A
Annabea
Guest
Get a dog.
- Status
A
Annabea
Guest
How do you know this?
A
Annabea
Guest
Would you guys please stop trying to prove me wrong by saying that “jesus died for us and…” Your not proving anything.
A
aileron
Guest
I’m not hung up on semantics. I am trying to get you to nail down specific language that we can evaluate. Right now it’s too informal, too loose for the question at issue.
Let me know if this summarizes your position: At some point in the process of detection, we must use our senses. Instruments (i.e. a baby monitor receiver) may be required to help us detect some things by conversion, amplification, etc., but ultimately detection requires using our senses.
In reduced form, do you agree to the following?
In order to detect something, we must use our senses.
H
happilycatholic
Guest
If you are so sure, why are you so angry? Love is not a reaction. Love is a source, not the product of a source. You have to first feel love to react to it, not the other way around.
I’m proving that it frustrates those who cannot explain it without faith.
A
aileron
Guest
Faith doesn’t explain anything. Isn’t that kind of the point of faith?
A
Annabea
Guest
No, it frustrates me that you are saying over and over again that love is god when you cannot prove it. Ignorance drives me crazy.
Here we are sitting here arguing about something that will never be proved, sigh.
Love is the source of what? Love is the outcome of something you like dearly, is god an outcome? (There, maybe that was worded better).
H
happilycatholic
Guest
Yes, you are right.
Here is my position: Love cannot be physically defined, detected or measured. Is there any other instance in existance where something is produced that cannot be measured or detected which we believe exists in spite of that fact? No, you know radio waves exists because we detect them, right? How do you know love exists? You don’t. You are using a double standard. You are choosing what you’ll believe and what you won’t, the same as me. You are not basing that belief on proof, you are basing it on whether it seems rational. Well, God doesn’t seem rational to you. He does to me because if I use all the information available to me, I can come to the conclusion that God exists. Zeus and Ra have a VERY weak position in history compared to God so I use my rationale to discern that God is real and they are not. You CHOOSE to use the same information to discern that God is not real.
It really has nothing to do with proof, detectible or not. It’s what you choose to believe because it makes sense to you. This claim that Christians can’t proove God exists is so weak it’s pathetic because we as humans don’t hold other beliefs to that standard.
My point is simple and I’ve said it time and time again. You claim the theory you base your beliefs on is “if it can’t be proven, it doesn’t exist” (agnostic by definition by the way). Well, to this moment, you’ve failed to produce proof of love and yet you believe in it. So you’ll have to change your basis for denying God. You’ll have to deny God on other grounds. You cannot show me love in the form of matter any more than I can show you God in the form of matter.
I’m pretty sure we’re at an empass because you will never admit that your basis for atheism/agnositicism whatever you choose to call it, is flawed.
H
happilycatholic
Guest
I am not ignorant, thank you. I could say that you are disrespectful, but that would be an opinion, not fact.
Are you trying to tell me the source of the way you treat your friends and family is not love (or disdain)? Are you actually saying you treat someone a certain way and then after a time you start to develop the feelings that caused you to treat them that way? That’s rediculous. Maybe you’ll want to take a different position on that one.
Love always comes first. It is the source of “like”. It is the source of every single good thing on earth. Even atheists believe in a source of good and bad from whence everything else comes.
And YES God IS an outcome. He is the Alpha AND the Omega. You cannot have love without God and you cannot have God without love. Not possible. How redundant can I be? The fact that you choose not to believe that is not my consern.
God’s existance doesn’t depend on your belief in the concept. Sorry.
H
happilycatholic
Guest
By the way annabea, your OP (posted below for your convenience) says nothing about proof. Apparently, you weren’t completely honest about wanting to know what others believe…that’s called trolling. What you really want is an argument in which you can call others ignorant who don’t believe the same way you do and act frustrated when they don’t agree with you.
Why would you torture yourself like that? If it’s knowlege of the Christian faith you want, read. It seems that you and other so-called atheists on here are the ones doing the spitting on people’s shoes (and beliefs).
Don’t pretend to be curious to start an argument so that you can assert your own beliefs against those of others. k, thanks.
"Hello. I am an atheist. Now before you start spitting on my shoes I would like to know a little about what you believe? Belief usually varies from person to person that is why I did not post this in the admin/mod answer question thingy. I would like to know what you think about religion, how you think it is effecting the world, and why you believe what you do.
Thanks!
~Annabea"
*edit: I really didn’t believe you were 12 till you threw the little hissy fit. *
Why would you torture yourself like that? If it’s knowlege of the Christian faith you want, read. It seems that you and other so-called atheists on here are the ones doing the spitting on people’s shoes (and beliefs).
Don’t pretend to be curious to start an argument so that you can assert your own beliefs against those of others. k, thanks.
"Hello. I am an atheist. Now before you start spitting on my shoes I would like to know a little about what you believe? Belief usually varies from person to person that is why I did not post this in the admin/mod answer question thingy. I would like to know what you think about religion, how you think it is effecting the world, and why you believe what you do.
Thanks!
~Annabea"
*edit: I really didn’t believe you were 12 till you threw the little hissy fit. *
H
happilycatholic
Guest
Amen. Thank you for coming here and putting this back into perspective. Sometimes we get hung up on the intellect and forget.
Peace Be With You libbybeth and thank you for being here today.
HC
S
Sinner82
Guest
Amen! Alot fell for it and joined the argment. Lets just be cool 
A
Annabea
Guest
You do not love someone immediately. Its what they do, how they act, they way they are that causes you to love them.
Atheists simply believe that there is no god. Anything else we have in common is not a trait of atheism, it is coincidence.
A
Annabea
Guest
I was interested, until I actually heard that you were just like the rest of the christians, I was hoping to find something a little different. I didn’t. You guys were there, arguing with me. Its both or our faults we are where we are. I learn better by someone teaching me, instead reading out of a text book. I’m not making you come here, or making you argue. If you would like to leave, thats fine. I’m ready to quit, I’m tiring of this thread.
I’m also talking to a lot of people through PMing. I find it easier. I’m learning more from them than I am here, I am not arguing there, simply asking questions about their faith.
A
aileron
Guest
Bingo. Your challenge was for atheists to prove *your *position, not ours. We have no meaningful doubt that we *physically *detect love. We don’t need scientific instruments. We know we feel it. We do not claim that the experience of love is transcendental.
“We believe” is far too broad, too sweeping. Naturalists (previously called materialists) do not believe love meets this criterion, so asking if there is another example is a fallacy of complex question. For naturalists, there are no examples.
I detect it. When my kids come home from school, I detect it. I do not need assume supernatural origins for it.
Proof of anything outside of mathematics is a matter of how confident we are of something – that’s the problem of induction philosophers have struggled with for ages. Whether something is rational goes a long way toward how confident we are about it.
It’s not *God *I find irrational, it’s most of the arguments provided for the *belief *in God I find irrational. God may well exist, but most of the arguments attempting to lend support to his existence are irrational.
Brahman has a strong position in history.
How do you assert that we are using the same information?
Yes, it has a lot to do with it. Detection, for all practical purposes, proves existence.
No, it is what I choose *not *to believe because it is *not *reasonably proven.
Sure you do – all the time. I’ll trade you your house for my current bank account balance. My balance is currently five billion dollars.
What? You want reasonable proof that my account balance is five billion dollars? I find that offensive.
The standard is reasonable proof, not absolute. Absolute proof exists in mathematics.
No, your definition is wrong.
Proof is dependent of many things. Arguing from incompatible starting assumptions won’t get us too far – so proof is dependent on who is evaluating whether it’s been proven.
I don’t deny God. Lack of belief does not mean denial.
I would say it’s more accurate that I reject your assumptions about love as unwarranted and that the proof you want is contradicted by your definition of it, so there is no point.
The basis is a tentative rejection of things that are not reasonably proven. That keeps the lid firmly closed on Pandora’s box.
G
guanophore
Guest
It is a difference in how we understand Church. Catholics understand Church to be the Body of Christ, which has Jesus as the Head, and the Holy Spirit as the Soul. Due to these divine elements, the chuch cannot err, or sin.
Sinful men, sometimes in positions of authority in the church, can, and have, departed from the Teaching of Jesus and committed atrocities. Blaming Christ (the Church) for the actions of sinful men is like blaming Jesus for the betrayal of Judas. The forsaking of His Divine Teaching does not invalidate what Jesus has taught. It only demonstrates that it is possible to fall from grace, commit sins, and separate oneself from Christ.
You are confusing the actions of leaders in the Church with the Teaching and Doctrine of the Church. Men make mistakes, God does not. The Divine and infallible teaching is not nullified because people commit atrocities. Neither do these atrocities invalidate the Teaching of Christ in the Church.
J
josie_L
Guest
Because love is not a “how” but a “who”? I have reason to believe this because of the God/Man known as Jesus Christ who defined for us what love is?
A
aileron
Guest
The same situation applies to Secular Humanists. The Secular Humanism Declaration calls for the defense of human rights, and many other good and noble things.
Violate the good and noble things, and you’re acting on your own – you’re not acting as a Secular Humanist.
Same goes for any many religions, companies, governments, political parties, you name it.
I won’t allow that defense for any group that obtains power over others. History shows us it is dangerous.
How do you know they were departing from the teaching of Jesus? The leadership of the Church was evidently very convinced for centuries that they were correct. Now it seems we think they were wrong. Why is that? How do we know?
J
josie_L
Guest
What is the universal moral code of a secular humanist?
A
aileron
Guest
You can read it in their Declaration.
- Status