Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

Good question and probably where I fall down, what I can say is that Our Lord walks with me everyday, it works for me, call it my confirmation bias.

That's fine, call it what you like, but please don't try to claim it is evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You do see in some theists - Alan Burns is a prime example - tremendous and obvious psychological/emotional resistance to the mere idea that god-belief can simply evaporate, since once the idea is admitted it opens up the possibility that it could happen to them too. There's a vested interest in wanting to deny that such a thing occurs. Despite the mountains of evidence that it has/can/does - personal testimonies, I mean - the phenomenon has to be rationalised (as 'twere) and explained away by other factors which leave their own theistic worldview intact.

Ah The Shaker way. Deride the idea of psychological resistance to God belief.......then when the fuss has died down...resurrect the idea for your own purposes.

Psychological resistance to God still the leitmotif of this forum though

[Shaker]

Ah The Shaker way. Deride the idea of psychological resistance to God belief.......then when the fuss has died down...resurrect the idea for your own purposes.

Psychological resistance to God still the leitmotif of this forum though

No, it isn't.

Pointing that that the god-concept lacks coherent definition let alone evidence (the former is logically prior to the latter, as I intimated to Gonners earlier) is not resistance to the god-concept; it's resistance to unclear definitions and sloppy thinking. Though I fully concede that these seem inseparable from most theism.

[Shaker]

I like the idea of the Summerlands too, Gonners.

Who wouldn't?

Then again, not everybody's tastes are the same. In The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe C. S. Lewis had the White Witch cast a spell on Narnia, turning it into a permanently snow-covered winter until the spell should be broken. Lewis seems to have conceived this as something that his readers would see as A Bad Thing, despite the fact that his young audience typically love snow as do some of us older children. Sounds great to me - when do we go?

[floo]

What is Summerlands?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it isn't.

Pointing that that the god-concept lacks coherent definition let alone evidence (the former is logically prior to the latter, as I intimated to Gonners earlier) is not resistance to the god-concept; it's resistance to unclear definitions and sloppy thinking. Though I fully concede that these seem inseparable from most theism.

Not really. Firstly we are dealing with the ineffable of ineffables in other words the failure of language to describe, God is something we feel drawn towards and repelled by with a theists having the bias tipped towards repulsion.

No matter.....such feelings of repulsion shouldn't really exist if God were really a myth like all the others there is no reaction to.

If you are not anti God I suppose that leaves you with the option of being antichristian and that could be a far more sinister thing.

[Shaker]

What is Summerlands?

It's an afterlife concept typically associated with some strands of paganism, Floo. It's often conceived of as a beautiful flower-filled meadow in summer (of the kind of which we have shamefully little left in this country, sadly).

My understanding of paganism leads me to believe that this is not necessarily always thought of as a permanent state - you don't go there and stay there for ever, but it's a temporary halt before moving on to other realms/planes of existence. What those may be depends upon the beliefs of the individual pagan, I guess. Some believe in reincarnation for instance.

(We need an actual pagan to vet this post by the way - I'm just going by what I've read some time ago. Send out for Rhiannon  ).

[Shaker]

Not really.

Yes, really.

Firstly we are dealing with the ineffable of ineffables in other words the failure of language to describe, God is something we feel drawn towards and repelled by with a theists having the bias tipped towards repulsion.

What a load of effing tripe. This is ineffability because some people say it is, remember. It's the easiest thing in the world to make up any old cobblers and then, when quizzed by sceptics as to its existence and characteristics, play the clasped hands, eyes-upward "It can't be described in words, it's a mystery too holy for comprehension" card. Well that's bloody convenient, isn't it?

No matter.....such feelings of repulsion shouldn't really exist if God were really a myth like all the others there is no reaction to.

Except that god-believers (not gods) do plenty for which repulsion is the only appropriate reaction by any normal person.

If you are not anti God I suppose that leaves you with the option of being antichristian and that could be a far more sinister thing.

Why?

[Rhiannon]

Who wouldn't?

Then again, not everybody's tastes are the same. In The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe C. S. Lewis had the White Witch cast a spell on Narnia, turning it into a permanently snow-covered winter until the spell should be broken. Lewis seems to have conceived this as something that his readers would see as A Bad Thing, despite the fact that his young audience typically love snow as do some of us older children. Sounds great to me - when do we go?

Well indeed. Especially as a lot of the action happens in a snowy forest. 

IIRC Lewis' point was that it was always winter and never Christmas - the coming of Christ as represented by the return of Aslan. I guess he took a punt on presents trumping snow in the minds of his audience.

[Enki]

Gonners,

from Post 6982:

The atheist refuses to acknowledge the God like qualities we all possess, we are more than just some kind of evolved ape/monkey, we are made in Gods image.

Obviously you mean this sincerely, Gonners, but frankly I am puzzled. What are these 'God like qualities' which I possess and which I refuse to acknowledge come from a God? And would the opposite also apply, namely that you refuse to acknowledge that these same qualities(whatever they are) do not come from a God?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, really.What a load of effing tripe. This is ineffability because some people say it is, remember. It's the easiest thing in the world to make up any old cobblers and then, when quizzed by sceptics as to its existence and characteristics, play the clasped hands, eyes-upward "It can't be described in words, it's a mystery too holy for comprehension" card. Well that's bloody convenient, isn't it?
Except that god-believers (not gods) do plenty for which repulsion is the only appropriate reaction by any normal person.Why?

It is a rare few who are repelled by Christians.

My own interpretation of Christians as a secular humanist was that Christians were always ramming Christianity down ones throat. That of course was rot. It was just part of the superstructure a secular humanist builds up to make their own ego and their own argument unassailable. As a former Secular humanist I know that to be the elephant in the room.

[ippy]

Dear ippy,

I had a quick look to find out about the said book, sorry but from the little blog below it sounds like another Dawkish tirade, if you can convince me otherwise I would be genuinely interested, the blog talks about authentic atheism, what is authentic atheism ( another A word ).

I am fascinated by a mind that says there is no God but trying to have a conversation about this is like pulling teeth, I don't need a book to tell me about the failings of religion to anyone with an IQ above ten they are abundantly clear.

Anyway I have put in bold where the blog is wrong, well according to theological historians.

Gonnagle.

I note this in an appraisal of his book, the man himself isn't prone to giving out Vladish statements as per the line about, authentic atheism, without going through his book again I can't give you the context this was used in, if in fact he did express something as authentic atheism within this book of his.

Like "Our Lord R D", he just spells things out as they are, what tirade? "Our Lord R D", shouldn't be held responsible for the fact that you don't like facing the world as it really is. (Leg pull, couldn't resist).

ippy

[Gonnagle]

Dear Shaker,

What a load of effing tripe. This is ineffability because some people say it is, remember.

I see what you did there, nearly funny, but if you could elaborate more, please, from what I know about the question, what is God, since man first stepped out of the cave he has been asking this question, Karen Armstrong talked about this in one of her books, if I remember correctly one of the tribes ( a precursor to Hinduism ) would fast and meditate and then have a discussion about what God is, the winner would be the one who silenced every other person, we do not possess the words to describe, what is God.

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

It is a rare few who are repelled by Christians.

With so much to be repelled by I don't believe this for a second.

My own interpretation of Christians as a secular humanist was that Christians were always ramming Christianity down ones throat. That of course was rot.

The last I heard Christianity was a missionary religion, a proselytising religion that actively and explicitly seeks to convert. Hence so much historical unpleasantness about individuals who didn't believe or didn't believe the right things as determined by who had the most clout.

It was just part of the superstructure a secular humanist builds up to make their own ego and their own argument unassailable. As a former Secular humanist I know that to be the elephant in the room.

An ex-secular humanist (allegedly) who even to this day still doesn't know what secularism means? Very likely.

[Shaker]

Dear Shaker,

I see what you did there, nearly funny, but if you could elaborate more, please, from what I know about the question, what is God, since man first stepped out of the cave he has been asking this question, Karen Armstrong talked about this in one of her books, if I remember correctly one of the tribes ( a precursor to Hinduism ) would fast and meditate and then have a discussion about what God is, the winner would be the one who silenced every other person, we do not possess the words to describe, what is God.

It's the greatest exercise in question-begging in human history, Gonners - decide that there's such a thing as God, and then when asked what that thing is and what it's like, say that you can't describe it or even define it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

With so much to be repelled by I don't believe this for a second.
An ex-secular humanist who even to this day still doesn't know what secularism means? Very likely.

I am referring to secular humanism here not secular. It is you who hand waves the two definitions .

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

An ex-secular humanist (allegedly) who even to this day still doesn't know what secularism means? Very likely.

That's unfair. Our Vlad doesn't understand humanism either.

[Shaker]

I am referring to secular humanism here not secular. It is you who hand waves the two definitions .

One of those definitions being one you don't even understand so I'd say your grasp of the other is inclined to be a bit shaky as well.

[Shaker]

Great minds, bluey ... 

[Gonnagle]

Dear enki,

Obviously you mean this sincerely, Gonners, but frankly I am puzzled. What are these 'God like qualities' which I possess and which I refuse to acknowledge come from a God? And would the opposite also apply, namely that you refuse to acknowledge that these same qualities(whatever they are) do not come from a God?

Art, music, poetry, this is about as near as I can describe it, when someone masters, say a guitar, it then becomes more than just, practice, practice, practice, something else takes over.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's the greatest exercise in question-begging in human history, Gonners - decide that there's such a thing as God, and then when asked what that thing is and what it's like, say that you can't describe it or even define it.

Oh and I suppose we should be shoehorning everything to fit definitions. Existence is dependent on it being linguistically defined

[Shaker]

Oh and I suppose we should be shoehorning everything to fit definitions. Existence is dependent on it being linguistically defined

To a significant degree, to the human brain, yes, since without even a minimal definition of something we can't even begin to talk about amount and quality of evidence for it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

Oh and I suppose we should be shoehorning everything to fit definitions. Existence is dependent on it being linguistically defined

If you expect anyone else to take seriously your claim of "god" as an objective fact for them too, then yes - you do need to define what you mean by it. Otherwise all you have is white noise.   

[Enki]

Dear enki,

Art, music, poetry, this is about as near as I can describe it, when someone masters, say a guitar, it then becomes more than just, practice, practice, practice, something else takes over.

Gonnagle.

All of which I see as great achievements of the human mind.  You see the hand of God in these,  I plainly do not.  If,  by this,  you suggest that I am refusing to acknowledge the influence of a God in such artistic achievements,  by the same token aren't you refusing to acknowledge the absence of God?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chunderer,

If you expect anyone else to take seriously your claim of "god" as an objective fact for them too, then yes - you do need to define what you mean by it. Otherwise all you have is white noise.

Alright then God is what they themselves define as mythical but act in their avoidance as though He is anything but.