&linkURL=52.4GaskillBanishing-18d7a555-db97-4acf-90ac-10c1e3e79c5d.pdf
) tl;dr: "Well reasoned," "well supported," "light read," "interesting and engaging."

u/xauriel · 1 pointr/books

Currently reading A People's History of the World. Recommended if you have an interest in class struggle and patterns in history.

u/desoc · 1 pointr/history

Chris Harman's "A People's History of the World" is a great book for those interested in materialist understanding of history. Not only does he put ordinary people, rather than kings and leaders, in the middle of history, but he also emphasizes the structural changes behind historic events.

https://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-World-Stone-Millennium/dp/1844672387

u/dividezero · 1 pointr/HighQualityGifs

people will have their problems with these but they are good additions or jumping off points for further research.

A People's History of the World

A People's History of the US - I don't remember if this book talks about Latin American relations specifically but it would be hard to tell this story without at least talking about it tangentially.

(i thought there was one for latin america but I'm not finding one in that series but if there is one, pick that up)

and of course pretty much anything by Chomsky, especially:

Manufacturing Consent

Caution: this is not only a long book but a DENSE one as well. Noam is not known as a storyteller. This book is no different. Every sentence is packed with gravity. It's looking specifically at the media's relationship with the US's relationship with Latin America but that's a good lens to go at that field of study.

In most of his work he focuses a lot on the Monroe Doctrine and its aftermath so you can pick up almost any of his work and you'll get some of it. Especially the earlier stuff.

u/swiley1983 · 1 pointr/Showerthoughts

No. Rest assured, the moon is real and it was actually built.

u/Axvelk19 · 1 pointr/uncensorednews

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Accomplishment-Pursuit-Excellence-Sciences/dp/0060929642

This is the book in question.

> European people's relied on circumstance?

Once it is a happening. Twice it is coincidence. Thrice it is a pattern. The European land is the best as far as evolutionary benefits goes. Best nutrition, weather, resources etc. Yes. This is why we are here today. This is why by the evolutionary process the achievements of Europeans number 90-95% of all.

> How much of it was won through the spoils of war instead of self innovation?

Precisely? No clue. However when are the means more important than the end? And by what metric do you judge war to be inherently negative? By war men know the fullness of life. By war we reveal the worst of humanity yes, but also the best minds, the most innovative discoveries and forms of progress.

> This "my people" shit just seems like a way for people who haven't accomplished shit to feel a part of the accomplishment of their ancestors.

The idea is simple. Our ancestors fought, bleed, sacrificed and constantly pushed for better. We live on their shoulders and the greatness that was their existence. What we have today: safe and prosperous societies, those things came about because of their goodwill. The conclusion is that we should strive to be as best as we can be. To honor them and ourselves. To match their greatness and eventually surpass it. That is the idea of "my people". A never ending passion to better yourself and what is yours. I believe this is what everyone of all people on Earth should be doing. Love for your own does not need hatred for others.

> However culture is learned and not predetermined by your genetics.

To some degree yes. However genetics dictate the level of intelligence of the individual. They tell about the likelihood for addictions, the speak of capability to understand and innovate. Genes are everything. If the genes of humans coded for roughly the same capacity all across the board then how come there are still groups of people in Africa that are living in mud huts? Surely if the biological capacity were there, they would have evolved beyond that point a long time ago. 5,000 years ago. Culture is an expression of genetics.

u/Azdahak · 1 pointr/entp

Yeah there's four books all together.

I also highly recommend this and also this which is more encyclopedic and hence terse, but still a very excellent read.

u/nomemory · 1 pointr/religion

You can try Mircea Eliade - History Of Religions.

If you want to read about Judaism and Kabbalah I recommend you to check the resources from /r/kabbalah.

u/Bezbojnicul · 1 pointr/atheism

History of Religious Ideas, Vol 1, Vol 2 and Vol 3. by Mircea Eliade A comprehensive comparison and history of different religions, religious ideas and ways in which myths work. Was a real eye-opener

_

LE - Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam by Michel Onfray

u/Veritas-VosLiberabit · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

Subsistent being: God is the experience of being itself. Rather than being an object within reality God is reality itself. See: https://www.amazon.com/Experience-God-Being-Consciousness-Bliss/dp/0300166842

2+2=4 is also necessarily true. It cannot be any other way than the way in which it is. Is the fact that that is axiomatically true an example of "circular logic"?

u/scarfinati · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

> Subsistent being: God is the experience of being itself. Rather than being an object within reality God is reality itself. See: https://www.amazon.com/Experience-God-Being-Consciousness-Bliss/dp/0300166842

Violates the law of non contradiction. If god is reality then why do we have two separate labels for those concepts? I’ll tell you why, because they are different concepts. If god is nature then you’re basically a pantheist.

> 2+2=4 is also necessarily true. It cannot be any other way than the way in which it is. Is the fact that that is axiomatically true an example of "circular logic"?

No because mathematical proofs don’t assume the conclusion in the proof. Whereas unproven claims about a god being do.

u/Xetev · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

>A claim whose veracity can never be tested or verified. Got it.

Do you only believe in what is scientifically verifiable?

>if it occurs, can be measured,

What? how would you measure it? is there some god-o-meter i don't know about?? I mean most theist will say that god instigated the universe which makes the laws of physics essentially the action of god if done with intention. But say, look at a miracle, how can you test it using science which is methodologically naturalist when supernatural miracles are by their nature non-repeatable phenomena. The second science can test or replicate a miracle it is no longer a miracle the question is malformed.

>Which of the thousands, millions or billions of definitions of god are we talking about?

The core claim of all monotheistic traditions today which also lies at the heart of many other traditions: this is of a necessary premise, common to all classical theistic philosophies. That is god as the source and ground and end of all reality. The immaterial transcendent reality of which all things are contingent upon. This can describe Brhama,the Sihk god the Abrahamic gods, it applies to various Mahayana formulations of the Buddha consciousness or nature or even earlier the conception of the unconditioned, or to certain aspects of the tao.

For a more thorough explanation go to David Bentley Hart's work The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss
https://www.amazon.com/The-Experience-God-Being-Consciousness/dp/0300166842

This, essential belief that all major religious traditions have some premonition of is what I'm concerning.

>What if it was actually an alien? You'd just be fooling yourself into believing something that you wanted to believe, not believing what actually is.

Thats kinda my point... science cannot prove or disprove god, there will never be a way to be certain even if he walked up to you and said hello

The existence of god is and always will be an a priori claim, now you can dispute all a priori knowledge but that is a different question for another time. The fact of the matter is that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god, it is a category error (at least regarding the vast majority of major world religions)

u/GregoireDeNarek · 1 pointr/Christianity

Lately, when people are aiming at a definition of God, I ask them if they've read David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss.

u/Mookind · 1 pointr/atheism

Well you'd definitely have to define free will some way

Does a dog have free will? Is it just being able to override your instincts? Does it have to happen in all instances, or do you always need to be in control? If so I'm not sure we meet the requirements. Do other primates have free will? Do other mammals?

Are we really sure our decisions are based on conscious thought and not some sort of subtle instinct?

I'm assuming this is the context you mean. And there is no definite answer for you.

We obviously weren't there, so we can't be sure how exactly our cognitive abilities developed. We have the fossil record and assumptions about life on the savannah for our ancestors. The common seems to be the social aspects of our lives coupled with the harsh lives they lived ended with only the smartest surviving.

Especially considering chimps and humans are the only species that will go to another group's territory just to kill other males. I would suggest the origins of political power, although I'm sure there are better books on pre-history. But it seems to be mostly conjecture anyway

http://www.amazon.com/The-Origins-Political-Order-Revolution/dp/0374533229

u/sonnyclips · 1 pointr/NeutralPolitics

I've been reading some works by Piketty and Fukuyama and both seem to be looking at Europe prior to the revolutions of the 18th and 19th century and drawing parallels to our current stagnation. They point out that powerful elites had dominated both the royals families and the populous in their countries squeezing the monarchs on lowering taxes for them and their ilk shifting the burden onto the people. This caused a kind of death spiral where wealth became concentrated and the balance of the bond between monarch and subjects became strained, kings and queens had in years past a symbiotic relationship with the people because both gave the other power to keep the landed gentry in check. When this balance was undermined by the successful nobility that undermined the fabric of their countries civil order and finances creating both vulnerability from without, the invasions of Hungary, and strife from within, the revolution in France. They point out that this financial situation is not unlike what is driving the current economic problems ala tax expenditures to big business including property tax abatements and other sweeteners governments provide to take free rides from local and state governments.

It should be noted that these two economists, Piketty is French and an advisor to the British Labour Party and Fukuyama has been called a Neocon and was an advisor to both Reagan and Bush. They could not be politically farther apart really and yet they come to very similar conclusions. I think their prescriptions for ensuring a more fair distribution of wealth are different but it is notable that they come to very similar conclusions. I would also add that since the 70s businesses are paying roughly half of the taxes they would have paid since the disco era. They seem to also be predicting a certain amount of unrest as the consequence of concentrating so much wealth.

u/frequenttimetraveler · 1 pointr/greece

pare ena e-reader kai katevase to calibre

Books: politics , ethics, business, social decline
, democracy, philosophy

u/DutchOvenCamper · 1 pointr/Showerthoughts

In his book Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond addresses this. He says that no large carnivores have been domesticated because feeding them would take more effort than they're worth. The only large domesticated animals are herbivores. He actally has quite a discussion about which animals were domesticated and why.

u/Trent_Boyett · 1 pointr/audiobooks

Depends on what you liked about it I guess. It's a bit unique in the way it covers so many topics.

If you liked the stuff about evolution, check out https://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453/

If you liked the history:
https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393354326

If you like true crime:
https://www.amazon.com/Stranger-Beside-Me-Ann-Rule/

Or if you just liked how it went from topic to topic and you could never really predict what would be next, try this podcast:
https://stownpodcast.org/

u/eat20hamburgers · 1 pointr/Cascadia

>Do you not believe in human kindness?

Some people are kind, some are not, some are straight up cruel, most are cattle.

>Do you not believe that we actually can create enough resources for all, with all the resources we have on Earth?

No, because resources are finite. For example my house in Seattle cost more than one in say, South Dakota because Seattle only has so much build able land. On a larger scale with rapid population growth we are looking at quickly running out of such simple necessary resources as water and arable land. I suggest reading UW professor David Montgomery's book Dirt: The Erosion of Civilization

>Also, perhaps people are greedy and self-centered because the current political and economic system makes them that way?

Competition and greed are a unfortunate part of human nature, it is part what pushed out ancestors to new lands, and what lead us to invent new technology. There are some tribal civilizations that lack the idea of property and possessions between their immediate social group, but these civilizations also live under a strict hierarchy.

>I believe in restorative justice. Instead of forcing them into slavery, which we call prison, I believe they should still be able to live among us, but also make sure to pay their penitence.

While I agree that more effort should be made towards reform in the criminal justice system, I also do not think you have much experience dealing with criminals. Many are just as brutal and manipulative as any "capitalist" is not more so, many simply lack the mental capacity for empathy. Though Norway's prison system seem promising in the regard of reformation

>we are the working people, your average, everyday, ordinary people.

So you work, what's your skill set?

You seem to want to deny me of my property that I worked for so I do not think we constitute the same "we." Keep in mind that I hate the banks as much as you do, if not more due to owing them a large sum of money.

>So many innocent black people are shot, but the white cops get away with it most every time. Maybe there's a black cop who shoots a white kid, but you know what the difference is? In a majority of the former cases, the white cop is never convicted; in a majority of the latter cases, the black cop is.

Citation needed.

However police do kill a disproportionate amount of white people when compared to murder rate.

Police killings of blacks down 70% in last 50 years

In 2012, 123 blacks were killed by police with a gun

In 2012, 326 whites were killed with a gun

(Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, CDC)

In 2013, blacks committed 5,375 murders

In 2013, whites committed 4,396 murders

Whites are 63% of the population blacks are 13%

(FBI, Census Bureau)

>The politicians and the capitalists are never hungry. But many of us get to starve to death.

In the US one must want to starve to death. Again who is "us?"

>Fortunately, I'm not starving. But millions die from that every day.

This has more to do with weather patterns than capitalism. Also food aid breeds dependence because populations quit growing their own food.

> I believe it's that power corrupts.

And the corrupt seek power.

EDIT:Hit send too early



u/Elukka · 1 pointr/collapse

Different ones but also this: http://www.amazon.com/Dirt-Civilizations-David-R-Montgomery/dp/0520248708

He claimed that Mesopotamia went through cycles of salinification and topsoil loss which coincide with the cultures coming and going. Many cultures in Mesopotamia have collapsed and disappeared, you know. It's not an unbroken chain of culture there.

At least Montgomery makes the point that the Greek valleys went into decline after a few hundred years of farming and took the larger civilization there into decline with them. After about 300-1000 years natural erosion and wildlife would have replenished the soil again enough to restart the civilizational cycle. (The length of the cycle depends on the climate and soil types.) Top soil loss doesn't mean that everyone dies. It just means that a few valleys can no longer sustain a city of 20000 people and the farmers supporting it.

u/Vailhem · 1 pointr/energy

if Hillary hadn't made corn a product of choice for ethanol, we probably wouldn't have an agriculture industry right now. Or, rather, there would've been an even larger consolidation of the agriculture industry than there has been in the past 10 years to the point that it would become very very difficult to pull it out of that depression.

Switchgrass and other products for ethanol make more sense on a multitude of levels (EROEI, cost, resources, etc) but one of the major, and oft overlooked reasons is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchgrass#Soil_conservation

it would allow for new lands (otherwise not dedicated to farming) to be used, as well as allow lands that have been overworked, over fertilized, and otherwise leading to the death of soil, ( dated, and modern techniques allow it to be rebuilt... read: switchgrass/biochar/etc, but a good example is the first few chapters of this )
Switchgrass can prepare new lands for food-crop growing, it can repair old lands, and it otherwise can be grown on lands that most likely will never be suitable or economical for food-crop growth but perfectly fine (and profitable/sustainable) for switchgrass (or hemp, take your pick, I think switchgrass is more realistic in this environment).

This would allow for lands to be redirected back to their original purposed to begin with: growing crop to export (for profit). US agriculture exports have plateaued and even dropped over the past decade. There was supposed to be a major Gulf port facility upgrade back in 2000 that Bush didn't sign because he only agreed to build it if he got offshore drilling (a few hurricanes and an oil spill later, he got his offshore drilling... though port facilities still haven't been upgraded)

This was going to overhall all the shipping lanes on the major rivers (Ohio, Missouri, Mississippi, etc) as well as increase road width from the southeast to three lanes to allow for the increased trucking as well as rail line upgrades. Also, and the major plug to the whole thing, the port facilities from the Gulf out were supposed to be upgraded to be larger than the LA port upgrades happening just before then (same crews were to move from LA to New Orleans, etc after the LA ports were finished).
When this happened, plus some trade agreements between the US and China, combined with arrangements between US/China/Brazil... we cut our exports at the same time that Brazil was investing heavily in theirs (with money from China... ultimately, from US and Bush investors who'd bought up large swaths of brazilian rainforest and otherwise destroyed it for farmland under Bush-ite control (yes, I'm saying that Bush and friends own and control the Brazilian agriculture industry). Brazil was able to grow well beyond our capacity and to become the major exporter of food-crop to China and Africa (as well as pretty much everywhere else). Essentially, Brazil replaced the US as China/the world's breadbasket.

Now that their industry is up and running, and running strong and profitably, and likely to continue to grow at a controlled rate, I wouldn't be surprised if a major agriculture bill in the US as well as infrastructure projects weren't pushed by Obama/democrats to overhaul and increase our shipping/handling facilities and infrastructures as well as readjust our farm subsidies so that farmers can profitably stop overworking their land, and begin to grow on currently undeveloped land, as well as..... you get the general idea

Then again, with the repub's winning control of the Senate, and ganking so much from the house, it'll prob be a fairly difficult beast to wrestle away from them.... read: we will most likely be locked in stalemate until 2012. Personally, fine with me (i hate neocons, tea party is stupid, Obama is almost as incapable and... Hilary or Ron Paul are my two choices for pres in 2012. And, I'm from KY, I voted for his son... who, despite the rhetoric, is not a (modern incarnation of the) teaparty nut case though he did use them for votes... and I would imagine thinks Sarah Palin is a whore, and used her as such to get votes.). With any luck, a vote of no confidence will come up for Obama forcing him to compete in dem primaries in 2011/12 and Hillary will win. The ag industry has been hers since 2004 anyway, and its only likelyhood of moving forward with any stability or chance for success is by something she proposes (no longer a senator so easier said than done) or, in fact, pushes through as president.....

either way, its form will most likely include a switch of subsidies from corn to switchgrass, at least until the infrastructure for corn export is increased to allow for imports to come back in and help the industry grow w/out them (subsidies).

u/Fryhtan69 · 1 pointr/books

The History of Social Influence of the Potato by
Redcliffe N. Salaman (and yes that is an actual book).

Proof

u/Sludgehammer · 1 pointr/funny
u/ISO505 · 1 pointr/tifu

This is obviously bullshit. Unless you have more than anecdotal evidence? Potatoes applied to the skin (or seriously, anywhere) would not weaken bones. In fact, there are just as many crazy stories about raw potatoes healing broken bones. This is simply a remainder of the old potato hate from the late 16th century (the history of the potato is actually kinda interesting, e.g., The History and Social Influence of the Potato)

u/modernomad · 1 pointr/DIY

I recognize that such treasures as "The History and Social Influence of the Potato" exist and a few copies probably wouldn't be missed, it would still feel like something akin to performing surgery on a family member.

u/Lord_Osis_B_Havior · 1 pointr/pics
u/Spiel_Foss · 1 pointr/RenewableEnergy

> The US is still a democratic republic, and not a fascist state.

This is a perspective of wealth and race. In places such as Pine Ridge, South Dakota, Ferguson, Missouri or the Mexican border the perspective differs. The US is a proto-fascist state in an academic sense and has been documented as such.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Fascism-Works-Politics-Them/dp/0525511830

> The government is still functioning as intended.

The government of the United States was designed by slave-holders to protect their wealth, so this statement is historically questionable. But it is also a bold claim considering current events.

The system "may" be working in some ways. It is definitely not working in others. (But either way this is a topic obviously outside the scope of the current forum.)

> You, for example, believe the US has weak air pollution standards.

And you only provided whataboutism in response. I never mentioned anything about Europe or Asia. They also have very poor environmental laws in many cases. "Everybody does it" isn't even accepted as a child's excuse.

But instead of an actual conversation, you can't help but make weird false equivalencies. Why is that? Why the pose?

u/ee4m · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

Its a style of politics were people are fooled into blaming scapegoat groups (usually immigrants, minority religions, races, sexualities, marxists, communists) for their economic problems that tends to follow fiancial crisis when people are wanting change.

People are promised a return to some imaginary glory days.

Its a fake revolution that protects the status quo.


https://www.amazon.com/How-Fascism-Works-Politics-Them/dp/0525511830

u/DrunkHacker · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

Jason Stanley, a Philosophy professor at Yale, has two recent books that might be of interest: How Propaganda Works, and How Fascism Works. Depending on how broadly you want to define "philosophy", US Naval War College professor Tom Nichols's book, The Death of Expertise, would also be fit the bill. The ideas in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by NYU ethics/business professor Jonathan Haidt also come up frequently in conversation.

If you're willing to look further back (and perhaps define philosophy even more broadly), the late NYU education professor Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business might be of interest.

u/C0git0 · 1 pointr/cars

BTW, if anyone here has not read Go Like Hell, I highly suggest it. Absolutely awesome story of the Ford/Ferrari battle.

http://www.amazon.com/Go-Like-Hell-Ferrari-Battle/dp/0547336055/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

u/macmacma · 1 pointr/cars

This is an excellent novelization of the events leading to the development of the GT40: https://www.amazon.com/Go-Like-Hell-Ferrari-Battle/dp/0547336055/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503290284&sr=1-1&keywords=go+like+hell

However, my favorite book on the car is from an engineer, John Horsman, who worked with John Wyer at Aston Martin, and went on to help him develop, race, and build the GT40 and Mirage programs (AND Porsche 917 - this is the man who developed the K tail that made the car successful). https://www.amazon.com/Racing-Rain-Brilliant-Legendary-Dedicated/dp/1893618714/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503290404&sr=1-10&keywords=racing+in+the+rain

The wikipedia page has great information on the car's history and development, and most car websites have some summary story http://jalopnik.com/5976102/the-amazing-history-of-fords-greatest-supercar/

u/jdkeith · 1 pointr/Libertarian

There's a difference between privacy and anonymity. Fighting technology is a losing battle. To flatten power structures and allow effective decentralized corrective measures sans-state, two-way transparency is required.

That said, putting something on someone's car is a trespass and violates the NAP. Following people around in cars or with satellites is not violative of the NAP.

u/Josef_Superflip · 1 pointr/worldnews

> I'm sorry but I stopped half way through your post.

That's the problem. You guys try to ignore the strong anti-Jewish resentments in the Muslim world. If you don't want to use the information provided by MEMRI look at Palestinian Media Watch:

> Our enmity with the Jews is a matter of [or 'based on'] faith; our enmity with the Jews is a matter of faith, more than an enmity owing to [or 'arising from'] occupation and the land. (...)

-Preacher paid by the PA on the official television of the PA

Or recent findings of the Pew Global Attitudes Project:

> In the predominantly Muslim nations surveyed, views of Jews are largely unfavorable. Nearly all in Jordan (97%), the Palestinian territories (97%) and Egypt (95%) hold an unfavorable view. Similarly, 98% of Lebanese express an unfavorable opinion of Jews, including 98% among both Sunni and Shia Muslims, as well as 97% of Lebanese Christians.

Or look at the rich literature about Jew-hatred. Someone who doesn't see Muslim anti-Semitism doesn't want to. That's a dangerous and immoral behavior.

The relationship between Jews and Muslims in Muslim dominated countries can be and was peaceful - but mostly poisoned by anti-Jewish resentments. In those countries the general attitude of the Muslims toward the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed. That includes an own Jewish state.

---

So it is not important what Israel does; it will always be wrong. Even painful Israeli concessions stimulate not reciprocal Palestinian goodwill but rather irredentism, ambition, fury, and violence. Diplomatic negotiations through the 1990s led to a parade of Israeli retreats that had the perverse effect of turning the middling-bad situation of 1993 into the awful one of 2000.

---

Therefore I see only one solution: the Arab-Israeli conflict will be resolved only when one side gives up.

Until now, through round after round of war, both sides have retained their goals. Israel fights to win acceptance by its enemies, while those enemies fight to eliminate Israel. Those goals are raw, unchanging, and mutually contradictory. Israel's acceptance or elimination are the only states of peace. Each observer must opt for one solution or the other. A civilized person will want Israel to win, for its goal is defensive, to protect an existing and flourishing country. Its enemies' goal of destruction amounts to pure barbarism. Israel must win. Then there will be peace - the best thing that can happen to the Palestinian Arabs.

u/swjd · 1 pointr/islam

Additions:

Lives of other Prophets Series

  • [Video] Lives of the Prophets - Series of 31 lectures by Sheikh Shady on the lives of the Prophets from Adam (AS) to Isa (AS).

  • [Video] Stories Of The Prophets - Series of 30 lectures by Mufti Menk on the lives and stories of the Prophets from Adam (AS) to Isa (AS).

    End times, Death, Hereafter

  • [Video] Death and the Hereafter - Series of 10 or so lectures by Sheikh Shady on what happens during and after death. Also, the minor and major signs that would occur until the end of times.

  • [Video] Signs of Day of Judgement - Series of multiple lectures on the signs of the day of judgement by Sh. Yaser Birjas.

    Seerah (Life of Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

  • [Video] Seerah - Series of 47 lectures on the signs of the life of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) by Sheikh Shady.

    Understand the Quran

  • [Video] Story Night - How Allah(swt) wrote/directed the Quran with analogies to popular works of flim and stories. Another way of looking at it is that why does it seem the Quran is out of order sometimes? Noman Ali Kahn mainly talks about the story of Musa (AS) and how ayats pertaining to his story are written.

  • [Book] The Qur'an by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem - Translation of the Quran with modern English vernacular.

  • [Book] Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations by Michael Sells - There's a chapter that goes in depth about how the pre-Islamic Arabs previved the concept of love and the female beloved character layla and what Islam changed about this concept.

  • [Book] No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam by Reza Aslan -- Covers lots of topics, excellent writing overall.

  • [Audio] Fahm al-Qur'an - Tafseer of the entire Quran in very simple English. The commentary is by a female scholar, Amina Elahi so it's a good tafseer for gatherings with a lot sisters but obviously anyone can listen. Best way to make the most of this tafseer and others like it is to have a translated copy of the Quran in front of you and some highlighters, sticky notes and a dedicated notebook and just scribble away as you listen. BTW, if you have a Muslim friend(s) who is/are interested in Islam and you don't have access to a teacher or w/e, have a listening party/gathering with these lectures once a week. Since each lecture is 2 hrs long, in 30 weeks, you will have finished the tafseer of the entire Quran and you have a notebook filled with notes and a translated Quran that is now colorful and filled with notes.
u/Sehs · 1 pointr/islam

I'm a big fan of Reza Aslan's book.

u/Bacarey · 1 pointr/funny

Many people understand jihad as a religious justification for violence in Islam. Jihad actually translates into English as "struggle". The greater jihad that all Muslims are supposed to undertake everyday in their lives is to be a better Muslim, to live amoral life, and to follow the teaching of the Prophet. This is similar to Christians trying to follow the word of Jesus in their every day lives. The lesser jihad is the struggle with the outside world. The struggle is with those who do not live in your faith and your struggle to convert them. This is usually done by encouraging others to understand the religion and its teaching but radicals and extremists take this to mean one must kill people who do not believe or live in their insane world. Terrorist acts are undertaken by radicals and extremists, who do not operate by the same moral code that the average person understands.

As for religious justification for violence, yes, there ARE passage in the Quarn that seem to encourage violence, but just like many people who don't live in the 7th c. AD, most modern Muslims do not take this as a call for murder.

And the Christian Bible also contains violent passage, like God's call to King Saul in Samuel 1, "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" This is the translation in the New International Version, but many other translations read similarly. you can see them here- http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/15-3.htm

I highly recommend reading and or listening to this- Is the Bible more Violent than the Quran? to understand the textual support for the argument.

Also the book No god but God by Reza Aslan gives a really full and well researched look into the history and the development of Islam, as well as the Islamic world's interaction with the Western world and helps to understand the political climate.

Also Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism is a little dated (written in 2002) but it is an interesting look into the western understand of Islam and its relation to terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda

u/vamessedup · 1 pointr/atheism

Yes, Muslims don't worship Christ, but they do recognize him as a prophet- though not as great as the prophet Mohammed. Similarly, Christians recognize Abraham, Isaac, Moses (and many others) as prophets even though they were Jews and are also considered prophets by Jews.

If you want to go by the almighty Wikipedia, check out this handy chart.

Also, some more reputable sources: here, here, here

While I don't believe in any religion, I do think it's interesting to learn about their origins and tenets. If you're interested in reading a very well-written book on the subject, I quite enjoyed Reza Aslan's No god but God

u/jeffanie96 · 1 pointr/islam

John Espositio has written several books about Islam. He is a staunch Catholic. Islam: The Straight Path is really good.

I Karen Armstrong has written some books as well that I've heard are good, but I haven't read them myself.

No God but God by Reza Aslan is good too, but it has some controversial things regarding the beginnings of Islam.

u/sethra007 · 1 pointr/exjw

I encourage you to read Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz. Franz is the nephew of Frederick Franz, and was a member of the Governing Body from 1971 - 1980. He was disfellowshipped and declared an apostate when, while leading chronology research for the Aid to Bible Understanding encyclopedia, his findings led him to question key teachings of church.

Again, this was Ray Franz, from a family of JWs, who rose about as high as you could possibly rise in the church, and who'd devoted over forty years in the service of the church. The GB ran Franz out on a rail for asking simple and logical questions that, per them, should have been ludicrously easy for them to answer.

I can get you a copy of the book. I'll send you a PM.

u/Schytzophrenic · 1 pointr/todayilearned

Evolution keeps disease-causing genes around because in their recessive genotypes (non-disease causing) there is some benefit that we cannot readily see. For example, cystic fibrosis, in its pathological phenotype, will cause people to sweat out all their salt, cause organ failure and death. But if that cholera hits, those with the recessive CS genotype will be able to withstand bouts of diarrhea much better. I highly recommend The Gene, which goes over the history of how humanity came to discover heredity, DNA, etc. Well written, fascinating story. First science page turner I've read.

u/Brainkandle · 1 pointr/Showerthoughts

Well every thing on the planet that has cells, has DNA, right. DNA is the blueprint that tells each cell what to do, be, perform, etc. So you and I have 99.9% the same DNA cause we're both humans. You and I have 60% the same DNA as both a chicken and a banana.

But start going up the mammalian ladder and our DNA similarities get higher and higher because- 2 legs/2 arms/1 head/2 lungs/1 backbone/hair/carry our young/warmblooded etc everything that categorizes us as mammals comes from a very very similar set of DNA. Again, every cell has this code in it so that it knows how to perform its job.

Us and cats are 90% similar. It just happens that us and chimps/bonobos have the most DNA in common. Not something we purposely set out to prove, but once we mapped the genomes and stuck all of them side by side, that is where the data arranged itself.

Back to DNA - this is why stem cells are so fascinating, we can alter the DNA and tell the stem cell how to be, what to be, cause we already have all the DNA mapped so we're really just copying off of original DNA.

If you are interested in DNA and its complexity and how we figured all of it out, I highly recommend The Gene: An Intimate History by Siddhartha Mukherjee. You will understand it so much more and appreciate all the folks who moved along the science until now. ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ

u/Khiv_ · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

Indeed!
If you are still curious, though, I suggest this book. I haven't read it, but the author is known for discussing medical topics in an interesting way that is understandable by non-experts.

u/Berenor · 1 pointr/gaybros

Joe, 26, Albuquerque, New Mexico (though spending a few days in Pasadena, California visiting family for the holidays)

Picture of me from Thanksgiving

  1. My parents got me a book they thought I'd be interested in (The Gene: An Intimate History, by Siddhartha Mukherjee) and a bottle of Glenlivet 12-year single-malt scotch. Home run on both counts!
  2. Moving to Albuquerque - my parents helped me pack up my life into a U-Haul and we made the 14 hour drive to start the newest chapter of my life. :)
  3. I'll be ringing in the new year with my California friends!
  4. Current celebrity crush is Rain Dove because holy shit.
  5. I'm working on a demo app with a friend of mine who is teaching herself how to code. We're re-implementing tetris, with graphics, on pc, mobile, and web, with a tie-in to a leaderboard website (REST API) and a few other bells & whistles.
  6. I finally got around to watching Stranger Things last month, so still in love with that - especially the soundtrack. Also the band Autoheart (in particular their single Oxford Blood - featuring Rain Dove in the video!)
u/howardson1 · 1 pointr/urbanplanning

I'm a libertarian urbanist, and the rank and file libertarians hate the morgage interest deduction, zoning laws, urban renewal, government subsidized highways, and other sprawl creating policies.

Good book on free market urbanism:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Slaughter-Cities-Renewal-Cleansing/dp/1587317753

http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Cities-Revitalizing-Centers-American/dp/0738201340/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403714503&sr=1-1&keywords=wealth+of+cities

http://www.amazon.com/Zoned-Out-Regulation-Transportation-Metropolitan/dp/1933115157/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403714530&sr=1-1&keywords=zoned+out

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Lot-Real-Estate-Came/dp/B005Q69JJQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403714545&sr=1-1&keywords=our+lot

http://www.amazon.com/Snob-Zones-Fear-Prejudice-Estate/dp/0807001570/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403714560&sr=1-1&keywords=snob+zones

http://www.amazon.com/Financial-Fiasco-Infatuation-Ownership-Afterword/dp/1937184412/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403714575&sr=1-1&keywords=financial+fiasco

http://www.amazon.com/Housing-Bias-Rethinking-Diverse-America/dp/0230110509/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403714629&sr=1-1&keywords=the+housing+bias

http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/159420277X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403714641&sr=1-1&keywords=triumph+of+the+city

http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endangerment-Outsized-Corruption-Armageddon-ebook/dp/B004H1TM1G/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403714658&sr=1-1&keywords=reckless+endangerment+gretchen+morgenson

http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO
Their are a lot more.

http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/1884829988/ref=sr_1_1?s=textbooks-trade-in&ie=UTF8&qid=1405054547&sr=1-1&keywords=the+high+cost+of+free+parking

u/zxcv73 · 1 pointr/worldnews

>Marxists claim the exact same thing.

If Marx did claim this, he wouldn't advocate government law like he did. Your idea of Marx sounds very wrong, or maybe your idea of economic law. But that's beside the point. You are projecting some ideals on to me. I never said anything you are claiming I did. I don't know where you are getting that I think the market is a separate unified thing. The market is everyone. Therefor every individuals action shapes the market. If you keep trying to put words were there are none, than debating you is a waste of time.

Nothing I say is ideological drivel as you try to point out. Simply because 2 things are intertwined does not mean they are the same, and cannot be separated. I base my concepts on the facts at hand, history, and solid theory. You are debating with a lot of emotions here, you should look at the alternatives to these factories, and what else the market in those countries has to offer. If someone is forcing anyone to work that is a problem in itself, but for most of the cases no one is forcing any of these children or adults to work. They choose to work in one place, because another place is worst or not an option. I'm not saying 'it sucks but what can you do.' I'm saying raising standards of living takes time, it can't happen because you wish it or because of a law. Looking at the history of western working conditions, it took time there as well, and the governments had to get out of the way. It's just usually the governments that get in the way and slow things down or make them worst. Look at the freedom of industry in Honk Kong and their standard of living compared to the rest of China. Hong Kong is much better off then the rest of China is, and they have very little government, comparatively, and a lot more open market. So when I say the market will fix it, I mean if governments allow the people to do what they do, then things will get better. It's not a mystical force, it's just what people do. Most of the history of the U.S companies on average were doing things and paying better than what government laws enforced. But the law is still forcing people to do things that is against their best interests, especially on a small business scale, which really slows progress.

>Sure. If you entirely ignore the evidence in the article itself, then squint at it until your previous assumptions are justified, I'm sure you can convince yourself of anything.

That was what your article said. Also it is government building of roads that causes "urban sprawl" anyway, as pointed out in this book. by Harvard economics professor Edward L. Glaeser.

Also from your article:

>In this case, in order to boost the production of cheaper goods, governments have maintained artificially low food prices in urban areas. The strategy here is to maintain urban food prices below market levels to reduce the cost of urban labor and urban life.

So no squinting needed to see government intervention as the problem.

u/MadCervantes · 1 pointr/lostgeneration

Energy sufficiency is simple math. Cities use way less energy. New Yorkers use about 4700 kilowatt hours versus the US average of 11,000 kilowatt hours. The UK average is even lower than New York's with an average of 4,300 kilowatt hours per year. [Source] [Source]

So assuming that the current trend of cities becoming more dense continues (which has been the trend since the 1980s) you could double the population in America while halving the energy use and end up with the exact same net energy usage.

Now you bring up a good point about cost. It is more expensive to live in a city. You are wrong about infrastructure though. Simple truth is rural areas have much more expensive and less efficient infrastructure. Rural infrastructure is used by less people and has to stretch out for more miles and requires more travel and time for maintence. Cities have expensive infrastructure but more people use it. [Ed Glaeser has a book on this subject] He's an economist at Harvard.

Also the cost of living is more expensive in cities...if you require the exact same lifestyle that Americans have come to expect during the post-war boom. If you want a home with a big green front lawn, it's going to cost a lot more in a city. City living is more expensive because the "standard" in America is inflated. Yet that's not how things have to be, and things are beginning to change fast.

People adapt to their environment. It's natural instinct to try and take the maximum available resources into account. That's why we love the taste of fats and salts. If you're a prehistoric hunter gather 12,000 years ago, then if you can get pack on some extra pounds, you take advantage of that. Studies show that people with hybrid cars use JUST as much energy as people with normal cars. They have better mpg, they just end up driving more, because the cost of driving goes down. [Source]

So Americans haven't adopted a more energy efficient lifestyle because they haven't had to. Land is cheap, gas is cheap, resources are cheap. When people have more resources they spend with less care (if you go to Qatar where electricity is state funded by oil money people take electricity for granted in the same way you probably take clean drinking water from the tap for granted). But as those resources are restricted and become more scarce people adopt their lifestyles, and remain fairly comfortable. When people's expectations are adjusted, people can be quite happy and productive. Just check out neat things like the [Tiny House Movement] Do you really need all that space? Do you really want a front lawn you have to mow, water, and care for? Maybe you have a green thumb but even in the urban dense areas people have taken up communal gardening projects that can help satisfy those needs in the community while decreasing total land usage. Personally I'm glad I don't have to mow lawns anymore.

A quick anecdote. I was looking for an apartment with a friend recently. We were looking at some bottom rung houses due to the nature of his and my employment situation at the time. I grew up in Texas and I'm back here but I went to school in Boston and London, so coming back to Texas has been weird. My last apartment room in Boston was 6 feet by 10 feet. It was a closet. Terribly small but I didn't mind in the least. In Texas (a city more densely populated than most in Texas) we were looking at apartments that were cheaper than that room, but 10 times bigger. One house has 2 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms. WHY? Why would you need 3 bathrooms if you only have 2 people living in the house? Hell, I've lived in houses with 7 people and only 2 bathrooms and we had zero problems. If it wasn't illegal to have more people occupying such a house (a measure taken by local government to help protect landowners) then I could have easily comfortably packed 4 or 5 more people in that apartment.

u/accountII · 1 pointr/europe

Thia is all extremely unrealistic. You are forgetting there are 6 billion of us. read this book

u/mrbooze · 1 pointr/todayilearned

What do you think your life in the country would be like if there had never been any cities?

Also: http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/159420277X

Also, ask if the schools in London and Toronto and Tokyo and Helsinki are like this before you assume that all city's schools are like this.

u/SaveUsTrump · 0 pointsr/politics

Dr. Kevin MacDonald has an excellent book on this subject called 'The Culture of Critique'.

And a reminder that King isn't wrong, he just said what you're not allowed to say: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Accomplishment-Pursuit-Excellence-Sciences/dp/0060929642

u/2ysCoBra · 0 pointsr/NoFap

Watch a William Lane Craig debate and read "The Experience of God" by David Bentley Hart.

u/Rathadin · 0 pointsr/atheism

> If a woman doesn't want to gestate a fetus, that's her business and her business, period...

Depends on how far along the child is. At some point, its no longer simply a zygote. At some point, the brain has formed, and its now a human being. At that point, I don't agree with abortion.

> This shouldn't even be a discussion. It's a woman's personal medical decision, and no one else's.

Yes, it should, for yet another reason that I didn't get into, and that's the fact that the religious people are "winning". What I mean by that, is that they're having more babies than us. And not by any small amount either. Too many western civilizations are below replacement birth rate, while Muslim and Christian communities are having babies left and right.

The problem with that, is that it won't take too many generations before us secularists are outnumbered. Significantly. And then its just a matter of time until we go away... either bred out completely, or we're persecuted so severely that we just "give in". Don't believe that? Read this - https://www.amazon.com/Shall-Religious-Inherit-Earth-Twenty-First/dp/1846681448

So whether secular women (and men for that matter) like it or not, we need to be having babies, at at least the same rate as the religious.

A big problem I see with a lot of atheists is they believe they're not at war with religious extremism. Well you are, because they're at war with you, whether you like it or not.

It would be a hell of a thing to see 5000 years of Western civilization turn to shit because women got "liberated" and then sat around with a "Now what?" attitude. Like it or not, women exist to create new humans. Men exist to help create new humans. That's just the way it is. It might be unfair, it might not be politically correct, but that's the reality of our situation.

u/baconinspace · 0 pointsr/history

A People's History of the World analyzes world history through a Marxist lens.

u/tamrix · 0 pointsr/IAmA

Read Who Built the Moon by Christopher Knight ;)

u/TheHayisinTheBarn · -1 pointsr/space
u/draw_it_now · -1 pointsr/thanosdidnothingwrong

That's so localised it's ridiculous. Habitats are only affected WHERE the city is, but not so much between them. As well as that, city dwellers use, on average, 40% less energy than suburbanites. edit: Add onto that, we could easily have more renewable energy if we made a mass push for it.
It's more logical to have self-sufficient urban areas, renewable energy, with large nature habitats.
Though there will always be those who'd rather ignore the facts and just have half the population killed.

https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/159420277X
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/books/review/Royte-t.html

u/troutmask_replica · -1 pointsr/Christianity
u/rowdyrodyduterte · -2 pointsr/PoliticalHumor

It's a book by Charles Murray and it's exceedingly well-researched. Go read it. Maybe you'll learn something.

u/iamisa · -3 pointsr/islam

I enjoyed Muhammad: The messenger of God by Betty Kelen as an introduction and preview for what is to come, and then No God But God by Reza Aslan.

These books are entertaining and touch on several issues without too much study.

If you become serious and want to learn more, go ahead and read Tafheem Ul-Qur'an by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi.

u/df52 · -9 pointsr/socialism

"you just asserted that a conclusion (labor creates all wealth) is fallacious in and of itself." Yes that's exactly what I did.The problem, I think, is that I didn't give evidence to support my assertion. If that's the problem, the question then is "why didn't I" The answer is "because I'm not going to do peoples homework for them". I've already sited two sources below for a deeper understanding of my assertion, here's two more:http://www.amazon.ca/Origins-Political-Order-Prehuman-Revolution/dp/0374533229/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1422131282&sr=1-1&keywords=the+origin+of+political+order and http://books.google.ca/books/about/Efficient_Society.html?id=akr6vHAgAkIC&redir_esc=y