"Being godless might be good for your health - study shows

[mentalgymnast]

So, yes, my door is shut on your made up, trivial flavor of God.

Man, I sure don’t look on ‘my flavor’ of God as being trivial. The creator of the heavens and the earth and all things within them which are. The source from which we sprang.

That’s BIG.

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

While the British, French and American commanders prayed for Allied victory and the German commanders prayed for victory for the German Empire, God would simply be unable to answer all the prayers in the affirmative.

That’s my point. So at that juncture, since it is impossible, you take the path of least resistance...

Are you somehow arguing that, in an evaluation of evidence, taking the path of MOST resistance and making up new, inconsistent rules to explain inconsistent facts is somehow better? Come on.

Taking your metaphor seriously, this seems like a Kerry Muehlestein trick. He said he starts with the assumption his beliefs are true, and then works with the actual information until he can somehow explain it within his assumptions, rather than seeing where the facts take him. That would indeed be the path of MOST resistance. But it most certainly is not the better path. By definition, it is a far worse strategy to take, if you are really interested in understanding this world.

[mentalgymnast]

Wrestling with evidence to try and figure out what's going on, even when you don't like where that leads you, that's what's hard.

Hey, Oh thou great and smart one, you may enjoy enjoy this series of programs. I’ve been through a bunch of them. Even for an ignoramus like me I find them quite interesting.

https://www.closertotruth.com/tv-episodes

I know I’ve mentioned them before...but nonetheless...someone might be unaware of this treasure trove.

Regards,
MG

[mentalgymnast]

[you start with the] assumption [that your] beliefs are true, and then [work]with the actual information until [you] can somehow explain it within [your] assumptions, rather than seeing where the facts take [you].

I know this fit your preferred narrative, but it isn’t true. I’ve been around the block a few times or more. Believe me, I’ve tried to explain away God many times throughout my life experience/journey. But to be honest, I can’t.

I’ve mentioned to other atheists on this board that I’m sympathetic to your worldview up to a point. I’ve been there. But I can’t find enough evidence to disprove God’s existence and I’m more of the opinion that the evidence points towards a creator/God.

And no, it’s not simply wishful thinking...although as I’ve mentioned before...I do have a predisposition towards hoping/thinking that the ‘universe’ has purpose and meaning beyond that which we can come up with on our own. Something beyond the here and now. That I will admit is an anchor, if you will, to the way I evaluate evidence, etc.

God fits in pretty well with purpose and meaning beyond the here and now.

Regards,
MG

[Meadowchik]

God fits in pretty well with purpose and meaning beyond the here and now.

Regards,
MG

What do you mean by meaning beyond the here and now? Eternity, by the way, is still always going to be a succession of "the now." If you cannot find deep meaning in this here and now, what makes you think you'll find it in many more?

[mentalgymnast]

God fits in pretty well with purpose and meaning beyond the here and now.

Regards,
MG

What do you mean by meaning beyond the here and now? Eternity, by the way, is still always going to be a succession of "the now." If you cannot find deep meaning in this here and now, what makes you think you'll find it in many more?

Beyond the point in which we die. Who has said that deep purpose and meaning cannot be found in the here and now? I think we can agree that if there is purpose and meaning after death that even now we are a part of that continuum.

Possibly even an integral part.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Wrestling with evidence to try and figure out what's going on, even when you don't like where that leads you, that's what's hard.

Hey, Oh thou great and smart one, you may enjoy enjoy this series of programs. I’ve been through a bunch of them. Even for an ignoramus like me I find them quite interesting.

https://www.closertotruth.com/tv-episodes

I know I’ve mentioned them before...but nonetheless...someone might be unaware of this treasure trove.

Regards,
MG

That’s a pretty big chip on your shoulder. Do you have some sort of inferiority complex about your own intelligence? Cuz you’re the one who keeps talking about smarts.

Smarts have nothing to do with my comments about your running argument that people who aren’t willing to give serious consideration to your construction of God are closed minded or unreasonable. They have everything to do with the fact that your argument is trivial. Anyone, me included, can imagine a God whose characteristics make this the best of all possible worlds as long as we get to define the characteristics on the fly. In the world of arguments for belief in God, it’s a non-starter.

Very smart people make very bad arguments. And not very smart people make brilliant arguments. Smart people make mistakes and and not smart people get stuff right.

If you think I’ve peed in your cornflakes by being hard on your argument, it has nothing to do with me thinking I’m smarter than you. That’s either some kind of personal hang up of yours or another BS distraction tactic.

The one thing you never do is defend the argument itself. When challenged, you fall back on terminating cliches like “we’re talking past each other” or “we’re starting from places that are too different” and then start up with the same old argument in a new thread.

Or you try to change the subject by playing the persecution card. Anything but actually defending your argument.

So, if I watch 240 hours of television, will it give me a single reason why I should seriously consider the existence of MG’s God? A God that that MG defines on the fly, giving it whatever characteristics are convenient from moment to moment. Or is there some subset of TV shows in which I can find that one reason?

[Res Ipsa]

[you start with the] assumption [that your] beliefs are true, and then [work]with the actual information until [you] can somehow explain it within [your] assumptions, rather than seeing where the facts take [you].

I know this fit your preferred narrative, but it isn’t true. I’ve been around the block a few times or more. Believe me, I’ve tried to explain away God many times throughout my life experience/journey. But to be honest, I can’t.

I’ve mentioned to other atheists on this board that I’m sympathetic to your worldview up to a point. I’ve been there. But I can’t find enough evidence to disprove God’s existence and I’m more of the opinion that the evidence points towards a creator/God.

And no, it’s not simply wishful thinking...although as I’ve mentioned before...I do have a predisposition towards hoping/thinking that the ‘universe’ has purpose and meaning beyond that which we can come up with on our own. Something beyond the here and now. That I will admit is an anchor, if you will, to the way I evaluate evidence, etc.

God fits in pretty well with purpose and meaning beyond the here and now.

Regards,
MG

The point is, you haven’t been “there.” Do you really think I’m an atheist because I sat around trying to “explain away” God? Its comments like that that leads me to conclude you know nothing about atheism or being an atheist. Even the way you describe your experience shows your assumption that God exists is your default assumption. If there is no God, there is nothing to “explain away” or “poke holes” in. You may have done some questioning of your assumption that God is real, but there is nothing in the description you wrote that indicates a willingness to seriously consider a universe without God.

It’s one thing to hope the universe has purpose and meaning, Its another to assume that’s true. All that does is lead you to where you wanted to go in the first place.

[Meadowchik]

Beyond the point in which we die. Who has said that deep purpose and meaning cannot be found in the here and now? I think we can agree that if there is purpose and meaning after death that even now we are a part of that continuum.

Possibly even an integral part.

Regards,
MG

You described the "beyond" as an anchor to your evaluation of evidence, which would imply that, at least for you, evaluating "the here and now" without a "beyond" would be anchorless.

Would you like to clarify?

[mentalgymnast]

Hey, Oh thou great and smart one, you may enjoy enjoy this series of programs. I’ve been through a bunch of them. Even for an ignoramus like me I find them quite interesting.

https://www.closertotruth.com/tv-episodes

I know I’ve mentioned them before...but nonetheless...someone might be unaware of this treasure trove.

Regards,
MG

That’s a pretty big chip on your shoulder. Do you have some sort of inferiority complex about your own intelligence? Cuz you’re the one who keeps talking about smarts.

Smarts have nothing to do with my comments about your running argument that people who aren’t willing to give serious consideration to your construction of God are closed minded or unreasonable. They have everything to do with the fact that your argument is trivial. Anyone, me included, can imagine a God whose characteristics make this the best of all possible worlds as long as we get to define the characteristics on the fly. In the world of arguments for belief in God, it’s a non-starter.

Very smart people make very bad arguments. And not very smart people make brilliant arguments. Smart people make mistakes and and not smart people get stuff right.

If you think I’ve peed in your cornflakes by being hard on your argument, it has nothing to do with me thinking I’m smarter than you. That’s either some kind of personal hang up of yours or another B.S. distraction tactic.

The one thing you never do is defend the argument itself. When challenged, you fall back on terminating cliches like “we’re talking past each other” or “we’re starting from places that are too different” and then start up with the same old argument in a new thread.

Or you try to change the subject by playing the persecution card. Anything but actually defending your argument.

So, if I watch 240 hours of television, will it give me a single reason why I should seriously consider the existence of MG’s God? A God that that MG defines on the fly, giving it whatever characteristics are convenient from moment to moment. Or is there some subset of TV shows in which I can find that one reason?

What is my definition/construction of God? Spell it out. Be specific. And if , as you say, I am redefining God ‘on the fly’, what rubs you the wrong way? Is there anything that I’ve said that goes against established doctrine of the LDS Church?

Apparently something I’m saying about God REALLY catches in your craw.

And what did I say that makes you think I have a chip on my shoulder?

Sheesh.

You’re right, I don’t know where you’re sitting...exactly. But you sure get irritated when folks are discussing God in such a way that seems to make you uncomfortable.

If there is a God, you turned away from Him a long time ago. I’d be/feel a bit uncomfortable too.

Regards,
MG