From: me22over7@gmail.com
On 4/02/2026 11:08 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:18:55 +1100, MarkE wrote:
>
>> On 4/02/2026 1:43 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 16:27:52 +1100, MarkE wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/02/2026 3:18 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 11:46:21 +1100, MarkE wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/02/2026 10:50 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 23:04:50 +1100, MarkE wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/02/2026 4:21 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> No, that can't be it. There's no reason to be morally accountable to
>>>>>>>>> some Cosmic Designer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On what basis do you assert that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The lack of a rationale for equating an Intelligent Designer with the
>>>>>>> God of the Bible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A creator may well have expectations of their creation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or "they" may not. So there's nothing in the data for atheists to shy
>>>>>>> away from, morally, if indeed there were such a concern among atheists
>>>>>>> (which you haven't demonstrated, of course).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've missed the logic. To reiterate: one's metaphysics either way
>>>>>> (theist or atheist) both have a risk of bias when assessing evidence.
>>>>>> For the theist, a desire to confirm a God of love and purpose (as a
>>>>>> potential recipient of those);
>>>>>
>>>>> Which a Cosmic Designer might very well not be. So do you really gain
>>>>> anything metaphysically by believing in such a character?
>>>>>
>>>>>> for the atheist, a desire to disconfirm a
>>>>>> God of accountability and judgement (as a potential recipient of those).
>>>>>
>>>>> Which we can easily avoid believing in, even if there were an
>>>>> Intelligent Designer. So what do we gain metaphysically by denying
>>>>> the existence of such a creature?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, you're not following the logic here.
>>>
>>> How am I supposedly doing that?
>>>
>>
>> I good way to progress a contentious discussion is to state the other
>> person's position in your own words, iteratively if needed to clarify
>> and understand. I invite you to do that as a next step.
>
> Sure. I'll go first.
>
> You believe atheists are afraid of evidence pointing to the existence
> of God because we want to behave immorally, which we can't do freely
> if there is a caring and moral God watching over us.
No. But as I say, this process often needs to be iterative. A dialogue.
So allow me to clarify.
I did not say (or intend to imply a generalisation) that atheists "are
afraid of evidence pointing to the existence of God because they want to
behave immorally."
Rather, I was stating the *risk* of bias both ways: for the theist, a
[risk of a] desire to confirm a God of love and purpose (as a potential
recipient of those); for the atheist, a [risk of a] desire to disconfirm
a God of accountability and judgement (as a potential recipient of those).
Note also that I'm not saying (or intending to imply a generalisation)
that atheists "want to behave immorally". Obviously these concepts are
connected, but the distinction is real and important (which I can
elaborate on as needed).
In short, my point is to challenge the notion that theists are
intrinsically more subject to bias than atheists. Instead, on both sides
of this debate, the theist and the atheist both have potential biases (a
risk of), derived from the hope/fear of the metaphysical positions being
right/wrong respectively.
Now, if you can say that back to me, and comment/critique if you like,
excellent.
>
> Now, what is my position (which, I should point out, is partly a
> refutation of your position I recited above)?
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
