News0 min ago
What Do The Faithful Have That The Rest Of Us Don’T?
375 Answers
With no explanation, Goodlife is constantly telling the ‘poor’ atheists here that they have nothing – and today Khandro said exactly the same. I'm curious. Just what is it that these chaps think they have that the rest of us lack?
Answers
Steve, if you have the vicar's outfit, I've got the tart - custard naturally. ;o)
Khandro, //How often do you need telling? "These chaps", have a spiritual dimension to their everyday lives which you lack, - geddit?//
I don't think you've said that before - but awe-inspiring language nonetheless.
//Ive really no idea what you feel about anything,//
No, you don't.
//but if you are without religion of any sort, It would seem self-evident that you can not experience a religious dimension within your daily life.//
Religion doesn't equate to spirituality, so what are you talking about? I've never known a Buddhist who thinks as you do, Khandro. Your words belie your claims. By the way. Wagner - how very intellectual. Vulcan might appreciate that one. ;o)
I've answered both your questions, the first at 11:19 Thu 16th Jan and again at 11:15 today, and for the umpteenth time in these threads, the second at 12:05 Thu 16th Jan.
Khandro, //How often do you need telling? "These chaps", have a spiritual dimension to their everyday lives which you lack, - geddit?//
I don't think you've said that before - but awe-inspiring language nonetheless.
//Ive really no idea what you feel about anything,//
No, you don't.
//but if you are without religion of any sort, It would seem self-evident that you can not experience a religious dimension within your daily life.//
Religion doesn't equate to spirituality, so what are you talking about? I've never known a Buddhist who thinks as you do, Khandro. Your words belie your claims. By the way. Wagner - how very intellectual. Vulcan might appreciate that one. ;o)
I've answered both your questions, the first at 11:19 Thu 16th Jan and again at 11:15 today, and for the umpteenth time in these threads, the second at 12:05 Thu 16th Jan.
naomi; I'm uncertain why 11:19 Thu. answers anything, and 12:05 implies your motivation to be one purely of civic duty, which I find very questionable. As I've said previously, this thread has been predicated on your quotation from another thread and out of context in order to gain some form of accolade from other co-fundamental atheists.
I have, believe it or not, a good deal of sympathy with the rationalist and humanist critics of religion, but most of them, particularly the majority here, buy their rejection on the cheap, and it is largely based on ignorance and prejudice.
LG; //Seems to me that this notion that theists experience a spiritual component that non-theists do not is purely an assumption of the theists//
Well, you are entitled to that assumption, but if you think that you can " omit the academic points or references [and] still be effected by the piece itself " then I can only return to my earlier metaphor of Aesop's wolf.
I have, believe it or not, a good deal of sympathy with the rationalist and humanist critics of religion, but most of them, particularly the majority here, buy their rejection on the cheap, and it is largely based on ignorance and prejudice.
LG; //Seems to me that this notion that theists experience a spiritual component that non-theists do not is purely an assumption of the theists//
Well, you are entitled to that assumption, but if you think that you can " omit the academic points or references [and] still be effected by the piece itself " then I can only return to my earlier metaphor of Aesop's wolf.
Khandro, here’s the whole post.
//naomi; you should really learn something about Buddhism before starting to ruminate. Also goodlife's God and my God may be in essence the same entity, but we just have different understandings. Do you remember the Irish comedian, Dave Allen? he used to always close his act by saying "Goodnight, and may your God go with you".
Everyones take is different, - except of course, the poor atheists, who have nothing.//
Where have I taken it out of context? If anything, when posted in all its dubious glory it’s even more insulting!
16:27 Mon 13th Jan 2014
http://
//And you still claim that your motivation for doing so is purely benevolent?//
Not with you. My motivation for doing what?
//naomi; you should really learn something about Buddhism before starting to ruminate. Also goodlife's God and my God may be in essence the same entity, but we just have different understandings. Do you remember the Irish comedian, Dave Allen? he used to always close his act by saying "Goodnight, and may your God go with you".
Everyones take is different, - except of course, the poor atheists, who have nothing.//
Where have I taken it out of context? If anything, when posted in all its dubious glory it’s even more insulting!
16:27 Mon 13th Jan 2014
http://
//And you still claim that your motivation for doing so is purely benevolent?//
Not with you. My motivation for doing what?
Since when does a question here have to have a benevolent intent anyway? :)
The intent that informs the question is neither here nor there; The question addresses a common enough charge levelled by theists - that their religious belief imparts/develops some spiritual and/or emotional component of their personality that non-theists are deficient in; Moreover that this spiritual dimension gives theists a richer or more intense or heightened response to certain stimuli. The problem here though is that none of these theists can offer any evidence to support this notion - Its just seems, rather like religion, to be a belief without any evidence ;)
And Naomi gives examples within the OP of the the posters who have recently offered just such a comment. This all seems fair enough to me.
The intent that informs the question is neither here nor there; The question addresses a common enough charge levelled by theists - that their religious belief imparts/develops some spiritual and/or emotional component of their personality that non-theists are deficient in; Moreover that this spiritual dimension gives theists a richer or more intense or heightened response to certain stimuli. The problem here though is that none of these theists can offer any evidence to support this notion - Its just seems, rather like religion, to be a belief without any evidence ;)
And Naomi gives examples within the OP of the the posters who have recently offered just such a comment. This all seems fair enough to me.
LG; I'm not sure what you would require as hard "evidence", but did you not understand my Wagnerian analogy? and perhaps you could tell us why you are so concerned about something you neither have, nor believe in, or are you another of society's benefactors?
naomi; 'Poor' = spiritless, perfectly understandable in the context of fundamental atheism.
naomi; 'Poor' = spiritless, perfectly understandable in the context of fundamental atheism.
I just think your Wagnerian analogy is not apposite, for reasons I expressed in an earlier post Khandro.
As for this nonsense
"perhaps you could tell us why you are so concerned about something you neither have, nor believe in, or are you another of society's benefactors?"
Firstly - please point me to where the rules state that you must have a religion or be a self declared spiritualist in order to ask and answer questions in this section? Its a facile question Khandro - R&S has had and continues to exert influence on our society, one in which I inhabit. That gives me licence to comment, quite apart from questioning and highlighting some of the more egregiously negative influences upon society that religion and belief has on our cultural development.
Get over yourself - You are not the gatekeeper of this section.
You continue to offer no evidence - hard or any other type, for that matter- for this contention of yours that somehow atheists are lacking- some undefinable something- that you and some other theists continue to assert. I mean, you cannot even define it or attach a measurable quantity to it!
So, in the absence of such a definition, and without any scale against which to measure it, where is your evidence that atheists have a diminished or qualitatively different experience of a particular event/phenomenon than a theist?
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence -And "its common knowledge, squire" does not constitute evidence! :)
As for this nonsense
"perhaps you could tell us why you are so concerned about something you neither have, nor believe in, or are you another of society's benefactors?"
Firstly - please point me to where the rules state that you must have a religion or be a self declared spiritualist in order to ask and answer questions in this section? Its a facile question Khandro - R&S has had and continues to exert influence on our society, one in which I inhabit. That gives me licence to comment, quite apart from questioning and highlighting some of the more egregiously negative influences upon society that religion and belief has on our cultural development.
Get over yourself - You are not the gatekeeper of this section.
You continue to offer no evidence - hard or any other type, for that matter- for this contention of yours that somehow atheists are lacking- some undefinable something- that you and some other theists continue to assert. I mean, you cannot even define it or attach a measurable quantity to it!
So, in the absence of such a definition, and without any scale against which to measure it, where is your evidence that atheists have a diminished or qualitatively different experience of a particular event/phenomenon than a theist?
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence -And "its common knowledge, squire" does not constitute evidence! :)
LG; //I just think your Wagnerian analogy is not apposite, for reasons I expressed in an earlier post// I suppose by that you mean on 18:44 Mon. //An appreciation of a cathedral architecture, for instance, or a painting inspired by a religious event, or a majestic piece of religious music may not get the academic points or references but still be effected by the piece itself// unquestionably true, but it is a matter of extent, and not only of "academic points". Any number of examples can be given where a deeper understanding of the subject leads to a far more fundamental and emotional- appreciation, "evidence" of this is surely unnecessary, though if you wish I can give some more examples.
I have no wish to be a "gatekeeper" of R&S, though speaking as someone with a positive interest in these subjects, -as opposed to your negativity- I need make no apologies for my stance here, though perhaps you should consider yours.
I have no wish to be a "gatekeeper" of R&S, though speaking as someone with a positive interest in these subjects, -as opposed to your negativity- I need make no apologies for my stance here, though perhaps you should consider yours.
@Khandro
"I have no wish to be a "gatekeeper" of R&S, though speaking as someone with a positive interest in these subjects, -as opposed to your negativity- I need make no apologies for my stance here, though perhaps you should consider yours"
Well you certainly attempt to appoint yourself as the Gatekeeper often enough.You criticize people here for starting threads critical of religion or dubious of spirituality, and see that as a negative position. You see what I post as negativity -But I see religion and theists attempting to assert some kind of moral superiority within our society as a negative, and the growing influence of rationality as a positive development within our society.So I see critical posts and topics here as a positive interests, and your contributions as negative and based upon ignorance and prejudice.
Fortunately you are not the arbiter of what constitutes a positive or negative point of view, Khandro. Nor are you the arbiter of the worth, the stance or the value of anyone else's contributions here.
And you have still offered nothing to substantiate this notion that theists experience a spiritual dimension which heightens their appreciation of life other than a weak analogy to Wagnerian Opera.You believe it to be true, but cannot support it with evidence - so, like religion then.
An education in a topic might inform your understanding, but it does not necessarily confer a greater or heightened visceral/emotional/spiritual response. A philistine with a comprehensive education in music and indeed in Wagner might still be unresponsive to the music for a variety of reasons, whereas an uneducated clod just around the corner might feel some kind of transcendent response to the music. The fact is we have no way of measuring comparative responses between people, so you cannot assert a greater response in one cohort over another.
"I have no wish to be a "gatekeeper" of R&S, though speaking as someone with a positive interest in these subjects, -as opposed to your negativity- I need make no apologies for my stance here, though perhaps you should consider yours"
Well you certainly attempt to appoint yourself as the Gatekeeper often enough.You criticize people here for starting threads critical of religion or dubious of spirituality, and see that as a negative position. You see what I post as negativity -But I see religion and theists attempting to assert some kind of moral superiority within our society as a negative, and the growing influence of rationality as a positive development within our society.So I see critical posts and topics here as a positive interests, and your contributions as negative and based upon ignorance and prejudice.
Fortunately you are not the arbiter of what constitutes a positive or negative point of view, Khandro. Nor are you the arbiter of the worth, the stance or the value of anyone else's contributions here.
And you have still offered nothing to substantiate this notion that theists experience a spiritual dimension which heightens their appreciation of life other than a weak analogy to Wagnerian Opera.You believe it to be true, but cannot support it with evidence - so, like religion then.
An education in a topic might inform your understanding, but it does not necessarily confer a greater or heightened visceral/emotional/spiritual response. A philistine with a comprehensive education in music and indeed in Wagner might still be unresponsive to the music for a variety of reasons, whereas an uneducated clod just around the corner might feel some kind of transcendent response to the music. The fact is we have no way of measuring comparative responses between people, so you cannot assert a greater response in one cohort over another.
"If you think Daniel Barenboim has less feeling and understanding of Wagner, or any other composer, than your "clod round the corner", then neither I, nor anyone else, has much hope of giving you the "evidence" you seem so desperately in need of."
Now show me, quantitatively, that Barenboims internalised visceral/emotional/spiritual response to the Music he is hearing is greater than the "clod around the corner".
Still waiting.........
Now show me, quantitatively, that Barenboims internalised visceral/emotional/spiritual response to the Music he is hearing is greater than the "clod around the corner".
Still waiting.........
It's surely begging the question to say that Barenboim's appreciation of music is greater than someone else's because of some spiritual aspect. Doesn't the fact that he has devoted his career to music also have something to do with it? I happen to think that, overtures aside (and even some of those I find boring) Wagner is pretty awful really.
And, anyway, the same comparison might be made of those who have studied anything else to the point where their appreciation of that subject and its subtleties is greater than the man in the street's could possibly be. Naturally I'm thinking of my own specialism, physics -- and yet in a separate discussion I was accused of being "blinded" by the science. Well, if that's true, how do you know that you haven't been blinded in the same way? Unable to see the wood for the trees, that sort of thing. It stands to reason that if someone who has spent so long focusing on a particular topic then they can risk overlooking the bigger picture, or blinding themselves to the obvious in favour of searching for some desperate attempt to justify their life's work.
I submit, anyway, that if I can be accused of this -- in some perverse twist, the very fact that I know a lot about my subject counts against my ability to understand it -- then so, too, can anyone who "knows a lot" about any other subject, and in particular about religion. Arguments which are logically flawed from the outset people can somehow convince themselves are worth trying. And so we see in particular from goodlife the sort of dross that, if ever he thought to replace the word "Jehovah" with "magic teapot", would instantly be revealed as such. And to a lesser extent I think we see the same from you too, Khandro, at times. These odd comments that seem to be intended as incredibly profound, but frankly come across as something closer to pseudo-philosophical claptrap.
I mean, seriously, what was that whole "it is the mind that moves, not the flag" stuff about? As if that makes any sense whatsoever, and yet it was uttered with such a grand authority that people could be forgiven for thinking you were saying something profound.
And, anyway, the same comparison might be made of those who have studied anything else to the point where their appreciation of that subject and its subtleties is greater than the man in the street's could possibly be. Naturally I'm thinking of my own specialism, physics -- and yet in a separate discussion I was accused of being "blinded" by the science. Well, if that's true, how do you know that you haven't been blinded in the same way? Unable to see the wood for the trees, that sort of thing. It stands to reason that if someone who has spent so long focusing on a particular topic then they can risk overlooking the bigger picture, or blinding themselves to the obvious in favour of searching for some desperate attempt to justify their life's work.
I submit, anyway, that if I can be accused of this -- in some perverse twist, the very fact that I know a lot about my subject counts against my ability to understand it -- then so, too, can anyone who "knows a lot" about any other subject, and in particular about religion. Arguments which are logically flawed from the outset people can somehow convince themselves are worth trying. And so we see in particular from goodlife the sort of dross that, if ever he thought to replace the word "Jehovah" with "magic teapot", would instantly be revealed as such. And to a lesser extent I think we see the same from you too, Khandro, at times. These odd comments that seem to be intended as incredibly profound, but frankly come across as something closer to pseudo-philosophical claptrap.
I mean, seriously, what was that whole "it is the mind that moves, not the flag" stuff about? As if that makes any sense whatsoever, and yet it was uttered with such a grand authority that people could be forgiven for thinking you were saying something profound.
//Now show me, quantitatively, that Barenboims internalised visceral/emotional/spiritual response to the Music he is hearing is greater than the "clod around the corner".
Still waiting.........//
Do you really expect a serious answer?
jim, I agree with almost everything you say, and that is why on science threads I only ever ask questions and don't make assertions ( the flag was said lightheartedly, thought there is a point there ) and it is really proven by the fact that most detractors of religion are theologically the least qualified to do so, eg. R.Dawkins.
Still waiting.........//
Do you really expect a serious answer?
jim, I agree with almost everything you say, and that is why on science threads I only ever ask questions and don't make assertions ( the flag was said lightheartedly, thought there is a point there ) and it is really proven by the fact that most detractors of religion are theologically the least qualified to do so, eg. R.Dawkins.
Latest Posts
Body & Soul2 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago