The difficulty of talking to Atheist

[Colter]

"The confusion about the experience of the certainty of God arises out of the dissimilar interpretations and relations of that experience by separate individuals and by different races of men. The experiencing of God may be wholly valid, but the discourse about God, being intellectual and philosophical, is divergent and oftentimes confusingly fallacious.

A good and noble man may be consummately in love with his wife but utterly unable to pass a satisfactory written examination on the psychology of marital love. Another man, having little or no love for his spouse, might pass such an examination most acceptably. The imperfection of the lover’s insight into the true nature of the beloved does not in the least invalidate either the reality or sincerity of his love."UB
​

Having talked with and debated many Atheist and former Atheist over the years, it occurred to me that one of the unanticipated dilemmas for the believer is one, the spiritual experience or rebirth is not the culmination of following a path of logic that can be retraced, and two, we aren't even equipped with words to describe an experience which passes all understanding. So it's very easy to get all tangled up in the worldly weeds of intellectualism when presented with what I call "the doctrines of doubt".

 

[variant]

Having talked with and debated many Atheist and former Atheist over the years, it occurred to me that one of the unanticipated dilemmas for the believer is one, the spiritual experience or rebirth is not the culmination of following a path of logic that can be retraced, and two, we aren't even equipped with words to describe an experience which passes all understanding. So it's very easy to get all tangled up in the worldly weeds of intellectualism when presented with what I call "the doctrines of doubt".

"My experience is so far beyond words that I can barely relate it" is hooey.

It's generally that we just don't share or support the assumptions you are making, and believers are used to talking to believers who do share a common set of rarely questioned assumptions.

 

[KCfromNC]

"My experience is so far beyond words that I can barely relate it" is hooey.

It's generally that we just don't share or support the assumptions you are making, and believers are used to talking to believers who do share a common set of rarely questioned assumptions.

It also makes a great cop-out for believers when they run into logical dilemmas their handlers haven't prepared them to handle. The solution - pretend that questions about god(s) are immune to worldly problems like contradictions or being inconsistent with reality.

 

[Eudaimonist]

[Christians] aren't even equipped with words to describe an experience which passes all understanding.

If it passes all understanding, there's nothing that can properly be said, concluded, or believed about the experience.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

If it passes all understanding, there's nothing that can properly be said, concluded, or believed about the experience.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Have you experienced Love? If you can't define love then the Atheist parallel argument would be that Love doesn't exist.

I know the presence of God, but my experience with God can't be defined in the same way that Love can't be defined in a logical way. Other people who experience God know what I mean without having to define it.

 

[Colter]

It also makes a great cop-out for believers when they run into logical dilemmas their handlers haven't prepared them to handle. The solution - pretend that questions about god(s) are immune to worldly problems like contradictions or being inconsistent with reality.

Logic is overrated, it's the ready refuge of the materialist. Wisdom is superior.

 

[psalms 91]

Spiritual can only be understood by spiritual. That is the crux of the dillema. Those who are spiritual will understand things that are spiritual. Even the Pharasees were blinded to the spiritual applications of Jesus teaching because they had trouble even understand ing the physical applications.

 

[Colter]

"My experience is so far beyond words that I can barely relate it" is hooey.

It's generally that we just don't share or support the assumptions you are making, and believers are used to talking to believers who do share a common set of rarely questioned assumptions.

Can you define the personality of your cat to the extent that I can pick it out of a line up? Of coarse not! It's very easy for non believers to pick flaws and derive some sort of enjoyment out of it. For me, if I were settled into the solid conviction of the Atheist religion, I wouldn't waste my short life on Christian forums?.

 

[essentialsaltes]

we aren't even equipped with words to describe an experience which passes all understanding.

Well, at least you realize the problem is with you and not us.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Logic is overrated, it's the ready refuge of the materialist. Wisdom is superior.

Calling logic overrated isn't wise.

 

[Colter]

Well, at least you realize the problem is with you and not us.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Having difficulty expressing one's religious belief or defending it against the "worldly weeds" of inquiry does not necessarily diminish the sincerity of one's religious belief, but neither does it make that belief true.

 

[Colter]

"True religion is not a system of philosophic belief which can be reasoned out and substantiated by natural proofs, neither is it a fantastic and mystic experience of indescribable feelings of ecstasy which can be enjoyed only by the romantic devotees of mysticism. Religion is not the product of reason, but viewed from within, it is altogether reasonable. Religion is not derived from the logic of human philosophy, but as a mortal experience it is altogether logical. Religion is the experiencing of divinity in the consciousness of a moral being of evolutionary origin; it represents true experience with eternal realities in time, the realization of spiritual satisfactions while yet in the flesh."​

 

[Colter]

Having difficulty expressing one's religious belief or defending it against the "worldly weeds" of inquiry does not necessarily diminish the sincerity of one's religious belief, but neither does it make that belief true.

It's true for the religionists, but by the same token the disparity of the unbelieving materialist may be true for them but foreign to the believer.

 

[Chany]

Logic is overrated, it's the ready refuge of the materialist. Wisdom is superior.

The only people who deride logic are those utterly incapable of using it.

Also, in case you are unaware of philosophy at all, there are many different philosophers who were/are not materialists. Some of them are atheists, and some are very far away from Christians in their beliefs on gods.

How can you determine wisdom from utter drivel objectively?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's true for the religionists, but by the same token the disparity of the unbelieving materialist may be true for them but foreign to the believer.

Again, a person's ability to express or defend a proposition well or not has no bearing on whether the proposition is true or not. Given that you apparently agree with this, what is the point of this thread?

 

[True Scotsman]

Logic is overrated, it's the ready refuge of the materialist. Wisdom is superior.

Wisdom obtained without the use of reason, proving once again that faith is irrational.

 

[Gadarene]

The only people who deride logic are those utterly incapable of using it.

Indeed, it is obviously complete sour grapes. If they thought logic could apply they'd be all over it.

 

[variant]

Can you define the personality of your cat to the extent that I can pick it out of a line up? Of coarse not!

I probably could, he is quite the character.

Things become more definitive when they have qualities that easily differentiate them.

I think though that you are confusing difficult subjects with the kind of simple bad arguments that theist proffer to atheists.

 

[variant]

It's true for the religionists, but by the same token the disparity of the unbelieving materialist may be true for them but foreign to the believer.

When dealing with matters of fact, true is true for everyone or it isn't true.

Your religions claims are either accurate or they aren't