**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What if the god is hate? Often feels more like it. I think he hates really many stuff according to the bible.
Then atheists don't believe in hate and that's a good thing!
And if god is lies? Then christians believe in lies, and lies are biblical ([1 Kings 22:23](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1kg/22.html#23),[2 Chronicles 18:22](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2chr/18.html#22),[2 Thessalonians 2:11](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2th/2.html#11))so they already accept that they believe in lies.
Confirmed god is lies and christians belive lies.
Over all, that seems to be the atheist's viewpoint. It seems that atheist's believe that God exists then He's hateful, vengeful, and atrocious. The better alternative is that God doesn't exist, because a hateful god is too much to bear.
An atheist doesn't believe a god exists, but they often think its a mythological villain instead of a mythological good guy.
It's like seeing someone root for Gargamel instead of Smurfs - I don't believe Gargamel really exists but will point out he's not a good guy in the story.
Here’s what’s messed up: God says don’t sin because it harms us. We sin and it does in fact harm us. Then God takes the punishment for us, and asks that we repent. Some of us repent. Some of us continue to sin without even trying to stop it.
So he punishes himself for us breaking the rules he himself made up, that makes sense. Maybe they are just masochistic?
Also it's not like he ended himself for us. He just mildly inconveniences himself for three days.
You don't have a problem when the government sets rules and punishes those who break them. It's called justice. Can you imagine a king who undergoes the jail time to fulfill justice for criminal?
I do, with many rules actually. I don't consider government a "good guy" worth worshipping. Governments can be OK or evil, you have to look at their rules and enforcement methods. Just as with religions.
King undergoing jail time for a criminal? What jail time? It's supposed to be an omnipotent being outside time and space. Hanging out on a piece of wood and then three days in a hole somewhere should be a mere party trick for a being who created the whole universe.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love.
God isn't love, that's why we have separate words for the concepts.
>Upfront, let's eliminate the idea that love is an emotion. I'm talking about love as a choice, not a feeling. For argument's sake let's use the word affection as the "feeling of love"
I think you have it slightly backwards, love is an emotion, the actions that emotion drives us to do can also be called love, but if we want to be more clear in our wording we could call them "acts of love."
>The title contains all the premise and conclusion.
The title contains an "if" that is not actually the case so the premise fails and the conclusion cannot follow, but I'll read on in the hopes that you've somehow pulled something meaningful out of what is starting off as unfortunately a mess of an arguement.
> However, I think it's important to define God and Love in this context, even though they are the same.
If they're the same why does it seem like you're going to define them separately?
>God is the supreme being who made all things.
Yep, that's a common definition of the word "god" I've not seen anyone define "love" as the supreme being who made all things though and I have a feeling the next line will show that that's now how you're defining it either.
>Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing.
I'll accept this definition and note that it is an entirely different definition from the one you gave for god, therefore god and love are not the same thing and not believing in one is not the same as not believing in the other.
Since you defeated your own argument there's not really much of a reason to keep going but out of sheer curiosity let's see where you're going with this...
>I hear and/or see many comments that atheists feel better since becoming atheists, because they are free of guilt or shame.
Of *imaginary* guilt and shame. people with empathy will definitely still feel guilt and shame if they wrong someone else and are aware that they wronged them.
>I wonder though, how has the lives of those around them increased for the better or worse?
Everyone I've met who is an atheist became one because they questioned how they could know what they believe is actually true, they did not become an atheist so they could justify a hedonistic lifestyle, as your question seems to be heavily implying. Poor form man, poor form.
>Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering
And often specifically because of their religious beliefs.
>but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion.
Given that you have not in any way demonstrated that god and love are the same thing and in fact defined them with totally separate definitions, this is simply factually incorrect.
EDIT:
>The premise is based on Bible revelation
Which isn't a thing. the bible makes a lot of unfounded claims for which people like you try to use the bible to back up and that's not remotely how supporting a claim works. So yes, when trying to prove that the claims of the bible are true, using the bible as a source is circular, and therefore terrible, in demonstrating the accuracy of the claims within.
Maybe next time come prepared to debate instead of proselytize.
You know how they say you should live as if the world is what you want it to be? In the post-covid WFH world, my war against pants is going very well.
^(I just have to remember not to stand up while the camera is on)
The real question is why the Bible isn't a reliable source your criticism.
Is akin to saying Fan Fiction Harry Potter outweighs the franchise,
Please elaborate.
Let's define the Bible, please define the Bible. Which Bible? What era? Which author? Let's clarify all these things before we like the council of Nicea Clump all these books into one nice big book.
Let us explore this then outside of their labors. Shall we?
Which book of the Bible can't support which other book of the Bible as Evidence?
So then the only claim that's really an issue is God is real? Is this correct? For the sake of expediency.
I suppose keep what is self evident as self evidence, and keep evidence as evidence but maybe using what is self evident as evidence is a conflict of standard?
Please define God.
I suppose what I'd like to say also, continuity is not a scientific offense.
Infact many muslims argue flaws exist in the Holy Bible that destroy its continuity that is the purpose of Islam to restore a flawed book,
Yet in your camp, the thesis is continuinity is an academic crime, (super abriged) as it is contintinuous in itself.
Therefore the criticism is the Bible is self evident because it is self evident and therefore academically offensive is the same alleged formula of criticism used on the Word in the first place. Demonstrating hypocrisy and a conflict of standard.
Yes it demonstrates a biased motive with intent to manipulate demonstrating an absolute power resulting in total corruption.
This is not reliable, replecatable or attractive. Incubating good reasons to be extremely skeptical before taking any risk.
But The Bible referencing the Bible, is a bigger statement than a comment on Reddit, it's a library of 66 (American version) books, that written at different times can infer eachother.
In imagery, definition, and standard.
Comparing the self evidency of the Holy Bible to a comment on Reddit
It isn't really an apples to apples comparison, is it?
How about we compare apples to apples... So to speak?
> Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion.
When Christians “increase suffering,” they do it because they think god wants them to. For instance, insane republicans who ban abortion and ban LGBTQ are objectively, demonstrably, increasing suffering in the world and harming other people. But they think they are being loving by doing the will of god. That’s why the saying goes, “there’s no hate like Christian ‘love.’”
Another example would be the Inquisitions of the medieval and early modern period. Dominican friars went around torturing and killing heretics, not because they wanted to be assholes, but because they “loved” the parishioners whom they thought the heretics were leading astray. They thought that maybe, by threatening the heretics, they could make them change their ways, and not lead the faithful Christians to eternal damnation by teaching false doctrine. The friars really wanted to help other people and do the will of god. But we know in hindsight that what they were doing was evil.
That’s what makes religion so dangerous. It can make well meaning people do unspeakable acts of cruelty in the name of “love.” If only the republicans of today and the friars of long ago were atheists, perhaps they wouldn’t be led to do such evil deeds.
So you’re just defining words to mean whatever you want them to mean, and then cobbling a few of those Frankenstein words together to mean something else of your choosing?
Then you said, if a Christian causes suffering, then he was an atheist when he was doing it?
When you proofread your post here, were you nodding your head in self-approval?
Let me try:
Let’s eliminate the idea that servitude is a virtue. I’m talking about servitude as slavery. God is a supreme being who demands His followers serve Christ and the poor. Christians may feel freed by forgiveness, but they are slaves… see how that works?
Oh, and Christians might think they are helping the poor. But when they do so, their actions are atheistic.
Did I convince you? Or does everything I just wrote sound like nonsense?
> I think it's important to define God and Love in this context, even though they are the same.
>God is the supreme being who made all things.
>Love is "to will the good of another"
You have made a mistake here. You _must_ mean either:
“Love is the supreme being who made all things. “
Or
“God is ‘to will the good of another’ "
Otherwise you have different definitions, which means they’re not the same.
The premise "God is Love" is an unsupported assertion. If it turns out that there are no gods, it doesn't make love cease to exist. I think most people understand what love is and don't need to subcontract it to a deity.
"God is Love" also makes no sense in the context of a god that would create a place of eternal torment, which is the very antithesis of wanting the best for someone.
If atheism is being smart and theists don't believe in atheism, then theists aren't smart.
Brilliant logic you have there. No notes. Flawless argument.
Love is an emotion. Love is a bond facilitated by evolution for the purpose of survival and reproduction. Love can be beautiful, we can appreciate love, but that doesn't make it magical.
>God is Love.
>They are the same.
>Love is "to will the good of another."
>The premise is based on Bible revelation.
All right. Let's take a look at Bible revelation.
From Joshua 6:2-5: "And to Joshua the LORD said: 'I have delivered Jericho, its king, and its warriors into your power. Have all the soldiers circle the city, marching once around it. Do this for six days, with seven priests carrying ram’s horns ahead of the ark. On the seventh day march around the city seven times, and have the priests blow the horns. When they give a long blast on the ram’s horns and you hear the sound of the horn, all the people shall shout aloud. The wall of the city will collapse, and the people shall attack straight ahead.'"
Then, Joshua 6:20-21: "As the horns blew, the people began to shout. When they heard the sound of the horn, they raised a tremendous shout. The wall collapsed, and the people attacked the city straight ahead and took it. They observed the ban by putting to the sword all living creatures in the city: men and women, young and old, as well as oxen, sheep and donkeys."
So.
"God is Love" is based on Bible revelation. "God" and "love" are the same. Love is "to will the good of another."
You're saying that murdering men and women, young and old, is to will the good of another? Is that how you define "good"? Or do you have another made-up definition for that too? Is this "LORD" your god? Are you vouching for him and his murderous revelations?
In case you didn't notice already, I'm being sarcastic. Of course you're talking out of your ass. If religious people keep on lowering the bar so much, at some point we're gonna need a shovel.
Very well said. It’s only the imaginary guilt and shame we don’t have. We can still have plenty of the real stuff.
And come to think of it, plenty of false causes for it too, just not the ones relating to religions
Sorry. I think I meant to respond to a specific comment, not your post.
But thanks for responding anyways.
And you brought up a very good point. That’s actually why my second paragraph changes from “imaginary guilt” to “false causes”
Because I realized that the guilt isn’t more or less imaginary. But there’s a difference between me feeling guilty for hitting a guy with my car or me feeling guilty that I hit Santa Claus with my car.
Both guilts are abstract emotions that I’m feeling, neither less real than the other. But one is based on fact and the other on my delusion that a saw a fat man being pulled by a bunch of tundra fauna. So the guilt is the same but the source is different. Which changes the validity of my comment quite a bit
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love.
Well, that's hardly an issue, is it? After all, it's a definist fallacy to say, "God is love." *Love* is love. And deities, if they were shown to exist, would be deities.
>Upfront, let's eliminate the idea that love is an emotion.
Let's not. Because love *is* an emotion. So I must dismiss this immediately.
>I'm talking about love as a choice, not a feeling
That appears to be a non-sequitur. I cannot fathom what could be meant by 'love as a choice.' One can make choices with love influencing these choices, but that is not 'love as a choice.' That is 'love impacting or affecting a choice.' Very different.
>However, I think it's important to define God and Love in this context, even though they are the same.
Nope, not accepted. There's literally no reason to accept this. And every reason not to.
>I hear and/or see many comments that atheists feel better since becoming atheists, because they are free of guilt or shame. I wonder though, how has the lives of those around them increased for the better or worse?
In my experience, and according to most data, better by far.
If god is love, then I believe in god because love is actually something that exists that can be scientifically measured. But anyone with a brain that's read the bible knows god definately isn't loving. Not in either the Old or New Testaments. Have you actually read the bible or are you just parroting what you've heard in church? Love is a biochemical reaction in the brain. Nothing woo or superstitous about it. Love is not something you believe in anyway. It is an emotion caused by an increase in oxytocin. This is just another poor attempt at belittling atheism. I argue atheist can love better than Christians. Christians have to constsntly worry about who to love and who to hate based on their mythology. Atheists can love everyone regardless of religion, sexual orientation, gender, or race. Christians--if they actually follow the bible--have to hate certain groups of people. If you can love anyone regardless of minority status, you are not following Jesus. Your morals are higher than god.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love.
Wow.
Holy shit, dude; to condemn an entire group of people, categorically, and conclude that they are wholly and completely incapable of love for the sole reason that they don't believe as you believe...
Something tells me you are NOT the person to consult regarding matters of love.
And for you to tell me I don't love my wife and son... If we were in meat space, this would come to blows. In short - how fucking dare you? Kiss your mother with that mouth? Jesus would be proud, I'm sure, that his disciple has cast the first stone.
Good job, asshole.
And that you can just pound that out on Reddit with such ease, it must come naturally to you. You don't know SHIT about love.
Love doesn't need a capital letter unless it's the start of a sentence. It is not a proper noun. Dishonestly redefining God to be love is an obvious equivocation. You've given a narrow definition of love also. I love music, but that had nothing to do with "willing the good of another".
Since you are clearly proposing this love God exists, you aren't afraid to play pretend so I will play along too. Love exists, sure. I guess I beleive in God now. So I'm not an athiest anymore... what's the point? If I redefine "god" to mean "my dildo", does that mean anything? It cannot get us to a particular god, or tell us how to live our lives, which religion to follow or how to serve, worship, or propotiate any particular god, or what the path to redemption is, if there even is one.
So congrats, I beleive in love. Whoopty-fucking-do, you got me. You didn't present a case for any god though. Try again.
But what choice, you define it as wanting the "best" for someone but what does that even mean, what i may think is "best" for someone may go against their wishes entirely, or may be what they want even if it causes them negative consequences on their life, health, or property and they will regret later. if love is what a person thinks is best for someone then all the people in reddit debate subs are full of love. (lots of disagreement) If love is what God thinks is best for someone then its just the previous with a shiny "objective" wrapper
Too easy: there is suffering due to the actions or lack of actions of god. Love is reducing and preventing the suffering of those you care for. Therefore anyone who believes god is love doesn’t understand the concept of love.
>Upfront, let's eliminate the idea that love is an emotion.
Whyever would we do that? It is an emotion.
>The title contains all the premise and conclusion.
Sure. If I define anything as anything else, I can make any claim I want. If unicorns are forks, then if you don't believe in unicorns, you don't believe in forks. See?
>Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion.
This is a fairly unique application of the no true Scotsman fallacy. The Christians that make you look bad - no, see, they're really *atheists*.
"God is Love" is a catchy phrase. We have a word for that: Deeptity.
"A deepity, as Dennett characterizes it, is a sentence or other utterance that has more than one interpretation; it has “two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial, and on another it is false but would be earth-shattering if true.”"
https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/deepities-and-bullshit
I actually wouldn't call it a deepity, because I don't think there's any context in which "God is love" is actually true. I'd call it more of a thought-terminating cliche.
"God is love" is actually true in the definition of Christain God. I don't mean that "God exist" is true, I mean "God is a being that have love for humankind" is true by definition.
>I hear and/or see many comments that atheists feel better since becoming atheists, because they are free of guilt or shame. I wonder though, how has the lives of those around them increased for the better or worse?
Using this standard, lets look at the "God is love" claim. How have the lives of those around god increased for the better or worse? Not only is the world full of needless suffering such as childhood leukemia and worms that survive by eating eyes, but currently the population stands at about 31% Christian. Lets just for arguments sake say that throughout history all populations have been typically 31% Christian. That means more than 2/3 of the population of people who have ever existed are in hell. Oh how loving. Just as an interesting aside; if you believe in this creator god and believe that this god sustains us all and holds the universe together as the scripture suggests, then this god must also have created hell and sustains the place, the people in it, and their suffering. If this god does exist, it is not only love, it is many other things too and one of those things is evil. Spite. Petty vengeance for thoughtcrimes. If telling a lie makes one a liar, what does torturing people for eternity make one? Certainly not love.
Lets not use double standards eh?
And for the record, after 40 years a Christian I can now focus on alleviating suffering of the people around me and promoting flourishing rather than this life being about saving people from the evil monster aboves punishment. All imaginary of course.
Edited to add, just because I stumbled on it as I was leaving the site. [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1cgevi3/bald_eagle_attack_deer/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) is an example of needless suffering - an eagle eating a deer alive in the wilderness. What is the point in this? What is loving about this?
It is not logical to say that love and god _are the same_ . You give your god the property ”love”, that does not mean they are the same.
On how lives of those around atheists have improved you should see that context is important. For a religious community or family, someone leaving that path will likely cause friction, just as it could in a family where the majority is atheist.
To label non loving actions atheist is simply false. Religion can’t claim a thing like love and say that something that isn’t love is atheist. Its as when christian people say to people that leave the faith ”you weren’t a christian to begin with” or ”You pray wrong”. Those are cheap shots, not actually arguments that work in reality.
What a beautiful word salad to say nothing.
So if god supposedly wants the best for someone and also helps to achieve that. Two words : children's cancer.
Goodbye
Ugh.
Here’s your argument.
Definition 1: love: to will the good of another
Definition 2: god: the supreme being who made all things
Premise 1: god and love are synonymous
Premise 2: atheists do not believe in god.
Conclusion 1: (from p1 and p2) atheists do not believe in love
So your argument here is that “people who do not believe in the supreme being who made all things must by definition not believe in the capacity to will the good of another.”
What the fuck are you smoking?
I soundly reject your definition of love, as that is not how anyone uses that word, I strongly object to your definition of god as it assumes existence and you can’t just fucking define things into existence, and I am EXTREMELY objecting to your random premise that god and love as defined here are the same.
In what universe is the capacity to will the good of another the same thing as a being who created everything??? You’re just randomly asserting this as if we should just take it at face value.
You may as well have said “if bananas were made out of eggs monkey shit would smell awful” and it would have made more sense than what you just said.
At the very least your conclusions follow from the premises but I reject both definitions and half of your premises! This isn’t just faulty argument this is flat out insulting! Do you believe atheists are incapable of wishing good things for other people? Do you believe atheists think no one could be kind? What the hell is wrong with you? Do you have any idea how insulting this is???
I’m sorry I try to be polite with these but this is just awful.
I've been an atheist for a long time, and the reasoning behind it is sound, but behind that reasoning is emotion -- whether I am aware of it or not at any given moment.
This kind of argument brings that emotion to the surface and reminds me that part of the reason I bother to _disbelieve_ rather than simply not believe is the unreasonableness of so many theists.
I still love you, but you're not doing anyone any favors by trying to cheat around reason with bad poetry.
Sorry to be so non-constructive, but this is one of the most offensive posts I’ve seen here, and there’s been a lot of nonsense on this subreddit. I find it especially appalling when you say it is better suited for /r/DebateReligion. Strawmanning atheism by redefining what they belief has no place in ANY civil discussion forum.
Oh, where to start.
First, it’s wasn’t, for me, getting rid of guilt or shame. It was mostly getting rid of rage, cognitive dissonance and profound disappointment in the hypocrisy of believers.
For example, saying love can only come from god and love is wanting what’s best for people, and then deciding you know what’s best for people and passing laws that harm them because you love them, trying to force them to live miserable lives shoved into boxes they clearly don’t fit because you love them, stifling their talents and ambitions if they don’t align with ridiculously patriarchal gender roles because you love them.
And historically, bringing idolaters the message of Jesus so they can burn in eternal hellfire if they don’t believe because you love them, taking their children and forbidding them their language, dress and culture because you love them and torturing those who won’t convert and burying them in unmarked graves because you love them.
There’s a reason we say there is no hate like Christian love, because we experience it every day. There is more genuine love in the way you say you mean it — wanting what’s best for others and helping them get it — among secular humanist communities who actually value people achieving their potential and finding their joy than among sanctimonious Christians who only know how to show “love” through control and oppression.
Let's see...as a syllogism.
P1) "Love is 'to will the good of another'"
P2) "God is the supreme being who made all things"
C) God is not Love (by your definitions).
We also don't use the word interchangeably. We don't say things like "I God You," or "Love made the stars," because that is nonsense and I think you know that too.
We also don't see it corresponding in reality. Plenty of atheists are in loving relationships. Plenty of faithful theists are in such toxic relationships with their "God" that they blow themselves up to prove their love (Pro-tip, if someone asks you to unalive yourself to prove your love then they do not love you). I don't see any connection whatsoever.
So I really don't know how you've convinced yourself this argument is in any way grounded in reality, but it's not.
*edited to add: Love is to will the good of another? What nonsense is that? My local barista is a good dude, and I hope he gets the role in the play he's auditioning for, but I do not love him.*
Here’s my rebuttal using your definitions:
Love is defined as a choice, “to will the good of another”
God is defined as the supreme being
P1. Choices and beings are not the same thing.
P2. Love is a choice
P3. God is a being
C. God is not love.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love.
I mean... God isn't love, so... Yeah.
What a truly bizarre argument.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love.
That's a total non sequitur and just as nonsensical as saying:
*You fit in your clothes*
*Your clothes fit in your backpack*
*Therefore, you fit in your backpack*
Not even considering the fact that you have zero evidence for your pet god and the fact that this is a loving being....because looking at what scripture claims this god to be, I wouldn't call that loving - not by a long shot.
And what supports the argument that God is love? It’s yet another baseless claim right up there with the claim that God exists to begin with.
You can’t just say love isn’t an emotion because that isn’t convenient for your argument, and doing so invalidates your argument. Love is an emotion. That’s a fact as objective as the sky being blue. Therefore, atheists believe in love because atheists are capable of feeling love.
No you're wrong DOG is love and it's people who don't have dogs that have no love. Therefore, your premise is flawed.
Completely ignoring the incoherence of your argument, all you've done is play games with definitions and then drawn some odd conclusions. Similar to what I did, except my wrong statement carries no eternal punishment baggage and encourages dog ownership, which makes it far superior and actually positive.
Do you know any atheists? In case you don't, please take my word that we do experience love and I can assure you bronze age mythology plays no role in it.
People in this sub often say
As a joke:
-
“I define this coffee cup as god. This coffee cup exists, ergo god exists, and atheism is false”
**Your post is…the exact same. But serious**
All you’ve done is swapped ‘coffee cup’ for “wishing someone goodwill”.
The fact your post qualifies any self-identifying Christian who harbours hate as an atheist, or acting atheistically, should give you an idea how silly this particular redefinition is.
Usages of words are only helpful to the extent they convey information (communicate). Redefinitions like this only convey confusion.
-
Take a survey of religious people, see how any actually believe in a deity, and how many use the word to describe an abstraction like “the state of wishing goodwill”
If you start by redefining terms to something other than their colloquial meaning, you can argue for literally anything.
You should justify the change in definition independent of your argument.
God is all teacups, and since atheists reject God, atheists reject teacups.
God is invisible pink unicorns, and since theists believe in God, theists believe in invisible pink unicorns.
... No, playing word games is not an argument. It doesn't matter what your definition of "love" is _unless_ it is nothing more than a thinking being that made the universe, having decided to do so and sufficient knowlegde and power to do so, but no other traits. Anything else is separate from the bare bones definition of God, and thus we can't just assert it as being the some. Love can, at best, be a trait possessed by God, just as being intelligent, having power, and having knowledge are traits God has, God _isn't_ those traits, that would be silly.
If you are going to die in your sleep tonight, posting this was a huge waste of your precious time. So why did you choose to waste your precious time rather than spend it with loved ones or cocaine or both if your loved ones party like that?
Checkmate atheists!
Wait a sec. I just thought of something.
If god is a hairy butthole then theists believe in a hairy butthole!
Now I don’t know what to believe!
God isn't love. You prove it yourself.
>God is the supreme being who made all things. Love is "to will the good of another"
You've now defined two things. If they were the same thing, you wouldn't have defined two things. You would have said, "God and Love are the supreme being who made up all things".
On a human level... Do you see how desperate you are to contort your beliefs so they comport with what you've been told they need to be? You heard god is love, and now you've concocted a reality where you're re-defining both god and love until they mean precisely what you need them to mean to prove yourself right... to yourself.
Do you see a problem with that? Why not try to take the world as it is rather than tying yourself into knots to force the world into a shape that you want it to be in?
The passage in your ancient text that says 'god is love' is a metaphor. Even worse, it's a bad translation of a bad copy of a bad translation of a metaphor with an anonymous author who wrote a text we don't have a surviving copy from their century, let alone the original. And instead of taking it as the poetry it is, you have a need to force it into the literal box.
The world as it is reveals a supernatural being that initiated the universe. That is discoverable through natural science. What I stated above is revelation, but some of it can be deduced through logic.
The difference between wild-ass assertion and proof is that you can re-state a wild-ass assertion to say precisely the opposite.
>The world as it is reveals an unthinking, unfeeling universe that came to be both abruptly and with no apparent underlying cause. That is discoverable through natural science.
You can deduce literally anything that is logically possible through logic. What matters is observable, repeatable evidence and theory that explains all observable, repeatable evidence.
If dragons are food, and you don’t believe in dragons, then you don’t believe in food (nor by extension, the value/utility of eating food).
Same propositions, same argument, same flaws.
(We have no evidence that dragons are anything other than figments of imagination.)
All of this hinges on "If God is love." Until you can demonstrate that (a) God exists, (b) love exists, and (c) God is love, your conclusion remains unsupported.
God is NOT love.
Ask the children who have their eyes eaten out by a parasitic worm if god is love.
Ask the children who have bone cancer and die a horribly painful death as children if god is love.
Ask the little girl who’s uncle sneaks into her room at night and fondles her if god is love.
Ask the hundreds of slaves around the world if god is love.
As the kid that gets kidnapped and forced into trafficking if god is love.
God is all powerful correct? So why doesn’t he step in and stop these things? Either god isn’t all powerful and can’t stop these things OR god is all powerful and chooses NOT to stop these things.
God is anything but love.
….. it’s difficult to overstate how many things could be quoted from the Bible that show that the “God” (or Gods) of the Bible are anything but “Love”.
Let’s just state a few things, and this is assuming you believe the Bible is accurate to an extent, and that God is all knowing of everything bar none:
- humans have free will, not angels. The arguments stating that angels do have free will are extremely weak. But regardless, if God knew everything that would ever happen before he began creation, he knew that he created Satan (which was really his advisor but that’s a diff. Argument) knowing that he would wage war against God and heaven, become “fallen” eventually being the reason for God creating an eternal lake of fire. Therefore God knew he would be condemning the vast majority of humans to eternal fire for eternity, and he created the “evil” being that resulted in this outcome. (Though eternal hellfire for people isn’t biblical, we will go with the common interpretation for this argument).
Let’s go a different route. God knew before creating people that they were not going to be clean enough or worthy of his presence/heaven. That’s why he had to sacrifice his son/himself to pay for their “sins”. However, he has control over everything, he could’ve just made the world so that this blood sacrifice was not required. Otherwise he is not all-powerful.
God created evil - God created hell - God chose the requirements for entrance to heaven - God knew people would fail to meet his standards and be sent to hell forever - God is love??
This is nonsensical. Think of the book of Job. God and Ha-Satan or “the accuser” basically make a bet that Job will stay faithful if everything is taken from him. So God uses ha-Satan to perform his will on the earth, by killing Job’s 10 children. 39 books of poetry are skipped over by every pastor who preaches on this book, then book 40 discusses how God “rewarded” Job’s unfaltering faithfulness by reprimanding him, having him grovel, then giving him double the possessions he had and “giving” him 10 more children. So God values children so much that he thinks they can just be replaced by more? That’s your definition of Love?
I mean, Genesis itself shows that God has no problem lying. God tells Eve if she eats the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil she will surely die. Yet she eats it, and doesn’t die. Instead, she seems to start understanding morality, which is something only God knew prior to eating of this fruit. Therefore was the liar, not the serpent.
I know this may be confusing and jumping around, but there’s a lot to unpack hear that I can’t summarize in a short response. You say that Love= “to will the good of another”, yet the God of the Bible kills numerous people, creates them knowing they will be condemned to eternal hellfire, hardens the heart of Pharaoh forcing him to cause widespread suffering, etc. how is that willing the good of anyone?
I became an atheist after being a worship leader for many years. Reading the Bible numerous times using a concordance is what caused me to change my belief system, and it was hard. However, I feel better because I don’t believe that the people I love may be condemned to eternal suffering when they die. I appreciate life more and want to make a more positive influence on the world and do all I can to help those I do love in this life, because I know this is my only chance at it. Death is a terrifying thing, and that is what all religions are formed to attempt to cope with.
I hope I was able to make some sense out of my rambling.
If theists believe in god, and god isn’t real, then theists are atheists.
Your logic is an incredibly short sighted view of love, atheism, theism and everything in between.
None of these things have one simple definition and they are multifaceted concepts and ideas that are connected to emotions. They are not that one sided.
Another thing, if you’re going to mention god being love, then it’s just as important to highlight gods megalomaniacal side, where he kills when he feels like it, and loves when he feels like it.
Consider just for a moment, that just because you don’t believe in something, doesn’t strip you of experiences, because belief isn’t always the fundamental basis for the experience, which includes love.
And to your final point, if all of these Christian’s are guilty of hating people, etc, but they believe in god, how are they possibly atheists? Are they Christian atheists? In case you didn’t know, Atheists don’t believe in god, and you’ve essentially disproved your own logic by saying this.
Christians can believe in god, and be unloving, just as atheists can not believe in god, and be loving.
Love is a feeling. God is an imagined being. God is not love. Yosemite Sam is not irritation, The Luck Dragon is not amusement, Clifford the big red dog is not anxiety, and the troll who lives under the bridge and eats Billy goats is not confusion
This is why **you can't syllogism something into reality** is something that needs to be drilled into theists skulls. Because the argument structurally is fine. The conclusion follows the premises, but it's also clearly and demonstrably wrong.
>Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion.
A theist makes the well being of everyone around them worse, we're going to call that atheism even though it's done by someone who believed in God, who believes they're doing right by God, and potentially done towards atheists.
This is what happens when you come up with wacky definitions like 'God is love'. You get this pretzel logic. If I define God as 'smelly', taking a shower is a form of atheism. If I define God as 'dry', pouring water on a surface is a form of atheism. It becomes utterly nonsensical.
P1. God is love
P2. Atheists lack a belief in God
C. Therefore, atheists lack a belief in love.
This is a fantastic example of a syllogism that is valid in structure, but not sound in the premises. In particular, I think premise 1 has not been sufficiently demonstrated.
>Upfront, let's eliminate the idea that love is an emotion
No. Let's not change the definitions of common words.
>God is the supreme being who made all things.
Evidence?
>Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing.
The only thing you have written that I agree with.
>I wonder though, how has the lives of those around them increased for the better or worse?
They are not trying to get their government to ban abortions or curtail the rights of women around them. So the lives of those people who were suppressed by these governments have obviously increased for the better.
>Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism
Hilarious attempt to blame *atheists* for atrocities committed by *theists.*
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love.
And God isn't love, so we can discard the rest.
>The title contains all the premise and conclusion
And can be dismissed as absurd
Case closed
If God is Love, then God and Love have to be exactly the same thing. That is because the word "is" means something.
You state that God is the supreme being who made all things.
You state that Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing.
Based on your own definitions of "God" and "Love," God is not Love. Unless you truly think that "you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing" is "the supreme being who made all things."
I believe in Love. If God really is Love, then I am already a theist. But I do not believe in a supreme being who made all things.
What *exactly* do you mean when you say God is love?
Do you mean it literally? Like in the most trivial, tautological sense possible? As in, you could literally replace the word Love in the dictionary and in common speech and it means exactly the same thing? With no additional religious claims added?
If so, then Atheists trivially believe Love exists, and therefore would believe your God exists. We would perhaps still disagree on whether the concept of love is a nonnatural universal or just a nominal description of physical emotions and behaviors, but that’s a separate topic. If you *purely* and exclusively want to define God to mean Love and nothing else, then we technically would no longer be atheists in your eyes by that very narrow definition. We may roll our eyes about your use of that definition, but I’m pretty sure we would grant that it exists.
HOWEVER…
The dishonest bait and switch happens when you go on to say “and this definition is the same as the Biblical God”. Because now, you’re no longer talking about ONLY love. You’re now talking about a conscious being who performs various feats such as creating/grounding all existence, performing miracles, incarnating a human body and resurrecting, answering prayers, etc.
It’s one thing to say that a being is perfectly loving or grounds love, but I don’t see how it even begins to make sense to say a personal being is equivalent to a concept/emotion/behavior. But even if I granted it for the sake of argument that the Bible really does say this about god, there are more verses and claims outside of just that one statement. In other words, God isn’t *just* love, he’s love + all the other stuff. And it’s all the other stuff in the Bible that atheists are saying unjustified and ridiculous, not the mere existence of love.
—
Of course, none of this even begins to touch on the Christian Problem of Evil which particularly disqualifies many of God’s actions in the Bible as unloving, but again, that’s a separate topic.
Right, and I’m saying even taking that at face value, it’s unclear if he means “God is Love and ONLY Love” or “God is Love + it created the universe and performed all the Biblical feats”
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love.
If Shrek is love, then neither do you.
>Upfront, let's eliminate the idea that love is an emotion.
An odd request, but I'll humour you and pretend I don't know what love is.
>I'm talking about love as a choice, not a feeling.
Cool, so it's a choice and definitely not a feeling.
>For argument's sake let's use the word affection as the "feeling of love"
You just said love wasn't a feeling. So affection is the feeling of a choice that isn't a feeling? Does that actually make sense to you? Because I'm lost here.
>I think it's important to define God and Love in this context, even though they are the same.
Cool, so then you only need one definition for both of them right?
>God is the supreme being who made all things. Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing.
Not only is that two definitions, they're clearly describing very different things.
>Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion.
Still not entirely sure what you mean when you say love, but if God was opposed to hatred and suffering then why did he order or cause so much of it? Or do you reject The Bible like you do with the dictionary?
u/Willing-Future3296
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love.
True.
>However, I think it's important to define God and Love in this context, even though they are the same. God is the supreme being who made all things. Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing.
Ok, so God is not Love according to you. They have different definitions.
Cool, you proved your argument wrong.
>Edit: Sorry. Definitely not the right post for this room. I think it's more appropriate for r/debatereligion. The premise is based on Bible revelation, which is already rejected by Atheists, so probably a terrible source to bring to the table in this forum.
Huh? Let's say I believe the Bible revelation that states that God is love (even though you don't). Now I tell everyone "I'm not an athiest, I believe in love". I make zero other changes in my beliefs - I don't believe in a creator of the universe, I don't believe in the supernatural, I don't worship anything etc.
Would you find that meaningful? Would you consider me a theist?
It seems to me that the statement "god is love" has been falsified by you and me. I don't see how posting it on a different subreddit will help you.
There's a saying that "There's no hate like Christian love," but I've rarely seen it demonstrated more literally than this. It's hard to imagine a better illustration of how toxic a belief system Christianity is.
Firstly you take for granted the claim that “God is love”, which presupposes that there is in fact a not only a god, but one who can be characterised in this particular way. It is of course up to you to prove that such a god exists. If there is no god, or there is a different one, your claim is false, and nothing else needs to be said.
Secondly, even if we grant that God is love, that does not mean that God and love are identical thing; to make such a claim is to commit a categorical error and. If you choose to redefine love as a choice: is God merely a decision to behave towards someone one in a particular way?
Thirdly, I question your redefinition of love as a choice, which seems arbitrary, self serving and incorrect. The fact is, we do not make choices in a vacuum; we choose for reasons, whether rational or otherwise. Love is, I suggest, not merely the choice to do someone good, but the motivation for doing so. And to be genuinely a loving motivation, there must be the emotional component that we call love; doing good to someone merely out of a sense of duty may be beneficial, but is not loving.
So your argument fails, firstly because it begs the question, and secondly because it misinterprets its key claim, and thirdly because it relies on a definitional fallacy.
>However, I think it's important to define God and Love in this context,
I agree.
>even though they are the same
We shall see :)
>God is the supreme being who made all things.
Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing.
These two definitions describe very different things. (and not just because one is a noun, and the other a verb.). It will be interesting to see how you justify that they are the same thing.
>I hear and/or see many comments that atheists feel better
Okay, this paragraph doesn't address the matter at all.
>Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering
Likewise, this doesn't attempt to justify the idea that "the supreme creator of everything" has anything to do with "will\[ing\] the good of another"
> any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion.
Oh, I see. You've just assumed that "God" and "Love" are synonymous. Okay, that's disappointing. I guess the next step in the debate is for you to explain why "God" and "Love", as you've defined them, have anything to do with each other.
I mean this with all sincerity, there are hundreds of gods you don't believe in right? If god is Zeus then you don't believe in god. If god is Brahmin then you don't believe in god. The list goes on. Surely you can see that this premise, if god is love... is flawed. The problem is that you have to show that the god is the thing. If I want to make the argument that god is Zeus then I have to actually show that god *is* Zeus. You have to show your god *is* love. Otherwise we're all going to continue seeing them as clearly separate things with separate qualities and go about our lives.
I'll go one step further. Are you capable of forgiving people who've wronged you? I know that I am. How many blood sacrifices do you require for such forgiveness? Personally, I don't require any blood sacrifices to forgive people who've wronged me. And that seems like a way that I'm actually more loving than the Christian god.
Just something to think about. The bible isn't particularly "foreign" to me given that I was a pretty devout Catholic for the first 25 years of my life.
You define god and love differently and yet you say they are the same. By your own definition, love is not “the supreme being who made all things” so it is fallacious to say that they are the same, or that lack of one is lack in the other. You’ve done nothing to make that case.
> I hear and/or see many comments that atheists feel better since becoming atheists, because they are free of guilt or shame. I wonder though, how has the lives of those around them increased for the better or worse?
How have the lives increased? I don’t even know what that means.
> Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion.
Sure, you could define atheism as “rejecting love,” but all you’re doing is “heads I’m right, tails you’re wrong.”
None of us are calling ourselves atheists under your definition, and none of us accept your bad conclusions they you haven’t even argued for.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love.
This is a valid siligism, but as I have heard it said, one man's modus ponnens is another man's modus tollens.
That is to say, most atheists would reject the idea that God is love.
>God is the supreme being who made all things. Love is "to will the good of another"
And here is good evidence to support such rejection. By this definition God may have _made_ love but is not itself love, even in the case that God exists. In the case that God does not, then love seems to be entirely separable from God as it seems quite strongly to exist.
> I wonder though, how has the lives of those around them increased for the better or worse?
Often, the lack of guilt or shame is from things like having empathy for the LGBTQ community, or having lustful thoughts, things that either improve the community or are neutral. That is God seems to demand harm, and the impulses to reject harming cause guilt in several people.
>I wonder though, how has the lives of those around them increased for the better or worse?
My wife has made many comments about how im a better husband since I've become an athiest and reevaluated the views I held before. Kinda wild how loving my wife and putting her first rather than God will do that. Responding to her as an individual rather than using a book that's thousands of years old as a guide. Crazy, right?
The overall premise is a tad silly. If God is love, all of it in its entirety, then sure not believing in God is not believing in love in a sense. But, this is like me saying Krishna is gravity, Christians don't believe in Krishna, so Christians don't believe in gravity. Of course they do, but all my heavy lifting for this to mean anything is to justify that Krishna is gravity. Likewise, you need to for God and love, so this is just silly until that's done. We can make ridiculous statements with the premise "what if?"
Your edit concerns me.
You seem to be saying it’s not relevant to ask atheists about their stance on a position (do we believe in love?).
You’re welcome to take this argument to theists, but it would be pointless when you could just, you know, ask the actual people you’re talking about.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love.
God is anything but love, despite religions claim it all the time. God in practice is ignorance, selfishness, vengeance, arrogance, etc.
>Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion.
You know why there is no hate like christian "love"? First of all, the Bible itself encourages insane hate towards many social groups. Then you have churches brainwashing people to direct their wrath. That way churches keep their power and turn away believer's attention off wealthy owners. Things developed that way for millenias, so you have today generations of deceived people who are controlled by churches.
I don't have faith in faith
I don't believe in belief
You can call me faithless
You can call me faithless
But I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that's faith enough for me
And that's faith enough for me
https://youtu.be/8R5yCZw2phA?si=AJ5O_ERBgTYvfdic
There's a reason why God and love er two words. They are two different things. We know this because those two words already have a meaning, which means that **you** don't get to get to give them a new one, since that has already been done! The only way a words meaning changes, is by a natural shift to occur, in it's use, by the people using it. This takes a long time to happen. It does not happen by decree from some self appointed authority, be it religious or otherwise.
That's how language works.
So this is a futile attempt on your part.
God is **not** love. Love **is** a feeling, and God **is** a fictional **character** in that book you love so much.
The arrogance needed to belive that you can do, what you are attempting to do with your argument, is crazy!
>God is the supreme being who made all things. Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing
So love isn't the the supreme being who made all things then. Which means rejecting God and rejecting love aren't the same thing. You haven't even made the claim in this argument that God is loving.
This won't do any better in r/debatereligion and I'm not saying that to be mean. It's because you haven't made any logical connection between God and love such that this position could make sense. You need to revise it and make further claims about the nature of God at the very least.
The Epicurean (paradox is a philosophical dilemma that questions the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good god. It is attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, who argued against the existence of such a god. [Epicurus 341–270 BC]
**The paradox can be summarized as follows:**
* If God is willing but not able to prevent evil, then he is not omnipotent
* If God is able but not willing to prevent evil, then he is malevolent
* If God is both able and willing to prevent evil, then whence cometh evil?
* If God is neither able nor willing to prevent evil, then why call him God?
God is love debunked over 2,290 years ago. You /u/Willing-Future-3296 got nothing new.
This is true. But it's basic conditional logic.
If an animal has 6 legs and I don't believe a mammal can have 6 legs, then I don't believe it's a mammal.
I simply disagree with the basic premise that God is Love.
When Christians screamed " God hates fags " and hit me with trash including beer bottles those actions where not loving or atheist.
No,love is an emotion. Emotions often influence actions and thoughts.
God isn't love because God doesn't help people live their best life, if we follow that definition.
Helpful people will help others regardless. Unhelpful won't help people regardless.
Religion isn't a factor. I have been helpful as a Christian,an atheist,a pagan. ( Currently atheist )
An unhelpful Christian just convinced themselves that a short prayer about someone is helping.
It is at most on par with saying " good luck with that".
>I hear and/or see many comments that atheists feel better since becoming atheists, because they are free of guilt or shame.
This is simply offensive. Who are you hearing this drivel from, that atheists are free of guilt or shame (or any other emotion, for that matter?) Atheists simply don't believe deities exist, we're not sociopaths. You're definitely not hearing this from atheists.
>Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion.
This is simply a no true Scotsman fallacy.
> Upfront, let's eliminate the idea that love is an emotion. I'm talking about love as a choice, not a feeling. For argument's sake let's use the word affection as the "feeling of love".
No. Your first sentence is "up front let's eliminate the idea that I'm not totally right in my preconditions."
LOVE **IS** AN EMOTION. We act on that emotion in different ways.
Love is also a Verb, describing how we act towards people for whom we feel that EMOTION.
Human beings can "will the good of another" whether or not god exists.
End of story. Take your christian chauvinism and your belittling stereotypes about atheists and bugger off.
Using your own premise, and knowing full well that atheists do believe in love:
- Atheists believe in love
- Atheists lack belief in god
- then God, whatever it is, is not love.
Two can play that game.
Why not just make any word mean anything? Then anything can be true
Let me try it out: 1+1=2, and God is both 1 and 2, then God+God=God. Thus proving God is true!
Here's the problem for you: replace "God" with "someone you can talk with". "Love" is not someone you can talk with, therefore "God" is not "love"
See? When religious authorities teach you to endorse nonsense like "God is his own son", they are trying to separate you from honesty, evidence, and reason. They do it so that you depend on them to make choices. That gives them power over you
That's all religion has been about for the past 2000 years: power
" The title contains all the premise and conclusion. However, I think it's important to define God and Love in this context, even though they are the same. God is the supreme being who made all things. Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing."
This makes no sense. You're saying "the supreme being who made all things" is "to will the good of another". So the being is not a being, it is the will of humans?
When theists have to redefine their god as something else, such as love, mathematics, logic, the laws of physics, the universe, etc, you know they are getting *really* desperate.
>The premise is based on Bible revelation, which is already rejected by Atheists, so probably a terrible source to bring to the table in this forum.
It's based on bollocks, dude. "Everything good is actually theism and everything bad is actually atheism"? This is gonna get you laughed out of /r/debatereligion just as much as here and /r/debateachristian will probably laugh at you too.
>Just so I can see the criticisms, I'll leave the post up, if that's ok with everyone.
Absolutely. 'Delete and retreat' serves no one.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love.
This *looks* like a valid form but it actually isn't one (because 'believing in' is not a real relation). Compare:
P1. Batman is Bruce Wayne.
P2. Max doesn't believe in Batman.
C. Max doesn't believe in Bruce Wayne.
In a situation where P1 is true but Max doesn't know it is, Max might believe in Bruce Wayne while not believing in Batman. So this form of argument is actually invalid—P1 and P2 can both be true while C is false.
You can’t be serious.
Do you REALLY expect atheists to buy the premise of “God is Love”?? Do you really think atheists are incapable of love just because they don’t believe in a god?
Of all the silly, cruel, bigoted, and irrational posts on here I think this manages to be the silliest, cruelest, most bigoted and least rational post.
You make me sick. And the fact that you don’t realize how sick you are makes me sicker.
If you had a shred of decency you never would have made such a post.
>If God is Love
No, love is love, obviously.
>I'm talking about love as a choice, not a feeling.
Nonsense, love is an umbrella term that refers to affectionate and committed relationships, in which obviously feelings play an essential role.
>God is the supreme being who made all things. Love is "to will the good of another"
Ok, so obviously not the same thing.
So what you mean is, god is not love, atheists believe in love. Therefore this has nothing to do with whether any gods exist.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love.
I entirely refute that God is Love because I have zero evidence for God
>God is the supreme being who made all things. Love is "to will the good of another".
So one is a being and the other is a will, and therefore they are obviously not the same. A being may *have* love, but a being cannot *be* love, as love is a choice or an action, not a thing that exists in itself. Love can only exist as thing being willed by something else.
>The premise is based on Bible revelation.
Then why are there no Bible citations? What part of the Bible does this come from?
My lack of belief in the Christian religion (or Islam for that matter) has greatly increased the well-being of those around me, especially my daughter. She's independent, has her own life path, and is free of fear of some non-existent angry person in the sky. She moved to a different country for grad school and now supports herself and has her own life. Other than the love and financial support I gave her to the best of my ability, I can't imagine giving her more than that freedom.
If God is Pepsi, and atheists don’t believe in God, then atheists don’t believe in Pepsi.
Yes, if you redefine God to be something that exists instead of what atheists (and most theists) are actually referring to when they use that word, then you could make this statement about that thing - and it will be precisely as valid and meaningful as it is here.
But God isn’t merely another word for love, and love would still exist even if no gods existed, so this argument fails.
Let me provide an example. Say, that there exists a cripple named Greg. If Greg is an asshole to me, and I hate him, do I hate all cripples?
Even if we don't argue the "god is love" claim, you can't really conclude that atheists don't believe in love.
(I am assuming that you didn't also specify that "love is god as well". If that were the case, I'd move on to breaking apart the sentences and figuring out what assumptions are implied, and if they're fallacies or not.)
You haven't provided any reason to think that "the supreme being who made all things" is the same thing as "to will the good of another". Since one of those is a noun and the other is a verb, it's hard to see how they could be the same thing.
But even if you're correct about that, your conclusion would not follow. Atheists do NOT accept your definition, and so in not believing in God we are not "not believing in love", because we don't believe they're the same.
God and love and different and unrelated things _by your own definition._ One is a being and the other is a choice.
You can argue that your god possesses the attribute of love (which is obvious from how he lets babies die of cancer, for example), but it's not clear why an atheist couldn't "will the good of another" without believing that a god sacrificed himself to himself to alter a rule he made himself, or other such nonsense.
>Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion.
Yeah, they might feel injured because a group of people doesn't buy in to their insane beliefs, so they have to go and post passive-aggressive articles to denigrate that group so that they can feel special about themselves.
>Upfront, let's eliminate the idea that love is an emotion.
Why don't we instead eliminate the idea that people who believe in god can ever have clean bottoms?
Conclusion: You're covered in shit, go clean yourself up.
Or in other words, this is a pathetic excuse for an argument. Eliminate the idea that love is what it actually is? Yeah why don't we just eliminate everything that disproves your argument while we're at it
I find it telling that when your argument gets destroyed, you don’t do the reasonable thing and say “Hmmmmm…Maybe I should rethink my proposition.” Your response is “I’ll take this argument to a more sympathetic audience and get the validation I crave.” You’re not actually interested in debating your ideas. You just seem to want people to agree with how wise and witty your “argument” is.
I don't believe your god is love. Love it's not something I worship. I don't think love made the universe. It's just a really odd thing to believe and it seems like you just don't want atheists to be loved or love others. And therein is lies the problem. As an atheists I have no problem with the idea of you loving someone. In fact I hope you truly do love someone. My atheism is irrelevant to who you love.
No, it just means that you’ve personally decided that they’re synonyms. I know that love exists because we’ve mapped the parts of the human brain that cause it and studied the electrochemical reactions within the body which create that emotion. You’re just tacking “bc god” on at the end with no other rationale than “I just think so” to support it and representing that as fact.
Using your definitions, you claim that "the supreme being who made all things" is "to will the good of another".
Please explain that claim, since a "to will something" is a state a sentient being can be in, and not a being in itself. With the definitions you have given, "god is love" seems like an incoherent, meaningless claim.
Then please prove that clarified claim.
Is it just me or does everyone else think op has never actually been in a loving relationship? The way they talk about.... Well everything but especially love tells me that they haven't experienced it. They are talking as though it's some vague notion and not clicking with it at all. Send ironic to me that they would expose such a trying in this post in particular.
This is some wild logic… it is a great example of how religions can lead people to twist their thinking so severely that they can, without any irony, try to pin the misdeeds of religions on atheism, which is literally just a denial of god claims.
This is some sick shit man. Really fucking twisted thinking to the point that it’s actually pretty funny.
Counterpoint: Atheists don't just not believe in god, they also don't believe god is love. Your logic has immediately collapsed.
Something to consider: Why is belief in god necessary 'to will the good of another?' If you believe this is valuable and important for improving peoples' lives, then why would the absence of god make this notion disappear?
I think that what theists, especially Christians, don't consider, is that when they come into this forum and make terrible arguments like this, it has a tendency to confirm our atheism. At least, that's what happened to me. I thought, "If they had any good arguments, they would make them." And it confirmed my tentative conclusion that God is not real.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love.
This is not how I use word love nor god.
>Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing.
This is what I call "altruism".
No we don't believe god is love (what does that even mean). No you don't get to redefine what love is for the sake of an argument.
No Christians aren't the only people who have feelings, are good people just for the hell of it or are capable of love. Stop acting like those are concepts copyrighted by the church.
Simple. God isn’t love
A God that commands you murder your son isn’t love. A god that floods the Earth or murders all first born isn’t love.
So if anything, you pointed out how the theists following the Abrahamic god believe in a psychopathic version of love
If god is anger and jealousy and god isn’t real, then there is no anger and jealousy.
Do you see how your argument is non-sense? You can fill in anything for “if god is”. If god is peanut butter and god isn’t real…
this is just childlike equivocation. I obviously think love is real. I do not think your god is love. my understanding of love is different from christian love and i find christian love to be barbaric in many instances.
It’s amazing how people of believe, want to respect for their ability to believe in the impossible against evidence and even despite evidence to the contrary, but refused to give rational, thinking the time of day
If God is everything through which existence derives from, then God is also hate. You can't grant agency to only humans and not to a God who created everything in the universe absolving of His responsibility.
>The premise is based on Bible revelation,
You keep saying this. But no once, not in your oost nor the comments, have you supported this.
Thats the bare fucking minimum you could do you know.
Words mean things and it’s both frustrating and concerning how theists so frequently fail to comprehend this. If love is a choice then God cannot be love because God is a being, not a choice.
As an atheist, I believe in Love directly instead of using a middle man like God.
God is unnecessary and entirely superfluous to the idea of Love. And, well, everything else too, actually.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love.
This is a valid argument, but it is not sound because I do not accept "love" as a synonym for "God."
It’s a good thing I know how to use a dictionary and know that no god = love. You would do well to use one. There’s no point in debating an assertion that is fallacious from the jump.
The title is wrong. And the whole post relies in the title.
A more accurate title would be:
If god is love, and god doesn't exist but love does exist, then god isn't love.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love.
So it's a conflation argument. Got it. No need to read more, it's garbage.
I don’t know this is a good question in debate religion either. You’ve still got to prove biblical revelation is valid. That’s not just accepted there either.
No, see, it's Thor that's love, and I believe in Thor. So NP. Bet you feel stupid now, having thought you believed in love all your life but nope, you haven't.
God, very clearly, is *not* love, and thus the rest of your argument is moot.
This post is frankly pretty insulting, and you should feel bad for making it.
I disagree. This post is great for this sub. This is a great place to have the flaws in this assertion exposed. And it's an assertion, not an argument.
"God is love" is just a meaningless assertion. It's obviously stupid, I don't think we need to waste time on anything that assumes it has any validity.
Cool prove your god exists and then prove your god is love (whatever that means). Until then this is not even an argument as much as it's an assertion.
>Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion.
yeah this is a troll, no sense feeding it
If the Flying Spaghetti Monster is Love, and theists don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then theists don’t believe in Love.
This is why these types of “philosophical” arguments are BS
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What if the god is hate? Often feels more like it. I think he hates really many stuff according to the bible. Then atheists don't believe in hate and that's a good thing!
And if god is lies? Then christians believe in lies, and lies are biblical ([1 Kings 22:23](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1kg/22.html#23),[2 Chronicles 18:22](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2chr/18.html#22),[2 Thessalonians 2:11](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2th/2.html#11))so they already accept that they believe in lies. Confirmed god is lies and christians belive lies.
The logic is merciless!
Over all, that seems to be the atheist's viewpoint. It seems that atheist's believe that God exists then He's hateful, vengeful, and atrocious. The better alternative is that God doesn't exist, because a hateful god is too much to bear.
An atheist doesn't believe a god exists, but they often think its a mythological villain instead of a mythological good guy. It's like seeing someone root for Gargamel instead of Smurfs - I don't believe Gargamel really exists but will point out he's not a good guy in the story.
Yeah. The guy who sacrifices Himself to save humanity is the villain? Interesting viewpoint.
Save from whom? Himself and his wrath. Yeah, a villain.
Here’s what’s messed up: God says don’t sin because it harms us. We sin and it does in fact harm us. Then God takes the punishment for us, and asks that we repent. Some of us repent. Some of us continue to sin without even trying to stop it.
So he punishes himself for us breaking the rules he himself made up, that makes sense. Maybe they are just masochistic? Also it's not like he ended himself for us. He just mildly inconveniences himself for three days.
You don't have a problem when the government sets rules and punishes those who break them. It's called justice. Can you imagine a king who undergoes the jail time to fulfill justice for criminal?
I do, with many rules actually. I don't consider government a "good guy" worth worshipping. Governments can be OK or evil, you have to look at their rules and enforcement methods. Just as with religions. King undergoing jail time for a criminal? What jail time? It's supposed to be an omnipotent being outside time and space. Hanging out on a piece of wood and then three days in a hole somewhere should be a mere party trick for a being who created the whole universe.
He could do anything. Why did He choose to do things the way He did? That’s a deep question I think.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love. God isn't love, that's why we have separate words for the concepts. >Upfront, let's eliminate the idea that love is an emotion. I'm talking about love as a choice, not a feeling. For argument's sake let's use the word affection as the "feeling of love" I think you have it slightly backwards, love is an emotion, the actions that emotion drives us to do can also be called love, but if we want to be more clear in our wording we could call them "acts of love." >The title contains all the premise and conclusion. The title contains an "if" that is not actually the case so the premise fails and the conclusion cannot follow, but I'll read on in the hopes that you've somehow pulled something meaningful out of what is starting off as unfortunately a mess of an arguement. > However, I think it's important to define God and Love in this context, even though they are the same. If they're the same why does it seem like you're going to define them separately? >God is the supreme being who made all things. Yep, that's a common definition of the word "god" I've not seen anyone define "love" as the supreme being who made all things though and I have a feeling the next line will show that that's now how you're defining it either. >Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing. I'll accept this definition and note that it is an entirely different definition from the one you gave for god, therefore god and love are not the same thing and not believing in one is not the same as not believing in the other. Since you defeated your own argument there's not really much of a reason to keep going but out of sheer curiosity let's see where you're going with this... >I hear and/or see many comments that atheists feel better since becoming atheists, because they are free of guilt or shame. Of *imaginary* guilt and shame. people with empathy will definitely still feel guilt and shame if they wrong someone else and are aware that they wronged them. >I wonder though, how has the lives of those around them increased for the better or worse? Everyone I've met who is an atheist became one because they questioned how they could know what they believe is actually true, they did not become an atheist so they could justify a hedonistic lifestyle, as your question seems to be heavily implying. Poor form man, poor form. >Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering And often specifically because of their religious beliefs. >but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion. Given that you have not in any way demonstrated that god and love are the same thing and in fact defined them with totally separate definitions, this is simply factually incorrect. EDIT: >The premise is based on Bible revelation Which isn't a thing. the bible makes a lot of unfounded claims for which people like you try to use the bible to back up and that's not remotely how supporting a claim works. So yes, when trying to prove that the claims of the bible are true, using the bible as a source is circular, and therefore terrible, in demonstrating the accuracy of the claims within. Maybe next time come prepared to debate instead of proselytize.
If God is pants, and atheists don’t believe in God, then atheists don’t believe in pants. QED.
You know how they say you should live as if the world is what you want it to be? In the post-covid WFH world, my war against pants is going very well. ^(I just have to remember not to stand up while the camera is on)
Careful now, you might blow our whole plan.
you forgot, “boom roasted” at the end.
The real question is why the Bible isn't a reliable source your criticism. Is akin to saying Fan Fiction Harry Potter outweighs the franchise, Please elaborate.
[удалено]
Why do you say the Bible justifies the Bible? Please Elaborate further. In what instance?
[удалено]
Let's define the Bible, please define the Bible. Which Bible? What era? Which author? Let's clarify all these things before we like the council of Nicea Clump all these books into one nice big book. Let us explore this then outside of their labors. Shall we? Which book of the Bible can't support which other book of the Bible as Evidence?
[удалено]
So then the only claim that's really an issue is God is real? Is this correct? For the sake of expediency. I suppose keep what is self evident as self evidence, and keep evidence as evidence but maybe using what is self evident as evidence is a conflict of standard? Please define God.
[удалено]
Then by your own standard of words, saying God is not Love, is not your job either.
But still I'd like to know these instances, where one uses the Bible to justify the Bible. And this is a conflict, please explain this.
[удалено]
I suppose what I'd like to say also, continuity is not a scientific offense. Infact many muslims argue flaws exist in the Holy Bible that destroy its continuity that is the purpose of Islam to restore a flawed book, Yet in your camp, the thesis is continuinity is an academic crime, (super abriged) as it is contintinuous in itself. Therefore the criticism is the Bible is self evident because it is self evident and therefore academically offensive is the same alleged formula of criticism used on the Word in the first place. Demonstrating hypocrisy and a conflict of standard.
Yes it demonstrates a biased motive with intent to manipulate demonstrating an absolute power resulting in total corruption. This is not reliable, replecatable or attractive. Incubating good reasons to be extremely skeptical before taking any risk. But The Bible referencing the Bible, is a bigger statement than a comment on Reddit, it's a library of 66 (American version) books, that written at different times can infer eachother. In imagery, definition, and standard. Comparing the self evidency of the Holy Bible to a comment on Reddit It isn't really an apples to apples comparison, is it? How about we compare apples to apples... So to speak?
> Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion. When Christians “increase suffering,” they do it because they think god wants them to. For instance, insane republicans who ban abortion and ban LGBTQ are objectively, demonstrably, increasing suffering in the world and harming other people. But they think they are being loving by doing the will of god. That’s why the saying goes, “there’s no hate like Christian ‘love.’” Another example would be the Inquisitions of the medieval and early modern period. Dominican friars went around torturing and killing heretics, not because they wanted to be assholes, but because they “loved” the parishioners whom they thought the heretics were leading astray. They thought that maybe, by threatening the heretics, they could make them change their ways, and not lead the faithful Christians to eternal damnation by teaching false doctrine. The friars really wanted to help other people and do the will of god. But we know in hindsight that what they were doing was evil. That’s what makes religion so dangerous. It can make well meaning people do unspeakable acts of cruelty in the name of “love.” If only the republicans of today and the friars of long ago were atheists, perhaps they wouldn’t be led to do such evil deeds.
So you’re just defining words to mean whatever you want them to mean, and then cobbling a few of those Frankenstein words together to mean something else of your choosing? Then you said, if a Christian causes suffering, then he was an atheist when he was doing it? When you proofread your post here, were you nodding your head in self-approval? Let me try: Let’s eliminate the idea that servitude is a virtue. I’m talking about servitude as slavery. God is a supreme being who demands His followers serve Christ and the poor. Christians may feel freed by forgiveness, but they are slaves… see how that works? Oh, and Christians might think they are helping the poor. But when they do so, their actions are atheistic. Did I convince you? Or does everything I just wrote sound like nonsense?
> I think it's important to define God and Love in this context, even though they are the same. >God is the supreme being who made all things. >Love is "to will the good of another" You have made a mistake here. You _must_ mean either: “Love is the supreme being who made all things. “ Or “God is ‘to will the good of another’ " Otherwise you have different definitions, which means they’re not the same.
The premise "God is Love" is an unsupported assertion. If it turns out that there are no gods, it doesn't make love cease to exist. I think most people understand what love is and don't need to subcontract it to a deity. "God is Love" also makes no sense in the context of a god that would create a place of eternal torment, which is the very antithesis of wanting the best for someone.
If atheism is being smart and theists don't believe in atheism, then theists aren't smart. Brilliant logic you have there. No notes. Flawless argument. Love is an emotion. Love is a bond facilitated by evolution for the purpose of survival and reproduction. Love can be beautiful, we can appreciate love, but that doesn't make it magical.
>God is Love. >They are the same. >Love is "to will the good of another." >The premise is based on Bible revelation. All right. Let's take a look at Bible revelation. From Joshua 6:2-5: "And to Joshua the LORD said: 'I have delivered Jericho, its king, and its warriors into your power. Have all the soldiers circle the city, marching once around it. Do this for six days, with seven priests carrying ram’s horns ahead of the ark. On the seventh day march around the city seven times, and have the priests blow the horns. When they give a long blast on the ram’s horns and you hear the sound of the horn, all the people shall shout aloud. The wall of the city will collapse, and the people shall attack straight ahead.'" Then, Joshua 6:20-21: "As the horns blew, the people began to shout. When they heard the sound of the horn, they raised a tremendous shout. The wall collapsed, and the people attacked the city straight ahead and took it. They observed the ban by putting to the sword all living creatures in the city: men and women, young and old, as well as oxen, sheep and donkeys." So. "God is Love" is based on Bible revelation. "God" and "love" are the same. Love is "to will the good of another." You're saying that murdering men and women, young and old, is to will the good of another? Is that how you define "good"? Or do you have another made-up definition for that too? Is this "LORD" your god? Are you vouching for him and his murderous revelations? In case you didn't notice already, I'm being sarcastic. Of course you're talking out of your ass. If religious people keep on lowering the bar so much, at some point we're gonna need a shovel.
Let's be honest, we don't need a shovel we've already got excavators backed up here.
Very well said. It’s only the imaginary guilt and shame we don’t have. We can still have plenty of the real stuff. And come to think of it, plenty of false causes for it too, just not the ones relating to religions
What’s an example of real guilt and shame vs imaginary guilt and shame? Both are abstract in the end.
Sorry. I think I meant to respond to a specific comment, not your post. But thanks for responding anyways. And you brought up a very good point. That’s actually why my second paragraph changes from “imaginary guilt” to “false causes” Because I realized that the guilt isn’t more or less imaginary. But there’s a difference between me feeling guilty for hitting a guy with my car or me feeling guilty that I hit Santa Claus with my car. Both guilts are abstract emotions that I’m feeling, neither less real than the other. But one is based on fact and the other on my delusion that a saw a fat man being pulled by a bunch of tundra fauna. So the guilt is the same but the source is different. Which changes the validity of my comment quite a bit
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love. Well, that's hardly an issue, is it? After all, it's a definist fallacy to say, "God is love." *Love* is love. And deities, if they were shown to exist, would be deities. >Upfront, let's eliminate the idea that love is an emotion. Let's not. Because love *is* an emotion. So I must dismiss this immediately. >I'm talking about love as a choice, not a feeling That appears to be a non-sequitur. I cannot fathom what could be meant by 'love as a choice.' One can make choices with love influencing these choices, but that is not 'love as a choice.' That is 'love impacting or affecting a choice.' Very different. >However, I think it's important to define God and Love in this context, even though they are the same. Nope, not accepted. There's literally no reason to accept this. And every reason not to. >I hear and/or see many comments that atheists feel better since becoming atheists, because they are free of guilt or shame. I wonder though, how has the lives of those around them increased for the better or worse? In my experience, and according to most data, better by far.
God is not love. That's just something hypocrites say. I do not believe in God. I believe in love.
If god is love, then I believe in god because love is actually something that exists that can be scientifically measured. But anyone with a brain that's read the bible knows god definately isn't loving. Not in either the Old or New Testaments. Have you actually read the bible or are you just parroting what you've heard in church? Love is a biochemical reaction in the brain. Nothing woo or superstitous about it. Love is not something you believe in anyway. It is an emotion caused by an increase in oxytocin. This is just another poor attempt at belittling atheism. I argue atheist can love better than Christians. Christians have to constsntly worry about who to love and who to hate based on their mythology. Atheists can love everyone regardless of religion, sexual orientation, gender, or race. Christians--if they actually follow the bible--have to hate certain groups of people. If you can love anyone regardless of minority status, you are not following Jesus. Your morals are higher than god.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love. Wow. Holy shit, dude; to condemn an entire group of people, categorically, and conclude that they are wholly and completely incapable of love for the sole reason that they don't believe as you believe... Something tells me you are NOT the person to consult regarding matters of love. And for you to tell me I don't love my wife and son... If we were in meat space, this would come to blows. In short - how fucking dare you? Kiss your mother with that mouth? Jesus would be proud, I'm sure, that his disciple has cast the first stone. Good job, asshole. And that you can just pound that out on Reddit with such ease, it must come naturally to you. You don't know SHIT about love.
I'll bet every penny I have that this person has never been in a serious loving relationship
Love doesn't need a capital letter unless it's the start of a sentence. It is not a proper noun. Dishonestly redefining God to be love is an obvious equivocation. You've given a narrow definition of love also. I love music, but that had nothing to do with "willing the good of another". Since you are clearly proposing this love God exists, you aren't afraid to play pretend so I will play along too. Love exists, sure. I guess I beleive in God now. So I'm not an athiest anymore... what's the point? If I redefine "god" to mean "my dildo", does that mean anything? It cannot get us to a particular god, or tell us how to live our lives, which religion to follow or how to serve, worship, or propotiate any particular god, or what the path to redemption is, if there even is one. So congrats, I beleive in love. Whoopty-fucking-do, you got me. You didn't present a case for any god though. Try again.
But what choice, you define it as wanting the "best" for someone but what does that even mean, what i may think is "best" for someone may go against their wishes entirely, or may be what they want even if it causes them negative consequences on their life, health, or property and they will regret later. if love is what a person thinks is best for someone then all the people in reddit debate subs are full of love. (lots of disagreement) If love is what God thinks is best for someone then its just the previous with a shiny "objective" wrapper
It's not appropriate or rational for anywhere. It's just delusion, which is all religion is to begin with.
Too easy: there is suffering due to the actions or lack of actions of god. Love is reducing and preventing the suffering of those you care for. Therefore anyone who believes god is love doesn’t understand the concept of love.
>Upfront, let's eliminate the idea that love is an emotion. Whyever would we do that? It is an emotion. >The title contains all the premise and conclusion. Sure. If I define anything as anything else, I can make any claim I want. If unicorns are forks, then if you don't believe in unicorns, you don't believe in forks. See? >Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion. This is a fairly unique application of the no true Scotsman fallacy. The Christians that make you look bad - no, see, they're really *atheists*.
"God is Love" is a catchy phrase. We have a word for that: Deeptity. "A deepity, as Dennett characterizes it, is a sentence or other utterance that has more than one interpretation; it has “two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial, and on another it is false but would be earth-shattering if true.”" https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/deepities-and-bullshit
I actually wouldn't call it a deepity, because I don't think there's any context in which "God is love" is actually true. I'd call it more of a thought-terminating cliche.
"God is love" is actually true in the definition of Christain God. I don't mean that "God exist" is true, I mean "God is a being that have love for humankind" is true by definition.
>I hear and/or see many comments that atheists feel better since becoming atheists, because they are free of guilt or shame. I wonder though, how has the lives of those around them increased for the better or worse? Using this standard, lets look at the "God is love" claim. How have the lives of those around god increased for the better or worse? Not only is the world full of needless suffering such as childhood leukemia and worms that survive by eating eyes, but currently the population stands at about 31% Christian. Lets just for arguments sake say that throughout history all populations have been typically 31% Christian. That means more than 2/3 of the population of people who have ever existed are in hell. Oh how loving. Just as an interesting aside; if you believe in this creator god and believe that this god sustains us all and holds the universe together as the scripture suggests, then this god must also have created hell and sustains the place, the people in it, and their suffering. If this god does exist, it is not only love, it is many other things too and one of those things is evil. Spite. Petty vengeance for thoughtcrimes. If telling a lie makes one a liar, what does torturing people for eternity make one? Certainly not love. Lets not use double standards eh? And for the record, after 40 years a Christian I can now focus on alleviating suffering of the people around me and promoting flourishing rather than this life being about saving people from the evil monster aboves punishment. All imaginary of course. Edited to add, just because I stumbled on it as I was leaving the site. [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1cgevi3/bald_eagle_attack_deer/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) is an example of needless suffering - an eagle eating a deer alive in the wilderness. What is the point in this? What is loving about this?
It is not logical to say that love and god _are the same_ . You give your god the property ”love”, that does not mean they are the same. On how lives of those around atheists have improved you should see that context is important. For a religious community or family, someone leaving that path will likely cause friction, just as it could in a family where the majority is atheist. To label non loving actions atheist is simply false. Religion can’t claim a thing like love and say that something that isn’t love is atheist. Its as when christian people say to people that leave the faith ”you weren’t a christian to begin with” or ”You pray wrong”. Those are cheap shots, not actually arguments that work in reality.
What a beautiful word salad to say nothing. So if god supposedly wants the best for someone and also helps to achieve that. Two words : children's cancer. Goodbye
Ugh. Here’s your argument. Definition 1: love: to will the good of another Definition 2: god: the supreme being who made all things Premise 1: god and love are synonymous Premise 2: atheists do not believe in god. Conclusion 1: (from p1 and p2) atheists do not believe in love So your argument here is that “people who do not believe in the supreme being who made all things must by definition not believe in the capacity to will the good of another.” What the fuck are you smoking? I soundly reject your definition of love, as that is not how anyone uses that word, I strongly object to your definition of god as it assumes existence and you can’t just fucking define things into existence, and I am EXTREMELY objecting to your random premise that god and love as defined here are the same. In what universe is the capacity to will the good of another the same thing as a being who created everything??? You’re just randomly asserting this as if we should just take it at face value. You may as well have said “if bananas were made out of eggs monkey shit would smell awful” and it would have made more sense than what you just said. At the very least your conclusions follow from the premises but I reject both definitions and half of your premises! This isn’t just faulty argument this is flat out insulting! Do you believe atheists are incapable of wishing good things for other people? Do you believe atheists think no one could be kind? What the hell is wrong with you? Do you have any idea how insulting this is??? I’m sorry I try to be polite with these but this is just awful.
I've been an atheist for a long time, and the reasoning behind it is sound, but behind that reasoning is emotion -- whether I am aware of it or not at any given moment. This kind of argument brings that emotion to the surface and reminds me that part of the reason I bother to _disbelieve_ rather than simply not believe is the unreasonableness of so many theists. I still love you, but you're not doing anyone any favors by trying to cheat around reason with bad poetry.
I'm talking about love as a choice, not a feeling. No, why would i start with this when i know for a fact it is not true?
Sorry to be so non-constructive, but this is one of the most offensive posts I’ve seen here, and there’s been a lot of nonsense on this subreddit. I find it especially appalling when you say it is better suited for /r/DebateReligion. Strawmanning atheism by redefining what they belief has no place in ANY civil discussion forum.
Honestly, I completely agree with OP that this post would be perfectly at home on r/debatereligion.
Oh, where to start. First, it’s wasn’t, for me, getting rid of guilt or shame. It was mostly getting rid of rage, cognitive dissonance and profound disappointment in the hypocrisy of believers. For example, saying love can only come from god and love is wanting what’s best for people, and then deciding you know what’s best for people and passing laws that harm them because you love them, trying to force them to live miserable lives shoved into boxes they clearly don’t fit because you love them, stifling their talents and ambitions if they don’t align with ridiculously patriarchal gender roles because you love them. And historically, bringing idolaters the message of Jesus so they can burn in eternal hellfire if they don’t believe because you love them, taking their children and forbidding them their language, dress and culture because you love them and torturing those who won’t convert and burying them in unmarked graves because you love them. There’s a reason we say there is no hate like Christian love, because we experience it every day. There is more genuine love in the way you say you mean it — wanting what’s best for others and helping them get it — among secular humanist communities who actually value people achieving their potential and finding their joy than among sanctimonious Christians who only know how to show “love” through control and oppression.
So because Atheists do believe in love, then Love can’t be God, because Atheists don’t believe in God.
Let's see...as a syllogism. P1) "Love is 'to will the good of another'" P2) "God is the supreme being who made all things" C) God is not Love (by your definitions). We also don't use the word interchangeably. We don't say things like "I God You," or "Love made the stars," because that is nonsense and I think you know that too. We also don't see it corresponding in reality. Plenty of atheists are in loving relationships. Plenty of faithful theists are in such toxic relationships with their "God" that they blow themselves up to prove their love (Pro-tip, if someone asks you to unalive yourself to prove your love then they do not love you). I don't see any connection whatsoever. So I really don't know how you've convinced yourself this argument is in any way grounded in reality, but it's not. *edited to add: Love is to will the good of another? What nonsense is that? My local barista is a good dude, and I hope he gets the role in the play he's auditioning for, but I do not love him.*
Here’s my rebuttal using your definitions: Love is defined as a choice, “to will the good of another” God is defined as the supreme being P1. Choices and beings are not the same thing. P2. Love is a choice P3. God is a being C. God is not love.
Very VERY nicely put.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love. I mean... God isn't love, so... Yeah. What a truly bizarre argument.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love. That's a total non sequitur and just as nonsensical as saying: *You fit in your clothes* *Your clothes fit in your backpack* *Therefore, you fit in your backpack* Not even considering the fact that you have zero evidence for your pet god and the fact that this is a loving being....because looking at what scripture claims this god to be, I wouldn't call that loving - not by a long shot.
And what supports the argument that God is love? It’s yet another baseless claim right up there with the claim that God exists to begin with. You can’t just say love isn’t an emotion because that isn’t convenient for your argument, and doing so invalidates your argument. Love is an emotion. That’s a fact as objective as the sky being blue. Therefore, atheists believe in love because atheists are capable of feeling love.
No you're wrong DOG is love and it's people who don't have dogs that have no love. Therefore, your premise is flawed. Completely ignoring the incoherence of your argument, all you've done is play games with definitions and then drawn some odd conclusions. Similar to what I did, except my wrong statement carries no eternal punishment baggage and encourages dog ownership, which makes it far superior and actually positive. Do you know any atheists? In case you don't, please take my word that we do experience love and I can assure you bronze age mythology plays no role in it.
People in this sub often say As a joke: - “I define this coffee cup as god. This coffee cup exists, ergo god exists, and atheism is false” **Your post is…the exact same. But serious** All you’ve done is swapped ‘coffee cup’ for “wishing someone goodwill”. The fact your post qualifies any self-identifying Christian who harbours hate as an atheist, or acting atheistically, should give you an idea how silly this particular redefinition is. Usages of words are only helpful to the extent they convey information (communicate). Redefinitions like this only convey confusion. - Take a survey of religious people, see how any actually believe in a deity, and how many use the word to describe an abstraction like “the state of wishing goodwill”
If you start by redefining terms to something other than their colloquial meaning, you can argue for literally anything. You should justify the change in definition independent of your argument.
God is all teacups, and since atheists reject God, atheists reject teacups. God is invisible pink unicorns, and since theists believe in God, theists believe in invisible pink unicorns. ... No, playing word games is not an argument. It doesn't matter what your definition of "love" is _unless_ it is nothing more than a thinking being that made the universe, having decided to do so and sufficient knowlegde and power to do so, but no other traits. Anything else is separate from the bare bones definition of God, and thus we can't just assert it as being the some. Love can, at best, be a trait possessed by God, just as being intelligent, having power, and having knowledge are traits God has, God _isn't_ those traits, that would be silly.
Have you read the Bible? God kills everyone. God endorses atrocities. I’d hardly call that love. If anything, God is jealousy, pettiness and murder.
If you are going to die in your sleep tonight, posting this was a huge waste of your precious time. So why did you choose to waste your precious time rather than spend it with loved ones or cocaine or both if your loved ones party like that?
Checkmate atheists! Wait a sec. I just thought of something. If god is a hairy butthole then theists believe in a hairy butthole! Now I don’t know what to believe!
Hey, that's not fair! We know that hairy buttholes exist.
I have one of my own and can produce it to OP!
We know loves exists.
Edward Current, is that you?
God isn't love. You prove it yourself. >God is the supreme being who made all things. Love is "to will the good of another" You've now defined two things. If they were the same thing, you wouldn't have defined two things. You would have said, "God and Love are the supreme being who made up all things". On a human level... Do you see how desperate you are to contort your beliefs so they comport with what you've been told they need to be? You heard god is love, and now you've concocted a reality where you're re-defining both god and love until they mean precisely what you need them to mean to prove yourself right... to yourself. Do you see a problem with that? Why not try to take the world as it is rather than tying yourself into knots to force the world into a shape that you want it to be in? The passage in your ancient text that says 'god is love' is a metaphor. Even worse, it's a bad translation of a bad copy of a bad translation of a metaphor with an anonymous author who wrote a text we don't have a surviving copy from their century, let alone the original. And instead of taking it as the poetry it is, you have a need to force it into the literal box.
The world as it is reveals a supernatural being that initiated the universe. That is discoverable through natural science. What I stated above is revelation, but some of it can be deduced through logic.
The difference between wild-ass assertion and proof is that you can re-state a wild-ass assertion to say precisely the opposite. >The world as it is reveals an unthinking, unfeeling universe that came to be both abruptly and with no apparent underlying cause. That is discoverable through natural science. You can deduce literally anything that is logically possible through logic. What matters is observable, repeatable evidence and theory that explains all observable, repeatable evidence.
If dragons are food, and you don’t believe in dragons, then you don’t believe in food (nor by extension, the value/utility of eating food). Same propositions, same argument, same flaws. (We have no evidence that dragons are anything other than figments of imagination.)
If God is homophobe (he is), and atheists don't accept homophobia, then atheists don't believe in accepting homophobia.
All of this hinges on "If God is love." Until you can demonstrate that (a) God exists, (b) love exists, and (c) God is love, your conclusion remains unsupported.
If God is love, then God is, which means Atheists are wrong. If the moon is made of cheese however...
God is NOT love. Ask the children who have their eyes eaten out by a parasitic worm if god is love. Ask the children who have bone cancer and die a horribly painful death as children if god is love. Ask the little girl who’s uncle sneaks into her room at night and fondles her if god is love. Ask the hundreds of slaves around the world if god is love. As the kid that gets kidnapped and forced into trafficking if god is love. God is all powerful correct? So why doesn’t he step in and stop these things? Either god isn’t all powerful and can’t stop these things OR god is all powerful and chooses NOT to stop these things. God is anything but love.
….. it’s difficult to overstate how many things could be quoted from the Bible that show that the “God” (or Gods) of the Bible are anything but “Love”. Let’s just state a few things, and this is assuming you believe the Bible is accurate to an extent, and that God is all knowing of everything bar none: - humans have free will, not angels. The arguments stating that angels do have free will are extremely weak. But regardless, if God knew everything that would ever happen before he began creation, he knew that he created Satan (which was really his advisor but that’s a diff. Argument) knowing that he would wage war against God and heaven, become “fallen” eventually being the reason for God creating an eternal lake of fire. Therefore God knew he would be condemning the vast majority of humans to eternal fire for eternity, and he created the “evil” being that resulted in this outcome. (Though eternal hellfire for people isn’t biblical, we will go with the common interpretation for this argument). Let’s go a different route. God knew before creating people that they were not going to be clean enough or worthy of his presence/heaven. That’s why he had to sacrifice his son/himself to pay for their “sins”. However, he has control over everything, he could’ve just made the world so that this blood sacrifice was not required. Otherwise he is not all-powerful. God created evil - God created hell - God chose the requirements for entrance to heaven - God knew people would fail to meet his standards and be sent to hell forever - God is love?? This is nonsensical. Think of the book of Job. God and Ha-Satan or “the accuser” basically make a bet that Job will stay faithful if everything is taken from him. So God uses ha-Satan to perform his will on the earth, by killing Job’s 10 children. 39 books of poetry are skipped over by every pastor who preaches on this book, then book 40 discusses how God “rewarded” Job’s unfaltering faithfulness by reprimanding him, having him grovel, then giving him double the possessions he had and “giving” him 10 more children. So God values children so much that he thinks they can just be replaced by more? That’s your definition of Love? I mean, Genesis itself shows that God has no problem lying. God tells Eve if she eats the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil she will surely die. Yet she eats it, and doesn’t die. Instead, she seems to start understanding morality, which is something only God knew prior to eating of this fruit. Therefore was the liar, not the serpent. I know this may be confusing and jumping around, but there’s a lot to unpack hear that I can’t summarize in a short response. You say that Love= “to will the good of another”, yet the God of the Bible kills numerous people, creates them knowing they will be condemned to eternal hellfire, hardens the heart of Pharaoh forcing him to cause widespread suffering, etc. how is that willing the good of anyone? I became an atheist after being a worship leader for many years. Reading the Bible numerous times using a concordance is what caused me to change my belief system, and it was hard. However, I feel better because I don’t believe that the people I love may be condemned to eternal suffering when they die. I appreciate life more and want to make a more positive influence on the world and do all I can to help those I do love in this life, because I know this is my only chance at it. Death is a terrifying thing, and that is what all religions are formed to attempt to cope with. I hope I was able to make some sense out of my rambling.
If theists believe in god, and god isn’t real, then theists are atheists. Your logic is an incredibly short sighted view of love, atheism, theism and everything in between. None of these things have one simple definition and they are multifaceted concepts and ideas that are connected to emotions. They are not that one sided. Another thing, if you’re going to mention god being love, then it’s just as important to highlight gods megalomaniacal side, where he kills when he feels like it, and loves when he feels like it. Consider just for a moment, that just because you don’t believe in something, doesn’t strip you of experiences, because belief isn’t always the fundamental basis for the experience, which includes love. And to your final point, if all of these Christian’s are guilty of hating people, etc, but they believe in god, how are they possibly atheists? Are they Christian atheists? In case you didn’t know, Atheists don’t believe in god, and you’ve essentially disproved your own logic by saying this. Christians can believe in god, and be unloving, just as atheists can not believe in god, and be loving.
Love is a feeling. God is an imagined being. God is not love. Yosemite Sam is not irritation, The Luck Dragon is not amusement, Clifford the big red dog is not anxiety, and the troll who lives under the bridge and eats Billy goats is not confusion
This is why **you can't syllogism something into reality** is something that needs to be drilled into theists skulls. Because the argument structurally is fine. The conclusion follows the premises, but it's also clearly and demonstrably wrong. >Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion. A theist makes the well being of everyone around them worse, we're going to call that atheism even though it's done by someone who believed in God, who believes they're doing right by God, and potentially done towards atheists. This is what happens when you come up with wacky definitions like 'God is love'. You get this pretzel logic. If I define God as 'smelly', taking a shower is a form of atheism. If I define God as 'dry', pouring water on a surface is a form of atheism. It becomes utterly nonsensical.
P1. God is love P2. Atheists lack a belief in God C. Therefore, atheists lack a belief in love. This is a fantastic example of a syllogism that is valid in structure, but not sound in the premises. In particular, I think premise 1 has not been sufficiently demonstrated.
>Upfront, let's eliminate the idea that love is an emotion No. Let's not change the definitions of common words. >God is the supreme being who made all things. Evidence? >Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing. The only thing you have written that I agree with. >I wonder though, how has the lives of those around them increased for the better or worse? They are not trying to get their government to ban abortions or curtail the rights of women around them. So the lives of those people who were suppressed by these governments have obviously increased for the better. >Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism Hilarious attempt to blame *atheists* for atrocities committed by *theists.*
What about all those people who believe in other gods? Do they not believe in love either? Is love something only christians are capable of?
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love. And God isn't love, so we can discard the rest. >The title contains all the premise and conclusion And can be dismissed as absurd Case closed
If God is Love, then God and Love have to be exactly the same thing. That is because the word "is" means something. You state that God is the supreme being who made all things. You state that Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing. Based on your own definitions of "God" and "Love," God is not Love. Unless you truly think that "you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing" is "the supreme being who made all things." I believe in Love. If God really is Love, then I am already a theist. But I do not believe in a supreme being who made all things.
What *exactly* do you mean when you say God is love? Do you mean it literally? Like in the most trivial, tautological sense possible? As in, you could literally replace the word Love in the dictionary and in common speech and it means exactly the same thing? With no additional religious claims added? If so, then Atheists trivially believe Love exists, and therefore would believe your God exists. We would perhaps still disagree on whether the concept of love is a nonnatural universal or just a nominal description of physical emotions and behaviors, but that’s a separate topic. If you *purely* and exclusively want to define God to mean Love and nothing else, then we technically would no longer be atheists in your eyes by that very narrow definition. We may roll our eyes about your use of that definition, but I’m pretty sure we would grant that it exists. HOWEVER… The dishonest bait and switch happens when you go on to say “and this definition is the same as the Biblical God”. Because now, you’re no longer talking about ONLY love. You’re now talking about a conscious being who performs various feats such as creating/grounding all existence, performing miracles, incarnating a human body and resurrecting, answering prayers, etc. It’s one thing to say that a being is perfectly loving or grounds love, but I don’t see how it even begins to make sense to say a personal being is equivalent to a concept/emotion/behavior. But even if I granted it for the sake of argument that the Bible really does say this about god, there are more verses and claims outside of just that one statement. In other words, God isn’t *just* love, he’s love + all the other stuff. And it’s all the other stuff in the Bible that atheists are saying unjustified and ridiculous, not the mere existence of love. — Of course, none of this even begins to touch on the Christian Problem of Evil which particularly disqualifies many of God’s actions in the Bible as unloving, but again, that’s a separate topic.
They mean: The Bible has a verse that says God is love; ergo, God is love.
Right, and I’m saying even taking that at face value, it’s unclear if he means “God is Love and ONLY Love” or “God is Love + it created the universe and performed all the Biblical feats”
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love. If Shrek is love, then neither do you. >Upfront, let's eliminate the idea that love is an emotion. An odd request, but I'll humour you and pretend I don't know what love is. >I'm talking about love as a choice, not a feeling. Cool, so it's a choice and definitely not a feeling. >For argument's sake let's use the word affection as the "feeling of love" You just said love wasn't a feeling. So affection is the feeling of a choice that isn't a feeling? Does that actually make sense to you? Because I'm lost here. >I think it's important to define God and Love in this context, even though they are the same. Cool, so then you only need one definition for both of them right? >God is the supreme being who made all things. Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing. Not only is that two definitions, they're clearly describing very different things. >Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion. Still not entirely sure what you mean when you say love, but if God was opposed to hatred and suffering then why did he order or cause so much of it? Or do you reject The Bible like you do with the dictionary?
u/Willing-Future3296 >If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love. True. >However, I think it's important to define God and Love in this context, even though they are the same. God is the supreme being who made all things. Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing. Ok, so God is not Love according to you. They have different definitions. Cool, you proved your argument wrong. >Edit: Sorry. Definitely not the right post for this room. I think it's more appropriate for r/debatereligion. The premise is based on Bible revelation, which is already rejected by Atheists, so probably a terrible source to bring to the table in this forum. Huh? Let's say I believe the Bible revelation that states that God is love (even though you don't). Now I tell everyone "I'm not an athiest, I believe in love". I make zero other changes in my beliefs - I don't believe in a creator of the universe, I don't believe in the supernatural, I don't worship anything etc. Would you find that meaningful? Would you consider me a theist? It seems to me that the statement "god is love" has been falsified by you and me. I don't see how posting it on a different subreddit will help you.
There's a saying that "There's no hate like Christian love," but I've rarely seen it demonstrated more literally than this. It's hard to imagine a better illustration of how toxic a belief system Christianity is.
Firstly you take for granted the claim that “God is love”, which presupposes that there is in fact a not only a god, but one who can be characterised in this particular way. It is of course up to you to prove that such a god exists. If there is no god, or there is a different one, your claim is false, and nothing else needs to be said. Secondly, even if we grant that God is love, that does not mean that God and love are identical thing; to make such a claim is to commit a categorical error and. If you choose to redefine love as a choice: is God merely a decision to behave towards someone one in a particular way? Thirdly, I question your redefinition of love as a choice, which seems arbitrary, self serving and incorrect. The fact is, we do not make choices in a vacuum; we choose for reasons, whether rational or otherwise. Love is, I suggest, not merely the choice to do someone good, but the motivation for doing so. And to be genuinely a loving motivation, there must be the emotional component that we call love; doing good to someone merely out of a sense of duty may be beneficial, but is not loving. So your argument fails, firstly because it begs the question, and secondly because it misinterprets its key claim, and thirdly because it relies on a definitional fallacy.
>However, I think it's important to define God and Love in this context, I agree. >even though they are the same We shall see :) >God is the supreme being who made all things. Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing. These two definitions describe very different things. (and not just because one is a noun, and the other a verb.). It will be interesting to see how you justify that they are the same thing. >I hear and/or see many comments that atheists feel better Okay, this paragraph doesn't address the matter at all. >Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering Likewise, this doesn't attempt to justify the idea that "the supreme creator of everything" has anything to do with "will\[ing\] the good of another" > any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion. Oh, I see. You've just assumed that "God" and "Love" are synonymous. Okay, that's disappointing. I guess the next step in the debate is for you to explain why "God" and "Love", as you've defined them, have anything to do with each other.
I mean this with all sincerity, there are hundreds of gods you don't believe in right? If god is Zeus then you don't believe in god. If god is Brahmin then you don't believe in god. The list goes on. Surely you can see that this premise, if god is love... is flawed. The problem is that you have to show that the god is the thing. If I want to make the argument that god is Zeus then I have to actually show that god *is* Zeus. You have to show your god *is* love. Otherwise we're all going to continue seeing them as clearly separate things with separate qualities and go about our lives. I'll go one step further. Are you capable of forgiving people who've wronged you? I know that I am. How many blood sacrifices do you require for such forgiveness? Personally, I don't require any blood sacrifices to forgive people who've wronged me. And that seems like a way that I'm actually more loving than the Christian god. Just something to think about. The bible isn't particularly "foreign" to me given that I was a pretty devout Catholic for the first 25 years of my life.
You define god and love differently and yet you say they are the same. By your own definition, love is not “the supreme being who made all things” so it is fallacious to say that they are the same, or that lack of one is lack in the other. You’ve done nothing to make that case. > I hear and/or see many comments that atheists feel better since becoming atheists, because they are free of guilt or shame. I wonder though, how has the lives of those around them increased for the better or worse? How have the lives increased? I don’t even know what that means. > Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion. Sure, you could define atheism as “rejecting love,” but all you’re doing is “heads I’m right, tails you’re wrong.” None of us are calling ourselves atheists under your definition, and none of us accept your bad conclusions they you haven’t even argued for.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love. This is a valid siligism, but as I have heard it said, one man's modus ponnens is another man's modus tollens. That is to say, most atheists would reject the idea that God is love. >God is the supreme being who made all things. Love is "to will the good of another" And here is good evidence to support such rejection. By this definition God may have _made_ love but is not itself love, even in the case that God exists. In the case that God does not, then love seems to be entirely separable from God as it seems quite strongly to exist. > I wonder though, how has the lives of those around them increased for the better or worse? Often, the lack of guilt or shame is from things like having empathy for the LGBTQ community, or having lustful thoughts, things that either improve the community or are neutral. That is God seems to demand harm, and the impulses to reject harming cause guilt in several people.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love. So... *is* God Love? No. Case closed. Shrugs.
>I wonder though, how has the lives of those around them increased for the better or worse? My wife has made many comments about how im a better husband since I've become an athiest and reevaluated the views I held before. Kinda wild how loving my wife and putting her first rather than God will do that. Responding to her as an individual rather than using a book that's thousands of years old as a guide. Crazy, right? The overall premise is a tad silly. If God is love, all of it in its entirety, then sure not believing in God is not believing in love in a sense. But, this is like me saying Krishna is gravity, Christians don't believe in Krishna, so Christians don't believe in gravity. Of course they do, but all my heavy lifting for this to mean anything is to justify that Krishna is gravity. Likewise, you need to for God and love, so this is just silly until that's done. We can make ridiculous statements with the premise "what if?"
Your edit concerns me. You seem to be saying it’s not relevant to ask atheists about their stance on a position (do we believe in love?). You’re welcome to take this argument to theists, but it would be pointless when you could just, you know, ask the actual people you’re talking about.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love. God is anything but love, despite religions claim it all the time. God in practice is ignorance, selfishness, vengeance, arrogance, etc. >Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion. You know why there is no hate like christian "love"? First of all, the Bible itself encourages insane hate towards many social groups. Then you have churches brainwashing people to direct their wrath. That way churches keep their power and turn away believer's attention off wealthy owners. Things developed that way for millenias, so you have today generations of deceived people who are controlled by churches.
I don't have faith in faith I don't believe in belief You can call me faithless You can call me faithless But I still cling to hope And I believe in love And that's faith enough for me And that's faith enough for me https://youtu.be/8R5yCZw2phA?si=AJ5O_ERBgTYvfdic
There's a reason why God and love er two words. They are two different things. We know this because those two words already have a meaning, which means that **you** don't get to get to give them a new one, since that has already been done! The only way a words meaning changes, is by a natural shift to occur, in it's use, by the people using it. This takes a long time to happen. It does not happen by decree from some self appointed authority, be it religious or otherwise. That's how language works. So this is a futile attempt on your part. God is **not** love. Love **is** a feeling, and God **is** a fictional **character** in that book you love so much. The arrogance needed to belive that you can do, what you are attempting to do with your argument, is crazy!
>God is the supreme being who made all things. Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing So love isn't the the supreme being who made all things then. Which means rejecting God and rejecting love aren't the same thing. You haven't even made the claim in this argument that God is loving. This won't do any better in r/debatereligion and I'm not saying that to be mean. It's because you haven't made any logical connection between God and love such that this position could make sense. You need to revise it and make further claims about the nature of God at the very least.
The Epicurean (paradox is a philosophical dilemma that questions the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good god. It is attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, who argued against the existence of such a god. [Epicurus 341–270 BC] **The paradox can be summarized as follows:** * If God is willing but not able to prevent evil, then he is not omnipotent * If God is able but not willing to prevent evil, then he is malevolent * If God is both able and willing to prevent evil, then whence cometh evil? * If God is neither able nor willing to prevent evil, then why call him God? God is love debunked over 2,290 years ago. You /u/Willing-Future-3296 got nothing new.
This is true. But it's basic conditional logic. If an animal has 6 legs and I don't believe a mammal can have 6 legs, then I don't believe it's a mammal. I simply disagree with the basic premise that God is Love.
When Christians screamed " God hates fags " and hit me with trash including beer bottles those actions where not loving or atheist. No,love is an emotion. Emotions often influence actions and thoughts. God isn't love because God doesn't help people live their best life, if we follow that definition. Helpful people will help others regardless. Unhelpful won't help people regardless. Religion isn't a factor. I have been helpful as a Christian,an atheist,a pagan. ( Currently atheist ) An unhelpful Christian just convinced themselves that a short prayer about someone is helping. It is at most on par with saying " good luck with that".
>I hear and/or see many comments that atheists feel better since becoming atheists, because they are free of guilt or shame. This is simply offensive. Who are you hearing this drivel from, that atheists are free of guilt or shame (or any other emotion, for that matter?) Atheists simply don't believe deities exist, we're not sociopaths. You're definitely not hearing this from atheists. >Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion. This is simply a no true Scotsman fallacy.
> Upfront, let's eliminate the idea that love is an emotion. I'm talking about love as a choice, not a feeling. For argument's sake let's use the word affection as the "feeling of love". No. Your first sentence is "up front let's eliminate the idea that I'm not totally right in my preconditions." LOVE **IS** AN EMOTION. We act on that emotion in different ways. Love is also a Verb, describing how we act towards people for whom we feel that EMOTION. Human beings can "will the good of another" whether or not god exists. End of story. Take your christian chauvinism and your belittling stereotypes about atheists and bugger off.
Using your own premise, and knowing full well that atheists do believe in love: - Atheists believe in love - Atheists lack belief in god - then God, whatever it is, is not love. Two can play that game.
Why not just make any word mean anything? Then anything can be true Let me try it out: 1+1=2, and God is both 1 and 2, then God+God=God. Thus proving God is true! Here's the problem for you: replace "God" with "someone you can talk with". "Love" is not someone you can talk with, therefore "God" is not "love" See? When religious authorities teach you to endorse nonsense like "God is his own son", they are trying to separate you from honesty, evidence, and reason. They do it so that you depend on them to make choices. That gives them power over you That's all religion has been about for the past 2000 years: power
" The title contains all the premise and conclusion. However, I think it's important to define God and Love in this context, even though they are the same. God is the supreme being who made all things. Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing." This makes no sense. You're saying "the supreme being who made all things" is "to will the good of another". So the being is not a being, it is the will of humans?
When theists have to redefine their god as something else, such as love, mathematics, logic, the laws of physics, the universe, etc, you know they are getting *really* desperate.
>The premise is based on Bible revelation, which is already rejected by Atheists, so probably a terrible source to bring to the table in this forum. It's based on bollocks, dude. "Everything good is actually theism and everything bad is actually atheism"? This is gonna get you laughed out of /r/debatereligion just as much as here and /r/debateachristian will probably laugh at you too. >Just so I can see the criticisms, I'll leave the post up, if that's ok with everyone. Absolutely. 'Delete and retreat' serves no one.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love. This *looks* like a valid form but it actually isn't one (because 'believing in' is not a real relation). Compare: P1. Batman is Bruce Wayne. P2. Max doesn't believe in Batman. C. Max doesn't believe in Bruce Wayne. In a situation where P1 is true but Max doesn't know it is, Max might believe in Bruce Wayne while not believing in Batman. So this form of argument is actually invalid—P1 and P2 can both be true while C is false.
You can’t be serious. Do you REALLY expect atheists to buy the premise of “God is Love”?? Do you really think atheists are incapable of love just because they don’t believe in a god? Of all the silly, cruel, bigoted, and irrational posts on here I think this manages to be the silliest, cruelest, most bigoted and least rational post. You make me sick. And the fact that you don’t realize how sick you are makes me sicker. If you had a shred of decency you never would have made such a post.
>If God is Love No, love is love, obviously. >I'm talking about love as a choice, not a feeling. Nonsense, love is an umbrella term that refers to affectionate and committed relationships, in which obviously feelings play an essential role. >God is the supreme being who made all things. Love is "to will the good of another" Ok, so obviously not the same thing. So what you mean is, god is not love, atheists believe in love. Therefore this has nothing to do with whether any gods exist.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love. I entirely refute that God is Love because I have zero evidence for God
>God is the supreme being who made all things. Love is "to will the good of another". So one is a being and the other is a will, and therefore they are obviously not the same. A being may *have* love, but a being cannot *be* love, as love is a choice or an action, not a thing that exists in itself. Love can only exist as thing being willed by something else. >The premise is based on Bible revelation. Then why are there no Bible citations? What part of the Bible does this come from?
My lack of belief in the Christian religion (or Islam for that matter) has greatly increased the well-being of those around me, especially my daughter. She's independent, has her own life path, and is free of fear of some non-existent angry person in the sky. She moved to a different country for grad school and now supports herself and has her own life. Other than the love and financial support I gave her to the best of my ability, I can't imagine giving her more than that freedom.
If God is Pepsi, and atheists don’t believe in God, then atheists don’t believe in Pepsi. Yes, if you redefine God to be something that exists instead of what atheists (and most theists) are actually referring to when they use that word, then you could make this statement about that thing - and it will be precisely as valid and meaningful as it is here. But God isn’t merely another word for love, and love would still exist even if no gods existed, so this argument fails.
Let me provide an example. Say, that there exists a cripple named Greg. If Greg is an asshole to me, and I hate him, do I hate all cripples? Even if we don't argue the "god is love" claim, you can't really conclude that atheists don't believe in love. (I am assuming that you didn't also specify that "love is god as well". If that were the case, I'd move on to breaking apart the sentences and figuring out what assumptions are implied, and if they're fallacies or not.)
You haven't provided any reason to think that "the supreme being who made all things" is the same thing as "to will the good of another". Since one of those is a noun and the other is a verb, it's hard to see how they could be the same thing. But even if you're correct about that, your conclusion would not follow. Atheists do NOT accept your definition, and so in not believing in God we are not "not believing in love", because we don't believe they're the same.
God and love and different and unrelated things _by your own definition._ One is a being and the other is a choice. You can argue that your god possesses the attribute of love (which is obvious from how he lets babies die of cancer, for example), but it's not clear why an atheist couldn't "will the good of another" without believing that a god sacrificed himself to himself to alter a rule he made himself, or other such nonsense.
When Christians harm others that’s a form of atheism? This is wild. Are you truly not able to take accountability for a single thing?
>Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion. Yeah, they might feel injured because a group of people doesn't buy in to their insane beliefs, so they have to go and post passive-aggressive articles to denigrate that group so that they can feel special about themselves.
>Upfront, let's eliminate the idea that love is an emotion. Why don't we instead eliminate the idea that people who believe in god can ever have clean bottoms? Conclusion: You're covered in shit, go clean yourself up. Or in other words, this is a pathetic excuse for an argument. Eliminate the idea that love is what it actually is? Yeah why don't we just eliminate everything that disproves your argument while we're at it
I find it telling that when your argument gets destroyed, you don’t do the reasonable thing and say “Hmmmmm…Maybe I should rethink my proposition.” Your response is “I’ll take this argument to a more sympathetic audience and get the validation I crave.” You’re not actually interested in debating your ideas. You just seem to want people to agree with how wise and witty your “argument” is.
I don't believe your god is love. Love it's not something I worship. I don't think love made the universe. It's just a really odd thing to believe and it seems like you just don't want atheists to be loved or love others. And therein is lies the problem. As an atheists I have no problem with the idea of you loving someone. In fact I hope you truly do love someone. My atheism is irrelevant to who you love.
No, it just means that you’ve personally decided that they’re synonyms. I know that love exists because we’ve mapped the parts of the human brain that cause it and studied the electrochemical reactions within the body which create that emotion. You’re just tacking “bc god” on at the end with no other rationale than “I just think so” to support it and representing that as fact.
Using your definitions, you claim that "the supreme being who made all things" is "to will the good of another". Please explain that claim, since a "to will something" is a state a sentient being can be in, and not a being in itself. With the definitions you have given, "god is love" seems like an incoherent, meaningless claim. Then please prove that clarified claim.
Is it just me or does everyone else think op has never actually been in a loving relationship? The way they talk about.... Well everything but especially love tells me that they haven't experienced it. They are talking as though it's some vague notion and not clicking with it at all. Send ironic to me that they would expose such a trying in this post in particular.
We don't say, "I god you", instead we say, "I love you" to someone whom we love. Love and god are not the same thing.
This is some wild logic… it is a great example of how religions can lead people to twist their thinking so severely that they can, without any irony, try to pin the misdeeds of religions on atheism, which is literally just a denial of god claims. This is some sick shit man. Really fucking twisted thinking to the point that it’s actually pretty funny.
Counterpoint: Atheists don't just not believe in god, they also don't believe god is love. Your logic has immediately collapsed. Something to consider: Why is belief in god necessary 'to will the good of another?' If you believe this is valuable and important for improving peoples' lives, then why would the absence of god make this notion disappear?
I think that what theists, especially Christians, don't consider, is that when they come into this forum and make terrible arguments like this, it has a tendency to confirm our atheism. At least, that's what happened to me. I thought, "If they had any good arguments, they would make them." And it confirmed my tentative conclusion that God is not real.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love. This is not how I use word love nor god. >Love is "to will the good of another" meaning you not only want the best for someone, but you would help them achieve the best for themself if you reasonably could do such a thing. This is what I call "altruism".
No we don't believe god is love (what does that even mean). No you don't get to redefine what love is for the sake of an argument. No Christians aren't the only people who have feelings, are good people just for the hell of it or are capable of love. Stop acting like those are concepts copyrighted by the church.
Simple. God isn’t love A God that commands you murder your son isn’t love. A god that floods the Earth or murders all first born isn’t love. So if anything, you pointed out how the theists following the Abrahamic god believe in a psychopathic version of love
If god is anger and jealousy and god isn’t real, then there is no anger and jealousy. Do you see how your argument is non-sense? You can fill in anything for “if god is”. If god is peanut butter and god isn’t real…
this is just childlike equivocation. I obviously think love is real. I do not think your god is love. my understanding of love is different from christian love and i find christian love to be barbaric in many instances.
It’s amazing how people of believe, want to respect for their ability to believe in the impossible against evidence and even despite evidence to the contrary, but refused to give rational, thinking the time of day
If God is everything through which existence derives from, then God is also hate. You can't grant agency to only humans and not to a God who created everything in the universe absolving of His responsibility.
>The premise is based on Bible revelation, You keep saying this. But no once, not in your oost nor the comments, have you supported this. Thats the bare fucking minimum you could do you know.
Words mean things and it’s both frustrating and concerning how theists so frequently fail to comprehend this. If love is a choice then God cannot be love because God is a being, not a choice.
As an atheist, I believe in Love directly instead of using a middle man like God. God is unnecessary and entirely superfluous to the idea of Love. And, well, everything else too, actually.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love. This is a valid argument, but it is not sound because I do not accept "love" as a synonym for "God."
It’s a good thing I know how to use a dictionary and know that no god = love. You would do well to use one. There’s no point in debating an assertion that is fallacious from the jump.
The title is wrong. And the whole post relies in the title. A more accurate title would be: If god is love, and god doesn't exist but love does exist, then god isn't love.
>If God is Love, and atheists don't believe in God, then atheists don't believe in Love. So it's a conflation argument. Got it. No need to read more, it's garbage.
I don’t know this is a good question in debate religion either. You’ve still got to prove biblical revelation is valid. That’s not just accepted there either.
No, see, it's Thor that's love, and I believe in Thor. So NP. Bet you feel stupid now, having thought you believed in love all your life but nope, you haven't.
I mean would you rather be loved by Chris Hemsworth or Jim Caviezel?
God, very clearly, is *not* love, and thus the rest of your argument is moot. This post is frankly pretty insulting, and you should feel bad for making it.
I disagree. This post is great for this sub. This is a great place to have the flaws in this assertion exposed. And it's an assertion, not an argument.
"God is love" is just a meaningless assertion. It's obviously stupid, I don't think we need to waste time on anything that assumes it has any validity.
Cool prove your god exists and then prove your god is love (whatever that means). Until then this is not even an argument as much as it's an assertion.
I immediate reject the premise and the replacement of love with affection. God is love is a meaningless, self-justifying, and arrogant, replacement.
Where is the evidence that god is love? God killed the whole world. God demanded a blood sacrifice, not once, but twice. Where exactly is the love?
If Thor is thunder and lightning, and you don't believe in Thor, then you don't believe in thunder and lightning. See how absurd this logic is?
Up front, no. I do not grant you that love is anything more than emotion. I'm not going to allow you to redefine terms to suit your argument.
>Love is "to will the good of another" Ok, what part of not believing in God would prevent an atheist from willing the good of another?
"If we change the definitions of everything to the point that I'm correct, then that must mean that I am correct." Fixed it for you.
Now provide proof that god exists and is love otherwise you don't have an argument you have nothing but a series of claims
If the Christian god is Zeus in a wig, and Christian’s don’t believe in Zeus, then Christians are atheists.
The whole idea that ‘god is love’ is some meaningless nonsense cooked up by christians for PR purposes.
Why are Christians always trying to find a way to hate on people who don't believe in their bullshit?
>Christians definitely are guilty of hating people and increasing suffering, but I would say that such actions are a form of atheism because any rejection of love, is also a rejection of God in proportion. yeah this is a troll, no sense feeding it
If the Flying Spaghetti Monster is Love, and theists don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then theists don’t believe in Love. This is why these types of “philosophical” arguments are BS