Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

The premise of the OP was, of course, that people were lying, and were 'hiding' from this god rather as The Hound of Heaven portrays. Alan Burns has often expressed his agreement with it, though then backs away when it's pointed out that it means he's saying everyone is lying.

The opening post is simply an observation that many on this board tend to seek reasons to support what they want to believe.  This may not be the best way to seek the the objective truth - but it is certainly not lying.

[Nearly Sane]

The opening post is simply an observation that many on this board tend to seek reasons to support what they want to believe.  This may not be the best way to seek the the objective truth - but it is certainly not lying.

Except that is not what it says. To quote:


'I was reading some of the threads and it is abundantly clear that people do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep from believing in him.'

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The opening post is simply an observation that many on this board tend to seek reasons to support what they want to believe.  This may not be the best way to seek the the objective truth - but it is certainly not lying.

Don't know why Sass you AB restricted herself yourself to "many". Everyone on this board tends to seek reasons to support what they want to believe when it comes to gods, as no one has come up with a way to seek the objective truth  on gods.

If the only "way" to seek if something is true is via your own head as opposed to via objective testable evidence that can be demonstrated to other people, then it can't be objective. It's subjective.

ETA: Sorry just saw NS's post so realised I was quoting AB's opinion and not Sass's opinion. 

[Enki]

The opening post is simply an observation that many on this board tend to seek reasons to support what they want to believe.  This may not be the best way to seek the the objective truth - but it is certainly not lying.

That's simply not accurate. The opening post accuses people of not seeking the truth, as NS has stated, which is far removed from the idea of seeking reasons to support a belief. On a personal level, I would far rather believe in a benevolent, caring, loving, all powerful god than an uncaring, disinterested universe. Hence would it not be far more likely for me to seek reasons to support such a belief? Indeed, a case could be made that those who believe in a god would be far more likely to seek reasons to  support their belief, surely, which I might amusingly label(and misusing Vlad's favourite phrase) as 'no God dodging'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That's simply not accurate. The opening post accuses people of not seeking the truth, as NS has stated, which is far removed from the idea of seeking reasons to support a belief. On a personal level, I would far rather believe in a benevolent, caring, loving, all powerful god than an uncaring, disinterested universe. Hence would it not be far more likely for me to seek reasons to support such a belief? Indeed, a case could be made that those who believe in a god would be far more likely to seek reasons to  support their belief, surely, which I might amusingly label(and misusing Vlad's favourite phrase) as 'no God dodging'.

Interesting. I would prefer to believe in the disinterested universe. The caring, loving god idea some Christians portray makes me feel almost a little claustrophobic. They kind of portray it as this "heavenly father" type concept and I was done being "parented" a long time ago. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The opening post is simply an observation that many on this board tend to seek reasons to support what they want to believe.

You especially. Some of us on the other hand look for methods to help distinguish the objectively true from the subjectively appealing. 

This may not be the best way to seek the the objective truth…

Confirmation bias is not the best way to obtain objective truths.

… - but it is certainly not lying.

When your multiple failures in reasoning are explained to you and you routinely ignore the explanations (and then repeat the same mistakes) that’s dishonest. Whether it's lying necessarily is debatable.

[ProfessorDavey]

The opening post is simply an observation that many on this board tend to seek reasons to support what they want to believe.

You've got this entirely the wrong way around - you don't decide what you believe and then cherry pick evidence to support a pre-judged conclusion. No, you look at the evidence and use that to determine what you believe.

This may not be the best way to seek the the objective truth - but it is certainly not lying.

Deciding what you believe first and then looking to cherry pick evidence can never lead you to objective truth.

Whether or not you are lying is another matter. There is a poster (or maybe a couple) on here who seem to think that being wrong, or genuinely mistaken, or merely expressing an opinion represents lying. I don't think it is - I think lying means knowingly telling a mistruth - in other words you need to know what you are saying is wrong (but that means that it needs to be able to be objectively demonstrated to be untrue) and say it regardless of knowing it is untrue.

[Outrider]

You've got this entirely the wrong way around - you don't decide what you believe and then cherry pick evidence to support a pre-judged conclusion. No, you look at the evidence and use that to determine what you believe.

I'm not so sure on that - if that were the case I'm not sure we'd have any believers at all, I don't see that you can get to a belief in (certainly the Christian) god from the evidence, you do it in spite of the evidence. You could argue it shouldn't be that way, but we have to deal with what we've got.

That said, I'm not sure that my own path was from the evidence to non-belief - I was not believing before I started looking into the why's and wherefores. I'm not saying that we're all like that, but I think I didn't believe for non-rational reasons, and the rational investigation has just backed that up.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, Vlad positing that people have not 'searched' and yet are deliberately 'goddodging' is a blatant contradictiom.

I think i've made myself clear. Atheists on this and other forums in my opinion are very reticent to volunteer information preferring the inquisitorial role. This tendency of course has reached it's present acme in the states in a TV freakshow called The Atheist Experience which draws fundamentalist and creationists on to be humiliated for the entertainment of viewers.
hy

Not searching for something and running away from something are aspects of the same thing, avoidance.
I have pointed out Goddodging where I have seen specific examples as well as the notion in general.

I'm sure there are people who are not believers who are not Goddodging but these are unlikely to be committed to agnosticism or antitheism or who think that the real evil is believing in God or even that it's a pretty bad thing.

People don't like the idea of being a Goddodger but I don't think I have equated it with all atheists in fact I have stated that some of the great Goddodgers of the past include Biblical heroes like Jonah, Early Church Fathers like Augustine, a self confessed God dodger, John Bunyan who thought about taking leave of God for good.

I do know people who confessed to putting off conversion because for a time the loss of atheist face and friendship was too much to contemplate.

As for Goddodgers being automatically liars. I'm sure there are liars but then there are the subconscious Goddodgers, Augustine being the example pas excellence.

The evidence is that Atheists seem quite happy to suppose that believers are avoiding the truth either deliberately or subconsciously because they have invested so much in belief not even thinking that THEY THEMSELVES could be subconsciously avoiding or in denial, that atheists are people who are immune from such things.

Then of course if people talk about going from atheism to christianity i've seen them treated to the ''well, they can't have been a proper atheist to begin with''....That's right, the ''No true scotsman'' fallacy.

Hope that clears things up for you and Hillside.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't have anything against artists. I said I don't understand arty talk.

OK I misunderstood you, sorry.

[Nearly Sane]

I think i've made myself clear. Atheists on this and other forums in my opinion are very reticent to volunteer information preferring the inquisitorial role. This tendency of course has reached it's present acme in the states in a TV freakshow called The Atheist Experience which draws fundamentalist and creationists on to be humiliated for the entertainment of viewers.
hy

Not searching for something and running away from something are aspects of the same thing, avoidance.
I have pointed out Goddodging where I have seen specific examples as well as the notion in general.

I'm sure there are people who are not believers who are not Goddodging but these are unlikely to be committed to agnosticism or antitheism or who think that the real evil is believing in God or even that it's a pretty bad thing.

People don't like the idea of being a Goddodger but I don't think I have equated it with all atheists in fact I have stated that some of the great Goddodgers of the past include Biblical heroes like Jonah, Early Church Fathers like Augustine, a self confessed God dodger, John Bunyan who thought about taking leave of God for good.

I do know people who confessed to putting off conversion because for a time the loss of atheist face and friendship was too much to contemplate.

As for Goddodgers being automatically liars. I'm sure there are liars but then there are the subconscious Goddodgers, Augustine being the example pas excellence.

The evidence is that Atheists seem quite happy to suppose that believers are avoiding the truth either deliberately or subconsciously because they have invested so much in belief not even thinking that THEY THEMSELVES could be subconsciously avoiding or in denial, that atheists are people who are immune from such things.

Then of course if people talk about going from atheism to christianity i've seen them treated to the ''well, they can't have been a proper atheist to begin with''....That's right, the ''No true scotsman'' fallacy.

Hope that clears things up for you and Hillside.

No, you suggest that people both (a) need to make an effort to find sonething, but (b) already know it exists. It's a basic logical contradiction.

[Bramble]

Interesting. I would prefer to believe in the disinterested universe. The caring, loving god idea some Christians portray makes me feel almost a little claustrophobic. They kind of portray it as this "heavenly father" type concept and I was done being "parented" a long time ago.

Me too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Bollocks! I've mentioned it often enough. So have a number of others. But does one have to go through the whole wild goose chase (as A.N. Wilson called it) just to find out it is in fact - a wild goose chase?

In order to persuade people who haven't found it a wild goose chase and those who haven't searched that it is a wild goose chase then yes

  Well maybe those that have done can be doubly certain, but they might also have spent their time better elsewhere. However, I must have been one of those who seemed 'programmed' to seek.

There is a long essay on the internet of a journey out of Christianity i've only skimmed it as a whole and read sections but it seemed to me that the person started off believing that Christianity and fundamentalist Christianity was somehow a science or some kind alternative scientific view. He became convinced by evolution. I don't think i've ever held that Christianity is an alternative science or that evolution wasn't true or that the age and size of the universe particularly supports atheism.

[Enki]

Interesting. I would prefer to believe in the disinterested universe. The caring, loving god idea some Christians portray makes me feel almost a little claustrophobic. They kind of portray it as this "heavenly father" type concept and I was done being "parented" a long time ago.

Fair enough, except that when I talked about a benevolent, caring, loving, all powerful god I wasn't thinking of the Christian God at all.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not so sure on that - if that were the case I'm not sure we'd have any believers at all, I don't see that you can get to a belief in (certainly the Christian) god from the evidence, you do it in spite of the evidence. You could argue it shouldn't be that way, but we have to deal with what we've got.

That said, I'm not sure that my own path was from the evidence to non-belief - I was not believing before I started looking into the why's and wherefores. I'm not saying that we're all like that, but I think I didn't believe for non-rational reasons, and the rational investigation has just backed that up.

O.

Agree. Having been brought up as an RC, I didn't stop believing because of reasons. Indeed I didn't stop believing at all, I just realised I didn't believe. All the reasons came after.

I think it's even weirder for people who do believe to explain their reasons, given that it's all about faith.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think i've made myself clear. Atheists on this and other forums in my opinion are very reticent to volunteer information preferring the inquisitorial role. This tendency of course has reached it's present acme in the states in a TV freakshow called The Atheist Experience which draws fundamentalist and creationists on to be humiliated for the entertainment of viewers.

A lie and a fallacy combined there.

The lie is that “atheists” here at least do provide “information” inasmuch as we typically explain to you where you’re attempts to reason your way to your beliefs fail (which you then routinely either ignore or straw man). The fallacy is that you’re shifting the burden of proof again here – it’s no more the job of atheists to provide information about their non-belief in your god than it's your job to provide information about your non-belief in leprechauns.

Not searching for something and running away from something are aspects of the same thing, avoidance.

I have pointed out Goddodging where I have seen specific examples as well as the notion in general.

Another fallacy there – begging the question. If you want to accuse someone of avoiding something (“Goddodging") you need to establish first that there’s something to avoid. Are you avoiding my faith belief “leprechauns”? Why not?

I'm sure there are people who are not believers who are not Goddodging but these are unlikely to be committed to agnosticism or antitheism or who think that the real evil is believing in God or even that it's a pretty bad thing.

More of the same fallacy.

People don't like the idea of being a Goddodger but I don't think I have equated it with all atheists in fact I have stated that some of the great Goddodgers of the past include Biblical heroes like Jonah, Early Church Fathers like Augustine, a self confessed God dodger, John Bunyan who thought about taking leave of God for good.

People “don’t like it” because it’s mindless fuckwittery for the reason that keeps being explained to you and you always ignore. Yet again: you can’t “dodge” something you’ve been given no sound reasons to think exists in the first place.

Write that down 100 times or until it finally sinks in.

I do know people who confessed to putting off conversion because for a time the loss of atheist face and friendship was too much to contemplate.

No you don’t.

As for Goddodgers being automatically liars. I'm sure there are liars but then there are the subconscious Goddodgers, Augustine being the example pas excellence.

There can’t be “Goddodgers” unless you can establish “God” in the first place. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?   

The evidence is that Atheists seem quite happy to suppose that believers are avoiding the truth either deliberately or subconsciously because they have invested so much in belief not even thinking that THEY THEMSELVES could be subconsciously avoiding or in denial, that atheists are people who are immune from such things.

In you case, that evidence seems to be well-founded.

Then of course if people talk about going from atheism to christianity i've seen them treated to the ''well, they can't have been a proper atheist to begin with''....That's right, the ''No true scotsman'' fallacy.

Would there be any point in asking you to justify this claim with an example, or can we safely assume it’s something else you’ve just made up?

Hope that clears things up for you and Hillside.

It doesn’t – it was just another dog’s dinner of fallacies, avoidance and untruths.

Same ‘ol same ‘ol…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you suggest that people both (a) need to make an effort to find sonething, but (b) already know it exists. It's a basic logical contradiction.

Can't see how that negates the need to search for some and Goddodging in others.


I'm happy to let the bible talk about searching or alternatively just discovering God in Christ.

Matthew 13:44-45 44 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.

45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. 46 When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Can't see how that negates the need to search for some…

Straw man fallacy. That’s not what he said. 

…and Goddodging in others.

Begging the question fallacy (again).

I'm happy to let the bible talk about searching or alternatively just discovering God in Christ.

Matthew 13:44-45 44 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.

45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. 46 When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.

Circular reasoning fallacy: “the Bible says god is real; God is real, therefore the Bible is true; the Bible says god is real…” and repeat endlessly.   

[Nearly Sane]

Can't see how that negates the need to search for some and Goddodging in others.


I'm happy to let the bible talk about searching or alternatively just discovering God in Christ.

Matthew 13:44-45 44 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.

45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. 46 When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.

Given you've used both as generalities, you are logically contradicting.


Btw how would you tell the difference between someone who hadn't 'searched' to your standards, and someone who was 'goddodging'?

Your quote says your 'god' hides. Why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

A lie and a fallacy combined there.

The lie is that “atheists” here at least do provide “information” inasmuch as we typically explain to you where you’re attempts to reason your way to your beliefs fail (which you then routinely either ignore or straw man). The fallacy is that you’re shifting the burden of proof again here – it’s no more the job of atheists to provide information about their non-belief in your god than it's your job to provide information about your non-belief in leprechauns.

Another fallacy there – begging the question. If you want to accuse someone of avoiding something (“Goddodging") you need to establish first that there’s something to avoid. Are you avoiding my faith belief “leprechauns”? Why not?

More of the same fallacy.

People “don’t like it” because it’s mindless fuckwittery for the reason that keeps being explained to you and you always ignore. Yet again: you can’t “dodge” something you’ve been given no sound reasons to think exists in the first place.

Write that down 100 times or until it finally sinks in.

No you don’t.

There can’t be “Goddodgers” unless you can establish “God” in the first place. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?   

In you case, that evidence seems to be well-founded.

Would there be any point in asking you to justify this claim with an example, or can we safely assume it’s something else you’ve just made up?

It doesn’t – it was just another dog’s dinner of fallacies, avoidance and untruths.

Same ‘ol same ‘ol…

If I see behaviour that indicates a person is pulling out all the stops to avoid something I can make the conclusion that they are avoiding something or the rumour of something.
A great example was with you and stranger denied that a simulated universe was basically the same as the claim of monotheistic religion.

Similarly the straw clutching that goes on everytime the necessary being is mentioned and what principles you are prepared to drop and what logic is to be bent, the claim that ignorance constitutes an argument and what terms are to be pirated and redefined to preserve atheism and the sheer effort of it and the duration of that effort i.e. years on this forum.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If I see behaviour that indicates a person is pulling out all the stops to avoid something I can make the conclusion that they are avoiding something…

What “something”?

Have you “pulled out all the stops to avoid" leprechauns?

Why not?
 

A great example was with you and stranger denied that a simulated universe was basically the same as the claim of monotheistic religion.

More lying. It’s no such thing. A simulated universe doesn’t require a magic, self-generated deity. Try to remember this.

Similarly the straw clutching that goes on everytime the necessary being is mentioned and what principles you are prepared to drop and what logic is to be bent, the claim that ignorance constitutes an argument and what terms are to be pirated and redefined to preserve atheism and the sheer effort of it and the duration of that effort i.e. years on this forum.

Your random word generator is working overtime here. You seem to be selecting your most egregious behaviours and then trying to pin them on someone who doesn’t do them at all. It’s Trumpian in its dishonesty, but what do you get from it?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given you've used both as generalities, you are logically contradicting.


Btw how would you tell the difference between someone who hadn't 'searched' to your standards, and someone who was 'goddodging'?

How do we know Boris Johnson was lying, after all we can't see inside his head.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,



Have you “pulled out all the stops to avoid" leprechauns?

I haven't spent years on a forum about leprechauns, no.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given you've used both as generalities, you are logically contradicting.

?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your quote says your 'god' hides. Why?

If you are talking about God being the hidden treasure, He is obscured by the dross of millenia, more recently the 100% secular society the blight of sin both original and personal.