RE: What does an atheist...
December 10, 2009 at 6:39 am
(This post was last modified: December 10, 2009 at 8:10 am by tackattack.)
(December 9, 2009 at 10:29 pm)Amphora Wrote: tackattack you had said:I'd like to hope that perfection is love. I'd like to hope that a God is that love and he shares it with us like photons from the sun.
No love and everything else is not perfect, to think that love is perfect then that is what you believe.
Now the second statement is what you believe god is. Loving, kind, honest, truthful, and many more thing YOU believe god is.
For me I don't believe he loving by seeing all the bad things that happen around the world. Somehow he has better things to do than help starving children in Africa!!
Why can't Love be perfect? First I define perfection as:
Perfection \Per*fec"tion\, n. [F. perfection, L. perfectio.]
1. The quality or state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting; entire development; consummate culture, skill, or moral excellence; the highest attainable state or degree of excellence; maturity; as, perfection in an art, in a science, or in a system; perfection in form or degree; fruits in perfection. [1913 Webster]
The second statement regarding, loving, kind, honest, truthful, etc. are what we humans use as moralistic guides to achieve the perfect Love. I don't think God is wrath, trusing, jealous, selfish, etc. any justifiable human emotion that can be explained by social development including those in the previous statement. I've explained elsewhere my definition of Love and why it stands apart. I think the world we see (aside from the building blocks of nature) exist because humans create it as such. Almost every tool, object cause-effect is based off human action, desire or belief for good or bad.
(December 9, 2009 at 8:51 pm)theVOID Wrote: [quote='tackattack' pid='45007' dateline='1260399166']
Why can't you approach it like that? What's so hard about giving your definition of a word
How am i supposed to define something that i don't believe exists? I can't give attributes to non-existence.
[/quote]
Ive stated that previously. I don't believe in santa claus but I can ask most atheist what image pops in their head and it's of a white guy in a red suit with flying reindeer breaking into houses.
(December 9, 2009 at 8:51 pm)theVOID Wrote: [quote='tackattack' pid='45007' dateline='1260399166']
Don't you see how unwelcoming it is and haugty it is to stand up on your scientific pedestal and wait for an opinion that differs from yours, that is unverifiable, and lob bombs at it when all that's asked was a simple question
You were the one who started the dialog about science and now you have a problem when it doesn't favor your argument? I don't hold my own definition of god because it means so many things to so many people and changes from person to person, therefore having a discussion with my preconceived god against yours is not going to help anyone because we could potentially be arguing two contradictory ideas. All i can do is evaluate each claim presented by the same standards i use to verify any truth claim. [/quote]
that's predisposing that I am here to argue my point, discuss my views or argue; all of which is counter to my statements of seeking other opinions.
(December 9, 2009 at 8:51 pm)theVOID Wrote: [quote='tackattack' pid='45007' dateline='1260399166']
Not that it hasn't been done to many atheists over the years but I don't do that and I don't feel it's very humane (read christian) to act in such a manner.
Do you want a serious discussion or would you prefer everyone to just say "oh, that's nice"?
[/quote]
serious opinions
(December 9, 2009 at 8:51 pm)theVOID Wrote: [quote='tackattack' pid='45007' dateline='1260399166']good
Quote:Do scientists (christian and non) just try and use subjective evidence to prove their point or do they just try and disprove others?
They try to substantiate their hypothesis with empirical evidence, some other claims may be disproved in the process but that is not very often the point of the study.
(December 9, 2009 at 8:51 pm)theVOID Wrote: [quote='tackattack' pid='45007' dateline='1260399166']
Quote:Eliminating variables is fundamental to science, I understand, but there's no need to have such a condescending attitude about it. I get enough grief because I'm white in a black neighborhood. I get charged a white tax at the locally owned convience store. Discrimination is discrmination and a warped perspective doesn't help anyone.
Oh yeah us disagreeing here is really on the level of discrimination... More like i think your energy-ball god idea is silly and have no problem telling you what i think of it. Again, do you want an honest discussion here or do you want everyone just to say "oh, that energy ball god is a good one"?
perhaps it was a little over the top. perhaps it doesn't matter what the level of discrimination is the definition is :
1. The act of discriminating, distinguishing, or noting and marking differences. [1913 Webster]
But if the level of discrimination matters to you the level of evidentiary proof required for belief matters to me. I'm just trying to get a good gauge of your perspective so you'll forgive the methods I'm sure. I do appreciate you honest critiqe though and I'm glad you have no problems telling me what you think of it.
