Three Powerful Books

[_mentalgymnast]

Res Ipsa
I’m not the one dividing people into friends and enemies. That’s all you. I don’t identify as a secular humanist — that’s you cramming me into a box so that you can can have that enemy you so deeply crave. Your “nuance” is pure affectation. Deep down, you’re nuanced as a sledgehammer.

I don’t need to make up enemies. I don’t need someone to fear and hate. Apparently, you can’t be a happy person without an enemy to hate.

A deeply profound point. The fear and paranoia in so much religion, even unnecessarily has led to warped thinking and skewed logic for millenia, which skewing is anchored in their already paranoid and skewed scripture which they imagine is free from taint and problem when it comes to visceral reality. MG is so biased he cannot even see how badly skewed his own world view is... And hence it must needs be that there is an opposition (enemy) in all things in his little mind, or else there is no reality. God has devil, Dr. Peterson has Scratch, Midlgey has Moksha, so MG needs to be a good Mormon and get an enemy. That's where secular humanists come in. Hey, if they are evil to an apostle then MG feels perfectly justified in accepting they are evil in general. Who is he to question an apostle? An apostle of the Holy Jesus Christ lord of the universe?! When an apostle opines, MG snaps to all ears, attention, and belief.

As a secular humanist do you see yourself as having an “enemy” and/or opposition? Religionists maybe? If so, do you feel it your duty to stand up for your truth? Are you biased in your agnostic/atheistic worldview to the point that you are not able to recognize any possible ‘chinks’ in your protective armor of unbelief?

Do you see yourself ever questioning the precepts and teachings of the Four Horsemen of Atheism? When they speak do you, generally speaking, give priority/meaning to their words over a believing scientist? If so, why?

Do you see a theistic worldview as being inherently dangerous? If you could wave a magic wand and turn everyone into a secular humanist would you do so?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Callister's book is about as informative and reliable as a Trump news conference.

Would I be correct in concluding that you made this statement without actually having read the book yourself?

If I am correct, may I suggest that you read it? As it is, you are getting the ‘CNN’ commentary on the book, so to speak. And there is bias there.

I find myself predispositioned towards listening not only to CNN modeled/biased commentary on books written about the church, Book of Mormon, or history, but also views expressed by those that may see things differently. The FOX news modeled/biased commentary. I find that any truth to be had is somewhere in the middle rather than to one or another extreme.

I’d suggest actually reading any one or more of the books I’ve mentioned. A few folks here have. Their opinions are to be valued at least to the extent that they are doing their own thinking rather than relying on the thinking/biases of Brian Stelter wannabes.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

Do you see yourself ever questioning the precepts and teachings of the Four Horsemen of Atheism? When they speak do you, generally speaking, give priority/meaning to their words over a believing scientist? If so, why?

Treating the so-called four horsemen like they are an analog for Mormon Apostles is so MG. Good Jesus that's funny.

[_Lemmie]

Callister's book is about as informative and reliable as a Trump news conference.

Would I be correct in concluding that you made this statement without actually having read the book yourself?

If I am correct, may I suggest that you read it? As it is, you are getting the ‘CNN’ commentary on the book, so to speak. And there is bias there.

I find myself predispositioned towards listening not only to CNN modeled/biased commentary on books written about the church, Book of Mormon, or history, but also views expressed by those that may see things differently. The FOX news modeled/biased commentary. I find that any truth to be had is somewhere in the middle rather than to one or another extreme.

I’d suggest actually reading any one or more of the books I’ve mentioned. A few folks here have. Their opinions are to be valued at least to the extent that they are doing their own thinking rather than relying on the thinking/biases of Brian Stelter wannabes.

Regards,
MG

So you went all the way back to page 1 of this thread for fencesitter's comment. Why? Did you miss his point?

There is an excellent review at Amazon why this book should not be taken seriously.

Or, more likely, it is the rest of his comment that you are avoiding that explains your reason for reviving this discussion:

Pretty sure we are being trolled once again. Hardy's and Given's books are problematic at best and while they may serve to reinforce someone predisposed to believe, they do not hold up well to any sort of non-biased review. But, to include Callister's book here is risible and why I think we are just being trolled again.

But, suppose you are sincere.

I’d suggest actually reading any one or more of the books I’ve mentioned. A few folks here have. Their opinions are to be valued at least to the extent that they are doing their own thinking rather than relying on the thinking/biases of Brian Stelter wannabes.

Can you give your thinking as to what exactly you found in the book to be so inspiring? People have asked you this repeatedly, and you have posted anything and everything, except for an answer. But here you are opening the thread again, so....again, what exactly did YOU personally find meaningful in Callister's book?

[_Jersey Girl]

Delete

Not flippin' worth it.

[_Philo Sofee]

MG: Keep chugging your ale Shirts.

Gawd did the church teach you nothing of value ya dope? One does not chug Ale... one sips its cool refreshment of its ice cold goodness on a blistering hot day.... your Mormon bias once again misleads you, whether in science, books, or drinks...

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Classic MG. So over it.

- Doc

[_mentalgymnast]

Do you see yourself ever questioning the precepts and teachings of the Four Horsemen of Atheism? When they speak do you, generally speaking, give priority/meaning to their words over a believing scientist? If so, why?

Treating the so-called four horsemen like they are an analog for Mormon Apostles is so MG. Good Jesus that's funny.

People don’t make decisions in a vacuum. Religionists or Nones.We are all influenced by those we trust.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

A deeply profound point. The fear and paranoia in so much religion, even unnecessarily has led to warped thinking and skewed logic for millenia, which skewing is anchored in their already paranoid and skewed scripture which they imagine is free from taint and problem when it comes to visceral reality. MG is so biased he cannot even see how badly skewed his own world view is... And hence it must needs be that there is an opposition (enemy) in all things in his little mind, or else there is no reality. God has devil, Dr. Peterson has Scratch, Midlgey has Moksha, so MG needs to be a good Mormon and get an enemy. That's where secular humanists come in. Hey, if they are evil to an apostle then MG feels perfectly justified in accepting they are evil in general. Who is he to question an apostle? An apostle of the Holy Jesus Christ lord of the universe?! When an apostle opines, MG snaps to all ears, attention, and belief.

As a secular humanist do you see yourself as having an “enemy” and/or opposition? Religionists maybe? If so, do you feel it your duty to stand up for your truth? Are you biased in your agnostic/atheistic worldview to the point that you are not able to recognize any possible ‘chinks’ in your protective armor of unbelief?

Do you see yourself ever questioning the precepts and teachings of the Four Horsemen of Atheism? When they speak do you, generally speaking, give priority/meaning to their words over a believing scientist? If so, why?

Do you see a theistic worldview as being inherently dangerous? If you could wave a magic wand and turn everyone into a secular humanist would you do so?

Regards,
MG

Goes both ways.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

Treating the so-called four horsemen like they are an analog for Mormon Apostles is so MG. Good Jesus that's funny.

People don’t make decisions in a vacuum. Religionists or Nones.We are all influenced by those we trust.

Regards,
MG

Of the four, Dennett is the only actual scientist though I believe Harris has been pursuing neuroscience since their debate days. When it comes to matters of biology I respect Dennett's expertise. If a scientist who claims belief in God is speaking on the subject of his field I'm pretty likely to be interested and respect what he has to say on those topics narrowly. When experts - believing and otherwise - demand their views be privileged based on their expertise in a particular area outside the subject being discussed to claim added weight and credential to their opinion, I look find that suspect. The value of their opinion in those cases has to be fully demonstrated in the information they present just like everyone else. Their expertise in an outside field isn't magically carried over and shouldn't be treated like it does. And a person who makes a habit of it should spend time reflecting on why they do that when it's clearly unwarranted.

Authority isn't a mantel outside Mormonism view about priesthood and Ph.Ds judging from the FARMS crowds view of the matter. A person with a Ph.D in physics who says they believe in God because they feel physics is compatible with their belief is free to share that opinion and why they view the two as compatible. But that's all it is. Just as a journalist who claims faith is dangerous in the age of nuclear weapons is free to make their case for why they believe it. But again, both are just opinions.