The difficulty of talking to Atheist

[variant]

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?

The alternative is the fallacy fallacy:

Because arguments for proposition X are poor, that makes proposition X false.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

 

[variant]

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

Wisdom is impossible without rationality.

 

[Colter]

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

To you wisdom is irrational, to me you are irrational. You could use a Randaholics anonymous meeting.

 

[True Scotsman]

To you wosdom is errational, to me you are errational. You could use a Randahics anonymous meeting.

You spent all that effort over on the "Let's define faith" arguing with me about my statement that faith is irrational and now you start a thread where you say that logic is overrated. Priceless.

 

[Chany]

To you wosdom is errational, to me you are errational. You could use a Randahics anonymous meeting.

You do realize there are only a whopping total of one confirmed and one possible Objectivists on this site, right? I couldn't really care for Rand. I really couldn't care for most philosophers as individuals or most systems. I only care about if someone's arguments are valid and if they make good points. I disagree with Descartes substance dualism of the body and mind. I agree with Descartes on proving the fact that I exist as an agent in some capacity. If Rand makes a good point on something, I'll agree with her; if Rand makes a bad argument, I'll disagree with her. She is just another voice in the philosophical discussion, like Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Pythagoras, and the other ancient Greeks; like Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Mill, Nietzsche, Satre, Hume, Locke, and the others. I don't care who you are or how many followers you have or how many philosophy classes include you their material, I care about the truth of your premises and the conclusion that follows necessarily from those premises.

Wisdom is not irrational. Anything that is completely irrational and illogical is not wisdom; it's just somebody talking, and anybody can talk.

 

[Aldebaran]

Wisdom is impossible without rationality.

Rationality isn't always wise, but only takes on wisdom's appearance to make it's conclusions appear wise.

 

[True Scotsman]

Rationality isn't always wise, but only takes on wisdom's appearance to make it's conclusions appear wise.

I think you're confusing rationalism, reason without reference to reality, with rationality.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

You didn't ask me if I can define love. I can define love. It is a form of attraction and affection, which in its deepest form involves wishing someone well for that person's own sake. Love is something that can be understood and discussed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Aldebaran]

You didn't ask me if I can define love. I can define love. It is a form of attraction and affection, which in its deepest form involves wishing someone well for that person's own sake. Love is something that can be understood and discussed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

There are different kinds of love. Love of a pet is different than love for a husband/wife, which is different than the love for your favorite football team. When one word is used to describe so many things, it can get confusing.

 

[Colter]

You didn't ask me if I can define love. I can define love. It is a form of attraction and affection, which in its deepest form involves wishing someone well for that person's own sake. Love is something that can be understood and discussed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Gods existence is something that can be understood and discussed.

 

[Colter]

You do realize there are only a whopping total of one confirmed and one possible Objectivists on this site, right? I couldn't really care for Rand. I really couldn't care for most philosophers as individuals or most systems. I only care about if someone's arguments are valid and if they make good points. I disagree with Descartes substance dualism of the body and mind. I agree with Descartes on proving the fact that I exist as an agent in some capacity. If Rand makes a good point on something, I'll agree with her; if Rand makes a bad argument, I'll disagree with her. She is just another voice in the philosophical discussion, like Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Pythagoras, and the other ancient Greeks; like Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Mill, Nietzsche, Satre, Hume, Locke, and the others. I don't care who you are or how many followers you have or how many philosophy classes include you their material, I care about the truth of your premises and the conclusion that follows necessarily from those premises.

Wisdom is not irrational. Anything that is completely irrational and illogical is not wisdom; it's just somebody talking, and anybody can talk.

Understood, I was replying to the Scotsman, he's all about Rand.

 

[Ana the Ist]

"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".

You said this...

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

If an experience passes all understanding....how is it you understood it to be an experience of the divine/god/holy spirit/etc? It would only make sense that if it's beyond understanding... you wouldn't really know what you just experienced.

So when you make a statement like that, it seems (to me at least) that you're trying to avoid explaining an experience out of fear it would appear entirely normal to one who didn't experience it. In effect, you're dressing it up in mystery to hide the fact that it's perfectly normal.

 

[True Scotsman]

Understood, I was replying to the Scotsman, he's all about Rand.

Nope, he's all about reason. He never met Rand.

 

[True Scotsman]

Gods existence is something that can be understood and discussed.

The concept of gods can be understood and discussed but what I want to know is by what reliable method can what someone is calling "God" be distinguished from something that is merely imaginary. Because if I want to "see" gods I have no alternative to using my imagination.

 

[Colter]

3. The Stop at Ramah​

"At Ramah Jesus had the memorable discussion with the aged Greek philosopher who taught that science and philosophy were sufficient to satisfy the needs of human experience. Jesus listened with patience and sympathy to this Greek teacher, allowing the truth of many things he said but pointing out that, when he was through, he had failed in his discussion of human existence to explain “whence, why, and whither,” and added: “Where you leave off, we begin. Religion is a revelation to man’s soul dealing with spiritual realities which the mind alone could never discover or fully fathom. Intellectual strivings may reveal the facts of life, but the gospel of the kingdom unfolds the truths of being. You have discussed the material shadows of truth; will you now listen while I tell you about the eternal and spiritual realities which cast these transient time shadows of the material facts of mortal existence?” For more than an hour Jesus taught this Greek the saving truths of the gospel of the kingdom. The old philosopher was susceptible to the Master’s mode of approach, and being sincerely honest of heart, he quickly believed this gospel of salvation.

The apostles were a bit disconcerted by the open manner of Jesus’ assent to many of the Greek’s propositions, but Jesus afterward privately said to them: “My children, marvel not that I was tolerant of the Greek’s philosophy. True and genuine inward certainty does not in the least fear outward analysis, nor does truth resent honest criticism. You should never forget that intolerance is the mask covering up the entertainment of secret doubts as to the trueness of one’s belief. No man is at any time disturbed by his neighbor’s attitude when he has perfect confidence in the truth of that which he wholeheartedly believes. Courage is the confidence of thoroughgoing honesty about those things which one professes to believe. Sincere men are unafraid of the critical examination of their true convictions and noble ideals.” UB 1955

 

[Deidre32]

I'm reminded of this...

For a believer, no explanation is needed. For an atheist, no explanation will ever be enough.

Yep, probably right.

 

[True Scotsman]

3. The Stop at Ramah​

"At Ramah Jesus had the memorable discussion with the aged Greek philosopher who taught that science and philosophy were sufficient to satisfy the needs of human experience. Jesus listened with patience and sympathy to this Greek teacher, allowing the truth of many things he said but pointing out that, when he was through, he had failed in his discussion of human existence to explain “whence, why, and whither,” and added: “Where you leave off, we begin. Religion is a revelation to man’s soul dealing with spiritual realities which the mind alone could never discover or fully fathom. Intellectual strivings may reveal the facts of life, but the gospel of the kingdom unfolds the truths of being. You have discussed the material shadows of truth; will you now listen while I tell you about the eternal and spiritual realities which cast these transient time shadows of the material facts of mortal existence?” For more than an hour Jesus taught this Greek the saving truths of the gospel of the kingdom. The old philosopher was susceptible to the Master’s mode of approach, and being sincerely honest of heart, he quickly believed this gospel of salvation.

The apostles were a bit disconcerted by the open manner of Jesus’ assent to many of the Greek’s propositions, but Jesus afterward privately said to them: “My children, marvel not that I was tolerant of the Greek’s philosophy. True and genuine inward certainty does not in the least fear outward analysis, nor does truth resent honest criticism. You should never forget that intolerance is the mask covering up the entertainment of secret doubts as to the trueness of one’s belief. No man is at any time disturbed by his neighbor’s attitude when he has perfect confidence in the truth of that which he wholeheartedly believes. Courage is the confidence of thoroughgoing honesty about those things which one professes to believe. Sincere men are unafraid of the critical examination of their true convictions and noble ideals.” UB 1955

Do you think that the Urantia Book is a reliable source of the truth Colter?

 

[Colter]

The concept of gods can be understood and discussed but what I want to know is by what reliable method can what someone is calling "God" be distinguished from something that is merely imaginary. Because if I want to "see" gods I have no alternative to using my imagination.

This is the specific answer to your question, If you sincerely wanted to know God and sought God with all if your heart, then he would revel himself to you. That is the method. But you aren't really searching for God with a sincere heart nor an open mind, you are looking to disprove God having already made your mind up. You are at war with the God of the metaphysical world.

 

[Colter]

Do you think that the Urantia Book is a reliable source of the truth Colter?

Yes, but ultimately the indwelling spirit bears witness to the truth wherever it may come from.

 

[variant]

Rationality isn't always wise, but only takes on wisdom's appearance to make it's conclusions appear wise.

What I was saying is that wisdom requires rationality, not that rationality requires wisdom.