(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.
"When the tide is low, every shrimp has its own puddle." - Vance Havner
