What Atheists Do Not Grasp--and Why (ritual, choice, doctrine, experience)

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by rocketman

You've lost me. One minute you didn't understand, so I tried to help you, and now you declare that you knew all along that it was incoherent drivel. Make your mind up. (Sorry if my earlier quip offended you. You seem to have taken it the wrong way)

On the first trip through, I understood Rolling Stone's posts to begin with a coherent thought, which devolved into drivel as he tried to explain and defend his position. Just as I (and apparently, many others) had given up on him, you came into the thread, claiming that you understood his points. I then asked you to help me see what I obviously could not follow.

At that point, you decided that I had been dismissing his ramblings out of hand. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that is the way you saw it.

After reading your explanation of his points, it is apparent that you are going to reiterate his points, without adding anything more to them. Witness the "reasoning from the heart" banalities.

Originally Posted by rocketman

Like I say, I was trying to help you understand. I failed.

I agree. You failed because you simply regurgitated his meaningless explanations.

Originally Posted by rocketman

... The moment you ask "what is (insert heart-based reasoning term)?" is the moment you prove his point.

It proves that he (and now you) are trying to claim that because others don't reach the same conclusions, based on emotion, that we are somehow deficient in our ability to reason. I understand the accusation - I simply reject it as trite justification of an indefensible position.

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

It proves that he (and now you) are trying to claim that because others don't reach the same conclusions, based on emotion, that we are somehow deficient in our ability to reason.

Wrong. Not deficient, but perhaps different. That's why I suggested a right brain/left brain cause, which RS never did. And I only jumped into this thread when he said that reason shouldn't be worshipped; I'm certainly not here to upset you TVOR.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by rocketman

That's what I'd like to know.

Let's say someone started a thread that stated that you didn't understand, and couldn't understand, their philosophy because you're basically not as good as them. Wouldn't you have a little animosity towards them? And then, they start posting nonsensical ramblings that make completely ignorant and false assumptions about you based on unfounded generalizations. Wouldn't that create more animosity?

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by rocketman

Wrong. Not deficient, but perhaps different.

No, RS is claiming that atheists are deficient, not just different. That's the stance he takes in all of his posts on RF, and that's why people don't take him seriously.

I'm certainly not here to upset you TVOR.

I can appreciate that. you just have to understand that RS is here to upset some people. That's part of his shtick. When you come in and start defending him, you run the risk of offending people by association. I appreciate your attempts at clarification. You just have to make your tone very clearly different from RS's, so that people can see you're not going the same route he is.

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by rocketman

Wrong. Not deficient, but perhaps different. That's why I suggested a right brain/left brain cause, which RS never did. And I only jumped into this thread when he said that reason shouldn't be worshipped; I'm certainly not here to upset you TVOR.

Not a problem, Rocket. I think Mball has done a good job of stating the tone of the thread, and I'll bow to his explanation.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

On the first trip through, I understood Rolling Stone's posts to begin with a coherent thought, which devolved into drivel as he tried to explain and defend his position. Just as I (and apparently, many others) had given up on him, you came into the thread, claiming that you understood his points. I then asked you to help me see what I obviously could not follow.

At that point, you decided that I had been dismissing his ramblings out of hand. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that is the way you saw it.

After reading your explanation of his points, it is apparent that you are going to reiterate his points, without adding anything more to them. Witness the "reasoning from the heart" banalities.



I agree. You failed because you simply regurgitated his meaningless explanations.


It proves that he (and now you) are trying to claim that because others don't reach the same conclusions, based on emotion, that we are somehow deficient in our ability to reason. I understand the accusation - I simply reject it as trite justification of an indefensible position.

U da man.......!

I must frubal you.....

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

On the first trip through, I understood Rolling Stone's posts to begin with a coherent thought, which devolved into drivel as he tried to explain and defend his position. Just as I (and apparently, many others) had given up on him, you came into the thread, claiming that you understood his points. I then asked you to help me see what I obviously could not follow.

At that point, you decided that I had been dismissing his ramblings out of hand. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that is the way you saw it.

After reading your explanation of his points, it is apparent that you are going to reiterate his points, without adding anything more to them. Witness the "reasoning from the heart" banalities.



I agree. You failed because you simply regurgitated his meaningless explanations.


It proves that he (and now you) are trying to claim that because others don't reach the same conclusions, based on emotion, that we are somehow deficient in our ability to reason. I understand the accusation - I simply reject it as trite justification of an indefensible position.

See?
You just proved that you do not grasp it!

Now I have to wonder what his excuse is when other theists do not 'grasp' it either...

I bet that he does not except the possibility it is because he is not properly explaining it.

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

... I bet that he does not except the possibility it is because he is not properly explaining it.

And he will not accept that there is an extremely strong possibility that he is simply wrong.