Did Laidlaw, Broun, Stoppard, Chesterton...?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[bIf I was a non-theist an emptiness and uncertainty would pervade my being day and night. [/b]

This is your big mistake.

Atheists do not have those feelings, they are not looking for a fix for
those things. You are just describing why you need a god - you cannot
load others with your baggage!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
This is your big mistake.

Atheists do not have those feelings, they are not looking for a fix for
those things. You are just describing why you need a god - you cannot
load others with your baggage!

On what authority to you presume to speak for "Atheists" in the collective?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Did Laidlaw, Broun, Stoppard, Chesterton and Goethe get it wrong?

1) "God exists whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. The reason why many people do not believe in God is not so much that it is intellectually impossible to believe in God, but because belief in God forces that thoughtful person to face the fact that he is accountable ...[text shortened]... hen a man finally decides that he is not God." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe) Your thoughtful replies?[/b]

Here would be my first impressions.

1) "God exists whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. The reason why many people do not believe in God is not so much that it is intellectually impossible to believe in God, but because belief in God forces that thoughtful person to face the fact that he is accountable to such a God." -Robert A. Laidlaw

The first statement here is just question-begging with respect to the inquiry of God's existence. Beyond that, there is notional confusion here, since it is generally not the case that a person "chooses" what to believe on this theoretical question. Finally, the reason Laidlaw gives for why many do not believe is quite implausible; much more plausible is just that many do not believe in God because of lack of what they take to be supporting evidence for such belief. Laidlaw advances nothing of interest here. One may as well just say the following with equal non-effect:
"God does not exist whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. The reason why many people do believe in God is not so much that there is evidence to that effect, but because belief in God gives the promise of eschatological reward...

These are examples where one claims (1) that belief here is a choice-based affair and (2) whoever is on the opposite side from the claimist chooses as they do based on motivations that are egoistic. Problem is, (1) generally is false and thus (2) carries no force as well. Not only does this argument unfairly portray the opposite side, it sort of backfires on the claimist as well, since the truth of (1) would imply that his own position is also choice-based (rather than evidentially based) as well. Laidlaw could rebut here that, no, the evidence is clear that God exists and that some just try to wish that away because they don't want to be accountable. But, then, he is more or less contradicting himself on the point of whether or not belief is choice-based.

2) "Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God." -Heywood Broun

This is just a claim that could be vetted through empirical study.

3) "Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God." -Tom Stoppard

This, again, is just question-begging with respect to the inquiry of God's existence. This appears to be in the same vein as the Laidlaw quote, and so I would think the same sort of objections I gave there would apply here as well.

4) "If there were no God, there would be no Atheists." -G. K. Chesterton

This claim is false. "WTF?" would be an appropriate response here.

5) "The greatest act of faith takes place when a man finally decides that he is not God." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

I don't know what this one is trying to say. I don't understand the actual content of the claim.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
On what authority to you presume to speak for "Atheists" in the collective?

No authority. Just experience and common-sense.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
No authority. Just experience and common-sense.

Thank you.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Here would be my first impressions.

[quote]1) "God exists whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. The reason why many people do not believe in God is not so much that it is intellectually impossible to believe in God, but because belief in God forces that thoughtful person to face the fact that he is accountable to such a God." -Robert A. Laid ...[text shortened]... don't know what this one is trying to say. I don't understand the actual content of the claim.

Dismissive, at best.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Dismissive, at best.

If you didn't want my thoughts, then you should not have asked for them. Hey, here's an idea: quit starting threads that purport to usher in discussion when you in fact have no intention of actually discussing anything.

Originally posted by LemonJello

If you didn't want my thoughts, then you should not have asked for them. Hey, here's an idea: quit starting threads that purport to usher in discussion when you in fact have no intention of actually discussing anything.

LemonJello, I want your live thoughts not knee jerk standard answers; Google's does that. Here are a few comments:
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Did Laidlaw, Broun, Stoppard, Chesterton and Goethe get it wrong?

1) "God exists whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. The reason why many people do not believe in God is not so much that it is intellectually impossible to believe in God, but because belief in God forces that thoughtful person to face the fact that he is accountable ...[text shortened]... hen a man finally decides that he is not God." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe) Your thoughtful replies?
Here would be my first impressions.


1) "God exists whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. The reason why many people do not believe in God is not so much that it is intellectually impossible to believe in God, but because belief in God forces that thoughtful person to face the fact that he is accountable to such a God." -Robert A. Laidlaw


The first statement here is just question-begging with respect to the inquiry of God's existence. Beyond that, there is notional confusion here, since it is generally not the case that a person "chooses" what to believe on this theoretical question. Finally, the reason Laidlaw gives for why many do not believe is quite implausible; much more plausible is just that many do not believe in God because of lack of what they take to be supporting evidence for such belief. Laidlaw advances nothing of interest here. One may as well just say the following with equal non-effect:
"God does not exist whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. The reason why many people do believe in God is not so much that there is evidence to that effect, but because belief in God gives the promise of eschatological reward...

These are examples where one claims (1) that belief here is a choice-based affair and (2) whoever is on the opposite side from the claimist chooses as they do based on motivations that are egoistic. Problem is, (1) generally is false and thus (2) carries no force as well. Not only does this argument unfairly portray the opposite side, it sort of backfires on the claimist as well, since the truth of (1) would imply that his own position is also choice-based (rather than evidentially based) as well. Laidlaw could rebut here that, no, the evidence is clear that God exists and that some just try to wish that away because they don't want to be accountable. But, then, he is more or less contradicting himself on the point of whether or not belief is choice-based. [esoteric and inscrutable for my IQ]


2) "Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God." -Heywood Broun


This is just a claim that could be vetted through empirical study. [Opinion on the validity of the claim?]


3) "Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God." -Tom Stoppard


This, again, is just question-begging with respect to the inquiry of God's existence. This appears to be in the same vein as the Laidlaw quote, and so I would think the same sort of objections I gave there would apply here as well.


4) "If there were no God, there would be no Atheists." -G. K. Chesterton


This claim is false. "WTF?" would be an appropriate response here. [Wednesday, Thursday and Friday?]


5) "The greatest act of faith takes place when a man finally decides that he is not God." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)


I don't know what this one is trying to say. I don't understand the actual content of the claim. [Do some men believe they're God?]

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
LemonJello, I want your live thoughts not knee jerk standard answers; Google's does that. Here are a few comments:

First I take issue with you of all people complaining about a lack of thought or effort in my posts.

You who cannot be bothered to learn how to properly format a post so that it can be easily and clearly read with the text you are quoting and your response clearly distinguishable.
You who reposts an entire multi-paragraph response to your questions and adds a grudging few words of response hidden in the post where they have to be searched for, only to discover it was not worth the effort.
You who complains that a post of a few paragraphs is too long...

I think about my posts, and take care to make them as easy to read as possible.

It takes some gall on your part to accuse me of not taking enough time or effort in my posts.


Second.

If you want us to need to think about our replies in depth then ask questions that are not
so stale they were debunked in the 16th century.

If you have thought about and obliterated pascals wager a 100 times before then you don't
need to think hard to shoot it down again simply because some ignoramus has just discovered
it and thinks its hot stuff.

If you want original answers then ask original questions.


Which is why I asked you earlier if you genuinely thought the question you posed in the op, the
quotes you posted, were questions and quotes we hadn't come across 100 times before.

Many of us have been on this forum discussing these issues for years, and reading and discussing
these issues elsewhere even before that.


Do you really think that we haven't already encountered arguments from such famous thinkers
from so long ago?

You can't go a week debating about theism and atheism without someone bringing up pascals wager.
[for example]. The number of people at any given time here who haven't heard of it
at least once is going to be vanishingly small.



If I wanted to I could create a cut and past answer for every classic theistic argument and just copy
and paste the relevant answer in for almost every argument that gets made.
I don't do that, and answer in my own words because unlike you I DO want an actual debate and
conversation.

LemmonJello's post in response to your OP was as detailed and thought out as it needed to be to deal
with your question as asked and every quote you cut and paste in.

That's as much as you can reasonably ask for, and a hell of a lot more than we get from you.

Originally posted by googlefudge
First I take issue with you of all people complaining about a lack of thought or effort in my posts.

You who cannot be bothered to learn how to properly format a post so that it can be easily and clearly read with the text you are quoting and your response clearly distinguishable.
You who reposts an entire multi-paragraph response to your questions a ...[text shortened]...

That's as much as you can reasonably ask for, and a hell of a lot more than we get from you.

"First I take issue with you of all people complaining about a lack of thought or effort in my posts.

You who cannot be bothered to learn how to properly format a post so that it can be easily and clearly read with the text you are quoting and your response clearly distinguishable.
You who reposts an entire multi-paragraph response to your questions and adds a grudging few words of response hidden in the post where they have to be searched for, only to discover it was not worth the effort.
You who complains that a post of a few paragraphs is too long..."

> Issue wasn't with your style of expression but rather that the coefficient of word volume to thought seemed excessive.

"I think about my posts, and take care to make them as easy to read as possible.

It takes some gall on your part to accuse me of not taking enough time or effort in my posts."

> "not taking enough time" are your words, not mine.

"Second.

If you want us to need to think about our replies in depth then ask questions that are not
so stale they were debunked in the 16th century."

> Why not revisit these questions in our own life and times?

"If you have thought about and obliterated pascals wager a 100 times before then you don't
need to think hard to shoot it down again simply because some ignoramus has just discovered
it and thinks its hot stuff." Pascal's Wager is as timely and relevant as this thread.
Why? Because the risk of getting it wrong is unthinkable.

"If you want original answers then ask original questions."

> Point taken.


"Which is why I asked you earlier if you genuinely thought the question you posed in the op, the
quotes you posted, were questions and quotes we hadn't come across 100 times before.

Many of us have been on this forum discussing these issues for years, and reading and discussing
these issues elsewhere even before that."

> May I ask which authors and works you've read recently?


"Do you really think that we haven't already encountered arguments from such famous thinkers
from so long ago?

You can't go a week debating about theism and atheism without someone bringing up pascals wager.
[for example]. The number of people at any given time here who haven't heard of it
at least once is going to be vanishingly small."

> There are new site members who contribute to this forum who may have fresh and worthwhile points of view.



"If I wanted to I could create a cut and past answer for every classic theistic argument and just copy
and paste the relevant answer in for almost every argument that gets made.
I don't do that, and answer in my own words because unlike you I DO want an actual debate and
conversation."

> Conversation, yes; not Debate. Argument ensues which generates much more heat than light.

"LemmonJello's post in response to your OP was as detailed and thought out as it needed to be to deal
with your question as asked and every quote you cut and paste in.

That's as much as you can reasonably ask for, and a hell of a lot more than we get from you."

> Thanks for your courtesy in tolerating my shortcomings, peccadillos and marks of incorrectness. I value your presence. -Bob

Originally posted by LemonJello

5) "The greatest act of faith takes place when a man finally decides that he is not God." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

I don't know what this one is trying to say. I don't understand the actual content of the claim.

It's in the nature of a poetic statement that calls for interpretation (a creative act; think of vistesd's Midrashic approach) rather than decoding.

Your interpretation of this fragment should be very interesting.

Grampy Bobby wrote:

If I was a non-theist an emptiness and uncertainty would pervade my being day and night. I'd visit this forum, seeking light.

This was exactly what I asked you before, Bobby. I think you don't want to feel empty and uncertain and that's what is strengthening your belief. "Believing" gives you security, regardless of truth.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Thanks, Bosse. I'm familiar with Descartes, Pascal, Spinoza, Blake, Kierkegaard, Kant, St John of the Cross [NT?], St Teresa of Avila, Dostoyevsky, Tolkien and Dickens. How about a favorite quotation or two from each of these literary giants?

I don't really carry a bag of favourite quotes around. St John of the Cross was a Spanish mystic poet, not the evangelist.

The last passage I would have liked to quote is this, written by Bertrand Russell: "There is a possibility in human minds of something as mysterious as the night-wind, deep as the sea, calm as the stars, and strong as Death, a mystic contemplation, 'the intellectual love of God'. Those who have known it cannot believe in wars any longer, or in any kind of hot struggle. If I could give to others what has come to me in this way, I could make them too feel the futility of fighting. But I do not know how to communicate it: when I speak, they stare, applaud, or smile, but do not understand." (Letter to Miss Rinder, 30 July, 1918)

Originally posted by Great King Rat

Grampy Bobby wrote:

[b]If I was a non-theist an emptiness and uncertainty would pervade my being day and night. I'd visit this forum, seeking light.

This was exactly what I asked you before, Bobby. I think you don't want to feel empty and uncertain and that's what is strengthening your belief. "Believing" gives you security, regardless of truth.[/b]

Grampy Bobby wrote: "If I was a non-theist an emptiness and uncertainty would pervade my being day and night. I'd visit this forum, seeking light."

"This was exactly what I asked you before, Bobby. I think you don't want to feel empty and uncertain and that's what is strengthening your belief. "Believing" gives you security, regardless of truth." -Great King Rat

"If I was..." (2nd Class Condition in the Koine Greek: If and it's not true). GKR, there were years in my teens and twenties when your description would have applied. My motive in visiting this forum today is simply that I care about you guys.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't really carry a bag of favourite quotes around. St John of the Cross was a Spanish mystic poet, not the evangelist.

The last passage I would have liked to quote is this, written by Bertrand Russell: "There is a possibility in human minds of something as mysterious as the night-wind, deep as the sea, calm as the stars, and strong as Death, a m ...[text shortened]... k, they stare, applaud, or smile, but do not understand." (Letter to Miss Rinder, 30 July, 1918)

His premise of "possibility" I like; tone of humility in his concluding sentence, I admire. Thank you.