Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

I hope and pray that one day you will all be set free

It could also be said that there are people who do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep them believing in him.   So is this the end of the marathon?   Perhaps Alan will take comfort in Matt 13 (3-8) but should certainly question whether the seeds he is attempting to sow are sterile to begin with and his antagonists should realise that religious belief is not necessarily solely based upon an assessment of probability, logic or rationality.

I don't think that. I doubt anyone arguing with AB does think that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

It could also be said that there are people who do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep them believing in him.   So is this the end of the marathon?   Perhaps Alan will take comfort in Matt 13 (3-8) but should certainly question whether the seeds he is attempting to sow are sterile to begin with and his antagonists should realise that religious belief is not necessarily solely based upon an assessment of probability, logic or rationality.

It's not that "religious belief is not necessarily solely based upon an assessment of probability, logic or rationality" so much as it's not based on these things at all. Which is fine for those who find their personal beliefs to be helpful, but if not for probability, logic or rationality on what basis would they expect anyone else to take their claims seriously?

[wigginhall]

I hope and pray that one day you will all be set free

It could also be said that there are people who do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep them believing in him.   So is this the end of the marathon?   Perhaps Alan will take comfort in Matt 13 (3-8) but should certainly question whether the seeds he is attempting to sow are sterile to begin with and his antagonists should realise that religious belief is not necessarily solely based upon an assessment of probability, logic or rationality.

I feel relaxed now, that AB is probably a compulsive liar, and in a sense, is not responsible for what he says.   I am assuming that he doesn't believe he is lying, I mean.   I suppose this fits with his beliefs, since they don't get any rational support, but he pretends that they do. 

[floo]

All those who state their belief is factual, are being economical with the actuality as there is no evidence to support it.

[Nearly Sane]

All those who state their belief is factual, are being economical with the actuality as there is no evidence to support it.

No, people who say that are not necessarily lying

[floo]

No, people who say that are not necessarily lying

The truth is that it cannot be stated as FACT without evidence to support it, of which there is none.

[Nearly Sane]

The truth is that it cannot be stated as FACT without evidence to support it, of which there is none.

That depends on what they think is evidence. It is simply incorrect to state that all theists are lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, people who say that are not necessarily lying

Are "economical with the actuality" and "necessarily lying" synonymous?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Are "economical with the actuality" and "necessarily lying" synonymous?

Can't see any meaning based on the origin of the phrase and Floo's usage where they are not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Can't see any meaning based on the origin of the phrase and Floo's usage where they are not.

I guess it goes to intent. If you omit important facts because you're not aware of them and draw your conclusion accordingly, that doesn't seem to me to be lying. Conversely though if it's done deliberately - quote mining for example - then the intent is to deceive so it is lying.

AB's problem is that he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt when he did the former, but not when he's had his fallacies explained many times but repeats them nonetheless to support his position. My sense though is that he (and others like him) would be affronted at the charge of lying - he/they just don't see their behaviour in those terms. 

It's all a bit rum when viewed from the outside, but when he denies lying I think he really believes that to be a true statement.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I guess it goes to intent. If you omit important facts because you're not aware of them and draw your conclusion accordingly, that doesn't seem to me to be lying. Conversely though if it's done deliberately - quote mining for example - then the intent is to deceive so it is lying.

AB's problem is that he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt when he did the former, but not when he's had his fallacies explained many times but repeats them nonetheless to support his position. My sense though is that he (and others like him) would be affronted at the charge of lying - he/they just don't see their behaviour in those terms. 

It's all a bit rum when viewed from the outside, but when he denies lying I think he really believes that to be a true statement.

Not sure why AB's specific case is relevant to Floo's blanket statement. I can't see how economic with the actuality can be read as anything ovtger than an intentional act.

[floo]

Don't worry your head about it, love!

[ekim]

ekim,

It's not that "religious belief is not necessarily solely based upon an assessment of probability, logic or rationality" so much as it's not based on these things at all. Which is fine for those who find their personal beliefs to be helpful, but if not for probability, logic or rationality on what basis would they expect anyone else to take their claims seriously?

It probably depends upon what they claim.  If the claim is just based upon second hand information gleaned from scripture and declared as true then it deserves intellectual assessment by those interested enough.  If the claim is based upon a personal epiphany, revelation or realisation then the claimant should be in a position to provide a method by which another person could experience the same.  Organised religions tend towards the former kind of claim and persuasion tends to be the method, and mystics the latter, where forms of meditation or contemplation are the method.  Sometimes, however, there are claimants of the latter who try to retrofit the experience to ancient scriptural concepts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

It probably depends upon what they claim.  If the claim is just based upon second hand information gleaned from scripture and declared as true then it deserves intellectual assessment by those interested enough.

Well, inasmuch as scripture makes claims of factual truth about, say, a resurrection unless Jesus’ skeleton turns up the intellectual assessment can only be probabilistic – does the story fit with the way the world is understood to work, are there other and more plausible explanations? etc.

If the claim is based upon a personal epiphany, revelation or realisation then the claimant should be in a position to provide a method by which another person could experience the same.  Organised religions tend towards the former kind of claim and persuasion tends to be the method, and mystics the latter, where forms of meditation or contemplation are the method.  Sometimes, however, there are claimants of the latter who try to retrofit the experience to ancient scriptural concepts.

Yes, but “personal epiphany, revelation, realisation” etc are subjectively experiential. Many people have had many such experiences over the millennia – the problem though comes when they try to attribute cause: God, Allah, Ra, Zeus, whatever. There are lots of methods to achieve a state of transcendence, but none of them provide a method to establish their cause to be externally generated. Alan Burns for example feels all warm and snug when he thinks about his god belief, but on its own that tells him nothing whatever about whether there actually is a god rather then just a belief in a god. 

[Maeght]

Just wanted to say I don't think Alan is lying at all. He genuinely believes what he says to be true. He does occasionally misrepresent other posters views but this is just as likely to be due to a genuine misunderstanding than anything else.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Just wanted to say I don't think Alan is lying at all. He genuinely believes what he says to be true. He does occasionally misrepresent other posters views but this is just as likely to be due to a genuine misunderstanding than anything else.

But that's the problem! By any common standard, AB lies pretty much continually. By his own standard though, he's doing no such thing. The dissonance comes when someone else attempts to use one of his many fallacies to support a conjecture of their own - leprechauns for example.

So far as I can tell he has at least some grasp of why the appeal to consequences, the reification fallacy etc are wrong yet he can't help but attempt them himself when arguing for "God", and when their wrongness is pointed out he dismisses the logic as "man-made". It's as if he understands that a bad argument is a bad argument when made for a conjecture in which he does not believe, but by some magic process it becomes a good argument when used to support a conjecture in which he does believe.

It's very odd.   

[ekim]

ekim,

Well, inasmuch as scripture makes claims of factual truth about, say, a resurrection unless Jesus’ skeleton turns up the intellectual assessment can only be probabilistic – does the story fit with the way the world is understood to work, are there other and more plausible explanations? etc.

Yes, but “personal epiphany, revelation, realisation” etc are subjectively experiential. Many people have had many such experiences over the millennia – the problem though comes when they try to attribute cause: God, Allah, Ra, Zeus, whatever. There are lots of methods to achieve a state of transcendence, but none of them provide a method to establish their cause to be externally generated. Alan Burns for example feels all warm and snug when he thinks about his god belief, but on its own that tells him nothing whatever about whether there actually is a god rather then just a belief in a god.

Yes, you are more or less saying the same as me.  I would add that until the word 'God' has an agreed definition each person will be carrying out a discussion based on their own vague subjective ideas.  When the two main Hebrew names translated as 'God' are looked at, they are extremely vague.

[Maeght]

Maeght,

But that's the problem! By any common standard, AB lies pretty much continually. By his own standard though, he's doing no such thing. The dissonance comes when someone else attempts to use one of his many fallacies to support a conjecture of their own - leprechauns for example.

So far as I can tell he has at least some grasp of why the appeal to consequences, the reification fallacy etc are wrong yet he can't help but attempt them himself when arguing for "God", and when their wrongness is pointed out he dismisses the logic as "man-made". It's as if he understands that a bad argument is a bad argument when made for a conjecture in which he does not believe, but by some magic process it becomes a good argument when used to support a conjecture in which he does believe.

It's very odd.

He is only lying if he knows what he is saying is false, but he doesn't.

[floo]

Many humans want to believe some entity exists outside the confines of time and space. The term 'god' covers a lot of belief systems some weirder than others. As there is no evidence that any such entity exists, it is up to the human imagination to create its many personas to suit their particular take on life.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

He is only lying if he knows what he is saying is false, but he doesn't.

If you assert that 2+2=5, someone corrects you on it and you just repeat that 2+2=5, and the same thing happens repeatedly at what point do you know that you're lying?

[ippy]

Virtually everything in psycology works on average figures/percentages, there will allways be some of us that are more suscepptible to indoctrination than others, I would think if someone has been fully indoctrinated with one set of ides or another, the victim, wouldn't be aware of just how thoroughly indoctrinated they really are, they would be oblivious of the fact.

I think A B has at some stage in his life been thouroughly, well and truly indoctrinated, to a point where he is unable to take on any reasoning where his indoctrinated god figure is concerned, so technically he is lying but somehow not as a deliberate act, very much as smokers give themselves convoluted wriggling excuses to excuse themselves in their own mind for the irrational continuance of smoking, in other words, he is suffering from full blown cognative dissonence where this god figure of his is concerned.

ippy

[Maeght]

Maeght,

If you assert that 2+2=5, someone corrects you on it and you just repeat that 2+2=5, and the same thing happens repeatedly at what point do you know that you're lying?

When you know that what you are saying is untrue. Does Alan think that do you feel?

[floo]

Maeght,

If you assert that 2+2=5, someone corrects you on it and you just repeat that 2+2=5, and the same thing happens repeatedly at what point do you know that you're lying?

A good comment. It is so good I have nicked it and will use it on another forum on which I post, replying to a man who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the bottom!

[Maeght]

A good comment. It is so good I have nicked it and will use it on another forum on which I post, replying to a man who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the bottom!

So do you think that Alan knows what he is saying is untrue?

[jjohnjil]

Alan, just like all very religious folk, believes that any argument against The Word is actually the Devil doing his dirty work.  He therefore dismisses all arguments because he has to defend his Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.  So to him it isn’t lying, it is simply being ‘Defender of the Faith’.