reasons to believe, there is no God

[Ace Otana]

"Love " created the Earth? And your evidence for this claim is.......?

According to him it's "self evident".

Love is an emotion not a force. Love = love not an all powerful supernatual non-temporal being.
Not sure how an emotion can create planets?

[Thor]

According to him it's "self evident".

Yes, just like the twits who look at a garden and insist that it's "evidence of God's existence". After all, just look at the pretty flowers! Never mind all those natural events that destroy things and kill people.

Love is an emotion not a force. Love = love not an all powerful supernatual non-temporal being.
Not sure how an emotion can create planets?

If love can create planets, what can anger create? What about sadness?

[Ace Otana]

Yes, just like the twits who look at a garden and insist that it's "evidence of God's existence". After all, just look at the pretty flowers! Never mind all those natural events that destroy things and kill people.

If love can create planets, what can anger create? What about sadness?

One thing I've noticed is that their arguments can be applied to anything. A flower = the FSM. Prove me wrong.
Love = Santa claus.
Also if love did create everything can anyone tell us how? Would be nice to have the specifics wouldn't it?
Religion delievers no infomation, no specifics, absalutly no useful data.

[Violet]

Wisdom is not a gift of age. Nor is love.

Tell that to any 16 year old and they will gladly agree with you.

Tell that to those same people 5 years later and not one of them will agree with you.

We've all been there, we've all been 16 (well, I think most of us here anyway). We've all been that arrogant, that sure of the world, that we "know" it all. It ain't true, and I know you won't believe me now, but give it 5 years and you'll come around

Actually he is correct. Wisdom is often what one attains by experience.

Age is a measure of how long a thing has existed (in it's 'current' or 'similar' state).

Whilst one has the ability to gain more experience by living longer... it does not dictate that they do. Further, people gain experience at different rate (iow: some people learn the first time... some people never learn)... hence wisdom can be summed up in what one has learned from their experiences/time.

No matter how old a person is... they can still be a dumb fuck.


And so far as love goes, again he is correct. Love is entirely unrelated to age.

I'll challenge that. Wisdom is a trait that is heavily dependent on life experience and perspective, something you are not likely to have at a young age, especially as you are still developing physically and emotionally. If you are the 16 year old, I find it absolutely ridiculous that you're giving people pep talks about what you think love is.

Whilst I agree that it is likely that a younger person will have less wisdom than an elder person... I will challenge that it is ridiculous that a 16 year old human is giving people 'pep talks' about what they think love is (Or at least, i will challenge that it is any more ridiculous for them to be doing so than it is for anyone else to be doing so). Wisdom is a thing that people of many ages possess, in different amounts.

While I probably think Watson is wrong in his belief about what love is... his opinion is as valid as yours or mine or anyone else's. We can then debate his opinion... but try not to throw irrelevant ad hominem attacks into the mix. If you can't argue your point without them: it probably wasn't much of a point to begin with.

[Thor]

[
One thing I've noticed is that their arguments can be applied to anything. A flower = the FSM. Prove me wrong.
Love = Santa claus.
Also if love did create everything can anyone tell us how? Would be nice to have the specifics wouldn't it?
Religion delievers no infomation, no specifics, absalutly no useful data.

Very true. Religion requires no thought process at all. "God did it!" explains everything. Imagine being ill and your "cure" is to have a group of dimwits pray over you?

[Violet]

Very true. Religion requires no thought process at all. "God did it!" explains everything. Imagine being ill and your "cure" is to have a group of dimwits pray over you?

If religion required no thought processes at all... then I suppose all rocks are religious rocks.

[Minimalist]

Whilst I agree that it is likely that a younger person will have less wisdom than an elder person

There is a difference between "wisdom" and "experience." I've met just as many dumb old fucks as young ones.

[Rhizomorph13]

Watson's model (maybe):
God is Love
Love creates babies ergo Love is a creative force so...
God created the universe!

Rhizo's better model:

The IPU(BBHH) created God to connect Her to Her people
God is Love
Love creates babies ergo Love is a creative force so...
God created the universe!
Therefore, from Her superfortess in the supra-trancendental place She reigns! (Oh, she has a fortress now by the way)

At least that is how I see it per se

I am feeling very naturalistically trancendent right now,
Rhizo

[tavarish]

Whilst I agree that it is likely that a younger person will have less wisdom than an elder person... I will challenge that it is ridiculous that a 16 year old human is giving people 'pep talks' about what they think love is (Or at least, i will challenge that it is any more ridiculous for them to be doing so than it is for anyone else to be doing so). Wisdom is a thing that people of many ages possess, in different amounts.

While I probably think Watson is wrong in his belief about what love is... his opinion is as valid as yours or mine or anyone else's. We can then debate his opinion... but try not to throw irrelevant ad hominem attacks into the mix. If you can't argue your point without them: it probably wasn't much of a point to begin with.

I apologize if my point was seen as an ad hominem attack. I simply meant that at 16, you're changing, both psychologically and physically. A perception of what love is tends to be VERY skewed, as a person in adolescence tends to be much more incorrigible and susceptible to naivete than someone who has fully physically and psychologically developed. This is not a guarantee, but it is much more likely that an older person has better control of their emotions and understands them more clearly than someone whose hormones are raging. I am fully aware that there are dumb, insensitive, and emotionally defunct older people in the world. Probabilities, however convey that since someone is older, it is more likely they have had more experience in a certain subject. It is not a given, but it is a better chance than a younger individual.

I'll also add that since love is highly subjective, the only thing you can do is offer your experience with this emotion. Throwing blanket statements like it's the meaning of life and "in everything" are objective statements, and require explanation. Acknowledgment that your feelings are not necessarily facts are a trait of a wise individual and one who has a fair bit of humility.

By what Watson writes, I see him as a very naive person, far from the free-thinking philosopher he believes himself to be.

---

Very true. Religion requires no thought process at all. "God did it!" explains everything. Imagine being ill and your "cure" is to have a group of dimwits pray over you?

If religion required no thought processes at all... then I suppose all rocks are religious rocks.

If God is in everything, then you bet they are. Ho-lee rawks!

I'm pretty sure he meant no skepticism or analysis into claims using deductive reasoning and logic. God did it is intellectual stagnation.

[Darwinian]

If you understood anything about love at all, you'd know that the answer to every one of those questions is a resounding 'YES.' I heard it said on this forum, it might have been by you, I don't really recall, that doubt is the most powerful driving force in this world. That is bull. Love is the most powerful driving force in this world, I can assure you.

"Love " created the Earth? And your evidence for this claim is.......?

The Bible of course! That's the first point of reference for every single claim that is ever made by Christians like this. If it's in the Bible or it can be derived from it then it is true and nothing you can ever say or do, EVER, will change that.

As Carl Sagan said. "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."