From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 4/02/2026 3:19 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   > On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 12:26:55 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > If there are biases, they're irrelevant to whether an Intelligent   
   > Designer exists, at least as presented by ID proponents.  So ID   
   > proponents shouldn't, and atheists don't, use the idea to prop up   
   > their supposed biases.  Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by   
   > accountability and judgment, though.   
      
   This is helpful. It demonstrates that even after I've painstakingly   
   re-explained my proposition, you are unable or unwilling to say it back   
   to me.   
      
   To be very clear, I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you   
   you re-present my argument to demonstrate you've grasped its structure   
   and logic (simple as it is this case). Having done that, by all means   
   challenge and disagree.   
      
   But you can't or won't. Which is why meaningful discussion with you is   
   not possible.   
      
   And let's be real, Vincent. We both know you have no real interest in an   
   open-minded, respectful dialogue.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >> 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)?   
   >   
   > So when are you going to state my position in your own words?   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)