What Atheists Do Not Grasp--and Why

[camanintx]

The relation between the creature and the Creator is a living experience, a dynamic religious faith, which is not subject to precise definition.

But you still have not proven that there is a creator.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

What nonsense is this?
Your wishful thinking has gotten in the way of your sight.

Then my original premise is correct and you are unwilling to admit it. Others get it, so why don't you?

 

[Scuba Pete]

There is a difference between "true religion" (as opposed to counterfeit religion) and religions that are true.

It seems that they want to pen you into a corner. It's specious and serves no purpose other than to make them feel superior.

Have I agreed with EVERYTHING you have posted in here. No. I see a parity between belief and non-belief and will always see Love as the most important thing for man to pursue.

 

[Autodidact]

There is a difference between "true religion" (as opposed to counterfeit religion) and religions that are true.

I'm riveted. Which one are you talking about? Maybe it's because I'm hung up on the whole "ideas" thing that when you said:

I said "true religion," not "religious truths."

I thought you were referring to "true religion." Cuz, y'know, that's what you said. So what are you talking about, religious truth, True Religion, or religions that are true--or something else?

 

[Autodidact]

It seems that they want to pen you into a corner. It's specious and serves no purpose other than to make them feel superior.

Have I agreed with EVERYTHING you have posted in here. No. I see a parity between belief and non-belief and will always see Love as the most important thing for man to pursue.

Those mean old atheists, expecting you to define your terms! It's intellectual abuse, I tell you! Penning you into a corner so we can understand what the heck you're talking about and all that. It's because we're limited to thinking in ideas, probably. People who think in produce or possibly small plastic toys probably understand much better.

 

[McBell]

Then my original premise is correct and you are unwilling to admit it. Others get it, so why don't you?

Unwilling to admit to what?
hells bells, you jump around more than a Mexican jumping bean on a hot skillet and you expect people to follow your line of thought?
Add to this that you do not define your words, not that it matters much seeing as you tend to ignore your own definitions when it suits your needs.

Again, not everyone fits into your little labeling system.
I notice how you completely ignored that part of my post.
Not that I am the least bit surprised.

And you STILL have not answered the question.
Interesting that.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Those mean old atheists,

Those are your words and not mine. But if you feel twisting words helps you to win, then keep on. You are deceiving only yourself.

There is no excuse for badgering. You obviously feel that this is not only acceptable, but highly appropriate. Sad, that.

 

[Autodidact]

What badgering? What on earth are you talking about? I'm just responding to his assertions and trying to understand what the heck he might be talking about. I asked him to tell us what a true religion is and how he knows. Seems like a legitimate response to me. His response was to distinguish between true religions and religious truth, despite having used the term true religion before. I'm just trying to follow the conversation.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

It seems that they want to pen you into a corner. It's specious and serves no purpose other than to make them feel superior.

Have I agreed with EVERYTHING you have posted in here. No. I see a parity between belief and non-belief and will always see Love as the most important thing for man to pursue.

You may not have agreed with everything I said here, but I agree with your post. There is a parity, but the one is not the other.

P.S. notice they never deal with the problem of their own logic:

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.

 

[Autodidact]

What logic? I haven't asserted anything. I'm just asking what you're talking about and then trying to find out what that means. You said something about truth and religion or something, what was it?

 

[Magic Man]

P.S. notice they never deal with the problem of their own logic:

That's probably because there is no problem in the logic of our ideas. You seem to think there is, and then ignore anyone who explains how you are mistaken. Either take the time to listen to others, or don't talk about them.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

What logic? I haven't asserted anything. I'm just asking what you're talking about and then trying to find out what that means. You said something about truth and religion or something, what was it?

I also said there are some things atheists, being enamored with ideas, do not grasp about religion; i.e., that while it employs the symbolism, ideas and beliefs, it is more. It is the "more" that they cannot seem to grasp.

 

[Halcyon]

What logic? I haven't asserted anything. I'm just asking what you're talking about and then trying to find out what that means. You said something about truth and religion or something, what was it?

He's given you his answer already Autodidact, here;

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)

So, all religions are false.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

He's given you his answer already Autodidact, here;

So, all religions are false.

In a sense, you are right. The truth of a religion can never be more than relative to the Actual. The finite cannot encompass the Infinite.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm completely lost at this point, and think I will not waste my time further.

I mean, if I remember right, we were chastised for thinking something or other about religion, and not distinguishing between true and false religion, but actually all religion is false, so...I'm befuddled. Later.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

My perfection in God is, and has always been, whole and complete; its realization in matter and manifestation in the universe of space and time is not. Blasphemy to some, nonsense to others, this is not something that can be put up for debate. It is beyond dogma and beyond beyond the certainty of "knowledge." It is not even a "truth." It is a mode of living. It is living faith.


Now, tell me what this has to do with the ideas I use to employ to express the ideal.

 

[Autodidact]

What I learned from this thread:

Do not waste your time trying to understand Rolling Stone or participate in his threads.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My perfection in God is, and has always been, whole and complete; its realization in matter and manifestation in the universe of space and time is not. Blasphemy to some, nonsense to others, this is not something that can be put up for debate. It is beyond dogma and beyond beyond the certainty of "knowledge." It is not even a "truth." It is a mode of living. It is living faith.

And it answers the ever present question: Who put the rant in Urantia?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

My perfection in God is, and has always been, whole and complete; its realization in matter and manifestation in the universe of space and time is not. Blasphemy to some, nonsense to others, this is not something that can be put up for debate. It is beyond dogma and beyond beyond the certainty of "knowledge." It is not even a "truth." It is a mode of living. It is living faith.

And it answers the ever present question: Who put the rant in Urantia?

That's all mine. :angel2:

Simply put, religion is more than the ideas it employs, and the "more" is what atheists don't grasp. They can't see beyond the ideas, as recent posts make clear.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Simply put, religion is more than the ideas it employs, and the "more" is what atheists don't grasp.

Except for all the ones who do, who you acknowledge do exist but disregard (along with theists who don't get the concepts you describe either) when drawing your false atheist/theist dichotomy.