I'd like to put the love thing to rest. I can provide evidence both biochemical and psychological that someone is in love or that someone has feelings of love. It can't be 100%, but I can be fairly sure (and with psychology, that's often as good as it gets). The thing is, it's all subjective. While I can present the evidence, it's easy for me to be using "love" in one way and you in another. Love, after all, isn't easy to define. The reason it was introduced into this thread was because it was being related to evidence explaining something intangible or philosophical. God, as was suggested by the point, is going to be an intangible or philosophical creature, but the Torah, Bible, and Qu'ran all make it clear that god is more than an idea. God is as real as you or I, and it's made clear when he pulls back a great body of water for Moses, or allows his own son to perform miracles, or allows an illiterate farmer to write a beautiful book. The problem is that you can't relate symptoms of an emotion with proof of a deity, not only because it's a case of apples and oranges, but because there is no evidence for the existence of god. There is some evidence, be it biochemical or psychological, for love.
For the sake of not threadjacking, I'll leave the "love" part of the discussion to end here. This is about atheism, not the nature of emotions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Judy Taber
quote...quote...quote. Bah. Feel...feel...feel instead. Do you change your batteries every night before bedtime as well?
|
I'm sure you wouldn't have said that to Galileo, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Edwin Hubble, or the Wright Brothers. If I were a mystic or pastor, I'd agree with you. I'm not. I see the world through the lens of truth. I dabble in philosophy, sure, but when it comes time for me to figure out what's going on around me, you won't see me pray.