Reply #133: Some responses....

[sutz12]

<<First of all, it is a gross mistake to say that theists "hate" atheists (on edit, I saw your other post, so don't worry about that). It is incorrect to say that theists "dislike" atheists. These generalizations are not accurate in any way.>>

Agreed, I was a bit heavy handed with my characterization, there.

<<Secondly, it's not about attacking, it's about a discussion (passionate discussion at times) on the subject of divinity. For you to say that theists "have no real way" to do this is false and borders on arrogance.>>

That's not really what I said. Certainly, theists can express themselves just fine, but they cannot express themselves in a way that atheists can accept. There are two separate languages at work here. One side is saying that a 'rationality' based on supernatural influences is invalid, at least for them. Theists must believe in something supernatural for their chosen 'theism' to be valid. Atheists, for the most part, have no belief in supernatural forces, beings, or events, and thus assign no value to them in their own lives. When offered those as 'proof' of something, they will always say, "That's not real," because to them, it isn't. Any 'supernatural' experience can be explained in many different ways in terms of physical and chemical processes going on in the body and brain. IMO, it really is two different modes of perception.

<<Lastly, many religious beliefs are neither "irrational" nor "non-rational". Just because you disagree with one sort of logical conclusion doesn't make it illogical.>>

I would argue that just because you believe something to be 'logical' doesn't make it so, either. Once again, you want others to accept what you say you have experienced as rational and real. Since no one can know what you have experienced in your body, that is not proof for anyone other than you. To accept your stories and 'logical progression to faith,' one must have faith in you. Since there really is no rational reason for one person to believe that another has had a 'religious experience' there is no logical reason to accept that person's religion.

The OP requested opinions on why the two sides of the argument cannot seem to discuss their differences rationally. I have opined that the reason is because the two sides are:

1. Speaking different languages, in which the concept of what is 'rational' is in some dispute.

2. Not able to look at the subject from the other side's perspective because they just can't. They think in different terms.

Much like the 'battle of the sexes,' the two sides will probably never agree. :)