Dangerous book for atheists

[Gjallarhorn]

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

And yet, your religion lists "Bahai".

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

If you want to have partakers, don't start by making them enemies. Your opening post wasn't a very good start for a discussion between theists (of Fromm-ian self-love) and atheists (who obviously hates everything and everyone and are evil and need to be converted to theism).

Perhaps you should have just presented a book and said it was great for you to support your own belief in God instead of making it an "atheist vs theist" issue?

Just saying. Sometimes it's what we say and how we say it that defines the opposition, not the difference in thought.

 

[hexler]

If you want to have partakers, don't start by making them enemies. Your opening post wasn't a very good start for a discussion between theists (of Fromm-ian self-love) and atheists (who obviously hates everything and everyone and are evil and need to be converted to theism).

Perhaps you should have just presented a book and said it was great for you to support your own belief in God instead of making it an "atheist vs theist" issue?

Just saying. Sometimes it's what we say and how we say it that defines the opposition, not the difference in thought.

You probably did miss this reply, when I was telling why such a book could shake your former existence. It is because your former friends are not more your friends and also if you find ideas, which are new to you, it is like plunging into an unknown deep water.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

You probably did miss this reply, when I was telling why such a book could shake your former existence. It is because your former friends are not more your friends and also if you find ideas, which are new to you, it is like plunging into an unknown deep water.

But if that was the point of your post, why single out atheists (or any group) at all? If you merely wish to point out how open-mindedness leads to reevaluation of friendships, certainly atheism/theism isn't the only place where this occurs.

It sounded to me as if you were scapegoating atheism for the purpose of preaching "open-mindedness" along a theistic syncretic track...which isn't open-minded at all.

 

[LuisDantas]

So it seems to me as well. I can't help but feel that hexler is misjudging atheism for whatever reason. Maybe blaming it for what would better be attributed to alcohol consumption?

 

[hexler]

But if that was the point of your post, why single out atheists (or any group) at all? If you merely wish to point out how open-mindedness leads to reevaluation of friendships, certainly atheism/theism isn't the only place where this occurs.

It sounded to me as if you were scapegoating atheism for the purpose of preaching "open-mindedness" along a theistic syncretic track...which isn't open-minded at all.

This is a typical case of what I say and what you hear. Obviously you did not realize, that I was writing about this adventure. Why did you feel attacked? I went through this "danger"!!

 

[LuisDantas]

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

And you know me for an amateur because...?

 

[hexler]

But if that was the point of your post, why single out atheists (or any group) at all? If you merely wish to point out how open-mindedness leads to reevaluation of friendships, certainly atheism/theism isn't the only place where this occurs.

It sounded to me as if you were scapegoating atheism for the purpose of preaching "open-mindedness" along a theistic syncretic track...which isn't open-minded at all.

It is really hard for me to repeat: IT IS MY STORY !!!!!

 

[hexler]

Is someone hunting me?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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".

Holding a certain view is not narrow-minded. Moreover, if someone believes X, then of course their think X is right; else they wouldn't believe it! That's what believing something means; thinking such and such is the case and not otherwise.

In any case, I fail to see why a book on love, even love for/from God, should be threatening to anyone's atheism- is it a work of apologetics? Then why should it convince anyone that atheism is mistaken, if it is not actually arguing that?

But of course, as others have mentioned, if I had any reason to think that this book made a compelling case for theism/against atheism, I should go out of my way to read it- not the opposite.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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

Well, not exactly; only that naive falsificationism doesn't work, because any hypothesis on its own does not yield testable predictions. Popper wasn't wrong per se, he just didn't have the whole story.

 

[Ouroboros]

You probably did miss this reply, when I was telling why such a book could shake your former existence.

I doubt it since you don't know my "former existence." And if that's your reason to starting the thread, then it wasn't for a "discussion" as you suggested in the recent post.

You said, "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."

How can we learn from each other if you begin with assumptions and divisive claims?

If I started a thread that began with "I'm going to convert you theists to atheism because this book proves it all, muahaha!" Would you think you'd feel that was a good beginning to an open discussion and sharing of thoughts?

It is because your former friends are not more your friends and also if you find ideas, which are new to you, it is like plunging into an unknown deep water.

In other words, you don't want us to learn from each other. Your point of view is not inviting to discussion. Statements like that are rejecting a dialogue. Dialogue would start with you asking for what people think, not you starting with telling people what you think they should think.

I mean, of course you can debate that way, but it's not the right way to invite a dialogue if that really was your intention.

 

[Ouroboros]

But if that was the point of your post, why single out atheists (or any group) at all? If you merely wish to point out how open-mindedness leads to reevaluation of friendships, certainly atheism/theism isn't the only place where this occurs.

It sounded to me as if you were scapegoating atheism for the purpose of preaching "open-mindedness" along a theistic syncretic track...which isn't open-minded at all.

Exactly.

I don't care if someone is doing it, but if it was true that he was doing it for the purpose of opening a dialogue and learning from each other, then it's not the right approach.

It's like having someone throwing eggs at the wall and saying that he was going to make an omelette for breakfast. Even worse if the person is throwing them in someone's face and says he/she is making a nice romantic dinner.

 

[Ouroboros]

Is someone hunting me?

I'm sure your intentions were good, but you just didn't start the dialogue in a way that was open and inviting. And I'm certain that you didn't intend it to be this messed up, but it happened, and just learn from it that sometimes you have to choose your words carefully if your plan is to touch on other people's beliefs (or lack thereof). Just learn from the mistakes. That's all.

While we're on the topic, here's a dangerous book for theists: "50 Shades of Grey." It will turn any hardcore theist into an atheist overnight. "Game of Thrones" is another one. It's very dangerous for theists.

 

[Sees]

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.

Yup...and this knife cuts all directions. A very common thing.

 

[Sunstone]

Well, not exactly; only that naive falsificationism doesn't work, because any hypothesis on its own does not yield testable predictions. Popper wasn't wrong per se, he just didn't have the whole story.

Well, not at all, because I was talking about the problem with demarcation, rather than the problem with naive falsification. Also, Popper came around to the view that falsification needed to be applied to whole theories -- or groups of hypotheses, rather than naively to any one hypothesis.

At any rate, he was right, I think, that sophisticated falsification can distinguish between science and pseudo-science, but he was wrong to emphasize it as THE means of distinguishing between the two, for there might be other -- and perhaps even better -- means of making that distinction.

But I am mostly interested in making all these points because I have no life.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This thread is dangerous for people who prefer that things make sense.