• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What Atheists Do Not Grasp--and Why

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
Yes, I'm a troll whose weapon has been reason.
Well, you need to hone a new edge on that blade, because right now, your nicking yourself to death with it.


And rather than responding with alternative explanatory ideas, atheists generally (though certainly not always) respond with contempt.
Well, you have to admit - you've earned it.


Why they would thus surrender their power to me, you'll have to ask Dr. Phil.
Delusions of adequacy are not becoming to you.

Apparently, VOR is of the opinion that a rebuttal consists of "not this, not that" and no reasonable alternative.
You're amazingly impervious to a full blown rebuttal. When you can't respond with anything more than twisted logic and recital of inane talking points, you tend to whittle down the amount of time that any of us are willing to spend on you.
 
Last edited:

camanintx

Well-Known Member
Without a concept of preexisting mind, the rationalist must face the insurmountable task of explaining how something that is independent of the mechanism can arise from mechanism.

And despite substantial evidence presented to the contrary, you have yet to show that the mind is independent of the body. So it appears that you have a bigger problem than the rationalist.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
This is fun...and funny. The atheists here just don't get it. The concept of God affords a more consistent universe frame for original thought, but in true religion it is not the object directly and actually worshiped. As I said in another thread:Man may indeed create his earliest religions out of his fears and by means of his illusions. Later religions are in response to inner urgings to find meaning and direction, an innate or preexisting urge to serve an ideal that he deems as of supreme importance to himself and all mankind. The symbols of the ideal, beliefs, may be either good or bad just to the extent that the symbol does or does not displace the original worshipful ideal. But symbolism must not be confused with direct idolatry wherein the material object or idea is directly and actually worshiped.
Oh, I see, true religion. That is, Rolling Stone's religion. All those other religions are just wrong, but Rolling Stone has the true understanding. I can tell because of his serif font.
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
Oh, I see, true religion. That is, Rolling Stone's religion. All those other religions are just wrong, but Rolling Stone has the true understanding. I can tell because of his serif font.

Nice catch, Auto. I didn't think about it, but you have to wonder just how the rest of the non Urantian's in this world could be so misled.
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
Oh, I see, true religion. That is, Rolling Stone's religion. All those other religions are just wrong, but Rolling Stone has the true understanding. I can tell because of his serif font.
Really, now. Put a little thought into what I said. I said "true religion," not "religious truths." How many times have I said that much of what passes for religion isn't? How many times have I said that religion, while employing ideas, is not a body of ideas?

And none responded to:
To say mind “emerges” from matter explains nothing. Logically, if one believes mind is an emergent property of mechanistic mathematical probabilities and whatnot, consistency demands that he or she also believe that everything that emerges from mind is of like character. Mechanism does afford a universe frame of thought, howbeit one in which, to be consistent, the impossible must be done: the observer must be separated from the observed. Without a concept of preexisting mind, the rationalist must face the insurmountable task of explaining how something that is independent of the mechanism can arise from mechanism: as it were, he must be able to explain the motive-power of electricity in terms of the construction of a motor. Failing in this, the rationalist must admit that he has no more claim to truth than the theist, any more than there can there be a question of the phenomenon of a bird being more true or meaningful than the phenomenon of a rock.
 
Last edited:

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Really, now. Put a little thought into what I said. I said "true religion," not "religious truths." How many times have I said that much of what passes for religion isn't? How many times have I said that religion, while employing ideas, is not a body of ideas?
Right, and all those other people are engaged in fake religions.

What would you included in your list of fake religions, Stone? Catholicism? Islam? LDS? Just wondering how you're defining "True Religion." Also who died and put you in charge of determining what is "True Religion" and what is fake religion? Finally, what is your criteria? Can you define religion?
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
Right, and all those other people are engaged in fake religions.

What would you included in your list of fake religions, Stone? Catholicism? Islam? LDS? Just wondering how you're defining "True Religion." Also who died and put you in charge of determining what is "True Religion" and what is fake religion? Finally, what is your criteria? Can you define religion?

He doesn't need to define it, he knows a fake religion when he sees it.

Kind of like Ed Meese, determining what is pornographic for the rest of us.
 
Last edited:

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
Right, and all those other people are engaged in fake religions.

What would you included in your list of fake religions, Stone? Catholicism? Islam? LDS? Just wondering how you're defining "True Religion." Also who died and put you in charge of determining what is "True Religion" and what is fake religion? Finally, what is your criteria? Can you define religion?
You don't get it. You are so enamored with the power of ideas, you can't grasp the notion of something beyond ideas.
The philosophic elimination of religious fear and the steady progress of science add greatly to the mortality of false gods; and even though these casualties of man-made deities may momentarily befog the spiritual vision, they eventually destroy that ignorance and superstition which so long obscured the living God of eternal love. The relation between the creature and the Creator is a living experience, a dynamic religious faith, which is not subject to precise definition. To isolate part of life and call it religion is to disintegrate life and to distort religion. And this is just why the God of worship claims all allegiance or none. (UB)
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
You don't get it. You are so enamored with the power of ideas, you can't grasp the notion of something beyond ideas.

You're quite right. The only way I know how to think is with ideas. Whatever you're selling, I don't get it.

But I'm still wondering which are True Religions, and how you know.
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
You're quite right. The only way I know how to think is with ideas. Whatever you're selling, I don't get it.

But I'm still wondering which are True Religions, and how you know.
There is a difference between "true religion" (as opposed to counterfeit religion) and religions that are true.
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
And what pray tell is the difference between a 'silencer' and a 'noise suppressant?"
If religion dies when theology (belief) is the master, then religion must be something more than the ideas it employs.

So, why do you think it is so difficult for you to let go of the belief that religion is nothing more than a body of ideas? What is the addiction?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
If religion dies when theology (belief) is the master, then religion must be something more than the ideas it employs.
What nonsense is this?
Your wishful thinking has gotten in the way of your sight.

So, why do you think it is so difficult for you to let go of the belief that religion is nothing more than a body of ideas? What is the addiction?
Wow.
Your assumptions, though not at all surprising, are none the less merely assumptions.
Sooner or later you may come to understand that your labels are not absolute and that there are many who do not fit into them.

Interestingly enough, you did not answer my question.
Again, not at all surprising.
Now I needs to figure out if your non answer reply is because you do not understand the question or if you are merely avoiding answering the question, or both.

Perhaps it would help if you explain what you think I am asking and we find out if your assumptions are anywhere near the actuality of the situation.
 
Top