REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

FlyNvBaller · 01-02-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZhangFei

please keep in mind i'm just trying to write this in an atheistic/scientific point of view

as for your mother and child analogy:

we as human beings are here for biological reasons: surviving and replicating. whatever the mother is doing is imprinted in her own biology to ensure her child can do the same to ensure the survival of their own species.

as your your marriage analogy:

i'm not going as to far as marriage. you must realize that marriage isn't proof of love at all. you're just saying something as absurd like if someone puts a ring on a woman's finger then it is love. and if they get want to get married, its for their own PERSONAL CONVICTIONS, aka the LEAP OF FAITH. a personal conviction isn't evidence for the real thing son.

if someone is personally convicted that God exists and then changes his or her life around 180 based on that conviction, that is not evidence that God really exists. its just their assumption and personal conviction that God exists. i'm sure you would agree to that.

skinnypupp: I do question hardcore legitimate evidence of the existence of God. all i can say is that I believe God exists. i also believe love exists too.

I was already going to write something about that before your response to prevent this response, about the similarities of love and god but that would make my response crazy long lol. Anyways,

We all know that when someone tells us the reason why they believe in god, it is their personal experiences, their personal testimony, but it is what they use to choose to believe in god, to revolve their life around his existence. But yes us people in today's society would throw that type of evidence outside the window as it is not concrete proof.

I can understand that love can be responded with the same thing. "Through my personal experience in my life with this other person, I believe I love them." Being the skeptic, you can use the same response by saying... well it was you're person experience and testimony so therefore it is not concrete enough evidence for me as i have only to go by what you've been telling me, so I will think you had to take a leap of faith to actually think you love your SO.

But you're response is a very very theistic type of response. And no it is not an atheistic/scientific POV. There is no Atheistic view on anything (varies by level of atheism, but in general) A scientific view is ONLY based on evidence, nothing else. It looks for evidence to answer questions.

I said something absurb? lol! I really like how you ignore my well put years of "things" and jump straight to "ring! = Love".
You're confusing baseless conviction with years of evidence to support the conviction (of love).
The personal conviction itself is not evidence, the EVIDENCE is the evidence supporting the conviction. Years of actions and behaviors, which support the idea that the other person loves you, which others can you and decide if it demonstrates love ornot (aka testing).

You seem to understand the idea that there is no evidence for god (or is operating under that assumption), but apparently is willfully ignoring evidence for love. The simplest 2 evidences for love are chemical, yes love can be induced in a lab, and behavioral. These can be tested and observed and theorized about (a significate date is coming up, if he loves her, he will do something like X; something like X is done, thus supporting the love. If Y is done (where Y is something like, beats the shit out of her), then we can say that it is evidence against those 2 being in love.

A leap of faith of love would be assuming a mail order bride and you would be in love when you meet/get married. That's a leap of faith in love, which Im sure we can all agree, is retarded to expect.

I feel like im repeating myself.

ZhangFei · 01-02-2009, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyNvBaller

I was already going to write something about that before your response to prevent this response, about the similarities of love and god but that would make my response crazy long lol. Anyways,

We all know that when someone tells us the reason why they believe in god, it is their personal experiences, their personal testimony, but it is what they use to choose to believe in god, to revolve their life around his existence. But yes us people in today's society would throw that type of evidence outside the window as it is not concrete proof.

I can understand that love can be responded with the same thing. "Through my personal experience in my life with this other person, I believe I love them." Being the skeptic, you can use the same response by saying... well it was you're person experience and testimony so therefore it is not concrete enough evidence for me as i have only to go by what you've been telling me, so I will think you had to take a leap of faith to actually think you love your SO.

But you're response is a very very theistic type of response. And no it is not an atheistic/scientific POV. There is no Atheistic view on anything (varies by level of atheism, but in general) A scientific view is ONLY based on evidence, nothing else. It looks for evidence to answer questions.

I said something absurb? lol! I really like how you ignore my well put years of "things" and jump straight to "ring! = Love".
You're confusing baseless conviction with years of evidence to support the conviction (of love).
The personal conviction itself is not evidence, the EVIDENCE is the evidence supporting the conviction. Years of actions and behaviors, which support the idea that the other person loves you, which others can you and decide if it demonstrates love ornot (aka testing).

You seem to understand the idea that there is no evidence for god (or is operating under that assumption), but apparently is willfully ignoring evidence for love. The simplest 2 evidences for love are chemical, yes love can be induced in a lab, and behavioral. These can be tested and observed and theorized about (a significate date is coming up, if he loves her, he will do something like X; something like X is done, thus supporting the love. If Y is done (where Y is something like, beats the shit out of her), then we can say that it is evidence against those 2 being in love.

A leap of faith of love would be assuming a mail order bride and you would be in love when you meet/get married. That's a leap of faith in love, which Im sure we can all agree, is retarded to expect.

I feel like im repeating myself.

okay man you win

love is found in chemicals and external behavior.

nipples · 01-11-2009, 08:14 PM

LOVE is induced in a lab??? link to the research article please?

I'm not sure why the examples of the terry cotton monkeys, and the mother caring for her baby are examples of love. The maslow monkeys are in search of contact comfort above sustenance; and the mommy and baby...that's just care for her own offspring. why does love need to enter the picture? if one was to take the evolutionist pov on this, then it all comes down to spreading your seed. i'm not saving my child because i love him, i'm doing it to ensure the survival of my genes.

---
To zhang: this whole humian skepticism, though interesting, will just snowball. i mean, can you see or feel or provide any evidence for cause and effect? so why do people place such faith in the belief that two quite possibly unrelated happenings are tied together in a consequential nature? perhaps gravity does not really exist, perhaps what we know about science is nothing more than ... what's that guys name on south park that found the golden tablet? mr. smith? john smith? ...basically what he found!

and whats the point of this thread?

rslater · 01-11-2009, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nipples

and whats the point of this thread?

Ask yourself the same question in why you just bumped a week old thread that died when it was deemed necessary.

ZhangFei · 01-11-2009, 09:11 PM

whoa whoa whoa... cause and effect is a whole other thread. To simplify: I Zhangfei, caused this discussion thread and you nipples, replying to it, is the effect. that's proof!

we know gravity exists its because it is a discovered scientific law that we can measure and do all sorts of experiment to verify that it exists.

the point of the thread is that we can only believe in love. there is no proof love exists. PERIOD. its one of those mysteries of life ya know...just like god, we just believe it to be.

so i'm saying, believing love takes a leap of faith. if you can deny that God exists, you can pretty much use the same type of reasoning to deny the existence of love (which is what i am doing to the best of my ability in this thread).

nipples · 01-11-2009, 09:50 PM

um...you making a thread did not cause me to post in it. the mere fact that i posted a reply does not prove that your thread making caused anything. also, i highly doubt that when you created this thread you intended to have me reply. just because something happened does not mean that a preceding event caused it to occur.

to verify it exists? how so? one using galleilo's(*) secondary sense properties can't even verify the temperature or the colours of the very room you're sitting in!! and now you say that you can verify the existence of a phenomenon known as gravity - which can neither be seen nor heard - something that has no primary properties in and of itself? that would be akin to explaining and describing the colour blue to a person who has been blind from birth.

to take it a step further, there is no proof that anything exists. especially when one believes that all things must be tested empirically, and that at the same time, our senses can be fooled. you've seen a movie. it appears fluid. when in actuality it's nothing more than the inability of our eyes to view the separate pictures glued together that are moving at a fast rate. coupled together you arrive at the premises that all things that are real can be sensed. our senses are prone to being fooled. and conclude that nothing can be proven to exist.

if believing love takes a leap of faith, then so too does believing that any action you take, would lead to any result.

[edit] * = i think it was galleilo. not sure though. been a long time since i touched this epistemological mind fucking

TekDragon · 01-11-2009, 09:59 PM

To answer your question, yes, I believe in love. I am in love, in several ways. I love my wife, I love our kitten, I love my family, I love that I don't have to go to church every Sunday to hear how I'm going to hell, I love chocolate. List of things I love goes on and on and on, but refer to the first two as well as my family.

BoneThug · 01-11-2009, 10:11 PM

whats the difference between you liking your cat and loving your cat. thats just another reason why i dont believe in love.; how can you love your wife like you love chocolate. i mean what is that supposed to be

ZhangFei · 01-11-2009, 10:54 PM

I made this thread. Any post that comes into it, is the effect of what I caused.

You're getting a bit carried away. I'm not here to debate metaphysics with you. You can be skeptical about reality till kingdom come, but please do that in another thread.

This thread is about whether or not the existence of love can be proven by atheist means.

nipples · 01-12-2009, 04:13 AM

no. you've missed my point. there is absolutely no connection between the existence of love and being atheist. what you're trying to understand is how certain people can reject the existence of god because they can not see it, yet believe in love...a concept equally invisible. however, atheism is nothing more than empiricism. and if you are a die hard empiricist, you would only believe in what you can sense. which brings me to my previous post.

And if you read what i wrote so far, you'd already have the answer.
does love exist within atheism?
of course it does. atheism is empiricism. empiricism is needing to perceive and to sense. if you've perceived love, or sensed love, it exists.

i agree with the poster in page one who said that you're basically taking a stupid question and rolling it up to make yourself seem deep. when infact, if you understood your own question, you'd realize that it answers itself.

BoneThug · 01-12-2009, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nipples

no. you've missed my point. there is absolutely no connection between the existence of love and being atheist. what you're trying to understand is how certain people can reject the existence of god because they can not see it, yet believe in love...a concept equally invisible. however, atheism is nothing more than empiricism. and if you are a die hard empiricist, you would only believe in what you can sense. which brings me to my previous post.

And if you read what i wrote so far, you'd already have the answer.
does love exist within atheism?
of course it does. atheism is empiricism. empiricism is needing to perceive and to sense. if you've perceived love, or sensed love, it exists.

i agree with the poster in page one who said that you're basically taking a stupid question and rolling it up to make yourself seem deep. when infact, if you understood your own question, you'd realize that it answers itself.

that takes it right back to his point though. Empirical evidence can be measured. people have said they have felt god, touched god, or had a religious experience, but theres no way to prove it. People say they have been in love or are in love and there is no way to prove it. There is no way to measure love or how much love a person has or had. There is absolutely no evidence that love exists.

ZhangFei · 01-12-2009, 08:58 AM

No I'm not a die-hard empiricist. You just went 20 miles west in this whole discussion.

You said that love is perceived and love can be sensed. I disagree.

If someone says they can "feel love" and verify its existence, it is pretty much (according to me) on the same grounds as someone saying they can "feel God's presence".

This is just a light-hearted conversation and discussion. There's nothing to be "deep" about in the first place. I'm just posting for shits and giggles. But if you just came in here just to spread malice and libel you're not a very good candidate to prove the existence of love at all.

FlyNvBaller · 01-12-2009, 12:15 PM

I have to get back into this thread, I miss it already.

Yes Love and God can be compared in the same way.

Emotionally/subconscienly
(love) I feel love
(god) I feel god
-can't prove both

Demonstrated Actions
(love) I risk my life for my family members
(god) shakes uncontrollably during a church ritual
- proves nothing as well

I can see why bonethugz and zhangfei can view having love takes a leap of faith by looking at it like that.

I already explained a bunch of reasons why love in fact doesn't require a leap of faith in my previous post for the people who just joined us.

But reading Nipple's last post sums it up best.

LOVE by all means has NOTHING to do with atheism.
GOD has everything (or not) to do with atheism.

I can believe the world is flat, I can believe in magic, I can believe in fairy tales, I can believe in unicorns, I can believe in the underworld, negaverse, tinytoons, and still be an atheist. As long as I deny the existence of the god you believe in because of the lack of evidence I'm given, I am an atheist to your god.

I believe the question you should have posted was, "Doesn't it take as much a leap of faith to believe in love as it does to believe in god."
Exclude the atheist.

Having said all that, I know what you were trying to get at zhangfei don't get me wrong and I agree yet disagree with what has been said.

orgasm_donor · 01-12-2009, 04:12 PM

I believe I can fly....

Noir · 01-12-2009, 04:13 PM

Wow, I can't believe how invested people have gotten into this. Just because someone does not believe in a God (Atheism) does not render them incapable of Love.

You know why? because those 2 topics were unrelated to begin.

Watching this discussion is like watching a bunch of morons trying to change a lightbulb. Some morons suggest changing a bulb by rotating the ceiling, some suggest changing it by having 1 guy hold on to the bulb while the rest spin the guy holding on to the bulb. Why not just fucking turn the bulb yourself?

Just because one can overthink a simple matter into complexity does not make one an intellectual. Get over it.

ZhangFei · 01-12-2009, 07:06 PM

This thread is messy as hell.

FlyNvBaller: You make a good point that you can believe whatever you want as long as you do not believe in God, you are an atheist. So I guess you can believe in love, but can't prove its existence.

My original question was: "Do any atheists here believe in love? Is it the same thing as taking a leap of faith and believing in a God?"

edit: What the hell is going on? my head hurts.......

Noir · 01-12-2009, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZhangFei

My original question was: "Do any atheists here believe in love? Is it the same thing as taking a leap of faith and believing in a God?"

How is that the same thing?

The existence of love is the outcome of tangible factors. Interaction between partners.

The existence of God is based on the faith of what a piece of literature says is true, or what the forefathers of your forefathers claims is true.

Your attempts trying to find a connection between the 2 is such a long reach. It's like saying, since the colour blue and the colour red comes out of the same crayon box, therefore they must be the same colours.

Einstein

nipples · 01-12-2009, 08:41 PM

^they are
well i'm colour blind so basically they are to me =) you guys just make up random names for things haha

Noir · 01-12-2009, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nipples

^they are
well i'm colour blind so basically they are to me =) you guys just make up random names for things haha

Smartass

BoneThug · 01-13-2009, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noir

How is that the same thing?

The existence of love is the outcome of tangible factors. Interaction between partners.

thats not proof. if two people act off of an imaginary emotion they think is real that doesnt make it real.

Noir · 01-13-2009, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneThug

thats not proof. if two people act off of an imaginary emotion they think is real that doesnt make it real.

What planet are you on? Emotions aren't imaginary dude. Love is only a classification of emotion, along with the others such as Hate, Anger, Frustration and Elation.

Very tangible. Has nothing to do with religion. This discussion and the extent it has gone is nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual farce.

BoneThug · 01-13-2009, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noir

What planet are you on? Emotions aren't imaginary dude. Love is only a classification of emotion, along with the others such as Hate, Anger, Frustration and Elation.

Very tangible. Has nothing to do with religion. This discussion and the extent it has gone is nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual farce.

you keep changing the scope of the question. just as you say love is an emotion so that makes it real that doesnt actually make it proof. you cant measure it, you cant touch it. you only have someones expression of it to see it, only their word that its what they feel. same thing with religion. im not saying they are connected. never have. im just saying the same principle applies.

B18eG · 01-13-2009, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZhangFei

GRRRR!!

how many times do i have to say I'm not saying love does not exist. I don't know. But I believe in its existence. And its a belief is emotional based!!! Its not a fact that love exists in this world. When i say fact, I mean something that is empirically and physically and scientifically based.

The firing of brain chemicals is not proof that love exists. people pop pills at raves and hug each strangers and and they feel the love. is that really love then?

to BE in love, you have to take a leap of faith to believe it exists. Its also for the things that we believe but we can't verify:

- i know God exists because when i sing in church and speak in tounges and i foam in the mouth, that's me speaking directly to God. i can feel it
- i know that the global elite are reptilian because i saw something flicker on the screen
- i know christianity is a sun-worshipping religion because all the symbolism points towards it and the pope is a child molestor that practices black magic. some guy that wrote a book told me so. i believe it
- i know zionists have a plan for global domination. I can feel it. the news verifies it. look at the economic crisis. look at global politics.

these are all emotional assumptions and then we use "logic" to justify it. its the same reasoning as

"I know me and XYZ are in love because she makes me feel wonderful and I can't imagine my life without her"

now all you guys are saying wait... yeah you can verify love. go look at ABC and XYZ. they are so wonderful with each other and they are so happy. isn't that proof?

well then i can also use the same reasoning. yeah I had a friend that used to be a drug dealer and bad-ass and then he turned himself to jesus and look at how his life changed. that is proof that God is real.

anyways fuck, this topic is getting ridiculous

if thats how you feel then maybe it will be hard for you to find love....
our current society depends way too much on physical proof. we do not believe anything exists unless its physically/scientifically proven... if we can't see it, it doesn't exit. But the world is amazing, we understand very little of what is going on, and our physical eye only sees a limited view of the universe. Afterall, sound waves, radio waves, x-rays....you can't see them with our eye, but our technology has evolved to show us they exist. They always existed. Perhaps technology will show us love someday and give us physical evidence. Love is what we all have in common, and it is a symbol for everything that is good in our world

Noir · 01-13-2009, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneThug

you keep changing the scope of the question.

I have to. You know why? Because the original scope of the question was retarded to begin with.

"Does love exist within Atheism?"

There's no deep & intelligent answer to a retarded question. The answer is just, "simply fucking yes". Just because one refuses follow religion means that "said" person is now incapable of Love.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneThug

just as you say love is an emotion so that makes it real that doesnt actually make it proof. you cant measure it, you cant touch it. you only have someones expression of it to see it, only their word that its what they feel. same thing with religion. im not saying they are connected. never have. im just saying the same principle applies.

Love is just an emotion. Can you apply the same principle with religion to other emotions?

I choose not to believe in God therefore he does not exist.
I choose not be believe in anger therefore anger does not exist in this world
I choose not to believe in jealousy therefore it does not occur.

I'm really curious, do ppl really understand how all-encompassing the absurdity of this reach is?

StaxBundlez · 01-13-2009, 05:34 PM

lol..omg here we go..

Love is an emotion we can feel.. "God" is the supernatural, which by deffinition.. is an unknown.. Yes.. two very different things.. Instead of doing your "research" on the internet perhaps, you would be better served in getting a real education... Believing in shape shifting reptilians because you've read it off the internet displays signs of superstitious paranormal delusions.
..and to answer your question.. You don't need to be a theist or athiest to know or feel what love is.. You just need to be in a commited relationship..