Searching for GOD...

[Steve H]

If you start from a position of 'wanting to believe', then you are merely indulging your confirmation bias, not being a true student of life.

Of course, no atheist ever indulged in confirmation bias...

[Stranger]

Which bit of modern physics should he be updating to.

Well, in the very tedious lecture I watched he took about 30 minutes to basically say "there must be a reason for the laws of physics". Instead of just saying that, he went on and on, and on and on, about things that are well understood but using the language of the classical arguments (potentials, actualisations, and so on).

[Anchorman]

Reading this thread reminds me of attending a presbytery theology symposium.....not, I hasten to add, that I had a lot of choice in the matter, but I'd managed, quite successfully, to avoid them for several years.
The convener opened with prayer thus...
"let's ask God's blessing on this debate....but I think He'd rather be round at the bar with the rest of of those professing sanity."

[Gonnagle]

Of course, no atheist ever indulged in confirmation bias...

Dear H,

Thank you kind Sir, you may remember a wonderful thread started by one of the more, well lets say intelligent poster on here which was all about Critical thinking, anyway Confirmation bias, a very human trait, but then, we ask ourselves, a question that has vexed mankind throughout the ages, are Atheists human ?

Gonzo, not Gonnagle, Gonzo, or Gonzo the Great

[Nearly Sane]

Dear H,

Thank you kind Sir, you may remember a wonderful thread started by one of the more, well lets say intelligent poster on here which was all about Critical thinking, anyway Confirmation bias, a very human trait, but then, we ask ourselves, a question that has vexed mankind throughout the ages, are Atheists human ?

Gonzo, not Gonnagle, Gonzo, or Gonzo the Great

This sort of 'othering' is tedious no matter who does it, or how.  Steve's reply was a strawman since torridon's post made no claim, and nothing approaching a claim, thar atheists were not subject to confirmation bias. You have then run with the strawman, and added in a bit of dehumanising. It's not a good look.

[Gonnagle]

This sort of 'othering' is tedious no matter who does it, or how.  Steve's reply was a strawman since torridon's post made no claim, and nothing approaching a claim, thar atheists were not subject to confirmation bias. You have then run with the strawman, and added in a bit of dehumanising. It's not a good look.

Dear Sane,

Tedious, oh dear I do apologise!

Othering is the process of creating a distinction between an in-group and an out-group by emphasizing differences, leading to the stigmatization of the out-group based on stereotypes and hierarchies, ultimately reinforcing the identity of the in-group.

I did all that, O.M.G.A, dae me a favour bigman away and wipe yer eyes.

Gonzo.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Tedious, oh dear I do apologise!

Othering is the process of creating a distinction between an in-group and an out-group by emphasizing differences, leading to the stigmatization of the out-group based on stereotypes and hierarchies, ultimately reinforcing the identity of the in-group.

I did all that, O.M.G.A, dae me a favour bigman away and wipe yer eyes.

Gonzo.

So the it's just a joke excuse.

[Enki]

Dear H,

Thank you kind Sir, you may remember a wonderful thread started by one of the more, well lets say intelligent poster on here which was all about Critical thinking, anyway Confirmation bias, a very human trait, but then, we ask ourselves, a question that has vexed mankind throughout the ages, are Atheists human ?

Gonzo, not Gonnagle, Gonzo, or Gonzo the Great

To follow on what NS has said, I also noted Steve's response to Torridon sarcastically suggesting that 'no atheist ever indulged in confirmation bias'. As I had previously read Torridon's post which was in response to Sassy suggesting that searching for God starts with 'wanting to believe', I simply recognised that Steve had got the wrong end of the stick entirely because Sassy's post illustrated the very epitome of confirmation bias. Also, as NS has rightly said, Torridon made no claim at all about being free from confirmation bias. For my own part, I am aware that confirmation bias is a very human trait and I certainly am not free from it. However, I try to be aware of it, and that is where critical thinking helps, I suggest.

However, Gonzo(as you preferred to be called), my advice is to be just a little more careful with your tongue in cheek asides, as they can be taken in a much more awkward vein. If you are going to ask(no doubt in your cajoling, rather flippant way) whether atheists are human, could one ask the same about Christians, members of the LGBTQ community or even Jews? I sincerely hope not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To follow on what NS has said, I also noted Steve's response to Torridon sarcastically suggesting that 'no atheist ever indulged in confirmation bias'. As I had previously read Torridon's post which was in response to Sassy suggesting that searching for God starts with 'wanting to believe', I simply recognised that Steve had got the wrong end of the stick entirely because Sassy's post illustrated the very epitome of confirmation bias. Also, as NS has rightly said, Torridon made no claim at all about being free from confirmation bias. For my own part, I am aware that confirmation bias is a very human trait and I certainly am not free from it. However, I try to be aware of it, and that is where critical thinking helps, I suggest.

However, Gonzo(as you preferred to be called), my advice is to be just a little more careful with your tongue in cheek asides, as they can be taken in a much more awkward vein. If you are going to ask(no doubt in your cajoling, rather flippant way) whether atheists are human, could one ask the same about Christians, members of the LGBTQ community or even Jews? I sincerely hope not.

How do you propose critical thinking helps the atheist keep above confirmation bias when unbelief stops them from even attempting any communication with a God who they think might possibly exist?

[Nearly Sane]

How do you propose critical thinking helps the atheist keep above confirmation bias when unbelief stops them from even attempting any communication with a God who they think might possibly exist?

Lazy generalisation via strawman. That isn't what Enki said.

[Gonnagle]

How do you propose critical thinking helps the atheist keep above confirmation bias when unbelief stops them from even attempting any communication with a God who they think might possibly exist?

Dear Vlad,

You spoiled it I was waiting for the in group or is it the out group to muster their troops, but now I am wondering, am I in the out group or in group.

But being perfectly serious for a moment, I have seen this happen to your good self, you make a innocent comment, maybe slightly tongue in cheek and all of a sudden you are a goose stepping Nazi, I think they call it strawman.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

How do you propose critical thinking helps the atheist keep above confirmation bias when unbelief stops them from even attempting any communication with a God who they think might possibly exist?

Why try to commutate with something that (even if it does exist) is clearly not at all interested in making itself apparent, and, in any case, would (based on the world it supposedly made) be a nasty, sadistic, cruel monster? 

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Vlad,

You spoiled it I was waiting for the in group or is it the out group to muster their troops, but now I am wondering, am I in the out group or in group.

But being perfectly serious for a moment, I have seen this happen to your good self, you make a innocent comment, maybe slightly tongue in cheek and all of a sudden you are a goose stepping Nazi, I think they call it strawman.

Gonnagle.

Where? If you are going to throw about accusations, and imply a general behaviour, evidence it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lazy generalisation via strawman. That isn't what Enki said.

No it is a perfectly legitimate enquiry about a specific example.

[Nearly Sane]

No it is a perfectly legitimate enquiry about a specific example.

Drivel. By using the term 'the atheist' you made a generalisation. You then used a made uo example which had nothing to do with what Enki had said.

[Enki]

How do you propose critical thinking helps the atheist keep above confirmation bias when unbelief stops them from even attempting any communication with a God who they think might possibly exist?

Well, basically critical thinking needs an objective disciplined approach in order to evaluate information.

Secondly such a God would presumably make itself obvious to someone with such an approach. If not, why not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Drivel. By using the term 'the atheist' you made a generalisation. You then used a made uo example which had nothing to do with what Enki had said.

Arse gravy. I am the man who wants to know, You are 'The atheist' who responded to my post, There is on this board 'The atheist who finds critical thinking keeps him above confirmation bias yet also will claim he cannot or should not attempt communication with God on the grounds of his unbelief.
I want to know how critical thinking seems to allow him to proceed from his position when his atheism does not.

Please stop patronising people and let Enki make case for himself if he wishes.

[Nearly Sane]

Arse gravy. I am the man who wants to know, You are 'The atheist' who responded to my post, There is on this board 'The atheist who finds critical thinking keeps him above confirmation bias yet also will claim he cannot or should not attempt communication with God on the grounds of his unbelief.
I want to know how critical thinking seems to allow him to proceed from his position when his atheism does not.

Please stop patronising people and let Enki make case for himself if he wishes.

But that's just illustrates that it is a generalisation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, basically critical thinking needs an objective disciplined approach in order to evaluate information.

Secondly such a God would presumably make itself obvious to someone with such an approach. If not, why not?

I was talking about those who will not or cannot make any attempt not those that do.
That would include those who do it with fingers crossed.
In response to your question we have to put those who do find God against those who don't.

[Enki]

I was talking about those who will not or cannot make any attempt not those that do.

Then they are not taking advantage of critical thinking.

That would include those who do it with fingers crossed.

In which case, such a person is simply subject to their fears and hopes, rather than analysing something objectively.

In response to your question we have to put those who do find God against those who don't.

That might be a response, but it is no answer at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then they are not taking advantage of critical thinking.

In which case, such a person is simply subject to their fears and hopes, rather than analysing something objectively.

That might be a response, but it is no answer at all.

No? What you seem to  be saying though is you tried and failed so your point of view is justified. But what about those who tried and succeeded.
We can look at this critically. One or the other is wrong.
It depends on what principles we use from this point

[Dicky Underpants]

No? What you seem to  be saying though is you tried and failed so your point of view is justified. But what about those who tried and succeeded.
We can look at this critically. One or the other is wrong.
It depends on what principles we use from this point

And perhaps those who 'succeeded' found the Devil 'who is always transforming himself into an angel of light'.
I'm thankful that I've managed to get beyond such nonsense. You seem to think that if you could only get those damned atheists to concede there is a necessary being, your task is achieved.
As Steve recently implied, the real spadework begins after that, and you can never be sure you're not following a pig in a poke.
Sufficient unto this day the shit thereof, and no amount of 'theodicy' has been able to account for all the shit of millennia.

[Enki]

No?

No, to what?

What you seem to  be saying though is you tried and failed so your point of view is justified.

I always try to use critical thinking, not tried in the past tense. I fail to see any evidence that would enable me to believe in any god, not failed in the past tense.

But what about those who tried and succeeded.
We can look at this critically. One or the other is wrong
It depends on what principles we use from this point

What about them? There's nothing about critical thinking that suggests that one has to come to only one conclusion or even a conclusion at all. it's simply a method by which judgments are scrutinised and questioned. So, for me, I do not reject the idea of a god, but I do not find evidence that one actually exists. Hence. I see no reason to believe in one. Critical thinking involves considering various viewpoints, and each perspective might lead to a different, but reasonable, conclusion.

Incidentally, I assume you are unable to answer my question as to why such a God shouldn't make itself obvious to someone with such an approach. And if not, why not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, to what?

I always try to use critical thinking, not tried in the past tense. I fail to see any evidence that would enable me to believe in any god, not failed in the past tense.

What about them? There's nothing about critical thinking that suggests that one has to come to only one conclusion or even a conclusion at all. it's simply a method by which judgments are scrutinised and questioned. So, for me, I do not reject the idea of a god, but I do not find evidence that one actually exists. Hence. I see no reason to believe in one. Critical thinking involves considering various viewpoints, and each perspective might lead to a different, but reasonable, conclusion.

Incidentally, I assume you are unable to answer my question as to why such a God shouldn't make itself obvious to someone with such an approach. And if not, why not?

I think that one mans critical thinking is another mans scientism, no matter what one pleads.
Why is God invisible in the physical sense? Observation we are told affects the observed God is unchanging and is not observed. One might also ponder what something that is everywhere at anytime looks like to our eyes.

So much for physicality. But there are other ways of seeing....and avoiding seeing. That is the purpose of philosophy and conscience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And perhaps those who 'succeeded' found the Devil 'who is always transforming himself into an angel of light'.

You seem to think that if you could only get those damned atheists to concede there is a necessary being, your task is achieved.[/quote]No I have said that even mere intellectual assent does not a Christian make

Sufficient unto this day the shit thereof, and no amount of 'theodicy' has been able to account for all the shit of millennia.

You have the air of a man who complains about the shit around him, yet fails to check his own underpants.