Proof of the existence of God

[Sarkus]

So at least you recognise something of a similarity in love and God, in terms of existence.

You mean they both exist solely as a man-made subjective viewpoint in reaction to external stimuli?

Technically, according to scriptures, everything comes from God, including the external happenings, and the source of the nature of the external happenings. Again you don't have to accept that, but it is a part of God's characteristics of His Person (creator).
…
You'll just have to take my word for it.

Yes, that is what the scriptures claim. Not everyone’s concept of God comes from scriptures. And being in scriptures does not make it true. You merely accept it as true, believe it as true, and thus claim it as true.
That’s as far as you’ve gotten.

Science can answer question, I agree, and through it we can arrive at some informational truths. But it cannot define God, as God is not material. Neither can it define love, because love is not material.

Love is a word we use to describe a whole host of actions, behaviours, emotions. It is merely a catchall word for a self-generated subjective behaviour. And many aspects of love can be scientifically studied – behavioural studies, brain-pattern studies etc.

But the object of that religion (at it's essence), God, is not man made.

That is your claim. You have yet to show why this should be accepted as true, other than reference to some written words that claim it to be true.
You accept the authority with which they claim it, for whatever reasons you have done so, but beyond that there is nothing. Or at least you have provided nothing.

Nothing that man creates, including concepts, remain in tact within a lifetime, let alone thousands of years (at least).

You mean like language, philosophy, democracy, legal systems, the pyramids, capitalism, country borders, religions, etc?
Nope, nothing man creates remain in tact within a lifetime.
Nothing at all.

The writing give information about Him. In this day and age that is invaluable.

So he does rest on a bunch of writings? And value is subjective. To you it undoubtedly is valuable because you believe. To others it is possibly valuable in terms of studying societal behaviour etc.

It seems you weren't really taught about God, or the nature of God.

This is your standard tactic – to refuse to accept that anyone who possibly rejects God could not have been taught about God or his nature.

It seems you were just taught to have faith in Jesus, who sacrificed his life for you. This IMO is okay, but if you have no comprehension of who and what God is, and who and what Jesus is, just being taught to have faith can seem like a big fuzzy protector in the sky, who looks out for people. Healing them of cancer, stopping hurricanes, forcing people to do good, and banish evil etc... That's not what God is about, and no scriptures talk of Him in that way.

I’m guessing you have little comprehension of what JamesR, or indeed anyone else, is actually taught about God and his nature.

As for God doing such things, I’m guessing you’re not too au fait with the Bible:
God parting the Red Sea for Moses – Exodus 14: 21-31
God providing Manna from Heaven – Exodus 16: 14-35
God parts the Jordan River – Joshua 3: 14-17
God feeds 100 Men at Gilgal with just 20 loaves - Kings2 4: 42-44
God cures Naaman of Leprosy – Kings2 5: 10-27

Need I go on?

According to every scripture, ultimately everything is evidence of God (not my personal concept). So if you start from that perspective, science becomes a tool for understanding God's handy work (material). You have to accept that premise, to get a better understanding of how current evidences lead to God. If you don't accept that premise then things won't make sense to your current comprehension. You can see that right?

It may not be a concept you originally came up with, and a concept shared by others, but it is your concept – in that it is the concept you have.
I can also see that your position requires an a priori assumption that actually adds zero comprehension to anything at all, other than providing tautological rationalisation for your belief.

I'm explaining it in a way you can relate to. You should already know that God is not a material being. If you accept that, then we can progress this discussion. If you can't accept that, then we'll go round in circles. That way you won't get an answer to your questions.
At the moment you are treating this from your world view perspective, which is one of objective, material, naturalist kind of thinking. Because you cannot see (what you think of as) God, you assume He doesn't exist. You see the material nature working in such a way that it requires no mind or intelligence to maintain it. So for you God has to be understood in the way you understand material nature. But before you can, you must accept who and what God is, and that information can be found in scriptures. Then you'll know how it occurs. At that point you can decide what's real and what's not.

If anything, Jan, you’re doing wonders for reinforcing people’s notions that God is merely a man-made concept, surviving through the ages due to being tautologically reinforcing to those that believe.

And all I see from you is an a priori assumption that encompasses everything as God such that you can not provide proof due to the unfalsifiable nature you have given him, but a nature that is also indistinguishable from a universe where such a God is merely a man-made concept.

If it's true, why is it a cop out?

Because you are making the claim without actually knowing JamesR, or anyone else, without knowing what they believed, what they were taught, what their personal situation was. I.e. because you merely assume your interpretation as the truth.
You are just dismissing what they say out of hand because to do so fits your agenda.
It is a cop out because by doing so you don’t have to address what they are actually telling you.
And just as you request: “Please Please Please, don't interpret what I say. Just respond to the words I use” so you should have the decency not to interpret what they say as you do.
But I’ll get on to that request of yours in a moment…

But ultimately you have no way of knowing any of your interpretation as being true. It is merely that, your interpretation, and you generalise everyone into this category who no longer believes. This generalisation is a cop out as it is a simple fall-back tactic that you think removes the need to actually address the points raised.

What difference would that claim make?

It means we can dimiss your entire belief as being that of someone who simply hasn’t, or is unwilling, to think critically to the right level.

There's been such arguments? Really?

Said the blind man.

I don't imagine the universe with God, so you're most probably right about the imagination thing.
Obviously you think God has to be imagined in order to be believed in.

Imagining does not mean “making it up from scratch” but simply creating a mental image/concept in your head. Which you must do for the word God to have any meaning to you for you to believe in it.

Unless you're hiding something, I have no choice but to conclude that your concept of God is the result of not being taught who and what God is, who and what you are in relation to God. Without this information, it becomes difficult to sustain faith in God because.

So anyone who doesn’t believe must not have been taught who and what God is? Because to be taught is to believe?
Nope, still can’t find any example of you putting yourself in a “superior position”.

Why do you have to say ''your God''?
Nothing I have said about God in this thread, is my personal concept. In this case we are discussing ''God'', His character and His attributes as defined in scripture for thousands of years.

You’re still hung up on this point?
“Your God” as in the God you believe in. Whether or not others believe in the same God is irrelevant as if they do it is “their God” as well. If you believe there is just one God then great, but that still makes it “your God” even if you also believe it is “everyones’ God” or just simply “God”.

This just makes me think you're not taking this thing seriously, and your not prepared to learn, or accept anything new. All my typing seems to be a waste of time, as nothing I say changes how you see, what for you is, the concept of God.

As man-made? No, you’re reinforcing that.

You don't need me to tell you about you.

Which just reinforces that you dismiss certain positions out of hand as a generalisation, without understanding what it is you are actually dismissing.

I didn't say it was a ''gut feeling''.
I suggest you stick to what I say, and do away with this ''more or less crap''.
Now I have to waste my time typing this.

So rather than actually provide what you did say/mean, you merely tell him not to be mistaken.
And you wonder if you’re wasting your time?

Please Please Please, don't interpret what I say. Just respond to the words I use.

Ah, back to this.
Pray tell, how can one respond to what you say without interpreting what you say? Are we just to mash our keyboards?

The one thing I have found with you, Jan, and continue to find, is that it is you who too often fails to see how your words can quite legitimately be interpreted, and then you criticise people for taking the wrong interpretation.
And often it is the right interpretation they take, only you didn’t actually type what you meant, only what you thought you meant.
Correct that aspect of your writing and things may go more smoothly.

 

[tali89]

What? Can't you think of any, tali89?

Well, since you consider theists such as myself to be uneducated and unintelligent, and yourself to be educated and intelligent, I wouldn't dare presume to know what you think in regards to the nature of love. So can you provide us with a concise list of things people 'do' that demonstrate love? If you can't support your assertion, that's fine. I'll just chalk it up as another example of an atheist being all flash and no substance.

 

[Trooper]

Well, since you consider theists such as myself to be uneducated and unintelligent, and yourself to be educated and intelligent, I wouldn't dare presume to know what you think in regards to the nature of love. So can you provide us with a concise list of things people 'do' that demonstrate love? If you can't support your assertion, that's fine. I'll just chalk it up as another example of an atheist being all flash and no substance.

What? You're a theists? What type? I'm really surprised by that. May I ask why?

 

[Yazata]

Technically, according to scriptures, everything comes from God, including the external happenings, and the source of the nature of the external happenings. Again you don't have to accept that, but it is a part of God's characteristics of His Person (creator).
You will find detailed descriptions in vedic literature. I don't have the time nor the inclination to walk you through literature, vedic, or otherwise. You'll just have to take my word for it.

Yes, that is what the scriptures claim.

Don't concede that point Sarkus.

Jan is preaching his/her own faith that every religious writing in the world is fundamentally monotheist, and that all of them reveal exactly the same God with the same divine attributes. I don't know if that's an idea that Jan has concocted for him/her self, or whether it comes from ISKCON (the Hari Krishnas) or whatever Jan's influences were. (Jan reveals next to nothing about his/her own religious background but always claims superiority over everyone else.)

In real life, many religious writings, including the Greek, Roman, Mesopotamian, Japanese Shinto and even the earlier 'vedic' writings are largely polytheist. Religious traditions aren't always monotheist. Some scriptural traditions aren't theist at all and aren't really about gods. The Buddhist, Jain and Confucian canons provide examples of that. Ostensibly monotheist religious writings don't always reveal a divine 'person'. Advaita Vedanta and the Neoplatonic tendencies in Western mysticism provide examples of non-personal monotheisms.

And even when "scriptures" teach personal monotheism, the details are often all over the map. Monotheistic Gods supposedly reveal different things, to different people, at different times. They may or may not incarnate as Jesus, Rama or Krishna. (Some Hindu sects worship Krishna not as an incarnation of Vishnu, but as the high monotheistic God himself.) The contents of the revelations that supposedly come from monotheistic Gods (moral laws, religious practices and paths to salvation) aren't always consistent with one another.

So abstracting out one invariant unchanging essence that supposedly lies within all of this diversity is going to require a lot of editorial judgement. Since 'scriptures' might arguably be a subset of religious writings in general, one might want to insist that writings that don't contain the desired message don't qualify as true 'scriptures' in the first place. (That would render the claim that all scriptures teach the same thing circular.)

Trying to harmonize all religious writings, from all cultures, will certainly require a great deal of editorial 'picking and choosing' about which scriptural contents contain the essential universal message that the editor already assumes is there, and which passages are superfluous to that message. That will probably result in a reliance on 'proof texts', short extracts of text that seem to echo what the editor wants said, regardless of their original context.

 

[Sarkus]

Don't concede that point Sarkus.

Fair point, Yazata, fair point. I was more stressing that the scriptures claim things rather than necessarily speak the truth.

 

[James R]

tali89:

Well, since you consider theists such as myself to be uneducated and unintelligent, and yourself to be educated and intelligent...

Nothing I have written should lead you to the conclusion that I consider all theists to be uneducated and/or unintelligent. Some of them undoubtedly are both. On the other hand, I know - and know of - more than a few highly educated and thoughtful theists. Jan Ardena himself strikes me as educated and intelligent.

As your yourself, this is the first time I've seen you declare yourself as a theist. Maybe you ought to introduce your readers to your beliefs. Your first post in this thread looked like a drive-by interjection to me.

...I wouldn't dare presume to know what you think in regards to the nature of love. So can you provide us with a concise list of things people 'do' that demonstrate love? If you can't support your assertion, that's fine. I'll just chalk it up as another example of an atheist being all flash and no substance.

Ok. I'll get you started. Here are a few generic examples:

1. A mother nurtures her child.
2. A carer attends to the needs of a friend who is ill.
3. A man proposes marriage to a woman with whom he wishes to share his life (because of the special and intimate connection they have developed).
4. A soldier sacrifices himself to save his comrades.
5. A person donates money to a charity.
6. An author dedicates a book to a significant person in her life.

Obviously, these examples come across as trite when put down like this. And I know that you can come up with ulterior motives (i.e. other than love) for all of them if you try. But I have given you bare bones here, not details or specific instances.

I must say I am surprised that you cannot think of examples yourself of behaviour that demonstrates love. Have you never experienced or witnessed an act of love? That seems unlikely to me.

 

[tali89]

Nothing I have written should lead you to the conclusion that I consider all theists to be uneducated and/or unintelligent.

Well, you did state that as you became more educated and intelligent, you turned away from theism, the implication being that only uneducated and unintelligent people are theistic. This is confirmed by the fact that you go to great efforts to ridicule theists.

As your yourself, this is the first time I've seen you declare yourself as a theist. Maybe you ought to introduce your readers to your beliefs. Your first post in this thread looked like a drive-by interjection to me.

No thanks. I'm of the opinion that religious beliefs are personal. I'm not here to preach or give my life story, I'm here because you made a claim which is fallacious and unsubstantiated. If you're upset by people interjecting in a public discussion, perhaps you ought to ridic..., um, converse with Jan via PM.

Ok. I'll get you started. Here are a few generic examples:

1. A mother nurtures her child.

So if a mother cares for her child out of duty, you consider that love?

2. A carer attends to the needs of a friend who is ill.

So if I bring my friend a can of soup while they are sick, I love them?

3. A man proposes marriage to a woman with whom he wishes to share his life (because of the special and intimate connection they have developed).

So if a couple marry for financial reasons, they are in love?

4. A soldier sacrifices himself to save his comrades.

So if a soldier feels duty-bound to protect his fellow soldiers, he loves them?

5. A person donates money to a charity.

So if someone donates money to a charity as a means to promote their business, that's love?

6. An author dedicates a book to a significant person in her life.

So if a black man dedicates his book to Martin Luther King, he loves him?

 

[Daecon]

Are you deliberately trying to miss the point?

 

[James R]

tali89:

You seem angry.

Well, you did state that as you became more educated and intelligent, you turned away from theism, the implication being that only uneducated and unintelligent people are theistic.

It's actually not my fault if you read things in that aren't there.

I was always intelligent, by the way.

How's your education?

This is confirmed by the fact that you go to great efforts to ridicule theists.

Looks like you haven't read many of my posts on matters of religion here. It's almost like you've jumped into this thread to personally attack me. It's like you're a sock puppet who has a chip on his shoulder.

No thanks. I'm of the opinion that religious beliefs are personal. I'm not here to preach or give my life story, I'm here because you made a claim which is fallacious and unsubstantiated.

Please explain what my claim was and why it was fallacious. Seeing as you have it all worked out and all.

If you're upset by people interjecting in a public discussion, perhaps you ought to ridic..., um, converse with Jan via PM.

What ever gave you the impression that I'm upset by your antics here? You're a lot of fun, tali89.

So if a mother cares for her child out of duty, you consider that love? [snip]

Sigh. Go back and read my post again. You went off half cocked, and now you look a bit of an idiot, don't you?

 

[Yazata]

Can you provide us with a concise list of things people 'do' that demonstrate love?

What? Can't you think of any, tali89?

If nobody has ever expressed love for Tali, and if Tali has never expressed love for anyone else, I think that's sad.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

What kind of stuff do people do, that makes you describe their actions as ''love''?

I'm not quite sure what you hope to gain by pursuing this line of inquiry. See my response to tali89 above for some straightforward examples.

So at least you recognise something of a similarity in love and God, in terms of existence.
That's a good start.

Ok, but I don't see how this amounts to progress for your cause.

Technically, according to scriptures, everything comes from God, including the external happenings, and the source of the nature of the external happenings.

It's all a bit circular, though, isn't it? How do we know everything comes from God? Because the scriptures say so. How do we know the scriptures come from God? Because everything comes from God. How do we know that everything comes from God? ...

Again you don't have to accept that, but it is a part of God's characteristics of His Person (creator).
You will find detailed descriptions in vedic literature. I don't have the time nor the inclination to walk you through literature, vedic, or otherwise. You'll just have to take my word for it.

But they would say that, wouldn't they?

That's something you've got to try and comprehend. If have some comprehension of God's nature (as defined in detail), then you will be able to work out how God is related to the ''real world'' as you call it.
Once again, you don't have to accept it, but at least you won't need to keep asking these questions with no hope of being able to grasp the answer due to your world view.

Science can answer question, I agree, and through it we can arrive at some informational truths. But it cannot define God, as God is not material. Neither can it define love, because love is not material.

I agree that both love and God need some definition before science can investigate them. The concept is always prior to the empirical investigation.

But the object of that religion (at it's essence), God, is not man made.

I disagree, and you've given me no reason to think that I might be wrong.

Nothing that man creates, including concepts, remain in tact within a lifetime, let alone thousands of years (at least).

Probably you didn't mean to say this. See the comments of others, above. Obviously, it's wrong.

The writing give information about Him. In this day and age that is invaluable.

Why are ancient writings so important in this day and age? Did the people of the past have greater understanding of and access to God than modern people do?

And because this was your experience, you apply this to everyone?

Yes, of course. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. And you're in no different position to me in that respect.

It seems you weren't really taught about God, or the nature of God. It seems you were just taught to have faith in Jesus, who sacrificed his life for you.

You're making assumptions based on scant evidence.

But tell me: what should I have been taught about God and about the nature of God?

This IMO is okay, but if you have no comprehension of who and what God is, and who and what Jesus is, just being taught to have faith can seem like a big fuzzy protector in the sky, who looks out for people. Healing them of cancer, stopping hurricanes, forcing people to do good, and banish evil etc... That's not what God is about, and no scriptures talk of Him in that way.

The New Testament talks of God that way to some extent. Although, if one were to summarise the main point the bible, the best summary would probably be that one must believe in the right God and follow his commands.

According to every scripture, ultimately everything is evidence of God (not my personal concept). So if you start from that perspective, science becomes a tool for understanding God's handy work (material). You have to accept that premise, to get a better understanding of how current evidences lead to God. If you don't accept that premise then things won't make sense to your current comprehension. You can see that right?

Sure. If you start from the position of belief in God, then you don't question God's existence. Instead, you take that as a given and allow your confirmation bias to run riot.

I'm explaining it in a way you can relate to.

Maybe you should put less effort into trying to guess at what I can best relate to, and more into explaining things as you think they should be explained. It might be more valuable for me to get a sense of your real perspective, rather than some kind of pre-filtered version that you're presenting because you think I can't handle the truth. I don't think my brain will explode if you tell me what you really believe.

You should already know that God is not a material being. If you accept that, then we can progress this discussion.

That's the description that is usually given these days, I know. If you read the Old Testament, though, God used to be somebody who could talk directly to human beings and manifest himself. God spent a fair amount of time being carried around with the Ark of the Covenant. And God used to live in the sky - not figuratively, but literally. What has happened is that, as people have become more sophisticated and knowledgable, God has been redefined. Nowadays, for him to be undetectable by science and the like, he has to be invisible and "non-material". Anything else would be accessible to scientific testing and hence falsifiability.

If you can't accept that, then we'll go round in circles. That way you won't get an answer to your questions.
At the moment you are treating this from your world view perspective, which is one of objective, material, naturalist kind of thinking. Because you cannot see (what you think of as) God, you assume He doesn't exist. You see the material nature working in such a way that it requires no mind or intelligence to maintain it. So for you God has to be understood in the way you understand material nature.

You're right. I don't see any good evidence for anything supernatural, or any need to introduce supernatural elements to account for any material occurrence. If God interacts with the material world, how does he do it? By magic? Is that what I need to accept before I can understand God?

But before you can, you must accept who and what God is, and that information can be found in scriptures. Then you'll know how it occurs. At that point you can decide what's real and what's not.

You seem to be delaying getting to the important stuff. If you know who and what God is, please tell me. I can benefit from your superior understanding of the scriptures.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

If it's true, why is it a cop out?

Because it is an assertion you can't prove. And it conveniently saves you with having to come to grips with the fact that some people stop believing in God despite doing everything that is recommended to cultivate the belief.

Belief and acceptance are two different states of being. One can accept something straight away, and act as though they believe that thing. We even think we believe in something, only to find out at some point we don't, and we never did. We can be taken in, where a scheme, or partner for all intent and purpose appear to be everything we have been looking for. Only to find out it was a sham. As we become more experienced we learn how to discriminate between what is real and what's illusion.
Beliefs are based on what we have learned, as experience, and the offer that presents itself in which we have no way of knowing at that moment in time, but know we have a decision to make regardless.

Youngsters, don't generally develop beliefs, they just accept offers (without experience). You simply went along with something that was part of your family tradition. You associated God with Santa Clause because that it how the teachings came across to you

You're making a lot of assumptions about my personal experience. I think we probably ought to move away from that, especially since there's little in the way of reciprocal sharing going on here.

You seem to be saying that I failed to connect with God properly because my education about God was sub-standard, and that that was the fault of my family and/or the other people whose job it was to explain the important "teachings" to me. And it was also my fault because I didn't investigate the "teachings" thoroughly enough to bolster my faith properly. Or something like that.

I can't see that it would make any difference to your prejudices if I were to go into detail about what kind of religious education I had, what kinds of investigation I did on my own as an adult, or anything like that. You'd still conclude that I am at fault because I never really "accepted" God, or because I did something else wrong that precluded a "real" belief forming - where "real" means a belief that "sticks" for life.

What difference would that claim make?

Exactly. See my point? I'd just be making the same kinds of unsupported assumptions about you that you're making about me.

There's been such arguments [that tend to refute my belief]? Really?

Yes. I keep making them, and so do others. You often avoid commenting on them, snipping them out of your responses. Your focus seems to be primarily on the failings of the atheists to have the correct concept of God. Critical examination of and reflection on your own beliefs by yourself seems almost entirely absent from your posts.

I don't imagine the universe with God, so you're most probably right about the imagination thing.
Obviously you think God has to be imagined in order to be believed in.

I was talking about possible (conceivable or "imaginable") worlds. One possible world is a world that has God in it. Another possible world has no God. Have you ever considered what a world without God would look like? And please don't give a knee-jerk dismissive response such as "No such world could exist, because a world must have a Creator." For this hypothetical world, we're assuming that it has come into existence without God.

Unless you're hiding something, I have no choice but to conclude that your concept of God is the result of not being taught who and what God is, who and what you are in relation to God. Without this information, it becomes difficult to sustain faith in God because.

You still haven't explained what you perceive as my concept of God, or why it is limited and incorrect. Nor have you detailed what concept of God I ought to have if I was doing the belief thing properly.

Why do you have to say ''your God''?
Nothing I have said about God in this thread, is my personal concept. In this case we are discussing ''God'', His character and His attributes as defined in scripture for thousands of years
This just makes me think you're not taking this thing seriously, and your not prepared to learn, or accept anything new. All my typing seems to be a waste of time, as nothing I say changes how you see, what for you is, the concept of God.
Am I wasting my time with you?

You have a personal concept of God. That concept is informed by the various scriptures that you consider important (while you have not read or have dismissed others). It is clear even from posts on this forum that your concept of God is not shared by all believers in God. Even if your particular belief set were shared by a billion people on Earth (a wild overestimate, no doubt), that would still leave 6 billion people with different beliefs.

The various "scriptures" in existence describe many different conceptions of God and gods, as I have already pointed out. Since I am conversing with you, I see no particular problem in referring to "your God". Other people's gods may well differ from yours. I have been trying to acertain something of how you conceive of God, but you're not very forthcoming about that.

I could refer simply to "God", but in the context of the present discussion that would be buying into your assumption that all gods are manifestations of the one God that you believe in. I understand that my references to "your God" probably seem jarring to you because of your conviction that all gods are one God. However, you need to accept that I don't see things the same way that you do.

I don't mean to be rude. If this really bothers you, then perhaps we can make some kind of deal. For example, perhaps you could refrain from making some of the more offensive repeated generalisations you tend to make about atheists, and in return I'll refer just to "God". Or something like that. Let me know.

What kind of question is this [about warm fuzzy feelings]?

An honest one. Do you feel or know or believe that God loves you?

So all fuzzy warm feelings, are somehow connected to love. Would that be a correct analysis of your logic?

No. Probably other things can engender warm fuzzy feelings, too. Similarly, examples of the signs and manifestations of love such as the ones I posted to tali89, above, can have other explanations in individual cases. My point is that love is a complex, emergent, concept that comes from what people do. Its common elements are devotion and affection.

 

[tali89]

tali89:

You seem angry.

While I'm sure you'd like to incite an angry reaction with your transparent goading and tedious insinuations, I'm afraid to say you lack the ability to make me angry. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I was always intelligent, by the way.

You claim in an earlier post that as you became more educated and intelligent, you found theism to be less tenable. Are you capable of reading your prior posts, or is it necessary for me to quote your own words back to you?

How's your education?

In what? I have to say I'm getting a rather good education from you on how to be passive-aggressive.

Looks like you haven't read many of my posts on matters of religion here.

For what purpose? I'm asking you to substantiate a claim you made, not fill me in on your life story.

It's almost like you've jumped into this thread to personally attack me. It's like you're a sock puppet who has a chip on his shoulder.

Please explain what my claim was and why it was fallacious. Seeing as you have it all worked out and all.

I've done that in my previous post. I demonstrated how the actions you listed do not necessarily demonstrate love, and instead of arguing your point of view, you have instead taken to posturing and repeating the same old diatribe about me being a sockpuppet, as if your obsession with my identity is related to this topic in any way, shape or form.

In conclusion, I'll chalk this up as another militant atheist being all flash and no substance. Thanks, I was worried you might actually been a drain on my time, but this was a slam dunk.

 

[Daecon]

So then why are you here? This is a science forum, not a religious one.

 

[Sarkus]

I demonstrated how the actions you listed do not necessarily demonstrate love, ...

And that was/is a strawman on your part.
The question you raised was not to provide a list that necessarily demonstrated love but merely that did demonstrate it.

Are you denying that those actions can be demonstrations of love.
If so, on what grounds?
If not, why are you still arguing the point?

 

[James R]

tali89:

You're clearly out of your depth here. You're also ill mannered and unpleasant to converse with. You injected yourself into this conversation, then you made a fool of yourself.

While I'm sure you'd like to incite an angry reaction with your transparent goading and tedious insinuations, I'm afraid to say you lack the ability to make me angry. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Please don't project. You're not in this thread to discuss the topic, so go play with the other kids and leave the adults to their discussion.

You claim in an earlier post that as you became more educated and intelligent, you found theism to be less tenable. Are you capable of reading your prior posts, or is it necessary for me to quote your own words back to you?

You've now proven yourself incapable of reading my posts not once, but twice in this thread. Why put yourself through further humiliation?

In what?

In anything.

For what purpose?

Now you're being inconsistent. On the one hand, you claim enough knowledge of my posts to state that I go out of my way to ridicule theists. Yet now you say that you wouldn't actually go to the trouble to read any of my posts on religious matters.

The purpose of reading my posts would be for you to get the facts right before you go off half cocked. See?

I'm asking you to substantiate a claim you made, not fill me in on your life story.

I already responded to your question, partly as a courtesy to you that you did not earn, but mostly because Jan Ardena also requested that I address your post. On the other hand, you appear to completely lack any vestige of common courtesy. And you don't even take the time to properly read direct replies to you.

I've done that in my previous post. I demonstrated how the actions you listed do not necessarily demonstrate love...

And I say to you for a second time, because you did not get it the first time, that you need to go back and read my post fully. In particular, look at where I specifically addressed your objection in advance of your making it. Nevertheless, you blundered on in your usual uncouth fashion.

Glad to hear you're running away from this thread. Nobody needs you here.

 

[Bells]

I've done that in my previous post. I demonstrated how the actions you listed do not necessarily demonstrate love, and instead of arguing your point of view, you have instead taken to posturing and repeating the same old diatribe about me being a sockpuppet, as if your obsession with my identity is related to this topic in any way, shape or form.

And the actions he listed could just as well demonstrate love.

Anything can demonstrate love, depending on who the other is and how it is interpreted by those involved and the general feelings and emotions and emotional attachment between those involved. For example, your partner may make you a sandwich just as you like it and to most people, that would be a demonstration of his or her love for you, because they took the time to make it just as you like it. Certainly, it fulfills the duty of feeding you, just as an orderly in a hospital might give you a meal tray with sandwiches on it would feed you. But your lack of emotional connection to the orderly would mean that his giving you a sandwich for a meal is not a demonstration of love, but your partner making you a sandwich could very well be a demonstration of love. Do you understand such connections? Or does it need to be explained to you?

I find it sad that you do not appear to understand how those actions could actually demonstrate love. Were you never exposed to this as a child?

Do you understand human emotion and feelings? At all? Because your responses on this topic indicate that you are unfeeling, calculating and cold.

In conclusion, I'll chalk this up as another militant atheist being all flash and no substance. Thanks, I was worried you might actually been a drain on my time, but this was a slam dunk.

And if you are an example of a theist, then we can see and understand how and why theists and religious groups have so many issues with sociopaths and narcissists hiding abuse and mistreatment of children, in particular, within their organisations.

No, seriously, if you do not understand "love" as an emotion, then you have clearly failed to comprehend the very essence of your deity of choice. All of which dictate that love is a tangible thing that exists in all quarter's of one's life, especially towards others.

 

[James R]

Maybe tali89's god is not a god of love.

Then again, probably best to take any claim that tali89 makes about himself with a grain of salt, given how desperate he is to hide his identity.

 

[Bells]

Maybe tali89's god is not a god of love.

I think Tali89 is Foreigner!

Yes..

I went there.

 

[James R]