God and the supernatural have no objective existence...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They will. They are not convinced that God or gods exist. Fits perfectly with never having sensed God.

They may never have sensed God but why do they not want God? Did you read the Nagel citation? Krauss doesn't want God because he objects to God judging him. Why is Krauss a self announced antitheist? Why isn't he an atheist who doesn't believe AND wants God. He doesn't want God because a God is oppressing him. He feels God is judging him perhaps

But that's not to say you cannot be an atheist and still emotionally want God.

And then of course there is what is happening in your subconscious. And on that topic many an atheist here has stated that your consciousness follows the subconscious and that explains how people come to realise that they had, after all, been evading God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The only arguments atheism requires are falsifications of the various arguments theists attempt to justify their claims of gods.

The only arguments a-leprechaunism requires are the falsifications of the various arguments leprechaunists attempt to justify their claims of leprechauns.

This shouldn’t be hard to understand.

But that isn't the issue. We aren't talking about believing or arguments we are talking about wanting and not wanting,
We're talking about the desire to have or the desire not to have.

[Gordon]

But that isn't the issue. We aren't talking about believing or arguments we are talking about wanting and not wanting,
We're talking about the desire to have or the desire not to have.

To want or not want something, or desire or not desire it (nice bit of tautology by the way), implies that whatever this 'something' is it can be meaningfully established so that it can indeed be acquired or can be rejected.

If not, then it may as well not exist, and there is nothing of substance to be bothered about or take seriously in the first place. 

 

[Maeght]

They may never have sensed God but why do they not want God? Did you read the Nagel citation? Krauss doesn't want God because he objects to God judging him. Why is Krauss a self announced antitheist? Why isn't he an atheist who doesn't believe AND wants God. He doesn't want God because a God is oppressing him. He feels God is judging him perhaps

But that's not to say you cannot be an atheist and still emotionally want God.

And then of course there is what is happening in your subconscious. And on that topic many an atheist here has stated that your consciousness follows the subconscious and that explains how people come to realise that they had, after all, been evading God.

I don't know as I'm not him but I know of atheists who say that the God described in the bible is not one they would want to exist - someone who judges, threatens eternal fire, is willing to wipe out civilisations, supports slavery etc etc.

No idea how the observation that the subconscious makes decisions before we are aware of them in our conscious mind leads to the idea of evading God.

[Outrider]

They may never have sensed God but why do they not want God? Did you read the Nagel citation?

They haven't sensed any gods, not just yours - as to why they don't want God, that probably is, specifically, your god. That's because it's depicted as misogynist, homophobic, jealous, genocidal, aggressive, abusive drama queen. It's predicated on an abusive relationship - I can't guarantee to speak for Krauss or Nagel, but I suspect that whilst they don't believe in any gods, when they say they don't want a god the god they don't want is the one advocated by the vocally hateful in their community.

Krauss doesn't want God because he objects to God judging him.

I'd object if I thought that god was going to get to judge me, too - but one of the reasons I'm an atheist is because that depiction of god is so nonsensical as to be not worthy of being considered a god.

Why is Krauss a self announced antitheist?

You'd have to ask him, but amongst the possibilities: religion is problematic; religious people are problematic; Christianity, particularly the vocal, aggressive, nationalist American version, are problematic to him.

Why isn't he an atheist who doesn't believe AND wants God.

Because that god is a psychopath. Because that god accepts slavery, but decries homosexuality. Because that god decries murder, but kills off the entirety of humanity. Because that god's entire nature is predicated on the notion of vicarious guilt and blood sacrifice.

He doesn't want God because a God is oppressing him.

He doesn't want that god because anyone that does want that god has issues.

He feels God is judging him perhaps

He feels that god doesn't deserve to sit in judgement on anyone.

But that's not to say you cannot be an atheist and still emotionally want God.

It's possible. It's also possible to think that you want god, when what you really want is the feeling of belonging to a community like a religious congregation.

And then of course there is what is happening in your subconscious. And on that topic many an atheist here has stated that your consciousness follows the subconscious and that explains how people come to realise that they had, after all, been evading God.

That still doesn't work. Even if you want a god, if you don't believe in it you aren't going to try to evade it.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

...

I'd object if I thought that god was going to get to judge me, too - but one of the reasons I'm an atheist is because that depiction of god is so nonsensical as to be not worthy of being considered a god.

You'd have to ask him, but amongst the possibilities: religion is problematic; religious people are problematic;
...
O.

  Thanks for explaining to me that my much missed dear sainted mother was 'problematic'. What a smug attitude to have.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To want or not want something, or desire or not desire it.

I didn’t say “not desire it”. That allows room for a “ merely the lack of desire” dodge/defence.
I said “desire not to have it”.

 I suppose you can be a theist and still desire not to have God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't know as I'm not him but I know of atheists who say that the God described in the bible is not one they would want to exist - someone who judges, threatens eternal fire, is willing to wipe out civilisations, supports slavery etc etc.

But they are not actually atheist arguments. They are bad god arguments, or i’m More moral than god arguments, or god is a cosmic spoilsport arguments in short alienation or of God is like this I don’t want him arguments.

No idea how the observation that the subconscious makes decisions before we are aware of them in our conscious mind leads to the idea of evading God.

What I am saying is the consciousness is quite often the last to know.
In my Fair Lady Professor Higgins rants about his student Eliza when he suddenly realises he has already fallen for her.

[Outrider]

Thanks for explaining to me that my much missed dear sainted mother was 'problematic'. What a smug attitude to have.

I'm suggesting those are possible reasons for Krauss and Nagel to hold those positions - I'm not advocating for them myself.

Certainly, I'm of the opinion that there are problematic religious people, who are problematic because of their religious views, but I wouldn't classify all religious people as problematic (and I'd suggest that probably few if any others do, either).

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

What I am saying is the consciousness is quite often the last to know.
In my Fair Lady Professor Higgins rants about his student Eliza when he suddenly realises he has already fallen for her.

But why would you see this in one direction only - in other words atheists coming to realise they actually do believe in god.

Nope - it most certainly cuts both ways Vlad. I know, because my journey was exactly the opposite.

I (and you Vlad, I guess) were brought up within a world where the default orthodoxy was that god existed. And so as a child and into early adulthood my assumption was the same - my conscious told me that god must exist because it was presumed/assumed by society that god existed. Actually I occasionally pushed myself into activities that tried to cement that 'orthodoxy', specifically church youth groups and other activities that were close to (but not fully) active worship.

But then I came to recognise that I try as I might to 'pretend' to believe that god existed, when I let my inner thoughts through it was clear that I did not believe in god and had never really believed in god. Which is why I describe my 'conversion' (not that it was that) as coming to recognise that I was atheist, not as becoming atheist (because I always was although for a while I tried not to let myself accept this).

So while you bang on about 'god dodging' (which is predicated on a presumption that god exists) I was most definitely 'atheism dodging' for a time in my life - and unlike god there is no doubt that atheism actually exists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But that isn't the issue.

It’s one of the issues you raised but if you want to talk about something else now that’s up to you.

We aren't talking about believing or arguments we are talking about wanting and not wanting,

For myself, I would not want it to be the case that the genocidal, petulant, vindictive, bigoted, capricious, psychopathic god portrayed in the OT is real. Why would anyone?

Incidentally, a nice line from a recent Philomena Cunk episode: “God's unforgiving nature means his believers try to stay in his good books through a form of organised grovelling called worship”.   

We're talking about the desire to have or the desire not to have.

You might be, but remember that desiring or not deserting something tells you nothing about whether it’s true.

PS I’m assuming as you keep ignoring the falsification that you now accept that empiricism doesn’t have the characteristics you claimed it to have. Fair enough.   

PPS Note too by the way that theoretically it’s possible to be a theist antitheist – ie, to think the arguments for god(s) are sound, but also to prefer god(s) not to be real, to think that religious belief does more harm than good etc. 

[Gordon]

I didn’t say “not desire it”. That allows room for a “ merely the lack of desire” dodge/defence.
I said “desire not to have it”.

In your #176 you said "We're talking about the desire to have or the desire not to have." Now I certainly 'desire' to have another Fender guitar but I do not 'desire' to have a Gibson guitar - and both are freely available to me (assuming I have the required dosh).

However, this 'God' you speak doesn't seem to be available to me at all, so the 'want/not want' or 'desire/not desire' situation you mentioned doesn't even arise.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gordon,

In your #176 you said "We're talking about the desire to have or the desire not to have." Now I certainly 'desire' to have another Fender guitar but I do not 'desire' to have a Gibson guitar - and both are freely available to me (assuming I have the required dosh).

However, this 'God' you speak doesn't seem to be available to me at all, so the 'want/not want' or 'desire/not desire' situation you mentioned doesn't even arise.

Not sure I follow this. Could not someone find all the arguments they'd seen for god(s) to be crap, but at the same time think it would be lovely if it was true? The same might be said for the Tooth Fairy for example.   

[Gordon]

Hi Gordon,

Not sure I follow this. Could not someone find all the arguments they'd seen for god(s) to be crap, but at the same time think it would be lovely if it was true? The same might be said for the Tooth Fairy for example.

Perhaps I've not been clear: to get as far as Vlad's 'want/not want' or 'desire/not desire' there must surely be some 'object' under consideration, hence my example of guitars that; a) are available, and b) I know something about their characteristics and attributes in order to come to a 'want/not want' or 'desire/not desire' position.

As far as I can there is nothing meaningful that can be said about this 'God' thing that I feel I can engage with, even though some assert that it exists and does stuff. For me though, this 'God' is in the same category as the Tooth Fairy (or indeed leprechauns).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As far as I can there is nothing meaningful that can be said about this 'God' thing that I feel I can engage with, even though some assert that it exists and does stuff. For me though, this 'God' is in the same category as the Tooth Fairy (or indeed leprechauns).

Can you say why? After all we can place a meaning on Leprechauns and Tooth fairies.

In other words, can you show that your categorisation is anything more than getting a laugh from the gallery?

[Gordon]

Can you say why? After all we can place a meaning on Leprechauns and Tooth fairies.

In other words, can you show that your categorisation is anything more than getting a laugh from the gallery?

As far as I can see they are all fictional characters that are portrayed as having magical properties: they can certainly be portrayed as such, and Gandalf is another example: but as far as I can see though there are no grounds to take any of them seriously, but of course I doubt that many do is the cases of Leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy and Gandalf - that some take 'God' seriously is a puzzler to me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Incidentally, a nice line from a recent Philomena Cunk episode: “God's unforgiving nature means his believers try to stay in his good books through a form of organised grovelling called worship”.   

Apparently the person who performs as Cunk couldn't perform one night because " She felt a little funny.
Her manager told her to "get on stage, quick, before it wore off"

[ekim]

Perhaps I've not been clear: to get as far as Vlad's 'want/not want' or 'desire/not desire' there must surely be some 'object' under consideration, hence my example of guitars that; a) are available, and b) I know something about their characteristics and attributes in order to come to a 'want/not want' or 'desire/not desire' position.

As far as I can there is nothing meaningful that can be said about this 'God' thing that I feel I can engage with, even though some assert that it exists and does stuff. For me though, this 'God' is in the same category as the Tooth Fairy (or indeed leprechauns).

I suspect that part of the problem is that the origin of the word 'God' is believed to be Proto-Indo-European .......'ghut' which meant "that which is invoked".  It is pretty vague and perhaps allows a human being to invoke what satisfies particular desires leading to many gods e.g. god of power, god of love, god of  good fortune etc, etc.  Then of course there is the need to placate such gods when things go wrong and fear is the driving force.  The 'many gods' eventually is replaced by One God with many attributes.

[Dicky Underpants]

I suspect that part of the problem is that the origin of the word 'God' is believed to be Proto-Indo-European .......'ghut' which meant "that which is invoked".  It is pretty vague and perhaps allows a human being to invoke what satisfies particular desires leading to many gods e.g. god of power, god of love, god of  good fortune etc, etc.  Then of course there is the need to placate such gods when things go wrong and fear is the driving force.  The 'many gods' eventually is replaced by One God with many attributes.

But as Vlad might say, was this merely the evolution of an idea - or the developing of insight into what was really there from the very first? (Well, of course we know that Vlad believes that this 'something' was there from the very first, and not only was it there as a Unity, but it also had the attributes of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Surprising, that.)

[Dicky Underpants]

Hi Gordon,

Not sure I follow this. Could not someone find all the arguments they'd seen for god(s) to be crap, but at the same time think it would be lovely if it was true? The same might be said for the Tooth Fairy for example.

Hi blue,

It took me a long time to realise that all the arguments for god(s) are crap, but I can certainly see that if there were the possibility of an all-loving, all-forgiving Father G, that would be really lovely. I see absolutely nothing now, either in life itself, experience or intellectual argument, that inclines me to think this is actually true.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Dicky,

It took me a long time to realise that all the arguments for god(s) are crap,…

All that we know of, but yes. One disappointment here for me is that of the theists who try to argue their position AB scatters logical fallacies like confetti, and Vlad just ignores the falsifications he’s given and repeats the same wrongheaded or dishonest reasoning over and over again. It’d be great to have someone with actual arguments to deploy – long ago there was briefly a Father Patrick who was a catholic priest I think, but sadly he dropped out quite quickly.         

…but I can certainly see that if there were the possibility of an all-loving, all-forgiving Father G, that would be really lovely.

I’m not so sure about that. Christopher Hitchens used to compare the totalitarianism of Kim Jong Un with a god who’s aware of and polices your every thought, awake and asleep and then judges you for them. The difference though was that you could escape the former (“at least you can fucking die”) whereas the latter has you for all eternity. Allegedly.   

I see absolutely nothing now, either in life itself, experience or intellectual argument, that inclines me to think this is actually true.

Me neither. 

[Dicky Underpants]

Hi Dicky,
 

I’m not so sure about that. Christopher Hitchens used to compare the totalitarianism of Kim Jong Un with a god who’s aware of and polices your every thought, awake and asleep and then judges you for them. The difference though was that you could escape the former (“at least you can fucking die”) whereas the latter has you for all eternity. Allegedly.   

Nietzsche reported a conversation about God between a mother and her little daughter:
"Is the loving Father everywhere?"
"Yes, darling."
"Well, I think it quite improper."

[Maeght]

But they are not actually atheist arguments. They are bad god arguments, or i’m More moral than god arguments, or god is a cosmic spoilsport arguments in short alienation or of God is like this I don’t want him arguments.

They aren't atheist arguments, no (in that they don't explain why people don't believe in God or gods). But you asked 'why do they not want God?' and that is what I was posting about. They are also points of argument against some of the things Christians say about their God (all loving etc). They are arguments for why people don't that God or gods exist.

[ekim]

But as Vlad might say, was this merely the evolution of an idea - or the developing of insight into what was really there from the very first? (Well, of course we know that Vlad believes that this 'something' was there from the very first, and not only was it there as a Unity, but it also had the attributes of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Surprising, that.)

I suspect that part of the problem is the language used to communicate 'inner' experiences and ideas.  It is usually the language of 'mythos' e.g. analogy, parable, fable rather than logic.  When presented to a largely illiterate society of the past it possibly took on  humanly recognised attributes.  Add to this the change into other languages over time and the lack of certainty that the translators gave an identical representation of what was being conveyed.

[Steve H]

I think people are aware of not only my observation of interest and attraction of and to God talk, namely people feel the warmth of "God things" but also the vehemence and lengths gone to reject God when at too close a proximity e.g. opting out of sufficient reason when the necessary entity is mentioned.
That goes for gate keeping behaviour as demonstrated by some keeping their flock safely in the pen.

You have excelled yourself - this is even more pretentiously gobbledegookian than usual.