Searching for GOD...

[Walter]

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!

it would appear AB is innately incapable of distinguishing FACT from OPINION.
and as such I would suggest he is not a liar, just immensely irritating and should be avoided if you don't want to end up in sobbing frustration.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

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

Well, leaving aside Alan specifically as a generalised phenomenon people who behave this way certainly ought to - after all, how many times can 2+2≠5 be explained only for the recipient to reply 2+2=5 for his dishonesty to be wilful?

That's the dissonance issue though - in any other walk of life I suspect the logic would be understood and accepted, but when there's a separate box with an emotional belief in it (in this case, "God") something else happens such that the logic is dismissed a priori ("man-made", "limited" etc).

Is that lying? A Pathology? Something else? Dunno.   

[Nearly Sane]

Maeght,

Well, leaving aside Alan specifically as a generalised phenomenon people who behave this way certainly ought to - after all, how many times can 2+2≠5 be explained only for the recipient to reply 2+2=5 for his dishonesty to be wilful?

That's the dissonance issue though - in any other walk of life I suspect the logic would be understood and accepted, but when there's a separate box with an emotional belief in it (in this case, "God") something else happens such that the logic is dismissed a priori ("man-made", "limited" etc).

Is that lying? A Pathology? Something else? Dunno.

Surely if someone either disagrees with your explanation or cannot understand the explanation then the number of times is irrelevant?

Also I remember having very similar discussions with the much missed Leonard James on the subject of free will which he took the same position as AB but I doubt anyone would have called him a liar.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Surely if someone either disagrees with your explanation or cannot understand the explanation then the number of times is irrelevant?

What we're talking about though is someone who either ignores or misrepresents the explanation. The number of times the explanation is given is just about giving him the benefit of the doubt - "OK, he didn't get it - here's another way to explain it then". Eventually though there's nothing left but to give up in the face of relentless obduracy.

Also I remember having very similar discussions with the much missed Leonard James on the subject of free will which he took the same position as AB but I doubt anyone would have called him a liar.

Be nice to hear from Len. I don't remember him being as obdurate as AB, but what you're trying here is I believe currently known as "whataboutism".   

[floo]

LJ is certainly much missed. It is so unlike him to go without posting for so long, one can't help thinking the worst, especially as he is/was our most senior poster and into his 90s. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

What we're talking about though is someone who either ignores or misrepresents the explanation. The number of times the explanation is given is just about giving him the benefit of the doubt - "OK, he didn't get it - here's another way to explain it then". Eventually though there's nothing left but to give up in the face of relentless obduracy.

Be nice to hear from Len. I don't remember him being as obdurate as AB, but what you're trying here is I believe currently known as "whataboutism".

But i suspect to AB he ses himself in the same position as you. He sees himself as having explained it to us but we obdurately ignore his explanations and what is entirely obvious to him, which is why I think he often runs into nearly calling us all liars, or 'conscious deniers' and then backs away.

As to the point on Leonard, no it is not whataboutery, as i woukd call it, but rather that I don't know what the causes the difference in why I feel as if there is no likelihood in Leonard being called a liar for acting the same way you have described AB

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But i suspect to AB he ses himself in the same position as you. He sees himself as having explained it to us but we obdurately ignore his explanations and what is entirely obvious to him, which is why I think he often runs into nearly calling us all liars, or 'conscious deniers' and then backs away.

He might, but the qualitative difference is that one explanation rests on reason and the other on magic. If he just confined himself to, “it’s magic” then we could all pass by. What he actually does though is to try to play on reason’s turf – which is where it all goes wrong.

As to the point on Leonard, no it is not whataboutery, as i woukd call it, but rather that I don't know what the causes the difference in why I feel as if there is no likelihood in Leonard being called a liar for acting the same way you have described AB

But that’s what whataboutery entails. AB’s behaviour draws comment on it own terms. Whether someone else behaved that way and did not draw the same comment is a different conversation, perhaps about the biases of the respondents. It says nothing though about whether or not the comments about AB are reasonable.  What you’re edging toward is the charge of hypocrisy, but saying Fred was wrong to commit murder while making no comment on the fact of Harry being a murderer too does not detract from the observation that Fred was wrong to commit murder.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Incidentally, speaking of much missed friends has anyone heard from Gonnagle recently?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

He might, but the qualitative difference is that one explanation rests on reason and the other on magic. If he just confined himself to, “it’s magic” then we could all pass by. What he actually does though is to try to play on reason’s turf – which is where it all goes wrong.

But that’s what whataboutery entails. AB’s behaviour draws comment on it own terms. Whether someone else behaved that way and did not draw the same comment is a different conversation, perhaps about the biases of the respondents. It says nothing though about whether or not the comments about AB are reasonable.  What you’re edging toward is the charge of hypocrisy, but saying Fred was wrong to commit murder while making no comment on the fact of Harry being a murderer too does not detract from the observation that Fred was wrong to commit murder.

You seem to he saying that AB cannot be a similar position to you about thinking he's right about it and you are just not seeing why because you are right about it and he is just not seeing why. Now, don't get me wrong I think you are right but as Hope suggested a few times, believers think differently. AB finds a contact lens and thanks god! It's hardly surprising if he reads posts very differently.


It was precisely the biases of the respondents I was questioning. That's why I use the words 'why I feel in the post you replied to. So no whataboutery.

[floo]

Incidentally, speaking of much missed friends has anyone heard from Gonnagle recently?

He logged in a few minutes ago.

[Nearly Sane]

Incidentally, speaking of much missed friends has anyone heard from Gonnagle recently?

Posted this morning on the Indyref2 thread

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

You seem to he saying that AB cannot be a similar position to you about thinking he's right about it and you are just not seeing why because you are right about it and he is just not seeing why. Now, don't get me wrong I think you are right but as Hope suggested a few times, believers think differently. AB finds a contact lens and thanks god! It's hardly surprising if he reads posts very differently.

But the difference is in the “I”. AB says, “my belief says X’; I say, “the logic says Y”. You could argue in reply that accepting the logic is itself an example of belief, but that would be a different type of conversation.

It was precisely the biases of the respondents I was questioning. That's why I use the words 'why I feel in the post you replied to. So no whataboutery.

Yes I know you were, but again that’s what whataboutery means. The biases of the respondents may or may not be an interesting conversation in its own right, but they say nothing to the appropriateness or otherwise of the comments about AB’s behaviour. 

Anyways, have to be away for the next 24 hours so I wish you all well.

PS Thanks for the updates re Gonners - good to hear.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Still here old chum, just been a bit busy out in the real world

Gonnagle.

[floo]

Dear Blue,

Still here old chum, just been a bit busy out in the real world

Gonnagle.

Good you haven't turned up your toes and are still around to plague enchant us.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But the difference is in the “I”. AB says, “my belief says X’; I say, “the logic says Y”. You could argue in reply that accepting the logic is itself an example of belief, but that would be a different type of conversation.

Yes I know you were, but again that’s what whataboutery means. The biases of the respondents may or may not be an interesting conversation in its own right, but they say nothing to the appropriateness or otherwise of the comments about AB’s behaviour. 

Anyways, have to be away for the next 24 hours so I wish you all well.

PS Thanks for the updates re Gonners - good to hear.

See my post on the dying board thread about the issue of talking past each other. At base logic to AB will be wrong or wrongly formulated if it doesn't match  belief because that is primary.

And again it isn't whataboutery because it us the bias if the respondents, or rather me, that I am talking about. I haven't said that it does reflect on the appropriateness of comments on AB's position.

[floo]

For what it is worth I think AB really believes what he is saying is true, because his own experience of life supports it. What he fails to take on board is the fact that others, who have had different experiences, see it very differently to him.

[Maeght]

For what it is worth I think AB really believes what he is saying is true, because his own experience of life supports it. What he fails to take on board is the fact that others, who have had different experiences, see it very differently to him.

So not lying then. That is the only point I am making.

[Maeght]

Maeght,

Well, leaving aside Alan specifically

No, lets not, since I am addressing the accusation that Alan is lying.

.....as a generalised phenomenon people who behave this way certainly ought to - after all, how many times can 2+2≠5 be explained only for the recipient to reply 2+2=5 for his dishonesty to be wilful?

2+2=5 is far too simple a comparison though isn't it.

That's the dissonance issue though - in any other walk of life I suspect the logic would be understood and accepted, but when there's a separate box with an emotional belief in it (in this case, "God") something else happens such that the logic is dismissed a priori ("man-made", "limited" etc).

Is that lying? A Pathology? Something else? Dunno.

Not lying in my view, which is my only point here.

[wigginhall]

It's an interesting issue, which brings up the vexed question of compulsive liars, some of whom don't believe they are lying.  I think various branches of psychology have struggled with this, and have produced various ugly terms such as 'disavowal' and 'scotomization' (blind spot), to describe it.  They basically mean blanking out a part of reality.  For example, you can get someone who regularly steals stuff and doesn't think that they do.   Of course, some of them probably do know this, and deny this, but I think there are people who genuinely don't think that they did what they did.

I suspect that we have no words to describe someone who systematically misrepresents, moves goalposts, self-contradicts, and so on, and doesn't appear to see anything wrong. 

[Nearly Sane]

Thanks for that post, wigginhall, it's heloed me work out why i never felt that Leonard was lying. It's not the persistence of view despite explaining, it' s the surrounding behaviour. Even when Leonard resorts to it's just my experience, he does it while engaging with the post he is replying to, and not by misrpresenting people.

I know that Alan B has been virtual friends with Leonard over the years, it might be useful for him to read Leonard's posts (whom we all miss)

[floo]

Whilst I will never see it AB's way in a billion years, I think he is one of the theists on this forum who seems like a decent person. From his perspective he is telling the truth the way he sees it.

[ekim]

Not lying in my view, which is my only point here.

I wouldn't say that he is lying.  One explanation could be that his belief arises from embedded suggestion which is quite prevalent in some religions.  It has a resemblance to stage hypnosis where a volunteer can see situations which the audience can see as being untrue.  The volunteer is not lying, he just sees things that he is conditioned to see and it is beyond the reach of intellectual reasoning.

[Dicky Underpants]

That's the dissonance issue though - in any other walk of life I suspect the logic would be understood and accepted, but when there's a separate box with an emotional belief in it (in this case, "God") something else happens such that the logic is dismissed a priori ("man-made", "limited" etc).

Is that lying? A Pathology? Something else? Dunno.

Hi blue

The cognitive dissonance aspect is surely supremely important, and I wonder if there is actually a quantative difference in the 'amount' of emotional investment of believers in the particular belief system to which they have devoted most of their lives, from the amount of such investment that non-believers have? The point is that non-believers may be intensely headstrong, utterly convinced that they have analysed the questions down to the ultimates, but if they are utterly convinced that their conclusions are correct, then they have only this life in which the ramifications of their life-philosophy will play out. Whereas the believer seems to be playing for higher stakes - his/her eternal destiny.
There's an interesting anecdote from the life of the distinguished positivist philosopher Freddy Ayer, who apparently had a 'near-death' experience late in life. He was apparently quite phlegmatic about the obvious challenge this brought to the whole corpus of his lifelong thought, saying something on the lines of "I suppose I'll have to re-think things now". I somehow doubt that he went to his death believing in the real existence of the 'spiritual world' since he must have known that there are other ways of accounting for such dramatic experiences. Anyone know if Sir Freddy went to his death as a believer?

[Nearly Sane]

DU

This covers Ayer's experience in some detail

http://www.philosopher.eu/others-writings/a-j-ayer-what-i-saw-when-i-was-dead/

[ippy]

I wouldn't say that he is lying.  One explanation could be that his belief arises from embedded suggestion which is quite prevalent in some religions.  It has a resemblance to stage hypnosis where a volunteer can see situations which the audience can see as being untrue.  The volunteer is not lying, he just sees things that he is conditioned to see and it is beyond the reach of intellectual reasoning.

More or less as my last post, I didn't mention this hypnosis point at the time, I almost did say about this particular effect it can have, as per hypnotists doing a stage show; you've got a good point about this ekim.

ippy