Why is it so important that God exists?

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Why is it so important that God exists?

I've been reading some Theist material, and they seem so willing to hold on to the belief no matter what.

'Oh X theory, doesn't fit? It's not true!'

'Oh, science can't explain Y, it must be God!'

 

I myself would rather keep X, and find out about Y. These people however, won't.

I've met few Theists that don't think like this.

 

This is what pissed me off at Haisch's book. He gets into the meditation of the infinite consciousness NDEs etc.., and to support it basically says 'Wouldn't it be nice!' With all the otherwise good content he just had to throw that in and basically ruined it.

 

It is these types of arguments that piss me off. That they would rather disregard science explanation as awesome as it is and just disregard it or butcher it.

 

So why is it so important to them that God exists?


bodhi smith
Posts: 63
Joined: 2008-07-05
User is offlineOffline
It's a comfort mechinism

 People tend to be afraid of the unknown and death is the ultimate unknown so a afterlife is comforting.

That and they bought into it and to change positions would be admitting that they were duped, people seem willing to do anything to avoid admitting they made a mistake.

 

bodhi


KathieG
KathieG's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Wonko wrote:Shitrock

Wonko wrote:

Shitrock wrote:

geirj wrote:

Because if there is no God, then it would mean that they would be responsible for their own lives. In all likelihood, they would implode under the weight of the responsibility.

your way off base here.  christian philosophy states that everyone IS responsible for their own actions and must atone for them when they die.

Uhhhh, think what Geirj meant was that many believers in a God tend to allow him to "take care of things" and often in that way they do NOT believe in cleaning up their own messes or for that matter cleaning up their act. Also, since they rely on God for "direction", it would be difficult (if there is no god as Geirj said), figuring out what to do, what goals to set, how to behave and so forth.

Yes, there would be no more "jesus take the wheel", "if it's god's will" , "god will protect us" etc. No invisible means of support.


KathieG
KathieG's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Because a

Paisley wrote:

Because a world without God is ultimately a world without meaning, purpose and hope.

This statement actually makes me feel sad for you. You are missing out on so much by thinking this way.

I was a theist once. Some of the darkest times in my life were when I was trying to "figure out" god. Then I began to read, think, and talk to some very intelligent freethinkers...I slowly began to let it all go, it was liberating. I continue to evolve, and my life has more meaning, purpose, and hope than it ever has before.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Paisley wrote:

God is love.

...and tsunamis, eartquakes, HIV, treacher collins syndrome, orgasms, newborn babies, stillborn babies, depression, joy, hate, epiliespy, cancer.....

And your point?

The point is obvious. If you credit god for the good things in life, you must also blame god for the things that are not so great.

God may be love, but God is ALSO cancer.

As spiderman says, with great power, comes great resposibility.
 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
So why is it so important to them that God exists?

Because a world without God is ultimately a world without meaning, purpose and hope.

So you are saying my life has no meaning, purpose or hope?

The level of this delusion is not only disgusting, its insulting.

I'm saying that a world without God is ultimately one without meaning, purpose, and hope. To have ultimate hope is to have faith in the ultimate.

 

I pity you. I really do. Even if you believe in god, you clearly are not using the gift he gave you to its fullest. You live your brief existence under the thumb of rules and obligations you've forced upon yourself - and you do it for the fleeting hope of an eternity of boredom. I would wager that, because of this, you don't really know how to love or enjoy the present as somebody who is free as I am can. I think you may be jealous of that, and you know what, you SHOULD be.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yellow is good, "Atheists

Yellow is good, "Atheists LOVE Too" !     


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Paisley said he's a deist,so

Paisley said he's a deist,so is god plays no role in the purpose of his life anyway.Am I missing something?

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:Paisley

ronin-dog wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
So why is it so important to them that God exists?

Because a world without God is ultimately a world without meaning, purpose and hope.

Only to you, Paisley. You are projecting from your own point of view where you are that stuck in your religion that you can't imagine life without it.

We have told you time and again that from OUR point of view, which you should take into consideration seeing as we are the ones without god, life does have meaning, purpose and hope.

I have taken the atheistic point of view into account and I fail to see how it provides one with ultimate faith and hope. 

ronin-dog wrote:
What meaning and purpose does god give you?

That everything is ultimately working out for a greater good. This is admittedly requires an element of faith and I fully embrace it.

ronin-dog wrote:
God is love? That is not a consistent message from the bible. How about God is fear, fear your god as he commands you to.

Agreed. However, I do not hold the Bible to be authoritative. So your point is irrelevant.

ronin-dog wrote:
Love is love. God is your imaginary friend.

Love is eternal. This is what basically separates believers from unbelievers.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:Paisley said he's

Loc wrote:
Paisley said he's a deist,so is god plays no role in the purpose of his life anyway.Am I missing something?

No, this is not correct. I am not a deist. I believe that God is both within (immanent) and without (transcendent). The technical term for this form of theism is called "panentheism."

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I have taken

Paisley wrote:

I have taken the atheistic point of view into account

What is the "atheistic point of view"?

Quote:
and I fail to see how it provides one with ultimate faith

What is "ultimate faith"?

Quote:
and hope. 

Hope for what?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
bodhi smith wrote: People

bodhi smith wrote:
 People tend to be afraid of the unknown and death is the ultimate unknown so a afterlife is comforting.

That and they bought into it and to change positions would be admitting that they were duped, people seem willing to do anything to avoid admitting they made a mistake.

This depends upon what you call the "afterlife."

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
KathieG wrote:Paisley

KathieG wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Because a world without God is ultimately a world without meaning, purpose and hope.

This statement actually makes me feel sad for you. You are missing out on so much by thinking this way.

I was a theist once. Some of the darkest times in my life were when I was trying to "figure out" god. Then I began to read, think, and talk to some very intelligent freethinkers...I slowly began to let it all go, it was liberating. I continue to evolve, and my life has more meaning, purpose, and hope than it ever has before.

Faith is "letting go, and letting God." This is what I find to be ultimately liberating.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Faith is

Paisley wrote:

Faith is "letting go, and letting God." This is what I find to be ultimately liberating.

"letting go" of what?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Paisley

aiia wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Faith is "letting go, and letting God." This is what I find to be ultimately liberating.

"letting go" of what?

 

Rationality, thinking for oneself and actually trying to do something useful rather than praying.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Paisley wrote:
And your point?

The point is obvious. If you credit god for the good things in life, you must also blame god for the things that are not so great.

God may be love, but God is ALSO cancer.

As spiderman says, with great power, comes great resposibility.

My theology is not based on spiderman.

Without illness, there would be no healing. Without death, there would be no rebirth. Faith is seeing the whole picture and realizing that there is beauty even in tragedy.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Without death,

Paisley wrote:

Without death, there would be no rebirth. Faith is seeing the whole picture and realizing that there is beauty even in tragedy.

 

I'm going to be "reborn" as 200 lbs of atoms, molecules and heat.

Its not beauty; it just is.

Beauty is BOOBS

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Fivea

Yellow_Number_Fivea wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I'm saying that a world without God is ultimately one without meaning, purpose, and hope. To have ultimate hope is to have faith in the ultimate.

I pity you. I really do. Even if you believe in god, you clearly are not using the gift he gave you to its fullest. You live your brief existence under the thumb of rules and obligations you've forced upon yourself - and you do it for the fleeting hope of an eternity of boredom. I would wager that, because of this, you don't really know how to love or enjoy the present as somebody who is free as I am can. I think you may be jealous of that, and you know what, you SHOULD be.

You are operating under a false assumption - that your theological view reflects mine. It doesn't. I do not believe in the "god" that you reject.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Paisley wrote:I

aiia wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I have taken the atheistic point of view into account

What is the "atheistic point of view"?

A worldview devoid of eternal hope.

aiia wrote:
What is "ultimate faith"?

...and hope.

Hope for what?

That everything is working out for a greater good and that love is eternal.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:A worldview

Paisley wrote:
A worldview devoid of eternal hope.
And "eternal hope" grants us what, exactly?


Paisley wrote:
That everything is working out for a greater good and that love is eternal.
Isn't working for a greater good our choice? And, what good is "eternal" love? Isn't love good enough on a finite basis?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Paisley

aiia wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Faith is "letting go, and letting God." This is what I find to be ultimately liberating.

"letting go" of what?

Fear

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:I'm going to be

aiia wrote:
I'm going to be "reborn" as 200 lbs of atoms, molecules and heat.

Its not beauty; it just is.

You're right. It's not beautiful. This is what separates my worldview from yours.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:aiia

Paisley wrote:

aiia wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Faith is "letting go, and letting God." This is what I find to be ultimately liberating.

"letting go" of what?

Fear

 

"Fear" of what ?


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Paisley

JillSwift wrote:
Paisley wrote:
A worldview devoid of eternal hope.
And "eternal hope" grants us what, exactly?

 

Inner peace, serenity.

JillSwift wrote:
Paisley wrote:
That everything is working out for a greater good and that love is eternal.
Isn't working for a greater good our choice?

Yes.

JillSwift wrote:
And, what good is "eternal" love?

Love that is eternal (a.k.a. God). 

JillSwift wrote:
Isn't love good enough on a finite basis?

No, eternal love is a greater good.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:"Fear" of

Anonymouse wrote:
"Fear" of what ?

Whatever is causing you psychological insecurity.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:aiia

Paisley wrote:

aiia wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I have taken the atheistic point of view into account

What is the "atheistic point of view"?

A worldview devoid of eternal hope.

Wrong, I believe the universe is eternal.

Something cannot come from nothing, hence, something can never become nothing. No 'hope' is needed.

Quote:
aiia wrote:
What is "ultimate faith"?

...and hope.

Hope for what?

That everything is working out for a greater good and that love is eternal.

The universe is an inanimate object. It does not have emotions.

What "greater good" is there?

Hope in this case is a wasted emotion and possibly psychoneurotic on your part, because you have no control over what happens in reference to eternity.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:JillSwift

Paisley wrote:
JillSwift wrote:
Paisley wrote:
A worldview devoid of eternal hope.
And "eternal hope" grants us what, exactly?
Inner peace, serenity.
Achievable through means other than worrying about "eternity", which we are not likely to experience.

 

Paisley wrote:
JillSwift wrote:
Paisley wrote:
That everything is working out for a greater good and that love is eternal.
Isn't working for a greater good our choice?
Yes.
Then who needs god?

Paisley wrote:
JillSwift wrote:
And, what good is "eternal" love?
Love that is eternal (a.k.a. God).
You didn't answer the question: What GOOD is "eternal" love? What does it bring us that we don't already have?

Paisley wrote:
JillSwift wrote:
Isn't love good enough on a finite basis?
No, eternal love is a greater good.
As above, why is "eternal" love any more valuable to us than the finite love around us?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Anonymouse

Paisley wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:
"Fear" of what ?

Whatever is causing you psychological insecurity.

You are projecting.

It seems like you are the individual who has fears.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Anonymouse

Paisley wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:
"Fear" of what ?

Whatever is causing you psychological insecurity.

But nothing is causing me "psychological insecurity".
So now I can't have "faith" ?


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:My theology is

Paisley wrote:
My theology is not based on spiderman.

Nobody said it was. (Although you could do worse. Many do)

Paisley wrote:
p>

Without illness, there would be no healing.

Right. So God is love AND hate. Mention them both next time or it's false advertising.

Paisley wrote:
Without death, there would be no rebirth.

"Rebirth" ?

Paisley wrote:
Faith is seeing the whole picture and realizing that there is beauty even in tragedy.

 

There is no beauty in real tragedy.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Paisley

aiia wrote:
Paisley wrote:

aiia wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I have taken the atheistic point of view into account

What is the "atheistic point of view"?

A worldview devoid of eternal hope.

Wrong, I believe the universe is eternal.

Something cannot come from nothing, hence, something can never become nothing. No 'hope' is needed.

I fail to see how the belief in mindless mass/energy brings you eternal hope.

Incidentally, the belief that the universe is eternal is just that...a belief. It can never be proven.

aiia wrote:
Paisley wrote:
aiia wrote:
What is "ultimate faith"?

...and hope.

Hope for what?

That everything is working out for a greater good and that love is eternal.

The universe is an inanimate object. It does not have emotions.

My faith is not grounded in an inanimate object devoid of emotions.

aiia wrote:
What "greater good" is there?

Eternal love (a.k.a. God).

aiia wrote:
Hope in this case is a wasted emotion and possibly psychoneurotic on your part, because you have no control over what happens in reference to eternity.

Hope is a present state of mind. Without hope, one would be in a state of despair. Living in a state of despair brings on high anxiety which is a psychological disorder. No further commentary is necessary.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Paisley

aiia wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:
"Fear" of what ?

Whatever is causing you psychological insecurity.

You are projecting.

It seems like you are the individual who has fears.

How am I projecting? He asked "fear of what?" And I answered "whatever is causing you psychological insecurity."

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Paisley

JillSwift wrote:
Paisley wrote:
JillSwift wrote:
Paisley wrote:
That everything is working out for a greater good and that love is eternal.
Isn't working for a greater good our choice?
Yes.
Then who needs god?

Those who believe that everything is working out for a greater good and that love is eternal. Without God, such faith would be groundless.

JillSwift wrote:
Paisley wrote:
JillSwift wrote:
And, what good is "eternal" love?
Love that is eternal (a.k.a. God).
You didn't answer the question: What GOOD is "eternal" love? What does it bring us that we don't already have?

The hope that love is eternal, not fleeting.

JillSwift wrote:
Paisley wrote:
JillSwift wrote:
Isn't love good enough on a finite basis?
No, eternal love is a greater good.
As above, why is "eternal" love any more valuable to us than the finite love around us?

Infinite love is greater than finite love. This should be self-evident.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Infinite love is

Quote:
Infinite love is greater than finite love. This should be self-evident.

Unless you think that loving someone for a finite time is the same if not better than more time.

I'm not saying that infinite love is necessarily better.. but, I've just never heard of someone ever saying on their death bed, "Yup, I'm pretty sure I've spent enough time with those people that I love and I wouldn't want another good day to spend with them."


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Those who

Paisley wrote:
Those who believe that everything is working out for a greater good and that love is eternal. Without God, such faith would be groundless.
Circular logic just makes you dizzy.

Paisley wrote:
The hope that love is eternal, not fleeting.
Circular logic... getting dizzy.

Paisley wrote:
Infinite love is greater than finite love. This should be self-evident.
If greater = more than, yes it's self evident. But, love isn't a substance. "Eternal" love brings knowlege that you'll be loved tomorrow. In knowing that you will be loved, in removing the risk that you will lose love, haven't you diminished its value?

So, ins't finite love greater in that it motivates you to do more to earn more love?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:"Eternal" love brings

Quote:
"Eternal" love brings knowlege that you'll be loved tomorrow. In knowing that you will be loved, in removing the risk that you will lose love, haven't you diminished its value?

So, ins't finite love greater in that it motivates you to do more to earn more love?

Only if you think that greater love = love that motivates one to earn it.

Arguable.

One could also make the argument that the great love is the one that merely motivates one to do good, not to earn the love, but merely in response to it.

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Only if

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Only if you think that greater love = love that motivates one to earn it.

Arguable.

One could also make the argument that the great love is the one that merely motivates one to do good, not to earn the love, but merely in response to it.

"merely motivates"? What does that mean? Why is one motivated to do anything by this "great love" if not to earn it?

Human behavior isn't magic, there's structure in it.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:"Merely motivates"?

Quote:
"Merely motivates"? What does that mean? Why is one motivated to do anything by this "great love" if not to earn it?

Human behavior isn't magic, there's structure in it.

Indeed.

I'm merely suggesting that, perhaps, the motivation is the love itself and the goal is "to do good." The structure you're suggesting is that the motivation is love and the goal is "to earn it."

One example of this may be expressed through some anecdotal evidence.

My father loved me as a child, and I was given the impression that it was unconditional.  Since he lived his life well, I wanted to live my life, in large part, like his.  Not because I wanted to earn his love, but because I loved him, and therefore wished to reflect him in part.

Or, unless you think that all that you love you must also be proud of, then the motivation could be love and the goal "to make the lover proud of you."  This wouldn't entail a concept of "earning" and would not be affected by the fact that the love was eternal, unconditional, infinite, or whatever.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Indeed.

I'm merely suggesting that, perhaps, the motivation is the love itself and the goal is "to do good." The structure you're suggesting is that the motivation is love and the goal is "to earn it."

One example of this may be expressed through some anecdotal evidence.

My father loved me as a child, and I was given the impression that it was unconditional.  Since he lived his life well, I wanted to live my life, in large part, like his.  Not because I wanted to earn his love, but because I loved him, and therefore wished to reflect him in part.

Or, unless you think that all that you love you must also be proud of, then the motivation could be love and the goal "to make the lover proud of you."  This wouldn't entail a concept of "earning" and would not be affected by the fact that the love was eternal, unconditional, infinite, or whatever.

That's poetic, but I suspect that the poetry dodges the facts.

Living your life like you perceived your father's life was less likely motivated by a choice than by having learned your social behaviors from your parents, like humans do instinctively. If anything, you realized that those learned behaviors were by-n-large considered 'good' by your community and thus worth replicating. That is to say, your father raised you well. (Interestingly, I know of several cases where a child was raised into being a good adult by parent(s) who did not love them. It was the parent's sense of duty and responsibility that was the motive for the parenting.)

Wanting "the lover to be proud of you" does indeed require the concept of earning - you're earning that pride. Yes, this does mean you're still not worried about earning the love that's already established as "eternal".

Which actually illustrates my point about eternal love: Since you can do anything (or fail to do anything) without risk of losing that love, then what value does it have? In the above hypothetical, the motive to do good things was to earn pride. The love was irrelevant!

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:aiia

Paisley wrote:

aiia wrote:

Wrong, I believe the universe is eternal.

Something cannot come from nothing, hence, something can never become nothing. No 'hope' is needed.

I fail to see how the belief in mindless mass/energy brings you eternal hope.


See, here's your problem. You either can't read or you see only what you want to see.

Quote:
Incidentally, the belief that the universe is eternal is just that...a belief. It can never be proven.

It is an axiom.

Quote:
aiia wrote:
The universe is an inanimate object. It does not have emotions.

My faith is not grounded in an inanimate object devoid of emotions.

The universe is the only thing that is eternal.

Quote:
aiia wrote:
What "greater good" is there?

Eternal love (a.k.a. God).

Many problems here.
1 Prove there is 'god'
2 Prove 'god' is eternal
3 Prove 'god' has emotion
4 Prove 'eternal love' is 'greater good'

Quote:
aiia wrote:
Hope in this case is a wasted emotion and possibly psychoneurotic on your part, because you have no control over what happens in reference to eternity.

Hope is a present state of mind.


See, more evidence of reading problems. 'Hope' deals with the future, not the present.


Quote:
Without hope, one would be in a state of despair. Living in a state of despair brings on high anxiety which is a psychological disorder. No further commentary is necessary.

Here IS my commentary. The statement, "Without hope, one would be in a state of despair." should read, "Without hope of 'eternal love', one would be in a state of despair." (which is what you are really saying) is a false statement. I have  no 'hope of eternal love' and it is not causing me to despair.

Also more commentary, if one is feeling despair it does not mean it is caused by lack of 'hope of eternal love'. Despair can be caused by many things. Adding to my commentary, 'despair' does not necessarily cause anxiety; it commonly causes depression.

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Wanting "the lover to

Quote:
Wanting "the lover to be proud of you" does indeed require the concept of earning - you're earning that pride. Yes, this does mean you're still not worried about earning the love that's already established as "eternal".

I didn't say that it didn't entail a concept of earning... merely that it didn't entail a concept of earning love necessarily.

Quote:
Which actually illustrates my point about eternal love: Since you can do anything (or fail to do anything) without risk of losing that love, then what value does it have? In the above hypothetical, the motive to do good things was to earn pride. The love was irrelevant!

Only if you assume that the love was not a reason for which why the person wanted the lover to be proud of him.

Quote:
Living your life like you perceived your father's life was less likely motivated by a choice than by having learned your social behaviors from your parents, like humans do instinctively. If anything, you realized that those learned behaviors were by-n-large considered 'good' by your community and thus worth replicating.

I suppose so.  Yet, I figure that all such notions of "love" and "feelings" can be framed in such a matter of "instinct" and "communal expectations."

My previous posts were not meant to imply that the way I said things could be, were the way things are.
 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Only if

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Only if you assume that the love was not a reason for which why the person wanted the lover to be proud of him.
No assumption. The love is eternal and there's no threat of it being gone.  So it's not being earned or preserved or... anything. It's static. Without being dynamic, how does anything motivate?

So that constant becomes part of the background like the sky being blue. Irrelevant.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:No assumption. The

Quote:
No assumption. The love is eternal and there's no threat of it being gone.  So it's not being earned or preserved or... anything. It's static. Without being dynamic, how does anything motivate?

I don't think I understand your last statement.

Assuming I do, let me try to answer.

Just because the thing, love, is static, does not mean that the person being motivated is.  Therefore, I don't think your argument applies.

A stone wall is static, doesn't move, doesn't change.   That does not mean that I could not be motivated to climb it or that it's existence is not relevant to that motivation.

I think that might be where the confusion lies.  I am not saying that "love motivates" in the sense that "love affirmatively acts on something else."  If this were the argument, then perhaps it would be wrong for me to say that an "eternal love" can motivate something. 

That is not the case, however.  Instead, I am suggesting that it's existence, like a wall, might serve to motivate someone to be better, i.e., to climb over the wall.

In that sense, it is not irrelevant... the assertion I was attempting to argue.

Quote:
So that constant becomes part of the background like the sky being blue. Irrelevant.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Quote:No

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
No assumption. The love is eternal and there's no threat of it being gone.  So it's not being earned or preserved or... anything. It's static. Without being dynamic, how does anything motivate?

I don't think I understand your last statement.

Assuming I do, let me try to answer.

Just because the thing, love, is static, does not mean that the person being motivated is.  Therefore, I don't think your argument applies.

A stone wall is static, doesn't move, doesn't change.   That does not mean that I could not be motivated to climb it or that it's existence is not relevant to that motivation.

I think that might be where the confusion lies.  I am not saying that "love motivates" in the sense that "love affirmatively acts on something else."  If this were the argument, then perhaps it would be wrong for me to say that an "eternal love" can motivate something. 

That is not the case, however.  Instead, I am suggesting that it's existence, like a wall, might serve to motivate someone to be better, i.e., to climb over the wall.

In that sense, it is not irrelevant... the assertion I was attempting to argue.
Nope. The "stone wall" didn't motivate you at all, some other goal did (which may be as simple as seeing if you can do it, or seeing what's on the other side) but the wall itself was not a motivator.

Humans tend to inertia just like everythign else, it's only some dynamic (a change in environment for instance) that motivates new behavior. We ascribe all manner of things to love, but that doens't make love the real motivator. It's a corrolation as causation fallacy.

Love that you have to earn motivates because of the dynamic of potential loss. Wanting positive attention from someone who loves you is motivated by the wish for positive attention which in turn is likely motivated by a perception of not having received 'enough' positive attention - a dynamic.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Nope. The "stone wall"

Quote:
Nope. The "stone wall" didn't motivate you at all, some other goal did (which may be as simple as seeing if you can do it, or seeing what's on the other side) but the wall itself was not a motivator.

I never said it was.

Quote:
We ascribe all manner of things to love, but that doens't make love the real motivator. It's a corrolation as causation fallacy.

That is why I am not saying that it is the cause.. merely suggesting the possibility that is relevant to the "being better" in the particular case.

Quote:
Love that you have to earn motivates because of the dynamic of potential loss.

I realize that is what you are trying to argue.

Quote:
Wanting positive attention from someone who loves you is motivated by the wish for positive attention which in turn is likely motivated by a perception of not having received 'enough' positive attention - a dynamic.

Are you suggesting that positive attention and love are synonymous?  I wouldn't.

I will try to put this in your own words:

Wanting positive attention, e.g., pride, from someone who loves you is motived by the wish for the positive attention, e.g., pride, which in turn is likely motivated by a perception of not having received "enough" positive attention, e.g., pride--a dynamic.

Where, in that little statement, can it be said that "someone's love for someone" is necessarily irrelevant to that someone's want of positive attention? or that this "want for positive attention" is necessarily dependent about the non-eternality of love?

Of course.. this is assuming that "love" and "pride" are different things, i.e., that you can love without being prideful.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:aiia

Paisley wrote:

aiia wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:
"Fear" of what ?

Whatever is causing you psychological insecurity.

You are projecting.

It seems like you are the individual who has fears.

How am I projecting? He asked "fear of what?" And I answered "whatever is causing you psychological insecurity."

 

You think everyone is fearful

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:I never

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
I never said it was.
Really? Then what did you mean by:

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
A stone wall is static, doesn't move, doesn't change.   That does not mean that I could not be motivated to climb it or that it's existence is not relevant to that motivation.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
That is why I am not saying that it is the cause.. merely suggesting the possibility that is relevant to the "being better" in the particular case.
What? I don't understand.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Are you suggesting that positive attention and love are synonymous?  I wouldn't.
No, I'm saying that having someone be proud of you is synonymous with positive attention.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
I will try to put this in your own words:

Wanting positive attention, e.g., pride, from someone who loves you is motived by the wish for the positive attention, e.g., pride, which in turn is likely motivated by a perception of not having received "enough" positive attention, e.g., pride--a dynamic.

Where, in that little statement, can it be said that "someone's love for someone" is necessarily irrelevant to that someone's want of positive attention? or that this "want for positive attention" is necessarily dependent about the non-eternality of love?
Two red herrings, really. The statement does not infer or suggeest that love is nessesarily irrelevant. I've made that point in other statements. The "want for positive attention" example I made wasn't about the love at all.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Of course.. this is assuming that "love" and "pride" are different things, i.e., that you can love without being prideful.
Love: An emotional state placing another person's needs above one's own.

Love can predicate pride, but pride can exist without love. Ask any father who loves his son, but is ashamed of his son's deeds or personality if love needs or generates pride. It doesn't.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Love: An emotional

Quote:
Love: An emotional state placing another person's needs above one's own.

Love can predicate pride, but pride can exist without love. Ask any father who loves his son, but is ashamed of his son's deeds or personality if love needs or generates pride. It doesn't.

Agreed.

Quote:
Two red herrings, really. The statement does not infer or suggeest that love is nessesarily irrelevant. I've made that point in other statements. The "want for positive attention" example I made wasn't about the love at all.


Indeed it doesn't.  Instead, it suggests that it may be relevant.

I keep on saying, this is what I was arguing against, your statement:

Quote:
So that constant becomes part of the background like the sky being blue. Irrelevant.


Next issue:

Quote:
What? I don't understand.


I said:
Quote:
A stone wall is static, doesn't move, doesn't change.   That does not mean that I could not be motivated to climb it or that it's existence is not relevant to that motivation.

Quote:
That is why I am not saying that it is the cause.. merely suggesting the possibility that is relevant to the "being better" in the particular case.


The parts to focus on for what I was saying here are "not relevant to that motivation" and "possibility that [it] is relevant."

You asserted that an "eternal love" makes love "irrelevant to motivation," see above.

I am suggesting that this assertion is not necessarily so. 

Whether a love is infinite or finite, it still exists, and its existence can act as a factor in someone's motivation.

Quote:
Which actually illustrates my point about eternal love: Since you can do anything (or fail to do anything) without risk of losing that love, then what value does it have? In the above hypothetical, the motive to do good things was to earn pride. The love was irrelevant!


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:You

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
You asserted that an "eternal love" makes love "irrelevant to motivation," see above.



I am suggesting that this assertion is not necessarily so. 

Whether a love is infinite or finite, it still exists, and its existence can act as a factor in someone's motivation.

Existence is not enough to make something a factor in any motivation.

Finite love, and conditional love can be highly motivating because of the possibility of its loss. That possibility of loss makes the love more valuable. Like gold, the rarity combined with the fact it can be lost makes it valuable.

But love that is uconditional and eternal requires utterly no action to maintain. I suggest that it even makes it meaningless. You need to sidestep this romantic notion that love is innately valuable to get my point, I think.

Paisley's "God is Love" idea is what drives me to make the point. I mean, if this being or pseudobeing loves everyone, loves them unconditionally and eternally, then why does that love matter? Why is it important to be loved by this something that loves everyone? Why should I care? I'm not special because the sun shines on me, it shines on everyone. I have no motivation to appease or make the sun proud of me. Same with the concept of god as love. What would motivate me to acknowlege this something that everyone else has equally at all?

Perhaps it uncomfortable to acknowlege, but: We value the love of others because not everyone has it. Your father loved you unconditionally. You valued that, why? I'll bet that it's because you knew what it would be not to have that love. I mean, the threat of losing it never loomed over you since you were made to know it was unconditional, but you still knew that not everyone had love like that. You knew that what you had was valuable.

But if everyone had that kind of love, would you have even noticed? I doubt it very much.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Existence is not

Quote:
Existence is not enough to make something a factor in any motivation.

It is essential to motivation.

Either you are actually mistaken or this statement is merely unclear in what you meant to say.

Quote:
Finite love, and conditional love can be highly motivating because of the possibility of its loss.

I really have no doubt of this.

Quote:
That possibility of loss makes the love more valuable.

I'm not sure of that, but even assuming so, it doesn't cancel out my argument.

Quote:
Like gold, the rarity combined with the fact it can be lost makes it valuable.

Perhaps.

Quote:
But love that is uconditional and eternal requires utterly no action to maintain. I suggest that it even makes it meaningless.

I know that's what you're arguing.

Quote:
You need to sidestep this romantic notion that love is innately valuable to get my point, I think.

And you need to sidestep this unromantic notion that love is not innately valuable to get my point, I think.

I am not saying it is one or the other, I was merely suggesting the possibility of both.

Quote:
Paisley's "God is Love" idea is what drives me to make the point. I mean, if this being or pseudobeing loves everyone, loves them unconditionally and eternally, then why does that love matter?

While it's value may be lessened or not (as you suggested in some of the first quoted statements), and something I may even agree with, there is no reason to believe that it would be valueless.

I don't think my appreciation of someone's love for me (that I also love) can be diminished to the point of meaningless by the amount of people that they love or by the unconditionality of that love.

(This may be less true in terms of the "romantic" type of love, which, to me, importance seems to tie itself more to the exclusivity of the love.  But, the "love" we have been talking about, is not necessarily of that sort... and I would suggest that there are different types).

Quote:
Why is it important to be loved by this something that loves everyone?

Um.. because you love that thing?

Quote:
Why should I care? I'm not special because the sun shines on me, it shines on everyone.

If the importance of someone's love is dependent upon that person making you feel "special" (which, in this case, I can only interpret you mean "unique" in some sense.. then I suppose, no, it would have no relevance.  I am suggesting that perhaps the importance of someone's love is dependent more upon your feelings for that person, rather than the person's exclusivity of love.

Quote:
I have no motivation to appease or make the sun proud of me. Same with the concept of god as love. What would motivate me to acknowlege this something that everyone else has equally at all?

I can't answer that.  But, "motivation to acknowledge the entity" and the possibility of something that has been acknowledged acting as a motivating factor are completely different discussions.  We WERE discussing the latter.

Quote:
Perhaps it uncomfortable to acknowlege, but: We value the love of others because not everyone has it. Your father loved you unconditionally. You valued that, why?

Because I valued him.

If he had a million kids and yet still raised me in the same way, I'm pretty sure I would still have valued him, therefore would have valued his love.

Then again, your way of viewing things could be correct--I do not argue that.  I have just been stating it is not necessarily so.

Quote:
I'll bet that it's because you knew what it would be not to have that love. I mean, the threat of losing it never loomed over you since you were made to know it was unconditional, but you still knew that not everyone had love like that. You knew that what you had was valuable.

Like I said above, maybe.

Quote:
But if everyone had that kind of love, would you have even noticed? I doubt it very much.

And I don't doubt it very much.  My love for him (and therefore the importance I placed in his love) was dependent more on the time he spent with me, small thought it may have been, but influential in my life.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:<trim>If

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
<trim>
If you're going to insist that love is magic, then you'll never see my point.

Love is nothing more than an emotion driven behavior. It can be studied and understood via the scientific method, and is in fact being studied. It has no more innate value than anything else in the universe.

Which is to say, what I'm saying about all this is necessarily so. If you have some real counter-point to make, please make it. Dropping off my efforts with "possibly" is just annoying.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray