Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Where are you getting an emotional difference?
Maybe he's getting excited by the thought of all those willing sheep.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Where are you getting an emotional difference?
Yes that is obviously nonsense because that depends on who concludes.
You completely ignored the rest of my post, and my entire point.
You hear (read) only what you want to.
Your bigoted mind seems unable to comprehend the possibility of you being wrong.
Or maybe just a source where the term is used in the way you describe. I've searched, and I can't find a single example.
Quote a dictionary mentioning sincerity and "spirit".Is garbage, try a dictonary, as referred to before in this thread. Truth is related to sincerity, spirit etc.
I know I am right as like 1+1=2
Every god-concept is sufficiently explained by human psychology and sociology.
Why don't you just google truth.Quote a dictionary mentioning sincerity and "spirit".
Belief in one, not the proof of one is what you are saying, right?
both of these sentences express that there are, in actuality, 5 sheep in the medow. Where are you getting an emotional difference?It is a fact that there are 5 sheep in the meadow, it is the truth that there are 5 sheep in the meadow. Very obviously these 2 statements differ in conveying emotion.
You are out of your mind. I have repeatedly said that I am not making claims about coming to conclusions about anything, especially God. You are repeatedly lying even after I explicitly and repeatedly corrected you. This is a violation of forum rules, so grow up.One can just as well reach the conclusion God does not exist by choosing it.
I know I am right as like 1+1=2. It is simply obvious that one can only reach the conclusion about what the agency of a decision is by choosing the answer. It is simply a matter of logic.
You introduce love as both an objective and a subjective term. Is an apple and a planet also both a subjective and an objective term like love?
If not, then you have objective terms, and terms which are both objecte and subjective. It is very obvious you are simply rejecting subjectivity.
Because you are the one who has to support your claim. Now, quote dictionaries saying truth has anything to do with "spirits".Why don't you just google truth.
Here is what it says ... looks like you are out of your element on this one.Why don't you just google truth.
I love how you ask us to Google "truth", but then when the provided definition proves you wrong, you are going to jump to denying its validity. Funny stuff.Why don't you just google truth.
You are thinking of "honesty", which does not depend on the "truth" of a statement, but, instead, the "sincerity" of the person speaking. One can be factually incorrect but still honest if they are sincere. The "truth" of a statement depends on its adherence to reality.Is garbage, try a dictonary, as referred to before in this thread. Truth is related to sincerity, spirit etc.
both of these sentences express that there are, in actuality, 5 sheep in the medow. Where are you getting an emotional difference?
You are out of your mind. I have repeatedly said that I am not making claims about coming to conclusions about anything, especially God. You are repeatedly lying even after I explicitly and repeatedly corrected you. This is a violation of forum rules, so grow up.
I only spoke to the existence of God in reality as being either being in accordance with reality or not. Either God exists as an entity apart despite our individual conclusions or God does not exist despite our individual conclusions.
I love how you ask us to Google "truth", but then when the provided definition proves you wrong, you are going to jump to denying its validity. Funny stuff.
Alright. I'm rather tired of you again, and your ego too.
But, let me try again.
Love, the physical process by which love comes about, is objective.
Love, the application to objects through reasoning, is subjective.
Apple, the mass of various plant structures that of which formed this fruit, is objective.
Apple, how you use an apple (eating, throwing, etc.) and why, is subjective.
I can apply this logic to a planet too, and a car, and a bat, and literally just about everything.
It's how objectivity and subjectivity work.
Something cannot be both objective and subjective at the same time, lets also make that clear.
Thank you for further proving my point.Meaningless garbage again. You reject subjectivity, that is what the evidence says.
LOL. You cited a question that I asked you after you said that the existence of God depended on our conclusion as to whether God exists. Obviously you don't quite get the meaning of the word "suggest" either. Do you understand what a question is? Because, I was asking for clarification on YOUR beliefs (hence the question, not claim/statement).I and normal people always use the word truth to evoke emotions about a fact, and simply use the word fact to denote an unemotional fact. Here you are going out of your way to deny, reject, ridicule to have a word to denote emotionally significant fact, and then you insist that you are not rejecting subjectivity. You are quite transparantly rejecting subjectivity.
You (leibowde) suggested:
"So, God doesn't exist apart from us believing in him?"
As an interpretation of that the conclusion God exists is reached by choosing if He does, or does not.
It is just misrepresentation, and you keep on with that misrepresentation.
Obviously to say the conclusion is reached by choosing it, does not say that God does exist, or that God does not exist. It simply only describes the procedure of how to reach a conclusion about the issue. And then you want to objectify God, and still you insist that you are not rejecting subjectivity.