snatchbalance

Love is a word commonly used as a symbol for various psychological states. Such states can be induced through a variety of stimulus.

sb

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Jamie_L

David,

First, certain worldviews (naturalism, materialism, etc.) include withing them atheism (a disbelief in god), but the converse is not true. All atheists are not naturalists, materialists, etc. If you have problems with a naturalist or materialist outlook, you should address your concerns in those terms. Atheism, in and of itself, identifies nothing about ones beliefs on anything other than god.

As for emotions (love, hate, etc) and naturalism, I don't understand why people feel as if emotions are an achilles heel to a naturalist or materialist worldview. Emotions are a function of the human mind. They can be experienced and observed (althoug indirectly). There is not conflict between this and a naturalist/materialist philosophy. There is no need for belief in the supernatural to believe in emotions.

Jamie

WJ

Bondcata!

You can demonstrate that David's dialoge is a waste of time by answering his question to Clutch, as well as my question to John. Otherwise, you're starting to sound like a salesmen for atheism, kinda like Koy.

Think of it this way salesman, do you believe love exists? And if so, how do you justify your belief about it and why?

Devilnaut

Walrus, Atheists don't make any claims about "seeing is believing", nor do they say that they will only believe in what they can touch. Neither do they make any claims saying that they will only believe in something if it has been empirically measured or researched in a lab.


The only conclusion that atheists have made, is that it is unlikely that a God exists. THAT'S IT.



Whether you think so or not, this conclusion has no repurcussions on an atheists beliefs about love, consciousness, morality, or anything of the sort, unless you are claiming that the existence of God is a necessary component for the existence of these concepts! If this is your point PLEASE make it clearer next time.

Whatever we define as love OBVIOUSLY exists. Saying that atheists should not believe in love is nothing less than rampant silliness. Love was not invented in the bible nor do we depend on religious texts for our definitions of love, nor is it commonly accepted (nor have i ever even heard it claimed before) that the existence of God is necessary for love to exist! Is this your point? I am utterly at a loss trying to figure out why disbelief in love logically follows from disbelief in God. Especially considering I do seem to be perfectly capable of believing in love, as an atheist.

LOVE:
love Pronunciation Key (lv)
n.
A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.


As for David Mathews, I think he has still failed to address exactly how his Aunicornism provides him with an adequate reason not to go on a murderous rampage in the city streets. I guess he has no business believing in love either.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

WJ

Devilnut!

Of course many atheists don't share your view and beliefs as they seem rather ambivolent. Most seem to claim God does not exist, period. (Please spare me on the weak/strong atheist political semantic baloney.)

So what if I claim that love does not exist, but you claim it does, like you implied. How does one resolve the discrepancy? Keep in mind I'm not making a direct comparison to EOG arguments here, I'm trying to understand the consistency of methodology.

Thanks for your reply,

Walrus

Eudaimonist

Verifying the existence of love is trivial. You simply have to feel love to know it exists.

Verifying the existence of an alleged supernatural source of love -- e.g. Cupid, Eros, Aphrodite, ... -- requires a scientific approach with external evidence.

bonduca

What, respond to still more of his meaningless inquiries? And get responses like the ones I have quoted above?



David, you do not want to know what we believe about love. You have already stated that you do not think us capable of love. Eudaimonist is right, you are only looking for comfirmation of your prejudices, and when you cannot find it, you will misinterpret replies to fit your prejudices or perhaps even blatantly manufacture such confirmation.

If you could be bothered to relate to the posters on this board as human beings, rather than some sort of disease-carrying specimens, you would find that there are many people here who are kind, caring, ethical human beings, the kind of people that any sane individual would be proud to call friends.

This is not the first time I have seen this pathetic prejudice that the mere belief in a deity will render one a loving and superior individual, and all who do not possess it are somehow morally suspect. Well, Mr. Mathews, your conduct on this board is proof that such belief is nonsense.

I feel love for my friends and family. I feel concern for people who are helpless or in trouble. I feel that even if I dislike someone intensely, I should still attempt to treat them fairly. I do not profess some sort of unconditional love for the entire universe, nor do I see any practical examples of how such "love" is somehow feasible or even desirable, since those who profess it most loudly seem to be the most small-minded and mean-hearted in actual dealings with their fellow man.

David Mathews, I would like to hear you explain why you appear to think the mere lack of belief in a god renders one both heartless and immoral. I await your reply with great anticipation.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

Devilnaut

Please spare me your "well (insert guy who refuted walrus's points), it looks like you are in the minority on this one!" hogwash this time walrus, and focus on the issue. I personally don't give a crap what you think most atheists believe, since a large part of your opinions regarding atheists are utterly incorrect.

The consistency of what methodology? The methodology of critical thinking? The methodology of logic?

Barring an adequate definition of love from the theist camp, I will go with this one:

LOVE:
love Pronunciation Key (lv)
n.
A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.


I've felt it before, and personally verified the existence of this emotion. Others have claimed to have felt it before and I see no rational basis for believing they were lying, so I believe them. Therefore I believe that love exists. Pretty simple really.

David Mathews

Hello bonduca,

David: I don't regard atheism as immoral. The more correct designation is amoral.

I believe that all atheists with moral/ethical standards have borrowed those standards either directly from their religious upbringing or from society and therefore indirectly from religion.

An atheists who applies the principles of atheism consistently must reject morality just as they have already rejected God.

That's my argument. I look forward to your response.

Best Regards,

David Mathews

GeoTheo

Ok, I get it. God is love so if you don't believe in God you don't believe in love?
Is that what your driving at David?