Do you believe in "Love"? Does "Love" exist? Are these the same question?

[struggle4progress]

The question is imprecise, of course: English lacks single-word equivalents for a variety of notions into which "Love" could be decomposed, such as "eros," "agape," &c&c. Instead, one makes due with qualifiers: fraternal love, maternal love, platonic love, erotic love, self-love, altruistic love, and so on.

Could a person say "I do not think love exists as a scientific or logical fact, but nevertheless I believe in love"? Could such an assertion be meaningful?

[ginnyinWI]

1. I define "love" as "need" in terms of relationships.

We love people and things that we rely on for emotional well-being.

[Trajan]

2. One of the 'Great Questions' ....

Does 'Love' exist as a concrete, empirical thing ?

To make this very brief : I say no -

I believe 'Love' is an abstract notion, built of a synthesis of human desires, biological instinct, and, to some degree, social conformity ...

What IS concrete and 'real' about Love are the acts of caring, of support and desire, that one experiencing the feelings of love engenders .... 'Love' itself, as a 'thing', can only be an idea ...

IMHO ...

[Goblinmonger]

3. Oy

Here we go. :popcorn: Who brought the sody?

[NMMNG]

7. Do you have enough of that for me?

:o

[Goblinmonger]

11. Absolutely

I'll scootch ova and make room for ya.

[beam me up scottie]

4. oh brother...here we go again

[struggle4progress]

5. Dunno why the question bothers you: seems harmless to me.

Could somebody meaningfully say "I don't think love exists, but I believe in love"?

[beam me up scottie]

6. Yeah, well that card's been played already.

Many times, so good luck trying to trip up any stupid unsuspecting atheists with it.

[struggle4progress]

13. My objective could only be "trying to trip .. stupid unsuspecting atheists"?

I don't remember ever posting anything calling atheists or atheism "stupid," nor anything intended to "trip up" anybody.

[bryant69]

16. You don't have to

This is a very suspicious bunch, and any thing that deviates from the orthodoxy will be smacked down.

And in fairness, it's not like this isn't one of the standard starting points to proving the existence of God. You might as well ask where do they think their ideas of right and wrong come from.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[trotsky]

19. "Deviates from the orthodoxy"?

What, dear bryant, is the "orthodoxy" for atheism?

What's our holy book? Who are our priests? What are our sacraments? And where the heck is our church? I keep looking...

I speak only for myself here, but it's not the "deviation from orthodoxy" that leads me to smack something down, it's recognizing silly theological tricks that fundie lunatics have been trying to shove in my face for years. I don't think it does liberals any favors to parrot the same worn-out Kindergarten arguments for god's existence. I'm sick of it in real life, I'm sure not going to take it sitting down on here.

[Igel]

20. It's not the accoutrements that are needed.

All that's needed is a "doxa", a belief or opinion (or, more commonly, a set of them), that must be held to be orthos or "right".

That said, I find it hard to think of a set of opinions that must be held to to be an orthodox atheist; there are few beliefs/opinions an atheist need hold, and those are usually so crucial to the definition that to violate them makes the erstwhile atheist a non-atheist.

Non-belief in a deity is pretty much it. After that usually comes a reliance on human cognition as sufficient, in principle, to understand things. Next is a person's capacity to define his/her own raison d'etre, goals, and to arrive at a principled decision as to what constitutes right or wrong in any given situation and the set of behaviors to defined as 'moral'; personally, I think the latter isn't needed, and suspect that many atheists don't actually produce their own reason for existing but instead merely parrot others' or go with what their parents taught them.

I suppose that a belief in an inchoate and inscrutable World Soul that we should all yearn to join ourselves with might be seen as compatible with atheism since it wouldn't constitute a theos, but would also allow the atheist to say that human cognition isn't sufficient. Perhaps a person holding such a belief could be called a heterodox atheist.

[trotsky]

22. Oh of course that's not needed.

But that's clearly how many folks envision it. Atheism with all the trappings of a real bona fide religion.

[bryant69]

24. Actually I just said it because I thought it would piss you off

Not much more to it than that.

Bryant

[trotsky]

25. I'm sure Jesus is proud. n/t

[bryant69]

26. You might not have a very good idea of what Jesus is all about

Maybe you should read up on him a bit, if you think that's the sort of thing he's in favor of.

[trotsky]

27. But that sort of thing is just fine with you.

Thus my point. Christian, check thy mirror.

[bryant69]

28. Well Jesus probably doesn't know you the way I do.

All the things you and others say I am and all the things you and others think I am, I probably am.

But I don't really worry about it, because even if I weren't, with you guys I would be.

Bryant

[trotsky]

30. Mighty "Christian" of ya, indeed.

:hi:

[bryant69]

31. It is another rhetorical advantage that Atheists have over Christians

If I don't act according to the ideals of what a Christian is supposed to be, by being nice and gentle and kind of a pansy, than I'm a hypocrite. Conversely there is no moral standard one can judge an atheist by - obviously that doesn't preclude Atheists from acting in a moral standard, just that if they choose to be nasty or cruel, you can't really call them hypocrites for doing so.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

32. Poor disadvantaged Christians

Martyrdom becomes you.

[bryant69]

33. Thank you. But i'm not being a martyr

Just pointing out a fact - Atheists have a number of rhetorical advantages.

Bryant

[Random_Australian]

36. A number of them, hmm? I don't believe you.

For instance, the one mentioned above is based on the statement

"you are unlike Jesus in that action."

This, of course, is only a rhetorical device if you happen to think Christians are better (or more like Jesus if you would prefer) because of their faith.

Want me to restate that clearer?

[bryant69]

56. No I see what you are saying

It does seem to come back to that pretty often.

You can only be a hypocrite if you have standards - if you don't have any standards than you have nothing to live up to.

Obviously Atheists can have just as many standards as Christians do - even higher standards as far as it goes - but their standards aren't known. Whereas because our culture is so steeped in Christianity everybody knows how a Christian is supposed to act.

I mean if Trotsky were to say "I believe in being open and giving the other side a chance" i could accuse him of hypocracy - but as long as he doesn't say that there's no Atheist bible I could go to and say "hey you aren't supposed to act like that." Whereas you all have a general idea of the standards I'm failing to live up to.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

66. Oh puh-lease. Your religion doesn't make you a hypocrite, your preaching does.

Since you obviously have no clue what the word "hypocrisy" means, here's an example that should be featured in the dictionary next to the word:

Your post to trotsky:

Actually I just said it because I thought it would piss you off

Which was followed immediately by your comment that trotsky doesn't understand what Jesus taught:

You might not have a very good idea of what Jesus is all about

Maybe you should read up on him a bit, if you think that's the sort of thing he's in favor of.

See, you're a hypocrite because you fit the definition, not because you happen to worship a particular deity.



Just like your belief in Jesus doesn't make you a christian supremacist, your obvious bigotry does:

everybody knows how a Christian is supposed to act.

Just like most atheists, I don't hold christians to a higher moral standard.

Because christians are no better than anyone else.


Get over yourself.

[bryant69]

83. By the way, I was hoping ti would piss you off to

But presumaby you already know that.

But I've already copped to being a hypocrite - numerous times, but here I'll cop to it again. I'm a hypocrite. My religion teaches that I should be nice and gentle and polite with you and Trotsky, that I should be understanding and forgiving. And I'm not. I claim to be something, but I'm not living up to those standards. Perhaps later on I'll repent and treat you and Trotsky with kindness and gentleness - but I don't think it's likely.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

101. Awwwwwwww, too bad keyboard commandos only make me laugh.

Keep digging, I love amateur hour. :popcorn:

[Evoman]

73. Hypocracy is based on what you SAY and DO.

Not on standards.

I mean, when Trotsky said, "How christian of you.", you could have chosen to say, "Being christian does not mean I'm better or worse, or that I have to like you, it just means I believe in Christ". After all, I doubt Trotsky really gives a shit...he's probably used to dealing with assholes that are Christian (and I'm not saying you are one, so don't be offended).

But in your heart of hearts, you do think that being a Christian somehow comes with a higher moral imperatives, whereas we know better. Saying, "that person is a Christian" means nothing to me...I will not trust that person more, nor necessarily like that person more.

What makes someone a hypocrite is when they say, "I am a true christian because I blah blah blah blah", and in the next breath, judge other people or try to piss them off. That where the hypocrisy comes in. In fact, the statement "He is not a true christian" is so fucking hypocritical its mindblowing.

Lol..and really..if you think its such a great time being an atheist (I have to admit, living without logical and rational inconsistencies is nice), then your free to join us. You can join us in our lives without impossible (and many times nauseating) moral standards. I'm sure BMUS will even get you a rubber chicken.

[beam me up scottie]

75. Sure, I can steal one for him.

I steal everything because I don't have to worry about those silly moral standards getting in the way.

I sleep with married men, am a charter member of the Abortion-A-Month Club (your 12th one's free!), and barbecue christian babies for dinner.

Yeah, I know, I lied about that whole vegetarian thing too.

[Evoman]

77. The 12th ones free?

Wow..thats a good deal. All my girfriend and I got was a 3% discount card. Its okay though, because we've been together 3 years and shes not having nearly as many abortions as she used to.

[beam me up scottie]

79. Well now, you know how we feel about that.

Every evil atheist has to do his or her part to prove we don't have any moral standards.

So even though your girlfriend isn't an atheist, it's your responsibility to make sure she gets pregnant and has as many abortions as possible.

If it helps, just tell her the tissue is used for stem cell research.

[trotsky]

49. Naw, I just think it's incredibly revealing.

I mean, one of the criteria by which Christians declare Bush et al to be "not Christians" is judging them by their behavior. Aren't we allowed to judge ALL Christians by their behavior, then? Or just the ones you don't like?

[bryant69]

60. Go right ahead and judge me by my behaivor -

But Trotsky I'm not going to win with you NO MATTER WHAT I DO! As long as i'm playing with you I'm going to lose - so why put a lot of effort into it?

Bryant

[trotsky]

61. When you continue to snark and snip at atheists and atheism,

yeah, you're gonna get called on it. So sorry.

[bryant69]

62. There you go with the distortions.

Enjoy yourself.

[trotsky]

63. "Actually I just said it because I thought it would piss you off"

I didn't need to distort at all. You admitted your motivations.

[bryant69]

64. Ah - I see the problem

You think you are the only atheist in existence - I'm sorry to dissappoint you - but my disdain for you does not transfer to the many other atheists that exist.

I take people as they come, not based on categories.

Bryant

[trotsky]

65. How special.

My very own fan club!

[Random_Australian]

35. Dear Bryant69 - I must ask; why are you here if you are not here for

discussion?

I mean really, aggravating people is plain mean.

If you don't like what someone is saying, and it is nice, ignore it. Or don't bother posting snark.

If you don't like what someone is saying, and it is not nice, then call them on it.

Stirring the pot is not needed here.

Edit:

Unless of course you were reacting to something you found offensive, however you were not responding to such a remark... hmmmmm.

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were merely flying off your handle at something. :)

[Evoman]

42. Hey dude, lighten up.

Why don't you tell us what you think of the OPs thread. I'm sure many people here would like to know your opinion.

[bryant69]

59. Actually that was me being light

I have no respect for Trotsky, and I'm not likely to gain any.

As for the OPs question, the minute you admit to love being anything but in individuals minds, you open up a spiritual plane. Since I believe in a spiritual plane, and the human soul, that doesn't bother me.

I should say a line from Alfred de Musset's play "On Ne Badine pas avec l'amour" sums it up for me.
"All men are cheats, flakes, frauds, grand-standers, hypocrites, braggarts and cowards, all females are liars, falsifiers, narcissists, busybodies and concubines, the world is nothing but sewer without bottom where the wisest of seals romp and climb on mountains of shit, but there is only one thing in the world holy and sublime, and it's the union of two of these being so imperfect and so hideous. One is often mistaken in love, often wounded and often sad, but one loves and when one has one foot in his grave, one can turn and see, and will say to oneself, I have suffered often, and I have fallen from time to time but I've loved. It is I who have lived, and not a false being created by my pride and my boredom." For me Love is the connection two souls make.

Actually though I guess it doesn't necessarily get us on the spiritual plane. You could suppose that we are all just a little bit psychic - able to reach out with our minds to each other and connect - and that's what love (and probably hate) is - without the necessity of souls or a spiritual plane.

But the simpler solution, I imagine, is to simply say there is no such thing as love except in individual skulls - and we are all alone, forever and ever. Well until we die, I suppose.

Bryant

[Evoman]

70. I don't understand why you don't respect him.

He is very smart and very well-spoken. Now you may not like him (I'm with you in that...he's completely immoral and I heard his burps smell like sulfur ;)), but why would you not respect him?

I guess I have problems understanding why people take things so personally. I have respect for (and genuinely like) almost everybody who posts on DU...we may disagree, but we're all good liberals here. I don't understand why criticism of others thoughts and opinions (and we all have those) should drive us to hate or disrespect others.

[bryant69]

84. He's a dishonest arguer.

I imagine if you agree with him on most issues you find him agreeable, but if you disagree with him, it's not as pleasant.

Bryant

[trotsky]

85. Justify your remark.

You're essentially calling me a liar, with that statement.

[bryant69]

86. No I am not

But that's exactly the sort of jump I'd expect from you.

There are ways to argue dishonestly without outright lieing.

Bryant

[trotsky]

87. Then justify your remark.

You claim it's not the same thing. Then back up what you are saying, show the difference. Or quit slandering me.

[bryant69]

91. If I withdraw my slander are you going to stop slandering me?

Seems unlikely.

At any rate, among your tricks you've misrepresentated what I said, cast aspersions at my motivations (which you couldn't possibly know and which you kept doing even after I had explained myself), and in one memorable exchange, trotted out the old "secret freeper" canard.

Bryant

[trotsky]

93. Completely false charge.

...in one memorable exchange, trotted out the old "secret freeper" canard.

Go back and read that exchange again. I did not at all imply you were a freeper - I pointed out, in response to your accusations (can't remember if it was against me or others) that SOME have indeed leveled that charge at you.

So basically you're pissed at me for something I didn't even say. That's too bad. And even worse, you feel that you need to respond by badmouthing me. Pathetic.

[bryant69]

95. I believe based on the whole conversation that

you have a particular opinion on that subject. But ok, I'll let that one go, and just leave the other two dishonest arguing techniques up.

Wait I can add another - picking one small tangential point and ignoring the rest of the argument. You've done that enough times.

Bryant

[trotsky]

96. Actually, my opinion is that you are not.

Please make specific cites to my "dishonest arguing techniques". When I get off on a tangent, it's usually because I feel that point should be addressed and resolved FIRST before the main topic can be discussed.

[bryant69]

99. Perhaps I have misjudged you

Our first argument turned on a very simple point - I was willing to admit that saying "George Bush is not a Christian" is offensive to Atheists, and people should refrain from saying it. But I disagreed on whether or not the motive of people saying that was an anti-Atheism or anti non-Christian.

At any rate that experience soured me on you.

Bryant

[trotsky]

100. I never got the feeling you were willing to admit that.

And I think there was a misunderstanding about that motive aspect - I think that most people who say it aren't consciously trying to bash non-Christians, but saying it nonetheless does. By saying "Bad Person X obviously can't be part of MY group," it automatically implies they think their group is morally superior. When it comes to Democrats vs. Republicans, that's par for the course. I myself think most Democrats are morally superior to most Republicans. But it's a unique situation when it comes to religion.

[bryant69]

102. I said it a couple of times

It is a unique situation in religion - well i guess it would be in any situation where there is a battle over the identity of an organization. You bring up the Democrat example - obviously some of us say DLC moderates are not real Democrats. On the other hand Moderates might accuse more radical types of not really acting in accordance with the standards of the Democratic Party. IN both cases there's an element of bullshit in the accusations - obviously both the most moderate (or even Conservative) and the most leftist who holds a Democratic membership card are Demcorats. And the Democratic legacy is wide enough to include Martin Luther King and the Segregationists. On the other hand battling over the identity of an organization is a way of changing and improving that organization. Those who don't belong, like the segregationists, will get shaken out.

In Christianity we see a similar struggle going on - and by the same token it's somewhat silly and inaccurate to claim that people aren't Christian or aren't living up to Christian standards. Of course that is what people are claiming - that both Liberal Christians and Conservative Christians (including el presidente) aren't really Christians. I can certainly point you to Republicans saying that you can't be a Christian and a liberal - and in fighting back, it's easy to slip from saying "I don't think that Republican values line up with what I think Christianity is or should be" (presumably inoffensive) to "George W. Bush isn't a Christian" Obviously they shouldn't do that (and I shouldn't do it either) because of the additional implications of that statement (i.e. no real christian can do any wrong).

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

88. Do you prefer name-calling

rather than a cogent, organized explanation of facts?

I seem to recall where you said that would be the "kind" thing to do.

[Ron Green]

89. mmmm... I feel a lot of love in here.

:*

[cosmik debris]

90. In case you missed it,

Bryant accused me of being unkind because I refused to call him and bad names. He showed his kindness by calling me a fucking liar. I was touched. I have always relied on the kindness of strangers.

[bryant69]

115. That's pretty distorted.

And I didn't accuse you of being unkind - I called you cruel.

[cosmik debris]

116. I stand corrected

You implied that I was less than kind because I refused to call you names. Here is your quote:

"You think your failure to call names is kind? It's far worse I should think..."

But hey, I'll accept your characterization of me as cruel for not calling names if that is what you want. I happen to believe that it is not cruel to refrain from name-calling. If you wish to hold the opposite opinion, that's alright with me.

[bryant69]

117. Typical distortion

It's not unkind to not call names - rather it is unkind to call names but refused to be specific because of rule 3. It is unkind, for example, to say "Cosmik Debris is a total . . . well I'd better not say because of rule 3."

You already know that though.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

118. You're really hung up on that "distortion" idea.

In fact the only thing I accused you of was bias, and being more amusing than aggravating, both specific accusations backed up by my statements at the time.

You, on the other hand, have distorted the situation to accuse me of calling you non-specific names. I did no such thing. What I did was refuse to answer your invitation to lower the dialog to insults. You may have wanted a war of insults, but that did not serve my purpose at all.

[bryant69]

119. Unfortunately for you, my memory works.

But if you need to remember it that way- I guess that's the way things go.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

120. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me by citing the post

I re read the thread and found no evidence of your contention. Please help me out by pointing to the offending remarks.

[bryant69]

121. Sorry I got better things to do than jump through those

particular hoops.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

122. In other words

You can't prove your point so you will pretend that you don't need to.

That's pretty lame!

In fact, you are wrong and you don't want to admit it.

Keep digging!

[bryant69]

123. OK let's jump through the hoops and let the distortion begin

From this post, which I believe was one of our first, if not our first encounters. -->
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x92192

42. You've contradicted yourself
When you said "I was trying to get a definition of those words"

If you want to get something, you ask for it or you just take it. Instead, you GAVE something, a bogus definition based on your own bias.

Your words betray your true self.

43. Hmmmmm. And what is my true self?
You've piqued my curiousity

I gave my definition as a starting point for discussion, obviously you disagree with it, as did several others. There's nothing particularly sinister in that, I don't think. It wasn't like an offensive definition, except in so far as any definition is going to be incomplete.

What exactly are you accusing me of?

44. See rule #3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

The implication is that your description of my true self would violate the rules against name calling. Which automatically implies that my true self must be pretty awful. And we covered all this the first time, remember? Because rule 3 does not prohibit criticism.

Now get to distorting - maybe you can trot out the one about how "you say i'm being cruel because I refuse to call you names" canard that you love so much, but that is total bullshit.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

124. You betrayed your true self as biased

Which is exactly what I said in post #42. That doesn't imply anything. It is an explicit statement of my opinion that you are biased.

[bryant69]

126. Laughs

Than why did you have to invoke rule 3?

If you already said I was biased? Why couldn't you have just said "Well you are biased, like I just said."

I mean you already called me biased, and I hope that the moderators wouldn't see the accusation of biased as being a violation of rule 3?

Hell we both know what you intended when you invoked rule 3 and you more or less got it.

You probably want the same thing here.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

127. Aha! The "We both know" argument

That holds a lot of water.

And the hypothetical question of why I didn't do what you wanted me to do. I'm not in the habit of proving your points for you. Obviously you are not either.

Keep digging

[bryant69]

128. OK - than why did you invoke rule 3?

Just answer that simple question.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

129. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

And time has proved that it was indeed a good idea.

It seems that the only way you can argue for your point is to ask questions. That seems pretty lame to me! Most people debate with declarative sentences, but you seem to believe that asking questions is an effective debate strategy. In fact, that is more than lame, it is just plain old bizarre.

Keep digging.

[bryant69]

130. That's because I see debate differently than you

I think it's worthwhile to see the other guys point of view - or to try to anyway.

Perhaps you should look up the Socratic method.

And like I said I don't doubt that you got what you wanted in that debate - but you aren't getting it this time.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

131. Too Late!

Keep digging!

[cosmik debris]

94. OH! I'm sorry

I missed that wonderful pun on the OP. How insensitive of me!

[bryant69]

92. It depends on who I am debating

With some people it's worth it to take the time to make clear cogent arguments - on the other hand if you are debating someone who has alrady made up their mind what you are, and will twist every statement to line up with that opinion, why waste time? What value is there in taking seriously someone who's already decided I'm an anti-Atheist bigot, particularly if I don't believe I can convince them otherwise?

Bryant

[kwassa]

97. I agree with you, Bryant.

I also think he is a dishonest arguer.

which is why I ignore him a lot.

[trotsky]

98. Hi, kwassa!

I learned a lot from you, I guess. :hi:

[struggle4progress]

38. Well, I wouldn't know anything about "proving the existence of G-d"

since I haven't bothered to consider any alleged proof in the last thirty years or so, having long ago become convinced that such efforts are invariably nonsensical. And I've never posted anything in this forum that could be construed as an "existence proof."

[beam me up scottie]

46. "Actually I just said it because I thought it would piss you off"

You might not have a very good idea of what Jesus is all about

Maybe you should read up on him a bit, if you think that's the sort of thing he's in favor of.

:hi:

[bryant69]

58. Everything you think I am, I am

Bryant

[Evoman]

74. Do you like that Eminem song?

I thought it was okay, but I preferred Mosh.

[bryant69]

82. I've never really listend to Eminem

His early work glorified misogyny, in my opinion, and despite the Bush bashing in Mosh, I never really went back to him.

Its from something but it's not coming to me from where - probably some eighties synthpop track.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

43. Yep.

Like I said, the instructions must be missing.

[Evoman]

8. Ugh...for gods sakes. Love is an emotion...you having that emotion is proof that it exists.

Its like believing in sight...how do you know sight exists? Well your reading this, aren't you? How do you know lust exists? You get horny. How do you know anger exists? You get angry. How do you know something is hot? You feel somethings hot.

Besides, love has physiological manifestations.

We've been throught this love thing like a billion times, thats why your gettting negative responses. I just wish people would mix it up...lets talk about anger, hate, sadness, depression, lust, excitement. Anything but love...because it always leads to this damn "I believe god is love" shite.

Evoman

[beam me up scottie]

9. Unfortunately, these talking points don't come with instructions.

They must just be told to post it and wait for the godless heathens to start denouncing their atheism in the face of such indisputable logic.

[struggle4progress]

14. You can't exhibit a post of mine "denouncing .. atheism" nor a post ..

.. of mine making any claim that any "indisputable logic" refutes atheism.

[Random_Australian]

37. Let me put it to you like this.

1) Inordinate amounts of people make a silly "believing in love is like believing in God" argument.

(Eg. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=81671 as a PRIME example)

2) It uses a "do you believe in love" meme to start off. Then it equates love's evidence with the evidence of God.

3) A person then says "do you believe in love".

4) The inference is that it is going to be this fricking silly argument again.

5) Then you get the posts you've seen.

[struggle4progress]

39. I don't see how that's a response to my response to BMUS, who

rather clearly indicated a belief that I was "denouncing .. atheism" and considered myself in possession of an "indisputable logic" refuting atheism.

But to answer what you have written: in the subject line of my OP, you will see that I made a specific query about whether two questions meant the same thing.

I have indicated elsewhere in this thread that it is my own view that someone might say "I do not think G-d exists but nevertheless I believe in G-d" much as someone might say "On the basis of my long experience, I have decided there's really no such thing as Love, but I have decided to believe in Love anyway."

Someone who made such a statement about Love would not be making a argument in the usual sense: the statement has neither premises nor conclusions, nor does demonstrate anything. Nevertheless, I think such statements can be meaningful.

[beam me up scottie]

44. No, RA is correct."it is going to be this fricking silly argument again"

The "Does Love Exist?" trap isn't going to work on us.

It's neither clever nor original as you can see from RA's link.

Kudos to the atheists in here for not taking the bait.

[struggle4progress]

71. Apparently you also believe that you can see into the future.

You should realize that the combination of your beliefs, that you understand my motives and that you can predict what I would do without your intervention, is impervious to any response whatsoever: you set out to "forestall" an argument that I am not making and repeatedly disregard all of my disclaimers, which in combination with your certainty that my intent must be what you claim it is and that my responses would ultimately run along the lines that you claim they would, enables you to believe that you have wittily prevented me from saying something that in fact I would not say, because it would be out of character of me to say it.

Self-reinforcing belief systems are an interesting topic, of course, but perhaps one that I will not explore in detail at this moment.

[Random_Australian]

47. That's what I'm telling you.

"BMUS, who rather clearly indicated a belief that I was "denouncing .. atheism" and considered myself in possession of an "indisputable logic" refuting atheism."

She thinks that because of what I said above. Atheists have met those who've said that you-believe-in-love-so-you-should-believe-in-god so many times, representing it as the very indisputable logic that refutes atheism, that now it is pretty much automatic that when someone starts saying the old signature 'do you believe in Love' lines then the response is automatic.

I'm telling you how to calm things down here! All you need to do is state clearly that you know about the God/love thing, and that what you are talking about is very different and should be taken literally.


Hope this helps. :) We're after discussion in here, after all.

[struggle4progress]

15. When people say things like "I believe in love" they usually seem ..

.. to mean something other than "I believe I have certain physiological reactions." Most people who uttered the first sentence with enthusiasm would be unlikely to regard the second sentence as an equivalent.

And I have only rarely, at best, heard anyone say anything like "I believe that seeing exists," nor would the intent be comparable.

It is fine with me, of course, if you regard "G-d is love" as a meaningless statement. The theological question, that I am aiming at, is somewhat different: could a person meaningfully say "G-d does not exist but I believe in G-d"?

[Evoman]

17. Yes, people say it and mean it all the time.

And in my mind, its absolutely insane to say that. God probably doesn't exist, and the christian god almost definitely doesn't exist, and people believe in him anyways. All the belief in the world doesn't make something true...the only thing belief in god proves is that people believe in god.

I personally think its insane if you think something doesn't exist, but you believe it anyways. How anybody can walk around with that inconsistency blows my mind.

[Random_Australian]

10. 1) Of course I believe in love. Almost a silly question. After all, I base my

belief on evidence, and if you think the pairing up of humans is just random co-incidence, you would have to have a lot of faith in chance. Or an unparsimonous explanation.

2) Does "Love" exist?

Which bit? The physiological bit sure does. Some of the other things are a bit abstract, but they are still *based* on the physical bit.

3) Are those things the same question?

For pragmatic purposes, yup. Though it DOES depend on what you are going to call existence.

4) could a person say (that stuff)

Yeah, they could. All they would need is a complete inability to understand science, in which case the second bit just means "I believe in love", which is fine.

There you go, questions and answers. I suspect more questions are coming though.

[trotsky]

12. Love exists in the mind of the person experiencing it...

but nowhere else.

So it is with gods.

[Evoman]

18. Geez, I blab and blab and you put it better than me in

two short sentences. Good post Trotsky.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

21. I think love exists as

a scientific and logical fact. I think there are genetic and evolutionary reasons for this wonderful gift that makes life worthwhile. I would imagine, if we haven't already, we will find a part of the brain that experiences love...or different parts for different types of love.

Love is cool.

[bananas]

23. I know it isn't true, I know it isn't true

Love is just a lie
Made to make you blue

Love hurts
ooh,ooh love hurts

[Goblinmonger]

29. Here's my problem with that question

It seems so clearly a theists way to "trap" the atheist into admitting that they "believe" in something that they can't see.

Here's the logical problem: equating the "existence" of love to the "existence" of god is not a like comparison. One exists in you head, the other doesn't. A more true comparison would be to compare love to BELIEF in god. That leads to these like statements:

1. How do I know that love exists? I think it and feel it.
2. How do I know that I believe in god? I think it and feel it.

To then make the leap to this statement:

3. How do I know that god exists? I think it and feel it.

is just absurd. No atheist regular in R/T is going to fall for it.

[struggle4progress]

40. Well, I invite you to look for a post of mine where I made any such ..

.. argument. You won't find such a post. I have more than once posted in this forum that I consider discussions of such matters superficial and uninformative.

[beam me up scottie]

45. That's what this was supposed to be, except we didn't fall for it.

The same internet that lets you check christian websites for instructions on how to use fallacies to prove atheism is illogical also allows atheists to collect and dissect them.

Checkmate.

[struggle4progress]

67. Apparently you believe in ESP, saving you the trouble of examining

what I actually say, or what I have said in the past, and allowing you to substitute, in place of such mundane material facts, some phantasm or hallucination that involves me searching the internet "for instructions on how to use fallacies to prove atheism is illogical."

I again invite you to exhibit any post of mine in which I have argued "atheism is illogical." You will not find such a post, I think, because I consider that entire realm of discourse silly.

And if you cannot produce such a post, perhaps you could have the good grace not to continue claiming that I make such arguments?

Checkmate? You imagine I play games for which in fact I have no use.

[beam me up scottie]

69. Oh brother. Yeah, all those other threads asking the same thing don't exist.

If you weren't targeting people who claim there is no evidence that God exists, then why did you post this in the R/T forum?

And knock it off with the supplemental straw man argument. I never claimed you that you "argued "atheism is illogical." ", so stop accusing me of something I didn't do.

I'm not going to repost my comments, if you're still confused, go back and read them yourself.

[struggle4progress]

72. You made the very claim you deny in #9 and essentially reiterated it in #44, #45

[beam me up scottie]

78. Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch, do I have to spoon feed you everything?

Unfortunately, these talking points don't come with instructions.

"these talking points" meaning the idiotic and overused "do atheists believe in love" question.

They must just be told to post it and wait for the godless heathens to start denouncing their atheism in the face of such indisputable logic.

"They" being the people who visit the websites and learn to ask idiotic and overused questions like the one above in the hopes that their clever ploy will trip up the stupid and unsuspecting atheists who have never seen it before.

Nowhere did I state that you denounced atheism or claimed it was illogical.

No, RA is correct."it is going to be this fricking silly argument again"
The "Does Love Exist?" trap isn't going to work on us.

It's neither clever nor original as you can see from RA's link.

Kudos to the atheists in here for not taking the bait.

RA was correct when he told you I was referring to previous threads asking the same idiotic question.


Again, nowhere did I state that you denounced atheism or claimed it was illogical.

That's what this was supposed to be, except we didn't fall for it.

The same internet that lets you check christian websites for instructions on how to use fallacies to prove atheism is illogical also allows atheists to collect and dissect them.

This was in reply to your post:

I invite you to look for a post of mine where I made any such ..
.. argument. You won't find such a post.

Let's hear that again:

That's what this was supposed to be

One more time:

supposed to be

And once more for clarity:

supposed

Do you know the definition of the word "supposed" or shall I post that for you too?








Point out where exactly I stated that you denounced atheism or claimed it was illogical.

[struggle4progress]

104. Give it a rest.

[Imperialism Inc.]

50. I disagree. God does indeed exist "in the head" and there alone.

I think it is a perfect analogy. God is not a real thing that exists in the world it is just a mental state. Just like I cannot go and harvest some love from the local love tree, one cannot find God anywhere but in the minds of believers.

[jokerman93]

34. Does love exist?

Yeah, I guess if you can imagine it, it exists in some way. It's an abstraction that can cover a lot of philosophical ground though.

For me love has little to do with feelings, or being nice, friendly, or conciliatory. I think that approach to it is more likely a "christian" concept, useful for keeping things fair and civil in the social realm. But for me, love's more of a recognition or acknowledgment of the interconnectedness and interdependence of life on earth -- all up and down the scale of so-called creation. I suppose what we do - arising from that acknowledgment - could be called love too.

It could also be thought of as a kind of "force" or impetus toward the good generated by relationships of mutual respect; a rare thing.

This provisional scheme might be simplistic, but it works for me, generally.

J

[struggle4progress]

41. I think that's closer to the mark than most of this thread.

[jokerman93]

48. And

Easily said. Easily enough forgotten.

J

[struggle4progress]

68. Actually, I was agreeing with your paragraph "..love has little to do with feelings, or being nice,

friendly, or conciliatory .. &c&c" which runs contrary to much of the standard pablum and is almost the only really serious material posted in this thread.

[jokerman93]

80. Yes thanks

I appreciate it. That coda was just a personal afterthought. And yeah, too bad about the thread. :eyes: one does what one can. :shrug:

J

[Goblinmonger]

51. If THAT is the point of this thread

then what the hell is it doing in R/T? You respond to me above that I can't point to a single post that shows you think that, yet you post a "do you believe in love" thread in R/T. What possible connection does the psychological makeup of love have to do with either religion or theology if it is not the same old canard about "proving" the existence of god.

I don't feel like searching through your posts, because the fact that you post this chestnut seems to be enough without further explanation--and the only explanation so far puts this thread outside of R/T.

[struggle4progress]

76. My own view is more like what I wrote here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=94302&mesg_id=94391

I have repeatedly indicated that I consider "proving" or "disproving" the existence of G-d a juvenile waste of time. I am, however, interested in how people use words and in what they are trying to communicate by what they say. Of course, if someone is determined to interpret everything I say as an attempt to "prove the existence of G-d," all disclaimers notwithstanding, then nothing I say to the contrary will have any effect on the interpretation.

[Goblinmonger]

81. Then that still doesn't answer my main question

If you are just posting about semantics, why did you post this in R/T? If this isn't really about god but about word usage (which has NO connection to either religion or theology that I can see), don't you understand why people would--and I would argue rightly--assume that your post is not about semantics but about god since that is what is discussed here?

And if this is really about semantics and word usage, I am amazed that the mods haven't moved this. Any tangential discussion of religion in GD gets sent to R/T but a meta-language discussion that has no connection to religion nor theology gets to stay in R/T--I would guess that they, too, think this is really about god.

I understand that you have claimed that isn't your point. Your choice of where to post this discussion cuts against your claims.

[struggle4progress]

103. The idea that my aims are semantic is yours, not mine.

Semantics has, to me, a specific logical significance -- related to the existence of models for collections of sentences -- which I consider irrelevant here.

[Goblinmonger]

106. Of course, we also have what you said.

You stated this:

I am, however, interested in how people use words and in what they are trying to communicate by what they say.

Compare that to the common definitions of semantics:

1. Linguistics.
a. the study of meaning.
b. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.
2. Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.
3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.

But fine, you want semantics to mean something else. Still leads me to this question which you seem to be dodging for some reason:

WHAT DOES BELIEVING IN LOVE HAVE TO DO WITH RELIGION AND/OR THEOLOGY? Can you possibly answer that one for me? You say it has nothing to do with god, so I am a little confused.

[struggle4progress]

107. When I say "I am .. interested .. in what are trying to communicate by what they say," ..

.. this to me is rather different than an interest in semantics. I'm sorry if you're unfamiliar with the description I gave of "semantics," which is a description often used by logicians. Of course my first sentence in this post remains accurate if we use your dictionary instead.

I suppose by now I should not be surprised to find your final sentence misquoting me.

And it seems to me that I already provided you with this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=94302&mesg_id=94646

[Goblinmonger]

108. I will keep this simple.

Why is this OP(if it is either about language semantics or logic semantics) in the Religion/Theology forum? How does it relate to what is to be discussed here?

[struggle4progress]

111. I'll try to keep this simple, too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=94302&mesg_id=94391

[Goblinmonger]

114. For someone schooled in logic

you certainly commit a non squirter an awful lot.

My question: What does your post have to do with religion and/or theology.
Your answer: Direction to a post in which you say 1. you ask whether two questions about love mean the same thing and 2. you aren't talking about love as a metaphor for proving the existence of god.

How does that answer my question? Please.

Here is where I am at. I, and many others, felt your OP was an old canard used by theists to try and trap atheists. You claim it isn't. When I ask you why your post is even in the R/T forum, then, if it isn't the old chestnut, you have NO ANSWER except to respond that it is about whether the two questions are similar. That does not make this a religion nor theological topic. The fact that you keep avoiding my question is leading me to make the assumption that it was in fact the old "trap the atheist" point and you are trying to backpedal after being called out on it. I don't want to believe that because you seem pretty clear in stating that wasn't your point.

So, please, really and directly answer the question. How does finding out whether the two questions--"Do you believe in love" and "Does love exist"--are the same or different have ANYTHING to do with either religion or theology?

[Goblinmonger]

109. Two things different from my question.

1. I know about the use of semantics in logic. Clearly your statememt of purpose is dead on to the use of semantics in language.

2. I don't understand how my final sentence misquotes you. I said it was about god, you said it wasn't. I am confused, then, since it is not about god, religion, nor theology, why it is in this forum.

[struggle4progress]

110. What I said was that I wasn't interested in "proving" the existence of G-d

and that the post had nothing to do with such alleged "proofs," which I consider silly.

[Goblinmonger]

113. And that's what I said you said but you called me a liar.

Where's the lie?

[struggle4progress]

125. If you can find a post in which I call you "a li@r" do feel free alert on it, as I am

reasonably certain that the moderators would delete it and warn me about civility.

But I cannot imagine that there is such a post, since I generally try not to accuse posters here of lying.

I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread a case in which you have misquoted me. And it strikes me me that you have just done so at least once again, by claiming that I called you "a li@r".

On the assumption that such misquotation is accidental, I encourage you to try to read more carefully.

[Goblinmonger]

132. I will agree that you did not use the word "liar"

but you did say this

"I suppose by now I should not be surprised to find your final sentence misquoting me."

To me, that seems pretty clear that you are saying I deliberately said you were saying something that you did not. That would by lying. Hence I would be a liar. If I somehow misinterpreted what you were saying, my apologies.

So, Why is this post in Religion/Theology? You seem to have forgotten to answer that.

[struggle4progress]

133. Yawn. What, friend, is the point? Four or five times I provided a link

to the following statement:

... someone might say "I do not think G-d exists but nevertheless I believe in G-d" much as someone might say "On the basis of my long experience, I have decided there's really no such thing as Love, but I have decided to believe in Love anyway." Someone who made such a statement about Love would not be making a argument in the usual sense: the statement has neither premises nor conclusions, nor does demonstrate anything ...

Your interpretation of this has been persistently that I am making an argument for the existence of G-d, which I am not, and which I have denied; from my denial, of any intent to make the silly argument you want to attribute to me, you take that I am disclaiming any relation of my question to theology; when I repeat my disclaimer with the observation that you misquote me repeatedly, you say I am calling you a liar; when I indicate a willingness to assume your misquotes are careless or accidental, and encourage you to read more closely, you say I am accusing you of deliberately misrepresentation, which is yet another misquote.

If, for example, you were to insist upon viewing theology as "existence proofs for supernatural beings," then certainly a statement such as "On the basis of my long experience, I have decided there's really no such thing as Love, but I have decided to believe in Love anyway" can have no potential relation to theology, according to your view. But in that case our notions diverge.

[Goblinmonger]

134. I think I made it pretty clear that it was MY interpretation

that you were saying I deliberately misquoted you. And then I apologized if I was wrong.

As to why this belongs in R/T. here is one of my original phrasings of the question.

How does finding out whether the two questions--"Do you believe in love" and "Does love exist"--are the same or different have ANYTHING to do with either religion or theology?

Your response in the last post

from my denial, of any intent to make the silly argument you want to attribute to me, you take that I am disclaiming any relation of my question to theology

I have asked you very clearly to give me the link. I have told you very honestly that I don't understand it. And I clearly said that it is leading me to believe (NOT that it is true) that it is the old canard used to prove atheists wrong. I even said I didn't want to believe that because you have been denying it.

The fact that you keep avoiding my question is leading me to make the assumption that it was in fact the old "trap the atheist" point and you are trying to backpedal after being called out on it. I don't want to believe that because you seem pretty clear in stating that wasn't your point.

So dumb it down for me then. What does your OP have to do with religion/theology? I have been asking you to do this since the beginning and you haven't. I clearly do not have the capacity to understand what you are getting at. Please help me out. Show me the relationship between the OP and R/T.

[struggle4progress]

135. Perhaps this link to a post of yours can clarify the nature of your questions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=94302&mesg_id=94306

[Goblinmonger]

136. So you still aren't going to answer the question?

Let me be even more specific given your explanation as to why you posted this, which was

I am, however, interested in how people use words and in what they are trying to communicate by what they say.

If that is what you wanted to know, why did you post in R/T instead of here?:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=309

Please answer the question so that I can understand it all better.

On edit: yeah, my first post into this thread was an indication that I felt you were trying to pull the old fast one on unsuspecting atheists. I wasn't the only one to think that. MANY people did. I have been asking you to tell me, since then, at least a handful of times what your purpose in posting this was and I have yet to get an answer other than a linguistic one which makes no sense given the forum you picked to post in. Just give me the answer and we can move on from there.

[Goblinmonger]

52. So this is an excercise in deconstructing a word

until it is basically meaningless? I loved doing that in my English classes in college. I don't get much chance to do that with the high school classes I teach.

[neebob]

53. Sure, it could be meaningful

It could mean you're not thinking and/or communicating very clearly.

It would make more sense to say something like, "I don't believe love exists on its own, as an entity or substance to be tapped into, but I believe individuals feel emotions that can be described as love."

[Ron Green]

54. I believe Love is the opposite of, and corrective for, Fear.

Fear being our constant and lifelong companion here on earth, and the foundation of all "negative" emotions (hate, anger, jealousy), love is the way we overcome it - temporarily, but with increasing success and duration. And we have love by risking the pain of connecting with another person, especially one very different from us.

The "love" of popular song and literature, love that needs or demands, love that longs for someone or something - there are other and better words for those emotions, some of which are fear-based and quite the opposite of true love.

To me, this seems to be our true purpose in living on the earth - to overcome the "needful" ways of relating to each other, and find the real power of accepting and loving them.

[Evoman]

55. Hey Ron....I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

Fear is, in many ways, more useful than love. Our "purpose", if indeed we have one, is to survive and procreate. That is all. Fear is essential for survival...fear is not necessarily evil, nor is hate, anger or jealous. We simply think these emotions are bad, because we don't like them. They don't feel good (which they shouldn't..if fear made you feel good, then your life's gonna be a hell of a lot shorter), and it is that "not feeling good" which makes us wrongly, IMO, assume that they are negative. Yes, they have caused much discord in our society, but then so has love, lust, etc.

[Ron Green]

57. I may have to come out as being anthropocentric then,

(you might even call me a "humanist," LOL), but I think we have more going for us as humans than other species do. Of course we share not only considerable DNA with them, but the same "fight or flight" mechanism that you aptly name as essential for survival. I suggest, though, that just as it's our responsibility as humans to do more than simply survive and procreate, it's also incumbent upon us to actually USE our fear to gain understanding of our true nature. Whereas no self-respecting wild animal would put any abstract cause above its own immediate safety or survival, humans regularly do such things, whether nobly or ill-advised.

I never said fear is evil, or bad. Far from it; it's the natural state of our existence, and the tool with which we have to find love. Lust, as I see it, is no more connected with love than is jealousy. It's fear-based, fundamentally fooling us into thinking we are not complete, that we need more and more of something. Love, to me, says I have enough, and I'm strong enough to reach out to others without fear and in complete giving.

[Evoman]

112. Could it be that religion and seeking god, whether it is love or unity or whatever...

be motivated by fear? You talk about fear being the motivator, and that part of being human is using our other faculties to overcome fear.

Well, let me ask you this...are you afraid of being wrong? Isn't it partly fear that makes one come up with constructs of the universe which they couldn't possibly know anything about? I honestly believe I am less motivated by fear, as an atheist,than all the theists here...I look at the gaping face of the unknown, and I say, "I don't know, but I'm not going to just make things up to make me feel better." I am not scared of being an accident. I am not scared that life has no purpose other than survival.

Love is not metaphysical. Its simply an emotion. Just like fear, sadness, happiness, lust, excitement, and trepidation.

Do you ever wonder if your beliefs are really fueled by love, or if they are more about fear?

[Danger Mouse]

105. Hmmm...

Looks like i missed some interesting arguments?
That's a difficult question, considering my attitudes towards love aren't always very positive, heh =P
But really...love is what you make of it, as far as I'm concerned. I think that's all it is.