re: #268 Naso Tang

Okay, you win—I forgot to turn off my subscription to this thread. ;)

I don’t think you really mean to say nothing should be discussed except if one believes in advance that the other’s mind can be changed, do you?

Of course not, but I do believe that there must be some common ground shared between parties in order for a conversation to be mutually beneficial & satisfying.

I can and have had fruitful discussions about religion with some of the atheists here, but to be honest I struggle when it comes to having a conversation with you. Why? I don’t know. Maybe it’s me, maybe it’s you. Maybe it’s both or neither of us, but whatever the case we always seem to end up at loggerheads. I find that frustrating and unpleasant, which is why I try to avoid it.

I’m disappointed that you are not even curious as to why others have a different perspective than you do. Honestly, that doesn’t sound like what I have read from you.

I didn’t say I wasn’t curious about why others have a different perspective, I said I wasn’t curious about why you personally are an atheist. You and most of the other atheists here have made it clear why you’ve chosen that path, so I just accept it. I’m sure some of you have interesting stories about how you arrived at your choice, but I don’t ask because opening the atheism vs. religion subject often ends up with people bashing each other and going away with hurt feelings. Again, that’s not something I find beneficial or satisfying.

I have never said I can’t just let you live as you wish, but I am curious to understand, step by step, what it is that motivates someone as intelligent and literate as you to adopt (as opposed to inherit) a very ritually dogmatic system of belief.

Well, I could tell you step by step, but it’s very personal so I’m not going to. Even if I was inclined to do so, I doubt it would make any sense to you given your views on religion and how you interpret as believers’ motivations. Your response #272 to OCSP only reinforces that.

Trying to understand a person’s religious belief by approaching it with objective scientific detachment & facts is as futile as trying to approach the laws of physics or medicine through the subjective personal faith & spirituality. It makes no sense. I’m quite capable of holding my religious beliefs and at the same time understanding that they have a very specific purpose and need not be applied to everything; hence if I get sick I go see a doctor, I don’t try to pray it away, nor do I expect God to indicate to me who I should vote for in the next election. That I need to separate reason from faith and go back & forth across the threshold between the two as I go about my daily life doesn’t result in some sort of paralyzing cognitive dissonance. As a matter of fact, it seems quite obvious.

Plenty of “believers” get dressed every morning without thinking about whether the clothes are acceptable to god…I thought religion was a matter of the heart and the soul, not fashion.

Religion is a matter of the heart & soul, but the hearts & souls of believers are encased in flesh and live in a material world which has its own set of rules & requirements, therefore both aspects of existence need to be addressed. I can’t speak for others, but dressing a certain way is less about what is or isn’t acceptable to God than it is about learning something about oneself by doing so. I’ve learned quite a bit, not only about my own ego, but also about others’ reactions to and assumptions about me based solely my external appearance.

I have a lot of work on my desk and I don’t want to fall behind, so any further discussion will have to wait for another time.