the God term
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-04-2013, 11:55 AM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 11:48 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 11:44 AM)childeye Wrote:  I think I get what you are saying. You are holding to the term god as based upon a superstition. I am calling God Love.

No. He's making fun of you and being sarcastic.

Undecided

Me? Moi? Really? No. Never.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
15-04-2013, 11:58 AM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 11:55 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 11:48 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  No. He's making fun of you and being sarcastic.

Undecided

Me? Moi? Really? No. Never.

Wink

Did you even manage typing that with a straight face? 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
15-04-2013, 11:59 AM
RE: the God term
Childeye, words mean things. You can change the meaning of words, but don't expect others to agree with them.

You say the word god means "love". Ok, fine, then by your definition I feel "god" (because you're saying the word god means "love" and I feel love for some people and things).

Here's the part where you are full of shit.

You don't define the word "god" as "love". You define it as "love" + theological bullshit. The theological bullshit is what we object to.


Your entire argument is based on a deliberate equivocation fallacy and confusion of definition, and the whole of your defense so far has been what I would call "Word Salad".



You're not special, childeye. Your "argument" (dishonest attempt to shoehorn your theology where it isn't needed, rather) isn't new. It's been used countless times before. And you must think we're mentally incompetent if you believe we'll fall for it. Fuck you for thinking we're stupid enough to fall for your disingenuous lie of an argument.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Phaedrus's post
15-04-2013, 12:00 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 11:52 AM)childeye Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 11:41 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  So then you are a moral relativist? Well thats good because so am I and as a moral relativist we have no need for a supreme source of our morality. Thus no need for a "god"
I think you have an aversion to the term god. As I have stated, I am a Christian and therefore believe I need the Spirit of Love which I identify as God. Moreover, my expercience in this world is that love often is under attack which is why I am so taken with the Christ who endured so much suffering, humiliation and such, yet he forgave those who would do such great harm to him. To believe that Love endures is the same to me as good will ultimately conquer evil. I find the spirit that lives in me by believing this, is joyous yet a sweet sorrow.

Atheists seek empirical data.

Your claims about Christ are based on faith; thus, unprovable.

Love is not under attack. Love is found in many forms. Just because how you define love (Christ) may be under attack, doesn't mean love in general is under attack.

Love is consider a forerunner of general morality. General morality is relative. No morality is absolute.

There is absolutely no absolute form of morality. Any and all morality is relative.

This being the case, God is not needed for morality.

Love is not needed for morality.

The only thing needed for morality is a form of empathy or selfishness. How that morality is defined is based on the relative morality of that individual or society.

[Image: RHcn6pd.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like kingschosen's post
15-04-2013, 12:01 PM
RE: the God term
^ Kingchosen's got his shit together.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
15-04-2013, 12:04 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 11:50 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 11:21 AM)childeye Wrote:  Huh, Tao is the essence of motion. Interesting. Is this a moral\immoral\amoral term? Of course what is, is. That is what I would call Truth. What is, pertaining to human conduct is not always rational nor is sanity the same as insanity.

The highest moral is "I love." Variance occurs with the conflicting definitions of "what is I," and "what is love." You seem to be stuck on the definition of I. You project the sense you have of morality upon god, and call it "right." But if you call yourself Christian, I becomes "western;" Muslim, eastern. Thus, relativism.

Absolute, sure, but each to his locality.
Presently, I don't consider "I" as that important as compared to "others" when believing in an altruistic Love.

Thank you for a description of relativism as in western, Muslim, eastern and so on. I would describe such differences as cultural while empathy is a common experience in all cultures. That is why I am convinced that God is a reality despite some here who would find that use of the term offensive. It's as if people have had some bad experiences with those who claim God as their guide even though they themselves do know Love.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 12:11 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 12:00 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 11:52 AM)childeye Wrote:  I think you have an aversion to the term god. As I have stated, I am a Christian and therefore believe I need the Spirit of Love which I identify as God. Moreover, my expercience in this world is that love often is under attack which is why I am so taken with the Christ who endured so much suffering, humiliation and such, yet he forgave those who would do such great harm to him. To believe that Love endures is the same to me as good will ultimately conquer evil. I find the spirit that lives in me by believing this, is joyous yet a sweet sorrow.

Atheists seek empirical data.

Your claims about Christ are based on faith; thus, unprovable.

Love is not under attack. Love is found in many forms. Just because how you define love (Christ) may be under attack, doesn't mean love in general is under attack.

Love is consider a forerunner of general morality. General morality is relative. No morality is absolute.

There is absolutely no absolute form of morality. Any and all morality is relative.

This being the case, God is not needed for morality.

Love is not needed for morality.

The only thing needed for morality is a form of empathy or selfishness. How that morality is defined is based on the relative morality of that individual or society.
Empirical data? No problem. Witness someone feeling sympathy for the poor and starving.

When I am describing Love being under attack, I am trying to speaking about those powers that would cause division and enmity. Please explain why Love is not necessary for morality? Doesn't someone have to care about how they treat others for there to be morality?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 12:11 PM (This post was last modified: 15-04-2013 12:15 PM by Revenant77x.)
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 11:52 AM)childeye Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 11:41 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  So then you are a moral relativist? Well thats good because so am I and as a moral relativist we have no need for a supreme source of our morality. Thus no need for a "god"
I think you have an aversion to the term god. As I have stated, I am a Christian and therefore believe I need the Spirit of Love which I identify as God. Moreover, my expercience in this world is that love often is under attack which is why I am so taken with the Christ who endured so much suffering, humiliation and such, yet he forgave those who would do such great harm to him. To believe that Love endures is the same to me as good will ultimately conquer evil. I find the spirit that lives in me by believing this, is joyous yet a sweet sorrow.

No I have no special aversion to the word god. Now the word "God" yes I am skeptical of since once you capitalise it you turn it into a proper noun and attempt to personify a vague notion.

I can now spit scripture out at you to show all the hate filled things Jesus has been reported as saying but you say the bible is not a holy scripture to you so instead I will ask you a question and then give you a theory as to the answer to that question.

Q: You claimed that the Jews killed christ (an oft asserted crime by followers of Paul of tarsus through Luke) however would it have been the jews Jesus would have been stoned. However Jesus was crucified, a punishment reserved not for blasphemy , as Rome really did not care about the jewish god, but rather for the crime of sedition. So if Jesus was all about love why was he executed as an armed rebel in the company of armed rebels?

My answer to this is he was trying to start a rebellion against Rome to fulfill the actual jewish prophecies and failed. Jesus is rejected by the jews as false because he did not fulfill the nationalistic prophesies regarding the ascension of a Jewish led state that would rule the world. Yeshua ben Joseph (the most likely real Jesus) was a failed rebel and nothing more. All the myths you swallow about him were written long after his death.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 12:19 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 12:11 PM)childeye Wrote:  Empirical data? No problem. Witness someone feeling sympathy for the poor and starving.

That has ZERO to do with proving Christ.

Quote:When I am describing Love being under attack, I am trying to speaking about those powers that would cause division and enmity. Please explain why Love is not necessary for morality? Doesn't someone have to care about how they treat others for there to be morality?

A person could provide sympathy for someone out of selfishness. They could guise their actions as "love" when they are just trying to get what they want.

I mean... this isn't complicated.

[Image: RHcn6pd.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kingschosen's post
15-04-2013, 12:25 PM
RE: the God term
It is pretty much like this

[Image: 2uh0ffc.jpg]


All an atheist can do, is ask the believer to define their god. Then the debate can begin on two fronts. 1) Does that thing exist? and 2) Is that a god or has another term had its definition replaced by the word "god" thereby rendering the word "god" meaningless?

If someones definition of god is their coffee mug. Then we can both agree on point 1 that the mug exists (assuming it is real). But we will disagree on the 2nd point that defining god as a coffee mug means anything other than it is a coffee mug.

So, when you say god is absolute morality. You are calling god a coffee mug (metaphorically). Except in this case, a lot of us will tell you that we do not believe in absolute morality, so your god fails point 1. Those that do believe in absolute morality (there are some atheists that do), would argue that all you are doing is defining the term "god" into a meaningless position. Absolute morality is absolute morality. Adding the word "god" to it is useless and meaningless.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: