Atheists:Why should I believe in love, but not believe in GOD? (Muslim, ghosts)

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

As I said, all love is is a bunch of neurons firing off in your brain. The question is: Is love rational and should it be allowed to continue in a Rational society? The answer is obviously NO.

So, we either do away with GOD & Love & art & beauty and replace it with a completely totalitarian utilitarian society in which we are given numbers instead of names, OR, we accept the existence of the irrational, be it love or GOD.

While I understand your premise, I think that you are only focusing on this unilaterally and without the desire to admit that other emotions such as anger, lust, hatred, etc... would also be irrational. And, by all means, many of our emotions are handed to us without rational motive or means. In many cases, I would presume to think that the evil done in the name of what you cite as "love" were also done as the result of other emotional involvement interfering.

However, I think there is a clear distinction between calling 'God' a collection of emotional avenues that you feel connected with (even if it's just merely brain gunk) and referring to 'God' as the traditional white-bearded tyrant in the skies as a separate entity who arranges various trials and tribulations for his meek little human orphans.

What is interesting to me is that I feel as though people often try to attribute their very own "brain gunk" to their haughty God in the heavens. This self-imposed dichotomy of what God 'wants,' is of course, merely nothing more than a reflection of the individual and his super-imposed "brain gunk." The very problem with religion (as I understand you've spoken out against) is that it tries to instill set instances of God into this collection of human explanation. This is, as I think you and I will both agree, irrational at best. Therefore, I think to persuade people to think about what they believe, in particular - the traditional idea of what it means when the word 'God' is invoked - as not being founded on any faction of truth or reality is a decent endeavor. Indeed, the very juxtaposition and intangibility of this entity is what allows people to superimpose their beliefs onto a non-being.

Yet, I do not know of anybody who thinks of love as an ethereal entity floating outside the realm of space and time. For 'God,' that is a different matter. In fact, most people would be absolutely temperamental if we tried to define God in any other way as that which they precisely feel is defined in a book handed down through the centuries by brutal and genocidal organizations.

Make no qualms about it, if you feel what you experience would best be explained as "God," then by all means call it that but don't be surprised when people run for the hills in thinking that you are referring to that ignorant fool described in books like the Bible and the Koran.

[Lindsey_Mcfarren]

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

This is question that makes the self proclaimed "rationalists" run for the hills and one that I have never received a good answer to. Why should I believe in love, but not GOD?

I personally don't care what you believe in or not. I was not sent here by anyone to persuade someone to see things the way I do. So believe what feels right to you.
I don't want to seem to speak for all atheists but I don't think most of us really care.

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

While I understand your premise, I think that you are only focusing on this unilaterally and without the desire to admit that other emotions such as anger, lust, hatred, etc... would also be irrational. And, by all means, many of our emotions are handed to us without rational motive or means. In many cases, I would presume to think that the evil done in the name of what you cite as "love" were also done as the result of other emotional involvement interfering.

However, I think there is a clear distinction between calling 'God' a collection of emotional avenues that you feel connected with (even if it's just merely brain gunk) and referring to 'God' as the traditional white-bearded tyrant in the skies as a separate entity who arranges various trials and tribulations for his meek little human orphans.

Although many believe in that, and the image is in the Sistine Chapel, God the Father was traditionally not depicted in art at all. In Judaism and Islam such depiction is forbidden. I'm not sure I find many, or any, depictions of God before the Renaissance. I think Catholic thought is even that the depictions of God the Father are purely spiritual exercises or artistic ways to express a theological point or what have you and not true representations of God. God as a white-bearded man was never, so far as I know, a canonical vision. It's quite possible the "white beared man" image is based on Zeus or Odin.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

Although many believe in that, and the image is in the Sistine Chapel, God the Father was traditionally not depicted in art at all. In Judaism and Islam such depiction is forbidden. I'm not sure I find many, or any, depictions of God before the Renaissance. I think Catholic thought is even that the depictions of God the Father are purely spiritual exercises or artistic ways to express a theological point or what have you and not true representations of God. God as a white-bearded man was never, so far as I know, a canonical vision. It's quite possible the "white beared man" image is based on Zeus or Odin.

Actually, I was referring to the graven image we have in our minds of 'God' as a supernatural entity; not so much that people believe in an actual man with a flowing white beard. In the same capacity that the visions of a 6'2" white guy with blue or light brown eyes and brown hair depict Jesus to many Europeans and Americans, I was merely trying to reconcile the separate idea of God as a supernatural entity (read: white-bearded dude) and the idea of God as something that defines the composition of emotional embodiment as needing to have some sort of distinguishing characteristics.

[kb09]

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Like I said in the OP, eating the mites out of someone's head once had it's place, but we advanced beyond that. We now have the capacity to wash our hair with "Rid" and do away with lice. At the same token, we now have in-verto fertilization and the ability to instutionally raise children in a controlled environment.

And off we go to the age of robots. Seems kind of science fiction eh? I'm liking this idea.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

This is much more efficent then the archaic family unit involving relationships that, as I showed in the OP, rarely work, and produce too many or too few offspring and there is no guarantee that they will be raised properly (Google "child abuse") Instutitionally raising children and doing away with love and sex is the rational solution and resisting it is irrational and emotionally based.

I can no longer tell if you are being sarcastic or very serious so I'll just ask point blank. Are you serious? Because if you are, your argument is built on straws right about now.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

No, you are the one with the reading comprehension problem. As I said, we have evolved beyond the need for primitive love and reproduction and now can use eugenics, sterilization, and other such institutions to continue and perfect our species must faster then natural selection ever could. What, do you not believe in progress?

Firstly, there is no such thing as perfect. There is always an unkown factor that we cannot account for (such as I don't know a bacterium) that can completely wipe out our species no matter how "perfect" we might be. Secondly, artificial insemination is expensive as hell. How much does it cost to have sex? If your not going to a hooker I'm guessing it's thousands cheaper than the alternative. Save a dollar: have more dirty icky primitive sex.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

BTW, I do not want to see forced sterilization and children being raised by a totalitarian Technocracy. I, however, am happily irrational, so I am being consistent, while a self proclaimed "rationalist" who still believes in love is a hypocrite.

Not so much. It seems you have a bone to pick with atheist. I know I know, you have nothing against us, it's just the militant won't back down ones that get on your nerves. But, from your post - and this thread in particular - it seems that you indeed do have a bone to pick with most of us (not just the militant won't back down). The name of the thread is evident. You make it sound that you have found something so profound, so epiphany like and life changing that we as atheist are stuck and must agree with you. Hardly.

We as human beings are hypocrites. Truly it's our nature and we can't help it. If you say something one day and change your mind on it the next, you are considered a hypocrite. The nature of our changing minds makes us hypocritical by default. You say there are reasons to do away with love, etc., and give your reasons and they can easily be debunked. I believe you to be smart victorian and I believe you to be rational. However, you are not showing your intelligence and rationality in this thread. I know that your trying to make a point, but your point is idiotic.

I don't care about your belief in God and I don't care that you think love isn't needed. I'm not trying to tell you how you should live your life or what you should do. I'm saying that you don't need to tell me what to do or how I should live my life. You believe love isn't need. Peachy. Fine with me. Just don't try to force your belief on me.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Monogamy does not necessarily work: FASTSTATS - Marriage and Divorce
And prayer does not necessarily fail:
Does God Answer Prayer? Researcher Says 'Yes'

And I can find a site that says monogamy does work and prayer fails. It really just depends on what I'm looking for. Statistics are indeed good, but they can easily be construed to fit your particular viewpoint. Should I pull my cool stats out too?

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Please note that a good portion of this thread is my doing something anti-theists rarely do: Provide a consistent argument for Rationalism. As in nothing irrational allowed.

Gah victorian. Get over yourself. We are all irrational at some point or another. In fact our rationality is limited (as in we can never know every outcome to every event) so your proclaiming your rationality is indeed irrational.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Belief in Love is just as irrational as belief in GOD, and that is what I am getting at.

On a semantical issue, you cannot "believe in love" as you can "believe in God." Reasonable people don't worship love, or tithe to it, or pray five times a day to it, or go to a love gathering to tell of it's holly goodiness. Or go to temples to connect closer to love.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

HOWEVER, Rationalism is overrated and I am, indeed, an enemy of reason and a card carrying member of Mystic Resistance.

I still, however, do not believe that love is real. A possibility? Yes, but nothing more. As I said, if love was GOD, I would be Agnostic.

And (most) of us are the same with a belief in a deity. I can't speak for everyone but I'm an agnostic atheist (or a soft atheist or whatever term you'd like to apply). Can a God exist? Possbily. But I put that possibility in the same category as the Tooth Fairy, Santa, and hobbits.

It's pretty much all relative. You don't believe love to be real and I don't think your God is either.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Indeed, these "feelings" are just a symptom of psychosis which should be medicated away.

Tack on an in my opinion onto that statement and we're snazzy.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

This thread is about Romantic love, not community love. Please stay on topic.

Thanks for completely missing the analogy and diverting from what it meant. I'll just say it point blank.

Feelings don't force anyone to do anything (including love of course). We good? Okay, let's move on.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Atheists insist that GOD has to be a "big-bearded-white-guy-on-a-throne-who-created-the-universe-in-seven-days" and do not listen to someone like me saying GOD is not a personal being and might just be inside us.

Who? Which atheist? All atheist? Victorian, victorian, victorian! You know all encompassing statements can be knocked down with a breath! I know you know this! To totally debunk your statment, this atheist doesn't insist that God has to be a "big-bearded-white-guy-on-a-throne-who-created-the-universe-in seveh-days."

IMO, you just have another twist on "God." I think I've said this before, but, to reiterate, I think that truth in regard to religion is relative and everyone must find that truth for themselves if they so wish. You seem to have found your own personal truth. Peachy. That's fine with me.

But, it also seems to me like your waving your arms and screaming, "look at me, look at me! All those christians are wrong and I've found the right answer!"

I don't believe in either one of you guys' spin on God. If it's right and good for you, awesome.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

If they can define GOD without ever experiencing it or feeling it, then I can define Romantic love without feeling it or experiencing it.

Good thing I experienced and felt God eh? IMO, it was a load of crock. As I've said before, I'm completely open to the possibility that a God still exist. You OTOH, are not the same. You are not being open at all and have already come into the debate with this conquer attitude. The way you are going about this is making it hard for your point to be seen. When you come into a debate being somewhat objective and respectful, you'll find that people are more receptive to your idea. I could tell by the title of your thread that this was a drag me down, declaritive thread, but, like the sucker I am, I still clicked on it (I guess that one's my fault).

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Religion can also be perverted in many ways.

Never said it couldn't.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

IF we are to give up religion because of all the bad things that have been done in it's context (as Dawkins and Hitchens and their followers claim) then we should, logically, also give up romantic love for all the things that have been done in it's context.

Okay, so...billions of people have died in the name of love and even a system of lovers still exist today that molest children and sweep it under the rug? Okay, I'm completely with ya. Love is bad, bad, bad.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Anti-theist quote the Koran, the Old Testament, etc as if every theists uses those books.

Again with the encompassing statements? Again, this anti-theist doesn't quote the Koran, or Old Testament. Next.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

I have posted links proving that love results in so many hardships it's not even funny. Those are the facts. The evidence is clear: LOVE IS NOT GREAT! ROMANCE IS A DELUSION!

And I can post links saying the same thing about religion. Point? Next.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

As I said, all love is is a bunch of neurons firing off in your brain. The question is: Is love rational and should it be allowed to continue in a Rational society? The answer is obviously NO.

As I've said before, we have a limited rationality and indeed do things that can be considered irrational. Again your point? Next.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

So, we either do away with GOD & Love & art & beauty and replace it with a completely totalitarian utilitarian society in which we are given numbers instead of names, OR, we accept the existence of the irrational, be it love or GOD.

As I've said, I don't care about your belief in your God or about your lack of love. Your point? Dare I say next?

This is getting pretty interesting because I'm taking a logic class right now and I can easily point out at least five fallacies that we've just covered this week. It's pretty interesting to see how non-cogent your argument is and how it falls like a house of cards. Granted, I'm using some of the same fallacies (still working on refining that and recognizing it) but in due time i'll weed them out and come up with a more cogent argument.

Continue victorian, your fueling my knowledge.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

As I said, all love is is a bunch of neurons firing off in your brain. The question is: Is love rational and should it be allowed to continue in a Rational society? The answer is obviously NO.

So, we either do away with GOD & Love & art & beauty and replace it with a completely totalitarian utilitarian society in which we are given numbers instead of names, OR, we accept the existence of the irrational, be it love or GOD.

You know this is the fallacy of bifurcation? It is the stock argument of the irrational. Either we have totalitatian regimes or we have to accept the unsatisfactory and irrational situation. No. The idea is to search for a way to accommodate our natural urges in hopefully a tolerant and rational way. That's why 'love', though largely a myth attached to a lot of hormones and conventions, is real in that those hormones are real.

The answer is not to give humans some pre-frontal to remove all such urges. That would remove one of life's great pleasures. But we could well do without all the possesiveness, jealousy, restrictions,and myths (such as destined partner - I saw through that one as a kid) that can make it unpleasant as well as pleasant.

Your argument about God and beauty are equally fallacious. Just because we can understand that beauty is subjective that does not mean we shouldn't enjoy it. It just means that we don't treat someone else with a different idea of beauty as some kind of idiot. Tolerance and understanding of our irrational urges, not expunging them. That would be logical some some minds, I suppose. So would exterminating the human race to remove the overpopulation problem. But it isn't what we want. It is no good for us.

As to 'God', the same thing applies. My idea of what 'god' is may differ from someone else's. I know yours does! But provided we understand it - that it is (on all evidence) no more than a myth (I can't find a better word for all that some theists object to it) using it as you do, for personal benefit, I don't have a serious problem with.

So let's not do the 'either -or -fallacy, ok? It doesn't make your argument (which has some good points) look good.

[Thomas R.]

I don't know if I see it much anymore, but my encyclopedia indicated there used to be something called "romantic atheism." I think it worked something like this.

The romantic atheist disbelieves for emotional reasons. Even if belief in God truly was the more rational option they'd still go against it. They feel God diminishes Man or Nature or that God implies an unpleasant element of monitoring/control by a higher force. I've seen "romantic atheism", most frequently, among poets and to a lesser extent among other artists. At times Christopher Hitchens even strikes me more as a "romantic atheist" than a rational one.

A romantic atheist could believe in all kinds of abstractions and intangibles, even souls, without being theist or deist. However at present the form of "atheism" in the public conversation is a reductionist materialism. Not all atheism has to be that, but it is starting to seem that atheists who aren't that are gravitating toward other terms. (Non-theist, Humanist, etc)

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

One can love others in the humanity and "GOD's Love" sense, yes, but that is clearly not what this thread is about. What I am talking about is romantic love, the whole two people being together as a couple and holding hands on the beach and all that other BS.

Then you are not talking about love but merely of monogamy and / or just the feeling of falling in love. I agree with you that falling in love is purely physical where you act on your hormones while being monogamous has everything to do with your life philosophy (whether you find being monogamous more important than feeling butterflies in your stomach).

I guess that what you call romantic love differs as much from love as watching from seeing;
one is able to watch yet not see anything.
BTW I imagine that it is quite possible to be monogamous without having the feeling of falling in love (like butterflies in your stomach etc) anymore.

As I said, all love is is a bunch of neurons firing off in your brain.

Everything is just a bunch of neurons firing in your brain.
The way I see it is that reality is 1/2 perception and the other 1/2 is how you interpret the info.
And knowledge influences your perception a great deal.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

I don't know if I see it much anymore, but my encyclopedia indicated there used to be something called "romantic atheism." I think it worked something like this.

The romantic atheist disbelieves for emotional reasons. Even if belief in God truly was the more rational option they'd still go against it. They feel God diminishes Man or Nature or that God implies an unpleasant element of monitoring/control by a higher force. I've seen "romantic atheism", most frequently, among poets and to a lesser extent among other artists. At times Christopher Hitchens even strikes me more as a "romantic atheist" than a rational one.

A romantic atheist could believe in all kinds of abstractions and intangibles, even souls, without being theist or deist. However at present the form of "atheism" in the public conversation is a reductionist materialism. Not all atheism has to be that, but it is starting to seem that atheists who aren't that are gravitating toward other terms. (Non-theist, Humanist, etc)

I'd never heard of that one before, but it strikes me as illogical (in the sense as not being in accordance with logic and rational thought, as distinct from having no logic to it) as it is based on personal preference -"I don't like the idea of God" - rather than reason "I can't see any good reason to believe in God".

I have tended to use the term 'thinking atheist' (though, perhaps significantly, no-one else uses anything like the term) to distinguish those who have become aware of the arguments for and against and have a reasonable knowledge of them. The 'unthinking' (or at least, illogical) ones are those who don't or can't know, or don't care, or reject God for emotional or political reasons or gender/race issue reasons or any other reason than there being no evidential reason to believe in a god.

P.s. I looked it up and it really seems to be a bit quaint and antique. The final nail in the coffin is, I couldn't find an entry on Wiki! I think 'romantic' atheism has been supplanted by evidence - based atheism.

[Thomas R.]

Wikipedia is not the best arbiter of anything. (I say this as a Wikipedian of several years standing) If you can't find something on English Wikipedia it means that it's of no interest to young English speakers who go online. That's it, it says virtually nothing of significance or importance otherwise. (There are still many notable religious movements, former leaders of poor nations, Pulitzer Prize winners, etc without articles)

The following lists books that discuss romantic atheism. It does seem to have been, mostly, a nineteenth century thing. Although I find conferences on it, elsewhere, up to 2007. Shelley is a notable example.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...-8&sa=N&tab=wp

Anyway who says beliefs, or disbeliefs like atheism, have to be logical? I like to think my beliefs have elements of logic to them, but it doesn't follow everyone's must.