God is love? Not in this Universe.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-07-2013, 08:57 PM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(11-07-2013 08:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope.
You continue to impose your capricious idiosyncratic definition of words and concepts on others, and expect them to accept your strange unusual usage as valid.
What "studies" exactly are you referring to above. Cite them please. I want to read them.
Sorry about the way I talk BuckyBall. But what exactly is invalid about my definitions of words? I don't know which studies exactly. I was just reiterating what I learned in the anthropology video you gave me.

(10-07-2013 07:42 PM)childeye Wrote:  "God is Love and Love is not a moral belief or a religion or a superstition"
"The term "God" is just a word pertaining to the Highest moral authority."

Quote:You have no clue what you are saying. You just contradicted yourself.
And BTW, I stand by my list of fallacies.
Okay, I've looked at what I have said and tried to determine where you might be finding fault. By the way, next time could you please elaborate a little so I don't have to guess? I think you don't like me saying love is not a moral belief even though God is Love and you would count God as a moral belief. I could see the problem with that, if that is indeed the problem. The difference to me is God is a moral power.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2013, 09:21 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2013 09:32 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(11-07-2013 08:57 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(11-07-2013 08:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope.
You continue to impose your capricious idiosyncratic definition of words and concepts on others, and expect them to accept your strange unusual usage as valid.
What "studies" exactly are you referring to above. Cite them please. I want to read them.
Sorry about the way I talk BuckyBall. But what exactly is invalid about my definitions of words? I don't know which studies exactly. I was just reiterating what I learned in the anthropology video you gave me.

(10-07-2013 07:42 PM)childeye Wrote:  "God is Love and Love is not a moral belief or a religion or a superstition"
"The term "God" is just a word pertaining to the Highest moral authority."

Quote:You have no clue what you are saying. You just contradicted yourself.
And BTW, I stand by my list of fallacies.
Okay, I've looked at what I have said and tried to determine where you might be finding fault. By the way, next time could you please elaborate a little so I don't have to guess? I think you don't like me saying love is not a moral belief even though God is Love and you would count God as a moral belief. I could see the problem with that, if that is indeed the problem. The difference to me is God is a moral power.

So?
So what is your point ?
You define the word "god" in a completely unusual, idiosyncratic way, and then jump from there to saying "atheism is invalid" because atheists don't accept your stupid definition of what the word "god" means ?

Well, I call bullshit on that. YOU do not define what words mean when OTHERS use them, or decide what is valid for others to define themselves as, (just because they don't buy your definitions). That is what you are doing here.

I'm done here. You spent hundreds of pages saying the same stupid thing, ad nauseam, (and basically nothing else), in other threads. There is no "one" moral system, thus no "deification" (making ultimate claims about) is it possible, (of morality), as it's devoid of meaningful content, and impossible to use as a definition of the word "god". It's culturally relative, (which the video said, but obviously went way over your head). Saying "god is a moral power", which you then proceed to conflate with an emotion, and then want readers to accept also that it is somehow valid to accept as an equivalent as a "god" because you (alone) define it to be so for yourself. Two giant leaps to meaningless nonsense. You go right ahead and call things whatever you like. Just don't expect others to accept your preposterous self-defined concepts and special use of language.

The question, is, "what do you think your doing here " ? You've accomplished nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2013, 09:47 PM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(11-07-2013 09:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-07-2013 08:57 PM)childeye Wrote:  Sorry about the way I talk BuckyBall. But what exactly is invalid about my definitions of words? I don't know which studies exactly. I was just reiterating what I learned in the anthropology video you gave me.


Okay, I've looked at what I have said and tried to determine where you might be finding fault. By the way, next time could you please elaborate a little so I don't have to guess? I think you don't like me saying love is not a moral belief even though God is Love and you would count God as a moral belief. I could see the problem with that, if that is indeed the problem. The difference to me is God is a moral power.

So?
So what is your point ?
You define the word "god" in a completely unusual, idiosyncratic way, and then jump from there to saying "atheism is invalid" because atheists don't accept your stupid definition of what the word "god" means ?

Well, I call bullshit on that. YOU do not define what words mean when OTHERS use them, or decide what is valid for others to define themselves as, (just because they don't buy your definitions). That is what you are doing here.

I'm done here. You spent hundreds of pages saying the same stupid thing, ad nauseam, (and basically nothing else), in other threads. There is no "one" moral system, thus no "deification" (making ultimate claims about) is it possible, (of morality), as it's devoid of meaningful content, and impossible to use as a definition of the word "god". It's culturally relative, (which the video said, but obviously went way over your head). Saying "god is a moral power", which you then proceed to conflate with an emotion, and then want readers to accept also that it is somehow valid to accept as an equivalent as a "god" because you (alone) define it to be so for yourself. Two giant leaps to meaningless nonsense. You go right ahead and call things whatever you like. Just don't expect others to accept your preposterous self-defined concepts and special use of language.

The question, is, "what do you think your doing here " ? You've accomplished nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip.
BuckyBall, you're wrong about me. I did hear in the video about morality being culturally relative and I would even add that it is relative on a person to person basis in each culture. Still, that does not exclude the fact that even in your video the man spoke of the golden rule as applicable as a single truth of moral conduct for all people. I think we talked about this before where men can dwell in Love while at the same time Love would dwell in each man. So what is with all the dislike towards me? Is that what you would want done to you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2013, 10:01 PM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(11-07-2013 09:47 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(11-07-2013 09:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So?
So what is your point ?
You define the word "god" in a completely unusual, idiosyncratic way, and then jump from there to saying "atheism is invalid" because atheists don't accept your stupid definition of what the word "god" means ?

Well, I call bullshit on that. YOU do not define what words mean when OTHERS use them, or decide what is valid for others to define themselves as, (just because they don't buy your definitions). That is what you are doing here.

I'm done here. You spent hundreds of pages saying the same stupid thing, ad nauseam, (and basically nothing else), in other threads. There is no "one" moral system, thus no "deification" (making ultimate claims about) is it possible, (of morality), as it's devoid of meaningful content, and impossible to use as a definition of the word "god". It's culturally relative, (which the video said, but obviously went way over your head). Saying "god is a moral power", which you then proceed to conflate with an emotion, and then want readers to accept also that it is somehow valid to accept as an equivalent as a "god" because you (alone) define it to be so for yourself. Two giant leaps to meaningless nonsense. You go right ahead and call things whatever you like. Just don't expect others to accept your preposterous self-defined concepts and special use of language.

The question, is, "what do you think your doing here " ? You've accomplished nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip.
BuckyBall, you're wrong about me. I did hear in the video about morality being culturally relative and I would even add that it is relative on a person to person basis in each culture. Still, that does not exclude the fact that even in your video the man spoke of the golden rule as applicable as a single truth of moral conduct for all people. I think we talked about this before where men can dwell in Love while at the same time Love would dwell in each man. So what is with all the dislike towards me? Is that what you would want done to you?

There is no moral absolute. Killing someone is ok in war, or if someone is trying to harm you. Your "golden rule" is dependent on the situation, and not absolute. Love has nothing to do with it. You are very annoying. You drool bs constantly. Words mean nothing to you. Precise meanings are important. If at's all "hippy dippy" crap, then words are not important. You are here to invalidate atheism BY YOUR DEFINITION. You failed. YOU do not define what others mean when they use language.
I repeat, what are you doing here ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2013, 11:17 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2013 11:23 PM by childeye.)
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(11-07-2013 10:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-07-2013 09:47 PM)childeye Wrote:  BuckyBall, you're wrong about me. I did hear in the video about morality being culturally relative and I would even add that it is relative on a person to person basis in each culture. Still, that does not exclude the fact that even in your video the man spoke of the golden rule as applicable as a single truth of moral conduct for all people. I think we talked about this before where men can dwell in Love while at the same time Love would dwell in each man. So what is with all the dislike towards me? Is that what you would want done to you?

There is no moral absolute. Killing someone is ok in war, or if someone is trying to harm you. Your "golden rule" is dependent on the situation, and not absolute. Love has nothing to do with it. You are very annoying. You drool bs constantly. Words mean nothing to you. Precise meanings are important. If at's all "hippy dippy" crap, then words are not important. You are here to invalidate atheism BY YOUR DEFINITION. You failed. YOU do not define what others mean when they use language.
I repeat, what are you doing here ?
So I asked you to tell me what definitions of terms I have misused. Well, present your examples. You say it is okay to kill someone in war. Is that absolute or just your opinion? Is war it's self moral? Is it absolutely wrong to kill an innocent person or sometimes it's okay? Sure , each circumstance is different and will require sometimes opposing actions, but still that does not mean that there is no right thing or wrong thing to do. If there is no moral absolute then there is no such thing as any real right or wrong behavior that would be prosperous for everyone. That is hypocritical reasoning and cannot be true. I don't try to define what others mean when they use language. I try to stop misunderstandings.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2013, 03:30 AM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(11-07-2013 08:03 PM)childeye Wrote:  I assure you, I had no intention of diminishing the cost of anyone's suffering. I sincerely believe no one suffers more than God since He is Love.

Of course. Devaluating real suffering to be less than that of a fictional character, that's real uplifting and moral. Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
12-07-2013, 05:48 AM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
How ridiculous is it to say that love you feel is Gwyneth Paltrow? How ridiculous is it to say that you must love Gwyneth? And she's sweet and adorable, far more deserving of love than any deity ever invented, but fuck no.

Prolly that is what pisses me off most about childeye.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2013, 06:42 AM (This post was last modified: 12-07-2013 06:47 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(11-07-2013 11:17 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(11-07-2013 10:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no moral absolute. Killing someone is ok in war, or if someone is trying to harm you. Your "golden rule" is dependent on the situation, and not absolute. Love has nothing to do with it. You are very annoying. You drool bs constantly. Words mean nothing to you. Precise meanings are important. If at's all "hippy dippy" crap, then words are not important. You are here to invalidate atheism BY YOUR DEFINITION. You failed. YOU do not define what others mean when they use language.
I repeat, what are you doing here ?
So I asked you to tell me what definitions of terms I have misused. Well, present your examples. You say it is okay to kill someone in war. Is that absolute or just your opinion? Is war it's self moral? Is it absolutely wrong to kill an innocent person or sometimes it's okay? Sure , each circumstance is different and will require sometimes opposing actions, but still that does not mean that there is no right thing or wrong thing to do. If there is no moral absolute then there is no such thing as any real right or wrong behavior that would be prosperous for everyone. That is hypocritical reasoning and cannot be true. I don't try to define what others mean when they use language. I try to stop misunderstandings.

The "Golden Rule" is not universal. Stop trying to obfuscate and muddy the waters. I just proved your crap is invalid. You moral values are LEARNED, and the products of LEARNED behavior, as any psychologist knows. Your lack of knowledge of science is astoundingly pathetic. I have made it perfectly clear what you have done, and are attempting to do. Either you can't read, or are purposely obtuse, on order to keep this sort of crap going for it's own sake. Your drivel here, in hundreds of crappy nonsensical meaningless pages, of endless crappy questions, and assertions IS an attempt to redefine what the word "god" means and YOU know it. No one cares. In doing that, you are attempting to invalidate atheism, and you know it.

I think you are a lonely old man, and you have nothing better to do, and what you are really all about is attention seeking. As I said, I'm done. Your premise is meaningless, as are your endless nonsensical "non-points", and "non-questions".

You didn't answer the question. What are you doing here ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2013, 06:51 AM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(12-07-2013 06:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  As I said, I'm done.

Obviously, not true. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
12-07-2013, 05:38 PM (This post was last modified: 12-07-2013 08:06 PM by childeye.)
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(12-07-2013 03:30 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(11-07-2013 08:03 PM)childeye Wrote:  I assure you, I had no intention of diminishing the cost of anyone's suffering. I sincerely believe no one suffers more than God since He is Love.

Of course. Devaluating real suffering to be less than that of a fictional character, that's real uplifting and moral. Dodgy
If you're being sarcastic, I agree whole heartedly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: