Thread: Nice books for atheists

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I took my time to read it the first time, and I'm not getting anything more out of reading it again now. I am obviously not alone in this alleged glaring misinterpretation, so I suggest you get off your high horses and explain it to us.

It's not our fault you chose such a vague and esoteric quote, and then proceeded to post it without a word of explanation. You should be glad we even tried to respond, honestly.

I asked for no response to begin with. Your egocentric self was compelled to respond by some inner necesity to be right about something, even though the quote itself actually works against the idea of religion really.

You (singular) not "us" (plural) made the mistake. The other readers are off on different tangents than you are, so you are indeed isolated here.

Its only normal for one to get all defensive and go on the attack when one confronts something they cleary do not understand. You seem to be no exception. Though if you would have used that reasoning and logic you use as a crutch you might have understood the simple meaning as I expalined to Seismosaur.

" There is a candle called the rules of religion. You need that candle to find the way, and you must follow the way to reach the truth. If truth were obvious, no one would need the candle or the path. As it is said, When copper becomes gold, it doesnt need an alchemist's laboratory any longer. Don't look for a guide after you reach the destination."

- Rumi

Many candles, many ways, only one truth.

A candle. ONE, not many, though many will do, as one can percieve the rules of religion as pertaining to seperate religions, though really the quote rolls the rules of all religions all up into one.

Many ways? Your blindness is showing Gnome, or your arrogance(EGO) that blinds you . The quote reads THE WAY. Thats one way(singular), not many. Simple english. Hard to imagine you missing that one, but you did.

Conclusion? Most, if not all candles lead to false truths.

"Can" lead to false truths, otherwise your assessment is the way of things.

(Oh, and if you argue that there are more ways to the truth than one, then who needs a f**king candle?)

Why would I argue anything to the contrary when that was what was stated to begin with.

So Gnome, how do you like being handled the same way you handle everyone else in here ?

Feeling anger?, getting a bit of a rise right now I imagine? Look into your feelings and see right now where they would take your words. See how quick things can degenerate on a forum if everyone takes the same sarcastic disrespectful stance?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Your egocentric self was compelled to respond by some inner necesity to be right about something, even though the quote itself actually works against the idea of religion really.

Call me what you will, I don't go around outright insulting people. If anything I attacked your quote, which you posted in this thread for the obvious purpose of contributing to the conversation - do you blame me for responding?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

You (singular) not "us" (plural) made the mistake. The other readers are off on different tangents than you are, so you are indeed isolated here.

You're quite right, but I had no idea which tangent I was off on, since you just accused me of being illiterate instead of telling me

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Its only normal for one to get all defensive and go on the attack when one confronts something they cleary do not understand. You seem to be no exception. Though if you would have used that reasoning and logic you use as a crutch you might have understood the simple meaning as I expalined to Seismosaur.

I'm pretty sure I understood most of the meaning, actually. I was only getting defensive because I was irritated that you were refusing to elaborate on this quote, and acting condescending when others misinterpreted it.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

A candle. ONE, not many, though many will do, as one can percieve the rules of religion as pertaining to seperate religions, though really the quote rolls the rules of all religions all up into one.

I will be honest - I assumed that this Rumi of yours was referring to a particular religion - presumably his own. It really doesn't make sense to me to refer to ALL the rules of ALL religions - they just differ too much. Religions have entirely different details within them, so how could they all somehow lead to this 'way'?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Many ways? Your blindness is showing Gnome, or your arrogance(EGO) that blinds you . The quote reads THE WAY. Thats one way(singular), not many. Simple english. Hard to imagine you missing that one, but you did.

I was purposefully changing the wording to make a point - that there are more than one way to the truth, which I believe is what this guy is talking about. This quote is very hard to decipher, for me at least, because he refers to 'the way' and 'the truth' without really defining these key terms. Unless 'the way' is some philosophical concept I'm unaware of, it seems like a pretty vague way of explaining things to people.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

So Gnome, how do you like being handled the same way you handle everyone else in here ?

Feeling anger?, getting a bit of a rise right now I imagine? Look into your feelings and see right now where they would take your words. See how quick things can degenerate on a forum if everyone takes the same sarcastic disrespectful stance?

Call me blind, but I really don't see where I was overly aggressive, sarcastic, or disrespectful. I merely made a counter-statement to your quote. Is it the carefully censored "f" word which brought up these impressions for you? I use the word purely for emphasis.

It's entirely possible (likely, even) that I misinterpreted/failed to grasp some of that quote. Like I've said, it's very hard to understand when it makes such vague references as "rules of religion" (which rules, which religion? all of them? what if I make up a religion?) "the way" (is there only one? is it an intellectual path or a process? what?), etc.