Atheists:Why should I believe in love, but not believe in GOD? (Buddhism, worship)

[MontanaGuy]

victorianpunk wrote:

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.

It seems to me that you're thinking in extremes. God, love, art and beauty are not a single item that we have to accept as a package or get rid of all of them. I don't believe God is even real but love, art and beauty certainly are very real and I see nothing irrational about them at all. In fact I see them as representing the very best qualities in mankind. Love is a natural and powerful human emotion that also happens to keep families and society in general bonded together. Your statement about not allowing love to continue is because it isn't rational seems rather foolish. Not believing in God doesn't lead to a robotic existence in a totalitarian state. I'm an atheist who loves my family members and who appreciates the beauty of nature and the creative process in art, music and literature.

[agnostic soldier]

You can observe love by the actions of people who feel love for each other. You can't observe god.

[Peggy Anne]

Unconditional love is perfect. "Love" with strings attached isn't love at all. It's business, power, and control. No one can tell us how we "should feel" or "must feel" about the subject. No one wrote the book of love. It isn't in book form. If you have ever felt pure, unconditional love, you wouldn't let the naysayers bother you at all. Let them embrace their acute nay saying.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

I don't believe God is even real but love, art and beauty certainly are very real and I see nothing irrational about them at all.

The problem is that when you call a work of art beautiful I might find it ugly, so what you call art I might call anything but.
Is art then still real?

The only difference between art and religion is that no 1 ever went to war with each other over the definition of art.

[victorianpunk]

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.

Good point. For a Rational society to exists, all emotions must be done away with. However, I do not want that because I, by admission, do not want a rational society.

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.

Everyone has a different idea of what GOD is. A Hindue's GOD is not a Christian's GOD, and a Deist's GOD is not a Muslim's GOD and they are not a Gnostic's GOD.

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.

"Truth" and "reality" are relative things. All reality is is a collection of electrons firing off in your brain (please re-watch "The Matrix")

GOD is judged not on it's actual existince, but on what it can do for us. Someone who has lived a good, happy life by following GOD's will and has not harmed or oppressed anyone is justified in believing in GOD or any other irrational thing because it provided them with joy. As long as that joy does not harm anyone else, who cares?

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.

Please go back to the OP. I quoted plenty of sources to show the brutality and murder that often accompanies romantic love.

Also...what about books not by an "organization" and not by anyone who has ever committed genocide? Gnostics never massacred anyone, even when we had the numbers and the resources to do so (the Cathars, the Manichainists)

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.

I defined the love I was talking about in the third sentence of the OP. If a Atheists was to say "the GOD of the Abrahamic religions" I would be more then cool with that atheist and probably join him/her in bashing that creator, who is a cruel bastard who we Gnostics understand is satan. But, to just say "GOD" is too open ended.

Which GOD don't atheists believe in? The one that is a metaphor for a feeling? The one inside us all that Freud called "The Super Ego"?

Think before one types and be specific!

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Good point. For a Rational society to exists, all emotions must be done away with. However, I do not want that because I, by admission, do not want a rational society.

Stop being an arrogant nimwit, victorianpunk. I've tried to have a rational conversation with you but you seem to want to tout your superfluous and tawdry comments for what you deem to be a respite for self-assurance as to why you can't get laid. You know full well that whether or not we called love "brain gunk" or "love" that people would still act on those emotions even if we changed the name of them. Being rational has nothing to do with seeking to define different emotional variations with commonly used definitions.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Everyone has a different idea of what GOD is. A Hindue's GOD is not a Christian's GOD, and a Deist's GOD is not a Muslim's GOD and they are not a Gnostic's GOD.

Great, I could care less. It doesn't make what you believe or what anyone else believes to be true any more than what I "think" I experience with my wife is "love."

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

"Truth" and "reality" are relative things. All reality is is a collection of electrons firing off in your brain (please re-watch "The Matrix")

Oh, pulling out the empirical citations are we? I thought you could do better than that. I'll presume to allow you to stick with your Hollywood nonsense for explanations of how the world works. Perhaps you should take the "blue pill."

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

GOD is judged not on it's actual existince, but on what it can do for us. Someone who has lived a good, happy life by following GOD's will and has not harmed or oppressed anyone is justified in believing in GOD or any other irrational thing because it provided them with joy. As long as that joy does not harm anyone else, who cares?

I don't care, victorianpunk. What I do care about is people trying to invoke their particular methodologies into my sphere because what they think works for them must work for all.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Please go back to the OP. I quoted plenty of sources to show the brutality and murder that often accompanies romantic love.

You cited nothing of the sort except what you feel are statistical measures to prove that 'love' is bad while forgetting to acknowledge the fact that in order to reference that, 'love' would have to be real for your claim to be true.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Also...what about books not by an "organization" and not by anyone who has ever committed genocide? Gnostics never massacred anyone, even when we had the numbers and the resources to do so (the Cathars, the Manichainists)

I was referring to the insane dichotomies of the pervasive stupidity we see in today's society where people throw themselves at utter nonsense (Creationism, Intelligent Design, Manifest Destiny, etc...) because of what they feel are adequate explanations from Bronze Age goatherders.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

I defined the love I was talking about in the third sentence of the OP. If a Atheists was to say "the GOD of the Abrahamic religions" I would be more then cool with that atheist and probably join him/her in bashing that creator, who is a cruel bastard who we Gnostics understand is satan. But, to just say "GOD" is too open ended.

So... We're on the same page then?

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Which GOD don't atheists believe in? The one that is a metaphor for a feeling? The one inside us all that Freud called "The Super Ego"?

I can't speak for any atheist other than myself. I do not believe in a deity nor do I believe in any sort of supernatural essence somewhere "out there." If you are referring to the 'God' of nature, or the principles of physics as a creative power under a unified field theory than that is slightly different - however I would hesitate to use the word 'God' to describe it.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Think before one types and be specific!

Oh, spare me the condescending attitude. It's no wonder you've never been on a date.

[victorianpunk]

Originally Posted by kb09

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

Indeed. That is the end result of doing away with "irrationalism".

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.

I am not pro-totalitarianism, I am PRO-CONSISTANCY! All these "skeptics" with their "skeptical inquiries"...why not do a "skeptical inquiry" on the existince of Love? Why not write about the delusion that is love and all the pain and hardship it has caused the world? A world devoid of the irrational is a world devoid of emotion, because emotion is the origin of all that is irrational.

So, these people need to either A) Adopt a ideology of hatred for emotion and a completely totalitarian world view or B) Stop being such douche bags and understand that my belief in Dragons is just as irrational as their belief in love! Only difference is that, by statistics, a wife is allot more likely to kill me then a dragon ever is!

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.

CONSISTENT RATIONAL RESPONDS


<<<NEGATIVE>>>
The price of artificial insemination is far outweighed by the collective price of such Sexual Transmitted Diseases as AIDS have on society/ We shall not think of such irrational, primitive concepts as <<<pleasure>>> and <<<love>>> / We shall strive to maintain our species using the greatest technology and the hights of rational science/Sex, like religion, is a primitive activity which is inefficent and should be discontinued.
<<<END TRANSMISSION>>>

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.

Atheism is what always leads to the people like James Randi and Dawkins and others "debunkers". While they have not stopped me from believing in Fairies, Elves, Dragons, Ghosts, GOD and demons, they irritate me because they never go out and debunk love, which one can easily do. It is their inconsistency that I disagree with and gets me angry.

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.

Changing a position is not being a hypocrite. It is only being a hypocrite when you have a blatant double-standard.

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.

The point is clear: Love is just as irrational as GOD, if not more so...Rihanna did not get the crap beaten out of her by GOD, no, she got the crap beaten out of her by her boyfriend! If Rihanna did not have a boyfriend and did not believe in love, would that have happened to her? NO. Multiply her experience a thousand times over for all the people in abusive relationships. Now, who has GOD ever beaten up? No one.

The evidence is clear: You Lover is allot more likely to hurt you then GOD is. How is that 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.

I am not. I am only saying that belief in love is just as irrational as belief in GOD. Go ahead, be irrational...BUT JUST ADMIT IT! A self-proclaimed "Rationalist" who believes in Love is like a self-proclaimed "White Supremacist" who is married to a Mexican and voted for Obama. It makes no sense and gives me a headache. I am not a rational person and am damn proud of it!

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?

So, we are even? I have an irrational belief in GOD and you have an irrational belief in Love.

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.

I am irrational. At least I am willing to admit it. Yes, I am willing to admit that leaving an offering of milk in a natural clay bowl in the woods for the fairies (which I did the other week, btw) is irrational...but so is buying one's girlfriend a present. The difference is, at least I admit I am irrational and I sincerely doubt my fairies will ever cheat on me or beat me up or kill me...can anyone be 100% sure their girlfriend wouldn't do those things?

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.

So buying a wedding ring is not tithing? How about alimony? That's worst then tithing! I mean, you leave a church and stop believing, you stop tithing...one leaves a marriage and stops believing, and they still have to pay up! How about saying "I love you" five, eight, ten times a day...how is that any different from praying? How is an expensive honeymoon or vacation with the S.O. not a "love gathering"?
Come to think of it!...which is more expensive: Divorcing a wife, or divorcing from a church?

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.

The Tooth Fairy and Santa are not a common thread throughout every culture on Earth...and Hobbits do exist...Ever watch "Different Strokes?"

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

Exactly. We are even.

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

How many times have people said "But I love him/her" when confronted for doing something stupid? How is that not forcing?

It is an irrational feeling that makes people do things and that they should use a chemical to avoid for the sake of the species...not my opinion, but that is the <<<RATIONAL>>> solution.

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.

I think we are all right about GOD in the end. GOD is a ink-blot test...what do you see?

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).

I am simply demonstrating that my belief in GOD is no more irrational then a atheist's belief in love.

Anyway, if someone told me they had a good experience from love, I would say, honestly, that I am open to it existing, but I have a feeling that it is all a load of crock.

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.

As I showed in the OP, countless people are in abusive romantic relationships, there is date rape, divorce, cheating etc etc etc. Think of all the pay people go throw in the context of a relationship...is it worth it?

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

Both Dawkins and Hitchens quote both often.

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

As I said, both beliefs are irrational, so I, and the anti-theists, are even.

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

Agreed. That is my point.

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.

Logic is lacking these days. What I am saying is that my that I believe in deity can not result in harming me, but a relationship someone believes in can indeed hurt them (see Rihanna for evidence) How is that not logical?

[kb09]

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Indeed. That is the end result of doing away with "irrationalism".

Mmhmm, yea, okay.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

I am not pro-totalitarianism, I am PRO-CONSISTANCY! All these "skeptics" with their "skeptical inquiries"...why not do a "skeptical inquiry" on the existince of Love?

Wait, now I'm confused. I thought love wasn't real. How could something be in existence if it's not real? Your tying yourself up now victorian.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Why not write about the delusion that is love and all the pain and hardship it has caused the world? A world devoid of the irrational is a world devoid of emotion, because emotion is the origin of all that is irrational.

Actually, I'm pretty sure there have been people who have written about how much love - and consequently emotion - suck and make the world bad. You can look to the Enlightenment period for that (which was shortly followed by Romanticism). I'm still missing your point though. It seems as if it's gotten kind of lost.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

So, these people need to either A) Adopt a ideology of hatred for emotion and a completely totalitarian world view or B) Stop being such douche bags and understand that my belief in Dragons is just as irrational as their belief in love! Only difference is that, by statistics, a wife is allot more likely to kill me then a dragon ever is!

False dilemma or most commonly known as the fallacy of bifurcation, involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered in face of the fact that there are indeed many more options. This fallacy is most commonly used in order to "trap" a person in an argument and make them choose either or when there are other alternatives that are not mentioned.

Also, choice C.) would to be to live and let live and stop trying to force your particular brand of belief down everyone's throat. I don't care about your God or any other person's God. Keep it to yourself, I don't care to know how it changed your life.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

CONSISTENT RATIONAL RESPONDS

<<<NEGATIVE>>>
The price of artificial insemination is far outweighed by the collective price of such Sexual Transmitted Diseases as AIDS have on society/ We shall not think of such irrational, primitive concepts as <<<pleasure>>> and <<<love>>> / We shall strive to maintain our species using the greatest technology and the hights of rational science/Sex, like religion, is a primitive activity which is inefficent and should be discontinued.
<<<END TRANSMISSION>>>

First things first. Something as highly pleasurable as sex will never be done away with as long as we have reproductive organs and instinct on how to use them.

Secondly, it doesn't cost anything for a person to die, what cost a butt load is what you do to keep that person from dying.

Third, there is always a possibility that something can go horribly wrong with artificial insemination that we can not foresee if we try it on a large scale. Who is to say that it won't cost more than AIDS after everything is said and done? As I've said, there is always an unknown factor that cannot possibly be accounted for no matter how much you think something is foolproof. Remember that as you continue on this little tirade of "rationality" and "consistency."

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Atheism is what always leads to the people like James Randi and Dawkins and others "debunkers".

Again with the all encompassing statements.

I don't care who Randi or Dawkinds or other "debunkers" are or what they think. My atheism was not dependent on their words and I lost my faith independent of what they may have said (I hadn't even heard of Dawkins before I came to this board).

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

While they have not stopped me from believing in Fairies, Elves, Dragons, Ghosts, GOD and demons, they irritate me because they never go out and debunk love, which one can easily do. It is their inconsistency that I disagree with and gets me angry.

How do you debunk it? Even you yourself have already conceded that love exist and for love to do so much harm to the word it has to be real. Your getting stuck in your own mud pal.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

The point is clear: Love is just as irrational as GOD, if not more so...Rihanna did not get the crap beaten out of her by GOD, no, she got the crap beaten out of her by her boyfriend!

I wonder, who said she got the crap beaten out of her by God? Was anyone insinuating that. Please, raise your hand if you were.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

If Rihanna did not have a boyfriend and did not believe in love, would that have happened to her? NO.

How are you so sure of that? What if she went home and a robber was caught in her house and to keep her quiet he beat her within an inch of her life? Was that an act of love too?

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Multiply her experience a thousand times over for all the people in abusive relationships. Now, who has GOD ever beaten up? No one.

Love hasn't beaten anyone up either. An emotion cannot jump out of a body and start a UFC round with someone. It is a person who chooses to act on emotions. Emotions can't do anything by themselves.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

The evidence is clear: You Lover is allot more likely to hurt you then GOD is. How is that idiotic?

Not really. A guy knows not to put his hands on me because he'd have to kill me if he did. Plus, you'd have to believe that God actually exist in order for your claim to have validity.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

I am not I am only saying that belief in love is just as irrational as belief in GOD.

I don't know how you can believe in love. Is it the same way you believe in anger? Frustration? Pity? Agony? They are just emotions, it takes no amount of faith to know they what they are and how they work.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Go ahead, be irrational...BUT JUST ADMIT IT! A self-proclaimed "Rationalist" who believes in Love is like a self-proclaimed "White Supremacist" who is married to a Mexican and voted for Obama. It makes no sense and gives me a headache. I am not a rational person and am damn proud of it!

Again, I can't speak for others, but I don't believe in love. To believe in love requires faith. I have no faith about the existence of love. I know what it is. That's the difference between belief and knowledge. You can test knowledge but you can't test belief.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

So, we are even? I have an irrational belief in GOD and you have an irrational belief in Love.

Again, I don't believe in love. Victorianpunk, get this through your head. Jesus kid, it's like I'm talking to a rock.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

I am irrational. At least I am willing to admit it. Yes, I am willing to admit that leaving an offering of milk in a natural clay bowl in the woods for the fairies (which I did the other week, btw) is irrational...but so is buying one's girlfriend a present. The difference is, at least I admit I am irrational and I sincerely doubt my fairies will ever cheat on me or beat me up or kill me...can anyone be 100% sure their girlfriend wouldn't do those things?

How is buying a spouse a present irrational? Your ignorance is quite astounding victorian.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

So buying a wedding ring is not tithing?
How about alimony? That's worst then tithing! I mean, you leave a church and stop believing, you stop tithing...one leaves a marriage and stops believing, and they still have to pay up! How about saying "I love you" five, eight, ten times a day...how is that any different from praying? How is an expensive honeymoon or vacation with the S.O. not a "love gathering"?
Come to think of it!...which is more expensive: Divorcing a wife, or divorcing from a church?

I think sanspeur said it best in another thread where you insert your own meaning into peoples words instead of using a dictionary to find out what they mean:

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Must I choose my words carefully when responding to you? Like my ex wife, you put your own meaning to my words and assume intentions that don't exist. I walked on eggshells for too many years with her, and I'll be damned if I'll do that for you.

1.) A wedding ring is not a tithe; it is considered a gift and a way to basically show people that you are "marked" so to speak. More and more couples though are doing away with the traditional wedding ring as time passes by.

2.) Alimony is paid in the case of a divorce and is usually only paid for a set time (six months, a year, two years). In some cases, spouses can get a break on there alimony and stop paying early if there ex-spouse becomes financially independent before the period of alimony pay is up (ex. a wife doesn't have to pay alimony to her ex-husband for six months if he becomes financially stable in three).

3.) I love you is a phrase expressing what someone feels for another person. It is not trying to connect closer with some God, it is just telling someone else how they feel. You are really going out on a stretch trying to make this work huh? Hardly rational, Mr. Rationality.

4.) A honeymoon is a form of celebration. Some couples choose to take them, others don't. It's not set in stone that every newlywed couple must take a five day four night honeymoon to Tahiti.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

The Tooth Fairy and Santa are not a common thread throughout every culture on Earth...and Hobbits do exist...Ever watch "Different Strokes?"

What does it matter if they are common throughout every culture? I'm pretty sure that most have a Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus story.

Lol, Gary Coleman was a little person not a hobbit.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

How many times have people said "But I love him/her" when confronted for doing something stupid? How is that not forcing?

Because they did it of their own free will. Unless someone has a gun to your head and is telling you to do something, you've done it of your own free will. There is a difference between force and persuasion victorian.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

It is an irrational feeling that makes people do things and that they should use a chemical to avoid for the sake of the species...not my opinion, but that is the <<<RATIONAL>>> solution.

No it's not the rational solution, it's your opinion; don't try to push it off to be the end all, know all (cuz it's not).

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

I think we are all right about GOD in the end. GOD is a ink-blot test...what do you see?

I see nothing cuz I burned the ink-blot and threw the ashes in the garbage. In other words I don't care.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

I am simply demonstrating that my belief in GOD is no more irrational then a atheist's belief in love.

*Sigh*

What more can you say to this?

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Anyway, if someone told me they had a good experience from love, I would say, honestly, that I am open to it existing, but I have a feeling that it is all a load of crock.

Peachy. I'm not trying to force anything on you. If you feel that way, that's awesome for you.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

As I showed in the OP, countless people are in abusive romantic relationships, there is date rape, divorce, cheating etc etc etc. Think of all the pay people go throw in the context of a relationship...is it worth it?

First things first.

Date rape is not romantic love. Most date rapes usually occur on the first date and I'm pretty sure that most people don't experience love at first sight (most often it's lust at first sight). So including date rape with romantic love does not follow.

And yes, I believe starting a relationship and falling in love is worth it, just as you consider you relationship with your God to be important and worth it.

I'll take the risk of heartbreak because I believe the experiences from it are worthwhile and meaningful, whether or not the relationship actually works out.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Both Dawkins and Hitchens quote both often.

And what is that supposed to mean to me? I don't give a flying pigs poo what Dawkins and Hitchens quote.

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

As I said, both beliefs are irrational, so I, and the anti-theists, are even.

Hey, I got a secret to tell ya:

You can't believe in love.

I think you already know why.

I've said it I don't know ten times so far. But hey, who's counting. I'm not!

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Logic is lacking these days. What I am saying is that my that I believe in deity can not result in harming me, but a relationship someone believes in can indeed hurt them (see Rihanna for evidence) How is that not logical?

What if your deity told you to stick a knife in your arm? Would you do it? But hey, that's beside the point. I can't speak for others but I don't believe in relationships; I know they exist and there is physical proof of their existence. The same cannot be said about your God. You can't test it, nor verify it, nor witness it. All you have is faith and that's all you rely on. It's not that same in a relationship or love.

[sanspeur]

Have you never heard the saying better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? You keep talking about how risky love is. Sure there is some risk, as there is in every choice we make, but to live without taking risks is not really living at all.
I have had three great romantic loves in my life, and despite the pain when these ended, I wouldn't have missed them for the world. Without the experience you have no idea what you are talking about.

[victorianpunk]

Originally Posted by kb09

What if your deity told you to stick a knife in your arm? Would you do it? But hey, that's beside the point. I can't speak for others but I don't believe in relationships; I know they exist and there is physical proof of their existence. The same cannot be said about your God. You can't test it, nor verify it, nor witness it. All you have is faith and that's all you rely on. It's not that same in a relationship or love.

I am GOD, and I am the GOD I believe in (it's a Gnostic thing) and I, GOD, would have to be insane to stick a knife in myself.

Anyway, sure, you can see relationships...but you can also see a church. Does that mean there is a GOD? Those people might just be going through the motions, or, more likely, in the grip of psychosis. Seeing someone "speaking the tongues" is no more proof of GOD then seeing someone "loving their wife" is proof of love. Love cannot be measured, tested or verified. It is more likely that there is just a bunch of people deluding themselves.

And I don't have Faith (again, a Gnostic thing) and understand that there is a good chance GOD does not exists, except that I am GOD and I do exist.