(November 26, 2013 at 8:27 pm)FiniteImmortal Wrote: What I'm saying is you have no epistemological basis for love

I'm sorry, can someone explain to me why that even matters? I feel like this dude is just starting to drone on and on about things he thinks we don't have in order to prove atheists are lacking somehow someway.

(November 26, 2013 at 8:27 pm)FiniteImmortal Wrote: What I'm saying is you have no epistemological basis for love, other than you merely do it. I don't need to look directly at the sun to be able to acknowledge that by it, I am able to look at anything at all.

Love is neither an object nor a physical law, so why do you keep comparing it to them? It is a feeling, and the fact that you can feel it is an adequate epistemological basis for the feeling that is love (though there are many types of love, they are all feelings of one sort or another).

Not fully understanding the neurochemistry of love does not negate its existence as a feeling.

---

(November 26, 2013 at 8:35 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote:

(November 26, 2013 at 8:27 pm)FiniteImmortal Wrote: What I'm saying is you have no epistemological basis for love

I'm sorry, can someone explain to me why that even matters? I feel like this dude is just starting to drone on and on about things he thinks we don't have in order to prove atheists are lacking somehow someway.

I'm getting the same idea.

(November 26, 2013 at 8:27 pm)FiniteImmortal Wrote: What I'm saying is you have no epistemological basis for love, other than you merely do it.

There is certainly plenty of scientific knowledge surrounding the misconceived notion that love is a mystery. Love is nothing more than certain bodily chemicals reacting with the mind to create attraction.

In the famous words of Temperance Brennan:
Love is a chemical process which causes delusion.

(November 26, 2013 at 8:36 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(November 26, 2013 at 8:27 pm)FiniteImmortal Wrote: What I'm saying is you have no epistemological basis for love, other than you merely do it. I don't need to look directly at the sun to be able to acknowledge that by it, I am able to look at anything at all.

Love is neither an object nor a physical law, so why do you keep comparing it to them? It is a feeling, and the fact that you can feel it is an adequate epistemological basis for the feeling that is love (though there are many types of love, they are all feelings of one sort or another).

Not fully understanding the neurochemistry of love does not negate its existence as a feeling.

---

(November 26, 2013 at 8:35 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: I'm sorry, can someone explain to me why that even matters? I feel like this dude is just starting to drone on and on about things he thinks we don't have in order to prove atheists are lacking somehow someway.

I'm getting the same idea.

If love is merely a byproduct of advanced neurochemistry, why do we cry foul when it is violated? If it is ONLY a feeling, you have proved by point as to why rights in an atheistic framework can never be unalienable, love unconditional, beauty unfathomable, and truth absolute.

That is the whole point love is more than a feeling, as is everything sacred that ought not be violated.

(November 26, 2013 at 8:43 pm)FiniteImmortal Wrote: If love is merely a byproduct of advanced neurochemistry, why do we cry foul when it is violated?

Love is irrational, and that makes man irrational. Easy to understand, really.

(November 26, 2013 at 8:00 pm)FiniteImmortal Wrote: How could suggesting love exists absolutely as well as beauty, as a phenomenon we can interact with based on it having existed before we got here more pretentious than saying love and beauty are an artificial construct arrived at as a byproduct of the over-braining of humans?

Oh dear, I'll try again. It's not the views that you're expressing, it's the manner in which you express them. As it happens, I do consider platonic realism to be retarded, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Quote:To me, the definition of SELF-AGRANDIZEMENT is seating your self at the throne of the universe.

That's cute.

Self-aggrandising (adj)
1. of or relating to or characteristic of self-aggrandizement
2. exhibiting self-importance

Quote:We have been given this life by no merits of our own, understanding that is humility, the opposite of self-aggrandizement or self-worship (humanism).

Again, I wasn't referring to your views, I was referring to your prose.

Sorry, I heard "More Than a Feelin'" and I'm now rocking out to Boston. Are you and that other Natty dude one and the same person? You seem to think that the fact that it's "only" a feeling is reason not to marvel at it still.

(November 26, 2013 at 8:47 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:

(November 26, 2013 at 8:43 pm)FiniteImmortal Wrote: If love is merely a byproduct of advanced neurochemistry, why do we cry foul when it is violated?

Love is irrational, and that makes man irrational. Easy to understand, really.

Wow! It may very well be irrational, does that make it invalid? It is irrational to put myself in danger to save a baby from the traintracks, does that mean I ought not do it? The moral law in humanity tells us innately we should, and guilt comes when we rest safely and watch the baby expire. There has never a culture existed in which it was noble to run away in battle, rationality be damned.

He never said it was invalid. Quit putting words in people's mouths. I'm sorry I destroyed your convenient strawman about atheists and comfort.

(November 26, 2013 at 8:43 pm)FiniteImmortal Wrote: If love is merely a byproduct of advanced neurochemistry, why do we cry foul when it is violated? If it is ONLY a feeling, you have proved by point as to why rights in an atheistic framework can never be unalienable, love unconditional, beauty unfathomable, and truth absolute.

Bullshit. Pain is merely a product of neurochemistry. It also provides a definite evolutionary advantage.

Quote:That is the whole point love is more than a feeling, as is everything sacred that ought not be violated.