What Atheists Do Not Grasp--and Why

[The Voice of Reason]

I understand what you're saying, Matt. But he admitted there that he's a troll. Do you think a troll is going to change?

Don't we ban trolls?

 

[Magic Man]

I understand what you're saying, Matt. But he admitted there that he's a troll. Do you think a troll is going to change?

No, but I guess I just have a little too much hope.

 

[Hammbone]

My pleasure, friend! But build high and strong the walls of contempt lest they fall.

Really now? How is doubting what someone says a subject of contempt. Would not a God bless the children that bettered themselves through reason? It seems that is what God likes to do if you look at civilization.

Why should he have to build walls? It is the religious that build walls around other explanations. Seems very confusing to me.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Hammbone -

Welcome to the site. Prepare to be dazzled by the amazing ability of one or two of our members to compeletely ignore reason and logic.

It's like a roller coaster ride that never ends.

 

[doppelganger]

This is such an awesome thread. For years I'd been wondering what it is that atheists do not grasp, and more importantly, why. And here it is spread out through this thread with uncommon clarity and conviction. Hip hip hooray for setting stupid atheists right! Hooray for Internet prophets! And the biggest hip hip hooray for maybe dead cats!

 

[kai]

Hammbone -

Welcome to the site. Prepare to be dazzled by the amazing ability of one or two of our members to compeletely ignore reason and logic.

It's like a roller coaster ride that never ends.

scream if you want to go faster!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

This is such an awesome thread. For years I'd been wondering what it is that atheist's do not grasp, and more importantly, why. And here it is spread out through this thread with uncommon clarity and conviction.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd almost swear that I detect a note of sarcasm ...

And the biggest hip hip hooray for maybe dead cats!

Can I have one more cheer for obscure, inane references to unrelated philosophical conundrums?
Come on - just one more.

 

[doppelganger]

Can I have one more cheer for obscure, inane references to unrelated philosophical conundrums?
Come on - just one more.

Because you asked so nicely:

"Hip, hip, hooray for monism being unable to account for the dualistic nature of experiential being!"

And I guess while I'm at it: "Hip, hip hooray for people completely lacking a capacity for humor or self-reflection!"

 

[Magic Man]

Because you asked so nicely:

"Hip, hip, hooray for monism being unable to account for the dualistic nature of experiential being!"

And I guess while I'm at it: "Hip, hip hooray for people completely lacking a capacity for humor or self-reflection!"

I don't understand why you feel the need to cheer for these types of things. I am saddened by all of the things you are cheering for. To each his own, though.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I don't understand why you feel the need to cheer for these types of things. I am saddened by all of the things you are cheering for. To each his own, though.

The cheers are sarcasm, mball. They are not intended to be actual cheers as if we are in support of these things.

 

[Magic Man]

The cheers are sarcasm, mball. They are not intended to be actual cheers as if we are in support of these things.

Wow! I'm surprised you of all people took that seriously. I guess I should have added in the . I was just playing off of his last cheer for a lack of sense of humor.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Wow! I'm surprised you of all people took that seriously. I guess I should have added in the . I was just playing off of his last cheer for a lack of sense of humor.

LOL - I apologize for missing it. I should have known that you were playing along. This one is on me.

For what it's worth, I much prefer to read a post without all of those emoticons. Every now and then, they are useful, but some people seem to be addicted to them.

 

[Halcyon]

[FONT=Georgia, serif]I'm not questioning the validity of mystical experience without God, only its relative completeness and philosophical consistency--which, by the way, you did not address.

[/FONT]
I'm supposed to address your assertion that;

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.

And how pray tell am I to do that?

I could tell you that you are wrong, that religion is concerned with man finding his place in the universe and that a God is more a shortcut or "mystery clause" than a solution, but I doubt you would listen.
I could tell you that letting go of God, and drifting free in the cosmos can be far more enlightening than clinging to Big Daddy, but I can't see how you could appreciate such a concept in your current frame of mind.

How else would you like me to address your presumption?

[FONT=Georgia, serif]As for not stepping into the shoes of the atheist...sorry, but I've been there. ​

[/FONT]​

Then you should know better.

 

[Magic Man]

LOL - I apologize for missing it. I should have known that you were playing along. This one is on me.

I think it's a compliment to you how shocked I was at your missing it. It means I know you to have a great sense of humor.

For what it's worth, I much prefer to read a post without all of those emoticons. Every now and then, they are useful, but some people seem to be addicted to them.

I understand, and that's why I avoided it in this case.

 

[Cacafire]

Y'know, some ancient chinese people of the Shang dynasty believed they could foretell events by using prophecy bones and turtle shells. A mystic recognized by the greater communitiy would heat up a bronze poker till it was glowing red, and then stap it against the turtle shell. The prophecy bones would be boiled.

Reading the cracks and splinters from the turtle shell and prophecy bones, the mystic would either successfully or unsuccessfully predict wars, traitors, ect. It didn't matter if the prophecy came true or not, apparently, as it was recognized that heaven could lie for it's own purposes.

Also, upon the death of an emperor, sometimes whole villages would be massacred and placed in the grave with the emperor to serve as his attendants in the afterlife. Occasionally, an emperor would die at the precise moment that halley's comet would stream across the sky. This almost always signified that heaven was angry enough at the emperor to kill him immediately.

Usually, when that happened, no elaborate burials were done. Usually, the emperor was cut up and given to dogs.

Oh, AND LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE ATHEISTS WHO CAN'T GRASP YA'LL!

 

[Cacafire]

Y'know, some ancient chinese people of the Shang dynasty believed they could foretell events by using prophecy bones and turtle shells. A mystic recognized by the greater communitiy would heat up a bronze poker till it was glowing red, and then stap it against the turtle shell. The prophecy bones would be boiled.

Reading the cracks and splinters from the turtle shell and prophecy bones, the mystic would either successfully or unsuccessfully predict wars, traitors, ect. It didn't matter if the prophecy came true or not, apparently, as it was recognized that heaven could lie for it's own purposes.

Also, upon the death of an emperor, sometimes whole villages would be massacred and placed in the grave with the emperor to serve as his attendants in the afterlife. Occasionally, an emperor would die at the precise moment that halley's comet would stream across the sky. This almost always signified that heaven was angry enough at the emperor to kill him immediately.

Usually, when that happened, no elaborate burials were done. Usually, the emperor was cut up and given to dogs.

Oh, AND LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE ATHEISTS WHO CAN'T GRASP YA'LL!

 

[Rolling_Stone]

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:

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.

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.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Oh, we get what you're saying. You're just wrong. The concept of God does not afford a more consistent universe frame for original thought. I don't know how many different ways and times we have to tell you, but your assertion there is just plain false.

You are right, though, this is funny...in a sad, depressing kind of way.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

To be honest, Stone, I'm beginning to get that awful feeling that I get when I pull the wings off of flies.

Sure, debating with you makes us all feel much better about our abilities to rebut foolish ideas, but sooner or later, we come to realize that the fly probably won't live much longer.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I understand what you're saying, Matt. But he admitted there that he's a troll. Do you think a troll is going to change?

Yes, I'm a troll whose weapon has been reason. And rather than responding with alternative explanatory ideas, atheists generally (though certainly not always) respond with contempt. Why they would thus surrender their power to me, you'll have to ask Dr. Phil.

Apparently, VOR is of the opinion that a rebuttal consists of "not this, not that" and no reasonable alternative.