SnailyBoy Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 Which you call love. Nothing but a reaction in our body then - maybe we should just call that feeling g£&64. It doesn’t exist - only in our head - we attribute that feeling to a person, a car a football team - it only applies to where we wish to direct it but we accept it as true and requiring no proof. Snaily boy has purposefully missed the point throughout - they said you can’t believe in anything unless you prove it - Well prove to me that you love something. They couldn’t - so they said that there was no need to prove it because it wasn’t an extraordinary claim - but in hindsight what is more extraordinary than a feeling in our body that we assign to something and call love and chase and protect it without requiring any proof that it exists. You ask someone to believe - without proof. For the record. Post #124 + #125 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 Love doesn't exist, it's only experiential, but then, so is thought, logic and reason. ---------- Post added 03-03-2018 at 23:45 ---------- Do you think we experience reality as it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 For the record. Post #124 + #125 Sorry - neither of those post address anything I just posted. ---------- Post added 04-03-2018 at 00:03 ---------- Love doesn't exist, it's only experiential, but then, so is thought, logic and reason. ---------- Post added 03-03-2018 at 23:45 ---------- Do you think we experience reality as it is? Thought logic and reason within the boundaries of your own mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 Sorry - neither of those post address anything I just posted. They address how you misrepresented what I posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 They address how you misrepresented what I posted. No they don’t. You don’t believe in anything that can’t be proven - do you still think that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andbreathe Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 No they don’t. You don’t believe in anything that can’t be proven - do you still think that? Do you believe in anything that CANNOT be proven? ...if so, what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lottiecass Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 You may have not understood the posts in this thread- theism can account for rationality as it does not believe in non rational, blind/random processes can give rise to RATIONALITY. Under atheism, you do- which is where your fundamental problem lies, to justify the rational/reasoning ability that you all profess to have in abundant. Theism and rationality? faith without any evidence? can give rise to rationality? you really blind.How can you tell you follow the right god? there are that many so how could it not be blind/random? you presupposed god is nonsense to all the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 (edited) Wouldn't it be better to encourage a child not to believe something without a good reason for doing so? It isn't a case of rejecting it, that's shifting the burden of proof, something should only be taught when there's evidence to justify believing it to be true. No they don’t. You don’t believe in anything that can’t be proven - do you still think that? In hindsight I should have pointed you to those earlier, I didn't think you'd obsessively focus on proven Edited March 4, 2018 by SnailyBoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 Which you call love. Nothing but a reaction in our body then - maybe we should just call that feeling g£&64. It doesn’t exist - only in our head - we attribute that feeling to a person, a car a football team - it only applies to where we wish to direct it but we accept it as true and requiring no proof. Snaily boy has purposefully missed the point throughout - they said you can’t believe in anything unless you prove it - Well prove to me that you love something. They couldn’t - so they said that there was no need to prove it because it wasn’t an extraordinary claim - but in hindsight what is more extraordinary than a feeling in our body that we assign to something and call love and chase and protect it without requiring any proof that it exists. You ask someone to believe - without proof. Yes, love is just the name we give to a whole range of behavioural and chemical changes that happen in the body, it isn't a 'thing' as such, and will be different for each person. The evidence for 'love' is absolutely overwhelming however, and would suffice as pretty strong proof for its existence. Firstly, practically everybody on earth will have experienced it personally, and will have felt the effects of being 'in love'. Before anybody says 'Yes, but billions of people feel and believe they speak to god, so that proves god', no - that proves faith, not god. In this argument, the equivalent to love is faith. Nobody denies that faith exists. Secondly, we can measure the effects that love has. We can measure how behaviour changes, we can see how people change when they are 'in love'. We can look throughout history at irrational decisions that people have made because they were 'in love'. Again, this is true for faith. Thirdly, we have the chemical and brain changes (measurably by MRI) that we can evidence. We can see that when somebody is 'in love' there are physical changes in their body, such as different areas of the brain will light up than would normally if they were looking at someone they didn't love. Levels of certain chemicals change also. We also have the evolutionary argument, which is strong proof. We understand now why we have evolved to love, why it is beneficial for our species to form strong bonds with the person we are procreating with (as humans are useless for the first years of life, we are better off when we have two parents). Again, there may well be an evolutionary argument for faith (I think there is), as to why belief in something higher proved beneficial as we started to make societies. All of these things amount to strong proof that love is real. In light of these, that we can feel it ourselves, that we can see behavioural change when other people feel it, that we can look throughout history and see evidence of things caused by it, and we have an evolutionary argument for it, it would be an extraordinary claim to say that love didn't exist. You would have to explain away all of those points. The same goes for faith. To say that loves does exist, one merely has to reference all those points as strong evidence. Proof merely means that there is sufficient evidence or argument that what is being claimed is correct. It does not need to be absolute, and there are some that would argue that absolute 100% proof of anything is impossible. I think we therefore have a strong and sufficient argument, and strong and sufficient evidence that love exists, which amounts to proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 Here is God. More chance of this been true than not. Angel1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now