seebs

Uh-huh.

There's even occasional BBSs for people who don't believe in love, and feel that the reason for the diverse descriptions is that there's really nothing there.

Kassiana

If you find people who have had them, yes. I believe the atheists who have told me they have never had one.

seebs

I tend to believe that they have never had an experience which they interpreted that way. Sometimes, when talking to people, I find that they have had experiences which I would probably have interpreted as theistic...

trendkill

URL?

Seriously, I don't believe anyone disbelieves in the feelings of God (or what theists erroneously interpret thusly ). A poor analogy.

radagast

Hey Moose,
Share, hell, I'll give you mine. I haven't used it in years. I keep it right over...

Damn!
It was right here!
In this box!

Jeez, anybody seen my faith around somewhere?

I knew I should have locked that damn box!

Glenn

seebs

It was by way of analogy. Sort of like a lie only I don't feel guilty about it. :P

Well, exactly. Some people think that the feelings people talk about when they talk about love are symptomatic of a real thing called love which is not just an emotional experience; others don't. Is a person who is infatuated and believes himself "in love" really in love? If we can say "no" (and most people would), then we are implying that love has a reality distinct from our apprehension of it.

exile

Not sure the golden rule works in the case of masochists.

Nevertheless it is not only the cornerstone of religious and secular moral codes but is based on empathy, the facility to put ourselves in someone else's shoes and acknowledges our common humanity.

trendkill

[QUOTE=seebs]It was by way of analogy. Sort of like a lie only I don't feel guilty about it. :P



That's weird.

I would say we are implying that our idea of it is different from theirs, and that they are using more generally-accepted terminology without understanding it. But then again, I really have no idea what someone would mean by calling love something that has a "reality distinct from our apprehension of it".

seebs

Well, does the word mean anything more specific than "feeling in love"? We talk about things like "if you wouldn't do X for someone, does that mean you don't really love them?"

This sort of implies that we have some kind of standard definition of what "real" love is, and that you can be mistaken about it.

Hmm.

I guess there's a few layers of stuff here. One is just what you experience. One is how we describe those experiences. Then we get to how we decide which names to use for which experiences. Then there's "is there something outside you that you are experiencing". Hmm.

When we're talking about, say, God, many people say that differences in experiences mean there's not a real thing there being experienced. With other things, we're much more likely to talk about differences in use of language or filtering.

starling

I know just how you feel, although my wish is somewhat less centralized.

Well I've read the bible; does that count? I may not be a Christian, but I am agnostic so I suppose we share a few things in common. Do be careful though, many people try to get you to confuse "Christians" with "people in general." There are others who want to talk about their faith after all.

Ooooh Can I talk to you about Jeebus? Baby Jeebus cried and the IPU created the whole world, then made it look like life evolved to throw us off track. All those fossils are really paper mache; you can see the old newsprint on them if you check really closely. Things can't evolve without the IPU's permission you see. That's why they have the "Department of Evolution" so that you can submit your request for an evolution license from her Pinkness at the East Pole. All those liberal professors are just high on illicit substances known as scientific journals, and nothing they say makes any sense, so believe me instead, because if you believe me, then you will agree that I am right!