what is love

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Is that the strawman you didn't understand?

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X, (Me asserting that God exists)
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y (Wolfie substituting God with FSM) , falsely, as if an argument against Y (FSM) were an argument against X (God).
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X, (Me asserting that God exists)
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y (Wolfie substituting God with FSM) , falsely, as if an argument against Y (FSM) were an argument against X (God).
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it f ...[text shortened]... in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Yes, you can acquire the dictionary definition, but clearly lack the ability to apply it correctly.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Yes, you can acquire the dictionary definition, but clearly lack the ability to apply it correctly.

And you certainly lack the ability to say how it was incorrectly applied.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
And you certainly lack the ability to say how it was incorrectly applied.

I did.

It's 'literally' on the previous page.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I did.

It's 'literally' on the previous page.

And I literally explained on this page why it is.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
We are told to love God and each other, there is no distinction between those whom we
are to love. The fruit of our lives should reflect Christ if He is really our Lord, are we
always out biting and devouring one another? Are taking we the LORD's name in vain,
condemning everyone around us, trying to hurt and insult?

Even picking out who it is that r ...[text shortened]... to man!

Man has come up with millions of ways to God, but none of them mean God accepts them.

I think any religion that has us attempting to impress God with giving, working, self-denial, self-abuse, or anything that revolves around us making our selves worthy has already missed the boat with God. God has created the universe and everything in it, ...

This is a description of a free market, capitalist God - the market is God-made and reflects His creation, it is okay to accumulate wealth, it is a bad idea to demand any form of redistribution, it is wrong to interfere with the workings of the market. Ethics surrenders to - is reduced to - the requirements of business.

Originally posted by @finnegan
I think any religion that has us attempting to impress God with giving, working, self-denial, self-abuse, or anything that revolves around us making our selves worthy has already missed the boat with God. God has created the universe and everything in it, ...

This is a description of a free market, capitalist God - the market is God-made and ref ...[text shortened]... he workings of the market. Ethics surrenders to - is reduced to - the requirements of business.

What?

It is a God that doesn't care about human wealth, it is meaningless to Him, Neither does
He care about anything we can attempt to bring to Him in any attempt to impress Him.
Your walk with God is either genuine, imagined, or supposed to be true, hoped for due
to something other than God Himself in your life. You are either walking in the Spirit of
God, doing the will of God, or you are not.

There is only the walk of man with God that matters, not any bank account or lack thereof.
You spend to much time worrying about man, and not God. Redistribution is a
government term, man made, if you are not carrying for others 1:1 what good would
paying taxes do for you?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X, (Me asserting that God exists)
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y (Wolfie substituting God with FSM) , falsely, as if an argument against Y (FSM) were an argument against X (God).
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it f ...[text shortened]... in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You completely miss the point.
If I argued against the FSM (when comparing Him to god) then that would be a Strawman Argument.

I was offering up the FSM as an analogy.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
What?

It is a God that doesn't care about human wealth, it is meaningless to Him, Neither does
He care about anything we can attempt to bring to Him in any attempt to impress Him.
Your walk with God is either genuine, imagined, or supposed to be true, hoped for due
to something other than God Himself in your life. You are either walking in the Spir ...[text shortened]... term, man made, if you are not carrying for others 1:1 what good would
paying taxes do for you?

You opened this discussion with a remark about the way atheists decribe God, saying you don't accept their descriptions. I noted and you agreed that we can only work with the descriptions we are given and need to cite (not "site" ) our sources.

I was here quoting from your own description and making the relevant observation that this description would indeed fit very neatly with your way of thinking, as indicated in quite different conversations on the Debates forum.

This correspondence between religious and economic values is not accidental.

Originally posted by @finnegan
You opened this discussion with a remark about the way atheists decribe God, saying you don't accept their descriptions. I noted and you agreed that we can only work with the descriptions we are given and need to cite (not "site" ) our sources.

I was here quoting from your own description and making the relevant observation that this description woul ...[text shortened]... ebates forum.

This correspondence between religious and economic values is not accidental.

I suggest you quote me exactly instead of telling me what you think I meant. You are not explaining my views, but yours.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
You completely miss the point.
If I argued against the FSM (when comparing Him to god) then that would be a Strawman Argument.

I was offering up the FSM as an analogy.

Oh so you are arguing for the existence of FSM? Good to know.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Oh so you are arguing for the existence of FSM? Good to know.

Appears you don't understand 'strawman' or 'analogy.' 🙄

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
You completely miss the point.
If I argued against the FSM (when comparing Him to god) then that would be a Strawman Argument.

I was offering up the FSM as an analogy.

What then was the point of your analogy if it wasn't to compare God to the FSM?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Appears you don't understand 'strawman' or 'analogy.' 🙄

It appears you have run out of good arguments and now resort to ad hominems instead.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
It appears you have run out of good arguments and now resort to ad hominems instead.

How is "Appears you don't understand 'strawman' or 'analogy" ad hominem?

Hang on, do you also not understand ad hominem?