What Do The Faithful Have That The Rest Of Us Don’T?

[naomi24]

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?

[Khandro]

cg; whoever said it; one persons belief was NOT as valid as the other's.
jim, See my post 17:55 Mon. 20th.

[chrisgel]

Very weak argument.
The Duke of Wellington KNEW who he was so it was one persons belief against anothers knowledge.
Guess what! Knowledge triumphs over belief again.

[jim360]

I did -- and still disagree.

[solvitquick]

Dear Khandro,
Having been otherwise employed I have been reading some of your meanderings but for now I'll just complain about your most recent. You are happy to use the word "clod" which according to you apparently means a completely hopeless case, intellectually, spiritually, musicallly and in every other case.
What a biassed choice: why not "the Man on the Clapham Omnibus" (accepted even in law and rational debate). Or why not "ignorant", not as an insult, but a property we all possess in various ways but implies in most cases, here on ab certainly, the willingness and probably desire to learn. And even appreciate e.g. music from the very first note.
Hence going along with "clod" you set up a skittle which you can knock down on any comparison you choose. Naughty tactic!
SIQ.

[Khandro]

'And they thought it was all over', but what they forgot was, there's always solvitquick!
SIQ; Please go back through the thread and find the first reference to that word, then having done that, look it up in one of your dictionaries. G'night! K.

[naomi24]

Khandro, so suddenly the musical reference was a metaphor. You continue to wriggle your way around. The odd thing is, having heard the answer many times, you - and others - continually ask why non-believers bother to post here, but I see nothing rational from any of you so why do you bother to post here of not because you see opposition as a threat to religion?

[naomi24]

*if not because .....

[Khandro]

^ what do you mean by "suddenly", it always was, and couldn't be anything else, I referred to it as analogy 11:54 Tue.
I really don't think religion has a lot to fear from your hostility and feeble arguments, which comprise of nothing more than a continual demand for "evidence".

[jim360]

I like the idea that a demand for evidence is in some sense not a problem. By implication that means that you have no evidence. And, of course, if you have no evidence, we can dismiss your position just as quickly as you asserted it.

[naomi24]

Khandro, blustering bravado. If religion has nothing to fear, why do you hate Richard Dawkins so intensely? The arguments can’t be that feeble - you have no answers.

[Khandro]

jim; Have you ever been in love? Can you give evidence that you have, or alternatively, evidence that you have not?
naomi; I don't do hate.

[naomi24]

Khandro, you're wriggling - again.

[jim360]

Seconded -- stop wriggling Khandro and answer the question, instead of asking a completely unrelated one.

[Khandro]

I think most would see that it isn't 'unrelated' at all. Can you answer it? No it's not wriggling, it's known as the 'Socratic Method' of dialogue.

[chrisgel]

That's a posh name for wriggling.

[LazyGun]

Socrates was a well respected philosopher, responding to assertions/theses by posing questions that forced re-examination of the original question - You, Khandro, not so much, although I am sure it smooths your soul to think you are so profound.

Love is a well documented emotion. On this thread ( and others) you have argued that theists have an additional, spiritual component or response to certain events/stimuli/recitals/prayer/phenomena - over and above a straightforward emotional response, which synergistically adds richness or heightens the experience for the theist, beyond what the non-theist can experience.

We had this exact same argument on a thread some while ago - arguments about a response to a religously -inspired piece of music, where you argued that a theist would have this greater,deeper response to the music, one that the poor atheist/non-theist was deprived of.

But - you have no evidence for this. You have no means of demonstrating this, even qualitatively. We certainly have no method of quantifying this. So, we have an assertion, by theists, which is both unprovable and undemonstrable. And it is precisely this asserted non-component that theists are often so smug about, pitying atheists/non-theists who cannot "experience" it.

This is why your musical analogy fails, whether you meant it metaphorically or not. If it is merely an emotional response, everyone and anyone is capable of feeling it to a similar degree. No special status or special state of being for the theist over the non-theist.

[Khandro]

LG //you argued that a theist would have this greater,deeper response to the music, one that the poor atheist/non-theist was deprived of.//
I accuse you of lying! Show us where I have said that.

[solvitquick]

Dear Khandro,
You are right as to the first use of "clod". It was Lazygun, who I might add, has given an exellent group of debating submissions with which I agree wholeheartedly. However I do not believe he intended the word "clod" as a completely helpless dolt. My Chambers and Collins dictionaries favour "stupid person" while my 2-vol Oxford is closer to your definition.
However I have no wish to arue with you over this,
That said, on to my main point:
I write to apologise to you unreservedly for misreading the history and particularly for misinterpreting your part and motive in the debate involving a "clod's" first musical experience.
No detraction from my apology but I believe a stupid person would experience a non-religious spiritual enlightenment if taken to an orchestral concert tho' lesser so if hearing a CD.
The only exception to this latter refers to Wagner whose music I detest, honest.
Regards,
SIQ.

[LazyGun]

@Khandro Rather hysterical charge, accusing me of lying, isn't it?

From this thread you offered a response to Naomi, earlier;
""How often do you need telling? "These chaps", have a spiritual dimension to their everyday lives which you lack, - geddit? "

You then offered the appreciation of Wagner as a metaphor for this spiritual dimension
"I suppose it might be likened to someone without any appreciation or knowledge of opera, being confronted for the first time by Der Ring des Nibelungun, and a lover of Wagner being requested to explain what it meant to them."

What I have said all along is that this alleged spiritual dimension is just that, an allegation, without foundation, and one often assumed by theists and thought lacking ( by theists) in non-theists/ atheists - yourself included, and confirmed in your response to Naomi- that somehow makes life a bleaker or more barren experience for atheists/non-theists in comparison.

But having this spiritual dimension cannot be purely an emotional response, because different people -regardless of their belief- can experience similar profoundly emotional responses to the same stimuli. And theists often lay claim to having a more profound or moving response to "God-Given" natural wonders, or religiously inspired works of music, or religiously inspired artworks, than their atheist/non-theist counterpart, that belief being based upon this conviction of theirs that they do possess a spiritual dimension- a component separate from Emotion or Intellect - which non-theists do not.

And this "spiritual dimension" cannot be solely an academic/intellectual response. If it were, the uneducated could never experience this spiritual dimension to the same degree, and that undercuts the whole principle of a transcendent experience. If it were so, then priests and theologians would have the most intense spiritual response, the poor/uneducated/illiterate only a poor, dim response in comparison - and that smacks of arrant elitism to me which I think most religions would frown upon, at least as official doctrine.

And this is what i was getting at when we were talking about Barenboim versus "the clod on the street". I agree that Barenboim would have a far greater appreciation intellectually of the music, the virtuosity of the performers, the orchestration etc because of his gift of musicality than your average "clod in the street" - but that does not necessarily mean that he will experience a greater "spiritual " or even emotional response to the music than some musically uneducated soul hearing it and being profoundly affected by it.

You cannot offer a quantitative scale for this "spiritual dimension", by which it can be measured. You cannot even offer any means of qualitatively assessing this "spiritual" response to something, by which it can be distinguished from an emotional or intellectual response, so you cannot offer any substance at all to this notion of a spiritual dimension/response actually existing.

Many theological commentators over the centuries have articulated the notion that Intellect, Emotion and Spirituality are distinct components, but have been unable to clearly articulate the difference.

And you may have forgotten, but we had a similar conversation to this before, again over music, where you were very clear that a spiritual response was distinct from- and not to be confused with- an emotional response, but again you were unable to offer any evidence to support that claim.

Now, I will have to wade through 100s of threads to try and find that particular discussion, but I am pretty sure it is there somewhere, so I will attempt to find it and post the link when I get around to it.

[jim360]

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that love is a good analogy. Then firstly, since it is possible to detect certain emotional responses that at least in part manifest themselves in a physical way, with the right apparatus you could theoretically be able tell whether or not someone was "in love" with someone else. Secondly, there are people who can show all of these physical signals where the trigger, the one they "love", is an entirely fictional character. Someone in a work of fiction, particularly a book.

So in that case if you are going to persist in using love as an analogy then it doesn't work very because you can be as "in love" with a God as you like, but that doesn't make Him exist -- and, equally, as passionate about a particular philosophy without it needing to be correct.