Do atheists believe in 'love'?

[stangoodwin]

During my recent alien abduction the emissary from the planet Tharg probed me with some curly questions.

The Thargians are primarily curious about two common human concepts- 'God' and 'love'.

Having seen the Hairy Nosed Wombat and the Giraffe they suspected there might be a God...tasting strawberries, mangoes, chips and beer added to their suspicions re the Divine...but it was not until they discovered that the human bum hole is located further 'down' than the nose that, in the light of hot air rising, they determined that only a God would design something so incredibly perverse/funny.
(Thargians, like Republicans, have bums located on the top of their heads).

The Thargians believe they have some (but not conclusive) evidence for the existence of 'God'.
(The Thargians are great gamblers, they tend to avoid notions of 'true/false' or 'proven/unproven'
in preference to a sliding scale of 'highly probable- to- highly improbable)

This 'love' notion has them really perplexed.
Their observations of humanity thus far (over ten thousand years) have led them to place the notion
of 'love' in the 'highly improbable' basket.
They want to know what evidence we humans have for this 'love' concept.
And they want to know why atheists might deny the existence of an unseen/unproven 'God' while believing in an unseen/unproven 'love'.

Oh....they are not much interested in the notion of 'romantic love'...they think that's about as funny as Scientology.

[Warpy]

1. Yikes, what a silly question

Atheists fall in love and get all tiresome and sloppy just like everybody else.

Atheists love their families just like everybody else.

One can have the full range of human emotion without ascribing them to some divine presence.

Really.

[neebob]

84. I had a similar reaction when I first saw this thread.

Now I'm mostly confused and wondering if I need the remedial class.

To me, love is an emotion with an observable physiological basis. That I believe in. I believe animals have emotions, too, and are therefore capable of love. For all I know, bugs feel love. Where it gets screwed up is when human language is applied and you get into different kinds of love and individuals' interpretations of the word, which are based on their experiences and beliefs.

Even when I believed in God, I thought love was a feeling that God, being a man or like a man, is also capable of having.

Some on this thread seem to have the idea that love is some kind of entity or energy, like God, that people somehow tap into when they love another person or an animal or object. God is love - is that what we're dealing with here? If so, then no, I don't believe in that.

Maybe the OP's Thargian overlords need to define their terms.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. I believe that I love the people whom I love

They are real and tangible, unlike the various sky fairies in whom billions place unquestioning faith. I also believe that love is most important when used in it's verb context. I demonstrate and sustain my love for those whom I love by taking certain actions toward them.

Why don't you and your alien friends first define what you specifically mean by love and how it evinces itself? Then we can go on from there. Because frankly, y'all's evidence of divine and God leaves a lot to be desired. That's all I'm sayin' :shrug:

[MercutioATC]

3. Yes, I believe in love........as a biochemical condition.

Or, in the case of most familial love, the internalization of a patterned social convention.

[evlbstrd]

4. The existence of the arts is an outward expression of love.

I prefer to think of it as the creative spark.

[stangoodwin]

9. Thus far we have….

(Summary of arguments)

“Atheists fall in love and get all tiresome and sloppy just like everybody else.”

Despite the fact that “romantic love” was deemed to be of little/no interest the ‘claim’
to the ‘experience’ of “falling in love” is no more verifiable than the ‘claimed experience’ of ‘the presence/knowledge of God’

”Atheists love their families just like everybody else.”

I never said or suggested or inferred that they didn’t (and yet ‘feel’ the repeated ‘heat’
flowing from the assumption that I did ;-)

I asked what the ‘evidence’ for this claimed/experienced ‘love’ might be…and how does it differ from the evidence of claimed ‘God’?

”One can have the full range of human emotion without ascribing them to some divine presence.”

Never said or suggested otherwise….wondering why you raise the issue?

”Really”

I see the claim of love repeated….and some indignation and misinterpretation re the question…..I see no ‘evidence’ of ‘love’ offered.


Followed by….a statement of “belief”-

“I believe that I love the people whom I love”

That’s great….I’m happy for you, I’m happy for them.
But it doesn’t help me (or the Thargians ;-) any more than the statement-
“I believe that God loves me and you and the people whom you love”

“They are real and tangible”

I’m sure (or I surely hope ;-) the people you ‘love’ are “real and tangible” …but that is not the question nor an answer to the question.

What makes your experience of ‘love’ “real and tangible” or verifiable to others.

Or are we to ‘take it on faith’ that you and others have this experience and that you “believe” it is real?

“Why don't you and your alien friends first define what you specifically mean by love and how it evinces itself?”

Because I was hoping someone might begin to do so…you have done an exelent job and I thank you for it-

“I also believe that love is most important when used in it's verb context. I demonstrate and sustain my love for those whom I love by taking certain actions toward them.”

Now we are getting warm….. So….you might go along with the propisition that love
is “A preparedness to ‘do’ (take action) for others” ?

If so….can this preparedness to “take action” be undertaken in the ‘absence’ of any positive regard?

Can such “action” be undertaken for a total stranger or someone you don’t like or hate?

“y'all's evidence of divine and God leaves a lot to be desired.”

I’ll stand by the Hairy Nosed Wombat as ‘evidence’ of divine….thus far we have seen
no ‘evidance’ of ‘love’ put forward beyond the claim that it is “believed” in and “experienced” and reflected in “certain actions”

Don’t go admonishing me, my wombat or my aliens if you can’t produce anything more substantial than “belief”.

Then-

“Yes, I believe in love........as a biochemical condition.”

Can this “biochemical condition” be distinguished in any way from that arising from ‘belief in God’?

“Or, in the case of most familial love, the internalization of a patterned social convention.”

As above…anything that distinguishes this “internalisation” from the internalization of the patterned social convention known as ‘belief in God’?

And-

“The existence of the arts is an outward expression of love.”

Art could just as easily (and often truly) be seen as “an outward expression of”
‘creative impulse’ or desire for-‘fame’, ‘influence’, ‘money’, ‘power’, ‘sex’
‘imortality’.
Or it may reflect the ‘inspiration of God’.

If there is no 'art' is there no 'love'?

[NMMNG]

12. Look below

There's plenty of evidence.

[stangoodwin]

13. I looked below...

“Belief in "God" does not equal "belief" in love.”

I don’t recall saying or suggesting belief in God equalled belief in love.

(I do recall asking if you disbelieve in one (God) by what ‘evidence’ do you believe in the other ‘love’)

"God" is not quantifiable. Love is.”

Oh….please!….Go for it…..”Quantify” ‘love’.


”First the soft science evidence. Love can be quantified by observing a person's behaviour. Say Bob loves Mary. He will probably pay more attention to her than other women, say certain things to her, bring her gifts, do favors for her, touch her in particular ways, help her with things, enter into a relationship with her, perhaps even marry her.”

So…the measure of the “attention”, “saying things”, “gifts”, “favours”, “particular touching”, “help with things” and willingness to enter a relationship are the ‘quantifiable’ evidence of love?

Please excuse me if I am vehement in my rejection of your “quantified” ‘love’.
I have worked with intellectually disabled ‘Bobs’ who could not meet *any* of these ‘quantifiers’ of ‘love’……and yet when their ‘Mary’ came into the room everyone present was certain that not only ‘love is in the air’ but that it was in many respects a
deeper or more tangible ‘love’ than that measurable by pretty words or number of gifts given.
Sorry…..I don’t believe in such ‘quantification’…if I did I would have to conclude
that as a ‘quantity’ *more* ‘love’ is given or received in direct proportion to any ‘increase’ in your indicators….total attention, total commitment, total giving and total particular touching would translate as ‘total love’.
It is more likely to indicate ‘stalking’.



”Now the hard scientific evidence. Brain scans and hormone levels of people in love differ from those of people not in love.”

And brain scans of people having a ‘religious’ or ‘mystical’ experience differ from those not having a ‘religious’ or ‘mystical’ experience.
The experience of ‘love’ or ‘communion with God’ have more in common ‘bio chemically’ than the state of those “not” having such experiences.

If the “hard science” evidence for the existence of ‘love’ is “biochemical” altered state
Then the “hard science” “biochemical” evidence for the experience of ‘God’ must be equally valid.

[NMMNG]

15. Don't even try that bait and switch

If God is supposed to be a supernatural being with supernatural powers then there should be some sort of direct evidence of him.



He should be able to show himself now as he allegedly did in the days of the Bible.

He should be able to alter physical matter on request/command as he allegedly did in the days of the Bible, for direct scientific observation.








Love is manifested as a biochemical and brain reaction because it is a biochemical and emotional phenomenon.

God is supposed to be a divine supernatural entity. Therefore "biochemical reactions" in humans do not suffice as evidence of his existence.

[stangoodwin]

20. No bait no switch

I rejected the 'quantifiable' and 'biochemical' arguments on good (and thus far un refuted) grounds.

Now you move on to new ground-
"If God is supposed to be a supernatural being with supernatural powers then there should be some sort of direct evidence of him."

Well, just as with love, the 'evidence' has (historically and thus far in thread) been confined to people who claim to have "experienced" or "believe" in the phenomena.

Your asking for "direct evidence of him"
I'm asking for "direct evidence of love"
If I follow your argument 'love' (like God) should be able to come forward and manifest itself in a tangible material way....or be deemed not to exist....?


"He should be able to show himself now as he allegedly did in the days of the Bible".

So should love in the way it "allegedly did" in Romeo and Juliet or *any other* claimed account of this experience.

If our reliance is on what someone else wrote about love or God then that doesn't count for much in the way of 'evidence'

"He should be able to alter physical matter on request/command as he allegedly did in the days of the Bible, for direct scientific observation."

Yea...and 'love' should be able to "move mountains" and "set a thousand ships asail" and be "all ya need"....

Play hard but play fair....If you discount "experience" of 'God' then you leave open the discounting
of the "experience" of love. Same goes for "belief". Biochemical response kicks in for both love/God experiences and if you choose to reject 'Scripture' from any/all faiths then you may equally easily reject every love song and poem through history.

(Any claimed "alteration of physical matter" is a matter I would be pleased to discuss in another thread....I suggest as hedder 'Is this figurative or literal' if you are referring to 'water to wine',
'walking on water', 'raising dead' etc ;-)

"Love is manifested as a biochemical and brain reaction because it is a biochemical and emotional phenomenon."

That's a posibility...so too is 'love is an 'experience' that induces biochemical and brain reaction',
if you believe in love and have this experience it will manifest in brain biochemisry...just as belief/
experience of 'God' will.


"God is supposed to be a divine supernatural entity. Therefore "biochemical reactions" in humans do not suffice as evidence of his existence."

Love (according to some ;-) is a quantifiable range of behaviors. Therefore "biochemical reactions" in humans do not suffice as evidence of loves existence.

[NMMNG]

21. Are you genuinely obtuse or do you just pretend for the sake of argument?

"He should be able to show himself now as he allegedly did in the days of the Bible".

So should love in the way it "allegedly did" in Romeo and Juliet or *any other* claimed account of this experience.


Romeo and Juliet. Teenagers met, they fell in love, they defied their families and snuck around to be with each other, they married, they killed themselves because they could not stay together.

Each of those events happens over and over in life. Teenagers defy their families/sneak around to engage in relationships all of the time, as do adults having adulterous affairs. People (teens and adults) also kill themselves over unrequited love, love affairs that cannot happen for one reason or another, and love affairs that have ended for one reason or another.



"He should be able to alter physical matter on request/command as he allegedly did in the days of the Bible, for direct scientific observation."

Yea...and 'love' should be able to "move mountains" and "set a thousand ships asail" and be "all ya need"....

Play hard but play fair....If you discount "experience" of 'God' then you leave open the discounting
of the "experience" of love. Same goes for "belief". Biochemical response kicks in for both love/God experiences and if you choose to reject 'Scripture' from any/all faiths then you may equally easily reject every love song and poem through history.




Don't try to compare claims of the Bible (which allege to be true historical events) with the romantic musings of fiction.



Love (according to some ;-) is a quantifiable range of behaviors. Therefore "biochemical reactions" in humans do not suffice as evidence of loves existence.


I already went over the quantifiable range of behaviors in my original response. Love includes both quantifiable and observable behaviors AND biochemical/brain reactions.

[stangoodwin]

23. Mind if I stick to the argument?

"Romeo and Juliet."

Is a love 'story'

Scripture (pick any)

Is a God 'story'

"Each of those events happens over and over in life"

Funny thing that....The Revelation/Scripture thing happens over and over in history.
(Humans defy their God/sneak around to engage in 'Thou shalt nots" all of the time, as do believers having adulterous affairs. People (teens and adults) also kill themselves over God, God affairs that cannot happen for one reason or another, and God affairs that have ended for one reason or another ;-)

Is it "obtuse" to demonstrate that the arguments are directly interchangeable?

"Don't try to compare claims of the Bible (which allege to be true historical events) with the romantic musings of fiction."

Why not?...I have encountered more than enough claimed 'Non Fiction' that turned out to be absolute crap/lie (eg Carlos Castanenda, L Ron Hubbard) and seen blatant 'fakes' that revealed great truth (eg
'Fake' by Orson Wells).

I take every 'story' as a 'story' and slide it up and down the scales of 'probability' in response to given evidence.

"I already went over the quantifiable range of behaviors in my original response."

Yes and my rebuttal of those "quantifiable range of behaviors" went unmet and unanswered.

"Love includes both quantifiable and observable behaviors AND biochemical/brain reactions."

So...it's a bit like 'Light is a particle'- 'light is a wave'...sometimes light acts as a particle
, sometimes light acts as a wave? ;-)

Either way...with 'love' (or light) we don't have a real good handle on (even its definition) let
alone it's behavior.

No wonder folk are going round saying "God is love, God is light" ;-)

Can't get any of them in a nice neat predictable, definable, demonstrable box ;-)

[NMMNG]

25. You want something you can put in a box?

That's easy.


One could follow a couple around and videotape their behavior as they go through the courting rituals. That videotape could be put in a box.


Results from laboratory tests measuring oxytocin, vasopressin and other hormones in the body could be put in a box.




Brain scans and MRIs like the ones below could be put in a box.








<snip>

Yet falling in love is among the most irrational of human behaviors, not merely a matter of satisfying a simple pleasure, or winning a reward. And the researchers found that one particular spot in the M.R.I. images, in the caudate nucleus, was especially active in people who scored highly on a questionnaire measuring passionate love.

This passion-related region was on the opposite side of the brain from another area that registers physical attractiveness, the researchers found, and appeared to be involved in longing, desire and the unexplainable tug that people feel toward one person, among many attractive alternative partners.

<snip>

NYT Article











In one fMRI study the brains of people who were in love were scanned while they looked at photographs, some of their friends and some of their loved-ones. When they saw a picture of their loved one specific areas of the brain became active, suggesting that there is a specialised system in the brain relating to romantic love.
http://insidestory.iop.org/mri.html







The hormones oxytocin and vasopressin are important for social attachment, according to a series of precise studies in monogamous mice-like animals, known as prairie voles. In the above two images, the blue coloring signals where oxytocin can create actions in the vole brain and the red coloring signals where vasopressin can create actions. Some of these highlighted brain areas are thought to be associated with reward. Researchers believe that oxytocin and vasopressin create bonding in these animals, and possibly humans, by activating brain areas that produce feelings of pleasure or reward, which helps reinforce behaviors.
http://www.sfn.org/index.cfm?pagename=brainBriefings_loveAndTheBrain&print=on

[stangoodwin]

27. Got a bigger box?

We have several propositions for love (from myself and others) that do not fit in the videotape/brainscan
box you offer.


"One could follow a couple around and videotape their behavior as they go through the courting rituals".

Indeed...and we might have evidence of 'love' or we might have narcissistic porn flick 'lust' with no redeeming features depending on who you filmed at what age, in what culture at what time of night under what chemical influence.

"That videotape could be put in a box."

I recommend a plain brown wrapper ;-)

"Results from laboratory tests measuring oxytocin, vasopressin and other hormones in the body could be put in a box."

Showing us that when we think/feel we are 'in love' our brain/body sparks in the same way it does when we think/feel we are in touch with God.

The box looks small sad and empty....the Thargians say they have seen those videos and they get the same MRI results when they drink coffee ;-)

[NMMNG]

28. Deny the science if you want, it doesn't make it any less factual.

"Results from laboratory tests measuring oxytocin, vasopressin and other hormones in the body could be put in a box."

Showing us that when we think/feel we are 'in love' our brain/body sparks in the same way it does when we think/feel we are in touch with God.


Again. God is supposed to be a spiritual/supernatural entity with omnipitence and omniscence. Proof of him is not the "feeling" people get when they "experience" him. Other forms of proof are required unless you are claiming God is only a feeling people experience.




The box looks small sad and empty....the Thargians say they have seen those videos and they get the same MRI results when they drink coffee ;-)



An MRI looks different, and different areas of the brain are stimulated, when the individual is undergoing different emotions/experiences:



Smell



Pain




Joy




Fear




Love




http://insidestory.iop.org/mri.html





Therefore the experiences of love and drinking coffee would stimulate different areas of the brain and show up differently on an MRI.

[stangoodwin]

29. Misrepresent what I am saying if you want

But I have made no "denial of science"

All a MRI scan shows is 'response to stimuli'- *real or imagined*.
You don't need 'real danger' to get the fight or flight centers to light up...all you need is for the individual to think, perceive, experience 'danger'.

No one is denying the 'experience', no one is denying the brain lights up.

Anyone suggesting that an MRI reveals 'real danger', 'real love' or 'real God' is kidding themselves.

"Proof of him is not the "feeling" people get when they "experience" him."

No, it's not, nor is an MRI of that experience, nor is an MRI "proof" of the experience of 'love'.

Put up the MRI of the subject stimulated by the suggestion "ten thousand spiders crawling on your skin' and what you get is an MRI that reflects a 'fear experience'. It says nothing about the experience being 'unreal' and 'unfounded'. Take a lonely socially dysfunctional schmuck and stimulate him with an attractive actress and you'll get MRI's from the boy that looks like the forth of July. Do you call his experience 'love'? The MRI is sparking in all the right places...does this mean love has been identified/proven?

"Other forms of proof are required...."

Funny....that's been my argument for several posts now buried under irrelevant MRI's and unfounded accusations of "denial of science".


"...unless you are claiming God is only a feeling people experience."

Nope....and I've covered that ground.

"An MRI looks different, and different areas of the brain are stimulated, when the individual is undergoing different emotions/experiences:"

Yes...….and a MRI tells us *nothing* about the ‘stimuli’ that prompted the “emotions/experiences:"…it does not tell us if the ‘stimuli’ is ‘real, imagined,fabricated or genuine and therefore tells us *nothing* about the “emotions/experience” other than someone is *having them*.

[NMMNG]

82. Do you think scientists do one round of tests?

No, they do many many rounds of tests. They do many batches of MRIs and they determine that they get similar or identical results each time. They discover each time the subjects is report fear the same area of the brains is show stimulation. Each time the subjects report hate the same area of the brains show stimulation. Each time the subjects report love the same area of the brains show stimulation. Each time the subjects smell something the same area of the brain show stimulation.

This cannot be faked.


Therefore an MRI is proof of the experience as it is showing stimulation of the brain areas that are stimulated when the person is experiencing said emotion/situation.

[ironbark]

94. To ‘All’….Summary 2

First up I’d like to thank all those who responded and to those who extended welcome to DU…thank you….it sure aint an episode of West Wing but it is entertaining none the less.

As far as I can ascertain there has been no satisfactory cover all definition for ‘love’ as yet…nor any consideration as to the potential different kinds of love. Will come back to that.

Thus far the ‘evidence’ for the existence of ‘love’ has included –
Several declarations of “I believe it…I experience it…I feel it…therefore it is proven/true”.
Others have stipulated that love is evident in certain “behaviours” though even when repeatedly asked/pressed cannot (or will not) identify these ‘behaviours’.
The closest we have come to ‘love behaviour’ identification is a list of proposed “quantifiers” of love- “attention”, “saying things”, “gifts”, “favours”, “particular touching”, “help with things” and willingness to enter a "relationship" are all presented as ‘quantifiable’ evidence of love.
Beyond this we have the proposition that “videoing” a “courting couple” (in conjunction with an MRI of their sparkling brains) will constitute proof of ‘love’.
I believe there are now 6 to 8 proponents of ’love is a biochemically induced emotion verifiable by MRI.

I have no doubt that in response to the stimuli- “Think of a loved one” (or a picture thereof) the subject experiences a warm glowing feeling that is registered in specific areas of the brain during MRI.
I reject-all together- that this ‘warm feeling/experience’ is other than a ‘lesser’, ‘embryonic’ or small reflection of what ‘love’ *actually* is.
I do not believe in the prevailing “love is an emotion- no more no less” …nor do I believe that any portrait of such an emotion (MRI or oil painting) even *begins* to touch on or reflect what love is.

If you lay claim to a ‘science’ that can identify and pinpoint ‘love’ in the brain then you must account yourselves as possessors of the most potent and powerful tool in human history. As a matter of the utmost urgency you must apply this ‘sure science’…lobby march and advocate its immediate implementation. Every prospective marriage must be tested and vetted with MRI to see if ‘love’ is really there for both parties…...their love will be ‘proven’ by the scans. Tens of billions of dollars will be saved in plummeting divorce rates, costly court battles and single parent welfare. Schools, hospitals, psych wards, police and army can be tested and vetted to see if the ‘carers’ truly ‘care’ for the student, patient, community or country.
Praise be!....’Politics’ is over…because you now have the technology at your fingertips to identify those who ‘love’…and those who don’t.

Unless of course the ‘MRI/technology’ reveals/proves no such 'love'.

I do not believe that the coloured spots on an MRI reveal, reflect, identify or prove the huge, diverse, grand and complex thing called love….nor do I believe it is mere emotion.

The ‘quantifiable love behaviours’ put forward are equally shallow and inadequate.
I can shower a girl with “gifts”, pay abundant “attention”, be prepared for “certain kinds of touching” and willing to enter a “relationship”. If I do all this on Friday night, get it all down on the “courtship video” , confirm our love with an MRI….then our love is ‘proven’.
And it doesn’t matter a dam if I run off and do it all again with another woman on Saturday…..it will still be ‘love’.
According to the ‘quantifiable love behaviours’.

No one….not one of the respondents thus far has placed ‘love’ in the context of *time*.
No one has pointed out that one of the single greatest indicators of ‘love’ is >endurance<
….>long term commitment<….>thick and thin/poverty and wealth/sickness and health<
dedication to another.

Does your MRI identify the ‘love’ that will endure over time till a couple are old, ill, infirm?
Seriously…….do you believe an MRI exposes, reveals, reflects or indicates such ‘love’?

All this talk of “feeling” and “experience” and “courtship videos”….and not a word about
‘love’ as a long term struggle to stay alive, keep together, fight fair or care for the terminally ill or demented.

No one has spoken of the diversities of ‘love’.
Even though disinterest in ‘Romantic Love’ was expressed in the first post that ‘singular obsession’ has been returned to time and time again….*as if* it was the *only* or *greatest* ‘love.
(Completely ignoring the fact that Romantic Love is but a recent social construct…a tiny ‘blip’ in recorded history…yet clung to as if it was ‘the beginning and end of love’)

“Love is an emotion”... not necessarily and certainly not a ‘romantic emotion’ to the ancients.

One person put forward ‘Art’ as an evidence of love….but no one has proposed ‘love of truth’, ‘love of liberty’, ‘love of country’, ‘love of humanity’, ‘love of justice’, ‘love of learning’ or even love of sport or gardening.
Have these ‘loves’ slipped entirely from consciousness or lexicon?

No one has spoken of the ‘love’ evidence inherent in ‘sacrifice’, ‘self sacrifice’, ‘empathy’,
‘sympathy’, ‘compassion’, ‘healing’ or ‘protection’.
Are these to ‘twee’ to be contemporary indicators of ‘love’?

What value do you put on ‘open minded investigation of truth’ as ‘an act of love’?

If you approach a stranger, a foreigner, with genuine open minded curiosity regarding his/her culture, pov and history- aware, willing and prepared to potentially hear a n account of horror , pain, tragedy and injustice….can this ‘openness’ not be seen as ‘love’?
Can it not be called ‘love’?....’Love in action’?…. a display/evidence of love?

I was prepared from the outset for the inevitable reductionist objectification of love…I suspected I might have encountered the psychobabble newspeak that renders ‘love’ as-
“Unconditional non-judgemental positive regard”.
But I never expected to see ‘love’ reduced to “quantifiable behaviours” and a box of “courtship videos” and MRI scans.

I’m disappointed in what has been presented as examples/evidence of ‘love’…
but I’m stunned by what has been ignored and omitted.

Stan G.

[ironbark]

96. Love is in evidence

More often and more clearly in the cancer ward or retirement village or group home for psych disabled....than it ever is in the nightclub, courtship video, wedding or MRI.

Love is in evidence
Not so much in our 'Sunday best' but rather when the chips are down, or the proverbial hits the fan....when even though the 'emotion' is anger, rage, fear, frustration the 'love' transcends and the action is restrained, fair, balanced.

Love is in evidence
When he/she leaves the one they love and goes to serve a transcending principle...love of freedom or justice.

Love is in evidence
When even though they have been trying to kill each other for years they stand in no mans land on Christmas eve, break bread, drink schnapps, sing Silent Night together...and have to be forced back into the trenches by their own artillery.

Love was in evidence
With Victor Frankel in the death camps and Edward 'Weary' Dunlop in Changi....and there was nothing romantic about it.

The proposition "Love thine enemy" is based on the firm recognition that he *is* your enemy and you rightly, justifiably, and emotionally hate his guts in a way that makes MRIs flare neon scarlet rage...and yet it is still possible to 'love' him by acting on his behalf.


Stan.

[NMMNG]

157. I see what the game is now

We could define love a million ways till Sunday and you wouldn't be satisfied. We had to define it in your terms. Only your terms were right. The best nero-scientists, psychiatrists, psychologists, philosophers and other thinkers of the world are all wrong. Everybody on this entire board is wrong, but you and only you are right.


Give. Me. A. Break.

You are not worth debating with. Your head is too big for this forum.

[ironbark]

159. Yea I'm sooooooooo cunning

I set it all up in such a way as no one would ever think to speak of love in *my* >secret< hidden agenda *terms* because *I* have *psychic powers* and just *knew* no one was going to make reference
to love as compassionate action or any of *my* other *terms*

I don't know about the best "nero-scientists" but the philosophers back to his buddy Aristotle didn't think much of 'Love is a feeling'FULL STOP.

If you have some reasoned objection to the "terms" I have put up then go for it...knock em down.

But don't waste your breath with "your heads to big" if your argument is so petty/small.


"Everybody on this entire board is wrong"

Nuh....drhilarius, post 144, makes a good case for love in action.

[Silent3]

97. You've got a confused notion of the kinds of things in need of proof

If you lay claim to a 'science' that can identify and pinpoint 'love' in the brain then you must account yourselves as possessors of the most potent and powerful tool in human history.

The word "love" can be taken as nothing more than a descriptive label for behaviors, feelings, types of social interaction, etc. It's not a matter of scientifically proving the existence of love, pinpointing some special place in the brain where love is registered, or any of that. This is nothing more than a simple matter of using a word to describe things in such a way that you can communicate, albeit roughly at times, a notion about the same general things you're calling "love" to another person, such that that person can more or less recognize what you're talking about.

If I say, "give me the red ball", you don't need me to pinpoint where in the brain the notion of "red" and "ball" are located, you don't need me to define the spectral characteristics of red light or the equations for a sphere, and you sure as hell don't need me to prove that redness exists or that balls exists. Would you insist that I can't claim to be a scientifically-minded person if, in response to a demand to "prove that the color red exists", that I simply get frustrated with the obtuseness of the person making such a demand, rather than responding with said "proof"?

...I’m stunned by what has been ignored and omitted.

Because you're trying to treat simple matters of word usage and conventions of speech as assertions in need of evidence and proof.

[ironbark]

133. You've got a confused notion that I asked/expected “proof”

From the outset I attempted to steer away from “notions of 'true/false' or 'proven/unproven'” and simply sought ‘evidence’ gathering re ‘love’.

Please stop projecting the need for “proof” onto me.

"The word "love" can be taken as nothing more than a descriptive label for behaviours, feelings, types of social interaction"


All of your prior references to love (as far as I can see) have love down as-
“emotional state or physical sensation, sensation or emotion, realm of sensation and emotion, love and other emotions and sensations, An emotion, the experience of a physical sensation” P46

You made no prior reference to “behaviours” or “social interactions”….yet now, immediacy following my objection to ‘love as mere emotion’ and the exclusion of actions and interactions as ‘love’, you expand your descriptors to include “behaviours,” and “types of social interaction”.

Passing strange…can we expect all others who have been in the ‘love is emotion no more no less’ camp to follow suit? ;-)

I note also that as with prior contributors you offer no description of what kinds of
“behaviours” and “types of social interaction" we would need to be observing to be witnessing ‘love’.

No matter…..I am well satisfied that the difficulties of adequately defining ‘love’ have been well established.

“It's not a matter of scientifically proving the existence of love, pinpointing some special place in the brain where love is registered, or any of that.”

Great…go tell Buffy…he/she is the one who took us down that cul de sac and a good number of contributors (presumably atheists?) went screaming along as well with how the MRI gambit kicked the butt of my stupid argument.

What would you put the odds at of others now emerging with the realization- “Well, yea, you can’t prove ‘love’ with science”?

Hmmmmmmmmm? ;-)

“This is nothing more than a simple matter of using a word to describe things in such a way that you can communicate, albeit roughly at times, a notion about the same general things you're calling "love" to another person, such that that person can more or less recognize what you're talking about.”

Ah yes…a convenience of language…the employment of a term that might convey
a “rough” idea of “more or less” what is being referred to…..but, when examined, proves itself to be inadequate to the task because the notion/concept is to big, to divers, to complex to cover with a word…..like ‘love’….or ‘God’.

Which is one of the reasons I asked the initial question…to demonstrate that when folk employ a term such as ‘love’ they come to believe they ‘have it in a box’ and can even provide ‘evidence/proof’ of it’s existence through science.

“Would you insist that I can't claim to be a scientifically-minded person if, in response to a demand to "prove that the color red exists",

No…I would insist that while most people see ‘red’ there is also ‘color blindness’ and
endless- “No, that aint ‘red’ honey, that’s maroon and it doesn’t go with your shoes”.

Nor, as your question suggests, did I ‘demand’ “prove that ‘love’ exists”.

My very first post attempted to steer away from “'true/false' or 'proven/unproven'”
And (excuse the emphasis) IT WAS THE RESPONDING ATHIESTS WHO TOOK THE ARGUMENT DOWN THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF PATH BY CLAIMING THEY HAD IT!

Now you attempt to turn ‘their’ demonstrably flawed gambit into my responsibility.
No thanks….go see Buffy and Co who sought to prove ‘love’ with science and don’t get- “frustrated with the obtuseness of the person making such a demand, rather than responding with said "proof"?”… because I “demanded” no such “proof”.

I asked- “what evidence we humans have for this 'love' concept”….that is- what indicators for believing in love and what criteria for determining that evidence.
It was responding posters, yourself included, who deemed ‘love’ an “emotional state or physical sensation” and some sought to ‘prove’ same.

I referred to both ‘love’ and ‘God’ as ‘unproven’ because THEY ARE and will ever remain so.
THAT’S THE POINT.

There is no way to ‘prove’ love and yet we find ‘evidence’ of it, it occurs along a spectrum of “experience” and “observed behaviour” and “reason” and “feeling”
and “conditioning” ……and we come to “believe” it on this basis.
But we cannot ‘prove’ love…
Ditto for 'God'.

Hell, it has taken 87 posts just to move the consideration/definition of ‘love’
beyond “emotional state’ and into the realms of observable (but not “quantifiable”)
‘behaviour’.

How much longer do you think it might take to drag the atheist respondents into the realm of ‘love, at its highest, is a ‘rational response’ to the world and a ‘philosophical stance’ in the world’ ?

When I say- “I’m stunned by what has been ignored and omitted.”

You respond-
“Because you're trying to treat simple matters of word usage and conventions of speech as assertions in need of evidence and proof.”

Please stop projecting the “proof” “need” onto me….it was not my question or my expectation. I only asked for the ‘evidence’ of love…the ‘indicators’ by which people ‘believe’ it exists. There is a world of difference between seeking the gathering ‘evidence’ and assuming the provision of ‘proof’.
‘Proving love’ was the indignant response of those who >believed they could<…even though they had not provided other than the most shallow and inadequate reading/description/definition of love and the most scant (and absurd) compilation of its behavioural indicators.

Please stop projecting the arguments, expectations and assumptions of others onto me….it has been a constant theme (generally).

Are we in agreement that the word/notion ‘love’ is a convenience of language that does not adequately cover the vast diversity and depth of it’s meaning?

Are we in agreement that love cannot be ‘proven’?

[Silent3]

135. I was about to respond to your post a point at a time...

But then I ran into this:

What would you put the odds at of others now emerging with the realization- "Well, yea, you can't prove 'love' with science"?

And this:

Are we in agreement that love cannot be 'proven'?

And I begin to think I'm staring over an uncrossable barrier of language and understanding. I'll try desperately anyway...

I'm not saying you're demanding "proof of love". I'm pointing out that even applying the notion of proof here, and then trying to make hay out of whether or not such proof is possible, is to entirely miss the point.

You made no prior reference to "behaviours" or "social interactions"....yet now, immediacy following my objection to 'love as mere emotion' and the exclusion of actions and interactions as 'love', you expand your descriptors to include "behaviours," and "types of social interaction".

Passing strange...can we expect all others who have been in the 'love is emotion no more no less' camp to follow suit? ;-)

Christ on a crutch, it's called "taking a different approach to trying to explain something" -- but all you want to do is jump up and down triumphantly like you've "caught" somebody flailing about in inconsistency. "First you say this, then you say that... Gotcha!" If there were any real contradiction or inconsistency there, you might have a point. As it stands, however, you're just being obnoxious in a way that pretty much kills much desire to persue this further with you.

[ironbark]

145. "First you say this, then you say that... Gotcha!"

First you say this-
“You've got a confused notion of the kinds of things in need of proof”

Then you say that-
“I'm not saying you're demanding "proof of love".

But your the only one saying "obnoxious" and "Gotcha"


“I'm pointing out that even applying the notion of proof here, and then trying to make hay out of whether or not such proof is possible, is to entirely miss the point.”

EXCUSE ME BUT THAT’S *MY POINT*!

Why are you telling me about the inappropriateness of “applying the notion of proof”!?
Still.....again.
*I didn’t*….*I haven’t*.
All I have done is *respond* to any claims/suggestions of ‘proof’ of ‘love’ by *rejecting* them.

Post 30-“ There are many things that are subject to 'objective scientific proof'....'love' is not one of them, 'God' is not one of them,”

“Making hay out of whether or not such proof is possible”!!???

All I have been doing is trying to beat the straw man assumption of my back when others put it there.
Go tell those who thought/claimed they had “proof” and “made hay” projecting their false premice on me….start with a good look at a post that begins-“You've got a confused notion of the kinds of things in need of proof”


“it's called "taking a different approach to trying to explain something"

Yea….the approach that has just been pointed out to you after determined and exclusive travel down the “love is an emotion” road while shouting "There is no other path".

Have a look back through the posts, yours and others, at the determined and singular advocacy of -“that feeling Love. Its simply a name we gave that feeling. THATS ALL IT IS.” (Evoman P 62).

“If there were any real contradiction or inconsistency there, you might have a point.”

I never claimed “contradiction or inconsistency” ….I pointed out that the ‘love’ exclusively as an emotion argument had failed and speculated about how many of it’s former proponents would now come on board the “different approach”.

I struggle to see how you read triumphalist “jumping up and down” into that.


The point of contradiction and inconsistency was demonstrated at-
“You've got a confused notion of the kinds of things in need of proof”
“I'm not saying you're demanding "proof of love".

No reason to get grumpy at me for pointing it out.

Understand that as the issue/arguement narrows there is a corresponding need to resort to "obnoxious" ad hom and retire.

Wish you well with that.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salvorhardin]

36. "Sorry…..I don’t believe in such ‘quantification’"

Then that's a problem because you've immediately moved the argument into the realm of the supernatural by denying objective, quantifiable characteristics of 'love'. Conversation over. There's no communicating with someone who believes such nonsense.

[ironbark]

146. Rejecting the given "quantification"

Is not to reject "objective characteristics".

If the "quantifiable" behaviors that have been put forward are to be believed then the more "attention", "gift giving" and "certain kinds of touching" that take place the 'more love' there must be.

I do not deny or reject objective characteristics.....I reject the "quantification"

The "conversation" never began because it was drowned out by howls of "WTF", "nonsense" and "stupidest thread".

Every one wants to play the emotive or the add hom.
Many a responding with consistent misrepresentation obliging endless "I never said that".
Not many confining the 'play' exclusively to the issue.

Feelin the 'love' ;-)

Stan.

[NMMNG]

5. Don't make that false analogy as so many others do

Belief in "God" does not equal "belief" in love. "God" is not quantifiable. Love is.


First the soft science evidence. Love can be quantified by observing a person's behavior. Say Bob loves Mary. He will probably pay more attention to her than other women, say certain things to her, bring her gifts, do favors for her, touch her in particular ways, help her with things, enter into a relationship with her, perhaps even marry her.


Now the hard scientific evidence. Brain scans and hormone levels of people in love differ from those of people not in love.

<snip>

Sex stimulates the release of vasopressin and oxytocin in people, as well as voles, though the role of these hormones in the human brain is not yet well understood. But while it is unlikely that people have a mental, smell-based map of their partners in the way that voles do, there are strong hints that the hormone pair have something to reveal about the nature of human love: among those of Man's fellow primates that have been studied, monogamous marmosets have higher levels of vasopressin bound in the reward centres of their brains than do non-monogamous rhesus macaques.
Other approaches are also shedding light on the question. In 2000, Andreas Bartels and Semir Zeki of University College, London, located the areas of the brain activated by romantic love. They took students who said they were madly in love, put them into a brain scanner, and looked at their patterns of brain activity.

The results were surprising. For a start, a relatively small area of the human brain is active in love, compared with that involved in, say, ordinary friendship. “It is fascinating to reflect”, the pair conclude, “that the face that launched a thousand ships should have done so through such a limited expanse of cortex.” The second surprise was that the brain areas active in love are different from the areas activated in other emotional states, such as fear and anger. Parts of the brain that are love-bitten include the one responsible for gut feelings, and the ones which generate the euphoria induced by drugs such as cocaine. So the brains of people deeply in love do not look like those of people experiencing strong emotions, but instead like those of people snorting coke. Love, in other words, uses the neural mechanisms that are activated during the process of addiction. “We are literally addicted to love,” Dr Young observes. Like the prairie voles.

It seems possible, then, that animals which form strong social bonds do so because of the location of their receptors for vasopressin and oxytocin. Evolution acts on the distribution of these receptors to generate social or non-social versions of a vole. The more receptors located in regions associated with reward, the more rewarding social interactions become. Social groups, and society itself, rely ultimately on these receptors. But for evolution to be able to act, there must be individual variation between mice, and between men. And this has interesting implications.

<snip>

http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html






In a study published in 2002, anthropologist Helen Fisher PhD of Rutgers University and a multi-disciplinary team of experts recruited 40 young people madly in love - half with love returned, the other half with love rejected - and put them into an MRI with a photo of their sweetheart and one of an acquaintance. Each subject looked at the sweetheart photo for 30 seconds, then - after a diversion task - at the acquaintance photo for another 30 seconds.. They switched back and forth for 12 minutes.

The result was a revealing photo album of the brain in love. Think like a brain scientist and you too would be excited by activity in the right ventral tegmental area. This is the part of the brain where dopamine cells project into other areas of the brain, including the posterior dorsal caudate and its tail, both which are central to the brain’s system for reward and motivation. The sweetheart photos, but not the acquaintance photos, were the cause. In addition, several parts of the prefrontal cortex that are highly wired in the dopamine pathways were mobilized, while the amygdala, associated with fear, was temporarily mothballed.

<snip>

Dr Fisher divides love into three categories involving different brain systems: 1) Lust (the craving for sexual gratification), driven by androgens and estrogens; 2) Attraction (or romantic or passionate love, characterized by euphoria when things are going well, terrible mood swings when they’re not, focused attention, obsessive thinking, and intense craving for the individual), driven by high dopamine and norepinephrine levels and low serotonin; and 3) Attachment (the sense of calm, peace, and stability one feels with a long-term partner) driven by the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin.

<snip>

http://www.mcmanweb.com/love_lust.htm




More:

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/2004/3/monogamy.cfm

http://www.sfn.org/index.cfm?pagename=brainBriefings_loveAndTheBrain&print=on

http://www.whsc.emory.edu/_pubs/em/1998summer/vole.html

[varkam]

6. Some very excellent information, Buffy.

One of the points that struck me as particularly interesting is that natural selection drives the distribution of neural receptors. I'm sure I don't understand it completely, but it does make sense that would happen for certain emotional responses or social interactions that promote reproduction and care of offspring.

[NMMNG]

8. Love has an evolutionary purpose

<snip>

Romantic and maternal love are highly rewarding experiences. Both are linked to the perpetuation of the species and therefore have a closely linked biological function of crucial evolutionary importance. Yet almost nothing is known about their neural correlates in the human. We therefore used fMRI to measure brain activity in mothers while they viewed pictures of their own and of acquainted children, and of their best friend and of acquainted adults as additional controls. The activity specific to maternal attachment was compared to that associated to romantic love described in our earlier study and to the distribution of attachment-mediating neurohormones established by other studies. Both types of attachment activated regions specific to each, as well as overlapping regions in the brain’s reward system that coincide with areas rich in oxytocin and vasopressin receptors. Both deactivated a common set of regions associated with negative emotions, social judgment and ‘mentalizing’, that is, the assessment of other people’s intentions and emotions. We conclude that human attachment employs a push– pull mechanism that overcomes social distance by deactivating networks used for critical social assessment and negative emotions, while it bonds individuals through the involvement of the reward circuitry, explaining the power of love to motivate and exhilarate.

...

Maternal and romantic love share a common and crucial evolutionary purpose, namely the maintenance and perpetuation of the species. Both ensure the formation of firm bonds between individuals, by making this behavior a rewarding experience. They therefore share a similar evolutionary origin and serve a similar biological function. It is likely that they also share at least a core of common neural mechanisms. Neuro-endocrine, cellular and behavioral studies of various mammalian species ranging from rodents to primates show that the neurohormones vasopressin and oxytocin are involved in the formation and main-tenance of attachment between individuals, and suggest a tight coupling between attachment processes and the neural systems for reward (Carter, 1998; Insel and Young, 2001; Kendrick, 2000; Pedersen and Prange, 1979). This is confirmed by lesion, gene expression and behavioral studies in mammals (Numan and Shee-han,

Perhaps it is not a coincidence that many lovers call each other "babe" and there is a great deal of overlap between the brain's feelings of romantic and maternal love.

<snip>

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002183.html






And babies aren't so unbelievably cute just by chance. It is a function of evolution that helps to ensure that they will be nutured and protected.

<snip>

In short, babies are cute.

This cuteness is so obvious that we take it for granted. But what exactly is it about a baby that prompts our "oohs" and "ahs"?

<snip>

Kurland says the answer lies in evolution. According to Darwin, individuals of a given species will exhibit a new trait if that trait provides a survival advantage, boosting an organism's chances of living to see sexual maturity and successfully reproduce. But what does evolutionary fitness have to do with being cute?

One of two basic processes may be at work, Kurland suggests. In the first, one of our distant female ancestors was born with a slightly different makeup than her forebears, perhaps the result of some random genetic mutation. This change in her genes caused her to prefer babies with the features we see as cute. She passed on this preference to future generations, and thereafter infants with cuteness attracted more attention and received more care than their less cute compatriots. The cuties were therefore more likely to survive and reproduce, and their offspring inherited both their cuteness trait and their preference for cuteness. "Because the two traits became linked in this way, they both increased in the population," says Kurland.

The second evolutionary possibility is much like the first, except that here cuteness runs more than skin deep. In this scenario, too, Kurland explains, one of our foremothers was born with an arbitrary preference for cute babies—to her they just look better. And again, she gives more attention and care to her cute babies, who survive in greater numbers to pass on both their own cuteness genes and the genes for her preference, and this genetic combination gradually increases in the population.

<snip>
http://www.rps.psu.edu/probing/babies.html

[stangoodwin]

33. God employs an evolutionary process

"Romantic and maternal love are highly rewarding experiences."

Revelation and mysticism are highly rewarding experiences.

Repeat process of replacing references to 'love' with references to 'God'
throughout entire quoted text and it all still holds true and does nothing
to establish objective reality for 'love' or 'God'.

[Orrex]

32. Yowza--Buffy advocates human-on-vole romance!

"Sex stimulates the release of vasopressin and oxytocin in people, as well as voles"

Anyway, I've met Bob and Mary, and I say that their whole relationship is a sham.

[NMMNG]

81. Don't use my cited research to support your kinky fantasies

:P

[Orrex]

91. Well then maybe you should stop posting such spicy research

Hubba hubba!

[varkam]

115. Exactly! Stop tempting us Buffy!

:)

[NMMNG]

153. Animal research has been done for ages

It's not my fault if your mind is in the gutter. :P

[varkam]

7. I don't think 'belief' has anything to do with it.

The first time that I was in love, it wasn't a matter of faith. The evidence was how I felt. I thought about that person all the time, wanted to be with them, loved it when they smiled or laughed. I was feeling and doing all of the things that people traditionally associate with the abstraction of love - so I took that to mean that I was probably in love.

In my personal opinion, that is not the same as belief or faith in God. Love, or being in love for that matter, makes no wild claims regarding the state of the world, the history of the universe, or ethical laws. It is an emotional response that is drive by dopaminergic (among other neurotransmitters) reward pathways in the brain. And, as Buffy rightly pointed out, love can be quantified whereas the notion of God cannot - which is why any comparison of the two in epistemological terms is fundamentally flawed, IMO.

And by the way, welcome to DU and the R/T forums! :toast:

[Evoman]

10. Love is not metaphysical

There are actual chemical forces involved. There are also evolutionary advantages for familial "love".

This atheist believes in it (or rather KNOWS that it exists)...and quite likes it too ;)

[beam me up scottie]

14. Excellent point.

Those goddamn scientists.:freak:

[stangoodwin]

16. If “love is not metaphysical

show me the evidence of the experience of love that is not immediately subject to exact mirroring by the evidence for the experience of God.

“There are actual chemical forces involved.”

There “are actual chemical forces involved” in religious/mystical experience

“There are also evolutionary advantages for familial "love".”

There are also individual and social “evolutionary advantages” from belief in ‘God’ or a uniting religious cosmology.

”This atheist believes in it (or rather KNOWS that it exists)...and quite likes it too”

The deist believes in ‘IT’ (or rather KNOWS that ‘IT’ exists)...and quite likes ‘IT’ too”

Come on folks…..no one has said *anything* re the claimed experience of ‘love’
that cannot also be said of the claimed experience of ‘God’.

[beam me up scottie]

18. Well I'm glad that's settled.

:eyes:

All this science has made me drowsy, I'm off to bed.

[Evoman]

19. I did below, but I will again.

Love is a feeling. So if you feel love, that is proof that it exists. Anger is a feeling. So if you feel anger, or have been around someone who is angry, that is proof it exists.

GOD IS NOT A FEELING.

So if someone feels that god exists, that is proof that they feel god exists. But it is not proof that god REALLY exists.

I can feel I am the smartest person in the world. But although my feelings are true, that does not ACTUALLY mean that I am the smartest person in the world. I feel that the government put a chip in my brain. That does not mean that there is an actual chip in my head.

Do you get the difference?

On edit: If you want to argue that god is nothing but a feeling that believers have, then I would be completely willing to accept gods existence. Lol.

[stangoodwin]

22. I admire your certainty

But so far we have "love is a feeling", "love is a biochemical activity", "love is certain behaviors",
and "love is a quantifiable set of actions"

There is no more consensus on what love is than what God is.

"So if you feel love, that is proof that it exists"

So, if Bruce falls in the lake, and I 'feel' that I hate Bruce for this (and all his prior) stupidities,if I jump in to save Bruce it could not be 'love' because I wasn't 'feeling' it?

"if you feel love, that is proof that it exists"

Sorry....don't buy that argument and can't sell it to the Thargians ;-)
I have never 'felt' 'homicidal rage' and I am not relying on feeling it as "proof" of its existence.

Besides...it is not a matter of the 'individual' being convinced by their experience/'feeling'
....the question was and remains how could you convey or 'prove' the reality of your experience to another.

"Do you get the difference?"

Yes....have from the outset...do you get the difference between the certainty ("proof") of individual experience/feeling and conveying that certainty/proof to someone who has not and does not share your experience/feeling.

"If you want to argue that god is nothing but a feeling that believers have, then I would be completely willing to accept gods existence."

No, I want to argue, as I have that, regardless of the nature of the 'experience' of love, the 'biochemistry of love', the literature of 'love' or the acts and behaviors claimed to reflect 'love'
you are left in each and every realm with direct and equal parallels to belief in 'God'...and certainly no more or less evidence.

[Evoman]

24. Let me try again.

Because your obviously being obtuse.

How do you know anger exists? You feel anger or have seen an angry person. How do you know homicidal rage? Because you have either felt it, or seen examples of it. How do you know love? Because you have either felt it, or seen examples of it in behaviour. How do you know a ball bounces? Because you have seen it bounce, or you have seen other balls bounce.

If the thargians can see unique behaviour/chemistry/brainwaves of two people who love each other, and those people define that behaviour/chemistry/brainwaves as LOVE, then that is all the proof that is needed. If you Thargians have never seen or experienced a bouncing ball, you would show them the ball, point at what the ball does when it hits concrete, and call it BOUNCE. They may not be able to feel love, or they may not have the appendages or ability to bounce a ball, but they can see it. Whether or not they believe in love after seeing two people behave in that manner, or believe that a ball is bounching, despite seeing a ball bounce, is their problem.

God on the other hand, is usually defined as an actual, existing being with certain properties. Just like a unicorn is defined as an actual, existing horse-like creature with certain properties. If the thargians asked you to show them god, how would you do that. You can't point at god any more than you can point at a unicorn. God is not a feeling. Unicorns are not a feeling. They are actual THINGS.

Look, I understand the argument your making. I really do. But I also think its absurd, because by making the arguments your are, your basically saying we can't prove anything. Really...I could use the same argument: How would you prove to the Thargians unicorns exist. How do you prove to the thargians anger exists. Should atheist believe in anger? Should atheists believe in sadness? Should atheist believe in PAIN? How would you prove to the Thargians what PAIN is if they don't have any inkling of what it is? You should them pain receptors....oh no, thats not enough. You show them a person whincing after you stab them in the face...oh no, thats now enough.

You see the problem? I may be an atheist, but I sure do believe in pain because I've been in pain. I also believe in love, because I've been in love. Both have chemical components, both have associated behaviours, and both have a quantifiable set of actions

[stangoodwin]

30. "Unicorns are not a feeling. They are actual THINGS."

Thank you.......I will treasure that information ;-)


"How do you know anger exists?"...snip...."Because you have either felt it, or seen examples of it in behavior."

Please....one emotion/experience at a time..."How do you know love exists"?- "either felt it, or seen examples of it".....The "felt it" has been repeatedly responded to...I am not questioning or challenging that 'subjective reality'....I am asking how that experience/feeling/subjective reality is conveyed to others....if by "seen examples" then give 'example' of what you have 'seen' and what convinces you it

"see unique behavior/chemistry/brainwaves of two people who love each other, and those people define that behavior/chemistry/brainwaves as LOVE, then that is all the proof that is needed."

You seriously wish to contend that such technology exists to reveal what you describe?
'Buffy' has just asserted that I am "denying science"....I am certainly denying the 'science'
you describe above exists.

You make reference to "unique behavior", behavior "these people define as love" and "people behave in that manner"..... but you don't actually describe the behavior.
Please excuse me if I am not interested in the hypothetical 'love' identifying technology (or the bouncing ball)....I would very much appreciate knowing what these "behaviors" might be.

"God on the other hand, is usually defined as an actual, existing being with certain properties. Just like a unicorn...."

Physical "properties"?
Like Unicorns?

;-)

"Look, I understand the argument your making. I really do."

Pray forgive if on the basis of your Unicorn observation I hold grave doubts ;-)

"its absurd, because by making the arguments your are, your basically saying we can't prove anything."

No...not at all...I'm asking by what criteria you would 'prove' something as ephemeral and intangible and difficult to define as 'love' and I'm asking you to consider the inherent difficulties in the light of attempting to 'prove' 'God'.
There are many things that are subject to 'objective scientific proof'....'love' is not one of them, 'God' is not one of them, Unicorns don't rate either ;-)

"Should atheist believe in anger? Should atheists believe in sadness? Should atheist believe in PAIN? How would you prove to the Thargians what PAIN is if they don't have any inkling of what it is?"

Good fair parallel questions....my answer would be-
*Not* through repeating "It's a feeling"!- "It's an emotion"!- "It's a subjective human experience the reality of which is 'proven' by our having it....Here are the MRI's you dumb Thargians"!

I would suggest that the 'best' (if not the only) way to effectively convey the reality of a deep emotional human experience is through story/parable/analogy.
(The 'raw facts/statistics' of slavery persuaded no one and provoked no 'empathy', 'love', 'compassion'
but the 'story' of the slaves suffering did).

You may not be able to establish 'proof' by such means...but that does not mean 'truth' can not be established.

[Evoman]

62. This may be the dumbest thread I've ever responded to.

I'm literally in awe here. I can't believe what I'm reading.

I'm going to try one more time. ONE MORE TIME.

LOVE is no more metaphysical than a ball of yarn, physical pain, or a cat. Do you get that? If your stupid thargians can't understand pain or feel no emotion, the best one can do is explain it to them. If they could build a machine that allows them into your mind, you could explain to them.

Does sight exist? Yes it does. If you try to explain it to a blind man, he would not really understand. But you could let him feel your eyes, you could tell him about optical receptors, you could tell him about images. Or you could challenge him to a fight, and beat him up to prove you have some sense he doesn't. I'm sure that there are no blind people on Earth who refuse to believe that sight exists.

Love, by definition, is a feeling. When you are either lusting, or have a familial closeness to someone, we call that feeling Love. Its simply a name we gave that feeling. THATS ALL IT IS. A name for something we feel. Their is no "love force" external to our mind. Love is not an object or person out in space. We have a feeling, and we simply gave it a name. There is nothing particularly special about it.

Now then, some people feel a "feeling" that god exists. That feeling we can call Faith or Awe or Humility or whatever you want. These feelings exist. If the thargians were capable of feelings, then you might be able to explain it to them. However, god is not a feeling: to explain or prove him, you have to actually give proof of existence. As much as you made fun of my unicorn example, it is the same thing. If I asked you to prove to me the existence of a blue ball, a gopher, a unicorn, or god, if they existed, you should probably be easily able to find proof.


I am not sure how your not understanding this. Your not making any sort of coherent argument at all.

[trotsky]

38. Both "love" and "God" exist only within the mind...

of the person experiencing them. So yeah, they are very much alike.

[BurtWorm]

43. Are you saying God is just a feeling? Not a deity/creator? Just a chemical

sensation?

I might be able to buy that...

[trotsky]

37. Sums up where I stand on it too.

The thing I like to say is that sure there are parallels between love and gods. Both exist only in the minds of those experiencing them. My love for my wife and kids, while very real to me, and motivating me to do very real things, does not make the love exist outside my mind. It will die when I die.

[beam me up scottie]

11. WTF are you talking about?

Are you equating faith in deities with an emotion so that you can use it to "prove" that non-belief in deities isn't logical and/or justify your own belief?

That's as ridiculous as dubya declaring a war on an emotional state.

How about arguing one logical fallacy at a time?

[BurtWorm]

112. If you believe in green, you must believe in god.

If you believe in emptiness, you must believe in god.

If you believe in indigestion, you must believe in god.

(I got a million nonsequiturs to justify faith in god!)

[Evoman]

17. Another point....I believe in both feelings.

I believe that people feel love. Because love is a feeling, simply feeling it is proof enought that it exists.

I believe that people feel god exist. But since god is not a feeling, simply feeling that god exists, is not actual proof god exists.

Its kinda like this. I believe the anger feeling exists. I've felt anger...therefore, anger must exist.

I also feel that I am the best looking motherfucker on this planet. However, just because I feel it, it does not mean it is true.

Capiche?

[stangoodwin]

26. Belief in feeling substantiates nothing

"I believe that people feel love. Because love is a feeling, simply feeling it is proof enough that it exists."

That's great, I was 'happy' for all the folk 'feeling the love' a while back....I'm happy for them still...I "believe" I and "know" I am *happy* for you all because I "feel" this happiness and that is "proof" for *ME*.

But it's no 'proof' for you or anyone else.

There are folk who believe 'happiness' is a delusion....a biochemical aberration.
There are folk who believe love is a 'lie' and *their* feeling is *their proof*.
There are folk who claim to 'feel' love, happiness, God and they're faking it.

How, objectively, can anyone distinguish these claimed "feelings"?


"I believe that people feel god exist....."

Some people claim they "feel God" and "feel His presence"...others claim Revelation from or to hear God.
Some people claim they "feel love" and "feel loves presence...others claim to speak or hear love.

There is no distinction in the experience.

"But since god is not a feeling,..."

I have seen nothing in these posts that narrows 'love' down to an 'experienced feeling' (and nothing that refutes the potential for an 'act of love' devoid of corresponding feeling.

In like manner I have seen nothing that precludes 'God' being known/experienced other than as a "feeling" (No, I'm not saying that's what 'God' is....but it may well be that the nearest folk come to God is through 'feeling')

" simply feeling that god exists, is not actual proof god exists."

It is to the person "feeling" it just as your "feeling" of 'love' is "proof" to you of loves existence.

In both cases there is ample room for self deception...the 'love' you feel may be no more than ataraxis- the excitement of possessing something new.

In both cases the problem and question remains...is there any way that your personal "feeling/proof"
can be conveyed convincingly to those who do not share/feel it.

[Orrex]

31. Depends what your definition of "love" is

If you mean a force or power external to the nervous systems in which it is experienced, then I would say that I do not accept the likelihood of its existence because there is no evidence of it.

If you mean an emotional state resulting from neurochemical phenomena within the nervous systems in which they occur, then I'd say that the evidence is pretty strong that such an emotional state does exist. AFAIC, I have no reason to doubt it.

on edit: By the way, welcome to DU!
:hi:

[stangoodwin]

35. We haven't got a definition yet...but we know it's not a Unicorn

Thanks for the welcome.

"a force or power external to the nervous systems"..."no evidence of it".

So you wouldn't go along with-
"Love is the most great law that ruleth this mighty and heavenly cycle, the unique power that bindeth together the divers elements of this material world, the supreme magnetic force that directeth the movements of the spheres in the celestial realms."

huh?
;-)


"emotional state resulting from neurochemical phenomena within the nervous systems"..."no reason to doubt it."

Nor I......but I am left wondering if this "emotional state" results from "neurochemical phenomena" or if certain stimuli 'results' in "neurochemical phenomena" that we experience as an "emotional state".

ie does the trigger stimuli matter...or is any 'love' felt/experienced as 'love' still 'love' if the
trigger stimuli was false?

What intrigues me most of all is the propensity of posts that ignore the potential for an 'act of love'
or that postulate love as 'quantifiable' in accord with a range of unidentified behaviors.

Nobody seems willing to consider the possibility of an 'act of love' that is devoid of any wiz bang neurochemical emotional 'feeling'........and my MRI is lighting up the sad zones :-(

[Orrex]

40. I should state something outright

It's my view that the entirety of the "self" is a function of neurochemistry, and that there is no evidence of an actual "mind" or "soul" separate from the brain with which it is associated. From that perspective, it does not diminish "love" to say that "love" is likewise a neurochemical response--if anything, it actually elevates love by putting on equal footing, so to speak, with the person who's experiencing it.

As far as that stuff about "movements of the spheres" and whatnot, I think that it's a pleasant metaphor lacking any real descriptive power, and it definitely shouldn't be taken as a literal explanation.

I am left wondering if this "emotional state" results from "neurochemical phenomena" or if certain stimuli 'results' in "neurochemical phenomena" that we experience as an "emotional state".

That's a reasonable question, though I confess that I don't see a great deal of difference between the two choices you present. It seems clear to me that the neurochemical phenomena do result from stimuli--both internal and external--and that we experience these phenonmena as emotions.

I don't doubt that an "act of love" is possible, but I don't see that it entails "love" as a force or phenomenon separate from the perceptions of those involved with it. As an act of love, Bob might give Mary a dozen roses, and she might respond by attaching emotional significance to those flowers, but if Bob and Mary had happened upon those same flowers in a dumpster, I suspect that neither of them would likely find the flowers to be part of an act of love--at least not one relevant to them absent some interaction separate from the dumpster-finding.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you--could you provide an example, even hypothetically, of an act of love devoid of wiz bang emotional feeling?

[stangoodwin]

42. It's 1 30 am and I've a train to catch at 6

I appreciate what you have written Orrex and intend to reply.

Back in 24 hours or so.

[ironbark]

160. Acts of love

would certainly not entail "a force or phenomenon separate from the perceptions of those involved with it"....But an 'act of love' could entail overriding the prevailing predominant emotion.

The notion obliges the consideration of the potential to 'act' in beneficial (loving) way to someone who is hated.....Or...to love,adhere to and act upon a principle that over rides the the loving emotion felt.
Reporting a loved one who has committed murder or preforming a 'mercy killing' might both fit this category.

What I am proposing is that there are many much beloved and 'loving' 'principles' that people can and will transcend their 'emotions' (love or hate) to adhere to.

Jumping into a raging torrent to save a strangers child would I suggest be "an act of love devoid of wiz bang emotional feeling" (setting aside the feeling of 'fear/trepidation')

[Goblinmonger]

34. If you want to argue

that god is an incorrect emotional response to stimuli we experience, then I am fine with that. Absent that, your arguments are an illogical, fallacious pile of crap.

You are forcing people into a false analogy on a couple levels. First you are asking for physical proof of an emotion--and even though you thought you were clever in this regard, Buffy smacked you down by providing it. Second, you are then making the giant leap from "proving" love to "proving" god exists. One is an emotion one is not.

Unless that isn't your point. If your point is that we experience some of the things that happen around us, don't know how to explain it, and then create a "god" to explain all those things and feel all squishy and warm when we think about our created mythology, then you aren't being illogical. And I would agree with you. Problem is, that doesn't prove that God actually exists, it just proves it is an incorrect emotional response to stimuli. Just like when people "love" the people that beat the shit out of them on a daily basis.

You're new here, but let me give you a word of advice. Don't bite off more than you can chew. So far you have brought nothing new to the table. We have been through these fallacies a million times since I have been here and probably a couple million more before I came to DU. Hang out. Have some conversations. Lurk for a bit and see what has been discussed. Go ahead and jump into it and debate things with people. But this little false analogy you put forth was obvious, lame, and easily refuted.

BTW, I'm not interested in arguing the "science" of this with you. That has been done and you have only responded by being Captain Obtuse. This post is only looking at the logic of your argument, so don't lose focus.

on edit: stooped typos.

[stangoodwin]

41. If straw man makes you happy

"If you want to argue that god is an incorrect emotional response to stimuli we experience, then I am fine with that".

I have no doubt you would be happy contending with your own straw man.
But it says nothing to my question or arguement.

I thought you might get further than the first hurdle-
"First you are asking for physical proof of an emotion"

No...I'm not....go find the post in which I asked for "physical proof of an emotion"
Failing that....stand in your own "crap" ad hom.

"and even though you thought you were clever in this regard"

Psychic powers......admirable.

"Buffy smacked you down by providing it"

Buffy provided an MRI labeled 'love' which is as useless as an 'MRI' labeled 'God'...certain areas of the brain light up in response to certain stimuli. So what. One person is 'experiencing' love another 'experiencing' God.

"Second, you are then making the giant leap from "proving" love to "proving" god exists. One is an emotion one is not".

You state as if it was an established certainty that "One is an emotion one is not".
The problem with that is that you, Buffy and all the preceding respondents have refused to consider or respond to the potential for an 'act of love' that has no corresponding "emotion".

"Unless that isn't your point."

It's not...but don't let the facts get in the way of a fine venting rant ;-)

"If your point is that...."

'Snip' stuff that bore no relation to my 'point'.

"Problem is, that doesn't prove that God actually exists, it just proves..."

That you know how to set up and knock down your own straw man.
If you wish to argue against my pov...then at least do me the courtesy of not inventing it for me.

"Don't bite off more than you can chew."

That task will be a lot easier if you don't put your words in my mouth ;-)

"been through these fallacies a million times..."

And still left unprepared? ;-)

"But this little false analogy you put forth was obvious, lame, and easily refuted."

By MRI's, a "courtship" video and the declaration that "Unicorns are THINGS"?

And you want to devote an entire post to straw man misrepresentation and then do a victory dance?

Spare me.

" I'm not interested in arguing the "science" of this with you."

Clearly.

"That has been done and you have only responded by being Captain Obtuse."

Your welcome to point out the aspects you found "obtuse".
I hope you quote/reflect something I have actualy said.


"This post is only looking at the logic of your argument, so don't lose focus."

"My arguement" was lost from sight with your opening gambit-
"First you are asking for physical proof of an emotion"

Go for it, slam me, slap me, expose the "crap"....start with the post/passage
in which I ask for "physical proof of an emotion".

[Goblinmonger]

44. Two things to comment on.

Failing that....stand in your own "crap" ad hom.

Whoa. Careful with trying to identify fallacies, you might sprain something. A quick primer on ad homs.
1. Calling your argument a pile of crap (which I did) = not an ad hom.
2. Calling you a pile of crap (which I never did) = not an ad hom.
3. Calling anyone who would make an argument like you made a pile of crap (which I never did) = an ad hom.

It is only an ad hominem fallacy if I replace the person for the argument and then use names to downgrade the person in an attempt then to downgrade the argument by the relation I made between argument and person. Calling your argument crap would definitionally not be an ad hom because it isn't, well, "to the person" as the translation of ad hominen would require. Keep trying, though, we only learn through practice.

If you wish to argue against my pov...then at least do me the courtesy of not inventing it for me.

OK, my bad. I guess I got it wrong. So here we go, please state your argument for me in a straightforward manner and I will address it. Don't tell me to look above though, either, because there is not straightforward statement of your argument. I only see two things:
1. A metaphor/analogy/narrative about your "alien" friends. The problem with metaphor is that it can be misinterpreted and is therefore not straightforward. Some might say that it is also likely that the person making the analogy could change the meaning during an arugment to suit their needs.
2. A lot of "that's not what I'm saying." Telling me that something isn't your argument is helpful, but does not really do much for telling me what your argument actually is.

So, it's up to you. I won't make anymore claims about what your argument is until I hear a straightfoward statement of your argument from you. Then we will have well-grounded goalposts.

[Finder]

39. A different perspective.

Love is a biochemical response and others have provided proof to back up the assertation. It is a response to an object or person.

Loving a tangible person or object is different(as to intended result) than loving a deity although the biochemical reaction in the brain is similar.

Many people think they are in love with actors/actresses although self-delusion is required since the object of that emotion is not going to return the love in a tangible way.

Star Stalkers often "believe" or "feel" they are in an actual relationship with the object of their emotion. Followers of religion "believe" or "feel" they are in a relationship with the object of their emotion(chosen deity).

[Goblinmonger]

45. A point that hasn't been made yet.

Why the dig on Scientologists? Why do you think that Scientology is somehow "less probable" than the Christian "god"? Especially since your little narrative includes alien lifeforms.

[Silent3]

46. This will probably be as effective as banging my head against a wall...

...but I'll throw myself into the fray anyway. :)

I will ask you some questions. I will also forge ahead with some assumed answers. No need to get up in arms that you're being misrepresented! Just point out where you think I've assumed incorrectly, and I can try to pick up from there again later.

Your point is basically this, is it not? "If you believe in love, but don't believe in God, you're not being consistent because the evidence of either is just as good as the other."

It should be pretty apparent that (1), the above is what many people think you're saying, even if it's not what you mean, and that clarification on your part is therefore in order, or (2) we do get what you mean, but we just aren't buying the similarity between belief in God and belief in love that you're apparently promoting.

Do you care to make any special distinction between love and any other emotional state or physical sensation when it comes to "believing in" the existence of such things? Hate, boredom, nausea, chill, anger are all the same in respect to the case you're making, or is love different? I will assume you don't want to make any such distinction simply because I can't see how such a distinction would be relevant or justified.

Let's also clarify what we mean by saying we "believe in" a thing. I'm going take "believe in" simply to mean to speak of a thing, and act as if a thing, is real, as if the thing has some sort of objective existence, either in the physical world or as a commonly recognized mental state or activity which can at least, in theory, be subject to some sort of external verification. There is nothing necessarily devotional in this concept of belief, just a recognition of existence.

If you want to question (and I don't think you do) the ability to speak about any sensation or emotion in an objective fashion, if it's fundamental to your argument that anything in the realm of sensation and emotion inherently defies objective discussion, then this very conversation can't take place, or at best this conversation will send us down some painful semantic rat hole I'd rather not enter.

So, I will assume that you have to accept that love and other emotions and sensations can be discussed objectively. If I we take that route, however, I think you'd have to start to see that your argument (or a version which includes what I think are some very natural, perhaps even necessary, assumptions) is already getting into trouble.

An emotion, the experience of a physical sensation, the more complex mental activity of a belief -- these are all things which can, and often must be, considered apart from their causes. Love is not the same as the causes of love. Belief in God is not the same thing as God. Both states of mind are capable of being mistaken or illusory, both can exist, can be real, without the perceived "target" (the deity, the person loved) of those states of mind likewise being real.

I don't see what can be left standing of the argument you're trying to make. I'm pretty sure at this point you think I'm misunderstanding you, not getting what you're trying to say, beating up straw men, etc., but I've gone over this ground as well I can by myself and can't construct anything from what you've saying, trying from as many angles as I can, that holds up to much scrutiny.

[Zebedeo]

47. Your point is valid,

of course. You have now experienced the reaction that many believers receive on this forum from the unbelieving multitudes - strawman arguments, personal ridicule and profanity, implicit or explicit declarations that you are stupid, irrational, obtuse and hate science, etc., etc., etc.

So far, not one poster has seriously addressed your point or provided any objective proof of the existence of love that would be over and above the kind of proof that could be provided for the existence of God.

For those of us who have been here a while, the responses you have received are part of an all-too-familiar pattern. While there are several nice and intelligent people among the posters on this forum, one inescapable truth is that nonbelievers can be just as dogmatic and defensive as believers, and when you question any aspect of their fundamental world-view, they are likely to lash out in predictable ways.

Anyway, welcome to DU and thank you for your provocative and insightful post.

[Finder]

48. I feel I addressed his point.

God/Deity is the object not the emotion/reaction.

Love is what we call the emotion/reaction.

[Zebedeo]

51. I said:

"So far, not one poster has seriously addressed your point or provided any objective proof of the existence of love that would be over and above the kind of proof that could be provided for the existence of God."

If you dispute my statement, please provide objective proof of the existence of love that is over and above the kind of proof that could be provided for the existence of God.

Both love and God sometimes stimulate brain activity in the person thinking about God/love. So brain activity is not proof of love, any more than it is proof of God.

Many people profess to have felt love. Many people profess to have felt God. So professing to have felt love is not any greater proof of the existence of love, than professing to have felt God's presence is proof of the existence of God.

How would you OBJECTIVELY PROVE the existence of love to the aliens referred to in the OP? They are asking you for objective proof, not subjective descriptions of feelings.

[Goblinmonger]

90. Oh come on.

"They are asking you for objective proof, not subjective descriptions of feelings."

See, here's the thing. LOVE IS A FUCKING FEELING. Don't you get it. You are saying that descriptions and MRIs of brain activity about a feeling are not enough but that is what we are proving is a feeling. Now God is not a feeling. God is a THING. You would not prove the existence of a thing in the same way as a feeling.

The only question left in my mind is whether you are deliberately being this obtuse or if this is really too far above you for you to grasp.

[Finder]

93. Love does not exist as an object...

it is a chemical response(emotion)stimulated by a person or object. Others have provided proof that the emotion/reaction exists. The object of the emotion can vary but is only beneficial if the object is tangible. The emotion causes us to nurture, protect, mate and is quite rational as a mode of survival of the species.

It can be argued that humans have a biological need to express this emotion(as well as others) since we constantly seem to have objects of affection whether tangible or not.

If we dug deeper(and many do)into the expression and/or degrees of the emotion like unconditional, unrequitted, obsessive, platonic, lust, etc. many problems in society could be understood better and therefore erradicated.

[Silent3]

49. Why not add some substance...

...instead of just cheerleading? I see you've made no effort to respond to my late post, or any of the many earlier posts which seem to raise some damned fine points in need of answers.

[Zebedeo]

52. You neatly avoid the issue

by characterizing love as nothing but a mental state. Love PRODUCES a mental state, but it is more than that. Love has a reality external to the mind. Since it seems that you are disposed to characterize love as nothing but a mental state, let's look at another example: virtue.

How do you objectively prove the existence of virtue to the Thargians?

[Silent3]

54. Not defining something as you do is "neatly avoiding" it?

I simply reject the premise that love "has a reality external to the mind". If that is the OP's premise too, it is so far an unspoken one. Now, if I did happen to believe in love as some sort of invisible "power" or "force" out there on its own, some kind of "spiritual energy" or what not, believing in that while rejecting God would come closer to some sort of contradictory state of affairs. (I could argue that wouldn't even be outright contradiction either, but no sense going off on that tangent.)

If the OP wants to demonstrate that people who "believe" in love, but don't believe in God, are self-contradictory, then he has to show this alleged contradiction arising out of the definitions of the terms "God" and "love" used by the Godless Lovers, not take the rough form of the Godless Lover's position, back fit his own definitions into that position, and then go, "Ah, hah! Gotcha!".

Also, if you'll kindly notice before getting up on your high horse about how the OP was being treated, I put it this right out there already: "Do you care to make any special distinction between love and any other emotional state or physical sensation when it comes to "believing in" the existence of such things?" -- giving the OP complete opportunity to clarify, if needed, any reason to treat love as different from simply a state of mind.

[Silent3]

98. Just so I'm not leaving your question unanswered...

How do you objectively prove the existence of virtue to the Thargians?

If I took the word "virtue" as I imagine you mean it, some sort of quintessential force of goodness or what not, I wouldn't bother trying to prove the existence of that kind of virtue to anyone, as I don't believe in such a thing myself.

All I'd do is say, "I have this word 'virtue'. Here's my definition of the word. Here are some examples of what I'd describe as instances of virtue, and some examples of acts I'd describe as virtuous." They'd either get my drift or not. They'd either find the word to be a useful conceptual category or not.

[Goblinmonger]

50. Nowhere

have you or the OP addressed the point that of the two things being discussed (love and God), one is an emotion and one is a thing (according to those that believe in God). There is "objective" and observable proof of the emotion/reaction-to-stimulus that we call love. There is no "objective" proof of the thing that you call God. Now there is probably similar brain reactions when thinking about God, but certainly you are not arguing that thinking about a "thing" makes it real. If that were the case, everytime I read a novel, that which the novel is about becomes real.

And please identify the strawmen that were made. The OP is vague and when someone infers the argument being made, the OP just says that is not it. Perhaps the inferrence is wrong, but most of them seem pretty reasonable.

And where is the personal ridicule? So we can't call someone who is irrational and obtuse, irrational and obtuse. Kind of a short leash you want to put us on (though I've known that all along).

I don't know if the OP "hates" science, but certainly likes to ignore it.

Looks like you found a new buddy.

[Zebedeo]

53. Strawmen identified

Strawman #1: "you are asking for physical proof of an emotion"

Strawman #2: "If your point is that we experience some of the things that happen around us, don't know how to explain it, and then create a "god" to explain all those things and feel all squishy and warm when we think about our created mythology, . . . that doesn't prove that God actually exists . . ."

The OP never made either of these contentions. You set them up as strawmen, and then argued against them instead of addressing the actual points of the OP.

[Silent3]

55. There's a difference between creating "straw men"...

...and desperately trying to make sense of something that seems like a poor argument with a lot of unstated presumptions, and trying as best as one can to argue against all that's there to clearly address.

You toss the term "straw man" around way too easily. Hint: When some one uses words like "if you mean...", showing pretty clearly showing that they're injecting their own thoughts to try to flesh something out as best as they can when what's in front of the is missing bits or doesn't make sense, THAT'S NOT CREATING A STRAW MAN.

You write: "You set them up as strawmen, and then argued against them instead of addressing the actual points of the OP."

What, pray tell, are "the actual points of the OP", since you in your wisdom seem to see so much there in the original post that hardly anyone else sees. And please, be generous, instead of trickling out a little bit about the eternal reality of love and what not... you seem to think you "get it", so lay it all out for us in your own words and show us the great logic so many of us are apparently blind to.

[Zebedeo]

56. I don't presume to speak for the OP

However, I felt that s/he made a strong point that none of the posters who have responded in this thread have offered any objective proof of the existence of love over and above the kind of proof that could also be offered for the existence of God.

Thinking about love and God both produce detectable reactions in the human brain, and many people describe feeling both love and the presence of God. These two methods of proof apply equally to both love and God.

None of the atheist posters, or any other posters, has come up with any OBJECTIVE PROOF of the existence of love that would not also be proof of the existence of God.

[trotsky]

57. Zeb, I know you're not that dense.

Love is an emotion.

Your god is supposedly a distinct entity that created the universe, and heck, even love itself.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "comparing apples to oranges"? Well, there you go.

The "objective proof" of the existence of love is the indication, by hormones, brain scans, etc. that the person is feeling the emotion known as love. It means that love exists inside that person's brain - we can't say it has meaning anywhere else. Are you OK with putting your god on the same level as love, then? The detectable feelings or emotions caused by thinking about a god merely prove that the person is experiencing a god inside their own minds, but the god itself doesn't exist?

[Zebedeo]

59. You avoid the issue by defining love so narrowly

Love is not just a state of mind. It produces a state of mind, but it is much more. It is the first fruit of the Holy Spirit.

You seem to be intent on characterizing love as nothing but the firing of neurons in a brain. If this is so, it should be possible to build a computer that loves. Do you think this is possible?

[trotsky]

60. You've redefined love to make it more than the OP suggests.

There is nothing in the OP about it being a "fruit" of a "holy spirit." You are approaching the topics from your own personal theological point of view, and then criticizing everyone else because they don't see it the same way.

I'll answer your question by saying I don't know. I really don't. It might be possible to one day create an artificial brain that can feel emotions, including love. But based on the exponential progress of science over the past few centuries, I don't think it can be reasonably ruled out.

Now how about you answer some of my questions? Is love (as laid out in the OP) the same as, or different than, your god?

[Zebedeo]

65. Different.

But that's not the point. The OP's point is to ask whether there is any way to demonstrate the existence of love through objective, verifiable evidence other than the kind of evidence that can also be used to demonstrate the existence of God. So far, no one has offered any method of demonstrating the existence of love that could not also be used to demonstrate the existence of God.

As for the computer question, I can categorically state that no computer will ever love anyone. By its very nature, love is not something of which computers are capable. Computers are theoretically capable of astounding computational achievements, but they can not love any more than any other inanimate object can. So love is definitely not just a pattern of firing of neurons.

[Evoman]

67. What about some sort of feeling machine.

We have learned quite a bit about the brains, and how neurons and chemicals work. So it is conceivable that in the future, we may invent a machine that allows others to feel as you do. Maybe the Thargians could build a machine, by which they could connect to a person in love, and feel what they feel. Instant proof. Because love is a feeling, and we feel love, we know love exists.

On the other hand, could we build a machine that shows god to be true. Maybe some sort of machine that lets god talk to us, or a planar telescope that allows us to see into heaven. Is it conceivable? No, you would probably admit it isn't possible.

Lol..probably because God doesn't exist.

[Zebedeo]

72. LOL - Of course we can see into heaven

It happens every day, when people die and go there. Even on this side of the great divide, it is conceivable that one day we will be able to scientifically detect the next world. It could turn out that it is simply another space-time dimension. Certainly it is conceivable that we will be able to hear from God. Shoot, that's already happened, and they put it in a book. Happens to be the most popular book in history.

[Goblinmonger]

78. God wrote Ulysses?

Shit, I thought it was James Joyce. Oh, you said most popular. I thought you said BEST book in history.

You really think God spoke to the people that wrote the bible? Do you eat shellfish?

[Zebedeo]

100. Yes and yes.

Yes, the Bible is the inspired Word of God. You think some dude just made up all those "begats" for laughs? You think billions and billions of people throughout history are just dupes, and only you and your self-superior cadre are intellectually capable of understanding that the Bible is hogwash? Maybe get off your high horse some day and examine the question seriously. Could it be that the billions of people are right and you are wrong?

As for shellfish, check Mark 7:18-20:

18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") 20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.'

Whoops. Better do some reading outside atheist websites. You might learn something about the religion you love to bash.

[trotsky]

102. To answer your question,

Could it be that the billions of people are right and you are wrong?

Yes, it could be. The entire population on Earth once thought it was flat. Did the sheer number of people who thought that, make it so?

In addition, there are billions more non-Christians than there are Christians. Could it be that those billions are right and YOU are wrong?

By the way, this is a LOGICAL FALLACY. You know, the kind of thing you always accuse your opponents of doing when they stump you. The fallacy you're using this time is known as argumentum ad populum. Look it up sometime - but you might have to do some reading outside Christian apologist websites.

[Zebedeo]

105. Ironic

that you would accuse me of argumentum ad populum. You and your ilk use it all the time in posts claiming that because "most" scientists are nonbelievers, that means that religion is bunk.

Of course, you are deliberately mischaracterizing my post. I never said that the fact that there are billions of Christians means that Christianity is true. I simply asked whether Goblinmonger had ever stopped to consider whether it was possible that Christianity (believed in by billions around the world for centuries) is true, and that Goblinmonger's world-view (believed in by a tiny percentage of people, mostly in pampered modern societies and upper middle class social groups during the last 75 years) could be false.

[trotsky]

109. Oh yeah, my "ilk."

I don't recall ever stating that because "most scientists are nonbelievers", that religion is bunk. I came to that conclusion myself, and it wouldn't really matter to me how many people thought it. But that doesn't fit in with your stereotype of what atheists should be.

Of course it wasn't a mischaracterization, only an illumination of just how defective your reasoning was. Even with your backtracking, how about if I ask you, with billions MORE non-Christians than Christians (and certainly even more people who are not Christian as YOU define it), have you ever stopped to consider whether it's possible YOUR Christianity is false?

If that doesn't give you any reason to consider, why do you think it would give others pause in reverse?

[Zebedeo]

111. Yes, I have

with billions MORE non-Christians than Christians (and certainly even more people who are not Christian as YOU define it), have you ever stopped to consider whether it's possible YOUR Christianity is false?

Yes, I have stopped to consider the question. I find the arguments against Christianity to be unpersuasive, because they are contrary to the reality that I have observed and experienced.

[trotsky]

122. Just as I and billions of others have found Christianity lacking.

Many of us even having been fervent believers before realizing the truth.

So why do you disrespect others by assuming they've never "considered" your religion might be true?

[Zebedeo]

123. I don't assume that.

I asked the question. I didn't assume the answer was no.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

164. Wrong.

You didn't ask a question. You made a statement:

Maybe get off your high horse some day and examine the question seriously.

Which can mean nothing but that you DON'T think that atheists have examined your religion. You are assuming, and your own words give you away.

[Silent3]

103. Billions

Yes, the Bible is the inspired Word of God. You think some dude just made up all those "begats" for laughs?

Do you think that everything in the world which would otherwise seem a pointless, silly effort if not motivated by God must therefore be of God? If so, you've got a lot of Divine Scribbling to catch up on. :D

You think billions and billions of people throughout history are just dupes, and only you and your self-superior cadre are intellectually capable of understanding that the Bible is hogwash? Maybe get off your high horse some day and examine the question seriously. Could it be that the billions of people are right and you are wrong?

You think a billion plus Muslims are wrong, don't you? You think the billion plus Christians who take the Bible figuratively and metaphorically rather than literally are wrong, don't you?

How could even for a moment bother with anything as absurd as trying to play this a numbers game?

Whoops. Better do some reading outside atheist websites. You might learn something about the religion you love to bash.

All you've shown is that the Bible is inconsistent. Read one part, shellfish are bad. Read another part, it's all good. Or you can try to compromise on something silly, like that shellfish were an evil abomination up to sometime around 30 A.D., when that suddenly, magically changed.

[Goblinmonger]

116. Stop making such absurd suppositions.

I have let it be known numerous times on here that I was raised very strict Catholic attended a Catholic seminary for four years. My reading of the bible does not come from "atheist websites." I read the bible cover to cover my 10th grade year and again my senior year. Get off you high horse and stop thinking that because I am an atheist, I am unfamiliar with Christianity.

Yeah, I could be wrong. I'm not, but I could be. My version certainly holds up to logical, scientific, and objective testing while your version fails on all three. If it's a numbers game your hedging your bets on, though, you better dump your religion because more people disbelieve your religion than believe in it.

Secondly. That little bit in parentheses is NOT in the bible. That is someone's interpretation. Yours? I think it is academically dishonest for you to present it as you did, because that is not the "original" verse. Brackets would be the correct punctuation to indicate that something is not in the original. Lying is a sin, you know.

But, let's go with your interpretation. So people that ate shellfish 10 minutes before Jesus spoke those words are in hell but those that ate it 1 minute after he said it are OK? Or is it the publication date? Eating shellfish in 299CE is a trip to hell but 300CE is no problem? Give me a break. Your divinely inspired book is chock full of contradictions. If your god wrote it, he's a pretty shitty editor and might want to hire someone to cross-reference his writings for him so he doesn't make things so damned unclear.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goblinmonger]

149. Interesting story, that.

but before I mention it, I will check out the translation of Kaqarizwn that you refer to. That is new to me. That passage is not in the King James and is not in the Catholic bible. My apologies for accusing you of dishonesty on that passage.

I spent four years at a high school seminary. I read the bible in 10th grade in earnest to become a better catholic. It was the beginning of my journey to atheism (though I didn't realize that fully for a decade). After reading it all, the problems and inconsistencies caused a great deal of problems for me. My senior year, I read it again at the bequest of my spiritual advisor after I talked to him about my plans to not continue at the seminary. Didn't help.

Nice pun. That and the different translations are going to keep you on the fantasy team.

[Zebedeo]

152. No problem

I apparently must have been in a bad mood today, because three or four of my posts have been deleted. Sorry if I went over the line. Maybe it's the heat.

[SPKrazy]

131. This Was Actually Part Of The "Radicalism" Of Jesus

while it may seem like a discussion about shellfish

it is actually a deeper meaning message about "compassion" vs. the purity laws.

Jesus messages about compassion argue that it is more important than that which was considered to be the most important (to God) at that time, following purity laws.

to say that it was clean to eat shellfish was indeed a radical statement, that went along with the rest of the message of Jesus, that the purity laws (which were extremely exclusionary as they excluded to different degrees, gentiles, women, people who are ill, etc)

[Evoman]

85. LOL...I'm pretty sure God hasn't talked to anybody in my lifetime

Has he been talking to you Zeb? Have you seen any burning bushes lately? And I'md make a bet that god will never talk to anyone in the next 10 000 life times. Although, it would be interesting if someone could get to know god scientifically. Although..um...if scientists somehow could locate heaven in another ...ahem...dimension, wouldn't "Faith" become completely obsolete. Nobody would need faith anymore. Hey..and you know what would be realllly awesome. If we could make a space-ship that could break the dimensional barrier, and we could go get our loved one from the burning lake of fire. Cool. And gods judgement would be useless, cuz we could maybe just travel to heaven. Try keeping me out with the pearly gates when I have my Trillion Gigawatt Laser Cannon, St. Peter!

I bet if we did ever find god, it would be like Star Trek's Q. A whole race of Q's who just like to fuck around with other alien species and "judge" them.

[SPKrazy]

132. Oh Come On Evo

star trek's Q?

I bet if we did ever find god, it would be like Star Trek's Q. A whole race of Q's who just like to fuck around with other alien species and "judge" them.

[Evoman]

136. What?

All I'm saying is that if there is anything like god out there, it would probably be in the form of something that is not supernatural. The Q have all the god-like powers, but they are not supernatural creature. If picard was able to get his hands on them, I'm sure you could scientifically study the Q and the continuum.

Lol...have I just showed everybody what a big geek I am?

[SPKrazy]

137. I Like Star Trek

and the Q were cool and frightening at the same time

Who knows that there aren't beings that are more evolved and have abilities to travel and alter time, space, etc.

I don't think they are God.

And I have no idea if they exist.

I do believe that God exists.

[Evoman]

139. And I don't see any more evidence for God than for the Q.

At least the Q make some sort of sense. They aren't a paradox, because they are not omnipotent, nor are they omniscient. They are simply more complex...they did not create the universe. In fact, in one episode, they aluded to the fact that, with time, humans could eventually become "evolved" into something like the Q. Of course its all fiction.. I don't think its possible that humans will ever be more than chunks of meat. I also don't believe that there are Q out there, roaming the universe. But I believe in the natural world...there is no supernatural being.

[SPKrazy]

140. That's Fine

the nice thing is we don't have to agree

I'm a chunk of meat with a conscience, and I believe in God, and I believe that God is, and is in everything

[Evoman]

143. Just to clarify

I meant chunks of meat in the sense that I don't think we will ever become beings of energy, or anything like that. I didn't mean to imply you or people don't have a conscience.

[SPKrazy]

192. If Nothing Else

we'll at least feed the worms and the plants and our energy will live on in them

[charlie]

104. Second most popular book in history

Quotations of Chairman Mao. Toilet paper between small red covers. Popularity isn't necessarily a testament of quality.

[Zebedeo]

107. Best-selling and most widely distributed

"The Bible is the most widely distributed book in the world. Both Hebrew Scripture and the Christian Bible have been translated more times and into more languages — more than 2,100 languages in all — than any other book. It is said that more than five billion copies of the Bible have been sold since 1815, making it the best-selling book of all-time."

linky

How many languages has the little red book been translated into?

[charlie]

110. Couple dozen, maybe more

Sure, the Bible is the heavyweight in distribution, no one can dispute that. World-record measuring between the two tomes wasn't my point, though.

[Goblinmonger]

117. Nice working of stats

You need to include "Hebrew Scripture" in your stats? Why? That ain't your religion, homey. Jews are hell-bound in most mainstream christian sects.

Since popularity is the key for you, The Davinci Code must be true because that son-bitch is monster popular.

[Zebedeo]

118. Popularity is not the key, and Jews are not hellbound

And it's "homie," not "homey," teach.

The fact that the Bible is the most popular book of all time does not necessarily mean that it is true. However, it does mean that it is widely available, and refutes the notion that God never communicated with humanity. It happened. People wrote the events down, because of how remarkable and important they were. The book has become the most popular book in history. To remain willfully ignorant of these events is, well, . . . ignorant.

As for your statement that "Jews are hell-bound," it just ain't so:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3:28

[Goblinmonger]

119. You are claiming popularity.

Urban Dictionary lists both spellings as correct. Now, I would normally dismiss Urban Dictionary, but when we are talking about popular slang, it's a pretty good source. Nice attempt at proving me wrong about SOMETHING, but you failed again. Seriously, your slot on my theist fantasy team is seriously in jeopardy. I drafted you as the obvious pick when Inland stop showing up, but you are beginning to be a disappointment.

Just trying to go with your goalposts. Thanks for moving them again. Yet, you claim popularity does not prove it correct but then you state, "However, it does mean that it is widely available, and refutes the notion that God never communicated with humanity." So, popularity of the bible does prove the existence of God. Thanks for clearly that all up. And then you go so far as to claim that I am "ignorant" of god communicating with humanity through the bible. Yeah, right.

See, the key to your bible verse is in the last 5 words, "...all one in Christ Jesus." As long as you believe in Jesus, we are all equal. It DOES NOT SAY that all people are going to heaven. Just so I don't make assumptions, to which Christian sect do you belong? Maybe yours is one that doesn't believe in "non-believers" going to hell. I assume that isn't the case given your comments on here, but I could be wrong.

[Zebedeo]

121. Lutheran

Yes, all Jews are sinners. So are all Muslims, all Christians, all atheists, all Hindus, all Taoists, all pagans, all Zoroastrians, all animists, all Confucians, and all Buddhists.

Yet salvation is equally available to all of the above through Christ Jesus. That is what the New Testament teaches.

[Goblinmonger]

151. Sure it's available,

but die not believing and you are still a sinner, right?

Lutheran. My Catholic parents raised me to believe that you would be right next to the devil in the after life. Even the Lutherans have a vast range of sects. There are plenty of crazy=conservative Lutherans (Missouri and Wisconsin Synods come to mind) as well as many progressive sects.

[Zebedeo]

154. The important issue is not whether one dies a sinner

as I see it. The issue is whether one is redeemed or not. Redemption is freely available to all sinners. I will most assuredly die a sinner. However, I have faith that payment in full for my sins has already been rendered, and I will therefore be accounted righteous, though I have done nothing to deserve such favorable accounting.

"right next to the Devil," huh? Sheesh, I didn't know it was that bad. In fact, I thought Catholics believed this:

Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." (Catech 838)

catechism

[Name removed]

166. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SPKrazy]

141. But That Is A Literalist Interpretation

See, the key to your bible verse is in the last 5 words, "...all one in Christ Jesus." As long as you believe in Jesus, we are all equal. It DOES NOT SAY that all people are going to heaven. Just so I don't make assumptions, to which Christian sect do you belong? Maybe yours is one that doesn't believe in "non-believers" going to hell. I assume that isn't the case given your comments on here, but I could be wrong.

Paul was speaking to a specific church there, not to be confused with all humanity.

How do you know that he didn't mean that all are in Christ (whether they want to be or not?) Now there's a thought.

What if we are all God's, and s/he isn't petty enough to care whether you do or don't believe in order to have eternal life in a spiritual realm?

[Goblinmonger]

150. I would believe that Christ

may have meant it that way. Paul was too much of a prick, in my opinion, to have meant it that way.

A god that isn't petty enough to care is at least more appealing than the bitter sum-bitch of the old testament.

[SPKrazy]

188. I Sometimes Feel That Way About Paul Too

One thing about Paul that is often forgotten is that his letters were to specific churches in areas that had fledgling Christian groups.

He was trying to find ways to solidify them, and to break them away from their dominant cultures.

Some of his proscriptions are really simply designed to disrupt the old practices to bring the Christians together.

That being said, I still sometimes think he had to be kind of a prick to have said some of the things he said and to have held the views he had towards women, and the supposed views he had towards homosexuals. (although I'm not sure that we always understand Paul's views out of their original context in the way they were intended, for the audience they were intended for.)

[SPKrazy]

130. There Are People Throughout History

that have had glimpses into heaven

in that popular book, there are lots of examples of people who had experiences seeing into the spiritual realm.

I think all of the prophets did. Paul did. Jesus did. His apostles did to different degrees.

I would venture to say that I believe that people from many religions have had these same experiences as well.

[Zebedeo]

134. Absolutely

There is clearly a spiritual realm or realms other than the physical realm we currently inhabit. I can't think of any culture in human history that has not recognized this fact.

[ironbark]

162. People have had glimpses into heaven....

Certainly have...and Hell...in fact through the new neurological imaging equipment we can obtain the visualizations of both realms from MRI Mystics-

Hell is a grand banquet hall full of people and all their favorite food on the great feast table.
The occupants of hell cannot bend their arms at the elbows so they are all sticking their faces in the food or throwing it up in the air to catch in their mouth. It's a real mess.

Heaven is exactly the same scene right down to the elbows that won't bend.
But folk are picking up food for others and feeding them.

;-)

[trotsky]

167. The most that can be honestly said...

is that there are people throughout history who have CLAIMED to have glimpses into heaven. We don't know what they actually saw, or if what they saw was anything more than a hallucination.

[trotsky]

71. That most certainly is the point.

The two cannot be compared. One is an emotion, the other is purported to be an intelligent being that exists apart from human brains. But the "evidence" for each is an indicator that the concept is being experienced within a mind. There is no evidence that the concept itself is real i.e., exists outside the mind. If you had actually read and understood the posts in this thread, rather than once again just asserting your own perspective as the 100% absolute truth, you might have learned something today.

Not one scrap of evidence given above to "prove" the existence of love actually proves that the love itself is anything but a concept within a mind. The mind itself undergoes physical changes that we CAN measure, but those changes are not "love." Love is the experience, as interpreted by a brain.

Tell you what. Give me proof of "love" that exists outside a conscious brain. Go ahead. I'll wait.

As for the computer question, I can categorically state that no computer will ever love anyone.

Your world is in black-and-white absolutes, so your answer to this is not surprising. Though it's interesting to note that your same attitude was shared by the people who said that humans would never fly, or reach the moon, or even build a machine that could play chess. Those folks were all proved wrong, just so you know. The track record of religious fear is that of 100% feailure.

[Zebedeo]

74. We seem to agree on some things

You said: "The mind itself undergoes physical changes that we CAN measure, but those changes are not 'love.'" I agree. Similarly, God produces physical changes that we can measure, but those changes are not God.

You said: "Give me proof of "love" that exists outside a conscious brain." I think you are now catching on to the OP's point. Proof of the existence of love is subjective, even though love is real. Ditto for God.

Although not addressed by the OP, there is also objective proof of God's existence, in addition to the subjective evidence. But I will not hijack this thread by going into a discussion of that issue.

[trotsky]

88. You're oh-so-close to actually getting it.

You can't demonstrate that neither love nor your god exist outside the human brain, because neither do.

And sorry, but no matter how much you insist otherwise, there is no objective proof of the existence of gods, because otherwise we'd all believe in them.

[SPKrazy]

138. As You Say

there is no objective proof

but that is where faith comes in

why? If I knew, I'd sell it.

But lack of proof doesn't mean God doesn't exist outside of the body anymore than lack of proof that love doesn't exist outside of the body doesn't mean Love doesn't exist.

Because love does seem to exist. Often to people's better judgment they stay involved with people because of some "love"-even to the point of being killed by the person they loved.

[trotsky]

163. "Because love does seem to exist"

Yeah, as an emotion entirely located within a human mind. That's the point.

[ironbark]

168. as an emotion entirely located within a human mind

love comes up against the love of an intellectual ethical principle.

Justice...a rational intellectual principle....is 'loved' by many.
They will rot in jail for it...they will die for it...such is their love.
Confronted with the choice between protecting a 'loved one' (for whom the 'emotion' burns deep and strong) or serving 'justice'... some may choose the love of the latter.

If they 'act' on their love of justice it has not only transcended the impulse/drive of 'emotional love'....it has moved love 'out of the mind' and into the world as an observable act.

Love....defined and confined to the parameters of the exclusively internal and emotional is a disservice to it's full potential.

[trotsky]

172. You still haven't given any evidence that love exists outside a mind.

All your examples indicate that love is indeed a powerful motivating force, but solely an internal one.

[ironbark]

173. And 'sex' is *all* in the mind?

As a matter of common language/understanding which of the following would you reject? -

He was thinking lustful thoughts.
He was feeling lustful.
He lusted after her all night and chased her round the party.
She was feeling sexy.
She was having sex.
His love was a deep emotion.
Her act was one of loving self sacrifice.

[trotsky]

174. Changing the subject doesn't help.

I don't "reject" any of those. What I reject is that any of them are the result of a force external to the brain or body. The stimuli are mostly external, to be sure, but the reaction & emotion are not.

[ironbark]

182. If changing the subject doesn't help

Why attempt it?
There is no reference to "a force external to the brain or body" immediately at hand...why introduce it?

The proposition I responded to was "love- an emotion entirely located within a human mind"

The introduction of the parallel to 'sex' clarified the issue, it did not "change" it.

You have accepted the descriptions of 'love' and 'sex' as both *emotions* and *acts*.

The 'emotions' of 'sex' and 'love' are "located within a human mind".
The *acts* of 'sex'and 'love' are located in the world.......observable behaviors.

Therefore 'love' is *not* as you previously described "an emotion entirely located within
a human mind".

Sex is not "an emotion entirely located within a human mind"
Hate is mot "an emotion entirely located within a human mind"
Love is not "an emotion entirely located within a human mind"

All can be seen as *acts* located in the physical realm.

[trotsky]

184. When you're ready to participate in this discussion,

let me know. Thanks!

[ironbark]

186. And you have taken offense at

What?

[trotsky]

190. I haven't taken offense at anything.

Your rambling just isn't contributing to the discussion at all.

[Zebedeo]

75. Black and white

"Your world is in black-and-white absolutes"

Yes, well, have you ever considered the possibility that there are absolute truths -- that the world is, in fact, full of black-and-white absolutes? Perhaps it is you that is stubbornly persisting in only seeing the world from your own perspective. Something to think about.

[trotsky]

89. Sorry, I leave the absolutes to fundamentalists and Republicans.

They are the ones who want everything to fit in their pre-conceived boxes.

[Zebedeo]

99. LOL

It's so easy to see the foibles of others, but never those of ourselves.

I'm sure that you believe you have no "pre-conceived boxes." Isn't that right?

[trotsky]

101. You have admitted your fear of and inability to deal with

a world with no absolutes. You tell me which one of us makes use of these dreaded "boxes" more, so we can be at ease with the universe.

Though I will readily admit I have a box for intolerant, judgmental, narrow-minded assholes with superiority complexes. It's unfortunately too easy to find people who fit right in there.

[Zebedeo]

106. Physician, heal thyself

I will readily admit I have a box for intolerant, judgmental, narrow-minded assholes with superiority complexes. It's unfortunately too easy to find people who fit right in there.

[trotsky]

108. Figures.

With a total inability to respond to my points, you are left with a personal attack. I was referring to right-wing fundie Christians, but you are clearly attacking me.

[Zebedeo]

114. And I was not referring to you,

I was referring to intolerant, judgmental, narrow-minded assholes with superiority complexes.

[trotsky]

124. Then just who did you mean by "thyself"?

Is there a new method of abusing old-timey English whereby "thyself" is referring to someone else not present?

Tell me Zeb, are you proud of yourself when you break commandments such as the one against bearing false witness?

[Zebedeo]

113. Self-delete

Posted as reply to wrong post.

[Silent3]

73. Why should we offer what we don't need to offer?

You're basically insisting that we have to use your meaning of what love is. You even throw in theological stuff like, "first fruit of the Holy Spirit", and act as if we have no choice but to address this discussion in those terms. But we do. The rest of us are free to say love is nothing more than a state of mind. If I say "I believe love exists, but I don't believe God exists" you have to take that statement according to what I say the words mean to me, and you can't hold me accountable for problems which arise when you substitute your definitions of terms for mine.

If you think defining love as a state of mind is inadequate, fine. That, however, would be a separate discussion, and has no bearing on whether believing in a state of mind called love while disbelieving in some sort of spiritual being called God is a contradictory state of affairs.

So, whether you prefer to do this or not, for sake of argument you're going to have to work with a definition of love which means nothing more than a state of mind. If we're on the same page with that, are you still going to say, "So far, no one has offered any method of demonstrating the existence of love that could not also be used to demonstrate the existence of God."?

Given one thing defined as a state of mind, and the other defined as some sort of spiritual entity, it seems pretty straightforward, without "demonstrating" anything, that the methodologies for showing the existence of these two things are going to be very different. In fact, love, as a state of mind, isn't really the kind of thing you prove to exist, it's a descriptive label applied to behavior and states of mind that already appear to exist via direct observation.

[NMMNG]

83. What is love besides an emotion and state of mind?

It is the emotion and state of mind that creates the behavior. Without the emotion and state of mind the person would have no motivation to engage in loving behavior. Love does not create emotion and state of mind, it is emotion and state of mind.

[ironbark]

171. He stands on the river bank

his state of mind is tranquil love for his family around him.
He hears the splash and cry and sees a strangers child within the turbulent water.
His state of mind is panic and fear...he is not a strong swimmer.
He pauses long enough to catch his breath and think about what is at risk and what he should do.
Still fearfull...he decides that he must act...he decides that if he believes in love he must act with love.

His ethical principles have overcome his "emotion and state of mind" and he has acted with love in spite of them.

Love transcends "emotion and state of mind" and is manifest in action... from leaping in the river to doing the dishes again when it's not your turn.

[charlie]

58. OP didn't ask for objective proof

He asked for evidence of probability, since his Thargians are satisfied with the "probability" that God exists. What evidence they have that meets their standards I'll guess we'll have to wait to find out.

The Thargians believe they have some (but not conclusive) evidence for the existence of 'God'.
(The Thargians are great gamblers, they tend to avoid notions of 'true/false' or 'proven/unproven'
in preference to a sliding scale of 'highly probable- to- highly improbable)

[Goblinmonger]

79. 2 things.

1. There are no Thargians. It's a made up alien race by the OP to make his post quaint.
2. The OP said "what evidence" do we have. That isn't a request for objective proof.

[Goblinmonger]

77. Well let's take a look

You are contending I have two strawmen. Let's analyze.

Strawman #1: "you are asking for physical proof of an emotion"
Before I start, let's make sure you and I both understand what a strawman is. Here is the beginning of the Wikipedia entry

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

Here is what the OP said after his quaint little narrative about aliens:

They want to know what evidence we humans have for this 'love' concept.

So, I would contend that "asking for physical proof" is not a strawman when the OP states "what evidence we humans have." Nice try, but no cigar. 0 for 1 at your first at bat.


Strawman #2: "If your point is that we experience some of the things that happen around us, don't know how to explain it, and then create a "god" to explain all those things and feel all squishy and warm when we think about our created mythology, . . . that doesn't prove that God actually exists . . ."
Let's look at my whole statement with out those pesky ellipses of yours. I think I had more than that.

If your point is that we experience some of the things that happen around us, don't know how to explain it, and then create a "god" to explain all those things and feel all squishy and warm when we think about our created mythology, then you aren't being illogical. And I would agree with you.

Nicely done in taking my comments out of context. "...then you aren't being illogical." I was using that example to point out the logical problems of the OP. I was not saying that the OP said those things, just that IF IT DID, I had no problems. Then I went on to explain the problems it did have (not the problems with the "If your point is..." that I presented. Remember the definition. I did not misrepresent the OP to knock it down.

You are 0 for 2. I'm kicking you off my theist fantasy league team if you keep that average up. So, where were the strawmen again?

[ironbark]

156. The OP 'loves' science....but could never 'prove' that love...

One of my primary objectives was to determine how folk define and identify 'love' and 'God'

I do not reject the 'emotional' aspect of 'love'....I simply deem that alone to be an inadequate definition or full story of what we know as 'love.

Please see posts 94,96.

In like maner I find the prevailing notion of 'God' as a "thing" to be inadequate and misleading.
I know of no scripture from a major religious tradition that has God pegged as a "thing".

I have not "ignored" the science of MRI's....I reject the notion that they proove 'love'.
I try to ignore the emotive terms...but there is certainly a greater reliance on those than meeting the arguement/question.

Stangoodwin.

[ironbark]

155. Thanks for the welcome (and the validation;-)

Hi Zebendo , Stan here.

Thanks again for your post/s.

The responses thus far to the thread are not surprising…I have dared to question the “Sacred Cow’ that stands at the gates of the new religion- ‘The Cult of Romantic Love’…”We feel it…we believe it”. ;-)

Heretics will be burnt in emotive terms of flame posts- “stupid”, “obtuse”, “obnoxious”, “nonsense”.

It’s only a comparatively new religion, in terms of human history it is no more than a recent ‘blip’…but the Holy Church of Romantic Love is all pervasive and deeply imbedded.
It matters not to its acolytes and adherents that for most of history the diverse human cultures got by without romantic love (or its “feelings”).
From the Cathedrals of Holywood the bells ring and ‘love’ reigns unassailed…no ‘historical sermon’ (eg Pearl Harbour) can be given without the central/lead role of the
‘love’ interest and even the pre historic (Clan of the Cave Bear) must bear the imposition and absurd projection of Romantic Love onto people who, as far as we can tell, knew it not.

Not surprising then that when the ‘evidence’ of ‘love’ is called for- even though that post declares disinterest in ‘romantic love’…it is the first and almost exclusive ‘cab off the rank….passengers hanging from windows shouting “WTF” and “We’ve dealt with your kind round here before”.

And all that follows is a thousand and one attempted “proofs” that the ‘emotion’ is ‘real’. If I just followed a “courting couple” and videoed them I would have (in conjunction with their MRI’s) scientific verification of ‘love’. (I thought I might have a charge of ‘stalking’ ;-)

Almost without exception ‘romantic love’ is presented as the first, sole and highest love conceivable…and “feeling” the almost exclusive focus of their ‘love’ evidence.

Of course…all this is just “obtuse nonsense”….if it held any relationship to reality then the ‘love song’ would be the ‘new scripture’ of the ‘Cult of Romantic Love’ and children and teens would recite and recall it’s verses like novices.

No point thinking about it or discussing it really….”Love rocks…love rules…love is all you need”

Anyone got a copy of ‘More than one kind of love’ by Joan Armatrading?….I have a hankering to hear it about now.

Thanks for the opportunity to ‘debrief’ Zebendo ;-)

[Zebedeo]

179. The pleasure is mine

Of course, you have shown yourself to be more than capable of defending your original post, but it seems I was drawn into the battle as well.

I look forward to reading more of your posts in the future. :)

[ironbark]

185. I curtsy and bow

"it seems I was drawn into the battle as well"

And went home with scalps ;-)

Without seeking to draw you into another conflagration perhaps you might be able to offer some insight.

I haven't been to the U.S. but have met and know a number of Americans and I'm fascinated by the cultural divergence in what we find 'funny'.
Here in OZ there is a lot of 'self deprecating' humor...you make light of yourself or insult yourself *before* someone else gets the oportunity...some, but not many, of my American friends go in for this.
But the things that really seem to strike cultural discord are 'irony' and 'wordplay'.... Australians, New Zealanders and the Irish delight in irony/black humor and rhyming slang word play...but Americans seem perplexed by both...often taking 'irony' to be some form of 'sarcasm' and consequently taking offense.

Just wondering if in your travels you have noticed any cultural differences in humor...?

(A recent global survey on humor claimed that Americans go in for 'The put down'...but we are so busy putting ourselves down we just don't notice. The English are apparently laughing at tit, bum and fart jokes.....and no one can work out what the Germans are laughing about if they are laughing at all ;-)

See ya.

[Zebedeo]

189. Humor is amazingly dependent on culture, isn't it?

I think that self-deprecating humor is sometimes the funniest, and certainly the least offensive form. It is practiced in the U.S., although perhaps not to the extent as in your country. One current example is comedienne Kathy Griffin.

I'm not certain to what you are referring by the terms "irony" and "wordplay." To me, irony is not necessarily or even commonly humorous, although I guess it could be. Can you provide some examples of irony and wordplay that provokes laughs down under, but is misunderstood by Americans?

One possible example of "irony" that I did find somewhat amusing was a saying that I heard in Czechoslovakia in 1980 regarding the Communist domination of that country: "You Americans say, 'It is serious, but not hopeless.' We in Czechoslovakia say, 'It is hopeless, but not serious."

I think "put down" humor is one of the least funny types. "Your momma is so fat, . . ." unfunny your momma jokes

Fart jokes? I don't really get that either. Even when I was 13, I don't think I saw why farts were so hilarious. I guess the idea is that they are embarassing to the farter?

I never laughed at Benny Hill. Seemed like ultra-juvenile slapstick that just wasn't funny. Yet I always loved (and still do) The Three Stooges. Virtually all men and boys seem to enjoy the Stooges on some level, whereas I have yet to meet a female who can tolerate them at all.

[SPKrazy]

61. Does Anything "Exist"?

can you prove it?

how do I know anything is not just in my head?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

63. I believe love is biological

but then I think God is, too.

[Evoman]

64. Do you think god is a biological entity?

Or do you mean belief in god is biological, and a result of brain activity/genetics?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

66. Choice B

[Evoman]

68. Interesting.

So it is possible that God does not exist, but we merely feel it does, because we are biologically influenced to?

[SPKrazy]

69. Why Would We Be Biologically Influenced To Believe

in something that doesn't exist?

[Evoman]

70. I don't know.

I'm not saying we are, I simply asked if it were possible. Since I do not believe its biological (I personally believe its a matter or experience/brainwashing as children), I can't make that argument. If I was forced to, I guess one could say something along the lines that it eases death anxiety, so evolutionarily it may have some advantage. But I really don't know.

[SPKrazy]

76. I Can Say I Was Never Brainwashed As A Child With Religion

in fact, with my experiences around religion, I'm surprised I have anything to do with it.

My spiritual experiences came about without the structure of religion, or a religious base.

I don't know if they were biological, but I know they had to have neurochemical correlates, because I had physical sensations from experiencing the spiritual.

My spirituality had little or nothing to do with easing death anxiety, as I found it in another way than looking for something to "save my soul"

In fact, mine was in the context of "saving my ass".

My religious affiliation has come about more out of desire to be around people who believe in the spiritual realm, but don't have a lot of dogmatic demands.

So, it still is an interesting thing if something were to have evolved to "ease death anxiety" because I can see no evolutionary advantage since evolution is about development of traits that make survival more likely. I can see no reason that at death there would be any advantage to easing the death anxiety for the continuation of the species. That doesn't mean there isn't an advantage, I just don't see it at the moment.

I don't know why we would have evolved to have the ability to perceive something that doesn't exist myself. Since I do believe it exists, it makes sense to me that it is something that either evolved, or was intentionally made a part of (perhaps that is even the same thing really)humankind.

[neebob]

80. *Sets watch*

OR MAYBE it's just a side effect of having a brain that's capable of explaining and imagining things, combined with the power of suggestion. What if no one, in all the millions of people who preceded you in all the thousands of years of human existence, had ever thought of a god? Would you be the first? I doubt it. And if you did, you'd have a much harder time convincing your peers than whoever first thought of it however many thousands of years ago.

[SPKrazy]

127. *Sets Watch Back*

so one would wonder, in face of all the "evidence" that there is no God (I know of none BTW) that people would continue to believe in a God after all these thousands of years.

I find the idea of atheism to be contrary to intuition, which must have some survival purpose, like being able to figure out B.S.

If God were just B.S. don't you think that more people would have figured it out?

Instead, it's a small majority that don't believe in something that at least started the chain in motion like the spark for the big bang, and what was there before the big bang, and what made it? And what made that before that?

So many questions, so little time in life to contemplate questions that seem beyond the answer of even our brightest and best.

[neebob]

148. No, I don't think more people would have figured it out.

That people believe what they want to believe is one of a very few things I know for sure. I don't know what there was before the big bang, and I don't need to know to be convinced there's no god. Oh, sure, I'm curious - but I don't need to know.

[Finder]

175. I think you underestimate how many do not believe...

and those who believe that there may have been something like a creator before the big bang are one scientific discovery away from being atheists.

Also, the question of what started the big bang is why most agnostics do not identify as atheists outright.

[Evoman]

86. My response:

"in fact, with my experiences around religion, I'm surprised I have anything to do with it.

My spiritual experiences came about without the structure of religion, or a religious base.

I don't know if they were biological, but I know they had to have neurochemical correlates, because I had physical sensations from experiencing the spiritual."

It is possible that their is some genetic propesity for believing, or for having a certain brain state. Again, I don't know if their is enough evidence for me to believe that though. Now, it is completely possible that your experiences caused your belief..I think thats how it usually happens, more so than a biological effect (although I am not saying that with certainty). Lets look at what you wrote next...

"My spirituality had little or nothing to do with easing death anxiety, as I found it in another way than looking for something to "save my soul"

In fact, mine was in the context of "saving my ass"."

I dunno...I could be completely off base (and excuse me if I am..it is after all, your mind and you know it better than me), but it seems to me that the whole religious conversion for you was survival related, and not necessarily genetic.

For example, you say you have had problems with alcohol in the past...these experiences led you to the belief that unless you changed your life dramatically, you would come to harm. So you changed your belief...not because you were predisposed biologically to it, but because of a conscious effort to "save your ass".

The only problem with this hypothesis, I have to say, is that usually BELIEVING something is not a concious decision. So either you don't REALLY believe, but stick around for the percieved advantages, or you do believe, and there was some other factor that led to your belief (a third option, of course, is that I am talking out of my ass :) or that your right and it is biological). From what I can tell, you are completely sincere that you believe in Christ and salvation so its probably the latter.

The question that I would ask next would be, "Did you always feel like you were a believer in Jesus and God, even before you were officially a christian". What kind of background where you raised in....a fundie background, for example would explain to some degree, the need to believe in god..which you may have rejected at first, but filled in later with a less harsh god. An atheist background (if your parents and so on where atheists and rejected religion), on the otherhand, would be interesting..and I wouldn't even know how to analyze your belief in spite of it. In that case, it probably would be biological

"My religious affiliation has come about more out of desire to be around people who believe in the spiritual realm, but don't have a lot of dogmatic demands."

But do you believe?

"So, it still is an interesting thing if something were to have evolved to "ease death anxiety" because I can see no evolutionary advantage since evolution is about development of traits that make survival more likely. I can see no reason that at death there would be any advantage to easing the death anxiety for the continuation of the species. That doesn't mean there isn't an advantage, I just don't see it at the moment."

I just threw that death anxiety thing as quick, non-thinking example. I don't really believe it, so I can't elaborate. If anything, I think religion is not biological, but a by-product of our irrational thinking. For example...we didn't know why the snake had a forked tongue, or why the sun burned. So we just made up stories about it, or we saw connection between the sun and fire, and the moving sun and a chariot and made up a story about the sun being a fire chariot moving across the sky. Again, no real significance to fitness, but rather a by product of human thinking that was passed on to the next generation. If the father did not teach the son about the fire chariot, then the son would not think the sun was a fire chariot. He may instead have thought it was a bird who caught on fire. God is simply an idea that was passed down by the ancient people...again, with no signficant selective advanatage. We are just so "used to" believing in god (everybody believes in god!), that we've come to believe that its a real idea that all humans are ingrained to believe. Which I don't think is true.

[SPKrazy]

129. Hey, Whatever Works Is What I Say

I may or may not have had a genetic ability or predisposition to believe? For some reason I've had spiritual experiences that are UNLIKE any other experience I've had in life. For what purpose would my neurochemistry be wired for that?

I did find a higher power to save my ass. And in fact this belief did, and I believe a higher power did. (whether that higher power was a group of loving people that helped me, or a being outside of myself, or something inside of myself that was tapped. Actually I believe it was all three)

My belief is more and more becoming one that God is and is in everything. God is the universe. God has made itself known through people who have been very spiritually developed or advanced and that throughout history there have been these spiritually advanced people. I believe Jesus was one of these people, and that he was able to realize what we all have the potential for, to have a conscious awareness of the spiritual realm in nearly all of our waking life (the Kingdom of God is here) To be precise I am probably a Christian mystic, I certainly am not a believer in the literalness of the bible. I think that probably the people who recorded things in the bible did it in the context of what they were able to comprehend and understand, and remember this was at least nearly 2000 years ago.

I would say that I think some people don't put much thought into God, and come to believe in ideas that others put into their heads. Although, to some extent all ideas we have come from other influences so any ideas or beliefs (or non beliefs) come from influences "out there" as in other people's thoughts, writings, etc. as well as our own experiences.

[Silent3]

95. An important thing to remember about evolution...

So, it still is an interesting thing if something were to have evolved to "ease death anxiety" because I can see no evolutionary advantage since evolution is about development of traits that make survival more likely.

...is that evolution doesn't guarantee that all traits increase survivability, only that the sum total of traits will tend to improve survivability. Even that's limited to the particular environment and set of challenges a species faces at a given time. Evolution can be a "two steps forward, one step back" kind of thing.

Consider suicide. Suicide is hardly a survival skill either, but humans can be prone to it nevertheless. The same complex brains which gave us an edge in finding good shelter, gathering food, outwitting prey and predators, also gave us the capability to think about the future, and in some cases form a bleak impression of that future. The genetic formula for a smart but never-suicidal brain might take quite a bit of exploration of genetic phase space via random mutation to find. As long as suicide doesn't take a drastic toll on species survivability, the degree of selective pressure might be insufficient to ever get us there.

There's no solid reason, in light of this view of inherited behavior, to rule out an inborn desire to find things which "ease death anxiety". Such a desire could be a side effect of the generally beneficial way our brains work, without that desire itself contributing to our survival. To be selected against, people who manage to ease their death anxiety would have to become sufficiently reckless about their own survival, to the degree that they frequently fail to pass their genes on to the next generation.

[SPKrazy]

126. One Could Argue Then That Psychiatry And Antidepressants

may be preventing the natural selection of non suicidal genes, unless suicide is somehow a part of a necessary aspect to human evolution for population control.

Perhaps, homosexuality could be considered a natural method of population control as well? Otherwise it would be hard to see what other advantages evolutionarily homosexuality would offer.

Why would there be a reason to have an inborn need to "ease death anxiety"? It wouldn't affect the fact that we all die. It wouldn't help the survival of the species any because we all die.

Perhaps an easing of death anxiety would keep someone from committing suicide because they would realize that there is "more to life", even though they were being fooled by their neurochemistry?

Also, I've worked with many suicidal patients who say that their belief in the idea that they were going to hell kept them from committing suicide. Now to me, that is an absurd belief, but it kept them (they said) from attempting suicide.

Would there be a genetic reason to believe in hell in order to keep some people from committing suicide.

I know that now I'm getting into the silliness that I think is the murky water of neurochemistry being responsible for everything feeling or thinking.

When one goes down the path of everything is there due to an evolved purpose (not necessarily you or anyone here) one gets into the situation that some things seem like they must have other purposes than survival of species.

(and I did read that not all traits increase survivability, I'm not JUST being obtuse, although I am being a little obtuse)

[Finder]

92. I think it is human nature to question and theorize...

and for most, deity fills in the gaps. Of course as the gaps are filled with real answers through science/observation, etc, the need for a simple deity is lessened. This is what led to different theologies and doctrines.

As humans have evolved, our deities have become more complex. The first deities were female since females gave birth which was seen as supernatural and observations of the moon and the menstruation cycles of females seemed to match. Upon further observation, many of the mysteries were solved and they knew males contributed to the process, thus giving us the pair of deities and so on and so on.

Unobservable beliefs were attributed to revelations from deity(ies) to prophets and seers and such and the priestly/prophet class arose. Destructive forces were blamed on the wrath of these deities towards the followers. Survival depended on appeasing the deity(ies). They looked to the priests and prophet class for answers. Others supported this class with offerings thus turning religion into an enterprise.

Nomadic tribes needed portable deities or something tangible to keep its people focused. Statues, scrolls, arks, tablets, etc...

Anyway, you know the rest of the story.lol

[SPKrazy]

142. So Did Deities Evolve?

views of deities evolve?

a need to believe in deities evolve?

or all of the above?

or is human understanding changing as knowledge changes and the incomprehensible becomes comprehensible?

I think that as humankind evolves, so does it's understanding of a deity.

I don't see a time when people will cease to believe in a deity, as I see knowledge, and faith as very compatible.

[Finder]

161. Views evolve...

for example, mental illness is no longer attributed to demon possession, the earth orbits the sun, people are not stoned or murdered for working on the sabbath, etc...

I think we are at a point in history where many have ceased believing in the irrational teachings. Atheism, Agnosticism, Deism are the norm rather than the exception. Even within churches, most attend for fellowship with the community or for philosophic reasons, rather than for religious reasons.

This is the reason the more dogmatic religions/sects are using fear and force.

Most people today respect and understand the power of myth and the importance of spirituality.

[SPKrazy]

187. All True, And Interesting Points

one thing that I've taken an interest in over the years is the field of psychoneuroimmunology.

This is basically the study of the mind body connection with the immune system and illness.

An interesting footnote with this field of study is the idea that while we know that "demons" don't cause disease, people's personal stresses (which might be called "demons" in a different way) are often the underlying causes of immune system breakdown and systemic disease processes.

If they aren't an underlying cause, they in many cases are at least an agent of exacerbation (as in allergies, diabetes, heart disease, and many other diseases.

One area that has become a scientific study of this area focusing on the mind is Health Psychology(at least a soft science, although it is a field of psychology that is very much dominated by research)

If I were younger, and had energy, I would go into health psychology as I see it as a giant leap in the understanding of disease processes, that borrows from ancient ideas and looks for scientific connections along those lines.

[ironbark]

165. "our deities have become more complex"

Would you consider it possible that as we have evolved/matured our capacity to understand has also matured....and in accord with our growth God brings forward more complex Revelation?

Toddlers get a lot of Old Testament "Thou shalt not", older kids get "I know he's mean to you but try to be nice" (love thine enemy), teens get 'science and the law' (Islam)....and young adults get a message too.

The 'Golden Rule' "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a constant theme/thread through all the worlds major religious traditions.
But the 'social laws' (prohibition on eating pork etc) change in accord with time, place and maturity.

"They looked to the priests and prophet class for answers."

Yes....and remained dependent upon the literate priesthood for access to and interpretation of the scripture.
It is only since the time of our grandparents that widespread literacy has drastically reduced the 'interpretive' role of the priesthoods (of most faiths...Islam being an interesting/notable exception).

[Finder]

169. No...because...

Science has found an explanation for many of the mysteries attributed to deity througout history. It has caused the "priests and prophets/profits" to make dogma more complex and less verifiable.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

87. It's possible

but I also have personal experience to add to the equation. So I think we are biologically disposed to worship something.

[drhilarius]

144. What an insulting question. Love unseen/ unproven?

This atheist has seen his mother stay up all night beside him when he had a 104 degree fever.

He's seen his best friend stay up all night an comfort him when his heart, bereft of love, was broken.

Sees it every morning when his girlfriend wakes him up with a kiss.

That is more real to me than any God, and I am baffled by those deluded fools who say God comes before friends and family. How can they know what love is if their imaginary friend is more important than these people?

And, please, don't diminish the actions of these real, physical, people by saying god was working through them. They, as plain old simple human beings, did these extraordinary things.

[ironbark]

158. No insult was intended

"This atheist has seen his mother stay up all night beside him when he had a 104 degree fever."

Thank you for that example of love and compassion in action.
I wish to point out that in the midst of a hundred+ posts and thousands of words your contribution stands, to my knowledge, unique in it's reference.

There are a mountain of posts above yours with folk screaming "It's an EMOTION" or "It's just a F%$#ing EMOTION" and you are the only person I know of who has put forward what I would identify as the higher aspects of 'love'.
I apologize if the original question gave offense...what I was seeking was what you have put forward.

What stands stark is that (other than my posts 94,96) you are the only person to advocate these evidences of love.

Now there are scientists out there who would argue your mum is 'hard wired' to care.
And there are other's who would claim an MRI of your mum on that night would reveal 'love'
centers lit up...I don't know and frankly I don't care.

What I do know is that the example evidence of 'love' you put forward is a higher and better reflection of what love actually is.

Here's a question, if I may......If you had done something really bad...smashed the good china, deliberately ran over the cat (I dunno, you choose) something reeeealy bad...and your mom was furious, in a rage, the worst kind, the stone silent wait till your father gets home......

Do you think that 'feeling' anger, rage, disappointment your mum could still sit up and care for you?

On the basis of my experience with my mum I'm going to tentatively speculate a "yes"?

If so.....that ought serve to give the 'love is just a feeling' camp pause for thought.

[Finder]

170. I am in that camp and feel no reason for pause since...

the poster was giving examples of the different expressions of love.

[Silent3]

176. Love... is a many (definitioned) thing!

I'm terribly sorry if none of us were properly grand enough in our definitions of love, and that we didn't come up with examples of acting on love when anger is what you feel, etc., etc... But really, so what?

What does any of that have to do with OP's implied position about love and God, and the evidence for each being just as good as the other? My opposition to that position stands quite well in response to any of these newer examples and meanings of love which have been posted along the way.

Simple question: Do you support the OP's position, or are you just off on your own tangent about people not coming up with sufficiently grand and glorious descriptions of love?

You say you never asked for proof of any sort. You are, however, standing in support the OP as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), and the OP did speak of "evidence". What is "evidence" other than the raw material of proof? Unless you're off on your own tangent, which you would need to make clear, you can't duck getting involved with the concepts of evidence and proof in this discussion.

Tell you what... come up with your own examples of love and loving behavior and loving actions and sacrifices, throw love poems at us, whatever you like. Unless you build God or spiritual beings or what not explicitly into your examples (which would be begging the question) I don't think you can come up with anything which meets the criteria of the OP's implied contention: that evidence for that kind of love, whatever kind of love you come up with, would have to be on par with the kinds of evidence people use to support the existence of God or gods, with the implied conclusion that believing in one but not the other represents some sort of inconsistency.

[Evoman]

177. Ironbark IS the OP

He just changed his name...I'm guessing, because he is new, he probably lost his password or something.

Post 156, by Ironbark, was signed Stangoodwin.

[ironbark]

180. Not lost

just 2000k away on the other pc.

The car keys however....

"Post 156, by Ironbark, was signed Stangoodwin."

So was post 94 and a couple of others.

I just knew that with the 'slayer' about I wouldn't get away
with my cunning identity change.

[Evoman]

181. Huh?

"I just knew that with the 'slayer' about I wouldn't get away
with my cunning identity change."

Cunning identity change? Slayer? I just thougt you changed your name because you forgot the other one. I did not mean to imply that you were trying to deceive us.

[ironbark]

183. Twas jest

No doubt should have been accompanied by emoticon.

"Slayer"?

Buffy...'slayer' of fundamentalists
See P157/159

"I did not mean to imply that you were trying to deceive us."

I did not sense/suspect you had made such implication..... there is however an 'us' at hand and the inference of 'deception' has been made repeatedly. I was making light of it...and speaking generally
not personally.

The on going assertions of being "deliberately oblique" or "playing a game" serve as fair indicators of suspicion of 'deceit'. But I also sense that there is a great deal being posted that is based on a desire to avoid a perceived 'trap' of language or logic.

The prevailing dogged determination to confine the concept 'love' as solely and exclusively an "emotion within the mind" seems to be based on some suspicion that any recognition of 'acts of love' will somehow pave the way for recognition of 'God'.

It appears that many respondents are chafing at the bit to identify/get to the language/logic trap that leads to tacit or overt recognition of the notion of God...and any discussion must play through this filter of deceit/trap expectation.

[ironbark]

195. All definitions and descriptions of love and God

are inadequate.

Proof will be found for neither.
Evidence will be found for both depending on were you stand and what your looking for.


“I'm terribly sorry if none of us were properly grand enough in our definitions of love,”

No apology sought or necessary…that I knew what I was in for is reflected (tongue in cheek) in post 155.


“ and that we didn't come up with examples of acting on love when anger is what you feel, etc., etc...” But really, so what?”

The direct parallel is revealed between the shallow simplistic notions of love and the shallow simplistic notions God.
“I know love exists as an emotion because I feel I love my girlfriend” has all the
depth, significance and insight as belief in Santa God sitting on a cloud.

The “so what” is underlined by the vast majority of contributors who responded with outrage and indignation that “love is just an emotion…nothing more, nothing less…a biochemical response to stimuli”.

One person (other than myself) provided examples of acts of compassionate or self sacrificing love…and I don’t see many of the ‘love is an emotion camp’ coming back to argue or affirm love as an act.

“What does any of that have to do with OP's implied position about love and God,”

The only position I have re love and God is the one already explicitly stated…
both notions are difficult if not impossible to adequately define, neither is likely to ever be subject to proof, evidence is determined to a large degree by what you go looking for, looking for shallow and simplistic notions will provide like evidence.

“ and the evidence for each being just as good as the other?”

Never said suggested or “implied” anything of the kind and would ask you to observe that misrepresentation of my stated pov has been endemic.

“ My opposition to that position stands…”

relevant only if “that position” is mine….it is not…it is a position you take to be
“implied” from my question.


”What is "evidence" other than the raw material of proof?”

Evidence may be those factors that initiate an investigation…the investigation may not conclude or ‘prove’ anything other than ‘proof’ could not be found.
The investigation itself may have to begin with terms of reference, criteria that are demonstrated, on the basis of evidence revealed, to be inadequate and subject to modification.
Eg Some will see/investigate love exclusively as exclusively emotional/ biochemical and claim scientific ‘proof’ of it.
Others will seek evidence of experience and observed behaviour (courtship video)
that render love an unarguable social norm.

“you can't duck getting involved with the concepts of evidence and proof in this discussion.”

One does not have to be seeking ‘proof’ through the examination of evidence, criteria and terms of reference.
But if you wish to look at (participate in) a scenario to examine the ‘probability’ of God there is one at the end of post 200 ‘Strewth’.

“come up with your own examples of love and loving behaviour and loving actions and sacrifices,”

Have done so in ‘love is in evidence’ post (P 96 )…I see no challenge or rebuttal to the examples other than that they are assumed to belong to me or reflect my “game”.

“I don't think you can come up with anything which meets the criteria of the OP's implied contention: that evidence for that kind of love, whatever kind of love you come up with, would have to be on par with the kinds of evidence people use to support the existence of God or gods”

The “implied contention” is not that any proofs are on par but there is not and cannot be any proof (in the scientific sense) for either the love or God proposition.
That is not to say that there is not evidence (subjective emotional, objective behavioural, historical, literary/scriptural, rational and reasoned) for both propositions.

The definitions of love and God, inadequate and incomplete as they will ever remain, must at least begin with something “properly grand” if we are to avoid
love as the buzz of a one night stand and God as magic Santa.

“the implied conclusion that believing in one but not the other represents some sort of inconsistency”

Part of the “inconsistency” has already been exposed by the revelation of the (dare I say almost fundamentalist) belief in love as a scientifically proven proposition.
Having debunked that fallacy there is now a scenario on the table (P200) that seeks to examine the standards reasoned probability, statistical probability and calculation of odds/chance that influence or govern much of what we believe.

[Silent3]

198. You'll probably tell me you aren't talking about proof again.

All definitions and descriptions of love and God...are inadequate.

Proof will be found for neither.
Evidence will be found for both depending on were you stand and what your looking for.

Saying that proof can't be found for love is like saying you can't find the height of salty or the elasticity of maroon. It's not a matter of agreeing with you on a lack of solid evidence or difficulty in finding that evidence, it's a category mismatch in the sensibility of the words you're using.

This has nothing to with the fact that both "love" and "God" have different definitions to different people, that we can form difficult-to-express grand concepts around both words and then struggle with how lesser concepts derived from specific observations of action and behavior fit in those grand concepts. You could say the same things about art. People will debate endlessly about what is "true" art and what is not, what is a poem and isn't a poem, etc. Does that cast the very existence of poetry into question?

I suppose if you could set such a high standard for what poetry is or should be that, by that standard, none exists. But select any other standard for poetry in common use, and there's no doubt that poetry exists. You posted some. It's there for all of us to see, and we can agree that by common understanding, "yes, that's poetry". There's no need to prove anything, unless you wandering off to the edges of philosophy where you're questioning the truth of simple observations and thoughts, and whether you yourself exists, or if anyone but yourself exists, etc. Go find some recreational drugs and have Deep Thoughts about whether there are entire universes inside the atoms at the tip of your fingernail if you want to go there. :)

Step back from those fuzzy edges of philosophy into the more practical realm of day-to-day life and communication between people, and were not talking about something that even has any proper standing in relation to either the notions of evidence or proof. One doesn't search for evidence of poetry or try to prove the existence of poetry, and then find one can or cannot succeed at those tasks. Evidence and proof simply don't apply in a sensible fashion. The things which are observed to be poetry or not poetry can be taken to be matters of direct observation. Which observed things are or are not poetry is a matter of what standard for poetry you choose to apply.

Between all of the different things people observe and call "love", and between all of the meanings people have for love, it's a simple matter of categorizing those observations according to those meanings to say that "love exists".

Of course, you can come up with definitions of God that work like that too. "God is the sum total of all of the universe", "God is the feeling you get when you feel faith in God" -- no argument there, those things exist. I don't have to gather evidence for any of those things either, I wouldn't even conceive of those issues as the kinds of things for which one seeks evidence. They boil down to simple matters of providing a label (God) for those conceptual objects.

Most meanings for God go well beyond anything so simple, however. God is often an explanatory force, a force not directly or unequivocally observed but postulated to exist behind what is observed. God is often described as the perfection or idealization of things that actually are observed, like love and forgiveness and justice. And further, in addition to, not merely along with such meanings for God, God is a Personality, a thinking Entity which embodies those idealizations and which directs those forces.

That kind of embodiment, idealization, that kind of search for root causes goes well beyond observation and classification, much further beyond observation and classification than one has to do to use any of a wide variety of meanings for the word "love".

If you want to fault us for starting out with such terribly limited and uninspiring definitions of love, give yourself a bit of credit for that with the smarmy tone you set with your "Thargians". But as grand and glorious and ineffable as love can be, you have not demonstrated that the concept of love has to move into the same difficult realms in relation to evidence and proof that the concept of God occupies, simply for love to be sufficiently meaningful.

If you want to stomp your feet and insist, "Yes it does! Love has to be MORE!" -- fine. Have your own special extra, extra deep meaning of love which the rest of us poor, deprived, insufficiently sensitive and emotionally stilted skeptics just can't appreciate. In the meantime, we'll continue to believe in love, not believe in God, feel pretty content with our various conception of each, and not feel the least bit of cognitive dissonance in doing so.

[ironbark]

200. Probability standards.

Had provided two pointers to post 200 in prior post.

Had hoped/thought that the concession to love as “established” (conceded) might permit moving on to examining standards/measures for the pursuit of the possibility of God.

P 200-
I’m prepared to move on with love established as a range of felt emotions
and range of observable acts....and the recognition that definitions and portrayals
of love (and God) will remain forever diverse, inadequate, shallow and profound.

There is a ‘scenario’ that seeks to move beyond that to establish the criteria
by which the average mug punter might/might not put a bet on ‘God’.
(Looking here for the standards and measures of probability…not proof)

The first bit goes thus-

You are a Steward at a race track, your role is to identify possible race fixing.
The first race of the day is a steeple chase, all the horses fall or break down
except one, only this horse runs the course.

As a race Steward would you have any cause for suspicion?
If so how would you rate it? (Scale 1-10 or 1- 100, you choose your measure)
Would you be making any inquiries following this race?

( I am seeking here to establish what you hold to be a fair measure/standard of what is considered to be random, chance, coincidence and what might provoke suspicion that something ‘manipulated’ could be or is occurring)
……………………………………………………………………………………

Supplemental-


“This has nothing to with the fact that both "love" and "God" have different definitions to different people”

Yes it does, and determining the distinctions in definitions and standards is not a matter of abstract philosophy but essential day to day practicality.
It does not matter to most people what “standard for poetry in common use”
or that “there's no doubt that poetry exists”…..What remains a vital daily preoccupation is the determination of wether love exists just because he reads her poetry.
Standards-
1“He says he loves me, he buys me flowers, he reads me poetry…he says it’s time for our relationship to move up a notch…how can I know of a certainty he really loves me…it feels like he loves me…I think he probably does…should I trust him…should I have faith in his love… because in the end it is a leap of faith”.

2“Well guys, tonight’s the night! Love is in the air. I’ve showered her with flowers and verse and she is putty in the lovemasters hands. Once I’ve shown her what
true lovin is all about I’ll go after that other chick….what’s her name”

If you put poetry on a table before me it is there to see. There remains the remote possibility of deception…I could be drugged, you could be employing holograms, hypnosis and auto suggestion…but in the absence of any evidence
of such deception I calculate the odds to be that the poetry is in fact there. I can enhance the odds by reality testing through trusted others.

With love, all love, the potential for deception, from others and by self, is vastly higher and “standards”, “grand concepts” and definitions are everything…not as a matter of philosophy but as one of survival (individual and collective). There is not only the possibility that an individual has not put ‘real love’, ‘true love’, ‘grand and enduring love’ on the table…there remains the possibility that love does not exist at all…that it is a construct and a deception.

Thirteen percent of the worlds cultures have no corresponding word/notion for love and I doubt we can democratise the notion with ‘majority rules’.

“The concept of love, however, is subject to debate. Some deny the existence of love, calling it a recently invented abstraction. Others maintain that love exists but is indefinable; being a quantity which is spiritual, metaphysical, or philosophical in nature. The views that love does not exist or is indefinable may underlie the fact that approximately 13 percent of cultures have no word for love. <1> <2> The remaining 87 percent attempt to define this abstract concept and apply it to everyday life. Love is one of the most common themes in art and often times is an excuse for " bad art". Some psychologists maintain that love is the abstract action of lending one's "boundary" or "self esteem" to another.” Wikpedia.
The Indonesians have no word for ‘art’ and wonder at the absurdity of distinguishing/ separating it from ‘life’.

“You'll probably tell me you aren't talking about proof again.”

Only if you suggest I am again. ;-)

I have conceded love as a probability based on the evidence and placed on the table a scenario to explore the standards/measures that might be employed to determine- not the existence of God- but the tracks, traces and evidence that might lead to concluding further pursuit is warranted.

[ironbark]

196. “throw love poems at us,”

Ok.


Wherever Beauty looks,
Love is also there;
Whenever beauty shows a rosy cheek
Love lights Her fire from that flame.
When beauty dwells in the dark folds of night
Love comes and finds a heart
entangled in tresses.
Beauty and Love are as body and soul.
Beauty is the mine, Love is the diamond.

Mevlana Jalaluddin Rumi 1207-1273.

Also from the Persian mystics of the same period
comes-

"Split the atom's heart, and lo!
Within it thou wilt find a sun."

The author is believed to have been known as- ‘Smart arse
Poet who pre empts the development of atomic theory’.

His first draft is believed to have read-

Split the atoms heart, and lo!
It will go bang and there will be no time or place to run.

[Silent3]

197. I much prefer...

love is more thicker than forget
more thinner than recall
more seldom than a wave is wet
more frequent than to fail

it is most mad and moonly
and less it shall unbe
than all the sea which only
is deeper than the sea

love is less always than to win
less never than alive
less bigger than the least begin
less littler than forgive

it is most sane and sunly
and more it cannot die
than all the sky which only
is higher than the sky

(e. e. cummings)



Not in the same league, but my own:

the complete beginning

my careless arrival
this was like this was like
this moves and that follows
feel it? lightly the earth
yielding, going along?

she said more than. she
held the ocean like a secret
she was fallen from grace
with a sigh, said we could die
completely open

and i heard hunger i heard
between us every chance
like a gift, succumbing

[Book Lover]

178. Yes. And those of us atheists who are copy editors believe

that your affair with scare quotes is out of hand. I think I speak for my theist associates as well in this regard.

[Random_Australian]

191. Hi there. Use the hypothetico deductive rather than the logico deductive,

and you have evidence for love.

Simple as that, I am an atheist, I believe in love, and that is backed by evidence.

Any other questions?

:)

[ironbark]

193. Strewth!

A Random Australian!

Hows your mothers chooks mate? ;-)

Interesting that you raise the hypothetico deductive because the question
“Do atheists believe in love” arose from the curriculum of
the Deakin Uni Philosophy Dept. There the first year students
struggle past the notion of love as ‘exclusively’ emotional and into
the realm of observable ‘acts’ of love within a couple of hours.

Questions?
Yea….I’ve got heaps.

Do you think it’s necessary to put up any further evidence for love?

The original question was posed here, in part, to demonstrate that notions
of love (like notions of God) range from the simplistic and shallow (exclusively
emotional romantic feeling) to the depths and complexities of acts of profound
sacrifice and compassion (that often override the emotional state).

The proposition (reflected in many posts here)
"I know love exists because I feel it (and can see that feeling
reflected in an MRI)" has all the depth and persuasion of "I know God exists because
I feel Him (and can see His portrait on the Sistine Chapel)".

Both of these notions and depictions of'love' and 'God' are shallow, inadequate and misleading.

I’m prepared to move on with love established as a range of felt emotions
and range of observable acts....and the recognition that definitions and portrayals
of love (and God) will remain forever diverse, inadequate, shallow and profound.

There is a ‘scenario’ that seeks to move beyond that to establish the criteria
by which the average mug punter might/might not put a bet on ‘God’.
(Looking here for the standards and measures of probability…not proof)

The first bit goes thus-

You are a Steward at a race track, your role is to identify possible race fixing.
The first race of the day is a steeple chase, all the horses fall or break down
except one, only this horse runs the course.

As a race Steward would you have any cause for suspicion?
If so how would you rate it? (Scale 1-10 or 1- 100, you choose your measure)
Would you be making any inquiries following this race?

Wanna play?
(Open to all)

I wont mention Phar Lap if you don’t. ;-)

Stan

[muriel_volestrangler]

199. Are you claiming you're connected with a university philosophy department?

Bugger me, the standards must be low. It's almost worth dragging out the Monty Python sketch. Apologies to other Australians.

[ironbark]

201. No....No formal association...

But your false assumption to set up ad hom meets all standards revealed on these boards.

Quick review of the high DU standards-

The initial question is met with-

“Yikes, what a silly question”, “WTF are you talking about”. “What an insulting question”. “the dumbest thread I’ve ever responded to”.

Then came the insightfull arguments-
“I believe that people feel love. Because love is a feeling, simply feeling it is proof enought that it exists.”, “One could follow a couple around and videotape their behavior as they go through the courting rituals”, “This atheist believes in it (or rather KNOWS that it exists)”, “we call that feeling Love. Its simply a name we gave that feeling. THATS ALL IT IS. A name for something we feel.” and “Unicorns are not a feeling. They are actual THINGS”

All these wonders of logic accompanied by- “your arguments are an illogical, fallacious pile of crap”.

Only to come to the knowledge that any half competent undergraduate can come to with a click to Wikpedia-

“The concept of love, however, is subject to debate. Some deny the existence of love, calling it a recently invented abstraction. Others maintain that love exists but is indefinable; being a quantity which is spiritual, metaphysical, or philosophical in nature. The views that love does not exist or is indefinable may underlie the fact that approximately 13 percent of cultures have no word for love. <1> <2> The remaining 87 percent attempt to define this abstract concept and apply it to everyday life. Love is one of the most common themes in art and often times is an excuse for " bad art". Some psychologists maintain that love is the abstract action of lending one's "boundary" or "self esteem" to another.” Wikpedia.

“Bugger me”

I decline the invitation….but your spurious observation won’t be able to sit down for a week.

[Random_Australian]

202. Uh uh, bad ironbark. I was talking about the process from a strictly

scientific perpective ; that is, us sciency folk hav developed means to provide evidence for things that we know freak all about. I am unsure if your philosophical approach is the same, but basically I was talking about how the consistent modification of behaviour meant that p(null) is much less than 0.05. Of course, the rejection of the null does not itself provide evidence for love, but using a reactive definition we can make a concept of love close to the real thing.

As for your question about horse race fixing, I would take the probability of a horse 'breaking down' as you rather oddly put it, compute the probability of them all falling bar one, and if that result is equal to or less than 0.05 then investigate further. After all, if there were only two horses in the race, and it was common ground for falls, 'all bar one' would not exactly be suspicious.


And as for you, explain how if we are using a biochemical definition, emotional feelings are simple, and other behaviours complex, as per "simplistic and shallow (exclusively emotional romantic feeling) to the depths and complexities of acts of profound
sacrifice and compassion "

P.S. "Do you think it’s necessary to put up any further evidence for love?" what the hell is that about? I have not yet offered ANY evidence of love. Sheesh.

P.P.S. Probability of God existing? I'll have you know I use a preaxiomic concept (ie. My concept of God does is not something that obeys the axioms) so 'probability' does not work.

P.P.P.S. By the bye, I am an atheist, (implicit atheist actually) just so's you know.

Edit: P.P.P.P.S. Do not try to talk like one of us blokes of bazzaland, you look *ahem* 'a touch foolish'.

[skyblue]

194. Love serves well to continue the species and to hurt the species

Love makes life more palatable. Without say for example Mother's love, would there be much motivation for them to take care of a child? The love for others sometimes causes one to take care of one's neighbor. So, IMO, it exists as a necessity to create a reason for living or to assist in the success of the species.

However, of course it can be harmful. The love of a diety sometimes brings about hatred and distrust of those who don't believe in the same diety sometimes with the consequence of war. Love may lead people to not accepting reason: For example one who loves someone who beats them, or one who loves a diety reads the teachings by the diety and denies the reality of things by celebrating in teaching the delightful children's story of the character Noah who accepted the fact that God would destroy his friends babies and their puppies in a flood and calls it good not diabolical.