Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again not comparable. That link talks about average incomes at the low end of the sale. For example one paragraph is about selling 5000 units and comparing that to self publishing. None of this is comparable AT ALL to having a number 1 selling book at the top of the New York times best sellers list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
It think the rub is that the guy was an atheist before he had his experience. He had his proof and now is a theist.
That could not be less relevant. Atheists are not some how magically immune from being conned, or from conning. From being misled, or from misleading. Whether or not he actually was an atheist before selling this book is entirely irrelevant. Having actually read about him and what he writes though he was not really all that atheist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
I am not sure why you made this post.
Because you claimed it doesnt matter to anyone if the LNM exists. I just replied to show you that to some people it really does.
This is an important point and highlights the irresponsible use of the accusation of lying. Lies are falsehoods, yes, but they are deliberate. The liar knows and believes they are false. If the person knows the supposed facts but does not believe them, he can be accused of being wrong (or deluded). He cannot be accused of lying. The monetary motivations are irrelevant to the truth or falsity, in any case. They are indirect ad hominem assaults on the character of the man.
But the monetary reasons alone are not the basis of my suspicions. There is much more. For example the books and his interviews contain many scientific and medical errors. These were pointed out to the man before the book was released. Did he correct them despite having the errors explained to him? No. Not at all. In other words he wilfully and intentionally released a book he knew contained false scientific claims. And that IS lying is it not by your "definition" above.
Laugh all you like. Sitting back and taking the royalties off a book is a lot easier than doing a 9 to 5 job 5 days a week for the rest of your life. Laughing at yourself will not change that.
What you're doing here is no different than if I were to say christians are psychotic and mentally deranged. People are individuals. Labeling a group of people as one monolithic entity is ignorant. Atheists, just like christians, have various dispositions. Not all skeptics have angry dispositions just like not all christians have happy and friendly dispositions. When you stereotype others you only make it rational for others to stereotype you.
Indeed, but another problem is that peoples thresholds for what constitutes Angry, rude and so on is entirely variable. If you make a point, stick to it and defend it then people will just start calling you angry, rude and militant. It seems to be a natural Ad Hominem fall back for people who can not handle the intellectual side of the argument and resort to easy fall backs.
I was reading comments on Huffington Post about book "Proof Of Heaven" written by a neurosurgeon who had a near death experience and discovered vast spiritual dimensions. I was struck by the nasty tone of the skeptics. They were very cynical thinking the only motivation for such a book would be to make money and that anyone who believes in anything spiritial is a fool. They were 100% certain that there is nothing to this life other than the material realm they see. They are more dogmatic in their non-belief than the believers are that they despise so much.
The irony is these skeptics fancy themselves as open minded yet come across as extremely closed minded I say that as a non-religious person myself. Yet I feel I have nothing in common with the skeptics. Besides the fact that I don't have their angry personality type, I am truly open minded. I wouldn't be surprised if the real meaning of life is beyond human comprehension. Why are skeptics so angry and defensive? Fear causes anger, perhaps deep down inside they fear they are wrong.
seeing spiritual dimensions and near death experiences are nothing more than hallucinations caused by chemicals in the brain.
To the OP: This is because many - not all - of them don't repect people who are out of their field, but overall, many of these people are not for diversity of thought. I don't see how so many people can see all the bad things, many of them terribly bad, that go on in this world and continue to trust that humanity can hold things together.
Laugh all you like. Sitting back and taking the royalties off a book is a lot easier than doing a 9 to 5 job 5 days a week for the rest of your life. Laughing at yourself will not change that.
"Sitting back and taking royalties..."
Another LOL!
I laughed (at your silly statements) because I've been a published writer for almost 40 years. And your ignorance of the business is obvious.
But the monetary reasons alone are not the basis of my suspicions. There is much more. For example the books and his interviews contain many scientific and medical errors. These were pointed out to the man before the book was released. Did he correct them despite having the errors explained to him? No. Not at all. In other words he wilfully and intentionally released a book he knew contained false scientific claims. And that IS lying is it not by your "definition" above.
The monetary motivation is a result of economic realities that, like taking the Fifth Amendment, afford no legitimate negative inference. It is strictly an ad hominem based on your suspicions. The scientific and medical errors become central based only on whether or not he found them compelling. Science is seldom that clear cut and unambiguous. The scientific method is based on acceptance UNTIL some further evidence calls it into question.
I am not defending this man or his book. I haven't read it. I am simply clarifying the real issues minus the ad hominems about his motivations for writing and publishing it. You do seem too quick to use ad hominem dismissals based on your suspicions and inferences. I would need to know more about the settled nature of the science and medical errors you allude to before crediting your dismissal. Even then, however, there may still be a legitimate reason in his mind for his dismissal of them. That would mean that lying was not an accurate characterization. Perhaps he is just wrong and deluded would be more appropriate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
