• 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!

The gulf between us

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I am finding that I cannot communicate with theists here, the same pattern I have experienced elsewhere. We are simply so different that discussion is all but impossible. What am i doing wrong? Logic does not move these people, I have no other way of thinking. So we are at an impasse.
I grasp what you are saying. In general people do not normally listen to ideas that cause them to exert more energy than usual. This is a human trait. There are usually short windows of time when people are considering alternative ideas, but it is usually only those who are suffering in some way that are open to new ideas. For example: someone who is angry or unhappy. A Democrat, for example, does not 'Want to hear' speeches by Donald Trump. It takes energy and is therefore unpleasant. Energy conservation is our #1 priority as humans, and that includes the energy required to listen and the make decisions. People with extra mental energy are usually in some kind of pain, hunger or under some other stress such as love.

How can I talk to these people in terms they will understand? It is frustrating because I wish to understand religious belief and religious people, if I am to judge religion and religious belief fairly and to treat religious believers less contemptuously and dismissively. As I have been tasked to do by RL persons.
Another thing is that not everyone is well suited to communicating ideas to particular groups, and usually communication of new ideas is personal not speech oriented. What you are talking about is conversion, and to convert people is usually a difficult process. You have to get past their distrust of you, and the more they distrust you the harder it is.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I am finding that I cannot communicate with theists here, the same pattern I have experienced elsewhere. We are simply so different that discussion is all but impossible. What am i doing wrong? Logic does not move these people, I have no other way of thinking. So we are at an impasse. How can I talk to these people in terms they will understand? It is frustrating because I wish to understand religious belief and religious people, if I am to judge religion and religious belief fairly and to treat religious believers less contemptuously and dismissively. As I have been tasked to do by RL persons.

If you truly lack emotion, or empathy, then I'm afraid it is not just theists you are unable to understand or communicate with...
The notion that atheists are ruled by reason only is a fallacy.
 

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I am finding that I cannot communicate with theists here, the same pattern I have experienced elsewhere. We are simply so different that discussion is all but impossible. What am i doing wrong? Logic does not move these people, I have no other way of thinking. So we are at an impasse. How can I talk to these people in terms they will understand? It is frustrating because I wish to understand religious belief and religious people, if I am to judge religion and religious belief fairly and to treat religious believers less contemptuously and dismissively. As I have been tasked to do by RL persons.

So ,what would you like to discuss?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Emotions are absolutely necessary for humans to act

A few years ago, neuroscientist Antonio Damasio made a groundbreaking discovery. He studied people with damage in the part of the brain where emotions are generated. He found that they seemed normal, except that they were not able to feel emotions. But they all had something peculiar in common: they couldn’t make decisions. They could describe what they should be doing in logical terms, yet they found it very difficult to make even simple decisions, such as what to eat. Many decisions have pros and cons on both sides—shall I have the chicken or the turkey? With no rational way to decide, these test subjects were unable to arrive at a decision. So at the point of decision, emotions are very important for choosing. In fact even with what we believe are logical decisions, the very point of choice is arguably always based on emotion.


The very desire to act is based on emotional valence, even on the most logical of actions.

The Neuroscience of Decision Making Explained in 30 Seconds

Decisions Are Emotional, Not Logical: The Neuroscience behind Decision Making

Emotion and Decision

These show why Psychopaths literally cannot make moral decisions. Other regarding behavior requires positive affect emotions like empathy to trigger it. Without such positive feelings, the brain "misvalues" moral other-regarding actions. No action without feeling is the bottom line.
 
Last edited:

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
I am finding that I cannot communicate with theists here, the same pattern I have experienced elsewhere. We are simply so different that discussion is all but impossible. What am i doing wrong? Logic does not move these people, I have no other way of thinking. So we are at an impasse. How can I talk to these people in terms they will understand? It is frustrating because I wish to understand religious belief and religious people, if I am to judge religion and religious belief fairly and to treat religious believers less contemptuously and dismissively. As I have been tasked to do by RL persons.
literalism doesn't function well in a fundamental system. metaphors implying practical application to their culture is often more acceptable. in other words, "how the hell does that apply to me?" it isn't going to work if it doesn't seem relevant. You're not going to sell hair coloring to a bald culture, or culture that doesn't need the product you're selling. you don't gather grapes from thorn bushes, or water from a rock.
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I never said anyone would have to kill, I said it could be a logically correct answer. People tend to use an emotional balance about killing without this emotional balance killing would be easier. A lot of things would be easier without empathy or compassion.
This is true, however, my point is that a logical mind may STILL utilize the known emotional response of others as a point of consideration - without feeling any of those emotional responses themselves. If the consequences to be doled out to the person via society's judgment were deemed detrimental beyond the gains, then this simply becomes another part of the "equation" in determining which action this logically-thinking mind will finally decide upon. You certainly seemed to be saying that such deterrent necessitates that the person doing the thinking is utilizing emotional judgments in order to weigh those actions - this is simply not the case.

My statement was that a completely logical person(no emotions) would be just as bad as a completely emotional person(no logic).
I did not interpret any part of your post I originally quoted as being in support of this statement.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I argue that God does not and cannot exist.
That seems too absolute for a subject about which there so little and weak evidence. People are just too ignorant to be sure.

I tend to prefer the positive assertion "Religion is fiction". Whether some sort of disembodied intelligence exists or not, religion is stuff people invented for various reasons. As evidenced by the huge and mutually exclusive assortment of religions. Most religious people will agree with you, except for their own beliefs.

Tom
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I am finding that I cannot communicate with theists here, the same pattern I have experienced elsewhere. We are simply so different that discussion is all but impossible. What am i doing wrong? Logic does not move these people, I have no other way of thinking. So we are at an impasse. How can I talk to these people in terms they will understand? It is frustrating because I wish to understand religious belief and religious people, if I am to judge religion and religious belief fairly and to treat religious believers less contemptuously and dismissively. As I have been tasked to do by RL persons.
Theism is not a real barrier in my experience, although valuing theism much often is.

Some people seem to actually be proud or at least reassured by their own theism. Those often have a very hard time accepting the legimacy of atheism, because it can so easily be perceived as a challenge or mockery of their own worldviews.

There is not a whole lot to do in those cases except learn when and how to avoid or initiate confrontations as the situation calls for. Those are comparatively few people, but they often resort to passive-aggressive manipulation that, while gross and unsophisticated, can be very passionate indeed.

Unfortunately, forums such as these can often become quite the lure for some of those people. They are not (usually) very representative of their respective belief groups, though; many people are more reasonable, for various reasons up to and including a lack of significant interest in belief coupled with peer (family) pressure to go through the motions in order to further an appearance of common belief.
 

Muslim-UK

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I have had dozens of failed discussions here now, usually ending up with me putting hostile theists who resent my dogged adherence to logic, on ignore. I was going to put you on ignore, because I also found you somewhat offensive, in earlier responses to me. However I did not.
This puzzled me, so I went back and took a look:

We had a brief exchange in the following thread:

Corvus

Hi I am Corvus. I am a scientist. I really don't like theistic religions, I am here to understand why people believe in anything that cannot be substantiated with empirical evidence. Thankyou.

God is outside of the observable Universe. He can not be verified by any physical experiment.

He sends Prophets and Messengers were clear guidance for mankind. Those whose hearts are opened, are shown very real and clear signs. This for us is enough to believe.

If he cannot be verified, then he effectively does not exist, in any meaningfull interpretation of the word, exist. Prophets and messengers are subjective human beings, there is absolutely no logical reason to believe a single word they say or write.

The Prophets were believed due to their good standing in the community and the miracles that accompanied them.

Means nothing to me or anyone who demands evidence to back claims.

You originally asked why people believed. I briefly explained, and now you are doubting the sources for the information we rely on. Your question has been answered, so good day to you.
Salam/Peace



I'm not sure why you think the above was somewhat offensive, it certainly wasn't meant to be. It was short and to the point. Had you asked who those Prophets were and asked about their miracles, we could have had a discussion, but it was clear from your response, you had no interest.

All areas, religion is illogical from start to finish, mainly the rejection of the scientific method in favour of articles of faith, when those articles of faith contradict scientific theory. That's a problem.
I have no problem with Science. I find the scientific method a very good way of testing things in the natural World.

I must ask though; the Scientific method of repeatedly testing and confirmed through observation and experimentation disproves all theists how exactly?

The word grokk is a product of sci fi. It means to consider/think/know etc..my religion is thinking logically, with reasoned and considered appreciation of empirical data.
That sounds like a good way to be. Not just following something blindly, I like it.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
This is true, however, my point is that a logical mind may STILL utilize the known emotional response of others as a point of consideration - without feeling any of those emotional responses themselves. If the consequences to be doled out to the person via society's judgment were deemed detrimental beyond the gains, then this simply becomes another part of the "equation" in determining which action this logically-thinking mind will finally decide upon. You certainly seemed to be saying that such deterrent necessitates that the person doing the thinking is utilizing emotional judgments in order to weigh those actions - this is simply not the case.
Interpreting the emotional response of others requires empathy which utilizes your emotions to feel others emotions. Logically define Love, hate, envy or any emotion, for the most part they only have emotional meaning. Emotions can be uses both ways as a deterrent but also as an emphasis.

Logically prove theft is wrong if you have need to survive and you aren't hurting anyone. Logically prove killing is wrong if it is legal to kill plants, animals, humans (that are bad), humans from another country we are at war with, humans that are innocent but near the enemy we are at war with. Don't forget criminals are employed by mobs and gangs today just to kill people even with all the social laws in place.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I don't want to hate theists basically, but I do feel antipathy for them. I know this is wrong and against my own beliefs in human rights and human dignity. I am trying to use reason to defeat hatred. I am trying to understand. I am looking for reasons not to persecute theists, in effect.

The way I look at it is that a theist can't help being a theist any more than you or I can help being a atheist. Maybe you feel like blaming them for their beliefs?

I suppose my antipathy was because I felt lied to most of my life about all these religious ideas that folks who were supposed to be my betters made me feel like I was obligated to accept these beliefs without question.

The assumption of knowing something that I knew they couldn't have any real certainty about. They are right, they have the moral high ground. Nothing you can say is going to shake their certainty in that.

Most folks have little control over their feelings and everyone feels they are correct about their beliefs. I just accept that. Not my job to get them to question their certainty.

I just express my views without any expectation of acceptance from other folks. Often I get good feedback on that. So what I post is mostly for my sake. It's not so important that other folks accept my ideas as it is that I am able to express my ideas clearly. If they don't accept them then fine. At least they know where I'm coming from.
 

The Holy Bottom Burp

Active Member
I am finding that I cannot communicate with theists here, the same pattern I have experienced elsewhere. We are simply so different that discussion is all but impossible. What am i doing wrong? Logic does not move these people, I have no other way of thinking. So we are at an impasse. How can I talk to these people in terms they will understand? It is frustrating because I wish to understand religious belief and religious people, if I am to judge religion and religious belief fairly and to treat religious believers less contemptuously and dismissively. As I have been tasked to do by RL persons.

Sure, I can see why you would get frustrated if you want to quickly change peoples minds and get them to see things how you see them, but that is not being realistic in a forum like this. I think the most you can expect is to get them to perhaps consider an idea or two, which may then at some point cause them to reconsider their beliefs. But in five minutes flat? No chance! You may be talking to someone who has spent decades immersed in their faith, they are hardly likely to give it up after reading a few lines on RF!

I think because I was a former theist I can see things from both perspectives - a theist often (but not always) puts great store in a holy book, they consider it to be an authority, it is what they refer to when disputes arise. You have to accept that and perhaps challenge the accuracy or historicity of their book, rather than dismiss it out of hand.They may also put great store in prayer or meditation as a means to connecting with their deity, and perhaps reaching truths. Not your way perhaps, but you have to respect it is their way, and that it might have some value. Have you ever tried it? If no, you are perhaps assuming too much! Just saying! :)

I come on this forum not just to bash theists, I'm open to the fact that they may have something to teach me, something that might enrich my life or change my perspectives. I'd never make the claim "their is no god", there might be, it is possible, how the hell do I prove otherwise? Don't get me wrong I consider myself to be a strong atheist (on the Dawkins scale), and a bit of an anti theist in some respects, and I'll happily tell anyone interested why I believe what I believe. However, there is no "great commission" for atheists to go out into all the world and preach "The God Delusion"! If people reject the evidence for why and what you believe, you just have to accept that and jog on! ;)
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I am finding that I cannot communicate with theists here, the same pattern I have experienced elsewhere. We are simply so different that discussion is all but impossible. What am i doing wrong? Logic does not move these people, I have no other way of thinking. So we are at an impasse. How can I talk to these people in terms they will understand? It is frustrating because I wish to understand religious belief and religious people, if I am to judge religion and religious belief fairly and to treat religious believers less contemptuously and dismissively. As I have been tasked to do by RL persons.

Your statement sums how I feel about atheists. No logic can move them past emotional arguments, it seems. Why is that?

Now, I have reasons to be a shining example of the love of Christ on forums. Why, however, if you are at an impasse, do you need to "talk to these people in terms they will understand"? First, that statement of yours is rather belittling and--um--holier-than-thou. God appointed me an evangelist and preacher? You? Who designated you to help us poor religionists? What are you trying to talk to us about? Why not come back when your negative has been proven?

Here's an idea, if you're at an impasse, why not leave this forum? Get a little more free time and let us sheep suffer for the sake of the gospel.

Your thoughts?
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
There is indeed a great gulf between theists and atheists. Our belief systems are very different, almost diametrically opposed to each other.

Atheists don't want to talk about creation and theists don't want to talk about "randomness."
Some of us theists are perfectly happy for atheists to refer to the "Big Bang" while we refer to "Creation" - both are expressions describing something from nothing. As far as "randomness" goes, recent discoveries from scientific research makes my faith stronger.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Interpreting the emotional response of others requires empathy which utilizes your emotions to feel others emotions. Logically define Love, hate, envy or any emotion, for the most part they only have emotional meaning. Emotions can be uses both ways as a deterrent but also as an emphasis.

Logically prove theft is wrong if you have need to survive and you aren't hurting anyone. Logically prove killing is wrong if it is legal to kill plants, animals, humans (that are bad), humans from another country we are at war with, humans that are innocent but near the enemy we are at war with. Don't forget criminals are employed by mobs and gangs today just to kill people even with all the social laws in place.

No one said anything about "right and wrong", which is, I think, where you're getting hung up. A completely logical perspective on anything need not consider "right and wrong", only what is or will be, and what is not or will not be.

So, take for instance, your claim that "Interpreting the emotional response of others requires empathy which utilizes your emotions to feel others emotions." I don't have to understand or even contemplate someone else's feelings to have the knowledge that if I hurt someone close to them, they may lash out at me. All this knowledge would require is an examination or witnessing of past events in which those bereaved or closest to the assailed sought vengeance, recompense or "justice". Something that happens all the time.

In thinking on pure logic alone, one would not need to "prove" that "theft is wrong" or "killing is wrong." I'm not even sure how you think that plays into any part of it. All you need know is the potential outcomes of your actions. You then take the action if the outcome is deemed worth the risk of possible detrimental consequences. Consequences that WILL BE FOISTED UPON YOU REGARDLESS YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THEM.

Consider this line of thought: "If I steal this, I may be caught. If I am caught, I could go to prison, based on the consequences those around me believe I should be bound by. Is this object worth stealing in my estimation?"

Here, the thinker contemplates the consequences, but not necessarily because he agrees with them or feels anything at all about them - only because he knows them to be a factor/possibility/etc.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I can't find it right now, but a bit ago I read a post from a pastor about a debate with an atheist that got beyond the "exists" "does not exist" stuck place and into what both agree on which turned out to be quite a bit.
 
Top