The book is a pretty bad attempt
Posted: 29 May 2005 04:28 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2005-05-26

The atheists on my boards have been pretty disparaging:


http://p083.ezboard.com/fhavetheologywillarguefrm17.showMessage?topicID=151.topic


It's filled with cleches and he's afarid to take on the real intellectuals of the Chrsitian tradition. anyone can bash fundamentalists.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 May 2005 07:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

I thought Sam did an excellent job of bashing moderates (the real intellectuals of christianity, as you said) - that’s the most productive premise and perhaps the most alarming position that is correctly adopted and fluently argued by Sam in TEOF.  I really think you should read the book before you make statements about it, unless your are not afraid to come across as dull and void.

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 May 2005 07:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2005-05-26

[quote author=“CanZen”]I thought Sam did an excellent job of bashing moderates (the real intellectuals of christianity, as you said) - that’s the most productive premise and perhaps the most alarming position that is correctly adopted and fluently argued by Sam in TEOF.  I really think you should read the book before you make statements about it, unless your are not afraid to come across as dull and void.

Bob


He doesnt’ understand anything about it. He’s got a vast library of modern stuff, he doesn’t understand very much of it. His take on Christian liberals is just totally uninformed.


besids a Harris fan on my message boards is telling me that Harris has no beef with moderates and liberals and “ratioanl” type christians. It’ a guy calling himself Dr. Wu.

he says: “Again, Harris is not referring to intellectuals who are willing to have dialogue and are liberal in their religious ontologies.”

which one of you is right?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 May 2005 01:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  277
Joined  2005-01-27

Metacrock wrote:

which one of you is right?

Here’s a thought ... read Sam’s book and decide for yourself.

Susan

 Signature 

“Believe those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it.”  Andre Gide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 May 2005 08:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2005-05-26

[quote author=“Rasmussen”]Metacrock wrote:

which one of you is right?

Here’s a thought ... read Sam’s book and decide for yourself.

Susan


what will I find in his book that I wont find on the secualr web by some 15 year old whose never a book of any kind?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 May 2005 11:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  277
Joined  2005-01-27

Hello Metacrock ...

You wrote:

what will I find in his book that I wont find on the secualr web by some 15 year old whose never a book of any kind

For starters, I noticed you list Soren Kierkegaard, Martin Heidegger and Paul Tillich as your interests in your profile.  As Kierkegaard and Heidegger were both existentialists rather than empiricists and Tillich incorporated both their philosophies into his own Christian theology, I am wondering why you are content relying on your “26 empirical, scientific studies” as your sources of information?  Surely K, H and T’s works are in addition to these 26 as they definitely don’t count as empirical or scientific.

So now that we see that you do read from outside your box, I suggest you add a third ‘philosopher’ to your repertoire ...  Metacrock, meet Sam Harris.

What you would find in “The End of Faith” is that Sam devotes one whole chapter to mysticism and meditation.

Here are a couple of excerpts for you ...

But a more profound response to existence is possible for us, and the testimony of Jesus, as well as that of countless other men and women over the ages, attests to this.  The challenge for us is to begin talking about this possibility in rational terms.

(p. 204)

And ...

Mysticism is a rational enterprise.  Religion is not.  The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion.  The mystic has reasons for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical.  The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (this is science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (this is mysticism).  Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time.  It is the denial – at once full of hope and full of fear – of the vascitude of human ignorance.

(p. 221)

Basically the existential and empirical undertones of Sam’s book just might appeal to you.

As Kierkegaard himself wrote ...

During the first period of a man’s life the greatest danger is not to take the risk.

So go on ... take the risk and read Sam’s book.  You just may be pleasantly surprised ... smile

Susan

 Signature 

“Believe those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it.”  Andre Gide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2005 10:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2005-06-13

Sam’s book could be a paramount catalyst toward having religious establishments reassess their present ideology. It may help to eliminate superstitions therein and get back to the basic truths of spirituality.

Isn’t believing in superstitions a mental disorder? Aren’t most religions tied to superstitious beliefs? Superstition is an irrational fear of the unknown or mysterious; belief that is not based on fact. Irrational means illogical, senseless, lacking reason, absurd. Wouldn’t one be designated as having a mental disorder or psychosis if one is considered irrational? Psychosis is a mental disorder that includes delusions and loss of contact with reality. 

Einstein said, “Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.”

Religion is the culmination of its own politics and dogma and has often become something other than spirituality. Shouldn’t religions strive to promote that truthfulness and rationality in religions are truths that can be substantiated by science or those that can not be proven to be wrong? Spiritual interaction is only possible between spirits. Claims of supernatural acts performed by physical or spiritual beings in the physical universe are not truths.

Kurt

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2005 01:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

Kurt, according to Michael Savage liberalism is a mental disorder. I would have to agree with him rather than yourself. Religious people are often more calm reasonable, likeable, happy, centered people. Where liberals are usually angry, marching in the street like crazy people, making crazy assertions all the time with no evidence, plus the litter their speech with insults directed at those who disagree with them.

Now who has the mental disorder?????

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2005 04:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

It’s filled with cleches and he’s afarid to take on the real intellectuals of the Chrsitian tradition. anyone can bash [color=red]fundamentalists. He doesnt’ understand anything about it. He’s got a vast library of modern stuff, he doesn’t understand very much of it. His take on Christian liberals is just totally uninformed.
besids a Harris fan on my message boards is telling me that Harris has no beef with moderates and liberals and “ratioanl” type christians. It’ a guy calling himself Dr. Wu.
what will I find in his book that I wont find on the secualr web by some 15 year old whose never a book of any kind?[/color
]

I know it’s wrong to mock the mental agility of the Chosen Ones, but I love it too much to stop. I’m in so much trouble with the Lord of Hosts. Oh well.

Anyway, I disagree with those who have advised the perpetrator of this crime against language to read Sam’s book, and instead strongly suggest a dictionary as a preliminary step.

Praise Christ.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2005 04:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Sorry. I keep signing in as Guest -which upon further examination of the boards appears to be a fairly common name. And this after just questioning the intelligence of one of the Saved. That’s hubris for you. Or is it irony? Anyway, I shall ask Jesus when we speak later this evening - he’s sure to know.

Praise Christ.

PS. The post about the deviated septum was mine too.

‘Remember, it doesn’t matter if you believe in Jesus, he’s still a cunt.’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2005 04:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2005-06-13

[quote author=“TheChampion”]Kurt, according to Michael Savage liberalism is a mental disorder. I would have to agree with him rather than yourself. Religious people are often more calm reasonable, likeable, happy, centered people. Where liberals are usually angry, marching in the street like crazy people, making crazy assertions all the time with no evidence, plus the litter their speech with insults directed at those who disagree with them.

Now who has the mental disorder?????

I was referring to superstitious people who are mentally challenged, not liberals or religious people….though if your religious beliefs fall within that category, mental help is suggested… true spirituality without the BS can be obtained directly from “the source”.

Kurt

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed