The dishonesty of preaching theism

[Dontaskme]

But is God the same as unicorns are?

Insofar as the concept is known - unicorn and god is. In this unknowing known.

[henry quirk]

In the end, the most honest position a human being can take with respect to metaphysical or transcendental matters is agnosticism. Anything else is unfounded speculation (aka dishonesty).

unfounded speculation

Doesn't seem to me my speculations are unfounded.

I don't know. A lot of people seem to disagree with your speculations. That sounds like good cause to question their foundedness to me.

Which people? What are their arguments? Even better: what are my arguments, my speculations? What do I found these speculations on?

See, I think you're talkin' out yer butt, Gary. I'm thinkin' you can't accurately say what I believe and why, and I'm thinkin' you can't accurately lay out the arguments of others, or even name them.

[Gary Childress]

unfounded speculation

Doesn't seem to me my speculations are unfounded.

I don't know. A lot of people seem to disagree with your speculations. That sounds like good cause to question their foundedness to me.

Which people? What are their arguments? Even better: what are my arguments, my speculations? What do I found these speculations on?

See, I think you're talkin' out yer butt, Gary. I'm thinkin' you can't accurately say what I believe and why, and I'm thinkin' you can't accurately lay out the arguments of others, or even name them.

If you're speculating, Henry, then that means (by definition of the word) that you're forming a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. Therefore, since you are using the word speculation then your thinking isn't (by definition) founded on firm evidence. Did you perhaps wish to use a different word for your thinking?

[Age]

Belief in a god is a personal matter.

I have a suspicion that nobody really believes in God. I'm sure lots of people think they do, but at a deeper level of their psyche they know it's a fiction.

When you write and say, "they know it's a fiction", what is the word 'it' referring to exactly, and if 'it' is God, then what does the word 'God' refer to exactly, to you?

[Age]

In the end, the most honest position a human being can take with respect to metaphysical or transcendental matters is agnosticism. Anything else is unfounded speculation (aka dishonesty).

How do you KNOW 'this'?

Could you be being Dishonest with "your" 'self' here?

[Lacewing]

I have a suspicion that nobody really believes in God. I'm sure lots of people think they do, but at a deeper level of their psyche they know it's a fiction.

I've thought that at times too because of how obviously believers distort themselves and reality to make their claims. How can they not see what they do? Why would that be necessary? How is it not a charade? But maybe the fact that they CAN ignore obvious distortions so persistently, demonstrates that they DO actually believe it to such a degree that nothing else (including reason) exists, and they do not (or cannot) sense anything different at a deeper level of their psyche.

Just the opposite: everyone knows, in his bones, God is. Some folks just work damn hard to deny that knowledge (Lord knows: I did).

Nope... the concept of God cannot even be defined or demonstrated in any consistent or verifiable way. Much more identifiable is all the distortion and nonsense created by man to claim such a thing.

If there is any kind of god-like being, it is surely nothing like imagined by the small and limited minds of humans -- and is unlikely to be so uniquely hyper-focused on humans amidst all energy and life in motion and arising and falling for billions of years.

[Harbal]

Belief in a god is a personal matter.

I have a suspicion that nobody really believes in God. I'm sure lots of people think they do, but at a deeper level of their psyche they know it's a fiction.

When you write and say, "they know it's a fiction", what is the word 'it' referring to exactly, and if 'it' is God, then what does the word 'God' refer to exactly, to you?

Yes, the existence of God is the "it" that I refer to. To me, the word God refers to whatever fictitious entity people have in mind when they say they believe he exists. But, if you insist on being more specific, it would more often be any interpretation of the God of the Bible.

[Age]

I have a suspicion that nobody really believes in God. I'm sure lots of people think they do, but at a deeper level of their psyche they know it's a fiction.

When you write and say, "they know it's a fiction", what is the word 'it' referring to exactly, and if 'it' is God, then what does the word 'God' refer to exactly, to you?

Yes, the existence of God is the "it" that I refer to. To me, the word God refers to whatever fictitious entity people have in mind when they say they believe he exists.

Okay great, now on this deeper level we can see, and agree, with you that there would be NO one, at a deeper level of their psyche, would believe in the existence of a FICTITIOUS entity.

So, what you say here is 100% True, Right, and Correct, which, OBVIOUSLY, NO one could refute.

Unless, OF COURSE, some one here wants to claim that they do, ACTUALLY, believe in a FICTITIOUS entity.

Now, could you come to agree that to some people the word 'God' does NOT refer to ANY FICTITIOUS entity AT ALL but to some entity that is ACTUALLY REAL and True?

But, if you insist on being more specific, it would more often be any interpretation of the God of the Bible.

you have ALREADY been as specific as you can get here, right?

If no, then WHAT ELSE is there, to you?

you informed us that the word 'God', to you, refers to A FICTITIOUS entity. you could NOT get any more specific than this, could you?

Now, as for ANY of the multitude of DIFFERENT interpretations of the God of the bible, and ANY one was Truly INTERESTED we could delve into 'them', at a deeper level, again, that is; if ANY one was Truly INTERESTED to do so. But, as long as we KNOW what you MEAN and are REFERRING to when 'you' see or mention the word 'God' "harbal", then all is well and good. We can NOT refute your claim here.

But if ANY one else has a DIFFERENT view of the word 'God' is referring to exactly, then what they claim is true might be just AS True, AS Right, and AS Correct as what your claim is here, correct?

[Harbal]

Now, could you come to agree that to some people the word 'God' does NOT refer to ANY FICTITIOUS entity AT ALL but to some entity that is ACTUALLY REAL and True?

I agree that to some people the word "God" could refer to a non-fictitious entity. An example would be if they were referring to the system of laws that governs the universe.

But if ANY one else has a DIFFERENT view of the word 'God' is referring to exactly, then what they claim is true might be just AS True, AS Right, and AS Correct as what your claim is here, correct?

Probably so.

Just to be clear, Age, my comment was not an assertion, but merely a speculative theory.

[Age]

I have a suspicion that nobody really believes in God. I'm sure lots of people think they do, but at a deeper level of their psyche they know it's a fiction.

I've thought that at times too because of how obviously believers distort themselves and reality to make their claims.

LOL The EXACT SAME CLAIM could be made about DISBELIEVES and how they have OBVIOUSLY DISTORTED "themselves" and Reality to make their claims.

"lacewing" are 'you' even AWARE of just how ONE-SIDED and CLOSED 'you' REALLY DO come across here?

How can they not see what they do?

LOL Ask "your" 'self" this EXACT SAME QUESTION.

Why would that be necessary?

'you' are the ONE who is DISTORTED Reality, and "your" 'self', so WHY, besides for egotistical reasons do 'you' find it necessary to DISTORT 'things' here?

How is it not a charade?

WHY do 'you', "lacewing", BELIEVE that 'your' OWN one-sided view and picture of 'things' is the ONLY True and Right Correct "SIDE" and VIEW?

The REAL 'charade' is OBVIOUS. Well to some of us anyway.

But maybe the fact that they CAN ignore obvious distortions so persistently, demonstrates that they DO actually believe it to such a degree that nothing else (including reason) exists, and they do not (or cannot) sense anything different at a deeper level of their psyche.

What is that saying, oh yeah, 'This is the pot calling the kettle black'.

Just the opposite: everyone knows, in his bones, God is. Some folks just work damn hard to deny that knowledge (Lord knows: I did).

Nope... the concept of God cannot even be defined or demonstrated in any consistent or verifiable way. [/quote]

LOL

1. Yes 'it' CAN.

2. If 'it' can NOT even be defined nor demonstrated in ANY consistent or verifiable way, then HOW do 'you' KNOW and ARE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that that 'it' does NOT EXIST.

3. WHY do 'you' BELIEVE, absolutely, that A 'thing', which, to 'you', has YET to be DEFINED does NOT exist?

Much more identifiable is all the distortion and nonsense created by man to claim such a thing.

And, one of those VERY CLEAR DISTORTIONS is BELIEVING that a YET to be DEFINED 'thing' does NOT exist in ANY way, shape, NOR form.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, IS PURE DISTORTED and NONSENSICAL thinking, and BELIEVING.

If there is any kind of god-like being, it is surely nothing like imagined by the small and limited minds of humans

Does this INCLUDE 'your' OWN small and limited thinking "lacewing"?

Or, are 'you' NOT included here?

-- and is unlikely to be so uniquely hyper-focused on humans amidst all energy and life in motion and arising and falling for billions of years.

WHY would absolutely ANY one of 'you', human beings, actually even think or BELIEVE that God would be focused, let alone so-called' 'hyper-focused', on 'you', human beings?

[Age]

Now, could you come to agree that to some people the word 'God' does NOT refer to ANY FICTITIOUS entity AT ALL but to some entity that is ACTUALLY REAL and True?

I agree that to some people the word "God" could refer to a non-fictitious entity. An example would be if they were referring to the system of laws that governs the universe.

But if ANY one else has a DIFFERENT view of the word 'God' is referring to exactly, then what they claim is true might be just AS True, AS Right, and AS Correct as what your claim is here, correct?

Probably so.

Just to be clear, Age, my comment was not an assertion, but merely a speculative theory.

GREAT. So, could you also AGREE that God then ACTUALLY could EXIST, and that it just depends on WHAT DEFINITION is being provided, or more likely just being IMAGINED, for the word 'God'?

[Age]

Just to be clear, Age, my comment was not an assertion, but merely a speculative theory.

If the comment, "I have a suspicion that nobody really believes in God. I'm sure lots of people think they do, but at a deeper level of their psyche they know it's a fiction." is what you are referring to here, then I agree the word 'suspicion' implies that that comment was merely a 'speculative theory', (which to me is just a 'fancy' term what 'you' 'think is true'), but the word 'I'm sure', implies an absolute 'knowing', for sure, 'what is true', and so 'an assertion', well from my perspective anyway. And, claiming that 'at a deeper level of their psyche they KNOW it's a fiction', also, to me, implies that that was 'an assertion', or CLAIM.

But we have agreed that what 'you' 'speculatively theorize' here, or just 'think' here, we could NEVER refute anyway, and so that 'it' IS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' ANYWAY. So, you might as well made 'it' AN ASSERTION, 'you' could NEVER be Wrong here.

[Harbal]

GREAT. So, could you also AGREE that God then ACTUALLY could EXIST, and that it just depends on WHAT DEFINITION is being provided, or more likely just being IMAGINED, for the word 'God'?

I think I could agree, Age, but I would prefer to be given a specific example of a definition before committing myself to a definite yes.

I repeat, though, that my comment referred to a God of the biblical sort. The common or garden Western God.

[Harbal]

If the comment, "I have a suspicion that nobody really believes in God. I'm sure lots of people think they do, but at a deeper level of their psyche they know it's a fiction." is what you are referring to here, then I agree the word 'suspicion' implies that that comment was merely a 'speculative theory', (which to me is just a 'fancy' term what 'you' 'think is true'), but the word 'I'm sure', implies an absolute 'knowing', for sure, 'what is true', and so 'an assertion', well from my perspective anyway. And, claiming that 'at a deeper level of their psyche they KNOW it's a fiction', also, to me, implies that that was 'an assertion', or CLAIM.

But we have agreed that what 'you' 'speculatively theorize' here, or just 'think' here, we could NEVER refute anyway, and so that 'it' IS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' ANYWAY. So, you might as well made 'it' AN ASSERTION, 'you' could NEVER be Wrong here.

It isn't an assertion, because my suspicion is based on intuition alone. And I do acknowledge that I could be completely wrong. I don't know enough about human psychology to make such a suggestion with any authority, but it just seems plausible.

I suppose the comment would have been more appropriate down the pub, over a couple of pints with a few mates, rather than in a place where philosophy is practiced, but I don't go to the pub, and I don't really have any mates.

[henry quirk]

If you're speculating, Henry, then that means (by definition of the word) that you're forming a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. Therefore, since you are using the word speculation then your thinking isn't (by definition) founded on firm evidence. Did you perhaps wish to use a different word for your thinking?

I'm good with speculation, or inference, or conjecture, or supposition, or musing, or surmisment.

Belief or faith work too.

Speculating about what may be based on what is is not dishonest (though it may be erroneous).

Now, with that out of the way...

As I say: you can't accurately say what I believe and why I believe, and you can't accurately lay out the counterarguments of others, or even name those folks.