As long as the atheist does not give up seeking the truth, even if it means taking a slow, roundabout detour because of summer construction;
Why on Earth would one require belief in an ancient superstition to be capable of love and hope?
Prove that its a superstition.
Prove that it isn’t.
You first. You made the positive assertion.
I made a positive assertion? I don’t think so.
In post 142 you said
Embedded in this question is the assertion of superstition. If you cannot demostrate this is true, you used a strawman fallacy, which is correctly dismissed as invalid.
The supernatural, God, is the source of all Love and Hope. Without Him neither would exist.
I assume that you don’t believe in Wotan, Valhalla, Mount Olympus, Vishnu taking on his many armed form, Shigidi possessing people and making them have nightmares, Shango causing bad weather?
That is undoubtedly a positive claim, so you prove this one, if you can?
You are working from different definitions of love and hope. One is individually centered the other relies inherantly on God. To try and argue that the other is what yours is, or visa versa would create an equivocal fallacy.
I don’t even know what this means, if anything.
You make some good points, but people who are atheists are certainly capable of loving their neighbor with the same vigor as a believer. They may not pray for them, they may not have the same desire to please God, but they are capable of love. That is why it is so important on this forum to be fishers of men and not be antogonistic (and I’m not accusing you of that at all) many on this forum display a holier than thou attitude. It’s kind of like the pharisees of Jesus’ time.
Both you and the other person are using the words “love” and “hope” with different meanings. Clearly the applications are equivocally distinct, one has God as an essential predicate and the other not. Arguing when one has different definitions for the same word is absurd and only leads to equivocal misunderstandings. It is equivalent to one of you using the word “light” in regards to the brightness of a room, and the other in regards to weight.
who is the other person?Both you and the other person are using the words “love” and “hope” with different meanings. Clearly the applications are equivocally distinct, one has God as an essential predicate and the other not. Arguing when one has different definitions for the same word is absurd and only leads to equivocal misunderstandings. It is equivalent to one of you using the word “light” in regards to the brightness of a room, and the other in regards to weight.
Sorry for being ambiguous.
Evidently there is an equivocal disparity between David’s and moonstrucks perspectives on what is entailed by the word love. etc.
Before you put words in my mouth you could ask me.
Can’t answer the question, so change the subject.
Interesting question. However, it does not relate at all to my post quoted below. The origin of this is found in post 134. Yet, I am glad you asked.
As you can read, there is no implied requirement for any kind of belief. Neither is there any kind of implied object such as what can be hoped for or loved.
His precise words:
And what if the discovery is that the truth is there is no creator?
Agreed. This is about the first thing you’ve said that I understand.
I presume you hold that there is an objective truth in the universe. Either (some of) the religious are right, the atheists are right or some third group unconsidered are right.
