When discussing religion, you will find many logical fallacies in arguments designed to support religious beliefs.
In this case, it's your opinion stated above, but refer to a guide for more in depth knowledge of
Rhetological Fallacies
Religious people engage is
motivated reasoning regularly for pretty much any topic coming their way. In this thread, as an example, you can see
@igor_kavinski reason his way into why religion provides all the answers he needs, and it doesn't have to make sense to people he's trying to convince. He's convinced himself that he is right, and his beliefs are true. How most women are the tools of Satan, God wouldn't do anything to hurt us, and others if you care to look. Facts didn't provide that, feelings did, product of an Appeal to Emotion category consistently.
You asked me what was similar, I provided an answer. It seems to me that it's actually you that is shifting attention to something else.
I asked you to define love, and you respond with this cryptic pseudo-intellectual response. It's responses like this that deter people from engaging you.
"why do we have a hard time communicating" - responses like this /shrug
You defended it? Oh, ok, let's go to the tape:
Moonbeam said:
"I don't get it. Seems to me that if you believed in an all loving god you would have so moved by that faith you would have become all loving yourself and that would have made such a god real by the presence in the universe of at least one all loving being."
I see you making a statement based on an assumption. The assumption is that you conclude, without evidence it seems, what a person will react like when belief in an all loving god affects them.
I mean, you make this statement then subsequently fail to define the word love.
I asked you to define missing, at least this is closer. But why ask me if you're missing something? Only you can know if you're full or not, so only you can know if you're missing anything.