Does an Atheist Know God?

[Scuba Pete]

just not when you rhetoricize it

Wait! You're accusing me of proprietary verbiage with this load of pseudo-intellectual psychobabble? I'm calling Shenanigans! Extreme Shenanigans at that. Pergamentum init: exit pergamentum!

 

[suncowiam]

Does a Theist know God?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Does a Theist know God?

That's debatable in and of itself.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Love is putting the needs of other as your own

Love is putting the needs of others before your own.

Do you put other people's needs before your own?

 

[SkepticX]

Wait! You're accusing me of proprietary verbiage with this load of pseudo-intellectual psychobabble? I'm calling Shenanigans! Extreme Shenanigans at that. Pergamentum init: exit pergamentum!

Heh ... yeah, I did accuse you of posting a cluttered, proprietary version of love, but it doesn't appear to be your version even though you seem to want to claim it since it's been attacked, and your characterization of my post is rather hasty--perhaps even a bit reactionary. It's funny too though, so hopefully it's just humor rather than reactionary. In any case I'm pulling my red challenge flag, so unless that was just humor and you're ready to pick up your flag you're gonna have to go to the review booth and point out the "pseudo-intellectual psychobabble" you think you saw there. My reviewers upstairs say the call appears to be about the fact the post is unfavorable than it is about the offense the call alleges--i.e. you perceive garbage because it's hostile to your views and/or your post, not because you really see garbage.

But my post may have been poorly aimed. I'm guessing you were arguing against a dark, ugly fundamentalist type version of love and attributing it to Fool (or something like that), but "your version" (i.e. the version you posted about) doesn't appear to be your version (i.e. your own conceptualization), so there's no reason to take criticism of that version personally (not sure why you would, actually). The clarification of what that version is about would take care of it. The real issue, I suspect, is that it appears not to be your target's conceptualization either.

Bottom line, what I suspect is that an actual discussion on the matter would probably clear it all up pretty quickly if we can overcome human nature and avoid digging in and doubling down instead (actually that's not very likely, regardless).

 

[Scuba Pete]

@SkepticX Here's a free clue, which is a half ball of yarn by Greek standards. When you come out swinging and using sesquipedalians that don't apply, then someone's going to call Shenanigans and deem it psychobabble. My definition of love is pretty simple: put others first. That's what I posted and that's what I'm sticking with. It's achievable by theist, non-theist and atheist alike. On top of that it's anything but dark. So, was your aim off? Indubitably. Apparently, your real beef is with fool and his convoluted concept of love. Please... hammer on him.

 

[Fool]

Love is putting the needs of others before your own.

Do you put other people's needs before your own?

the golden rule doesn't follow your interpretation. To love "All" doesn't exclude self, nor disparage self. That doesn't align with the golden rule and to love all as ONE


36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy Love with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as "thyself". 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


so the needs of another cannot be placed above one's own; nor can self's needs be placed above another.

maybe you're confusing needs with wants?

 

[Fool]

@SkepticX Here's a free clue, which is a half ball of yarn by Greek standards. When you come out swinging and using sesquipedalians that don't apply, then someone's going to call Shenanigans and deem it psychobabble. My definition of love is pretty simple: put others first. That's what I posted and that's what I'm sticking with. It's achievable by theist, non-theist and atheist alike. On top of that it's anything but dark. So, was your aim off? Indubitably. Apparently, your real beef is with fool and his convoluted concept of love. Please... hammer on him.

Neither is syntax a respecter of persons, or maybe you just don't respect syntax. Just what are you asking? Please rephrase the question so I can attempt to answer it.

so you're going to be concerned on the verbiage at the expense of the idea regarding the law?


epeolatry? throws the whole belief system in to disarray regarding the idolatry to a man, a book, and a materialistic life?

romans 7:6
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.


christianity is idolatry that idolizes the cult of personality known as jesus.


the cross represents the yoking of oneself to another as self. two people working together as one, friendship; which is love.

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of Love.

 

[Fool]

The context of this bible verse was in the opposite direction. The bible verse was talking about people who do not know compassion andl ove for their fellow human beings are not someone who would know the all loving god. Not that atheists don't know love.

Love is the ideal and an idea. Oneness is like unity. Unity can only be manifest by the binary. Love the idea and the ideal of Love are already two.


John 8:18
I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

the golden rule doesn't follow your interpretation. To love "All" doesn't exclude self, nor disparage self. That doesn't align with the golden rule and to love all as ONE


36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy Love with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as "thyself". 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


so the needs another cannot be placed above one's own; nor can self's needs be placed above another.

maybe you're confusing needs with wants?

You're confusing suicide with love.

You don't forget yourself or kill yourself for another person. You think of others before yourself.

Jesus put himself over other people. He put himself at the same level as the creator and said he has authority not man to speak on behalf of his father. What he says to others is in total contradiction to his actions. If he meant "as" he wouldn't place himself in between the creator and man. He does. So that is not sacrifice. That is not love.

But, then, that is not my religion because I do not believe to receive love you have to give a life. I believe sacrifice has to do with giving not dying.

That is me.

What is not me but the point I am making is that biblical, human and animal sacrifice in Christianity equates to love.

Forget sacrifice for a minute. Let me ask:

1. Do you say thank you to others?

2. Do you give charity?

3. Who do you love more than you love a stranger who has committed
murder?

4. What do you value the most?

Where do you put humanity in your definition of love?

because jesus put's humanity at a lower position not equal to him and not equal to the creator. That's a sad fact; but, something many christians accept.

Why can't you see that???

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Love is the ideal and an idea. Oneness is like unity. Unity can only be manifest by the binary. Love the idea and the ideal of Love are already two.


John 8:18
I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

I know love. I also don't know god. Unless you reduce god to love the two are not the same.

 

[Scuba Pete]

so you're going to be concerned on the verbiage at the expense of the idea regarding the law?

Could you translate this into common English? It makes no sense at all as it stands.

I'm with Galatians 5: The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

 

[Fool]

You're confusing suicide with love.

You don't forget yourself or kill yourself for another person. You think of others before yourself.

Jesus put himself over other people. He put himself at the same level as the creator and said he has authority not man to speak on behalf of his father. What he says to others is in total contradiction to his actions. If he meant "as" he wouldn't place himself in between the creator and man. He does. So that is not sacrifice. That is not love.

But, then, that is not my religion because I do not believe to receive love you have to give a life. I believe sacrifice has to do with giving not dying.

That is me.

What is not me but the point I am making is that biblical, human and animal sacrifice in Christianity equates to love.

Forget sacrifice for a minute. Let me ask:

1. Do you say thank you to others?

2. Do you give charity?

3. Who do you love more than you love a stranger who has committed
murder?

4. What do you value the most?

Where do you put humanity in your definition of love?

because jesus put's humanity at a lower position not equal to him and not equal to the creator. That's a sad fact; but, something many christians accept.

Why can't you see that???

no, one thinks of other as self.
empathy is the ability to intrinsically feel what another feels.

ONEness doesn't make a difference between other and self.


a sacrifice is given to those who want something for something, a quid pro quo.
selflessness is given to those who have a need from what one has the ability to give without restitution. there is no quid pro quo, no loss of life, just more abundant life. thats what love does.

 

[Fool]

I know love. I also don't know god. Unless you reduce god to love the two are not the same.

you don't believe love is divine?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

no, one thinks of other as self.
empathy is the ability to intrinsically feel what another feels.

ONEness doesn't make a difference between other and self.


a sacrifice is given to those who want something for something. a quid pro quo.
selflessness is given to those who have a need from what one has the ability to give without restitution. there is no quid pro quo.

Have you ever given something of value to someone else who needed it more than you?

 

[Scuba Pete]

a sacrifice is given to those who want something for something. a quid pro quo.

Again with more nonsense. Utter nonsense at that. Where do you get this rubbish from? I would say only a fool would say that... and I guess I would be right.

OK, when the discussion get's this unreasonable, it's time to find another discussion.

 

[Fool]

Could you translate this into common English? It makes no sense at all as it stands.

I'm with Galatians 5: The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

faith without the work of love is fruitless. it's just wind without a sail. its just potential energy working with no creative direction

 

[Fool]

Have you ever given something of value to someone else who needed it more than you?

no one has a need more than another. a need is the same for all. if your needs have been met, then by all means share the excess but charity begins at home and then elsewhere. you can't save someone; if you yourself are drowning.


the blind leading the blind and they all fall in a hole.

jesus said to love one another as I have loved you. he didn't say to love some, or anyone, more than another.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

you don't believe love is divine?

Not in the least.

 

[Fool]

Again with more nonsense. Utter nonsense at that. Where do you get this rubbish from? I would say only a fool would say that... and I guess I would be right.

OK, when the discussion get's this unreasonable, it's time to find another discussion.

yes, maybe you should, your house is rather desolate.