Your biggest intellectual compromise for faith

[Scuba Pete]

you misunderstood, the person who is getting the untrained surgeon to do the surgery is doomed.

How do you know? You are only looking at the physical aspect. (PS: No, I did not misunderstand you, but the converse is true)

the person doing the surgery will be fine after,

How can you be so sure? If you killed someone just to try and prove a silly point, I bet that you would be emotionally devastated. Again, you are only considering the physical and trying to pass off the absurd as being tenable. This is past intellectual dishonesty and into intellectual suicide.

as soon as you said anything about god, "he is love, he is this he is that" you are being intellectually dishonest. Do you believe that god cannot be explained logically?

I certainly don't think you are being logical. It's not that God can't be explained: it's that you can't accept the explanations. Your mind is made up and it won't be confused by logic, facts or love.

So, how is me saying God is Love, intellectually dishonest. You don't like statements of fact?

he has never done anything for anyone.

Prove this logically. I triple dog dare you.

 

[jonman122]

How do you know? You are only looking at the physical aspect. (PS: No, I did not misunderstand you, but the converse is true) How can you be so sure? If you killed someone just to try and prove a silly point, I bet that you would be emotionally devastated. Again, you are only considering the physical and trying to pass off the absurd as being tenable. This is past intellectual dishonesty and into intellectual suicide. I certainly don't think you are being logical. It's not that God can't be explained: it's that you can't accept the explanations. Your mind is made up and it won't be confused by logic, facts or love.

So, how is me saying God is Love, intellectually dishonest. You don't like statements of fact? Prove this logically. I triple dog dare you.

as soon as you say "god is love" you're giving him attributes that he cant possibly have. here, i'll show you in video why what your saying is wrong, so you can understand and stop asserting your falacies

[youtube]5wV_REEdvxo[/youtube]
YouTube - Putting faith in its place

 

[PolyHedral]

So, how is me saying God is Love, intellectually dishonest. You don't like statements of fact?

InvalidCastException: Variable "Love" not of type "IEmpathizable"

Ahem. Love is an entirely abstract concept. The universe at large does not care about love, (since it does not care about anything) nor can love exist without some entity to do the loving. Assigning actions or desires or needs to "love" is logically incoherent.

 

[Scuba Pete]

as soon as you say "god is love" you're giving him attributes that he cant possibly have.

Yeah prove that for us. Your video is predicated on the fact that there is no evidence to believe God is Love. There is plenty of evidence. Yet another sophomoric fail.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Ahem. Love is an entirely abstract concept. The universe at large does not care about love, (since it does not care about anything) nor can love exist without some entity to do the loving. Assigning actions or desires or needs to "love" is logically incoherent.

How do you know the universe does not care about love? You don't. If you have no need for love, then yours is a sad existence.

Love can be defined and even experienced. Just because it's not physical does not make it mythical.

 

[PolyHedral]

How do you know the universe does not care about love?

Stars are fusion reactors. They cannot experience love.
Planets are lumps of rock and gas. They don't need love.
Moons are just lumps of rock. Love doesn't mean anything to them.

Look at the laws of physics and find "love" for me, please. Living things do experiance love, but it doesn't matter to anything other than them.

Love can be defined and even experienced. Just because it's not physical does not make it mythical.

Notice I did not say mythical. I said abstract. And you are perfectly correct. But an abstract thing cannot have wants, or abilities, as seem to be ascribed to God.

 

[ChristineES]

you misunderstood, the person who is getting the untrained surgeon to do the surgery is doomed. the person doing the surgery will be fine after, and can probably move to Mexico and get a new name. as soon as you said anything about god, "he is love, he is this he is that" you are being intellectually dishonest. Do you believe that god cannot be explained logically?

he has never done anything for anyone.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But, in my view, God has done a lot. I am not sure what people would expect. We have to live our own lives, if we don't we are nothing more than empty shells.

I get tired of the statements of "theists are stupid" or "theists are ignorant" or "theist must have to compromise their intelligence in order to believe in God". Those are all blanket statements and generalizations.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Stars are fusion reactors. They cannot experience love.
Planets are lumps of rock and gas. They don't need love.
Moons are just lumps of rock. Love doesn't mean anything to them.

Look at the laws of physics and find "love" for me, please.

Again the focus on only the physical. "We are spirits in a material world!

Living things do experiance love, but it doesn't matter to anything other than them.

You have proof of this? Please trot it out. My GF thinks it matters a lot that I love her.

Notice I did not say mythical. I said abstract. And you are perfectly correct. But an abstract thing cannot have wants, or abilities, as seem to be ascribed to God.

Wait... are you saying that Love or God is abstract? God is Love is a definition of God. Ergo, Love is of God. But, you're so focused on the physical, that I doubt that you can understand the spiritual.

 

[jonman122]

Love has already been defined physically and scientifically, look it up if you want. it's not just a spiritual concept, it has entirely physical attributes. planets and stars and the universe in general cannot love. the majority of matter in the universe has no emotions, no feelings.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Love has already been defined physically and scientifically, look it up if you want. it's not just a spiritual concept, it has entirely physical attributes.

So you admit that it exists on many planes, including spiritual. Good for you. Now disprove that God is Love.

planets and stars and the universe in general cannot love. the majority of matter in the universe has no emotions, no feelings.

The majority of the matter in the universe is not sentient. So what? You're only proving my point.

Face it: it takes as much faith to be an atheist like you as it takes to be a theist. Faith is not a four letter word.

 

[ChristineES]

Love has already been defined physically and scientifically, look it up if you want. it's not just a spiritual concept, it has entirely physical attributes. planets and stars and the universe in general cannot love. the majority of matter in the universe has no emotions, no feelings.

Love goes beyond that. It is not only about caring about someone, but wanting to help those in need. Or it is about not wanting to harm someone. There is a lot of scope for love.
And I am a human being, not a star, so I can love and I do love. It is part of who I am.

 

[PolyHedral]

Again the focus on only the physical. "We are spirits in a material world!

"You have proof of this? Please trot it out." You should be able to prove spirituality exists, if it is true.

You have proof of this? Please trot it out. My GF thinks it matters a lot that I love her.

I hope that was a reading comprehension fail on your part. Your GF is alive, isn't she?

Wait... are you saying that Love or God is abstract? God is Love is a definition of God. Ergo, Love is of God. But, you're so focused on the physical, that I doubt that you can understand the spiritual.

Love, as an emotion, is abstract. (As a combination of a set of chemicals, it is entirely physical, but meaningless without the organism.) If God is love (as in "the same as"), it logically follows that God must also be abstract.

Love goes beyond that. It is not only about caring about someone, but wanting to help those in need. Or it is about not wanting to harm someone. There is a lot of scope for love.
And I am a human being, not a star, so I can love and I do love. It is part of who I am.

And the vast majority of the universe is not even alive, let alone human. This vast majority of the universe does not have a concept of love. Why am I still arguing the point that love is not meaningful to the universe at large?

 

[Scuba Pete]

"You have proof of this? Please trot it out." You should be able to prove spirituality exists, if it is true.

Here I am: the best evidence that spirituality exists. Next you'll be saying that we aren't sentient and that there is no spiritual side to us. You have no proof for any of this, just a smug feeling of superiority.

I hope that was a reading comprehension fail on your part. Your GF is alive, isn't she?

It was a writing fail on your part. "them" could refer to all living things collectively or to all living things individually. If you fail to accurately convey what you mean, you can't expect us to read your mind.

Love, as an emotion, is abstract.

So? It's subjective too. That doesn't negate it.

(As a combination of a set of chemicals,

Nice opinion presented as fact. You have no proof that this all that love is.

it is entirely physical, but meaningless without the organism.) If God is love (as in "the same as"), it logically follows that God must also be abstract.

I apologize if you are incapable of abstract thought. That is one of the many things that makes us sentient.

And the vast majority of the universe is not even alive, let alone human. This vast majority of the universe does not have a concept of love. Why am I still arguing the point that love is not meaningful to the universe at large?

The vast majority of the universe is gaseous. Does this make stars invalid? No, we tend to define our world by the remarkable. Love stands out because it IS so rare, just as stars stand out as points of light in the night sky.

Your faith in your atheism is great!

 

[jonman122]

Here I am: the best evidence that spirituality exists. Next you'll be saying that we aren't sentient and that there is no spiritual side to us. You have no proof for any of this, just a smug feeling of superiority.

It was a writing fail on your part. "them" could refer to all living things collectively or to all living things individually. If you fail to accurately convey what you mean, you can't expect us to read your mind.

So? It's subjective to. That doesn't negate it. Nice opinion presented as fact. You have no proof that this all that love is. I apologize if you are incapable of abstract thought. That is one of the many things that makes us sentient. The vast majority of the universe is gaseous. Does this make stars invalid? No, we tend to define our world by the remarkable. Love stands out because it IS so rare, just as stars stand out as points of light in the night sky.

Your faith in your atheism is great!

you do realize he said UNLIVING things? that he did convey his meaning appropriately, and that you seem to imply that your girlfriend isn't alive? necrophilia, or just lack of reading comprehension on your part?

Love is a set of chemicals to bring 2 people together to raise and nurture a child, and yeah, there is proof about this. If you notice, you'll have similar feelings when you're incredibly excited. Adrenaline plays a major role, and there are many other chemicals that are used to excite you and keep your mind focused on this 1 person so that you won't just leave her and the child to be eaten by wolves or something. Love has a logical component, it's not just there for absolutely no reason other than to make you feel good.

And what the hell are you talking about when you say "love is rare" but you claim that the entire universe is full of love? you don't realize the obvious logic contradiction in your own statements there?

 

[PolyHedral]

Here I am: the best evidence that spirituality exists. Next you'll be saying that we aren't sentient and that there is no spiritual side to us. You have no proof for any of this, just a smug feeling of superiority.

A worldview that does not require spirituality fits all available evidence, as far as I know. By Occam's Razor, entities that are not necessary can be discarded.

Nice opinion presented as fact. You have no proof that this all that love is.

"Love as a set of chemicals" explains 100% of evidence, as far as I know. I refer you again to Occam.

I apologize if you are incapable of abstract thought. That is one of the many things that makes us sentient.

You'll notice we're discussing entirely abstract concepts. Please think through what you are saying next time.

The vast majority of the universe is gaseous. Does this make stars invalid? No, we tend to define our world by the remarkable. Love stands out because it IS so rare, just as stars stand out as points of light in the night sky.

Stars are not abstract concepts. They have effects on the universe at large. EDIT: And what Jonman said.

 

[Scuba Pete]

A worldview that does not require spirituality fits all available evidence, as far as I know. By Occam's Razor, entities that are not necessary can be discarded.

"Love as a set of chemicals" explains 100% of evidence, as far as I know. I refer you again to Occam.

I have yet to see this great a faith in all of Israel. Please check your sources. Some links have been established, but the studies are WAY inconclusive and deal only with attraction (not love). Among the many details are causality: If the chemicals cause the feelings, then what triggers the chemicals in the first place? If this is all you have, I am completely underwhelmed.

You'll notice we're discussing entirely abstract concepts. Please think through what you are saying next time.

It's not my fault that you can't understand these elementary principles. I have thought through everything I have said and can see through your subterfuge. Talking in circles and repeatedly saying the same things does not make them right.

Stars are not abstract concepts. They have effects on the universe at large. EDIT: And what Jonman said.

I never claimed that stars were abstract objects. However, consider any map of space, and you aren't going to try to navigate using empty space. The stars stand OUT amidst the emptiness. Our world is defined by the remarkable.

 

[Scuba Pete]

you do realize he said UNLIVING things? that he did convey his meaning appropriately, and that you seem to imply that your girlfriend isn't alive? necrophilia, or just lack of reading comprehension on your part?

Is English a second language for you guys?​

Living things do experiance love, but it doesn't matter to anything other than them.

OK, I love my cat. She could care less. In this respect, "them" would refer to simply me (singularly). If you meant "them" plural, then your statement could be false.

If you are trying to state that love only matters (applies) to living entities then say that. To which I say: "SO WHAT?" We are rare and love is even more so. That does not invalidate the existence of love (or me) one whit.

Love is a set of chemicals to bring 2 people together to raise and nurture a child, and yeah, there is proof about this. If you notice, you'll have similar feelings when you're incredibly excited. Adrenaline plays a major role, and there are many other chemicals that are used to excite you and keep your mind focused on this 1 person so that you won't just leave her and the child to be eaten by wolves or something. Love has a logical component, it's not just there for absolutely no reason other than to make you feel good.

Shenanigans. Nothing of the sort has been "proven" and scientists will be the first to tell you that. Sure, pheromones and other chemicals are produced as attractants, but there has been no concrete link between any chemical and Love. If so, marriage counselors would have their work cut out for them. "Don't forget to take your Lovinium three times a day! Your marriage will be perfect in no time!"

And what the hell are you talking about when you say "love is rare" but you claim that the entire universe is full of love? you don't realize the obvious logic contradiction in your own statements there?

Where did I say that the universe was "full" of love? I said God is Love. Why do you guys put words in my mouth. Please QUOTE ME the next time you think I posted something. Is this a new thing among atheists? Claim that you said something when you didn't? You and Polyboy got that down pat!

 

[PolyHedral]

Where did I say that the universe was "full" of love? I said God is Love.

And I'm saying this is a logically incoherent position if you are then going to say that God can do or know things.

 

[Scuba Pete]

And I'm saying this is a logically incoherent position if you are then going to say that God can do or know things.

Translation: Pete didn't say what was attributed to him by PolyHedral.

 

[Kathryn]

May I ask what your answer to the problem of evil is?

Beaudreaux, it's not that I mind answering the question - but I don't think this is the purpose of the OP. Every day we have this sort of question posed on this forum, and we debate and discuss them till we're all blue in the face. I don't really want to take every question you have about my faith one at a time on this particular thread.

The question was, I believe, what intellectual compromises have I made in order to keep my faith, and my answer was - I haven't made ANY intellectual compromises. My faith doesn' require that I do so.