What Atheists Do Not Grasp--and Why

[Magic Man]

Nah. A waste of time. If you did any reading, you'd know.

By the way, have you looked in any boxes lately to see if the cat inside was still alive?

In other words, "No, I can't, but I'm not going to admit that, instead I'll just use a cryptic reference to an idea that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, so that it sounds like I'm smart". I'd say it would be good to be able to explain and back up your statements in the future, but I know it hasn't stopped you up to this point, so why start now, right?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

In other words, "No, I can't, but I'm not going to admit that, instead I'll just use a cryptic reference to an idea that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, so that it sounds like I'm smart".

Yeah. That's right.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Yeah. That's right.

There you go, Stone. This is the first time I've seen you admit that you were wrong. Feels good doesn't it?

Now that you've crossed that line, and owned up to your shortcomings, it should be easy for you to repeat this behaviour.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

There you go, Stone. This is the first time I've seen you admit that you were wrong. Feels good doesn't it?

Now that you've crossed that line, and owned up to your shortcomings, it should be easy for you to repeat this behaviour.

By the way, have you looked in any boxes lately to see if the cat inside was still alive?

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah. That's right.

As TVOR said, it's good to see you admitting this sort of thing finally. Now we can move on to a more productive conversation.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

By the way, have you looked in any boxes lately to see if the cat inside was still alive?

If I make a reference to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle here, do I get credit for appearing to be wise?

I realize that it has no more bearing on this thread than Schrodinger, but I thought I'd throw it out there, in an effort to appear as well read as you.

How am I doing?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

If I make a reference to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle here, do I get credit for appearing to be wise?

I realize that it has no more bearing on this thread than Schrodinger, but I thought I'd throw it out there, in an effort to appear as well read as you.

How am I doing?

Not very well.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Not very well.

Dang!

 

[gnostic]

But there's nothing wrong with being a materialist, which is different to being materialistic - it just means you don't believe in spiritual forces or energies that exist beyond scientific verification.

A materialist is not materialistic they just believe everything must consist of matter or a result of the interaction of matter.

A more modern approach includes energy, the various forces etc. (Einstein, Bohr etc)

A theist could be a materialist but most won't be.

That's probably because "materialist" is not who you are; "atheist" is not who you are. These things are concepts, approaches to understanding a model of reality. The words are not intended to define people (any more than, oh say, astrological signs define people).

Ain't I a big dope, to think the 2 words were related.

:biglaugh:

 

[DarkSun]

If I make a reference to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle here, do I get credit for appearing to be wise?

I realize that it has no more bearing on this thread than Schrodinger, but I thought I'd throw it out there, in an effort to appear as well read as you.

How am I doing?

Bell's theorem pwns Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

:ignore:

Edit:
Why am I finding this so amusing?

 

[Halcyon]

There is nothing wrong with materialism (matter-energy being the bottom line) except that it's no longer supported by science.

When you say "no longer supported by science" I assume you mean the science of the Urantia book?

 

[Sunstone]

When you say "no longer supported by science" I assume you mean the science of the Urantia book?

I think that's a fair assumption.

 

[camanintx]

There is nothing wrong with materialism (matter-energy being the bottom line) except that it's no longer supported by science.

Are you suggesting that modern physics theory involves something other than matter and energy?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Are you suggesting that modern physics theory involves something other than matter and energy?

Not at all. I'm only saying that science is open-ended. Science can't say one way or the other.

Halcyon and Sunstone are either bigots or just being presumptuous.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

The excitation of the “God spot” at the front of the brain can be interpreted as a religious experience. Such excitation can occur naturally or be artificially induced. The artificially induced experiences are not life-transforming, that is, they do not cause a major shift in the course of the experiencer's life. Those that occur naturally can be can be the result of the brain malfunctioning, but there are a variety of religious experiences. Attributing such experience to God may be just a matter of interpretation, but it is not the place for anyone but the most arrogant to call the experience a delusion or the interpreter deluded.

Even so, What is to be done with the “I am God” experience of unity described in The Impersonal Life? In separation, God is something to be attained or found that is not an all-or-nothing sort of thing. But once found or unity attained, God disappears. Is God therefore an illusion because he disappears in the end?

The thrust of the atheistic argument, for the most part, is that the believer is deluded or makes it all up. Atheists seem incapable of grasping the idea that theology is philosophy applied to the God-experience, even if partial or seen “through a glass, darkly.” The "why" is simple: they “live in interesting times.” They are distracted and don't pay attention to the things that really matter.

 

[Halcyon]

Not at all. I'm only saying that science is open-ended. Science can't say one way or the other.

Halcyon and Sunstone are either bigots or just being presumptuous.

Hey, it was a simple question. You stated very matter-of-factly that;

There is nothing wrong with materialism (matter-energy being the bottom line) except that it's no longer supported by science.

So I simply asked if the science you speak of was that of the Urantia book, since I am unaware of any modern field of science that advocates the existence of spirit.

The thrust of the atheistic argument, for the most part, is that the believer is deluded or makes it all up. Atheists seem incapable of grasping the idea that theology is philosophy applied to the God-experience, even if partial or seen “through a glass, darkly.” The "why" is simple: they “live in interesting times.” They are distracted and don't pay attention to the things that really matter.

And you say that Sunstone and I are the bigoted or presumptuous ones. Mote, beam my friend.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Hey, it was a simple question. You stated very matter-of-factly that;


So I simply asked if the science you speak of was that of the Urantia book, since I am unaware of any modern field of science that advocates the existence of spirit.

My apology. I, too, am unaware of any science that advocates the existence of spirit as that is outside the domain of science, anyway. But it is rather presumptuous to assume the U. Book has anything at all to do my statement.

As for the rest, if you go back over the past few posts, you will see that the thrust of the argument is that religion is either the result of delusion or make-believe. In other posts, I make clear that when I speak of atheists I'm speaking generally, like saying, "Men are taller than women." By that, do I mean all men are taller than all women?

But if the critic or atheist were really interested in what religion is all about, what the religionist actually experiences, they would with open mind make their investigation from the shoes of the religionist. Read The Impersonal Life, for example, and try to experience what the experiencer is experiencing. But this cannot be done with a mind that is already of the opinion that there's got to be a "logical explanation" without incorporating some version of a God-concept.

God is an experiential reality. Atheistic arguments almost always point to the world of things (FSM, for example). As I said in the OP, "Religion is by no means a disclosure or experience of anything in the world of things." Those atheists that manage to get beyond the world of things, while displaying all the "sympoms" of religiousty, also "see through a glass darkly." And as the UB book says, "It matters little what idea of the Father you may entertain [personal or impersonal] as long as you are spiritually acquainted with the ideal of his infinite and eternal nature." But, philosophically, a religion without God is like gathering fruit without trees because you cannot have effects without causes. A religion without God is little more than an emotional ceremony. For, "You cannot pray to a chemical formula, supplicate a mathematical equation, worship a hypothesis, confide in a postulate, commune with a process, serve an abstraction, or hold loving fellowship with a law." (UB)

 

[The Voice of Reason]

...But if the critic or atheist were really interested in what religion is all about, what the religionist actually experiences, they would with open mind make their investigation from the shoes of the religionist.

If you assume that those that are atheists (or agnostics) have never made the effort to find answers within religions you would be mistaken - and badly.

 

[Magic Man]

My apology. I, too, am unaware of any science that advocates the existence of spirit as that is outside the domain of science, anyway. But it is rather presumptuous to assume the U. Book has anything at all to do my statement.

First, then why would you make that statement, if you are unaware of any science that would back up your claim about science? You say that science has proven amterialism impossible, and then say that you don't know of any science that has done this. How did you come to that conclusion then?

Next, why is it presumptuous to assume the U. Book has something to do with your statement when you quote it constantly, including in the same post that you made this remark?

And as the UB book says, "It matters little what idea of the Father you may entertain [personal or impersonal] as long as you are spiritually acquainted with the ideal of his infinite and eternal nature." But, philosophically, a religion without God is like gathering fruit without trees because you cannot have effects without causes. A religion without God is little more than an emotional ceremony. For, "You cannot pray to a chemical formula, supplicate a mathematical equation, worship a hypothesis, confide in a postulate, commune with a process, serve an abstraction, or hold loving fellowship with a law." (UB)

 

[Halcyon]

My apology. I, too, am unaware of any science that advocates the existence of spirit as that is outside the domain of science, anyway. But it is rather presumptuous to assume the U. Book has anything at all to do my statement.

Then I apologise if it seemed presumptuous.

As for the rest, if you go back over the past few posts, you will see that the thrust of the argument is that religion is either the result of delusion or make-believe. In other posts, I make clear that when I speak of atheists I'm speaking generally, like saying, "Men are taller than women." By that, do I mean all men are taller than all women?

I suppose that most atheists would take the stance that religious experience is either delusion or make-believe. What other stance could they logically take? Just as I don't believe the Prophets of various religions actually communed with God because I don't believe that there is a God to commune with, I must accept alternative explanations for "spiritual" experiences on the same ground. Perhaps we have different definitions of deluded though?

But if the critic or atheist were really interested in what religion is all about, what the religionist actually experiences, they would with open mind make their investigation from the shoes of the religionist. Read The Impersonal Life, for example, and try to experience what the experiencer is experiencing. But this cannot be done with a mind that is already of the opinion that there's got to be a "logical explanation" without incorporating some version of a God-concept.

Considering that I have been in the "shoes of the religionist" I would have to disagree with you, I find in my godless beliefs all the "spiritual" experiences I ever had as a Gnostic and more.
And I find that site very difficult reading, even with my background in Gnosticism/Mysticism, it reeks of egotism rather than true enlightenment, to me anyway.

God is an experiential reality. Atheistic arguments almost always point to the world of things (FSM, for example). As I said in the OP, "Religion is by no means a disclosure or experience of anything in the world of things." Those atheists that manage to get beyond the world of things, while displaying all the "sympoms" of religiousty, also "see through a glass darkly." And as the UB book says, "It matters little what idea of the Father you may entertain [personal or impersonal] as long as you are spiritually acquainted with the ideal of his infinite and eternal nature." But, philosophically, a religion without God is like gathering fruit without trees because you cannot have effects without causes. A religion without God is little more than an emotional ceremony. For, "You cannot pray to a chemical formula, supplicate a mathematical equation, worship a hypothesis, confide in a postulate, commune with a process, serve an abstraction, or hold loving fellowship with a law." (UB)

I have to disagree with you once again, I hold many concepts as higher than myself and although I do not worship them I would wager that their relationship to me is as strong as many theist's relationships with their God.

You seem unable to to grasp that you're committing the same sin as you attribute to atheists, you seem unable to step into the shoes of an atheist and see the world though their eyes as much as you accuse atheists of being unable to experience a "religionists" point of view.