You have to seek God with your heart!

[skepticalbip]

But there's a difference between believing your scientific theory is true, and believing your religion is true. A proper scientist always tries to consider all the things that might lead him into error, and will accept it if other scientists show him an error he didn't consider. (I won't say scientists always do this gracefully, but they do it anyway.) Science involves putting your hypotheses out in public, and let others attempt to shoot holes into your ideas. It may be that small holes can be patched, and the hypothesis modified to be more bulletproof; but no matter how beautiful your theory, you don't cling to it if ugly facts demonstrate it's mistaken.

Yup; Science acceptance of theories is always conditional. Religious belief is always unconditional.

Uncle Albert had a good summary of the scientific mindset.

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

~ Albert Einstein

 

[Underseer]

I can't think of any bible verse which says you have to seek Him.

That doesn't matter. I want criticizing a passage from the Bible, I was criticizing a common argument used by both Christians and Muslims. If you want to criticize a Bible passage, please start a separate thread.

I don't want to do that. I'd rather criticise your position in this thread.
You don't HAVE to seek God.

Then why did you try to insert the Bible into this discussion?

What were you trying to avoid talking about with that change of subject?

 

[braces_for_impact]

I can't think of any bible verse which says you have to seek Him.

Yet he says if you sincerely do so, you WILL find him, yet people do not. It's that whole cosmic hide and seek thing, which in my mind, is even more damning (if you'll forgive the expression) than the problem of evil.

 

[bilby]

I can't think of any bible verse which says you have to seek Him.

The thread title doesn't say that, either

It's not: You have to seek God, (with your heart);

It's You (have to) seek God with your heart.

A bright person would have been able to tell that the emphasis was on the method with which God should be sought, and not on the requirement to seek; It's obvious from the OP. But a person desperate for a way to discredit a thread that highlights the stupidity of a common Christian argument could mis-place the emphasis, either due to stupidity or disingenuity (or both).

So which is it, are you too stupid to grasp that this thread is about the futility of emotion as a means to truth (and not about any mandatory or compulsory task); Or are you able to understand that, but engaging in intellectual dishonesty in either hoping to mislead others, or derail the thread?

 

[Lion IRC]

I don't want to do that. I'd rather criticise your position in this thread.
You don't HAVE to seek God.

Then why did you try to insert the Bible into this discussion?

What were you trying to avoid talking about with that change of subject?

Wait. Why are bible quotes about seeking the Lord off topic?

 

[ideologyhunter]

In LDS jargon, you will feel a 'burning in the breast' if you read their scriptures with an open heart, that will tell you that they are true. I did make it through the Book of Mormon ("chloroform in print," in Twain's immortal phrase), without feeling that burn, although there was one night when I read the book after finishing a medium pizza and a liter of Coke.

 

[Rhea]

I don't want to do that. I'd rather criticise your position in this thread.
You don't HAVE to seek God.

Then why did you try to insert the Bible into this discussion?

What were you trying to avoid talking about with that change of subject?

Wait. Why are bible quotes about seeking the Lord off topic?

Because you have to seek god with your heart, not some musty old tome. Didn’t you read the op?

 

[Lion IRC]

It's not: You have to seek God, (with your heart);

It's You (have to) seek God with your heart.

It's pretty blatant hypocrisy for you to try and dictate which half of the sentence is on topic while telling me that I'm not allowed to argue that you don't "HAVE to seek God."

Why rant about the supposed "futility of emotion" which you artificially interpreted in latter half of the sentence if the choice to be an atheist and not seek God remains fully intact? You - bilby and phands - aren't forced to seek the Lord. Stop your histrionics.

 

[Jobar]

Lion, this is the Existence of God(s) forum. In a way, "seeking God" is rather the point of it.

The problem is, we unbelievers find nothing when we seek; and underseer is talking about how believers have told him it should be done; i.e., with your heart.

But that method is nonsensical, unintelligible, to us. So bilby is right; the real question being asked is not *if* we should seek him, but how.

I moved several of the posts in this thread to Up In Flames. We do try to keep this forum more civil than all that.

 

[bilby]

It's not: You have to seek God, (with your heart);

It's You (have to) seek God with your heart.

It's pretty blatant hypocrisy for you to try and dictate which half of the sentence is on topic while telling me that I'm not allowed to argue that you don't "HAVE to seek God."

It's not hypocritical to be able to correctly interpret a sentence in its context. And I didn't in any way tell you that you were not allowed to argue anything - If you want to make a stupid counterargument to an argument that nobody is making, that's entirely up to you. I don't think that it's unreasonable for me to warn you that doing so might cause others to think you a fool.

Why rant about the supposed "futility of emotion" which you artificially interpreted in latter half of the sentence if the choice to be an atheist and not seek God remains fully intact?

It's not a 'rant', it's an observation about reality. Emotion is demonstrably a poor guide to truth. Whether or not it is mandatory, necessary, useful, or merely interesting to try to determine what is true, has no bearing on that fact.

I seek the truth because I value it, not because anyone or anything is denying me the choice to do otherwise; Whether seeking the truth implies seeking a god or gods is another question entirely - as an intellectually honest atheist it is important for me to confirm that gods do not exist, and some degree of 'seeking' is implied by that. I looked in the places that believers told me I should look, and found nothing. I did NOT attempt to use emotions to 'seek god' (despite the advice of believers to do so) , because I am satisfied that that is not a technique that is capable of achieving the objective.

If someone tells me that it is possible to swim to New Zealand, than I need to give that claim more consideration than if someone tells me that it is possible to walk to New Zealand. One technique has at least some chance of success, despite being very difficult. The other can be discarded as impossible without the need to make an attempt - I don't need to try to walk to NZ to prove that walking is not going to get me there, and for the same reasons, I don't need to try using emotions to determine whether gods are non-fiction in order to know that the attempt would be futile - emotions cannot lead to knowledge, only to belief. And belief without knowledge is valueless. Despite the contrary claims of theists.

You - bilby and phands - aren't forced to seek the Lord. Stop your histrionics.

I know. That's why, when you pointed out the bleeding bloody obvious, I felt the need to correct your apparently erroneous interpretation of the thread title. You made it clear that you did not understand (or had chosen not to understand in order to make some silly rhetorical point), and so I chose to correct you. No histrionics were involved in any of my posts.

 

[abaddon]

nm

(Addressing the same thing bilby already answered.)

 

[phands]

LIRC, on being caught out in his bible knowledge, calls US histrionic? Triple facepalm.

 

[Rhea]

It's not: You have to seek God, (with your heart);

It's You (have to) seek God with your heart.

It's pretty blatant hypocrisy for you to try and dictate which half of the sentence is on topic while telling me that I'm not allowed to argue that you don't "HAVE to seek God."

Why rant about the supposed "futility of emotion" which you artificially interpreted in latter half of the sentence if the choice to be an atheist and not seek God remains fully intact? You - bilby and phands - aren't forced to seek the Lord. Stop your histrionics.

It’s obvious to the most casual observer that he is quoting a christian here. We all understood instantly since we have all heard the pathetic entreaty from a christian a dozen times. It’s always regurgitated in response to the atheist saying, “but your god doesn’t make any sense!”

And the christain regurgitates, “You have to see god with your heart, not your reason!”

 

[Lion IRC]

The Op is wrong.
You don't HAVE to seek the Lord if you don't want to.
If you want to argue with underseers' anecdotal Christians who allegedly think otherwise, off you go - there's a great big Internet out there.

 

[Underseer]

The Op is wrong.
You don't HAVE to seek the Lord if you don't want to.
If you want to argue with underseers' anecdotal Christians who allegedly think otherwise, off you go - there's a great big Internet out there.

Nice try.

Here's the thing.

If someone doubts that electrons are real, then no one will ask them to "seek electrons in their heart" before showing them the evidence for electrons.

If someone doubts that elephants are real, then no one will ask them to "seek elephants in their heart" before showing them the evidence for elephants.

If someone doubts that the Germ Theory of Disease is real, then no one will ask them to "seek the Germ Theory of Disease in their heart" before showing them the evidence for the Germ Theory of Disease.

If someone doubts that laws against murder are real, then no one will ask them to "seek laws against murder in their heart" before showing them the evidence for laws against murder.

In fact the only time people will ask someone to "seek the conclusion in their heart" before examining the evidence is when we are talking about whether or not Christianity or Islam are true. No one else even uses that argument, because when you have valid evidence, the evidence alone is enough to compel belief.

Getting into lawyerly quibbles about "need" is beside the point and is at best some kind of special pleading on your part.

The "seek god in your heart" argument is used frequently by Christians, and that frequency shows just how weak the evidence for Christianity is. Further, it demonstrates that Christians know the evidence is weak, because as I said, no one asks you to "seek electrons in your heart" before showing you evidence for electrons. Not one single person will do that if we're talking about whether or not electrons are real, but many people will frequently do that if we are talking about whether or not Christianity is real.

 

[bilby]

The Op is wrong.
You don't HAVE to seek the Lord if you don't want to.
If you want to argue with underseers' anecdotal Christians who allegedly think otherwise, off you go - there's a great big Internet out there.

Your desperation to redefine the OP to say something not supported by the language in its context is hilarious.

The OP isn't wrong; You are just demanding that everyone else apply your erroneous interpretation of it, so that you can dismiss it without challenging your entrenched but false worldview.

Which is typical of theists, and the very reason that the concept of freethinking was first established.

It's astonishing how much useful and valuable thinking people can do, once they stop letting theists and dogmas redefine how and what they are allowed to think. You really should try it sometime.

Nobody except you thinks that the OP says anything about 'having to seek the Lord'. It's talking about 'having to use your heart', should you try to seek the Lord. It's a very common and widely understood English construction, and your application of the imperative to the wrong clause is an error no fluent English speaker without an agenda would make.

 

[Lion IRC]

If you don't HAVE to seek the Lord who cares about the second half of the sentence?
...atheists. They are the ones fixated.

 

[Lion IRC]

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one.

Don't like religion? Complain about how unfair it is to have to seek the Lord. And whine about the method. And bitch about the anectdotal anonymous Christians whose monologues bother you.

 

[Learner]

Nice try.

The "seek god in your heart" argument is used frequently by Christians, and that frequency shows just how weak the evidence for Christianity is.

Further, it demonstrates that Christians know the evidence is weak, because as I said, no one asks you to "seek electrons in your heart" before showing you evidence for electrons.

Not one single person will do that if we're talking about whether or not electrons are real, but many people will frequently do that if we are talking about whether or not Christianity is real.

Christians also believe God created eyes to see: So, why do you think it doesn't say with equal emphasis in the bible : We should seek (see) the world and nature e.g. seek electrons and elephants with our hearts?"

Its because these are different contexts in meaning : to find ..seek-connect...and see with eyes. Not sure whether to take it as some form of argumentative dishonesty or a simple blunder in your logic interpretation of the contextual meaning of yours.(plural,those with the same POV)

 

[Rhea]

If you don't HAVE to seek the Lord who cares about the second half of the sentence?
...atheists. They are the ones fixated.

Again, for those having a hard time keeping up... we are only fixated on the RELENTLESS sales pitch by religionists. We push back. It;s nonsensical and stupid. And always ends up with their claim “but you have to seek with your heart!” Which is patently stupid, and they keep saying it.

Sigh.
Just like Lion.

Prertending it says something other than it clearly says. Because that’s easier for him to ignore than actulally addressing the real issue of Christians claiming that putting aside logic is all you need to believe in gawd.

Cute try, Lion. You know you’re just blowing smoke, though.