My "Beef" With Atheists

Are these lyrics to a song or something? Don't worry about responding, I think I'll gracefully bow out of the debate.

Your caustic laughing indicates you have objectified love, probably to a penis and vagina.

I preferred the first verse.......

As before, the good people invest the meaning into love and then the bad people use up that meaning by objectifying it. Like atheism is a parasite on theism, this poaching of meaning is a subset to atheistic parasitic behaviour. Somehow your quasi scientific objective beliefs about what love is are reinvorgorated by contrasting them with true spiritual love. It is just stealing, you can't produce the meaning yourself because you don't believe there is a spiritual realm in the first place. Love is some evolved brainfunction, freedom might not even be real, it's impossible to get any meaning going this way.

Does an understanding of photosynthesis make a flower any less beautiful?Atheists can know the intensity of truly emotional love too Syamsu. But you have to find it in your heart to love us back................To quote BlueJay - "Darwin loves you"

Why do you presume to be an authority on this subject? Your entire posts are subjective view points that lack solid evidence.I for one was trying to understand what you meant since I know the subject well and have seen and heard many different philosophical arguments about emotions and have always enjoyed them. I just can't figure out wtf you're talking about half the time. Sorry if this offends, I mean no disrespect...well maybe a little. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Syamsu responds to me:

quote:

---

My burden is judgement on you.

---

Fine. But your burden is to support your claim.

quote:

---

There is no need for me to prove love is not a material thing, but a spiritual thing.

---

Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim.Your claim.Your burden of proof. I can justify my claim that science does recognize the existence of love and has even come up with ways to measure it.Where is your evidence?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Syamsu responds to onifre:

quote:

---

Your caustic laughing indicates you have objectified love, probably to a penis and vagina.

---

Knowing full well I might get banned for this:Syamsu, we're not going to have sex with you. Please stop asking.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

The ones who really bought into this material love thing all the way, were the Nazi race scientists, and their social-darwinist colleagues. You can find it in the schoolbook for the Hitleryouth, the heritable values of the German Volk. Purely scientific material love.You are not a nazi, you don't go all the way with this material love thing, you are just a small-time atheist parasite. Your ideas are encompassed with fuzzy philophical meandering. Yet on the side of you all there is the consistent loud demand for objective evidence for anything, including love. It is simply wrong to ask for objective evidence of love in science, because it is the same as demanding objectively what is right and wrong, demanding to know what should and should not.We can also see from context that you all generally are not or less religious. That you don't spend much time on religion leads to suspect that you are using science as a value system, which is forbidden in science.As before, only creationism is true science because in creationism morality applies to the spiritual realm, not to the material realm. So there can never be an objective material morality according to creationism, no objectified love. So creationism is the only science discipline to obey the rule that science may not speak about what ought and ought not.Now what punishment for people who violate the rule that science may not talk in terms of what should ? I think severe punishment. It's such a sickening borderline attitude. They all know they are edging the border of what's allowed when they talk about love as something scientific. They do so of their own free will, of arrogance, of greed, of a feeling of going all the way knowing no bounds of decency, a hateful, crude, merciless notion of progress.The punishment of the Nazi race scientists was very mild. Even when they directly participated not just in theory but in practice of killing it was very mild. Well I think then that it is enough punishmennt to call people pseudoscientists who profess such science of love, perhaps this is already severe.

I have not been paying much attention to this thread, but...Where do you get all of this nonsense? Creationism is the true science?Creationism and creation "science" are a religious belief and religious apologetics. These are the opposite of science.Science proceeds from evidence to theory (explanation).Religious belief, and particularly creation "science" proceed from revelation and scripture and the like, and in many cases are forced to manipulate, twist or ignore the evidence to make things come out consistent with belief.That is the opposite of science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Social darminism != scientific Darwinism. The observation that the diversity of life is the result of random mutation guided by natural selection where the most fit are more likely to procreate is not the same as believing that this is the way human society should work.As has often been stated but is always ignored, the Theory of Evolution makes no statement with regard to morality. It's a scientific theory, and as such holds no more moral argument than the Theory of Gravity. Explain how a lack of belief in any deities somehow relates to parisitism. You are the one who brought up love in this discussion. Nobody else did. I'm still not sure why you did. Love is a human emotion, and it is objectively observable that emotions exist. Their causes in the human brain are complex, just as consciousness is.None of your blathering about love has any relavence to Atheism. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any deities. That's all. It makes no statement with regards to love or any other emotion. It doesn't even have any inherant moral lessons, or a statement regarding human or Universal origins. It's just a lack of belief in gods, nothing more. Very few Atheists are religious, since very few religions involve no gods. Non sequitur. Science makes no statements regarding morality or ethics or values. Religions do make such statements, but it is also not necessary to derive a system of morality from religion. Human empathy, a desire for society to benefit above the individual, a belief in inherant human rights, each of these is adequate to form a system of values and morality, and yet none require religion or science. Contradiction in terms. Science has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. Further, science explicitly deals with only that which can be detected by the senses. An undetectable, unobservable "spiritual realm" is clearly not in the purview of science, either. Who has claimed that morality is objective? It's objective to note that human morality exists, but morality itself is subjective, dependant entirely on the personal beliefs and opinions of the indivdual. There is no objective standard that says "theft and murder are wrong." Only religion claims that (see the Ten Commandments). Most people agree that theft and murder are wrong, but through compeltely different systems of morality including religion as well as those I mentioned above. In some ethical systems, what you or I would call "murder" would be considered "good," and what you or I would call "theft" would be considered "use of community property." So you think Atheists should be executed based on your own strawman misconceptions of what we may or may not believe. Quite the moral genius you are. You disgust me.It's a good thing that the first person who brings up Nazis in an argument automatically loses.As an aside, did you know that the Nazis were not Atheists? They were Christian. It's difficult to stomach, but read Hitler's Mein Kampf sometime, and read transcripts of his speaches. He wholly self-identified as a Christian, and in fact his anti-semitism was directly from the writings of Martin Luther, father of the Protestant Revolution himself! He tried to candy-coat his racist garbage with distortions of science as an addlebrained "justification" for genocide, but his motives were theological in nature. He had a wonderful relationship with the Catholic Church. If you'd really like to discuss the Atheism/Christianity of the Nazis, feel free to create a new thread. I'd enjoy utterly decimating your silly assertion that Naziism was somehow Atheist in nature with these things that we call facts.

As before, the only way not to have a science of love, is to understand love as spiritual. When it it's spiritual then you can only know it subjectively. When it's material then you can know it objectively.Now you say that love is objectively human, I wonder what the birds would have to say about that, that love is just human. I'm reminded of some English philosopher who made this point about the superiority of people vs birds some centuries ago, and he was well received then. Things have since degraded apparently. I also didn't know that love is complex. I've heared argument that it is "crazy and little", and that it can be very similar to a "ship on an ocean".So there seems to be no way around it, as a scientist you've basically got to acknowledge the spiritual realm, so you can separate objectivity from subjectivity, apply objectivity to the material and apply subjectivity to the spiritual. Anything else leads to science of love, that apparently humans exhibit love, but rocks do not.I shall call love by another name, use another word for it, a word not tainted by the idea of objectivity, a word you all don't know. Then you can have your science of love. My peer review contribution for the science of love is a poop on the papers that profess it.

So you assert. Of course, you haven't demonstrated why scientifically examining love (determining the reactions and patterns in the brain that signify it, psychological analysis of people who feel love and its effects, etc) is bad. It's an appeal to consequence fallacy - clearly Atheism is factually incorrect because love is spiritual!That doesn't provide evidence that deities exist, and it's built on a strawman to boot. Love is both. It's an emotion, so it's subjective. Yet it's objectively true that people do feel love, and it can be observed. Irrelevant. Birds may or may not feel love. Other animals may or may not feel love. None of it has anything to do with Atheism, which is again why I'm confused as to why you brought it up in the first place. Perhaps it's a language barrier? As an Atheist, I feel love, and yet I see no reason to assume it's from any "spiritual" source. It seems to be the result of the workings of my brain, like other emotions such as depression, anger, joy, etc. Note that we can chemically duplicate some of those emotions independant of any "spiritual" anything. Rocks are inanimate. How would rocks feel anything, let alone love? I have yet to see how you're tying the spiritual into science. Nothing regarding anything spiritual has ever been objectively shown to exist. Why are you so obsessed with talking about an emotion? I still fail to see its relevance. You make the claim that love is spiritual in origin, which is a non sequitur, a bald assertion with no evidence to show that your assertion is correct. Then you insist that scientifically examining human emotions is apparently "bad," even going so far in your last post to compare it to Nazi philosophies, but you still fail to show how scientifically studying a human emotion is "bad."Then you pretend you never brought up the Nazis, and ignore my refutation of your assertion that Naziism is an extension of Atheism or even just materialism.You make less sense than Tesla (the poster here, not the scientist). That's a very difficult thing to do.

The result of your demand for objective love is theories which measure how loving people are, and then the people who are measured as less loving are persecuted by science.

I haven't demanded anything. I've pointed out that you haven't shown why studying the actual objective aspects of human emotions is "wrong." Incorrect, and impossible. You can'r measure that. It's subjective. ...what?! What fairy-tale land do you live in? Science is a system of objetively investigating the observable Universe. How can science persecute anyone?! Why does studying the objective aspects of human emotion like their effect on the brain somehow lead to persecution?!Your position isn't even wrong, it's complete and utter nonsense! It's one non sequitur after another!