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?


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If you're going to

Quote:
If you're going to insist that love is magic, then you'll never see my point.

Where did I do that? I suggested that it had some innate value, but that issue wasn't really relevant to the argument.. at least not that I remember. (If I agreed that it was--which, looking over my past remarks, it can be interpreted as such--then I apologize, I was wrong, and I will voice my confusion here).

You are suggesting that it's value is based upon conditionality. I am saying it is not.

Quote:
Love is nothing more than an emotion driven behavior.

Isn't love an emotion itself? Why are you describing it as a "emotion driven behavior"?

Quote:
It can be studied and understood via the scientific method, and is in fact being studied.

No doubt.

Quote:
It has no more innate value than anything else in the universe.

Fine.  How is that relevant to the discussion at hand?

Assuming it has no innate value... how does accepting this premise help me to see your point?

Whether the discussion is over what can affect a "non-innate value" or an "innate value," the discussion is still over "what can affect," i.e., what can bring about its meaninglessness.  While presuming an "innate value" may close the discussion off for me (I never asserted that love has innate value), presuming the opposite does not mandate agreement with your point.

Quote:
Which is to say, what I'm saying about all this is necessarily so.

What is?

Quote:
If you have some real counter-point to make, please make it. Dropping off my efforts with "possibly" is just annoying.

What I don't understand about many science-minded people here on this forum is their problem with accepting a separate hypothesis.  You seem to focus on this issue of "innateness" as important to the conversation.. I do not. 

Assuming "love," an emotion, has zero innate value, then what? it's value can then be created on an individual basis.  Fine.

I put a value on "love," both receiving it and giving it; you do, everyone else does.  Scientist can study this emotion, what values people place on it, and how those values are accepted.  But until scientists come along with a consensus on the issue of whether the value people place on "receiving love" is dependent upon the conditionality of the love rather than the amount of love held to the sender, then I will continue to say they are both possibilities.. and that one can only assert "eternal love is meaningless" or "eternal love is not meaningless" upon the presumption that one of these possibilities is true.

 

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Awaiting for this

Awaiting for this interesting, "what is love debate" , to reveal something. 

Love / Hate are always equals in their "potential" intensity. Yin Yang are equals. Yeah I wish it was not true, but we are condemned by this law. Innocence is no escape ....

Gawed forgets nothing and so, total forgiveness is also not possible.

Concepts and words are a major problem we share, but so it is, as all evolution is so darn slow. Geezzz I want to bust out of this cage ..... 

   Hey god, geezzz dude, please hurry up this evolution .... please please !   


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

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
You are suggesting that it's value is based upon conditionality. I am saying it is not.
Then what IS its value based on?


RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Isn't love an emotion itself? Why are you describing it as a "emotion driven behavior"?
The difference is smaller than you think. The emotion itself generates behavior, so "love" is both. As a behaviorist I tend to think in terms of behavior first, is all.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Fine.  How is that relevant to the discussion at hand?

Assuming it has no innate value... how does accepting this premise help me to see your point?

Something that has no value won't be a motivator. It won't have "meaning".

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Whether the discussion is over what can affect a "non-innate value" or an "innate value," the discussion is still over "what can affect," i.e., what can bring about its meaninglessness.  While presuming an "innate value" may close the discussion off for me (I never asserted that love has innate value), presuming the opposite does not mandate agreement with your point.
You haven't said it outright, no, but several times your statements suggest it.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
What I don't understand about many science-minded people here on this forum is their problem with accepting a separate hypothesis.  You seem to focus on this issue of "innateness" as important to the conversation.. I do not.
You haven't presented a hypothesys. You've just denied or passed off my points. There is never a problem with accepting another hypothesys if that hypthesys has evidence backing it.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Assuming "love," an emotion, has zero innate value, then what? it's value can then be created on an individual basis.  Fine.

I put a value on "love," both receiving it and giving it; you do, everyone else does.

Yes, but WHY? Why do we all grant it value? Because it is something we want, and it can be taken away or not be given in the first place.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Scientist can study this emotion, what values people place on it, and how those values are accepted.  But until scientists come along with a consensus on the issue of whether the value people place on "receiving love" is dependent upon the conditionality of the love rather than the amount of love held to the sender, then I will continue to say they are both possibilities.. and that one can only assert "eternal love is meaningless" or "eternal love is not meaningless" upon the presumption that one of these possibilities is true.
Well, this behaviorist is telling you about that very consensus.

 

"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


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Awaiting for this interesting, "what is love debate" , to reveal something.   

um... it's a comparative of "unconditional/eternal" love versus "finite/conditional love", not "what is love". Geez, dude, you're supposed to be omniscient, get with the program Sticking out tongue Eye-wink

 

 

"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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Alot of western Black vs

Alot of western Black vs White reasoning, wrong / right ,  is flawed.  The east says the "middle" is also always true.     ... Which way is up?  

    Sorry if my words make no sense for you, but only as sorry as you ....   

      You and I ....   Planet Earth.   "Geezz God , what's the big idea?" .... 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I AM omniscient ? Who's

I AM omniscient ?   Who's crazy, wishful thinking idea was that !?? Sorry for all the confusion, I am only what I AM ! Give me god a break, you are the best I could do ....  as is evolution ! 


Gamage90
Gamage90's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
People who think X theory

People who think X theory doesn't fit and say it must be God are quite impatient people.  They need immediate answers like humankind did many years ago so they put it down to something beyond their knowledge because its so difficult to prove, they convince themselves its true. I don't see why God has to exist to be honest, I think its reassurance that if God exists an afterlife isn't beyond possibility or that life has a set meaning.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true"
(Friedrich Nietzsche)


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Responding to the original

Responding to the original question - if God did exist it would be about the most important thing period. Gicen that God almost certainly does not exist - that's important to as once you know that you can relax and not have to worry about all the bullshit and tiresome rules about sexuality, etc.

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


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Well, this behaviorist

Quote:
Well, this behaviorist is telling you about that very consensus.

From the first article on the list of your google search link:
Quote:
This explanation for love’s presence in the human condition, however, is not meant to be a complete definition of the emotion. As a highly individual experience, the act of loving something or someone is dependent on the individual’s biological, psychological, and experiential development . . . While common correlates of love may be universal, the emotion is also defined by the complex interplay between biology, cultural and environmental influences, and the way that we choose to deal with the emotion on a conscious level. Based on this indescribable aspect of love as an emotion, it may be that emotions like this are too complex to rationally define at this point in time, either in a scientific or political forum.

You said:
Quote:
Then what IS its value based on?

From that article:
Quote:
As a highly individual experience, the act of loving something or someone is dependent on the individual’s biological, psychological, and experiential development.

You said:
Quote:
The difference is smaller than you think. The emotion itself generates behavior, so "love" is both. As a behaviorist I tend to think in terms of behavior first, is all.

Yes, and electricity generates light, so "electricity" is both.
Equivocation.
For the purpose of this conversation, I think it best if words are used as exactly as possible.  Even the article uses:
Quote:
...by demonstrating love-directed behavior...

So.. if behavior is what you're talking about.. then "love-directed behavior" might make that clearer.
You said:
Quote:
Something that has no value won't be a motivator. It won't have "meaning".

In response to this I had said:
Quote:
Assuming it has no innate value... how does accepting this premise help me to see your point?

Where did I say it had no value it all? In fact, I'm pretty sure I followed this statement up with "individuals each place a value on the emotion" for "biological, psychological, and experiential" reasons.  All individuals do not place the same value, but that doesn't not mean, as a whole, it has no value at all.
You said:
Quote:
You haven't presented a hypothesys. You've just denied or passed off my points. There is never a problem with accepting another hypothesys if that hypthesys has evidence backing it.

I had said:
Quote:
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."

As much as your statements imply a hypothesis that "love motivates behavior only because it is conditional," my statement implies a hypothesis that "love motivates behavior because it exists, not because of its conditionality or unconditionality."
Quote:
Yes, but WHY? Why do we all grant it value? Because it is something we want, and it can be taken away or not be given in the first place.

We place great value on it because we want it, this seems tautological.  Your second part of the statement, "and it can be taken away or not be given in the first place," is an assertion, and not with any more evidence than I have given for mine.  You give a hypothetical, or a story, and then presume the outcome if the love was made unconditional.. then I do the same, a counter-example.

Neither evidence really makes the assertion conclusive... merely suggests its possibility.

I will restate again, in part, using the words of the article:
Quote:
By its very nature, love is an irrational and capricious emotion.

If a person loves, he loves.  A tautological statement.  The feeling, itself, "by its very nature" is irrational.  

As an individual, a person most certainly can "love something that loves him unconditionally" as much as he can "love something that doesn't love him at all."  If that is the case, and assuming he thinks that his actions can increase "positive attention" from that thing (and we have established that all positive attention does not necessarily come along with love), then he might act to increase the "positive attention" based upon his love, not on the thing's "unconditional or conditional love."

If this is the case, how can it be said, as you assert, that one party's "unconditional love" makes that love "irrelevant" as being a factor in the equation of motivation for the other party?  In a two party system (A, the person who loves unconditionally, and B, the person who loves the person who loves him unconditionally), I would suggest that the relevance of that love, and its influence on motivation, is based more on how B defines his relationship with A more than how A does. 

And if B could based his care of "positive attention" based upon the existence of "unconditional love or conditional love"--then it cannot be said, as a matter of fact, that "unconditional love" makes that love irrelevant.

 


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

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
<trim>
Separate the source of love from it's value to another.

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Yes, and electricity generates light, so "electricity" is both.
Equivocation.
For the purpose of this conversation, I think it best if words are used as exactly as possible.  Even the article uses:
Quote:
...by demonstrating love-directed behavior...

So.. if behavior is what you're talking about.. then "love-directed behavior" might make that clearer.
Not equivocation any more than "electro-magnetics" is equivocation.


RhadTheGizmo wrote:
You said:
Quote:
Something that has no value won't be a motivator. It won't have "meaning".

In response to this I had said:
Quote:
Assuming it has no innate value... how does accepting this premise help me to see your point?

Where did I say it had no value it all? In fact, I'm pretty sure I followed this statement up with "individuals each place a value on the emotion" for "biological, psychological, and experiential" reasons.  All individuals do not place the same value, but that doesn't not mean, as a whole, it has no value at all.
I don't know where I said that you made that claim. I'm telling you, son, once something is permanently and irrevocably available it looses all value.

Examples: If everyone is special then no one is. "You don't know what you had until it's gone." "You never see kids fight over the last bean, but treats are grounds for war."

It's hard to example directly. I can think of nothing that's irrevocable and permanent to compare this with.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
You said:
Quote:
You haven't presented a hypothesys. You've just denied or passed off my points. There is never a problem with accepting another hypotheses if that hypotheses has evidence backing it.

I had said:
Quote:
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."

As much as your statements imply a hypothesis that "love motivates behavior only because it is conditional," my statement implies a hypothesis that "love motivates behavior because it exists, not because of its conditionality or unconditionally."
First, my hypotheses is this: Motives come from change or potential change only. Eternal and unconditional love never changes. Therefore eternal and unconditional love will never be a motive for action.

To support your hypotheses, there will have to be some facet of love that by nature generates motive to action.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:
Yes, but WHY? Why do we all grant it value? Because it is something we want, and it can be taken away or not be given in the first place.

We place great value on it because we want it, this seems tautological.
it is if you split up my point.
RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Your second part of the statement, "and it can be taken away or not be given in the first place," is an assertion, and not with any more evidence than I have given for mine.  You give a hypothetical, or a story, and then presume the outcome if the love was made unconditional.. then I do the same, a counter-example.
Are you REALLY suggesting that love CAN'T be taken away or not given in the first place? Does every stranger you pass on the street love you?

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
If a person loves, he loves.  A tautological statement.  The feeling, itself, "by its very nature" is irrational.  

As an individual, a person most certainly can "love something that loves him unconditionally" as much as he can "love something that doesn't love him at all."  If that is the case, and assuming he thinks that his actions can increase "positive attention" from that thing (and we have established that all positive attention does not necessarily come along with love), then he might act to increase the "positive attention" based upon his love, not on the thing's "unconditional or conditional love."

If this is the case, how can it be said, as you assert, that one party's "unconditional love" makes that love "irrelevant" as being a factor in the equation of motivation for the other party?  In a two party system (A, the person who loves unconditionally, and B, the person who loves the person who loves him unconditionally), I would suggest that the relevance of that love, and its influence on motivation, is based more on how B defines his relationship with A more than how A does. 

And if B could based his care of "positive attention" based upon the existence of "unconditional love or conditional love"--then it cannot be said, as a matter of fact, that "unconditional love" makes that love irrelevant.

It sounds to me like you're confusing the value of love a person has for another for the value a person places on someone else's love for them. I'm talking about the latter.

 

"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:Separate the source of

Quote:
Separate the source of love from it's value to another.

Um.. okay.

Quote:
Not equivocation any more than "electro-magnetics" is equivocation.

e·quiv·o·ca·tion     Audio Help   /ɪˌkwɪvəˈkeɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-kwiv-uh-key-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.    the use of equivocal or ambiguous expressions, esp. in order to mislead or hedge; prevarication.
2.    an equivocal, ambiguous expression; equivoque: The speech was marked by elaborate equivocations.
3.    Logic. a fallacy caused by the double meaning of a word.

You are using the word "love" to mean "love, the emotion" and "love-directed behavior."  I would contend this is equivocation.  I could be wrong.  Nevertheless, a minor point, and if you want to continue using it in that way, then I will understand your use of the word in the future to being used in the aforementioned way.

Quote:
I don't know where I said that you made that claim. I'm telling you, son, once something is permanently and irrevocably available it looses all value.

Did you just call me 'son,' ma'am?

In any case.  The universe is both permanent and irrevocable (at least, from my point of view as an individual in a particularly small piece of time), does that mean it has no value to me? Well... I would contend that I still find it very valuable.

And no.. I guess you did not claim that I made that claim, only implied by stating "something that has no value won't be a motivator" after I had said "assuming it has no innate value."

I made a logical inference.. perhaps incorrectly.

Quote:
Examples: If everyone is special then no one is.

This statement is self contradictory.

Quote:
"You don't know what you had until it's gone."

This statement implies "taking things for granted," not that whatever it is that you have (and have not yet lost) has zero value.

Quote:
"You never see kids fight over the last bean, but treats are grounds for war."

Once again, the last bean may not have as much value as the treats, but they still have value.  You are arguing that the value of eternal love is zero--I don't see any of these quotes applying (even assuming they could be used as evidence to begin with).

Quote:
First, my hypotheses is this: Motives come from change or potential change only.

I can't accept this as your hypothesis at this point in time.  You have been arguing that "eternal love" is irrelevant for the purpose of "motivating someone."  This hypothesis that you have just stated suggests that you have, instead, been arguing something completely different.

"eternal love" is irrelevant? or "motives come from change or potential change"? Which one is it?

The latter hypothesis I can agree with, the former I cannot.

A wall may be permanent and irrevocable, and therefore not be the "motive" to climb over it.  Nevertheless, the wall is not "irrelevant" to the climbers "motivation" because without its existence, the motivation could never have existed.

Quote:
To support your hypotheses, there will have to be some facet of love that by nature generates motive to action.

No, there would not have to be.  To support my hypothesis I would just have to show that love does not become irrelevant merely because it become unconditional.

I have said this:
Quote:
As much as your statements imply a hypothesis that "love motivates behavior only because it is conditional," my statement implies a hypothesis that "love motivates behavior because it exists, not because of its conditionality or unconditionally."

But it is a bit inconsistent with what I have been saying before it and now.  My hypothesis, is instead, that "love can motivate, as part of other variables, behavior because it exists, and its ability to motivate is not based upon its conditionality or unconditionality."

Quote:
it is if you split up my point.

Tautological is good.

Quote:
Are you REALLY suggesting that love CAN'T be taken away or not given in the first place? Does every stranger you pass on the street love you?


Which was in response to this:
Quote:
Your second part of the statement, "and it can be taken away or not be given in the first place," is an assertion, and not with any more evidence than I have given for mine.  You give a hypothetical, or a story, and then presume the outcome if the love was made unconditional.. then I do the same, a counter-example.


So, no, I am not "REALLY" suggesting that love "CAN'T" be taken away.. etc.

Your statement "and it can be taken away or not be given in the first place" followed "Why do we all grant it value? BECAUSE . . ."

"And it can be taken away or not be given in the first place" was presented as a REASON for why we grant it value.  Stating that it was the REASON for why we grant it value, was an assertion.

Quote:
It sounds to me like you're confusing the value of love a person has for another for the value a person places on someone else's love for them. I'm talking about the latter.

I was talking about both.

Tell me, exactly, how is the question of "the value of love a person has for another" irrelevant to the question of "the value a person place on someone else's love for them"?



 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Love is the thing we have to

Love is the thing we have to combat the curse of life. So love one another. Pleasure is a beckoning tease. We were born without wings. This curse has resulted in millions of polluting injurious cars. We are weak and fragile. Life is not a gift, but a challenge forced upon us. We are born screaming.      .... On and on I could go.

God of religions are our inventions as a result of this curse of life. Consciousness of our life sentence is often expressed as "love". But consciousness makes for pain and fear, and love in simply in the mix of the yin yang of the ONE, as all is connected. There is nothing to worship. Man cannot achieve utopia, but hey, we can imagine and keep that as a goal. So yes, "Love Love LOVE" ..... find the "grove" .... but yeah, our shit will always stink ..... but there is a message in that too ; don't eat shit, don't play with shit, and don't spread shit !

                              


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

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
"eternal love" is irrelevant? or "motives come from change or potential change"? Which one is it?
This is where I've failed then. It's not "which is it" as they are both part of the whole.

I'm chalking this one up to "I cant' communicate worth a damn" and moving on.

"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:I'm chalking this one

Quote:
I'm chalking this one up to "I cant' communicate worth a damn" and moving on.

....or I can't communicate very well.  One, two, or both, can be the reasons for why we've had a breakdown. Smiling Sticking out tongue


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

Anonymouse wrote:
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" ?

In all honesty, you never feel insecure?

"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:Paisley

Anonymouse wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Without illness, there would be no healing.
Right. So God is love AND hate. Mention them both next time or it's false advertising.

The ego believes that God is hate. 

Anonymouse wrote:
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.

You have never experience the beauty of a tragic drama?

"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:Paisley

Anonymouse wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Without death, there would be no rebirth.
"Rebirth" ?

Yes, each moment is passing away and being reborn anew. It's beautiful.

 

"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:
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.

Why is it circular logic? Faith is a mode of being that implicitly trusts that everything is working out for a greater good. This ultimately presupposes God.

JillSwift wrote:
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.

If love isn't a substance, then what is it?

Paisley wrote:
"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?

In theological and spiritual terms, there's a difference between believing and knowing. To believe that love is eternal is not the same thing as knowing it. This is why it is called faith.

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

I'm not sure what you are attempting to say here. Finite love (or should I say conditional love) is not really love but only fear in disguise.

"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:Finite love

Paisley wrote:
Finite love (or should I say conditional love) is not really love but only fear in disguise.
Remember to wash your hands after pulling shit out of your ass.

I'm not going to argue this with you. If I could not get the idea across to an intelligent fellow like RhadTheGizmo, I've no hope with a flatworm like you.

"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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
 O shit !

 O shit !

http://www.bytebrothers.org/shitlist.htm

  Our friend Paisley is a fellow "sword" sharpener, just trying to help ..... who thinks atheists are doing it wrong !

  Hey Paisley , GOD is Hate ! 


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

Paisley wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:
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" ?

In all honesty, you have never feel insecure?

Of course I have. When that happens, I work it out, I deal with it. Faith in God is not necessary to deal with my "psycholigical insecurities". I'd go so far as to say that faith in God is what causes psychological insecurities in some people.


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

Paisley wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Without illness, there would be no healing.
Right. So God is love AND hate. Mention them both next time or it's false advertising.

The ego believes that God is hate. 

So God is all the good stuff, and all the bad stuff is actually beautiful ?

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

 

Anonymouse wrote:
There is no beauty in real tragedy.

You have never experience the beauty of a tragic drama?

I've seen a Shakespeare play, if that's what you mean. But that's not real tragedy. I've experienced that as well, and it's NOT beautiful.


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

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
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.

This is a nice thought.

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


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:
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.

No, it is MUCH more ridiculous than that.

Quote:
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.

 

No, get it right. Without God there would be no illness, without God there would be no death. End of story. We don't need the bad to have the good.

God is omnipotent. Could God make a world where death and suffering did not exist?

Yes. He does not. Thanks God.

Death and suffering is not neessary to the concept of freewill, either, as will be your obvious lame excuse.

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_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.

You believe in a God who tortures us. That's all I need to know.

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.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Anonymouse

Paisley wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:
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" ?

In all honesty, you never feel insecure?

Everyone feels insecure. For some of us, though, we don't need to turn to some higher authority to say 'there there, I'll take care of you'. We simply do our best to do our best, and take each moment as it comes.

And your ultimate meaning is, ultimately, meaningless. Let's face it, with no belief in an afterlife, what meaning does life need to have beyond the span of our own lives? We give our lives meaning, here and now. If you need your life to have some meaning ten thousand years from now, answer this:

Why? Why does it matter to you if your life has 'ultimate' meaning beyond the immediate meaning you give your life by living it?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Them that say life is a gift

Them that say life is a gift are liars .... 

  So here we are, wishing not to die making shit up ..... "afterlife" pleading .... 

    Life SUCKS , so get real about it, and help the kids with this curse of life .....

                               Hey kid , sorry, Welcome to EARTH !