[Quinto]

  Yea i have read a few, the blind watchmaker is my favorite. Question for ya - Do you know a good recording of Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto in E minor I have seen a good performance of the piece by Julia Fischer on youtube and am thinking of buying it. I though id ask an expert. 

I might be a lot of things, but I ain't no Mendelssohn expert

 
 
Kyung Wha Chung seems to be highly regarded for Mendelssohn, for modern recording I'd go for Janine Jansen (and not because she's Dutch)

 
I do not own it though..maybe best to listen around before buying, but no need to tell you that haha
 
Maybe I'll go the Mendelssohn route one day, who knows..
 
The Blind Watchmaker will be my next Dawkins book, thanks for the heads up!

 

[mutabor]

  A Devil's Chaplain by Richard Dawkins

 
I've started to read his popular The God Delusion because I'm interested in atheistic rhetoric though I can already predict what he is going to write. Which points in organised religion pisses him off? How is he trying to tackle unorthodox views in mysticism which are much more complex and beyond his understanding, etc?

 

[Quinto]

   
I've started to read his popular The God Delusion because I'm interested in atheistic rhetoric though I can already predict what he is going to write. Which points in organised religion pisses them off. How are they trying to tackle unorthodox views in mysticism which are much more complex and beyond their understanding, etc?

Dawkins is a science guy so he doesn't do 'complex' mysticism, try some new age writers

 

 

[mutabor]

 
Dawkins is a science guy so he doesn't do mysticism, try some new age section

 
Yeah, but he doesn't write about science, he mostly writes about religion ( having very poor understanding of the subject). LOL. 

 

[magiccabbage]

   
I've started to read his popular The God Delusion because I'm interested in atheistic rhetoric though I can already predict what he is going to write. Which points in organised religion pisses him off? How is he trying to tackle unorthodox views in mysticism which are much more complex and beyond his understanding, etc?

this is good¬   I really do like Dawkins. All my friends cant stand him though. 
 

 

[magiccabbage]

   
Year but he doesn't write about science, he mostly writes about religion ( having very poor understanding of the subject). LOL. 

no, he mostly writes about science 

 

[mutabor]

Actually I agree with Dawkins where he bashes defects of organised religion which by the way many mystics can't abide. I'm interested how he copes ( if he does?) with unorthodox movements like Eastern philosophy or western idealism ( Schopenhauer, Kant, George Berkeley etc).

 

[magiccabbage]

  Actually I agree with Dawkins where he bashes defects of organised religion. I'm interested how he copes with unorthodox movements like Eastern philosophy or western idealism ( Schopenhauer, Kant, George Berkeley etc).

I remember reading critique of pure reason. It was tough enough to get through. I found the sections on priori judgments really interesting. I dont know anything about eastern philosophy but i could see him agreeing with kant, at least on some subjects. 

 

[Quinto]

   
Year but he doesn't write about science, he mostly writes about religion ( having very poor understanding of the subject). LOL. 

Well, science is a proven method of truth approximation which is uses to descibe all kinds of fenomena, including religion, so the 'poor understanding' is on you LOL

 

[Quinto]

  I remember reading critique of pure reason. It was tough enough to get through. I found the sections on priori judgments really interesting. I dont know anything about eastern philosophy but i could see him agreeing with kant, at least on some subjects. 

Kant had interesting and revolutionary ideas but was a terrible, formalistic writer. I liked reading Schopenhauer myself, stunning how a young man like him wrote, in great proza, his main work, very eloquent and knowledgeable..
He invented a metaphysical hierarchical think system that covers all fenomena, including art and the greatest art of all, music..
 
Beautiful and interesting as it is and great to make you think from other perspectives, it is philosophy, theory only with all its fallacies, unbelievable that some people still don't seem to grasp that obvious distinction
 
Since you like Dawkins..have you read Darwin's Dangerous Idea, by Daniel Dennett? Great book!

 

[magiccabbage]

 
Kant had interesting and revolutionary ideas but was a terrible, formalistic writer. I liked reading Schopenhauer myself, stunning how a young man like him wrote, in great proza, his main work, very eloquent and knowledgeable..
He invented a metaphysical hierarchical think system that covers all fenomena, including art and the greatest art of all, music..
 
Beautiful and interesting as it is and great to make you think from other perspectives, it is philosophy, theory only with all its fallacies, unbelievable that some people still don't seem to grasp that obvious distinction
 
Since you like Dawkins..have you read Darwin's Dangerous Idea, by Daniel Dennett? Great book!

no, ill have to give it a go. 

 

[mutabor]

  Actually I agree with Dawkins where he bashes defects of organised religion which by the way many mystics can't abide. I'm interested how he copes ( if he does?) with unorthodox movements like Eastern philosophy or western idealism ( Schopenhauer, Kant, George Berkeley etc).

  I remember reading critique of pure reason. It was tough enough to get through. I found the sections on priori judgments really interesting. I dont know anything about eastern philosophy but i could see him agreeing with kant, at least on some subjects. 

 
No, Dawkins and Kant have very little in common and their understanding of the world is totally different. For the same reason Dawkins would have found it hard to abide Schopenhauer who was a Kant's intellectual successor. 
 
Schopenhauer didn't believe in God the Creator at all but he was a supporter of Christian ethics as well as Hindu or Buddhist ones. Schopenhauer criticized materialistic worldview and especially laughed at optimists. Dawkins is wrong when he is trying to identify what religion is about. In his book The God Delusion he refused to talk about Buddhism. He wrote that Buddhism is not a religion but rather an ethical system. Wrong! 
 
Christianity and Buddhism are both religions. But Buddhism rejects an idea of god. Buddha found questions about God and questions how the world was created useless and a mere waste of time because they had nothing to do with religious process. All rhetoric of Dawkins revolving around God-idea ( particularly God the Creator idea) is pointless in relation to Buddhism ( he understands it well himself) and other Indian philosophical systems like yoga for example. 
 
Life is contradictory by its nature. It is the simple truth which Dawkins can't understand. The essence of religion is that it understands that our life is a conflict. Man's mistake inherent into his nature is that he identifies his pure consciousness - inner self with perishable material cocoon - body and mind. The goal of ANY religion ( including Christianity) is to help to discern between what is perishable ( body and mind) and what is not perishable ( inner self). All that crap about who/why/how created Universe has nothing to do with religious process. 

 

[magiccabbage]

You guys might find this interesting 
 
http://vimeo.com/44013533

 

[Quinto]

oops

 

[Quinto]

   
No, Dawkins and Kant have very little in common and their understanding of the world is totally different. For the same reason Dawkins would have found it hard to abide Schopenhauer who was a Kant's intellectual successor. 
 
Schopenhauer didn't believe in God the Creator at all but he was a supporter of Christian ethics as well as Hindu or Buddhist ones. Schopenhauer criticized materialistic worldview and especially laughed at optimists. Dawkins is wrong when he is trying to identify what religion is about. In his book The God Delusion he refused to talk about Buddhism. He wrote that Buddhism is not a religion but rather an ethical system. Wrong! 
 
Christianity and Buddhism are both religions. But Buddhism rejects an idea of god. Buddha found questions about God and questions how the world was created useless and a mere waste of time because they had nothing to do with religious process. All rhetoric of Dawkins revolving around God-idea ( particularly God the Creator idea) is pointless in relation to Buddhism ( he understands it well himself) and other Indian philosophical systems like yoga for example. 
 
Life is contradictory by its nature. It is the simple truth which Dawkins can't understand. The essence of religion is that it understands that our life is a conflict. Man's mistake inherent into his nature is that he identifies his pure consciousness - inner self with perishable material cocoon - body and mind. The goal of ANY religion ( including Christianity) is to help to discern between what is perishable ( body and mind) and what is not perishable ( inner self). All that crap about who/why/how created Universe has nothing to do with religious process. 

At least you seem to understand, great

 
 
Dawkins would understand you perfectly I'm sure, he really is not that dumb

.. Being the science guy he is, he has some basic and proven standards for truth claims, the possibility for falsification being just one of them
 
You obviously have other standards, if any. Calling some theory 'simple truth' wouldn't make it so, it just shows you wish it to be..not more, not less