Why Do You Believe That The Earth Is 4.54 Billion Years Old? (science, spirit)

[Ella Parr]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Emotions come from the brain (the heart only pumps blood), an organ scientifically proven to exist and one which can be measured and analyzed, including measuring emotions and their affects on physiological functions. Have you ever heard of "thought identification" or lie detection processes? These are detections of certain emotions by scientific devices. Check out the research of Dr. Mona Xu and Professor Arthur Aron who have performed studies which can predict which person is the best mate for an individual.

Ok, you are first because your post came to me first and well, .... laying you aside is better on my blood pressure.

First of all, emotions come from the mind, not the brain. The brain is nothing but a CPU, like the processor in your computer. Its only function is to process the "software" (which is the mind) and keep the other mechanical functions working. The computer is a perfect analogy for the human being. We have a "hardware" part and we have a "software" part. The brain is hardware. The mind is software.
Just like your computer hardware, the brain can get "sick". Also, just like software, the mind can get "sick". Hence, psychosis and neurosis. It you do not agree, take it up with my psychology and sociology professors or try the internet.

You should also know that while the heart is indeed an organ that pumps blood, it is also a metaphor for the emotions and what drives them. You can't have missed that. I didn't make that up. It's been around a long time. Again, check the internet.

So, lets not devolve into utter stupidity. I can't figure out whether you are this uninformed, uneducated, .... stupid, or if you are just an agitator or a troll or what. But remarks like this leave a lot of doubt.


Scientific method has nothing to do with the existence of emotion.

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

My advocacy of science has nothing to do with atheism, but my atheism is a result of my advocacy of science. I'm not sure what a "fundamentalist atheist" is since I'm unaware of multiple levels of unbelief, but I believe you've developed that description for someone who is willing to challenge your "woo" mentality. Though you seem to have a need to put words in my mouth to help solidify your position, I will state emphatically that I do believe that some things exist which we cannot verify with science, yet.

Oh, and I am putting words in your mouth?????
No, it's Atheist Fundamentalist. The Christian Fundamentalist says nothing exists without the Bible saying it is so. You say *nothing* exists without scientific method saying it is so. You two are just opposite sides of the same coin. A fundamentalist is a person who cannot acknowledge that there is grey in the world. Everything is black and white and defined by one assumption.

There is a lot of wonderful science out there, but "scientific method" can only *prove* some things. Scientific method, as far as it is capable, is applied to most legitimate science, but it cannot answer some questions - mainly because of the rigorous standards that must be met in scientific method.

[Amaznjohn said:] I will state emphatically that I do believe that some things exist which we cannot verify with science, yet.

This is the first time I have *ever* heard you say this. This is a position I can live with. There is some grey in the world.

I don't know what "woo" mentality is. Coming from you, I'm sure it isn't nice. But, I do give you credit for being combative and quick with an insult. Fundamentalists are so quick to be defensive. The Christian Fundamentalists are threatened. What is your excuse?

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

I did make a major blunder in my last post where I mis-typed a statement. I typed "Science can prove some attributes that some perceive that belong to God," when I should have typed "Science can DISprove some attributes that some perceive that belong to God,". I understand how this was confusing and I apologize for making such a mistake.

potAto, potOto (the spud). I don't think it makes a lot of difference in your point or mine.

[Ella Parr]

Originally Posted by mordant

Well I am very analytical / heady and relatively literal and concrete-minded, it's true. That doesn't mean that I don't have emotions and other subjective experiences and reactions. Just as it doesn't follow from the fact that I am quite introverted, that I am shy or avoidant of human interaction, it doesn't follow that because I favor logic and reason that I do not have longings or emotional responses.

Ok. I get this. I do think that (and you men may pounce on me; I know the women would/should) that men, in general, are more this way, by virtue of being male, than are most women. So, I do factor that into my thinking process when I am dealing with males. Males are raised totally differently than females in this society - especially in decades past - so I see it as a nurture thing more than a nature thing. So, when I am dealing with men, I take whatever I "feel" and cut it in half. Then I figure we are starting at a more equal point when talking about feelings.

Originally Posted by mordant

I see the things you do but over the years, what I have seen becomes less and less something for me to mold to some arbitrary ideal and more something to observe as objectively as possible. The world is not at all a friendly place for idealists. I think of life like an unmanned steamroller that moves inexorably along. You can jump up and down and wave your arms in front of it all you want and it will just ignore you and run you down. I have come to prefer climbing on for the ride, and have made peace with the lack of controls that I can manipulate.

I totally agree with this. I too have changed my view of the world around me as I have aged. Some 40 years ago as a teenager, I remember how new and fresh and filled with unlimited possibilities the world seemed. The world was an oyster and I was the pearl. People over 30 and 40 had just popped up on earth as 30 or 40 and couldn't possibly understand anything! I can't help but laugh when I think of all that. Now, I am the skeptic and the cynic.

Originally Posted by mordant

As such I do not see, e.g., "love" as having some ineffable, mystical quality simply because science does not have the tools or interest to address it. Every aspect of our existence is complex and multifaceted. To at least try to make sense of it, we synthesize it into a unity of sorts, but this unity, while necessary, is actually null and empty and not a thing-in-itself. It simply leads to the realization that love, hate, feelings of transcendence, despair, what have you, are just abstract concepts emergent from underlying reality. They feel disjoint from material reality but are still grounded in it. There is no point in special pleading for the specialness and mystery of these things as objective properties of something that in fact has no existence other than in between our ears.

I totally see where you are coming from. Part of me wholeheartedly agrees. The other part of me says: tell that to a 20 year old who has the love of his life in his arms. Where was your "head" at 20? I think we all grow and learn and adjust our perceptions. Much of life is just a perception. That is why Amaznjohn and I had a battle. These perceptions are just as much a part of life as scientific method proving how old a rock is. This is what I call the grey area. Whether it is fantasy or reality, it is each's own fantasy or reality based on a particular set of circumstances. Circumstances change. Our perceptions change. Therefore, what we perceive as fantasy and reality change. I don't think this is a discussion for scientific method and I think it exists without the benefits of scientific method. That is what Amaznjohn and I were arguing about. He said no, they do not exist and I said yes they do. We were fighting over the existence of grey.

Originally Posted by mordant

That doesn't mean we can't enjoy / play with these things, so long as they don't get the best of us by convincing us that they have a separate reality all their own. We are mistaken to objectify the entirely subjective, or to idealize and worship our illusions. I am still figuring out how to relate to life in the light of that knowledge, but it seems a way forward for me, lest I come to see all people and situations as squandered, unrealized potential. For me, at least, that way lies madness. I want to laugh at the cosmic joke of existence, not weep over it. Life is an absurdity ... that is how it is best understood. Not some beautiful mysterious tapestry woven by some sort of orchestrator. Life has bits that we subjectively experience as beautiful and fascinating, and it's fine to revel in that -- but never to imagine that you've found in beauty and mystery, some bedrock feature of reality that you've finally come home to.

I totally agree with you - mostly. Now we are back to religion and believing in God, right? Really, truly, my stance here from the beginning had/has nothing to do with religion or God or a foundation for those beliefs. I am a Christian. You know that. And yes, while I love God and while I do believe that His love gives me something and I do believe that it is pure faith without proof, I really am not trying to equate our conversation into God or God stuff. I am not trying to set you up with this whole love exists thing so I can jump out at you and yell AHA! if you admit there is love then you have to admit there is God. First of all, I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm not trying to convert you. I am not even trying to tell you that you are wrong. I really do believe in that "each one's own path". For me, a relationship with God is a totally private, personal one. I don't care what anyone believes. I don't care what science says or you say or Joe Blow says. It just doesn't matter. If I am a fool, then that is my choice to make. My being a fool doesn't apply to anyone else. Now, when one begins telling me the earth is 6,000 years old because the Bible says so, then I am going to jump in with both feet. When Amaznjohn tells me that nothing can exist without scientific method, I am going to jump in with both feet. Hey, God can take care of Himself (if he exists of course). He doesn't need me running around trying to prove He is (or is not) there or beating you over the head with that point.

Originally Posted by mordant

In my view.
But of course, what I hammer out for myself to either escape or rationalize my own existential angst, is not what's going to work for you or the next person. For many people, simple avoidance of all cognitive dissonance as it's encountered, is all that's needed, and religion provides a great enabler for that. I am neither lucky nor strong enough, nor have a good enough "rationalizer", to find that adequate.

It is that "own path" thing again. I agree.

[Ella Parr]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Only until we finally agree on what we understand, or you can call a halt whenever you wish.

Would this be separately or collectively?

I really don't think we have a problem with what we understand. I think I wrote something that sounded different that what I meant it to say. I think when we pinpoint that, we are going to be fine.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

'Love' is a blunderbuss term. That means it covers a lot of stuff, and I mean the stuff we think of when we say 'Love'. Not irrelevant meaning 3 in Websters "I love Pizza.."

I agree. I think there are degrees of love. Also, I think we use the word love to express an extra deep feeling for "like", such as I love pizza. I don't think that there is a specific definition of love that fits all the possibilities.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Science can tell us a lot about love - about the instinctive mating drives (to take just one and the more common meaning) that kick in and make us behave like idiots about someone who everyone can see is unsuitable but us, or the drive that makes one tiny rodent go for a Rottweiler's throat if her babies are threatened, or will just sit quietly by while the male that just killed her last mate kills the offspring so the female will become fertile again.
There is no logic or decency about much of this - just evolved instincts that go to enable a species to survive.

Here again, I totally agree.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

No doubt that will elicit protests about mere animals and degrading noble emotions and being cynical ... nihilistic ...reducing everything to mere mechanics.

I don't see why. Biologically, humans are animals. Much of our world is mere mechanics. I don't know that I would call emotion, per se, noble. I think love can be noble at times. But, I don't think there is anything noble about hate, greed, envy, hubris/pride, wrath, vainglory, etc. I don't know that I have ever seen an animal, except the human, exhibit most of these. I have seen greed, but was it really greed or just a condition of wanting something that you didn't have and taking it. Perhaps having a human conscience makes a difference

There are other emotions/human conditions, too, which I do think are possibly noble. There is courage, bravery, selflessness, kindness, forgiveness, and trust (I don't mean these latter two in a religious sense).

<rant on>
Let me interject here that you guys seem to be trying to link everything I say back to religion or religious belief or God. The world isn't just God on one side and Science on the other with nothing in between, with God and Science at war every minute. When I see a blushing bride and her goofy eyed beau standing at the alter, I don't look at them and say, oh, look, there is God. I hope you don't really look at them and say, oh, look, there is science.
<rant off>

There are also so many more emotions like anger, disgust, fear, sadness, anticipation, surprise, friendship, joy, sadness, shame, indignation, compassion, hope, despair, confidence and over-confident, cowardice, cruelty, modesty, detachment, and respect. The list goes on.

It has nothing to do with God or no-god or with religion or no religion. We humans all share these common things. To say they do not exist on any level is to deny that we are human. None of these things are in existence only for those of faith or only for those of non-faith or because of belief in God or because of a belief in science. They are what they are. They are us and we are them. Everybody (but Amaznjohn - who can't possibly exist because scientific method has not tested him to prove that he does exist - and I want proof ) has all of these things within them just waiting for the right circumstances to bring them forward.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Love is a human illusion and delusion and we are actually better off understanding what we can of it. That does not mean that the chemicals that make us choose the totally wrong person will cease to work. It does mean that we should realize that this vague belief in a greater something that is called 'Love' is as much a human illusion of personification of half -understood realities and effects as a little fat guy with pinions and a kiddies' archery set, a bearded guy throwing lightning to punish evildoers but (as Lucian said, often missing and hitting his own Temples) and of course taking the universe of matter and physics, calling it 'God' and then letting ourselves believe that it is offering some greater understanding through some various kinds of belief -system or acts of reverence.

I understand what you are saying. I don't agree with a word of it, but I do understand.

I love my family more than life its self. If someone came and said, one of you will die and the others can live. Which one will it be? I'd step forward in a heartbeat. I lost my beloved father 3 years ago. If I could have taken his place - if today, I could take his place - I would. I don't know of a decent mother in this world that would stand by and watch her child murdered and not try and intervene. There are a lot of mothers who do. We see it in the news everyday. But I can't fathom it. There isn't enough evidence, argument, or threat of bodily harm that could get me to fathom it. This illusion that you call love is very real to me. I truly hope it is more real to you than the argument that you have put forth. If you don't have a significant other, or children or brothers or sisters or extended family or decent parents that you love, perhaps I can understand why it is a illusion and delusion and is a little fat man with a bow and arrow - just like the tooth fairy and Santa Claus ... and in your mind, God. Is there anyone that you would fight for, trade your life for, die for? If not, love is an illusion and a delusion, for you. If so, then I can't believe you actually believe this. If you do, it's ok. It is just a concept that I can't understand and I do not feel.

The news is filled with people that stand by and let their loved ones die without a fight and there are stories about people who fight to the death for their loved ones. There was a story a while back where a mother fought a cougar, barehanded, to save her child. I don't think the love she felt for her child was an illusion or a delusion. In the wild, a cougar would seem to be an illusion shattering and a delusion busting moment. " Oooops, what was I thinking! I didn't really feel anything for this kid! Take him, He's yours. I can have another one." I really believe that this is a concept no decent parent can fathom.

There are a lot of stories where a person has fought to the death to save someone else's loved one. Recently in the news was the story of a man who came upon a drowning child. He saved the child, but he died doing it. Why did he do it? What kind of a man was he? This isn't about God and it sure isn't about religion. It isn't about the man being a believer or a non-believer. It's about a man. A man with sympathy, compassion and selflessness. Stupid, too I guess, because he died. Man is filled with limitless good qualities and limitless bad qualities. Do you ever wonder which man are you? I wonder all the time "which "man" am I?" I hope if and when it comes down to it, I'm a good one.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

This links up with what I said about science and morality. Science can tell us a lot and we can rely on it, pretty much. The other stuff is best treated as Unknown and Philosophy at least tries to apply logic to suggesting likely possibilities. Religion does not even do that, but, as I suggested above, lets instinct run away with them and lead them into all sorts of beliefs that may satisfy emotionally, but really have no validity.

I understand. I don't know what is "the other stuff". I really don't know what you put in that category, so I don't know whether I'm "fer it or agin it". I am certainly for Philosophy.

My only bone of contention is, of course, with religion. I have already stated that I am non-denominational. So, other than Christianity (plain) as it is stated in the Bible, I don't have an OR. With 40,000 Christian ORs out there, I cannot say that all are bad because I haven't been to 40,000 to check them out. I am not happy with the dozen or so I have checked out and they have been mainstream ones - well, for the most part. When you say "religion", I am assuming that you mean everybody including the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, etc. Of these, the only knowledge I have is of the Jews and comes from the OT in the KJV. So I really can't speak to any one of these.

I don't know if it is fair to whitewash them all with the same brush. How many different religions have you investigated? You may have a better understanding of them than I do.

I don't know whether or not I can agree that all "lets instinct run away with them and lead them into all sorts of beliefs that may satisfy emotionally, but really have no validity." For Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, you must mean because they believe in God. That is all that ties them together. God is a debate for another post, my friend.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I don't know how Amazing john put it, but I put it like this: there is of course a lot that exists that science doesn't know about. Until it does, it is Unknown. We are asking to be fooled if we let guesswork and speculation, let alone human delusions based on biological instinct, lead us around by the nose. Telling ourselves that we have some truth when at best we don't know whether we do or not and at worst (based on the record of religion v. science so far) we are probably guessing wrong, is not a good thing to do, even though it may feel very satisfying.

Ok. I'm going to say this one more time. You may have read it already, but just in case you haven't:

Amaznjohn and I were having an argument, discussion, .... whatever you can call it when it comes to Amaznjohn. He said: *nothing* exists without scientific method. I said love exists. I didn't say anything about God or religion or Bible or church. I said "love exists". Now regardless of how anybody wants to spin it or belittle it or gloss it over or twist it, LOVE does exist. And it exists without scientific method testing, defining, and proving. That was all I said. I said it because Amaznjohn intimated that there was no grey in the world. Only the black and white of scientific method. I am very familiar with scientific method. I took science classes. I took 4 stats classes. I had to use it when I did my PhD. Scientific method is not the be all/end all of the world. Scientific method has its place. It does its job. But there is grey in the world. Hence, Psychology and Sociology. Scientific method was designed for a very specific task. It does that task beautifully. Legitimate science always applies scientific method as far as it will go. But there is just so much it can do with human emotions. Amaznjohn said some such about science discovering things and defining them and using scientific method and then proving them and THEN they were real. I said, "love exists". Amaznjohn never acknowledged that love existed or ever conceded that there was grey in his black and white world. I said, "love exists" For the record, Amaznjohn has now said that there is indeed grey in the world. I believe that Amaznjohn and sometimes others are so hell bent and determined to pounce on the Christians with virtually anything that you can get your hands on that disputes God, religion, and such, that sometimes he and some of you, don't pay attention to the big picture and he and some of you don't realize what you write or don't care about what you write or lose sight of what you write. We are not all stupid, uneducated sheep that don't know anything but what we learned in church and we don't all have our heads shoved up so far in the church's butt that we don't have a thought of our own or can't see our hands in front of our faces. You have the right to believe that the Bible is crap, that God doesn't exist, and that religion is the devil incarnate. Fine. We have the right to believe something else. Please do remember that this is the Christian Forum. A misguided Christian might learn something valuable. But not through intimidation, hatefulness, trolling, and bullying. Amaznjohn, you are a bully. You think if you can intimidate the Christians, you win. You think you have converted them because they are quiet. But you haven't.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

P.s..I am compelled to recall a remark by poster Thom R (and I will risk naming a name (1) that he was glad that he didn't have a mindset like mine or didn't think the way I did. It is hard for me to understand that many people prefer illusion and delusion and find a rational and evidence based view of things rather appalling. I find it difficult to comprehend (though I know they do this (2) the idea that such illusions are making us better people when it can do that but can also make us much worse.

Well, you see everybody feels about their own beliefs just as strongly as you do. We can't all be right. You are sure that you are right. I'm sure that I am right. Everybody here thinks they are right. Everybody everywhere thinks they are right. Your characterization of us all is a little insulting. I will not jump on you for feeling the way you do. I believe in that "one's own path". If you want to be praised for your feelings, you should go to the A/A group. Because here, you will never be the majority. And you really are tilting against windmills.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

P.ps s and I'll just mention the straw Vulcan or pointy -ear syndrome. tavric knows what a great love I have of music. My cold emotionless logic -driven view of things has made no difference to that - apart from enabling me to understand it better. It does not turn me into a pointy eared robot, just itching to institute a programme of eugenics. Just a person who can see a lot of foggy, faith -based and self -justifying self -delusion going on rather than putting the self aside and putting fact on the pedestal. Not my ego inflated to the level of the divine.

You said you love music. You said it. Anybody that loves music can't be all bad. The rest of it, we'll work on.

[quote=AREQUIPA;37708816]and a P. p . p s - quotable quote

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

.. I'm not sure what a "fundamentalist atheist" is since I'm unaware of multiple levels of unbelief."

That's Atheist Fundamentalist. Just like the Christian Fundamentalist, only the other side of the coin. Amaznjohn was preaching black and white scientific method as the only way. No grey. The Christian Fundamentalist was preaching "only what the Bible says". No grey.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

(1) changed his screen name and haven't seen him around for a while.

(2) though I am still groping to understand the evolutionary survival advantage that makes them do this. I think it is connected with the instinct that enables people to become extra -special athletes or suicide bombers.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by Ella Parr

Would this be separately or collectively?

Amaznjohn and I were having an argument, discussion, .... whatever you can call it when it comes to Amaznjohn. He said: *nothing* exists without scientific method. I said love exists. I didn't say anything about God or religion or Bible or church. I said "love exists". Now regardless of how anybody wants to spin it or belittle it or gloss it over or twist it, LOVE does exist. And it exists without scientific method testing, defining, and proving. That was all I said. I said it because Amaznjohn intimated that there was no grey in the world. Only the black and white of scientific method. I am very familiar with scientific method. I took science classes. I took 4 stats classes. I had to use it when I did my PhD. Scientific method is not the be all/end all of the world. Scientific method has its place. It does its job. But there is grey in the world. Hence, Psychology and Sociology. Scientific method was designed for a very specific task. It does that task beautifully. Legitimate science always applies scientific method as far as it will go. But there is just so much it can do with human emotions. Amaznjohn said some such about science discovering things and defining them and using scientific method and then proving them and THEN they were real. I said, "love exists". Amaznjohn never acknowledged that love existed or ever conceded that there was grey in his black and white world. I said, "love exists" For the record, Amaznjohn has now said that there is indeed grey in the world. I believe that Amaznjohn and sometimes others are so hell bent and determined to pounce on the Christians with virtually anything that you can get your hands on that disputes God, religion, and such, that sometimes he and some of you, don't pay attention to the big picture and he and some of you don't realize what you write or don't care about what you write or lose sight of what you write. We are not all stupid, uneducated sheep that don't know anything but what we learned in church and we don't all have our heads shoved up so far in the church's butt that we don't have a thought of our own or can't see our hands in front of our faces. You have the right to believe that the Bible is crap, that God doesn't exist, and that religion is the devil incarnate. Fine. We have the right to believe something else. Please do remember that this is the Christian Forum. A misguided Christian might learn something valuable. But not through intimidation, hatefulness, trolling, and bullying. Amaznjohn, you are a bully. You think if you can intimidate the Christians, you win. You think you have converted them because they are quiet. But you haven't.



Well, you see everybody feels about their own beliefs just as strongly as you do. We can't all be right. You are sure that you are right. I'm sure that I am right. Everybody here thinks they are right. Everybody everywhere thinks they are right. Your characterization of us all is a little insulting. I will not jump on you for feeling the way you do. I believe in that "one's own path". If you want to be praised for your feelings, you should go to the A/A group. Because here, you will never be the majority. And you really are tilting against windmills.



You said you love music. You said it. Anybody that loves music can't be all bad. The rest of it, we'll work on.


That's Atheist Fundamentalist. Just like the Christian Fundamentalist, only the other side of the coin. Amaznjohn was preaching black and white scientific method as the only way. No grey. The Christian Fundamentalist was preaching "only what the Bible says". No grey.

Your dishonest posts have diminished your credibility to the point that nothing you claim can be considered legitimate.
1. You claimed that I suggested that no one has choices until I proved that I had just posted the opposite.
2. You claimed that I stated "that people should not live under a set of rules that decides their thinking", when I stated that people shouldn't be forced to live under a set of rules or laws that others believe are based on what their God says.
3. You continue to claim that I don't believe anything exists which hasn't been proven scientifically, when I specifically stated just the opposite.
4 You now claim that I never stated that I believe love exists, when I admitted to loving my pets.

Besides these examples, you claim that the mind is separate from the brain, when there is no evidence for what you claim. You claim that God is love or that God is the source of love by posting "if you admit there is love then you have to admit there is God", when you previously claimed that you cannot describe your God's attributes. You seem to suggest some type of level of disbelief by using the term Atheist Fundamentalist, yet fail to explain how Atheism has anything to do with advocating science. It seems you have much to straighten out in your own mind, where ever you believe it exists, but this might be a tall order.

[mensaguy]

Please keep comments on topic. No personal attacks please.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by PoorInSpirit

Like how old the earth really is yet, right?

Not really. Though our dating methods are not precise enough to narrow it down to exact years, hours, minutes, and seconds yet, we can be confident that science has provided a reasonable window of when the earth was formed. It certainly is no where near 10,000 years.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Ella Parr

I love my family more than life its self. If someone came and said, one of you will die and the others can live. Which one will it be? I'd step forward in a heartbeat. I lost my beloved father 3 years ago. If I could have taken his place - if today, I could take his place - I would. I don't know of a decent mother in this world that would stand by and watch her child murdered and not try and intervene. There are a lot of mothers who do. We see it in the news everyday. But I can't fathom it. There isn't enough evidence, argument, or threat of bodily harm that could get me to fathom it. This illusion that you call love is very real to me.

It is real to me as well, in precisely the same ways. I simply don't find god or any other ineffable concept necessary to explain its reality. I am a member of a species that has evolved, among other things, fierce primal drives that insure the creation and protection and nurturing of more members of the species. It's simply a bonus that it feels subjectively so good to love members of my family (except, of course in those instances when it doesn't).

The fact that love exists and feels real to the one feeling it, is no different than that, say, curiosity or boredom or any other abstract ideation resulting in an emotional or endorphin response exists. If it's wired in such that we have subjective feelings of optimism and safety and transcendence, I don't see what that changes in terms of the implications of the existence of the shared human experience of love. Or why it requires a whole speculative branch of human thinking like theology to work with it.

To me, this is the litmus test. Do people who think theology is hogwash love, too? Do they experience some kind of deficient or stunted form of love? I see no evidence of that, ergo, mysticism, theism, god, etc., are not necessary to either enjoy or explain love.

Fundamentalists even go so far as to claim that when an unbeliever behaves in a manner indistinguishable from a moral, ethical, loving fundamentalist, it doesn't count. All our righteousness is as filthy rags to god, ya know.

So why do we need formal or informal theology or metaphysical beliefs or some form of deity to either explain or sustain our most cherished subjective experiences of our humanity? What evidence is there that these are anything but emergent from the multiple aspects of our humanity itself?

[Ella Parr]

Originally Posted by mordant

It is real to me as well, in precisely the same ways. I simply don't find god or any other ineffable concept necessary to explain its reality. I am a member of a species that has evolved, among other things, fierce primal drives that insure the creation and protection and nurturing of more members of the species. It's simply a bonus that it feels subjectively so good to love members of my family (except, of course in those instances when it doesn't).

The fact that love exists and feels real to the one feeling it, is no different than that, say, curiosity or boredom or any other abstract ideation resulting in an emotional or endorphin response exists. If it's wired in such that we have subjective feelings of optimism and safety and transcendence, I don't see what that changes in terms of the implications of the existence of the shared human experience of love. Or why it requires a whole speculative branch of human thinking like theology to work with it.

To me, this is the litmus test. Do people who think theology is hogwash love, too? Do they experience some kind of deficient or stunted form of love? I see no evidence of that, ergo, mysticism, theism, god, etc., are not necessary to either enjoy or explain love.

Fundamentalists even go so far as to claim that when an unbeliever behaves in a manner indistinguishable from a moral, ethical, loving fundamentalist, it doesn't count. All our righteousness is as filthy rags to god, ya know.

So why do we need formal or informal theology or metaphysical beliefs or some form of deity to either explain or sustain our most cherished subjective experiences of our humanity? What evidence is there that these are anything but emergent from the multiple aspects of our humanity itself?

I didn't say anything about God or religion. This is a Christian forum, but none of this is about God or religion. I don't know how to explain it to you any differently than that. From the moment that I said "Love exists" there has been this whole God thing tossed into the mix. I never said anything about God or religion. I never meant anything about God or religion. Do you not ever have a conversation with anyone that isn't non-believer vs believer based? Why don't you go back and read the posts for yourself again. If you feel I was making a statement that God or religion was part of my posts, then you let me know and I will never post anything to you again. I have bent over backward to try and let you know that yes, I am a Christian, but it is not the be all/end all of my life. I am a liberal. I have tried to show you that. I did not come to this forum to argue with the Atheists or to try and tell you how wrong you are or change your mind or anything else. I've been on your side since this tread began. What do I have to do to show you that I am not trying to sneak in a point for God. I came to this thread because I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I don't know what your confusion is. I've gotten to the point I don't care. I've said every thing I have to say about. Go back and read the posts if you don't believe me. I'm done. If you, too, think I'm lying, I won't ever post to you again. You decide. I'm done.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ella, it would help if I knew which post, but in any case i'll have to see what amazing John said. From his style I find it hard to believe that he would say that nothing exists outside science and probably he is saying that we have unknowns but what they are and what they signify cannot be claimed without scientific verification.

We know the illusion of Blue and the instinct of Love and the effect of solidity, and it takes science to explain that our perceptions of these things are not correct.

Thus while we can say 'Love exists' as we can say 'there is blue colour', and we can go with this as a convenient approximation, science is the only method that can lift the illusions we have, also about love.

As I said, that is not going to stop the instinctive reaction, and I am not saying that risking one's own life for others should stop or could stop simply because of what science says. But it certainly can't be argued that science is somehow wrong to have the information about what makes us act instinctively and I think your disagreement with me is based on a misunderstanding of what scientific knowledge of instincts would mean.

Mind, It would not not hurt to stop and think about some of the poor choices we make instinctively when the Love instinct kicks in. not to mention some the the more hostile instincts we can be subject to.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Ella Parr

I didn't say anything about God or religion. This is a Christian forum, but none of this is about God or religion. I don't know how to explain it to you any differently than that. From the moment that I said "Love exists" there has been this whole God thing tossed into the mix. I never said anything about God or religion. I never meant anything about God or religion. Do you not ever have a conversation with anyone that isn't non-believer vs believer based? Why don't you go back and read the posts for yourself again. If you feel I was making a statement that God or religion was part of my posts, then you let me know and I will never post anything to you again. I have bent over backward to try and let you know that yes, I am a Christian, but it is not the be all/end all of my life. I am a liberal. I have tried to show you that. I did not come to this forum to argue with the Atheists or to try and tell you how wrong you are or change your mind or anything else. I've been on your side since this tread began. What do I have to do to show you that I am not trying to sneak in a point for God. I came to this thread because I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I don't know what your confusion is. I've gotten to the point I don't care. I've said every thing I have to say about. Go back and read the posts if you don't believe me. I'm done. If you, too, think I'm lying, I won't ever post to you again. You decide. I'm done.

Ella,

I don't think you're lying or have ulterior motives. Quite the opposite. That does not mean that (1) I am correctly understanding you, nor does it rule out (2) possible unexamined assumptions / basis on your part.

IIRC, we were having a conversation about how science (and I suppose by extension, materialism) is not able to engage with abstractions like love. While this is not the Christianity forum, it IS the religion and spirituality forum, so I assume you were by definition arguing either that something like religion or philosophy or some non-scientific discipline is needed to account for / explain / illuminate love and similar concepts / experiences -- or, in the alternative, that nothing can usefully do so. The presence of a thread here is attempting to engage with spirituality in some way, shape or form, at least ordinarily.

To repeat: I take you at your word that you are not intentionally sneaking in any "points for god". I do not mean to exasperate you. I understand that you are a liberal, and I have sincerely complimented you on your liberal sentiments. I understand that you believe what science has revealed about the age of the earth.

In our most recent exchange you opined that love is not illusory and I opined in essence that it is not illusory in the sense that everyone claiming to love is kidding themselves; it's a phenomenon that exists in the world. I just don't see it as a bedrock feature of existence and in that sense it is not a thing-in-itself. Because this is the religion and spirituality forum I felt obliged to tie that back to religion and spirituality and the ways that even "nones" who are "spiritual but not religions" will generally romanticize them. It was nothing personal.

Because I feel that most notions of transcendence, including those outside of OR, end up being heavily influenced by religion's historic hegemony in the marketplace of ideas, I would probably have touched on this even someplace like the philosophy or psychology forums, though I would likely have toned it down.

I am not attacking you, or even your ideas, although I have some minor points of disagreement with your ideas, which I have respectfully mentioned. Do not confuse disagreement with disrespect.