Feelings toward converts/deconverts
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-11-2014, 03:31 AM
RE: Feelings toward converts/deconverts
(04-11-2014 09:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And I am inclined to think the same way of most atheists, that they are so because they haven't given the topic any amount of serious thought, beyond scratching the surface here and there, this applies both to their disbelief, as well as the God question. I know this view is going to rub some individuals here the wrong way, even though our feelings are likely to be mutual in regards to each other.

The reason that might rub people the wrong way is because it's demonstrably bullshit. Most of the Atheists here, in fact the vast majority, that were formally religious came to be Atheists for the EXACT reason that we wanted to know if our beliefs were rationally and intellectually justified and we studied them intensively. In fact as has been displayed here repeatedly it is often the Atheists that know more about the religion then those currently in it.

There is a reason one of the longest running jokes among Atheists is that the best way to make an atheist is to have them actually read the Bible. There is a reason why religiosity declines rapidly the more educated a population is. There is a reason why studying the Bible as a historic document is avoided by the majority of the religious in favor of as a strict devotional text.

To say that Atheists are Atheist cause they have not given the question of god any serious thought is either dishonest in the highest or just plain delusional. I'm sure it makes your world view seem more rational to you but that claim is just an out and out fabrication of the highest order.

We know more about your religion then you do.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 04:01 AM
RE: Feelings toward converts/deconverts
(05-11-2014 03:18 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I really have trouble believing that I would have to explain to you why coming to the conclusion on the existence of anything without evidence or compelling reasons but because "he just felt it was true", which is basically his argument when it's not being entirely fallacious, is not rational.
"Because I felt it was true" is not a rational justification for any belief.

I'm no doubt wasting my time here trying to explain what I mean but I will anyway:

There's is a reason why I ask. Never mind Collins attributing it all to God, that way I don't have to go over the difference between attributing it to God, and the Easter Bunny, which would just mean beyond the typical attributes of God, that he also has bunny ears, and is made of fur, and colored eggs for a living. It's the difference in believing the world was created with intention and purpose, and believing that the source that endowed these things, was also a leprechaun, which gives this source additional attributes beyond creating with intent and purpose. Either way this is not the main point that I wanted to explore.

Quote:I could go through his claim line by line and show exactly why it's irrational belief but I really don't think I have to. I think the difference between rationally justified beliefs and those that are not have been MORE then explained to you in your time here.

I'm more interested in whether his views on love are irrational.

I'll give you other views of love, and perhaps you can tell me if you believe them to be irrational:

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness:
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." -MLK

"Where there is love there is life." -Gandhi

"Love is a force more formidable than any other. It is invisible - it cannot be seen or measured, yet it is powerful enough to transform you in a moment, and offer you more joy than any material possession could."-
Barbara de Angelis

"Love conquers all."- Virgil/Also from the movie Frozen

Do you think these views of love are irrational?

These writers, and people often speak of love as something more than just a feeling, but as force and power in and of itself, capable of doing great things, they hold it as the greatest of all human values. Do you think these elevated views on love are irrational?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 04:51 AM
RE: Feelings toward converts/deconverts
(05-11-2014 03:31 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  The reason that might rub people the wrong way is because it's demonstrably bullshit. Most of the Atheists here, in fact the vast majority, that were formally religious came to be Atheists for the EXACT reason that we wanted to know if our beliefs were rationally and intellectually justified and we studied them intensively. In fact as has been displayed here repeatedly it is often the Atheists that know more about the religion then those currently in it.

Hence the reason why I stated their understanding rarely extends beyond the surface. When atheists speak of how they understand more than theists, this understanding is in a very narrow form, almost autistic like. I'll call it a sort of "scientific understanding", they may know the names and actions attributed to certain characters of the bible, or the history given a particular time, to judge whether or not an event likely took place, and this is generally the depth and breathe of their knowledge. What they seem to lack is a literary understanding, or in other words they would make shitty exegetes. Of course this is not true for all atheist, just the sort that we might find here. The ones that do well in this regard, are ones that have particular knack for literature, such as Nietzsche, or George Santayana, John Gray, etc, but such atheists are rarities.

The typical ex-theist atheists comes from a fundie like tradition, where the depth in which these texts were explored didn't extend beyond what's present in a children's bible, and as atheists their depth hasn't matured much.

To put it another way, they lack the sort of depth that typically requires a sense of empathy, an ability to relate or understand the underlying sentiments, worries and conditions of the writers of scripture and their audiences at the time. And in fact their disgust for these individuals, typically creates a sort of Othering, where these writers are seen as merely barbaric idiots, lacking any real trace of a humanity to relate to. The themes, ideas, questions, meanings of these various writings are left on the cutting room floor, to explore the surface of things, rather than the underlying realities being expressed by them. So in this regard their understanding is shallow.

Quote:There is a reason why religiosity declines rapidly the more educated a population is.

Not really, in fact the factor often explored as going hand in hand with declines in religiosity, is welfare spending. "As governments gradually assume many of these welfare functions, individuals with elastic preferences for spiritual goods will reduce their level of participation since the desired welfare goods can be obtained from secular sources." While you might see a trend in education levels and religiosity, it's the comforts that education typically provides, such as a decent job, a nice home, an independence that's less reliant on community, and all the comforts money can buy, that tends to create a bed for atheism to arise.

http://rss.sagepub.com/content/16/4/399

Or in other words, the less you see a need for religion in your life, the more likely you are to abandon it.

Quote:To say that Atheists are Atheist cause they have not given the question of god any serious thought is either dishonest in the highest or just plain delusional. I'm sure it makes your world view seem more rational to you but that claim is just an out and out fabrication of the highest order.

Well, I think the quality of atheists has gone down over the years, likely as the result of mass production. Today we have atheists who can't see the difference between the meaning of God and the Easter Bunny, who think that who created God is a question worth considering, and in which discussions among theists and atheists resemble what you might find in the school yard.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 05:02 AM
RE: Feelings toward converts/deconverts
(05-11-2014 04:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 03:31 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  The reason that might rub people the wrong way is because it's demonstrably bullshit. Most of the Atheists here, in fact the vast majority, that were formally religious came to be Atheists for the EXACT reason that we wanted to know if our beliefs were rationally and intellectually justified and we studied them intensively. In fact as has been displayed here repeatedly it is often the Atheists that know more about the religion then those currently in it.

Hence the reason why I stated their understanding rarely extends beyond the surface. When atheists speak of how they understand more than theists, this understanding is in a very narrow form, almost autistic like. I'll call it a sort of "scientific understanding", they may know the names and actions attributed to certain characters of the bible, or the history given a particular time, to judge whether or not an event likely took place, and this is generally the depth and breathe of their knowledge. What they seem to lack is a literary understanding, or in other words they would make shitty exegetes. Of course this is not true for all atheist, just the sort that we might find here. The ones that do well in this regard, are ones that have particular knack for literature, such as Nietzsche, or George Santayana, John Gray, etc, but such atheists are rarities.

The typical ex-theist atheists comes from a fundie like tradition, where the depth in which these texts were explored didn't extend beyond what's present in a children's bible, and as atheists their depth hasn't matured much.

To put it another way, they lack the sort of depth that typically requires a sense of empathy, an ability to relate or understand the underlying sentiments, worries and conditions of the writers of scripture and their audiences at the time. And in fact their disgust for these individuals, typically creates a sort of Othering, where these writers are seen as merely barbaric idiots, lacking any real trace of a humanity to relate to. The themes, ideas, questions, meanings of these various writings are left on the cutting room floor, to explore the surface of things, rather than the underlying realities being expressed by them. So in this regard their understanding is shallow.

Quote:There is a reason why religiosity declines rapidly the more educated a population is.

Not really, in fact the factor often explored as going hand in hand with declines in religiosity, is welfare spending. "As governments gradually assume many of these welfare functions, individuals with elastic preferences for spiritual goods will reduce their level of participation since the desired welfare goods can be obtained from secular sources." While you might see a trend in education levels and religiosity, it's the comforts that education typically provides, such as a decent job, a nice home, an independence that's less reliant on community, and all the comforts money can buy, that tends to create a bed for atheism to arise.

http://rss.sagepub.com/content/16/4/399

Or in other words, the less you see a need for religion in your life, the more likely you are to abandon it.

Quote:To say that Atheists are Atheist cause they have not given the question of god any serious thought is either dishonest in the highest or just plain delusional. I'm sure it makes your world view seem more rational to you but that claim is just an out and out fabrication of the highest order.

Well, I think the quality of atheists has gone down over the years, likely as the result of mass production. Today we have atheists who can't see the difference between the meaning of God and the Easter Bunny, who think that who created God is a question worth considering, and in which discussions among theists and atheists resemble what you might find in the school yard.

Says the same idiot who was just the other day complaining about how Mark and I to be dismissed FOR our expertise of certain subjects. This whiner sets it up so no one can win, .... 'cept his Jebus of course.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 05:07 AM
RE: Feelings toward converts/deconverts
(05-11-2014 04:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There's is a reason why I ask. Never mind Collins attributing it all to God, that way I don't have to go over the difference between attributing it to God, and the Easter Bunny, which would just mean beyond the typical attributes of God, that he also has bunny ears, and is made of fur, and colored eggs for a living. It's the difference in believing the world was created with intention and purpose, and believing that the source that endowed these things, was also a leprechaun, which gives this source additional attributes beyond creating with intent and purpose. Either way this is not the main point that I wanted to explore.
No I will in fact not never mind Collins. You asked me to explain why his reasons for converting to Christianity are irrational and not founded on good reasons. I have done just that: Collins believes in God for reasons which are not rational or based on evidence but emotional in nature.

I don't care how you have defined your god into existence. You can claim he creates with intent and purpose, you can claim" he is love", you can claim he hates masturbation, shell fish, or the Playstation 4 for all I fucking care, because these are just unproven and undemonstrated claims. Until you can DEMONSTRATE he exists you do not get to posit real life qualities to him. Until you prove he is not a made up entity he has EXACTLY the same real life qualities as the Easter Bunny which is fucking none and I'm not interested in any presup word games. There are a lot of people here who are more than willing to entertain that delusional bollocks for the sake of argument, I'm not one of them.


(05-11-2014 04:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm more interested in whether his views on love are irrational.
Really cause that's not in anyway the question you actually asked me. Whatever though if you want to move the goal posts I'll bite for now.

I wanna make this clear right from the get go, that if his views on "love" are rational or irrational has ZERO baring on his views on god, heaven, the afterlife, hell, Jesus, and the bodily resurrection of a first century Jew whose very existence is dubious at best. None at all. These do not translate one from the other any more than if his views on pancakes are rational has any bearing on his Religious views and how he came to them.

I might be jumping the gun here but if your attack plan is to prove that love is rational and therefor belief in god is rational because god is love, or because love is "more then a feeling" and beyond materialism so therefore must be god, or some other unsubstantiated claim don't waste my time because that's wrong.

Moving on.


(05-11-2014 04:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  These writers, and people often speak of love as something more than just a feeling, but as force and power in and of itself, capable of doing great things, they hold it as the greatest of all human values. Do you think these elevated views on love are irrational?

Do I think these elevated views on love are irrational? Yes and no.
Let me be clear, there is no debate on the fact that "Love", like all emotions, is a clearly understood and naturally occurring process in the brain. We understand the chemical make up that causes it, why it is caused, and why it can begin to dissipate with time. It's chemistry and there is no debating that, in the real world, that is how it works.

That said I have no problem with writers, of which I am one in my spare time, using poetic language to describe love or other emotions. Some of those quotes are quite beautiful.....in a poetic sense. And that is the key. It's poetic verse, it's not a factual description of love and how it works.

I'm fine with people describing love in grandiose and poetic ways, I don't find that either rational or irrational just..poetic. However if you then take the poetic license of writers, none of which are neuroscientists with an understanding of the brain and how it functions scientifically, and try to say that they are a real and accurate description of love as it is in the real world then yes you are being irrational.
Example: When we say that a meal is divine we are using poetic license and there is nothing wrong with that. If you then tried to assert that the meal is LITERALLY divine, that it actually came from heaven and not a kitchen...then yes that is an irrational view.

So do I consider those elevated views on love to be irrational? Yes if they are taken to be a literal and accurate description of love and it's workings which is not how they are meant to be taken. No I don't find them irrational if they are viewed as the poetic descriptions of real life phenomenon.

However back to my main point which is that even if love is rational that does not make believing in the supernatural without evidence or reason rational. One does not lead to the other.
Collins believes in god for irrational reasons. Case closed.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
05-11-2014, 05:19 AM
RE: Feelings toward converts/deconverts
[snip]Two of the most pompus, arrogant and condesending paragraphs I've ever read.[/snip]
Quote:
Quote:There is a reason why religiosity declines rapidly the more educated a population is.

Not really, in fact the factor often explored as going hand in hand with declines in religiosity, is welfare spending. "As governments gradually assume many of these welfare functions, individuals with elastic preferences for spiritual goods will reduce their level of participation since the desired welfare goods can be obtained from secular sources." While you might see a trend in education levels and religiosity, it's the comforts that education typically provides, such as a decent job, a nice home, an independence that's less reliant on community, and all the comforts money can buy, that tends to create a bed for atheism to arise.

http://rss.sagepub.com/content/16/4/399

Or in other words, the less you see a need for religion in your life, the more likely you are to abandon it.
I'm not sure that's right but sure. Why not. I'll cede the point.

Isn't "the less you see a need for religion in your life, the more likely you are to abandon it" a worse implication than "the more you know the less faith you require" as it implies either a relationship of convenience with the church or that the church is emotionally blackmailing the vulnerable?

Quote:
Quote:To say that Atheists are Atheist cause they have not given the question of god any serious thought is either dishonest in the highest or just plain delusional. I'm sure it makes your world view seem more rational to you but that claim is just an out and out fabrication of the highest order.

Well, I think the quality of atheists has gone down over the years, likely as the result of mass production. Today we have atheists who can't see the difference between the meaning of God and the Easter Bunny, who think that who created God is a question worth considering, and in which discussions among theists and atheists resemble what you might find in the school yard.
People compare the belief in god to another thing that is obviously fictional as an insult because one of them being easy to disbelieve and self evidently untrue and therefore the other is. To say that it's because they share definate atributes is to miss the point.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
05-11-2014, 05:56 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2014 03:29 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Feelings toward converts/deconverts
(05-11-2014 04:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Hence the reason why I stated their understanding rarely extends beyond the surface. When atheists speak of how they understand more than theists, this understanding is in a very narrow form, almost autistic like. I'll call it a sort of "scientific understanding", they may know the names and actions attributed to certain characters of the bible, or the history given a particular time, to judge whether or not an event likely took place, and this is generally the depth and breathe of their knowledge. What they seem to lack is a literary understanding, or in other words they would make shitty exegetes.
You are welcome to your opinion but it's wrong. It's demonstrably wrong and little more then another unsubstantiated claim by you which frankly is getting rather dull.
You are welcome to go go to you tube and fish through the videos with Bart Ehrman where he talks, at great length how Christians coming to his Religious Studies class know almost nothing about the Bible and how it was compiled, edited, who wrote it, and the political climate and context in which it was written.

If your going to try and claim that a group of people, Christians, can not answer the simplest questions about their own religion but somehow have the ability to answer the complex questions and issues then I'm just going to laugh at you.
Ha.

As far as exegets goes....the ability to offer explanation or exposition on an event that did not actually happen is an entirely useless skill. If we can prove an event did not occur (which we have, too bad for you) then your explanation of that non-event becomes worthless.
I couldn't care less about the methods Christians use to contort their stupid book to fit whatever need they have at the time. You all can't even decide what interpretation is correct..so YOU make shitty exegets yourself. Thousands of mutually exclusive explanations from the thousands of mutually exclusive denominations and I'm supposed to be impressed by their ability to explain things. I laugh again.

Ha.


(05-11-2014 04:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The typical ex-theist atheists comes from a fundie like tradition, where the depth in which these texts were explored didn't extend beyond what's present in a children's bible, and as atheists their depth hasn't matured much.
Citation needed. Other then your ass.
I'm sure you believe this. And I'm sure it makes you feel better to think that only the true believers have anything beyond a childrens Bible level of Biblical understanding but that's a fabrication and a condescendingly uninformed one at that. For starters we have Atheists HERE that have been jacking you up since you got here with their superior knowledge and secondly Christians have a less substantial knowledge base of their religion then Atheists and that has been borne out in the research.
Your kind can't grasp the basics but you claim to have the advanced down.
Ha.

(05-11-2014 04:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  To put it another way, they lack the sort of depth that typically requires a sense of empathy, an ability to relate or understand the underlying sentiments, worries and conditions of the writers of scripture and their audiences at the time. And in fact their disgust for these individuals, typically creates a sort of Othering, where these writers are seen as merely barbaric idiots, lacking any real trace of a humanity to relate to. The themes, ideas, questions, meanings of these various writings are left on the cutting room floor, to explore the surface of things, rather than the underlying realities being expressed by them. So in this regard their understanding is shallow.
Everything in that quote is an out right lie or attempt at straw manning and you can go get fucked by a moving train for it. I don't give a fuck what your opinion is, if your gonna claim that stuff then back it the fuck up with evidence.



(05-11-2014 04:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Not really, in fact the factor often explored as going hand in hand with declines in religiosity, is welfare spending. "As governments gradually assume many of these welfare functions, individuals with elastic preferences for spiritual goods will reduce their level of participation since the desired welfare goods can be obtained from secular sources." While you might see a trend in education levels and religiosity, it's the comforts that education typically provides, such as a decent job, a nice home, an independence that's less reliant on community, and all the comforts money can buy, that tends to create a bed for atheism to arise.

http://rss.sagepub.com/content/16/4/399

Or in other words, the less you see a need for religion in your life, the more likely you are to abandon it.
America is one of the most wealthy countries in the world and it has some of the highest levels of religiosity. Education, specifically in logic and logical fallacies cripples the spread of religion. That's why it's taught to children before they CAN logically evaluate the claim. Unless your gonna claim that religions do NOT indoctrinate children. Which would be wrong.
Also your link does not work, just an fyi.


(05-11-2014 04:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, I think the quality of atheists has gone down over the years, likely as the result of mass production. Today we have atheists who can't see the difference between the meaning of God and the Easter Bunny, who think that who created God is a question worth considering, and in which discussions among theists and atheists resemble what you might find in the school yard.
First off I don't care what your opinion of the current state of Atheists is, you have been demonstrated to be delusionally wrong on the subject. Secondly I know the difference between God and the Easter Bunny but nice attempt at out of context strawmaning you colossal asshole. Lastly yes they do resemble what you would see in a school yard and they do that because most Christians don't have a basic understanding of their religion. Which makes discussion kinda hard.

If you want to continue with your, nearly satirical, display of Dunning-Kruger and your delusional view of intellectual superiority to Atheists you go right ahead, however I don't accept it as an explanation for anything. Your opinion is demonstrably wrong and valueless to me.
So if you have some EVIDENCE for your claims go ahead and present it.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
05-11-2014, 06:00 AM
RE: Feelings toward converts/deconverts
(05-11-2014 05:07 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I wanna make this clear right from the get go, that if his views on "love" are rational or irrational has ZERO baring on his views on god

Except of course that it's view on love is what led him to believe in God in the first place. I would claim that certain views on love, may in essence lead to God belief, but I rather do this by starting from the beginning, in exploring the idea of love. If you're not up for this discussion that's fine, but I opening it up to whoever is interested.

Quote:Let me be clear, there is no debate on the fact that "Love", like all emotions, is a clearly understood and naturally occurring process in the brain. We understand the chemical make up that causes it, why it is caused, and why it can begin to dissipate with time. It's chemistry and there is no debating that, in the real world, that is how it works.

Yet love is understood as more than it's chemical makeup. My chemical makeup can be in all sorts of places at any given time, I can feel very angry at my wife, and the anger may shows as some process occurring in the brain, but the same time this scan might not reveal that I love my wife, even though my chemistry suggests otherwise at a given moment. I love my wife regardless of how I feel at any given moment, even on days where i might feel apathetic and disinterested. Or in other words, what we mean by love here, is more than just a feeling.

Quote:That said I have no problem with writers, of which I am one in my spare time, using poetic language to describe love or other emotions.

But the problem is none of these statements are merely poetic, they are in fact making truth claims. Rev. King didn't say that only love can drive out hate, because it had a nice ring to it, but because he truly believed this. His views regarding the power and capacity of love, though expressed poetically, were in fact truth claims. In fact it's his belief in the truth of this, that served as the backbone of the civil rights movement.

So the question is, is holding a belief such as this, irrational?

Quote:I'm fine with people describing love in grandiose and poetic ways, I don't find that either rational or irrational just..poetic.

They are poetic, but none of them are merely poetic, they are all in fact laying claim to some truth about the very nature and power of love.

Quote:Example: When we say that a meal is divine we are using poetic license and there is nothing wrong with that.

Even in this statement i'm not merely saying something poetic, I am also say something that I find true, that this meal taste so exceptionally good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 06:55 AM
RE: Feelings toward converts/deconverts
(04-11-2014 05:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  These folks are imagined as those who know less than we do, we never wonder if perhaps they might have known more or understood something we didn't. It's always imagined as a failing on their part, but never pondered if it's a failing on our part.

I love this. Smile We (my husband and I) still need use the A-word to our parents, and I feel like our parents will unintentionally insult our intelligence. They'll think it's because we were "hurt by church" or that we'll believe anything we read on the internet. Rolleyes

It makes me want to genuinely ask religious people why they believe what they believe.

"Most people are other people.
Their thoughts are someone else's opinions,
their lives a mimicry,
their passions a quotation."
-Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 06:59 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2014 03:35 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Feelings toward converts/deconverts
(05-11-2014 06:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Except of course that it's view on love is what led him to believe in God in the first place. I would claim that certain views on love, may in essence lead to God belief
An appeal to emotion is a fallacy in this context for a reason. I'm growing bored with repeating myself on an issue that is already settled. He did not come to a belief in the existence of god due to evidence or any rational evaluation of reality.

Provide evidence. I already told you I don't give a fuck about your claims and I'm not interested in your child like desire to play connect the dots with god and love. You have yet to establish there IS a god let alone that love is one of his qualities nor can you claim qualities to a thing you have not yet established exists.
You have no way of knowing if any facet of any emotion leads to god. You are trying to assert it and it's boringly pedestrian for someone who claims such theological superiority.
"Certain", "may" "in essence" would you like to rephrase that in an even more vague noncommittal way so you have even MORE wiggly room?

If you want to make shit up and present it as an argument you are gonna have to find someone else.

Even if love did lead to god, which it does NOT, you are irrationally assuming that that god is the one you already believe in. Why did that love not lead him believe in Allah or Vishnu or hell one of the dozen motherfucking GODS OF LOVE?

You are attempting to play an unsophisticated game of connect the dots with a blank piece of paper and the willingness to draw the dots in wherever you feel it's necessary to join them together to get to god. It's pedestrian and boring.

(05-11-2014 06:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yet love is understood as more than it's chemical makeup.
No you do NOT "understand" it as more, you are asserting it is more. Provide evidence that it exists or can operate without a brain. Prove evidence that it is more then chemicals. Provide evidence that it can operate outside a biological agent.

(05-11-2014 06:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Rev. King didn't say that only love can drive out hate, because it had a nice ring to it, but because he truly believed this. His views regarding the power and capacity of love, though expressed poetically, were in fact truth claims. In fact it's his belief in the truth of this, that served as the backbone of the civil rights movement.

The fact that he BELIEVED it has no damn bearing on if it's an accurate representation of reality and you really need to learn this fact. All of this has absolutely nothing to do with Francis Collins. You are trying to divorce love from it's chemistry so you can argue that it's transcendent and goes beyond and then do some idiotic gymnastics to try and tie it all into god. It's boring.

For fuck sake people also say love can move mountains and we don't believe they mean that as a literal truth claim.

If you want me to evaluate the quote on the basis of it being a literalistic interpretation of love and how it operates in the real world I will but that's not how poetic embellishment is about and you know that. Do you want me to?

(05-11-2014 06:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Even in this statement i'm not merely saying something poetic, I am also say something that I find true, that this meal taste so exceptionally good.
So did you complete fail to grasp the point of what I said on purpose or was it an accident?
If your trying to claim that because poetic license is placed on factual statements that that then makes the poetic description it's self factual means you don't know what you are talking about.


Once again though, this is a pointless topic because even if I was to say that love is more then chemistry, that it can "transcend" human beings, hell even if i was to out and out assert on your behalf that it was 100% entirely supernatural in nature...you still can not tie it to your god as a quality he has or is representative of him until you prove he exists and can have qualities.
I don't except presup as authoritative in away. Prove he exists first, then we can argue over his characteristics

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: