Do You Believe in God?

If you believe in "love", and I'll assume you do, then you believe in his interpretation of God. Why should that offend? It just becomes a disagreement on language.

 

I didnt say he's trying to convince me. He clearly stated either I believe in the same God he believes in, or I DONT BELIEVE in love. That, is ultimately insulting. What you described is the label we put on the meanings of an event which I dont necessarily disagree with. But FB view is based on his religious belief which I totally reject.

A superstitious is not interchangeable with a commonly accepted morality concept, a.k.a love.

 

It's his use of language to inject his faith into a universal emotion that has nothing to do with the existence of supernatural beings. It's just rude and insulting.

 

Its not insulting. He already equated his God with Love. It follows that if you totally reject his God, then you are simultaneously rejecting his concept of Love.

Instead of being "insulted", why don't you try to come to some common understanding on the nature of love. That may actually be an interesting conversation. As a non-believer, I'm sympathetic to some of your views, but its clear enough to me that you and SSP365 are the ones being condescending and insulting, not the other way around.

 

But I'm not trying to insult anyone. I don't care if you call love God or not. It's just that's what I believe.

Let me just analyze what you're saying, and I don't mind at all if you correct me if I'm wrong.

Love is a universal human emotion. I agree. I think that most religions believe their God is also a universal thing that hopefully touches all humans. So in that, I'm not going to disagree with you.

I've said all along that I don't think God is a supernatural humanoid type being. That's not what I believe God is.

It seems like the problem is that people who are comfortable saying they don't believe in God are saying it to mean they don't believe in the supernatural humanoid type being. But since I don't believe in that either we seem to be in agreement on at least that much. Since I imagine that you believe in love and that's what I believe also we are in agreement in that area too.

Yet despite all the agreement which I would think would be a positive thing, it's seen as insulting to you, and I guess to others who seem to have had their feathers ruffled.

The bible says both of these things. God is love. Those that know love know God. I don't really care if you call it God or not. I'm just happy if you believe in love.

I can't help that I believe that God is love. It does make it hard for people to argue they don't believe in that version of what God is. But that shouldn't make people angry. It would be easy to say that you believe in love, but you don't think it's the same thing as God.

What I find odd is that instead of celebrating the points on which we agree people are trying to say that I really believe in a God that supports murder and torture of innocents and sends down natural disasters on people. It's like they're projecting what they wish they could argue against on to me just so they can argue.

I've been accused of cherry picking what I believe in. But any time examples have been shown I've addressed those examples. However nobody disagrees and tells me why my reasoning regarding those examples is wrong. They just ignore what I've said and tell me I'm ignoring things.

At the same time, how are they not reverse cherry picking by only focusing on the examples they point out while ignoring the statements that I've brought up that God is love, and those that know love know God?

I'm not saying that it's believe what I believe or you're wrong and bad. I haven't commented on anyone's morals at all. I'm only talking about what I believe which is what the OP asked for.

 

You don't seem to accept what I'm saying. I don't believe in a superstition or supernatural being as God. The only thing I believe in as God is love.

I can't help that the bible says "Those that know love know God." You can not believe in that, or disagree with that or whatever you want. If you also believe in love and I believe in love, then we agree. Why is that an insult?

 

I gave my answer in the first page. I think the question's irrelevant. What difference does it make whether God exists or not?

See, this is the problem. That whole thing about "Religion is some old thing which impedes PROGRESS and SCIENCE and we must throw out these old, silly values in the name of PROGRESS." That's my problem with atheism, or rather atheists like you or the atheists on the sinkhole that is Reddit. Because for starters? The point I'm making is that religion actually didn't impede science a thousand years ago. In fact, you can argue it helped it by preserving the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans.

 

That's simply not true. You are deeply confused with the universal emotional concept of love with "love" defined by his supreme being. Love, in general, is a well-defined moral concept and accepted by people around the globe REGARDLESS of their religious views. On the other hand, FB's love is based on his religious belief, defined around the concept of a superstitious almighty being. The contents of "love" might be similar for the most part, but the cause are totally different.

Correlation doesnt mean causation. For him to say that I don't believe in love with no further clarification is definitely insulting and it shows his arrogance/ignorance in his religious belief. For me to point out his mistake is not insulting, it's called "calling someone out".

The fundamental flaws in his thought process are baffling, and to see you backing him up is even more absurd especially considering you don't even have a strong reason to do so.

 

Is this a word game? You and durvasa shifted the argument from whether God is love to "IMO God is love therefore 2 are interchangeable". I have no intent to argue with anymore, but I have one question:

You said "I believe in as God is love".

How do you know?

 

I'm not cherry picking anything. Why aren't you the one cherry picking when you talk about the murder verses but refuse to acknowledge the verses that say God is love. and Those that know love know God?

I've explained that the bible was written by men for people who lived in the time and culture they lived in thousands of years ago.

First of all when I look at any biblical story, I look for the intended message or lesson to be learned. None of those lessons say to murder anyone. Now to delve deeper in look at the stories where God says to wipe out people including children and things like that, I'm not denying those are in the bible. The lesson from those stories are that to live without God (love) brings about misery. That is the actual point of those stories. Yes, those tactics are in fact contrary to love. I don't deny it, or ignore it. I'm glad that they aren't in the New Testament, and Christ himself explains the difference between how some view those stories and "rules" in a more literal since, than what was intended. Are you cherry picking Christ's own explanation by ignoring that?

Because I try to view the whole pick, and use context in an effort to deepen my understanding doesn't mean I'm cherry picking some stuff and ignoring other stuff.

Do you understand that?

 

I don't know. I could be entirely wrong. It's what I believe.

 

That's what I expected, but after all, you are entitled to your belief.

 

Yeah, that's what should be expected. Nobody should claim they have certain knowledge unless they've been given the kind of supernatural insight, I don't believe in, and I'm guessing you don't either.

If it matters to you, I can let you know why I believe that way, or we can just accept that it's pure belief on my part.

I'm fine either way. I don't mind reading about your beliefs, or those of anybody else. I promise I'm not trying to insult anyone.

 

As I believe he's already tried to explain, its the other way around, in which case there may actually not be a substantive difference in your two positions.

I simply don't agree with the argument you're trying to make, logically, and frankly I don't like they way you're arguing either. I think you're giving more ammo to all those in this thread who are stereotyping atheists as arrogant and narrow-minded, which is counter-productive if you're interested in actually changing minds.

 

I'm not usually one to quote Bible verses because people immeadiate turn their brains off (myself included sometimes) but:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+4:8&version=NIV

I John 4:8

Spoiler

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

So there is actually something in the Bible to support that notion. I'm quite aware of the vengeful Yahweh from the OT (who I don't think is THE God but that's another story) but when you look at it from the perspective of that verse above, then that interpretation of God is probably the most correct. Imagine if we all uplifted each other with love instead of so much negativity toward one another. The world would be so much better.

I'm straying from the point but it just goes to show that the Bible, or more accurately, the regular doctrines that have sprung from the Bible have to be dissected further so we can get a better understanding of what may have been meant by the various authors of the Bible. Maybe the God observed in the OT was different than the God talked about by Job and then, of course, John. And sure enough, the sometimes ill-tempered Yahweh of the OT hardly screams God, so it would be most accurate to say he isn't THE God.

If I was in contact or felt the presence of some supernatural force with no form as we assume the authors of the Bible felt, then I may assume he//she/they/it/whatever were God(s) and not know that it could be one of many supernatural forces.

 

I agree with you there. He's not so much a narrow minded atheist, as he is a normal person entering into a logical debate with someone with fundamentally different beliefs. It can be frustrated to anyone trying to convey a different perspective of belief.

The issue I take with with your reasoning is that it seems to be structured similarly to so many believers who are indoctrinated into a school of thought. Where an answer is accepted before a question was asked, and the logic is developed retroactively for validation. All while no knowing that they are cheating themselves of finding their own answers by forcing a fairly defined school of to fit with their own fundamental beliefs. Like having a square peg & round hole, then carving out the corners to make it fit.

Relegating stories of genocide in the Bible to metaphorical lessons intended to convey a convoluted message about love doesn't sound like a natural line of reasoning. There are many schools of the which convey the concept of love as being divine without stories of the willful killing of innocents, metaphorical or otherwise. The indifference of this universe provides all the harshness we need to appreciate things like love. An omnipotent being would have no need to consciously inflict additional suffering for the sake of teaching a lesson.

It's not easy to admit when the ideals behind a belief system you've been adherent to for so doesn't quite fit your personal feeling of what is or isn't right. When I was in college, I was only able to admit that no form of Christianity truly reflected my personal ethics after reading a quote commonly credited to Buddah. It was one of my first experience with a religious leader who put my beliefs above selling me on their own.

"Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

You only find real answers when you let the ideas you've accepted evolve with new ideas or knowledge, rather than fighting the change to preserve what was a blind leap of faith to begin with.

 

I've seen that quote before and the Buddha was dead on, as are you.

Rep'd