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