Do You Believe In Love?

[Shell B]

i hear what you're saying shell. and indeed it is semantics here, that's my point. in pure science talk there is no such thing as a skyscraper, what a skyscraper really is is a big block of specifically arranged atoms that humans name a 'skyscraper' making it a convenient reference point.

and there is no such thing as love in science terms, just lots of elemental things reacting to create something that humans name 'love'.

you could write-off all criticism's of god's existence as mere semantics too, it's all just the study of meaning.

Semantics are a waste of time, unless used properly. This is improper use of semantics. It's a ploy to create confusion over a topic that is really quite simple.

By your example, atoms don't exist. Molecules don't exist, etc. That is ludicrous. The things that we name exist and their names exist. When you name something, it doesn't cease to exist. Because an ocean is made up of countless things, does the ocean not exist? If I make a house of legos, does the lego house not exist, but the legos do?

I see where you are going with this. So, I'll just cut to the chase. We know what makes up a skyscraper. We know the reactions that cause us to feel love. We don't know what god is made of because it doesn't exist. That's not semantics. Keep it simple, you little word illusionist.

[fr0d0]

Love is a feeling ..we can observe the processes. If we love God, that's still the feeling of love, measured similarly. It says nothing of God, as God isn't the feeling, but the recipient of the feeling.

[Cecco]

i see shell also comes from that overpopulated school of belittling atheists. i have never said god exists. it was never leading that way. and i have no idea where you get the idea that i am saying atoms don't exist. it's not a ploy for anything other than getting a discussion started. that's the whole point of this place isn't it?

[Shell B]

i see shell also comes from that overpopulated school of belittling atheists. i have never said god exists. it was never leading that way. and i have no idea where you get the idea that i am saying atoms don't exist. it's not a ploy for anything other than getting a discussion started. that's the whole point of this place isn't it?

Belittling? I'm not belittling you; I am disagreeing with you and saying why I am doing so.

I never said that you said god exists. You said that arguments against god all boil down to semantics. I showed you that is not true, to the best of my ability. You were leading that way.

I didn't say that you said atoms don't exist, I said that, by your logic, atoms don't exist.

The whole point is to get a discussion started, yours just so happens to be obviously headed somewhere. If I am wrong, I apologize.

[Tiberius]

I dunno Shell, I think I may have to ban you for using the insult "little word illusionist".

</joke>

[Shell B]

Whoops. Darn typing. I should have added a winky face. I was really kidding.

[fr0d0]

I thought that was a rather cutesy comment. Endearing almost.

[Dotard]

Do you believe in love?

Does it exist? Well, ya. It's a discriptor, a word. In this light you could say hate, fear, loathing, sadness etc. all exist. Emotions 'exist'. Love is merely a word we assign to the feelings associated with attachment. Attachment thru shared experiances.

I don't think that is what you were driving at though. I think you were refering to that 'true love', 'someone for everyone', 'your the only one', 'soul-mated' kinda definition of Love.

I say no to that. No sech thing as "True Love". It's just a word chicks say to get what they want and what dudes say to get what they want. Saying "I've become quite attached to you." just doesn't sound as deep and feeling grabbing, emotional string pulling as saying "I love YOU." thus not as effective in getting what you want out of another.

So I vote 'No'.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Do I believe in love.

No.

I've experienced a range of attachments, emotions and obsessions often referred to as 'love'

But is there something uniquely human,special, altruistic or transcendent, such as agape? (love of god)

No,not that I've ever seen,although I've met many people who have made all kinds of claims. From my observation,'maternal love' seems to be the most reliable, but no form of claimed love except that of ego is implicitly trustworthy.

Humans are only sentient animals. Our sense of specialness is our conceit,it has no objective reality.

[Edwardo Piet]

love is not the chemical reaction. love is just a name we give the feeling the reaction brings us.

I love a good contradiction in the morning.

Feelings are emotions and emotions are chemical reactions. love is a feeling/emotion and a chemical reaction.

paul - i agree, it would not at all prove that jesus exists. and i would add that it doesn't prove that love exists either. for god is a function of the brain too, just like love.

The actuality of God does not exist. He merely exists as a concept - like the Easter bunny does.

The actuality of emotions do exist. Because they not only exist as a concept, but also as an emotion which are chemical reactions in the brain. God on the other hand is not an emotion, not a chemical reaction, merely exists as a concept.

god, the christian god, is supposed to exist everywhere. i don't believe there is any point in the bible where it says god exists everywhere but in your head.

and of course there is a difference between a chemical reaction and a feeling.

Not if feelings are nothing more than chemical reactions. Have you got any evidence that they are anything more?

the chemical reaction is chemicals reacting, and the feeling (love, anger, etc) is the name we humans choose to associate it with.

No the feeling is the feeling - the feeling isn't the name for the chemical reactions. The feeling isn't a name, the feeling is the feeling. Feelings are emotions, and emotions are chemical.

a chemical reaction is a real physical thing that can be measured in science. love is just a manmade concept.

You are completely confusing the concept of love and the actuality of love. The man-made concept of love exists, yes. What that concept refers to, the emotion - exists in the brain as chemical reactions. Because emotions exist chemically in the brain, and love is an emotion.

i hear what you're saying shell. and indeed it is semantics here, that's my point. in pure science talk there is no such thing as a skyscraper, what a skyscraper really is is a big block of specifically arranged atoms that humans name a 'skyscraper' making it a convenient reference point.

But that is a skyscraper. That is real and so skyscrapers are real because that is what a skyscraper is.

and there is no such thing as love in science terms, just lots of elemental things reacting to create something that humans name 'love'.

That is a love. Such emotional chemical reactions exist and so love exists for that is what love is.

EvF