the God term
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-04-2013, 12:59 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 12:32 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 11:59 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  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.
Peace, Phaedrus. For the record I don't think you or any one else here is mentally incompetent. Nor does the Love inside me even consider such sentiments. I would be a boastful and prideful person to believe such things about you.

However, if I may be forthright, you do appear to be skeptical of my intentions. So here it is with all honesty. I don't think as atheists you have even heard the Gospel, for it is simply believing that Love exists as a Spiritual Truth in all men, and that its' presence or absence is the cause of all moral and immoral behavior. Moreover, I am saying that Love is a personable Spirit Who precedes our existence and is the cause and reason for Life.

In other words, "love" exists, this "love" is older than humanity, and this "love" created the universe, and this "love" is the pinnacle of morality.

You know what I have to say to that?

You just butchered any significance out of the common definition of love because you are thinly veiling it as a codeword for "invisible sky daddy," which has absolutely nothing to do with my understanding of the definition of love.

So if you describe your god as "love," then I believe in love, but in a very, VERY different type of love than you do (as in what love actually is, which has nothing to do with your god). We know that you don't just think of god as "love," we've met enough of your ilk to know what you really are trying to do when you try to make an absurd concept more appealing by replacing its title with a common term. You've already been exposed countless times, your argument is nothing more than an equivocation fallacy: you think by simply changing the name that you have changed the argument, but nothing has changed.

If you can understand what love is without the need of a representative concept or entity, there is no reason to ascribe any more meaning to love than what it is (an empathetic, compassionate relationship or bond between at least two parties). I have no need to invent another term to equivocate to this concept verbally or psychologically because I understand it as the term used for it stands. So if you really, truly, only believe in "god" as "love," then I don't embrace your term "god" to describe love, I simply use the term love to describe love. I know that you don't though, you are trying to replace the label since pretty much all religions' definitions of gods relate to supernatural concepts, and are trying to shoehorn those bullshit idea undetected under the moniker of "love."

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
15-04-2013, 01:10 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 12:04 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 11:50 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  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.

Empathy is an emotional response that's been around since men lived in caves long before knowledge of fire. It hasn't anything to do with gods or the monotheistic version of god.

Also I have no problem with the "term" god. I do not find it the least bit offensive. What I do find routinely offensive is how the word is used by people who presume superiority based on the writings and rambles of a book written in the bronze age.

Shoo fly


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
15-04-2013, 01:25 PM
RE: the God term
[Image: cm-29040-050907f91c91ee.jpeg]

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
15-04-2013, 01:31 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 01:25 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  [Image: cm-29040-050907f91c91ee.jpeg]

I Heart giraffes


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 01:38 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 12:43 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Thank you for stating your position in relatively clear words. I need more info though.

Define "Love" in practical terms, as in what type of love you're talking about (without using theological words like god, spiritual, gospel, etc.). Love of a spouse? Love of a child? Love as a vague term for altruism?

Define "Spiritual Truth" and how it differs from the term "Absolute Morality", again without relying on theological terms

Define "Spirit"

AFTER doing that, explain why if "Love" is a "Spiritual Truth" in "all men" (and women I presume), there exist sociopaths who do NOT experience love or altruism, at least not in any way resembling that of a typical person.
Thanks Phaedrus for this excellent response. The type of Love I am talking about is empathy. It is hard to avoid semantics here. Empathy of course can be in a marriage apart from the hormonal drives or physical attraction. I see a True Love as having an altruistic purpose. Hence a Mothers Love is in it's truest sense, is very much the Love I am talking about. Basically, the willingness to lay down one's life so others may have life.

I liken Spiritual Truth to that actual reality that recognizes Love as the goodness in mankind and consequently that this Love is bigger than just one person. To cherish love would be the consequence of such knowledge. Conversely ignorance of this reality would produce a spirit in a person that is contrary to Love and therefore immoral to some degree as per one's ignorance.

Spirit is the feelings or emotions that constitute our character and countenance. This would be distinct from that which is physical or biological. Not that biological impulses do not affect emotions, as they most certainly do. But as per the topic of this thread, that morally speaking, when we consider how it is for others, so as to put ourselves in their shoes, we experience empathy. And this empathy causes us to feel the pain and joy of others. This empathy does not come upon our mental deliberation, nor can we turn it off even though we might run from it.

Your last question forces me to speak in terms that are more speculative regarding a sociopath. But first I would make a point. I do not claim that Love is in all men as a Spiritual Truth. I am claiming that empathy is a Spiritual prerequisite for the moral impetus to occur in any man\woman.

Having said that, I don't know how someone can feel no love. It seems to me they would only understand the hardwired impetus of the flesh which regards comfort as good and pain as bad. There emotions would probably be more akin to indifference ar amoral.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 01:39 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 01:31 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 01:25 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  [Image: cm-29040-050907f91c91ee.jpeg]

I Heart giraffes
Me too. How about mosquitos?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 01:40 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 12:11 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 12:00 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  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?

But none of that requires any gods.Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
15-04-2013, 01:41 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 12:00 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Atheists Skeptics seek empirical data.

Most, but not all, atheists are skeptics.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
15-04-2013, 01:42 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 01:39 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 01:31 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I Heart giraffes
Me too. How about mosquitos?

They cause around a million deaths every year through the transmission of diseases, not much love is reserved for mosquitos.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tartarus Sauce's post
15-04-2013, 01:46 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 12:31 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 11:59 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  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.
Peace, Phaedrus. For the record I don't think you or any one else here is mentally incompetent. Nor does the Love inside me even consider such sentiments. I would be a boastful and prideful person to believe such things about you.

However, if I may be forthright, you do appear to be skeptical of my intentions. So here it is with all honesty. I don't think as atheists you have even heard the Gospel, for it is simply believing that Love exists as a Spiritual Truth in all men, and that its' presence or absence is the cause of all moral and immoral behavior. Moreover, I am saying that Love is a personable Spirit Who precedes our existence and is the cause and reason for Life.

And I say that is nonsense.
I have read the gospels, heard them preached.

Life does not have a reason, it has causes. We came about through evolution and are simply the most intelligent ape species.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: