Dangerous book for atheists

[Alceste]

I fail to see how that book is threatening to atheists.

Me too, and I also fail to understand why I should read it when I've already read Anam Cara and In Love With Everything, both of which are excellent explorations of the concept of spiritual love and bliss, and one of which is overtly theistic. I feel pretty satisfied that I've read enough on the subject. After all, what is there to say?

My non-belief was not shaken, but they are lovely books.

 

[hexler]

Stereotyping your opponents is never a good move in a discussion. For example, this atheist doesn't drink. Neither do most of my atheist friends.

Believing in atheism being the cause of alcoholism is like believing Christianity is the cause of war-mongering.

This is not the point. The point is, they were satisfied with a narrow mind, resp. life style. What is meant by "narrow"? It means "my view is right and you are a lout". A far more interesting view on religion had Karl Popper. He had his doubts about religion, but he DID listen to religious people.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

This is not the point. The point is, they were satisfied with a narrow mind, resp. life style. What is meant by "narrow"? It means "my view is right and you are a lout". A far more interesting view on religion had Karl Popper. He had his doubts about religion, but he DID listen to religious people.

You seem to be just as narrow-minded, by your own admission. You're stereotyping atheists to be your enemy (as narrow-minded drunks) instead of listening and being open.

"I will not change my habits - where could that lead?"

 

[Alceste]

You do not have a particularly good image of atheists, hexler. If I dare say so, it may not be very accurate either.

Maybe you just happened to have a not very good set of friends who were also atheists. I dunno.

I think sometimes people who have become religious as adults mistake their own confused, awkward, difficult, drunken, empty teenage years when they had no opinion on the matter and didn't bother to think about it as "atheism".

That's why they're always going "I used to be an atheist!" when they obviously have not. They've been a seeker with inherent theistic inclinations.

 

[hexler]

I opened this site:
Karl Popper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I found this:
Religion and God

In an interview[23] that Popper gave in 1969 with the condition that it shall be kept secret until after his death, he summarized his position on God as follows: "I don't know whether God exists or not. ... Some forms of atheism are arrogant and ignorant and should be rejected, but agnosticism—to admit that we don't know and to search—is all right. ... When I look at what I call the gift of life, I feel a gratitude which is in tune with some religious ideas of God. However, the moment I even speak of it, I am embarrassed that I may do something wrong to God in talking about God." He objected to organised religion, saying "it tends to use the name of God in vain", noting the danger of fanaticism because of religious conflicts: "The whole thing goes back to myths which, though they may have a kernel of truth, are untrue. Why then should the Jewish myth be true and the Indian and Egyptian myths not be true?" In a letter unrelated to the interview, he stressed his tolerant attitude: "Although I am not for religion, I do think that we should show respect for anybody who believes honestly."[4][54][55]

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I opened this site:
Karl Popper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I found this:
Religion and God

In an interview[23] that Popper gave in 1969 with the condition that it shall be kept secret until after his death, he summarized his position on God as follows: "I don't know whether God exists or not. ... Some forms of atheism are arrogant and ignorant and should be rejected, but agnosticism—to admit that we don't know and to search—is all right. ... When I look at what I call the gift of life, I feel a gratitude which is in tune with some religious ideas of God. However, the moment I even speak of it, I am embarrassed that I may do something wrong to God in talking about God." He objected to organised religion, saying "it tends to use the name of God in vain", noting the danger of fanaticism because of religious conflicts: "The whole thing goes back to myths which, though they may have a kernel of truth, are untrue. Why then should the Jewish myth be true and the Indian and Egyptian myths not be true?" In a letter unrelated to the interview, he stressed his tolerant attitude: "Although I am not for religion, I do think that we should show respect for anybody who believes honestly."[4][54][55]

So, you're advocating tolerance.

How is tolerance a concept against the concept of atheism?

 

[Alceste]

I opened this site:
Karl Popper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I found this:
Religion and God

In an interview[23] that Popper gave in 1969 with the condition that it shall be kept secret until after his death, he summarized his position on God as follows: "I don't know whether God exists or not. ... Some forms of atheism are arrogant and ignorant and should be rejected, but agnosticism—to admit that we don't know and to search—is all right. ... When I look at what I call the gift of life, I feel a gratitude which is in tune with some religious ideas of God. However, the moment I even speak of it, I am embarrassed that I may do something wrong to God in talking about God." He objected to organised religion, saying "it tends to use the name of God in vain", noting the danger of fanaticism because of religious conflicts: "The whole thing goes back to myths which, though they may have a kernel of truth, are untrue. Why then should the Jewish myth be true and the Indian and Egyptian myths not be true?" In a letter unrelated to the interview, he stressed his tolerant attitude: "Although I am not for religion, I do think that we should show respect for anybody who believes honestly."[4][54][55]

Why should Karl Popper's personal opinion affect my personal opinion one way or another?

 

[hexler]

Why should Karl Popper's personal opinion affect my personal opinion one way or another?

Why should anybody affect your personal opinion?

 

[hexler]

So, you're advocating tolerance.

How is tolerance a concept against the concept of atheism?

Actually I thought a forum for discussion should be a place where the partakers offer their interesting views, so we can learn from each other. You should not think I did not learn from atheists. But it needs creativity.

 

[Sunstone]

Popper was wrong that falsification is the demarcation between science and psuedo-science, by the way.


Not that my opinion here has anything to do with the OP, but it really annoys me he was wrong about that.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Actually I thought a forum for discussion should be a place where the partakers offer their interesting views, so we can learn from each other. You should not think I did not learn from atheists. But it needs creativity.

...what exactly do you mean by this? Atheism is a static concept. To me this sounds like "Oh I wish water were better tasting".

 

[Alceste]

Why should anybody affect your personal opinion?

Because they have delivered a well-researched, annotated, fact-based, meticulously rational argument that is superior to my current opinion. What other reason could there be?

 

[LuisDantas]

Popper was wrong that falsification is the demarcation between science and psuedo-science, by the way.


Not that my opinion here has anything to do with the OP, but it really annoys me he was wrong about that.

Any good threads to elaborate on the matter?

 

[hexler]

...what exactly do you mean by this? Atheism is a static concept. To me this sounds like "Oh I wish water were better tasting".

It could be you met the point. Because I believe "panta rhei" (Heraclitus) - everything flows. How could anything in this world be static? Okay, you say philosophy is not part of creation but every philosophy A has an opposing philosophy B and the followers of A fight against the followers B.

 

[hexler]

Any good threads to elaborate on the matter?

This time it is me who says: this subject cannot be discussed by amateurs. Too complex.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

It could be you met the point. Because I believe "panta rhei" (Heraclitus) - everything flows. How could anything in this world be static? Okay, you say philosophy is not part of creation but every philosophy A has an opposing philosophy B and the followers of A fight against the followers B.

And yet, you advocate a polar view, and a static motto.

Also, philosophy and creation? Wha?

 

[hexler]

And yet, you advocate a polar view, and a static motto.

Also, philosophy and creation? Wha?

It may surprise you, but Poppers view on religion is worth to be pondered upon.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

It may surprise you, but Poppers view on religion is worth to be pondered upon.

It's your view I am more interested in.

 

[Quagmire]

Actually I thought a forum for discussion should be a place where the partakers offer their interesting views, so we can learn from each other. You should not think I did not learn from atheists. But it needs creativity.

Really? Because from reading some of your posts I was under the impression you thought this place was for posting irrelevant anecdotes and dis-jointed pseudo-truisms.

 

[hexler]

It's your view I am more interested in.

Thanx for the interest. I am a student in the School of Life. One summer morning I shall realize that I did graduate.