Nathan's profile

7 ratings | 4 reviews
avg rating: 4.29

Nathan's bookshelves

read (11)

currently-reading (2)

to-read (0)

Nathan is currently reading

	06/02 Nathan is currently reading: Inside a U.S. Embassy: How the Foreign Service Works for America (Paperback) by Shawn Dorman bookshelves: currently-reading	my rating:
	add a comment
	01/19 Nathan gave to: The God Delusion (Hardcover) by Richard Dawkins (Goodreads author!) bookshelves: currently-reading	my rating:
	read in January, 2008 Nathan said: "I wish I could give the same high praise for Dawkins' "The God Delusion" that I gave "The Selfish Gene". The only fault I found with Selfish Gene was that he jumped to the conclusion that because natural selection is true....ther...more " 5 comments

Nathan's recent updates (rss)

June 02

Nathan is currently reading:
Inside a U.S. Embassy: How the Foreign Service Works for America (Paperback)
by Shawn Dorman
bookshelves: currently-reading

my rating:

add a comment

New comment on Chris Curtis's review of The God Delusion

Nathan wrote: "Since reason is my raison d'etre I reason that turning off the notifications in my inbox has little ...more Since reason is my raison d'etre I reason that turning off the notifications in my inbox has little to do with "reason" and more to do with "knowledge" (in this case, knowledge that deals specifically with knowing how to turn off notifications). One who is very reasonable, or highly capabable of being reasonable, may not know how to ignite the pilot light for his water heater but after having been shown how to do it after a five second long demo will know from that point on. Now that I have provided that lesson...here's another.....
Many years back I sat down with what I'll refer to as a high ranking buddhist monk in Thailand. He earned both his MA and PhD in religion from the U. of Chicago. I asked him, "You believe that Nirvana is a state of non-existence, correct?" He said "yes". I asked him, "You believe that Buddha achieved Nirvana, yes?" He said "yes". I asked him, "You pray to Buddha, yes?" He said "yes". I asked him, "since buddha achieved Nirvana and Nirvana is a state of non-existence then aren't you praying to a being that doesn't exist?" He didn't say anything. His eyes glazed over as if his life came crashing down before his eyes. I asked each of my family members the same series of questions and the same thing happened with each of them.
Here is reason.....take a Buddhist vs. a Christian. According to Buddhism, a non-buddhist who is a "good person" can receive a good buddhist's reward. In Christianity, however, if one has not accepted Christ as their savior they are damned. It simply isn't a matter of being a "good person". So, a "good" buddhist (if buddhism is true) will receive a good reward. However, a "good" Christian (if buddhism is true) will also receive a good reward. If Christianity is true, however, a "good" buddhist (who has not accepted Christ as Lord and Savior) will be forever damned. The Christian (i.e. one who has accepted Christ as Lord) will be found guiltless before God and enter heaven. So, aside from the line of questioning I mentioned earlier, it is plain to see that when investigating buddhism and Christianity...a Christiam who is a "good person" wins in both cases whereas a Buddhist who is a "good person" doesn't. ...less "

(see all 150 comments)

February 07

New comment on Nathan's review of The God Delusion

Nathan wrote: "Radu. Christianity IS one religion. The free will of corruptible man who has divided the "chu...more Radu. Christianity IS one religion. The free will of corruptible man who has divided the "church" can't be helped. A Christian is one who has acknowledged that s/he is a sinner and that Jesus is the only path to salvation. The "church" = those who put their faith solely in Christ for salvation. If you want me to go into deeper detail on that I will. I only ask that you ask questions to guide me otherwise I'll ramble on.
I'm glad you brought up Islam. I almost converted to Islam when I was 17. If Islam is reviewed logically, one should find that all Muslims are going are damned by their own standard. Allah commands that all be perfect and pure to enter heaven. In other words, sinless. Repentance is mistaken (by Muslims, Christians, and Jews) as a means by which one can be made pure. Jesus never needed to repent, because he he never sinned and was perfect. Needing to repent testifies of our guilt, our sinfulness, our imperfection. Therefore, we are unworthy to be in God's presence. Aside from that, in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity believers are COMMANDED to repent for sins. Therefore, NOT repenting for a sin merely means that one has sinned again by not obeying THAT commandment. While it sounds offensive....Muslims and Jews are damned by their own standards. I don't get it. I don't say that judgingly. I have friends of all religions. It's more out of confusion and concern.
I'm guessing your sports association is Baptist. Some people of faith are horrible examples of their faith. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Shall the entire world judge Islam negatively on account of terrorists?
Anyway, I can lump those who claim Jesus as their ONLY way to salvation as Christian. That is what a Christian is. Period. If someone says that there are other requirements, and/or that membership within a certain denomination is required, then he/she obsviously doesn't believe that Christ is the only path to salvation and isn't Christian.
You are correct that an outsider can not make an informed decision. Christians didn't become Christians by way of informed decisions either. Yes, there are many religions. Again, refer to my previous statements. Why choose any one over Christianity? A "good" Christian either wins or receives the same punishment/fate. In no case, however, does a Christian receive something worse.
As far as being guided to a church nearby....I would recommend that, should the day ever come in which you accept Christ, that you investigate various churches and choose the one that teaches that Christ is the sole means to salvation.
Once again, you are correct in that most people chose convenience in matters of religion. It's usually inconvenient to think deeply. People have to think hard at work. Why do they want to think hard after work and on Sunday before having to go back to work on Monday? Additionally, surveys have been conducted on those who identify themselves as Christians, as to why they are Christian. The most common response is something along the lines of "well....I think I'm a pretty good person, and I try real hard, I don't really lie very often, I'm not a murderer...". Those, I'm sad to say, aren't Christians.
Again, you are right in saying that no one choses after an extended survey of all religions. Indeed, I didn't! All this is something that came to me later. However, I would suggest that one...test the "reasonableness" of their faith. For instance, if I were Budhist and had I performed an in depth study on Christianity and learned that one must accept Christ or face hell
I would determine that as a "good" Christian I would receive the best Budhism and Christianity have to offer, but as a Budhist I would face either being reincarnated into a being that isn't me, with no recollection of me....or go to hell. My mom, and half my family members, are Budhist. Regardless, I like to bet on winners and Budhism, while beautiful, is a solid loser.
As for hard evidence....what more do you need? The universe exists and came to exist out of nothing (Big Bang). Despite the unimaginable improbabilities, the Earth exists and all life on it. If "hard-evidence" were to exist, it would not be viewed as evidence because science would have deemed it as normal/scientific (i.e.There would be a rational explanation for it.) So, I doubt that, if there were any "hard evidence" that it would be taken as such by anyone (to include Christians).
Dawkins also said that it would be such a huge waste to have spent his life on a religion that is false anyway and that it was a waste of what precious little time he has on this earth.
We regret things only if we still have a consciousness to regret with. For instance, I had the money to invest thousands in Apple in 2001 and since then it was split twice and doubled twice. I would have hundreds of thousands now. However, I didn't invest it. I regret it now because I am conscious. If there is no afterlife then one will no longer be conscious and cannot regret having "wasted" a life on something like religion. If some religion other than Christianity is true, but merely requires that one be "good" then I (as a Christian) can relish in the same rewards as other "good" people. If it simply doesn't matter, and there is some wonderful afterlife for all regardless of actions/beliefs, then I doubt I would (at that point) waste any time looking back on my life when I have a whole new marvelous realm to explore! If, however, Jesus is the only way to heaven then I certainly wouldn't regret my current investment. Again, Christianity (when compared to other investment choices) is the wisest investment. Again, I must agree with you that one cannot come to faith "logically" or through Pascal's Wager. I would hope, however, that it would seriously draw one to consider investing serious thought and study to it and even perhaps some prayer. I'll leave for now with this....
Imagine you've been poisoned (sin). A table in front of you has ten glasses (religions). In glass 1 there is one antidote to one poison. Glass 2 has the same antidote in glass one, plus another antidote. Glass 3 has the same in glass 2, plus another etc etc until glass ten, which has ten antidotes. You can only choose one glass. Which would it be? I would choose glass 10 (Jesus Christ) without hesitating since that contains all the antidotes in glasses 1 through 9, but an additional antidote (i.e. the best other religions have to offer+something more). I could also assume that none of the antidotes before me would cure me of the poison I swallowed (atheism). However, would you choose none over choosing glass 10?
Radu, I'm not so high minded as to think that I am going to convert you. I'm not even trying. I am defended my faith the best way I can and hope that I might only plant a seed that might sprout and grow later on within you. I understand your position as I have been there once myself. I was raised Budhist. When I was twelve I raised some serious questions challenging Budhism and found it to be falacious. I was agnostic after that. Had a brief stint with Islam before rejecting that too at the age of 17. Continued to be an agnostic until one month before my 22nd birthday. Ever since, I've been a Christian. I didn't come to that decision through rational thought. I would say that it came to me and I was humble enough to accept it. It was a very real experience, somewhat like finally getting a calculus problem one has been struggling with for quite some time. The light came on. Had I had a similar experience with say....Islam or Hinduism or Budhism or anything else, however, I think I would have taken Pascal's Wager seriously and weighed my current faith vs. the other options and come to the conclusion that Christianity was the wiser choice and not just because it's the best bet. Rather, because it is the only one that offers a plan of redemption. ...less "

(see all 5 comments)

January 21

Nathan gave

to:
By Faith Alone (Hardcover)
by Martin Luther

my rating:

add a comment

Nathan gave

to:
The Blind Watchmaker (Paperback)
by Richard Dawkins (Goodreads author!)

my rating:

add a comment

Nathan gave

to:
Racist America: Roots, Current Realities and Future Reparations (Paperback)
by Joe R. Feagin

my rating:

read in January, 2006

Nathan said: "The basic motive behind reparations is that the U.S. government must take action to pay for the "damage" done to minorities over the course of America's history. I would like to raise a few observations first. Thomas Jefferson, in response...more The basic motive behind reparations is that the U.S. government must take action to pay for the "damage" done to minorities over the course of America's history. I would like to raise a few observations first. Thomas Jefferson, in response to the issue of slavery, once stated, "we have the wolf by its ears, we can neither hold on nor let go." Slavery was an institution inherited from a time when the American colonies existed under English rule and in 1776 the economy of the new American nation was heavily dependant on it. This was a serious issue for the new nation that based its existence on the premise that all men are created equal and that all are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. It is these facts that Jefferson had in mind when he said those words. While slavery is a very unfortunate event in America's past, I do not believe that the U.S. government should pass measures to "repair the damage".
The vast majority of blacks in America exist today due to the gene pool created by bringing slaves to America. Slaves reproduced with other slaves whom they would never have met if they were not brought to America. Some other slaves would not have bore children sired by their slave owners. These genes were just the beginning in creating today's black community of America. In other words, had slavery never occurred very few of the black people in America demanding reparations and affirmative action would be alive to do so.
Culture had much to do with the mistreatment and attitude towards blacks in the past. This is terrible. However, why should white people today (who did not exist during the time of slavery) pay for the historic actions of whites living in a different culture and time? Likewise, the modern U.S. government is no more responsible. The individuals in today's government, while just as corrupt, are not the same individuals in the 19th century government. The oppression of peoples is something that has occurred since the dawn of human history. Should the United Nations run a historical investigation to see if, and how, everyone alive has been effected (good or bad) as the result of the actions of everyone else’s ancestors and then demand that reparations be paid? In other words, should the descendants of the Huns be found and forced to pay reparations to the descendants of Romans? Should the descendants of Romans be forced to pay reparations to the descendants of the barbarians of Germania? Should American Protestants be forced to pay reparations to American-Irish Catholics?
Should Joe be able to receive reparations from Bob, whose great great grandfather had beaten and robbed the Joe’s great great grandfather if that beating led to his handicapping and on to a negative chain of events over the course of the next few generations? No. Should the descendants of Aaron Burr be forced to pay reparations to the descendants of Alexander Hamilton? The answer to all these questions is obviously, no! Reparations is a policy so utterly and painfully ridiculous it's almost comic. What is definitely comic is that many, if not a majority, of black people today are descendants of white slave owners. So, to be fair, the majority of blacks in America should have to pay reparations to themselves and other blacks as well. That's just math.
The real problem lies in the fact that the American people continue to permit the government to abuse its power in favoring some over others. As Ayn Rand used to say, "the greatest minority is the individual." I believe that the American people need to hold the government accountable to that ideal. If not, men and women of every race and/or sexual orientation have more to fear in their government.
"How soon we forget history....Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government" - Thomas Jefferson.
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurptations" - James Madison.
...less "

add a comment

Nathan gave

to:
The Pursuit of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action (Paperback)
by Terry H. Anderson

my rating:

read in January, 2005

Nathan said: "A less than qualified/under-qualified white person gets a job/college admission over a qualified/over-qualified black person. That is racial discrimination. A less than qualified/under-qualified black person gets a job/college admission over a qual...more A less than qualified/under-qualified white person gets a job/college admission over a qualified/over-qualified black person. That is racial discrimination. A less than qualified/under-qualified black person gets a job/college admission over a qualified/over-qualified white person. That is Affirmative Action. Simply put, Affirmative Action is racial discrimination.
Will there ever be an end to Affirmative Action policies? Perhaps when all prejudice is eradicated? How could that be accomplished without mass mental reprogramming? As long as people are free they will use their minds freely. People will be free to develop prejudices. People will also be free to put away prejudices. A society of mentally free people is much better than a society full of mental slaves motivated by the crack of the government's whip.
Affirmative Action is defined as any action taken to enhance the "ethnic diversity" of a group, designed to increase employment and educational opportunities for a group through means of government coercion in the lives and activities of independent and supposedly free people. Ethnic diversity is merely racism in a politically correct disguise
“Diversity” in a work setting or educational setting should only involve a setting in which minds, views, and ideas greatly varied. A working environment, or educational environment, benefits most by "diversity" in this sense. It creates an environment that is creative and innovative. A "diversity" focused on the color of skin or sex only results in the stagnation of growth and innovation. A "diversity philosophy" based on color of skin is racist, counterproductive, and immoral.
Clearly there is a wildly disproportionate number of blacks playing NBA basketball. Should society demand that the NBA include a "desirable" number of whites, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans? Can you imagine what kind of an impact such policy would have on professional basketball? Why such an incredibly disproportionate number of blacks playing professional basketball? Merit, time, and hard work. To deny a black person, more skilled and talented, a spot on a basketball team to someone of another race, less skilled and talented, is immoral and counterproductive.
The aim of the diversity movement is to increase tolerance and end racism. Society cannot expect to create that society by teaching people that one's identity may be determined by race or sex. Yes, we should tolerate, embrace, and celebrate diversity. Diversity in thought. Diversity of intellect. Diversity of view points. The purpose of a university is to create an environment where people are able to improve their ability to reason, gain perspective, and build upon their knowledge. This is best accomplished by creating an atmosphere of intellectual diversity not racial diversity. A work place benefits from pooling together diverse thoughts and ideas for progress and innovation. It is intellectual diversity, the diversity of ideas, that benefits society. Not the diversity of race.
In practice, Affirmative Action means adopting racial preferences. It means giving preference in university admissions, job hiring, promotions, etc. If preference is given to one group, it is done so at the expense of some other group. In doing so, those in the other group become oppressed. It is the duty of good government to uphold the rights of individuals, not groups. A government that passes legislation, giving favor to one person at the expense of any other is corrupt. A precedent for enormous atrocities is set. A government that legitimizes the favoring of one group has infringed upon the rights of other individuals. In so doing, the government makes it clear that it is under no obligation to even uphold the rights of the group that it aims to assist. Groups are composed of individuals. By suppressing the rights of one group, to benefit another group, the government has infringed the rights of the individuals in that group. A government that finds it acceptable to infringe upon the rights of any individual no longer needs to uphold the rights of any individual. Your rights are no longer protected. Minority rights are not something to be taken seriously in this country. A minority has no rights that I should respect unless I share those same rights as well. For the government to provide a minority with special rights is to do so at my expense. It is not the duty of government to artificially elevate any person or group. It is the duty of government to ensure that rights are held equally amongst all individuals. If mistakes have been made in the past, then the government must do a better job of making sure that all rights are protected equally with respect to each individual regardless of race or sex. In the past, the U.S. government has made preferences in favor of whites. This was wrong. The government should make up for it, not by reversing its preferences, but by recommitting itself to equality.
...less "

add a comment

Nathan gave

to:
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (Paperback)
by Ayn Rand

my rating:

read in March, 1998

Nathan said: "This is one of the greatest books I've read. There are only three books I immediately began to re-read upon finishing and this is one of them. The other two are "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins and "Mere Christianity" by C....more "

add a comment

January 19

Nathan gave

to:
The God Delusion (Hardcover)
by Richard Dawkins (Goodreads author!)
bookshelves: currently-reading

my rating:

read in January, 2008

Nathan said: "I wish I could give the same high praise for Dawkins' "The God Delusion" that I gave "The Selfish Gene". The only fault I found with Selfish Gene was that he jumped to the conclusion that because natural selection is true....ther...more I wish I could give the same high praise for Dawkins' "The God Delusion" that I gave "The Selfish Gene". The only fault I found with Selfish Gene was that he jumped to the conclusion that because natural selection is true....there is no God. He failed to go into detail as to why he thought so in that book and strives (rather poorly) to do so in "The God Delusion".
If you're like me, you would read this expecting something like "A=B and B=C, therefore A=C". You won't find anything like that in this book. Instead, you'll find "A=B.....therefore B=C". Dawkins simply fails to link modern scientific discovery/truths with atheism.
Dawkins also targets Christianity specifically. In so doing he uses the absolute worst examples he could in order to help make Christianity/religion look all the more ridiculous. He uses the Ontological Argument and the Bayesian Argument (in addition to several other arguments I've never heard and found embarrassing). It didn't surprise me at all that he swept Pascal's Wager under the rug in just a few short paragraphs (it is perhaps the best rational argument in Christianity's defense). His cowardice in dealing with it head-on is unimpressive (though to have done so would have put an end to his bitching). He also uses examples such as Jerry Falwell against Christianity. If extra-terrestrials, when deciding to exterminate human life from Earth or share their technology with us, used Adolf Hitler as their mascot for humanity (the way Dawkins focuses on the worst examples of Christianity) we'd all be dead.
The bottom line is that science will never prove that God does not exist (nor will it ever prove that He does exist). What science can do (and has done) is prove that silly and ancient imaginings like creationism, the Earth being only 5000 yrs old, Lucifer planting fake dinosaur bones in the earth to deceive the masses, that are solely rooted in ignorant human attempts to explain what was then unexplainable) false! While some might take the creation of Adam and Eve literally, I do not. Nor do I think any Christian should. For those who do, a reading of Chapter 4 in Genesis should be eye-opening (let alone uncomfortable). Jews, in real life and in the Old-Testament, are very....up-tight when it comes to lineages. We read in that chapter that Cain kills Abel. As a result, Cain is banished. Cain pleads with God saying, "all who see me will try to kill me!" (All!?!?! Who would that be?!?!? Adam and Eve?) God confirms saying that seven times Cain's punishment would go to anyone who tried to do so and put a mark on Cain's head to warn all others. In verse 17 we read that Cain's wife gave birth to a son! (Wife!?!?! Did he whip out the wand he got from Hogwart's Academy and cast himself one?) Then, just when you think that perhaps Adam and Eve did have other kids but they weren't worth mentioning Chapter 4 leaves us with the birth of Adam and Eve's third child, Seth. What is more, the Bible describes the creation of Adam as God dipping his finger into the dust of the earth, forming his body, and then breathing life into it. If you ask me, there was no better way to explain evolution to a bunch of Hebrew slaves 3,500 years ago who knew nothing more than how to make bricks out of mud and straw!
The only way to approach religion/Christianity rationally is by way of Pascal's Wager (which is why so called "(pseudo)intellectuals" stay away from dealing with it. I'm running short on characters, so I'll stick to Atheism. If there is no God/no after-life, then the atheist and the Christian both amount to maggot food. If the Christian God is true then the Christian goes to heaven and the atheist to hell. That's what we call a "no-brainer" in the land of common-sense. If I were an atheist, I'd strive for enough humility to fall to my knees and pray for genuine faith in whatever is true. Jesus says, "I stand at the door and knock..." ...less "

5 comments

January 12

Nathan added:
The Imitation of Christ (Dover Thrift Editions)
by Thomas à Kempis

my rating:

Nathan's profile

Nathan's bookshelves

Nathan is currently reading

Nathan's recent updates (rss)

Nathan's friend comments

Nathan's friends (1)