WJ

Devil!

You can't prove to me that love exists. Otherwise, you make a case for people who claim the religious experience exists.

Darkside_Spirit

David Matthews, if you wish to comment on atheism, may I suggest that you LEARN A FEW BASIC THINGS ABOUT WHAT IT ENTAILS!

Atheism is not a worldview, nor is it any sort of moral code. It is simply the lack of belief in god. It does not take a position with respect to love anymore than nonbelief in unicorns takes a position with respect to love.

You claim that Christianity commands "universal love". I do not find a religion intermingled with threats of gnashing teeth and eternal damnation to be universally loving.

Every single one of your questions is inapplicable to atheism. Please either shut up and cease bothering us with your misinformed drivel, or actually read up on atheism before presuming to comment on it.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Darkside_Spirit ]</p>

babelfish

1. How does atheism define "Love"?

Oh that's easy...wait...love is...love is...there's gotta be a book somewhere that explains "love."

2. Does atheism command or advocate "love" among atheists?

Nope!

3. Does atheism command or advocate "love" in between atheists and Christians?

No, that's really strange though, now that I think about it....why do I feel love? Nobody is commanding me to feel it, so how come I do?

4. Does atheism command or advocate "love" in a universal sense?

No, I can be free to love or hate anyone I want to. I don't have to love you, or blonde people, or short people. Wow! I see what you're getting at now! If I wanted to I could go down the street to some stranger's house and just kill anyone I want to because I don't "love" them! I think I'm beginning to see what you're getting at now!

5. Atheism does not forbid nor even discourage hate. Yes or No? Please explain.

NO! NO IT DOESN'T! Oh my God, where's my Bible, quick! I'm beginning to have an overwhelming urge to go out and kill somebody!!!!!

6. Atheism does not forbid nor even discourage prejudice and bigotry. Yes or No? Please explain.

OH NO! How could I have been so blind?!?! I hate all blondes and short people, and there is nothing to stop me from these feelings! (I'm in the basement now, still looking for my Bible...I know it's down here somewhere.....)

7. Atheism has no command against violence. Yes or no?

AAAAACK! I can't find my damn Bible anywhere! But wait, what's this at the bottom of this box? Oh, look, it's my rifle! Wow, I've been looking for this for ages! Those short blondes better start headin' for the hills!

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: babelfish ]</p>

Jamie_L

Well, as long as we're throwing about unfounded assertions, here's my counter-proposal:

I believe that all religions with moral/ethical standards have borrowed those standards directly from the societies in which those religions were created, or indirectly from society by borrowing from other religions. Human beings had standards of conduct that allowed them to survive in communities long before religion started muddying the waters.

Jamie

Walross

Sorry for jumping in a little late here.

Walrus (good name!), I know this was addressed to Devilnaut, but I couldn't resist. you wrote:

Actually, myself, I have little doubt that the religious experience exists. Certainly enough people feel it, and I've felt, on occasion, something that is probably closely related to it. You would have a lot of trouble, however, convincing me that this experience is anything other than a psychological state, or set of states, in the brain. The feeling may exist, but that is completely independent from the question of whether or not the deity who is alleged to be responsible for it actually exists. Unlike in your example, Devilnaut never claimed that “love” is dependant upon some supernatural entity, he merely claimed that it is a feeling. Emotion is basic to the human experience and is as fundamental to it as consciousness itself. No deity required. Just a brain.

But these are all naturalist arguments. I’m sure there are some atheists who would argue differently. The point, once again, being that atheism is only about one thing – the lack of belief in a deity. What worldview one acquires beyond that is completely up to the individual. Regards,

Walross

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Walross ]</p>

WJ

Hi Walross!

Yeah, good name! Actually I don't think I was trying to establish any EOG arguments per say. I was looking at the basis for which something is experienced, then articulated as a proof that it exists.

So if, in the mind, love exists as well as the 'religious' experience, it opens up a whole list of possible causes and questions about the the truths associated with them.

For instance, what is the nature of love? What is the nature of the religious experience? And so on.

If an atheist believes that love exists from personal experience, how is he able to doubt that the religious experience exists? I think you answered it in that it exists for people to experience, but all the other baggage seems unecessary. But I could just a easily argue that there is baggage with the phenomenon and description that people associate or give to love.

For instance, someone said it was rational? That cannot be proved in all cases. What method would make it become believable that it is, in all cases, absolutely rational? Assuming there is no method of verification other than perhaps the concept of philosophic subjectivity, that leaves the door open when an atheist argues religious feeling is not real or doesn't exist.

I know there is some redundancy here, but have to talk it thru. As far as how all that relates to David's original question/assertion, I'll have to go back and read his intent....

David, you still out there?

Waleye

Walross

Hi Walrus,

You wrote:

Ok, fair enough. The trouble is that I can’t prove to you that I experience love. I can’t prove anything to you that is solely in my experience. What I can do is develop my own framework of experience and categorize the various feelings and thoughts that I have based on the descriptions of others. What I experience and call “love” or “anger” or “boredom” may very well not be identical to your experience. I can also look for “evidence” of those feelings in others by the way they act, or the things they say (something I’m notoriously bad at).

Well…yes, exactly. There is much investigation into the possible causes for love and religious experience – Neuroscience is a fascinating field. But even if we didn’t have a few preliminary hints as to these causes, as we do now, a supernatural explanation would still be no more necessary than one was for those ancients who wondered how the earth revolved around the sun, or vice-versa.

As for the truths associated with them – well, like other emotions, they are extremely personal and subjective things. What these feelings mean to you is up for you to decide.

I agree – there is plenty of baggage that people associate with love. Just watch a romantic movie – does that really correspond to reality? Much of that baggage is unnecessary, complicated, painful, and false as well. That doesn’t change the fact that I have a certain feeling (or set of feelings more likely) that I label “love”. I also agree that much of the baggage associated with religious experience (such as the assumption that it’s caused by a supernatural being, rather than just being an internal feeling) is unnecessary.

I think a major cause of all this “baggage” is merely the fact that these feelings can be powerful forces in the lives of humans. As such, it’s not surprising that people talk about them, tell stories about them, seek explanations, etc.

I don’t quite understand what you mean here by “rational”. Are you talking in terms of a natural vs. supernatural explanation for emotion, or are you getting at something else? Please elaborate.

I look forward to your reply. I probably won’t be able to get back to this board until sometime tomorrow. Regards,

Walross

NOGO

Funny, I have the same doubt about historians, biologist, physicists, chemists, engineers, scientists etc.

1. None of these groups have a definition of "Love"?
2. None advocates "love" among the group?
3. None advocate "love" in between their group and Christians?
4. None advocate "love" in a universal sense?
5. None forbid nor even discourage hate.
6. None forbid nor even discourage prejudice and bigotry.
7. None have a command against violence.

We better watch these people.

Please give some examples. And while you're at it answer these.
Where does democracy come from?
Where does freedom of speach come from?
where does your right to representation come from?
Where does the freedom of the press come from?
Where does the right to think and believe whatever you want come from?

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Family Man

Actually, I think David has it exactly backward. We all get our moral standards from society; religion only coopts it and tries to pass it off as it's own invention.

The evidence for this is abundant; religion has been extremely malleable in its moral standards over the years. A good example is antebellum (Civil War) America. Religionists love to talk about how the leaders of the anti-slavery movements in the North were heavily religious (read Christian), which is true. What they fail to mention is that their counterparts in the South were spending a great deal of their time justifying the institution of slavery. In short, opposition or support of slavery depended not on one's religious belief, but on the society they lived in.

Now, why David thinks we all get our morals from religion is unknown, since he hasn't given us a single reason why it is true. I just gave you a reason to think it isn't.

Graeme

Exactly the point I was trying to articulate on the previous page, but MUCH better stated. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />