Yeah, that won't fly. You need to answer the question I asked.

I'm taking time away from something I need to be doing. So if you want to have a serious, good faith discussion where you're actually paying some attention to what I'm writing, thinking about it, etc., we can try again later. I'll be back around in a few hours probably (well, at least sometime later today--it's just after noon at the moment for me).

Yeah, that won't fly. You need to answer the question I asked.


I want to know what Love is, and you can't seem to simply answer the question. Maybe I'm mistaken, but am not sure.

Would you care to start another thread and give careful analysis to this huge topic of Love?

Otherwise, not to sound disparaging, but you seem to be unable to provide a succinct answer. Or at least it seems as though you're politically pivoting or distracting attention away from something.

Maybe just say you don't know. That's Ok.

See, the deficiencies (with both Fundamentalism and) Atheism is that both, at times, cannot simply say 'I don't know'.

Different sense of the term. — Terrapin Station

Yes, the term has many different senses, but they are related. But if I love the natural environment and want the best for it even if I cannot have the pleasure of it, then that is quite close to the way i might love my children and want the best for them when I am dead. I wonder why you want to go on arguing about this word, and pretending that I am using it wrongly?

I wonder why you want to go on arguing about this word, and pretending that I am using it wrongly? — unenlightened

I don't know why you were reading my comments that way.

Before we go on, why are you quoting me saying, "Yeah, that won't fly. You need to answer the question I asked," without at all addressing the question that's referring to?

I don't know why you were reading my comments that way. — Terrapin Station

It's the way you keep commenting on my use of the word love, and not at all considering what I have said about Plato or about the Christian tradition or indeed anything. You are rather exemplifying the deficiencies of atheism in your inability to engage with anything beyond a linguistic analysis and attempted reduction of all concepts to the material.

You are rather exemplifying the deficiencies of atheism — unenlightened

:rofl:

Atheism isn't an ideology or a school of thought or system of rationality or approach to discourse or anything like that.

And it's not at all the case that atheists are necessarily materialists. Two atheists need not have a single thing in common aside from the fact that they both lack a belief in gods.

Two atheists need not have a single thing in common aside from the fact that they both lack a belief in gods. — Terrapin Station

Yes. It's a bit of a pointless topic really, and the op has bailed as he usually does. But one does the best one can. I rather like to make the challenge of a faith in a non-existent God, but alas it is incomprehensible to most atheists, and they cannot even make a questioning response. Never mind, some other time.

I rather like to make the challenge of a faith in a non-existent God, but alas it is incomprehensible to most atheists, and they cannot even make a questioning response. — unenlightened

I'm not sure what you mean by "making a questioning response," but in any event, I'd have no problem with someone saying that I have "faith in a non-existent God." I don't consider it faith, because I don't consider beliefs based on things like logical support or empirical evidence to be faith-beliefs (and that goes for religious folks, too--if their belief in God is based on logical argumentation or what they consider to be empirical evidence, I'd say that it's not a faith belief), but someone else might be using a different idea of what faith is.

I'd have no problem with someone saying that I have "faith in a non-existent God." I don't consider it faith, — Terrapin Station

I have no problem with you saying this because I consider it meaningless drivel. No, actually it being meaningless is a big problem. If I say 'I have faith' and you say 'that is not faith' then you have a problem with what I say. At least in any sense of 'having a problem' that I am interested in. Or we could just go our separate ways...

I have no problem with you saying this because I consider it meaningless drivel. No, actually it being meaningless is a big problem. If I say 'I have faith' and you say 'that is not faith' then you have a problem with what I say. At least in any sense of 'having a problem' that I am interested in. Or we could just go our separate ways... — unenlightened

Different people use the same term in different ways, no?

What? You think people are "different"?

Yes. You do not?

That was a joke. We have to assume we speak the same language, and try and reach an understanding of what we agree and disagree about. So no, different people do not use the same term in different ways, or if they do, the difference has to be elucidated in terms that they do use in the same way. Otherwise, we are not communicating. A good deal of understanding philosophy is a matter of catching the flows of meaning between philosophers and through the centuries. So a philosopher who says things like 'Plato was wrong because there is no world of forms' is a third rate philosopher who has not troubled to understand even what is meant by 'a world'. And understanding a word is not a matter of defining it in other words one does not understand.

So if I say something like "I have faith in a god that does not exist." then if you want to engage, you cannot just let it pass that there is a contradiction in the terms according to how you understand them, you have elucidate to me what that contradiction is and thus enable me to begin to see which words we are using differently and what hidden premises are being invoked. In other words, you have to try and make sense of it. Or you can just say 'religious nutter' quietly to yourself and move on. I do that quite a lot.

That was a joke. We have to assume we speak the same language, and try and reach an understanding of what we agree and disagree about. So no, different people do not use the same term in different ways, or if they do, the difference has to be elucidated in terms that they do use in the same way. Otherwise, we are not communicating. — unenlightened

I wasn't saying "different people use every single term different ways."

You were saying that it's "meaningless" for us to use "faith" in different ways (something that I don't even know is the case--I explained how I use "faith," you didn't explain if you use it a different way).

Obviously people often use the same terms in different ways. That doesn't make the terms meaningless.

So if I say something like "I have faith in a god that does not exist." then if you want to engage, you cannot just let it pass that there is a contradiction in the terms according to how you understand them, you have elucidate to me what that contradiction is and thus enable me to begin to see which words we are using differently and what hidden premises are being invoked. In other words, you have to try and make sense of it. Or you can just say 'religious nutter' quietly to yourself and move on. I do that quite a — unenlightened

I didn't say anything about contradictions.

If you were to say that you have faith in a god that doesn't exist, though, I'd be curious just what you were saying . . . so I'd ask you to explain further.

I have no idea what you are referring to, can you restate your questions? I'll be happy to try to answer them!

I thought you were the Atheist who knows the answers... LOL.

It was a question regarding whether you were paying attention to what I was typing, with respect to something I had already explained, but you brought up again:

"Is there a requirement that something is necessary for survival in order for it to persist?"

By the way, I was reading "faith in a non-existent God" as saying, "Faith in the non-existence of God." Is that not what you meant by that?

I didn't say anything about contradictions. — Terrapin Station

I didn't say you did say anything about contradictions. I don't have to wait for you to say something before I can say it. But you know what a contradiction is don't you? I think we mean the same thing here. You said this.

I'd have no problem with someone saying that I have "faith in a non-existent God." I don't consider it faith, — Terrapin Station

There is a contradiction there: someone says they have faith and you contradict them - 'that's not faith'. And that is the same kind of trick you played earlier, when I said 'God is love' and you said 'love is an emotion. And again you are not engaging, not trying to understand but just having words your own way and shrugging.

By the way, I was reading "faith in a non-existent God" as saying, "Faith in the non-existence of God." Is that not what you meant by that? — Terrapin Station

Of course it isn't. Tell you what though, we were in agreement further back -atheism isn't a position at all and the argument is futile. So I think I'll stop here.

Is there a requirement that something is necessary for survival in order for it to persist?"


Based on your explanation apparently not. Which in turn begs the question as to why it exists?

There is a contradiction there: someone says they have faith and you contradict them - 'that's not faith'. — unenlightened

That's not contradicting them. And I'd not be saying that they're wrong. I would just be telling them that I use the term differently than they're using it (if they're familiar with my views and they're saying that I have faith that God doesn't exist). It's just giving them info with the aim of understanding differences.

when I said 'God is love' and you said 'love is an emotion. — unenlightened

I didn't even see you say "God is love." Re love being an emotion, you had said that you don't consider it an emotion, so I was asking you questions about your usage of the term.

Of course it isn't. — unenlightened

Hmm, that's what I figured you had in mind, but I guess not then.

You seem to want to argue, or to be trying to (or just tending to) interpret everything as an argument, but that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm just trying to have a conversation with you.

Based on your explanation apparently not. Which in turn begs the question as to why it exists? — 3017amen

I explained this already--how something can exist even though it's neutral or even disadvantageous for survival (not that I'm claiming this about anything in particular, just to stave off you reading it that way). So I'd just be repeating the explanation of that I gave earlier.

But you can act and I do act all the acts that point to an uninformed observer that I love my neighbour, while I do not love my neighbour. — god must be atheist

The sense of the commandment is to act towards your neighbour in a loving way. It doesn't matter what you feel; the commandment is telling you to act a certain way despite whatever feelings you may or may not have.

The sense of the commandment is to act towards your neighbour in a loving way. It doesn't matter what you feel; the commandment is telling you to act a certain way despite whatever feelings you may or may not have. — Janus

This is your interpretation, @Janus. The commandment says "Love thy neighbour". If you alter the wording of the commandment to make it meaningful, you are a heretic.

I won't budge from this. If you can't believe what it says, directly, unerringly and unambiguously, and you have to alter its wording to make it meaningful, then the whole thing is garbage. Plus you are a heretic from the point of view of your brethren.

---------------

I mean, god in your religion is all-knowing. He knows English. He knows what love is. He knows what he says. He can't be accused with stupidity. So in all aspects, you'd trust god to say what he means. And he would not say something he does not mean. He is the ultimate communicator.

He says, "Love thy neighbour". Why do you have to put interpretations on it? Because, frankly, it is a stupid imperative.

Hence, I don't believe it came from god, because God, if he exists, which I believe he does not, would not say something so stuppid.

Anyway, the topic is "deficiencies in atheism." It is a deficiency of atheism that the commandment is worded stupidly? I beg your pardon.

He says, "Love thy neighbour". Why do you have to put interpretations on it? Because, frankly, it is a stupid imperative. — god must be atheist

How can you understand "Love thy neighbour" without interpreting it? You could (idiotically) interpret it to mean "Fuck (in the sense of have sex with) thy neighbour", but interpreted that way it would indeed be "a stupid imperative".

You need to understand the commandment in light of Christian thought and teaching. It is an ethical injunction; it tells you how to live in the world with others. It simply tells you to act towards others with kindness and fellow feeling. And that is obviously not "a stupid imperative", unless you happen to be a sociopath.

I explained this already--how something can exist even though it's neutral or even disadvantageous for survival (not that I'm claiming this about anything in particular, just to stave off you reading it that way). So I'd just be repeating the explanation of that I gave earlier.


Are you absolutely sure? In other words you have explained hat it's just an additional feature but could not explain why?

Let me try to paraphrase, if you are explaining that mathematical abstract's are not required for survival in the jungle, then I'm missing your explanation as to why we have those attributes?

Surely you're not suggesting that someone should run calculations before they attempt to avoid a falling object, right?

Now what about the question of love? Can you explain that human phenomenon to me, or simply state what is, in layman terms?

If it's too complex of a subject here, I'll be happy to debate it directly with you in another thread. But for some reason I have not understood your logic associated with the concept of love...

For clarity, I summarize the two questions for you:

1. What is love?
2. Why do we have mathematical ability?

How can you understand "Love thy neighbour" without interpreting it? — Janus

Language. It is not interpreted; it is understood.

You need to understand the commandment in light of Christian thought and teaching. It is an ethical injunction; it tells you how to live in the world with others. It simply tells you to act towards others with kindness and fellow feeling. And that is obviously not "a stupid imperative", unless you happen to be a sociopath. — Janus

I am saddened that you think so little of my intellect.

I am, however, on the opinion, that it is not correctly worded. And it ought to have been, if it was worded or insinuated or suggested by an all-knowing god.

So let's see which you don't agree with.

1. God knows everything.
2. Language is knowable.
3. Language in this commandment is not ambiguous.
4. You can't follow this commandment verbatim.
5. God gave a commandment that can't be followed verbatim.
6. Interpretation is needed to beat sense into this commandment.
7. Interpretation is not reliable; it is a subjective endeavour.
8. Any interpretation can be argued at any time to be false, as much as it can be argued ot be true.
9. Therefore any interpretation can be declared invalid and worthless. Any, not just nonsensical ones.
9. Therefore you'd trust that god could give commandments that need no interpretations.
10. But this commandment needs interpretation.

Please give me the numbered statement you think is false, and please explain why it's false.

If you are thinking that statements numbered 7, 8, or 9 are false, you have already disproved it for yourself. Please consider, that you gave your interpretation; I gave mine; they are incongruent. Persons A, B, C... Z may give interpretations that are different from yours or from mine and from each others'. There is no valid judging which interpretation is true, as they are all not the word of god.