So you don't believe in God; do you believe in love? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ramega · 10-15-2004, 08:24 PM

You can't prove love exists. There's no scientific way to measure it. You only know it exists because you can feel it or you believe others when they say they can feel it. Do you believe that love exists?

Is that so different from God?

soma · 10-15-2004, 08:48 PM

Do you believe emotions other than love do not exist because there is no way to measure them?

hannukah harry · 10-15-2004, 09:33 PM

i believe in love because while i can feel it (which is what theists say about god), it's an internal feeling. god isn't internal.

i think a decent analogy is that you can kick me in the junk and i will *feel* pain, but i can't actually see the nads through the sac. i can feel 'em, but i can't see them, so i know their real. but if i kick you in the nuts, is it pain you feel or god?

/okay, maybe not a good analogy but at least i got to say nads and sac.

evilbeefchan · 10-16-2004, 01:52 AM

I think Haddaway said it best when they asked, "What is Love?"

I think Love is far different from God. Love is an emotion, a thought, an impulse from the brain. Emotions can be expressed, and we can gauge the intensity of those emotions. We do not have to set aside personal beliefs or bias to react to someone's emotions. I feel that in the case of looking out for the existance of any kinds of gods, we have to put on a certain perspective and look harder for proof. There's no clear cut definition as to what can prove the gods existance/non-existance, where as we can define what hate, love, sadness and glee are.

Macheath · 10-16-2004, 03:23 AM

Love is an oft irrational emotion of pleasure.

As an atheist, I live and love because it gives me pleasure. I don't believe either needs to be assigned a higher motive.

Maybe there is a rational analogy though.

The kind, gentle relaxed Christian is inspired by the teachings of Jesus and loves their neighbour. The fundamentalist screeches nonsensical fire and brimstone from Leviticus and Revalation.

The good husband loves his wife as a friend and companion but they know where to draw the line. The lovestruck fool still doesn't get it even when they've been cheated on for the fifth time.

I guess you should just love your partner and your God well, but not to the point of MADNESS.

tecoyah · 10-16-2004, 03:43 AM

Good question

There are an indefinable number of feelings we call "love" and they are all correct to the individual feeling them.

There are an equal amout of feelings we call "god" and they are also, in my opinion, all correct.

I would never tell someone they are not in love, as I would have no way of Proving they were not. I only wish everyone would show the same forethought when discussing this "God" thing, it would prevent so many deaths, and remove one of the number one reasons to hate each other.

connyosis · 10-16-2004, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evilbeefchan

I think Haddaway said it best when they asked, "What is Love?"

Actually I think Al Pacino said it best in The Devil's Advocate:
Kevin Lomax : What about love?
John Milton : Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate.

So there you go, biochemically love is measureable, God isn't. Now, I'm not going to claim that I know God does not exist, for all I know he just might, and if there some day will pop up proof that he does I'll be the first to admit I was wrong.

ARTelevision · 10-16-2004, 08:50 AM

I don't "believe" in anything. I think and act upon that which I experience.

EmotivE · 10-16-2004, 09:10 AM

I think the main problem with agreeing whether love does or doesn't exist is simply the fact that everyone tends to view the concept of love differently. For example, Candians and American equally treasure the concept of freedom, but their concept of freedom fundamentally differs:
Canadians support a "postive" freedom where state intervention is necessary to permit the lower economic strata the "freedom to develop"
Americans (keep in mind these are simply generalizations) support a "negative" freedom, or a freedom from restraint: meaning the state interferes in their lives at a minimal level.
Where's the parallel?
Some people view love as a chemical response to ensure the survival of our genetic code, others view it as going "head over heels" or that they simply just "feel it" (by caring so much about one person to an almost unfathomable degree).
Conclusion: I think it would be difficult to declare that love as a broad concept does not exist. This is because people often define love according to their past relationships, i.e. "love is what I felt with (enter name here)". So, if you believe you're in love, you're in love (and vice versa).

Master_Shake · 10-16-2004, 09:19 AM

I don't believe in love. I know there's lust and socialization.

Lust is a biological urge to engage in sexual acts with another person. Mostly genetic and chemical.

Socialization is the process whereby society adds all kinds of nonsense to get in the way of lust. Mostly religious and superstitious.

CSflim · 10-16-2004, 11:33 AM

This argument is hopelessly flawed.

When you make the statement "I feel love", you are making a statement about how you subjectively feel (assuming you are not lying). You cannot be mistaken. If you think that you are feeling this emotion, then you necessarily must be feeling it.

When you make the statement "I am in pain" (again assuming you are not lying), then you genuinely are in pain. You cannot be mistaken about this.

When you make the statement "I am in pain, so someone must have shot me in the foot", there are many ways in which you could be wrong; maybe you were stabbed in the foot, maybe you stood on a nail, maybe you are a hypochondriac experiencing phantom pains. You [i]can[i/] be incorrect about the cause of a subjective experience, just not the existence of the subjective experience.

When you make the statement "I feel that god exists" you are not incorrect about reporting that you feel "spiritual", but just because you must be correct about the existence of this 'spiritual feeling' does not mean that you are correct about the cause of this feeling (in this case apparently the existence of god).

Therefore love is different to god.

10-16-2004, 12:50 PM

love- life- God= all the same thing.

high_jinx · 10-16-2004, 02:58 PM

when you feel love, it's for tangible objects you witness or experience in reality. nobody just goes around feel a general feeling of love... there is always a target of that love that has affected you in one way or another. feeling god on the other hand is taking input and ideas from people around you and transferring the resulting emotions you experience to something you haven't ever actually seen or experienced. there's a huge difference there as one is anchored in reality and the other is completely abstract.

crewsor · 10-16-2004, 03:33 PM

I don't believe in God, but I believe a belief in God can be great thing. Religion is a excellent crutch for people who need something to believe in. Not to mention what the fear of God can accomplish. The threat of hell has most likely prevented more crimes than the death penalty.
I do believe in love because I experience it daily. It is undeniable. When God speaks to me I will believe.

Ramega · 10-16-2004, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crewsor

When God speaks to me I will believe.

And I promise you that will be a good day!

Kalnaur · 10-17-2004, 10:51 AM

I do not believe in love.

I know I have felt an emotion that would be labeled love, but I do not believe in the love that everyone else believes in. Why? because we are all different, and experience for "love" in different modes and types. Love, just like god (whichever one you believe in) is not measureable, true, and yet we still call it love. This is so that we can have a label, a name for something. Did you know that in Latin, the word for love is amare? not love, amare. so, while the word amare might mean the same or near the same thing as love, it is not the same word.

What i am trying to say, in a round about way, is that both love and God are open to interpretation.

wilbjammin · 10-17-2004, 11:06 AM

If God was simply a feeling, then I'm certain that the God of mythological canons doesn't exist. God then, to exist only as a feeling, would have to be redefined (as God is supposely more than just a feeling).

For love to exist, we just need to feel it, as it defined as something we feel.

Mr. Munchy · 10-27-2004, 02:39 AM

I believe in love because love can be defined as a specific set of chemicals and neuron patterns and firings in the brain. I do not believe in god because there is no such physical evidence for god.

RespectThat · 10-27-2004, 05:37 AM

Thats funny, god has been shot down so many time by science, now the believers say well.. god is love and i feel him and you cant prove i cant feel him

Stompy · 10-27-2004, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramega

You can't prove love exists. There's no scientific way to measure it. You only know it exists because you can feel it or you believe others when they say they can feel it. Do you believe that love exists?

Is that so different from God?

Considering you can't feel god and "god" isn't an emotion... yes, it's different.

I think the question is more of like a "prove that the 'hot' you feel is the 'hot' I feel"

xepherys · 10-27-2004, 10:31 AM

Love vs. God:

I have a tangible, discreet understanding of love as it's an emotion I experience every day. I have love for my wife. I have love for my family. I have love for my friends. I have a special kind of love reserved only for my Xbox. Each of those feelings are a unique, seperate experience for me that I feel.

I have spirituality. I believe that there are higher beings out there, and that there is a collective ether of spirituality upon which all life is built. I don't feel it, and I don't KNOW it exists. That's why it's a belief.

There are some things that transcend the two. The love of my wife. I believe that she loves me. But I also can FEEL her love. It's an indescribable feeling of almost electric nature when we touch each other. A magnetic pulse when we look each other in the eyes.

God, god, goddess or other devine beings do not offer me such static proof of their existance. To say that nature, or snowflakes, or DNA is proof of god is assinine at best, completely foolish at it's worst. One can believe in something they do not feel. That is religion. You cannot disbelieve something you do feel. That would be nihilistic.

Sargeman · 10-27-2004, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

I only wish everyone would show the same forethought when discussing this "God" thing, it would prevent so many deaths, and remove one of the number one reasons to hate each other.

But there in lies the irony. Is it a "God" thing or is it a "love" of God that drives many to kill and hate in his name?

Zeraph · 10-28-2004, 12:44 PM

Love is one of the more indefinable emotions, God, even more so.

Halx · 10-28-2004, 02:03 PM

Love is a strong dissonance when one feels a strong compulsion towards another that was formed through attraction and circumstance. There's no need to mystify it.

the_marq · 10-28-2004, 02:09 PM

I believe in love,
and hate.

I believe in jealousy and
a smug sense of self-satisfaction.

***To paraphrase the guy above me, why do we need to apply a mystical aura to our emotions?

ScottKuma · 10-28-2004, 02:10 PM

I've seen this show up in some peoples' posts, and I certainly agree with it:

God = Love

I feel most "in tune" with the universe, spirituality, and God when I'm around those I love. Something just makes me feel "right" during those times. I used to have a similar feeling when I went to church - somehow it just felt right for me at that time. Since then, having fallen away from the Church, the times when I feel that "one-ness with God" is when I feel most in love with my wife, my child, my family and even myself.

hannukah harry · 10-28-2004, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

I've seen this show up in some peoples' posts, and I certainly agree with it:

God = Love

I feel most "in tune" with the universe, spirituality, and God when I'm around those I love. Something just makes me feel "right" during those times. I used to have a similar feeling when I went to church - somehow it just felt right for me at that time. Since then, having fallen away from the Church, the times when I feel that "one-ness with God" is when I feel most in love with my wife, my child, my family and even myself.

but while you associate that with god, that doesn't mean that there is one. i get that feeling all the time too. and if that's god, then i need start praying to ben and jerry, my flavortilogical dieties.

ScottKuma · 10-28-2004, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

but while you associate that with god, that doesn't mean that there is one. i get that feeling all the time too. and if that's god, then i need start praying to ben and jerry, my flavortilogical dieties.

Nor does it mean that there is not a God.

Besides which, my belief in God is not in question -- my belief in love is.

But what's wrong with praying to Ben & Jerry? After all, they are God, I am God, Thou art God.

Shall we go drink the water of life?

adysav · 10-28-2004, 03:04 PM

CSflim said it best.
Automatically associating your general sense of well being with the existence of a God is just wishful thinking, possibly tinged with a lack of self-belief. You can make good things happen yourself you know.

ScottKuma · 10-28-2004, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav

CSflim said it best.
Automatically associating your general sense of well being with the existence of a God is just wishful thinking, possibly tinged with a lack of self-belief. You can make good things happen yourself you know.

Notice that I didn't attribute my good feeling to God. I said that I feel closest to God (and take that word for whatever you will) when I also feel loved.

For much of history, air existed, man breathed it, and didn't know what it was. Not believing in air didn't make it so that man couldn't breathe. Believing in air didn't make man breathe any better or worse. Eventually, we came to understand air; now everyone believes in it. I suspect that God will be much like this. God may or may not be a supreme "BEING", but for a lack of better understanding, that's how some of us choose to personify our experiences with God.

adysav · 10-29-2004, 03:10 AM

Air is a substance that exists in the real world. Belief in it is not an issue.
God is something created in the minds of man to explain the unexplainable and shift responsibility. If, one day, it is discovered that there is such a 'being', your belief in it is coincidental as it currently has no real foundation.

ScottKuma · 10-29-2004, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav

Air is a substance that exists in the real world. Belief in it is not an issue.
God is something created in the minds of man to explain the unexplainable and shift responsibility. If, one day, it is discovered that there is such a 'being', your belief in it is coincidental as it currently has no real foundation.

Ah, but that's JUST what people might have said before air was understood. Same for any number of scientific discoveries.

Who are you to say that God does not exist in the real world? Just because you can't touch it/Him, or don't understand it/Him? I don't understand quarks, gluons, and all of the myriad things that engender particle physics. These tiny particles don't have any effect on me that I can put my finger on and say, "oh! Quarks!" Yet I believe the scientists who tell me that they exist.

Our lack of understanding or disbelief in a subject does not disprove its existence. Granted, our belief in a subject does not prove existence, either. I think that part of our struggle in being human is trying to keep an open mind to those things that are untouchable, undetectable. This is called faith. People have faith in different matters -- some in God, some in science, some in double-entry accounting, some in the fact that one day, the Boston Red Sox would actually win the World Series (

).

If, someday, God is discovered & proven scientifically, I do not concede that my current belief in it/Him was coincidental. I feel & see God's effects all around me; just as people felt the effects of the wind, even when they could not explain it.

adysav · 10-29-2004, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

Ah, but that's JUST what people might have said before air was understood. Same for any number of scientific discoveries.

Before people knew of it's specific makeup and properties, people could see the effects of air, the way wind pushes things around, brushes against your skin and the need for people to suck it in and blow it out again.
The belief in God is not based on similar observations, but of the assumption that certain things are under the control of a higher being, which is probably what people of old thought of air and wind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

Who are you to say that God does not exist in the real world? Just because you can't touch it/Him, or don't understand it/Him?

If there is a God, then you do not understand him either. What makes you special that you can say that he does exist, but I cannot claim he doesn't. I am merely going with the current evidence, which currently stands at zero.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

I don't understand quarks, gluons, and all of the myriad things that engender particle physics. These tiny particles don't have any effect on me that I can put my finger on and say, "oh! Quarks!" Yet I believe the scientists who tell me that they exist.

These people have made observations of the real world and noted the effects of these things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

Our lack of understanding or disbelief in a subject does not disprove its existence. Granted, our belief in a subject does not prove existence, either. I think that part of our struggle in being human is trying to keep an open mind to those things that are untouchable, undetectable. This is called faith.

If I continually claimed there were invisible beetles crawling under my skin controlling my actions and thoughts, you'd call me a nutcase. To me, faith in an omnipotent God is just as arbitrary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

If, someday, God is discovered & proven scientifically, I do not concede that my current belief in it/Him was coincidental. I feel & see God's effects all around me; just as people felt the effects of the wind, even when they could not explain it.

That's my point, you don't see the effects of God around you. Everything you feel, see, taste and touch is the product of your body's interaction with a pretty rational reality. You're emphasising my point that belief in God is simply a blanket to cover everything that you don't understand about the world.

ScottKuma · 10-29-2004, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav

If I continually claimed there were invisible beetles crawling under my skin controlling my actions and thoughts, you'd call me a nutcase. To me, faith in an omnipotent God is just as arbitrary.

Hey, I might think you're a nutcase for if you claimed that, but does that make your assertation any less valid? Honestly, maybe you're right!

I don't claim that God controls my actions or my thoughts. Nor do I necessarily believe that God is necessarily omnipotent. I don't subscribe to many of the Christian beliefs of God; never in my previous posts have I said that I do. I believe in an afterlife, but not necessarily one divided into Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory. This is based on my belief that we are more than the sum of the chemical processes that exist in our bodies.

My belief in God is centered around the following: God "sets the rules" in some sense; we are left to play within those rules. The universe seems too well designed to have happened randomly. Order does not come from chaos - chaos only breeds MORE of itself. Entropy always increases & the like. However, so much order exists in the universe! And it repeats across scale - atoms look an awful lot like planetary systems, which in turn looks an awful lot like galaxies, etc. That order, and the rules that govern it, seems too well planned to be random, especially when I take into consideration these differences in scale & distance. Perhaps I'm wrong...and if that's your estimation, fine - you're welcome to it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav

That's my point, you don't see the effects of God around you. Everything you feel, see, taste and touch is the product of your body's interaction with a pretty rational reality. You're emphasising my point that belief in God is simply a blanket to cover everything that you don't understand about the world.

Oh, but I do see the effects of God around me! See my previous paragraph on design. My good friend Xepherys has stated:

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

To say that nature, or snowflakes, or DNA is proof of god is assinine at best, completely foolish at it's worst.

Again, I completely disagree - maybe it's the romantic nature in me, but I can't get away from the fact that all of what I see around me seems too perfectly designed , for lack of a better term. I can't look at a tree, a sunset, a beautiful snowcapped mountain, or a beautiful newborn baby & not see the effects of the "design of God" (again, for lack of a better term).

Ultimately, though, my beliefs are no more or less asinine than believing in the Christian faith, believing that invisible beetles are telling you what to do, or any of the other myriad "crackpot" idea out there. The only thing that makes an idea "crackpot" is the fact that it does not coincide with our own beliefs or the collective beliefs of society.

Unfortunately, I fear that no matter how hard we try, the other side will always sound like the kid who sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts "LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" to any concept s/he finds disturbing. Again, that's what makes these *beliefs*. What makes our collective society wonderful is the ability to discuss, debate, and compare these beliefs, while respecting each others' beliefs and maintaining our own.

At any rate - thanks for a good, reasoned discusson within a topic that doesn't contain much reason.

Bionic Monkey · 10-29-2004, 12:31 PM

Love, and all other emotions are a chemical reaction in our brains that can be measured. Most of these emotions also create a physiological reaction that can be measured. While we lack the ability to discern what emotion is being felt, we can most certainly determine that something is happening using the scientific method.

God provides none of these signs that prove existence.

xepherys · 10-30-2004, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

Again, I completely disagree - maybe it's the romantic nature in me, but I can't get away from the fact that all of what I see around me seems too perfectly designed , for lack of a better term. I can't look at a tree, a sunset, a beautiful snowcapped mountain, or a beautiful newborn baby & not see the effects of the "design of God" (again, for lack of a better term).

See, this is where I see them as natural selection on the universal scale. Billions of years of what has worked out, leaving behind billions of years of what has not. Humans are much different in their makeup than they were 200 years ago. They tend to be taller and less broad (or artists of yesteryear were REALLY bad). Our lifestyles have changed, and our physicalities have had to adapt. A sunset isn't amazing, it's the prismatic effect of the light you see everyday, bending around the earth. A snowcapped mountain? Of course! It snows up there... it's cold on top of tall mountains. A baby is a baby... human or otherwise. They're just little vesions of the parental creatures. Is it all wonderful and beautiful? Sure it is! Is it amazing? Not so much, no...

bill96ab · 10-30-2004, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bionic Monkey

Love, and all other emotions are a chemical reaction in our brains that can be measured. Most of these emotions also create a physiological reaction that can be measured. While we lack the ability to discern what emotion is being felt, we can most certainly determine that something is happening using the scientific method.

God provides none of these signs that prove existence.

If you would like, read the short book by C.S. Lewis "Suprised by Joy". Lewis was an atheist too... for a while.

also,

What is love?

love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud, it is not rude, it is not selfseeking, easily angered, nor keeps a record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth, love always protects, always trusts, and always perseveres. Love never fails.

I believe this is what love is. As stated above, Love = God, and sure we can PET scan our brains to measure how it affects our brains, but you cant PET scan the universe to see where it came from.

peace out

K-Wise · 10-30-2004, 11:58 AM

No one will ever be able to fully understand God (those who believe in him that is) until maybe you are face to face with him in the afterlife. That is infact guaranteed to those who follow him and it's appropriate because for all the millions of questions we have about things we don't understand in the world it would take an eternity to explain each and every one of them. I'll quote something "If God were small enough for your mind, he wouldn't be big enough for our needs." Most athiests will probably remain so for the rest of their lives....Same cannot be said for most Christians. It is much easier to not believe in God than to believe in him completely. It's very hard to believe in something you cannot for the life of you understand completely at times. So Heaven is also the appropriate prize for having such undying faith and dedication for all those years without giving up. That is HARD. Very hard. May God be with you to those who believe and especially be with you to those who don't.

Feel free to critisize me about my signature as well. I'm not perfect and I wear it on my sleeve.

Asta!!

martinguerre · 10-30-2004, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bionic Monkey

Love, and all other emotions are a chemical reaction in our brains that can be measured. Most of these emotions also create a physiological reaction that can be measured. While we lack the ability to discern what emotion is being felt, we can most certainly determine that something is happening using the scientific method.

God provides none of these signs that prove existence.

a wiser man than myself always tells me that "science and religion start in the same place. Awe and wonder."

Reductionism doesn't suit science well...it is grounded in a terrific curiousity, and the sense for the potential of the universe to be surprising.

Same with religion. If you can tell me about chemical reactions or signals... Why?

We don't understand the brain very well at all...we have a basic working knowledge of the mechanisms...but very little concerning the way in which it functions on higher levels. in the end...i'd much rather give myself space to be surprised, by both God and nature.

adysav · 10-31-2004, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

Hey, I might think you're a nutcase for if you claimed that, but does that make your assertation any less valid?

No, because it is completely invalid in the first place. There is no basis for my assertion, I just plucked it out of the air.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

Order does not come from chaos - chaos only breeds MORE of itself. Entropy always increases & the like.

It's odd how you qualify a non-scientific argument with pseudo-scientific reasoning. I'm sure you know from experience that chaos does not only lead to more chaos, look around you. A complex, well-ordered organism can be grown from a seed or egg, and you can turn a few small lumps of rock into an Ipod.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

However, so much order exists in the universe! And it repeats across scale - atoms look an awful lot like planetary systems, which in turn looks an awful lot like galaxies, etc. That order, and the rules that govern it, seems too well planned to be random, especially when I take into consideration these differences in scale & distance.

Not really. Since both galaxies and planetary systems are both chiefly governed by the same force, gravity, it is obvious there will look very similar as they are practically the same thing just with differing numbers of bodies (there are also galaxies which do not follow the popular spiral or disc shape). Atoms, however, only look like planetary systems in school textbooks where you have a little blob of balls being orbited by other balls. It's not an accurate description of what an atom 'looks' like, if you can even use that term on an atomic scale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

Again, I completely disagree - maybe it's the romantic nature in me, but I can't get away from the fact that all of what I see around me seems too perfectly designed , for lack of a better term. I can't look at a tree, a sunset, a beautiful snowcapped mountain, or a beautiful newborn baby & not see the effects of the "design of God" (again, for lack of a better term).

Oh dear, we seem to be going in circles

My point is... why do you attribute these things to a higher power that you call God? It's just like the wind argument from before. You do not understand something, therefore it must be caused by God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

The only thing that makes an idea "crackpot" is the fact that it does not coincide with our own beliefs or the collective beliefs of society.

The lack of a foundation in reality also helps.

If you disagree I'm sorry, the beetles made me do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill96ab

If you would like, read the short book by C.S. Lewis "Suprised by Joy". Lewis was an atheist too... for a while.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Lewis was not a biochemist. Nor was "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" a research paper on the evolution of mammalian psychology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

If you can tell me about chemical reactions or signals... Why?

Obviously all research that you do not immediately see the benefit of, is pointless.

10-15-2004, 08:24 PM	#1 (permalink)
Ramega Crazy	So you don't believe in God; do you believe in love? You can't prove love exists. There's no scientific way to measure it. You only know it exists because you can feel it or you believe others when they say they can feel it. Do you believe that love exists? Is that so different from God?

10-15-2004, 08:48 PM	#2 (permalink)
soma Addict Location: USA	Do you believe emotions other than love do not exist because there is no way to measure them? Last edited by soma; 10-15-2004 at 09:02 PM..

10-15-2004, 09:33 PM	#3 (permalink)
hannukah harry Junkie	i believe in love because while i can feel it (which is what theists say about god), it's an internal feeling. god isn't internal. i think a decent analogy is that you can kick me in the junk and i will feel pain, but i can't actually see the nads through the sac. i can feel 'em, but i can't see them, so i know their real. but if i kick you in the nuts, is it pain you feel or god? /okay, maybe not a good analogy but at least i got to say nads and sac. __________________ shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

10-16-2004, 03:43 AM	#6 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Good question There are an indefinable number of feelings we call "love" and they are all correct to the individual feeling them. There are an equal amout of feelings we call "god" and they are also, in my opinion, all correct. I would never tell someone they are not in love, as I would have no way of Proving they were not. I only wish everyone would show the same forethought when discussing this "God" thing, it would prevent so many deaths, and remove one of the number one reasons to hate each other. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-16-2004, 08:50 AM	#8 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I don't "believe" in anything. I think and act upon that which I experience. __________________ create evolution

10-16-2004, 01:52 AM	#4 (permalink)
evilbeefchan Addict Location: Alhambra, CA	I think Haddaway said it best when they asked, "What is Love?" I think Love is far different from God. Love is an emotion, a thought, an impulse from the brain. Emotions can be expressed, and we can gauge the intensity of those emotions. We do not have to set aside personal beliefs or bias to react to someone's emotions. I feel that in the case of looking out for the existance of any kinds of gods, we have to put on a certain perspective and look harder for proof. There's no clear cut definition as to what can prove the gods existance/non-existance, where as we can define what hate, love, sadness and glee are.

10-16-2004, 03:23 AM	#5 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	Love is an oft irrational emotion of pleasure. As an atheist, I live and love because it gives me pleasure. I don't believe either needs to be assigned a higher motive. Maybe there is a rational analogy though. The kind, gentle relaxed Christian is inspired by the teachings of Jesus and loves their neighbour. The fundamentalist screeches nonsensical fire and brimstone from Leviticus and Revalation. The good husband loves his wife as a friend and companion but they know where to draw the line. The lovestruck fool still doesn't get it even when they've been cheated on for the fifth time. I guess you should just love your partner and your God well, but not to the point of MADNESS.

10-16-2004, 09:10 AM	#9 (permalink)
EmotivE Upright Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada	I think the main problem with agreeing whether love does or doesn't exist is simply the fact that everyone tends to view the concept of love differently. For example, Candians and American equally treasure the concept of freedom, but their concept of freedom fundamentally differs: Canadians support a "postive" freedom where state intervention is necessary to permit the lower economic strata the "freedom to develop" Americans (keep in mind these are simply generalizations) support a "negative" freedom, or a freedom from restraint: meaning the state interferes in their lives at a minimal level. Where's the parallel? Some people view love as a chemical response to ensure the survival of our genetic code, others view it as going "head over heels" or that they simply just "feel it" (by caring so much about one person to an almost unfathomable degree). Conclusion: I think it would be difficult to declare that love as a broad concept does not exist. This is because people often define love according to their past relationships, i.e. "love is what I felt with (enter name here)". So, if you believe you're in love, you're in love (and vice versa).

10-16-2004, 09:19 AM	#10 (permalink)
Master_Shake Addict Location: Pennsylvania, USA	I don't believe in love. I know there's lust and socialization. Lust is a biological urge to engage in sexual acts with another person. Mostly genetic and chemical. Socialization is the process whereby society adds all kinds of nonsense to get in the way of lust. Mostly religious and superstitious. __________________ ------------- You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

10-16-2004, 11:33 AM	#11 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	This argument is hopelessly flawed. When you make the statement "I feel love", you are making a statement about how you subjectively feel (assuming you are not lying). You cannot be mistaken. If you think that you are feeling this emotion, then you necessarily must be feeling it. When you make the statement "I am in pain" (again assuming you are not lying), then you genuinely are in pain. You cannot be mistaken about this. When you make the statement "I am in pain, so someone must have shot me in the foot", there are many ways in which you could be wrong; maybe you were stabbed in the foot, maybe you stood on a nail, maybe you are a hypochondriac experiencing phantom pains. You [i]can[i/] be incorrect about the cause of a subjective experience, just not the existence of the subjective experience. When you make the statement "I feel that god exists" you are not incorrect about reporting that you feel "spiritual", but just because you must be correct about the existence of this 'spiritual feeling' does not mean that you are correct about the cause of this feeling (in this case apparently the existence of god). Therefore love is different to god. __________________

10-16-2004, 12:50 PM	#12 (permalink)
:::OshnSoul::: Guest	love- life- God= all the same thing.

10-16-2004, 02:58 PM	#13 (permalink)
high_jinx Psycho Location: venice beach, ca	when you feel love, it's for tangible objects you witness or experience in reality. nobody just goes around feel a general feeling of love... there is always a target of that love that has affected you in one way or another. feeling god on the other hand is taking input and ideas from people around you and transferring the resulting emotions you experience to something you haven't ever actually seen or experienced. there's a huge difference there as one is anchored in reality and the other is completely abstract. __________________ -my phobia drowned while i was gettin down.

10-16-2004, 03:33 PM	#14 (permalink)
crewsor Women want me. Men fear me. Location: Maryland,USA	I don't believe in God, but I believe a belief in God can be great thing. Religion is a excellent crutch for people who need something to believe in. Not to mention what the fear of God can accomplish. The threat of hell has most likely prevented more crimes than the death penalty. I do believe in love because I experience it daily. It is undeniable. When God speaks to me I will believe. __________________ We all have wings, some of us just don't know why.

10-17-2004, 10:51 AM	#16 (permalink)
Kalnaur Psycho Location: Portland, Oregon	I do not believe in love. I know I have felt an emotion that would be labeled love, but I do not believe in the love that everyone else believes in. Why? because we are all different, and experience for "love" in different modes and types. Love, just like god (whichever one you believe in) is not measureable, true, and yet we still call it love. This is so that we can have a label, a name for something. Did you know that in Latin, the word for love is amare? not love, amare. so, while the word amare might mean the same or near the same thing as love, it is not the same word. What i am trying to say, in a round about way, is that both love and God are open to interpretation. __________________ PC: Can you help me out here HK? HK-47: I'm 98% percent sure this miniature organic meatbag wants you to help find his fellow miniature organic meatbags. PC: And the other 2 percent? HK-47: The other 2 percent is that he is just looking for trouble and needs to be blasted, but that might be wishful thinking on my part.

10-17-2004, 11:06 AM	#17 (permalink)
wilbjammin * * *	If God was simply a feeling, then I'm certain that the God of mythological canons doesn't exist. God then, to exist only as a feeling, would have to be redefined (as God is supposely more than just a feeling). For love to exist, we just need to feel it, as it defined as something we feel. __________________ Innominate.

10-27-2004, 02:39 AM	#18 (permalink)
Mr. Munchy Upright	I believe in love because love can be defined as a specific set of chemicals and neuron patterns and firings in the brain. I do not believe in god because there is no such physical evidence for god.

10-27-2004, 05:37 AM	#19 (permalink)
RespectThat Upright	Thats funny, god has been shot down so many time by science, now the believers say well.. god is love and i feel him and you cant prove i cant feel him

10-27-2004, 10:31 AM	#21 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	Love vs. God: I have a tangible, discreet understanding of love as it's an emotion I experience every day. I have love for my wife. I have love for my family. I have love for my friends. I have a special kind of love reserved only for my Xbox. Each of those feelings are a unique, seperate experience for me that I feel. I have spirituality. I believe that there are higher beings out there, and that there is a collective ether of spirituality upon which all life is built. I don't feel it, and I don't KNOW it exists. That's why it's a belief. There are some things that transcend the two. The love of my wife. I believe that she loves me. But I also can FEEL her love. It's an indescribable feeling of almost electric nature when we touch each other. A magnetic pulse when we look each other in the eyes. God, god, goddess or other devine beings do not offer me such static proof of their existance. To say that nature, or snowflakes, or DNA is proof of god is assinine at best, completely foolish at it's worst. One can believe in something they do not feel. That is religion. You cannot disbelieve something you do feel. That would be nihilistic.

10-28-2004, 12:44 PM	#23 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	Love is one of the more indefinable emotions, God, even more so.

10-28-2004, 02:03 PM	#24 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Love is a strong dissonance when one feels a strong compulsion towards another that was formed through attraction and circumstance. There's no need to mystify it. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

10-28-2004, 02:09 PM	#25 (permalink)
the_marq All hail the Mountain King Location: Black Mesa	I believe in love, and hate. I believe in jealousy and a smug sense of self-satisfaction. **To paraphrase the guy above me, why do we need to apply a mystical aura to our emotions? __________________ The Truth: Johnny Cash could have kicked Bruce Lee's ass if he wanted to.* #3 in a series

10-28-2004, 02:10 PM	#26 (permalink)
ScottKuma Insane Location: Maineville, OH	I've seen this show up in some peoples' posts, and I certainly agree with it: God = Love I feel most "in tune" with the universe, spirituality, and God when I'm around those I love. Something just makes me feel "right" during those times. I used to have a similar feeling when I went to church - somehow it just felt right for me at that time. Since then, having fallen away from the Church, the times when I feel that "one-ness with God" is when I feel most in love with my wife, my child, my family and even myself.

10-28-2004, 03:04 PM	#29 (permalink)
adysav Insane	CSflim said it best. Automatically associating your general sense of well being with the existence of a God is just wishful thinking, possibly tinged with a lack of self-belief. You can make good things happen yourself you know.

10-29-2004, 03:10 AM	#31 (permalink)
adysav Insane	Air is a substance that exists in the real world. Belief in it is not an issue. God is something created in the minds of man to explain the unexplainable and shift responsibility. If, one day, it is discovered that there is such a 'being', your belief in it is coincidental as it currently has no real foundation.

10-29-2004, 12:31 PM	#35 (permalink)
Bionic Monkey Upright	Love, and all other emotions are a chemical reaction in our brains that can be measured. Most of these emotions also create a physiological reaction that can be measured. While we lack the ability to discern what emotion is being felt, we can most certainly determine that something is happening using the scientific method. God provides none of these signs that prove existence.

10-30-2004, 11:58 AM	#38 (permalink)
K-Wise It's All About The Ass!! Location: In a pool of mayonnaise!!	No one will ever be able to fully understand God (those who believe in him that is) until maybe you are face to face with him in the afterlife. That is infact guaranteed to those who follow him and it's appropriate because for all the millions of questions we have about things we don't understand in the world it would take an eternity to explain each and every one of them. I'll quote something "If God were small enough for your mind, he wouldn't be big enough for our needs." Most athiests will probably remain so for the rest of their lives....Same cannot be said for most Christians. It is much easier to not believe in God than to believe in him completely. It's very hard to believe in something you cannot for the life of you understand completely at times. So Heaven is also the appropriate prize for having such undying faith and dedication for all those years without giving up. That is HARD. Very hard. May God be with you to those who believe and especially be with you to those who don't. Feel free to critisize me about my signature as well. I'm not perfect and I wear it on my sleeve. Asta!! __________________ "I love music and it's my parents fault (closing statement)." - Me..quoting myself...from when I said that...On TFP..thats here...Tilted Forum Project *It ain't goodbye, it's see ya later! I'll miss you guys!* - Asta!!