(July 9, 2014 at 6:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: I don't buy this idea that just because love is a chemical arrangement in my brain, my experience of it is somehow devalued, or different from anyone else's.

...any theist who feels they have a license to scoff at the legitimacy of my emotions because of my belief about gods is an asshole.

Couldn't a theist use this exact argument (about one's experience of consciousness) to validate their own religious experiences also

(July 10, 2014 at 12:39 pm)ShaMan Wrote:

(July 9, 2014 at 6:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: I don't buy this idea that just because love is a chemical arrangement in my brain, my experience of it is somehow devalued, or different from anyone else's.

...any theist who feels they have a license to scoff at the legitimacy of my emotions because of my belief about gods is an asshole.

Couldn't a theist use this exact argument (about one's experience of consciousness) to validate their own religious experiences also

No, because no one doubts that religious people genuinely have profound emotional experiences--it's their unjustified metaphysical claims attached to them that we rightfully mock.

(July 10, 2014 at 4:17 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(July 10, 2014 at 12:39 pm)ShaMan Wrote: Couldn't a theist use this exact argument (about one's experience of consciousness) to validate their own religious experiences also

No, because no one doubts that religious people genuinely have profound emotional experiences--it's their unjustified metaphysical claims attached to them that we rightfully mock.

"Good answer, good answer."

(July 10, 2014 at 12:26 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 10, 2014 at 12:12 am)Losty Wrote: I definitely separate love and lust. I think they're both wonderful beautiful emotions but they're separate in that I feel love towards some people, and I feel lust towards others. Never both. Maybe it's just me.

It's just you.

Ah well, c'est la vie, I don't mind being different.

(July 10, 2014 at 4:17 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(July 10, 2014 at 12:39 pm)ShaMan Wrote: Couldn't a theist use this exact argument (about one's experience of consciousness) to validate their own religious experiences also

No, because no one doubts that religious people genuinely have profound emotional experiences--it's their unjustified metaphysical claims attached to them that we rightfully mock.

That's the answer.

It's one thing to have a warm, fuzzy feeling when you dance and sing about Sky Daddy. It's another, very different, thing to take your warm, fuzzy feeling as proof that Sky Daddy is more than a myth.

Proof? Monsters are very real to my son. He feels strange when he's alone in the dark, so he thinks there are monsters in his closet. Should I a) tell him if he feels they're real, they're real, so he'd better not masturbate because monsters don't like that, b) tell him even though his feelings about all kinds of crazy things are bad evidence, my feelings about God are sufficient proof that God is real, or c) tell him feelings don't always represent a literal reality? And if you're reading this and you're not sure, remember the rule-- always choose "c."

(July 8, 2014 at 8:18 pm)XK9_Knight Wrote: [...] saying, “I’m hungry” usually (and in my experience) isn’t as moving as saying “I love you.”

Falling in love is not as moving as dying of starvation, either. Long story short, check out Maslow.

(July 9, 2014 at 8:08 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Did you mean something deeper like, "what do mean by behaving as if weren't just chemical reactions?" Because there is a platform or framing problem with that statement isn't there


XK9 Knight I am curious why you're here if you're worried it's trolling. I also think you probably ought to answer your own question, now that you've garnered some thoughtful answers.

Fair enough. I don’t think I’m actively “trolling,” but that my presence prompts some distrust and the fact I haven’t done anything yet is funny to me; it feels like trolling.

My opinion could be teased out of how I phrased the question. For Benny’s sake, I would define ‘significant’ as having lasting meaning or value (worthy for it’s own sake). Honestly I see it as a meaningless venture; But to be fair, I think most things are meaningless ventures.

Love’s like an appetite: never to be completely filled, never to be totally satisfied. Before you ask my “Christian” perspective, I’ll right off the bat that I don’t really have one. You’ve probably heard Christians say stuff like, “the love of God, blah blah blah…” I’ve never had that, I’ve never felt that.

I’m more of an Ecclesiastes kind of guy.

I pose questions like these to get a feel for what you guys are like. I want to know how you see things.

OH, and Jenny I merely thought your statement was pregnant; I thought that perhaps you were implying more about it.

(July 12, 2014 at 9:59 am)XK9_Knight Wrote: For Benny’s sake, I would define ‘significant’ as having lasting meaning or value (worthy for it’s own sake).

Then no. Since emotions are temporary states, they do not have lasting meaning or value.

I think you could define love in other ways. For example, if something about someone inspires in you feelings of altruism, you could call that love, and that would be significant in that it has affected the lover's world view. In some cases, love can mean a complete abandonment of the sense of importance of the self in favor of the other. I've argued that Christianity has this advantage-- that it places something other than pleasure at the center of a person's world view. And when multiple people are defining their center around the same idea-- myth or not-- that establishes a special community. Atheism doesn't do this, though certainly there are many altruistic atheists, or those who share common goals.

Personally, I'd keep maybe half a dozen Christian values, and right at the top would be "love your neighbor as you love yourself." The goofy history, wrong science and fearmongering, I'd cut.

XK9 - Knight, does your user name mean you used to be a dog but now you're a horse? :-)

If your asking if love is significant to get a feel for what we're like, we get a feel for what you might think atheists are like by your question and it's purpose.

I find it surprising that an intelligent person like yourself could still be religious without having felt the love of god.
I was a x-tian for the first part of my life and I never felt god's love, not once.

You think love is like an appetite and never fulfilled.
It's true, but that's because it can't be taken for granted and it must be maintained.
Good things are never easy.
That's just my view, not all other atheists.
We actually all only agree on one thing. :-)

(July 12, 2014 at 9:59 am)XK9_Knight Wrote:

(July 9, 2014 at 8:08 pm)Jenny A Wrote: XK9 Knight I am curious why you're here if you're worried it's trolling. I also think you probably ought to answer your own question, now that you've garnered some thoughtful answers.

Fair enough. I don’t think I’m actively “trolling,” but that my presence prompts some distrust and the fact I haven’t done anything yet is funny to me; it feels like trolling.

That's a natural enough feeling. It comes of being on a forum where you disagree with the majority of the people on the forum about a fundamental issue---especially since the issue is the reason for the forum. But merely being a Christian and being here doesn't make you a troll. But it does increase the statistical likelihood. Thus the suspicion.

Stick around and it'll get better. So far I haven't seen anything troll like.