• 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

R

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
Fluffy said:
Is it possible for this thread to trigger the atheist to grasp what they previously did not grasp? In what way can this expand the atheist's conciousness?

It is true that I don't grasp the meaning of the OP. However, that doesn't tell me that there is anything there to grasp. I'm left with no motive to bias my curiosity in this direction over any other.
Click to expand...
FYI, this thread was originally in theology: for discussion, not debate.
 
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Halcyon said:
This is only an assumption based on what has been said in this thread and others, along with the fact that the condition I will describe is quite common.

It would seem that he thinks he's had some sort of epiphany, or enlightening experience which has opened up some "truth" to him that he thinks he understands and that most other people do not.
So to keep that "truth" seeming all the more mysterious, and to keep his place as the keeper of that "truth" all the more special and important, he'll only speak about his "truth" in riddles and semi-mystical logia.
If in fact he's developed this condition, then consciously he'll believe he does so to appeal only to "the elect" - those people who may also have acquired his "truth" and so will naturally understand what he's saying. But in reality it's actually about the stroking of his ego and boosting the sense of spiritual superiority.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't we just label that person a lunatic and be done with him?......:confused:
 
R

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
My dear VOR, my critics naively assume that reason is a discoverer of the truth of a matter, that it can clear the air of ignorance and misunderstanding. And they do this in spite of the fact that one of its early practitioners, Socrates, made it quite clear that he could,using the art of rhetoric, prove someone wrong no matter what position he took.

Idolatry comes in many forms. Reason is one of them. Reason is a tool, like a spade or garden rake. Like any tool, it is subject to abuse, like when it tries to dissect the various meanings in order to get to a non-existent point, like the difference between “notion” (a vague sense of something) and “idea” (a concise visualization of something) or equating “true religion” and the truth of religion.

This thread was originally in a discussion forum because there are some things for which reason is inappropriate and worshipers of reason cannot grasp.

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 the certainty of “knowledge.” It is not even a “truth.” It is “the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.” It is a mode of living. It is faith, living faith.
Click to expand...
This is blasphemy to some because it puts my “true self” on par with the Son of God, and it is utter nonsense to others because while they understand the words, they do not resonate. For example, The Impersonal Life resonates with many, but most find it difficult to grasp because they read it with their head. It sounds like solipsism. They cannot grasp what is meant by “some things can only be understood by the heart” or “the heart has reason that the mind cannot accommodate. That they would want to debate this is in itself proof they do not understand it.
 
Halcyon

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Dirty Penguin said:
Wouldn't we just label that person a lunatic and be done with him?......:confused:
Click to expand...
Because its not lunacy, its a very common mindset that people may adopt after they have a "spiritual" experience.
Do a search for SB Habakuk on this forum for an excellent, yet extreme, example.
 
Yerda

Yerda

Veteran Member
Rolling_Stone said:
They cannot grasp what is meant by “some things can only be understood by the heart” or “the heart has reason that the mind cannot accommodate. That they would want to debate this is in itself proof they do not understand it.
Click to expand...
Out of interest, what is meant?
 
DarkSun

DarkSun

:eltiT
Jaiket said:
Out of interest, what is meant?
Click to expand...

He's saying that rationality and logic can't necessarily explain things such as human emotion. Sure, you could say it's a bunch of hormones running around or whatever, but does that really explain why a person could feel love for someone in Africa, millions of kilometres away, even though they don't even know them?

No, it doesn't...

Normally I would agree with what Rolling Stone has said, but he's kind of coming across as if his view is the only right view, and everyone who thinks otherwise is stupid, naive and wrong.

I don't think that's a healthy opinion to have. At all.
 
Yerda

Yerda

Veteran Member
DarkSun said:
He's saying that rationality and logic can't necessarily explain things such as human emotion. Sure, you could say it's a bunch of hormones running around or whatever, but does that really explain why a person could feel love for someone in Africa, millions of kilometres away, even though they don't even know them?

No, it doesn't...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why not.
 
The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
DarkSun said:
He's saying that rationality and logic can't necessarily explain things such as human emotion. Sure, you could say it's a bunch of hormones running around or whatever, but does that really explain why a person could feel love for someone in Africa, millions of kilometres away, even though they don't even know them?
Click to expand...

You are describing the trait of empathy. Is it your position that science cannot fathom and describe the realm of emotions?

Is that not the study of psychology?
 
rocketman

rocketman

Out there...
Rolling_Stone said:
Idolatry comes in many forms. Reason is one of them. Reason is a tool, like a spade or garden rake.
Click to expand...
Bravo. In fact, nobody uses raw reason anywhere near as much as some suggest, and nor should we, for what a trivial and robotic world it would be. Bring on moral discernment, art appreciation, love and all the other good things. Let's not elevate mere reason to some holy level, after all, our reasoning is at best based on our limited brains and understanding.

Rolling_Stone said:
They cannot grasp what is meant by “some things can only be understood by the heart” or “the heart has reason that the mind cannot accommodate. That they would want to debate this is in itself proof they do not understand it.
Click to expand...
Could it be that atheism has something to do with the whole left-brain/right-brain thing? Could it be that the obession with reductionism is an impenetrable barrier that they can't help but have?
 
The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
Are you suggesting that rationality and the appreciation of the arts are mutually exclusive?

Odd that - I thought I actually liked the music from the 60's and 70's, the talents of Andres Segovia, the beauty of Sophia Loren, the paintings of Titian and Rembrandt, watching the sun set into the western Carribean, and playing with a litter of young puppies.

I didn't realize that I wasn't truly enjoying those things because I use rational thought to form my world views on different topics.

Thanks for bringing me into the light, Rocketman.

As for your question "Could it be that atheism has something to do with the whole left-brain/right-brain thing?" - well, I think that speaks for itself.
 
DarkSun

DarkSun

:eltiT
The Voice of Reason said:
You are describing the trait of empathy. Is it your position that science cannot fathom and describe the realm of emotions?

Is that not the study of psychology?
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, psychology is the study of the human mind and how it reacts.

Now, as far as I know, neurology attempts to explain why.

Being neither a psychologist nor a neurologist I must admit that my knowledge in both areas is rather limited. But I know from year 12 biology that the chemical levels in the brain are responsible for certain emotions.

Was it Schatcher (sp?) who said that emotion is a mix between cognition and physiological arousal?

Meh... anyway, get me a neurologist/psychologist to explain how some carbon compound can make me conscious, fall in love and feel empathy and I'll thank you for the extra dendrite.

As it is, I really don't think that the psychological explanation is completely adequate, but then again, I'm no expert in the matter so I'll leave it there.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top