My "Beef" With Atheists

Syamsu writes:

quote:

---

First you get the good people to invest meaning in a word like love, subjectively, then you get the bad people who parasite that meaning by for instance equating love with sex, objectifying love.

---

You didn't read the papers that were cited for you, did you? They make a big distinction between sexual and emotional relationships.

---

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.

Its whatever. Somebody said there is no love in the universe at large, as a matter of scientific fact. Then you reference some papers that supposedly establishes love among people as scientific fact. If the papers dont assert love as a scientific fact, then you should not have referenced them.

I guess that is me you are refering to. I say that the Universe as a whole is not a sentient entity and thus it cannot feel anything. I said nothing about there being no love in the universe, or about love being scientific fact or fiction, or love-o-meters.If you contest that the universe as a whole is sentient,able to feel love,or measure significance, then argue the point.Whether love exists is interesting, but not in the context of this thread.This has all been a pointless and silly detour from the discussion spurred by the OP, so this will be my final comment on this.

Your science about love seems to leave the spiritual realm empty, it is atheistic, that is on topic. You dont have a sentience meter just as you dont have a love-o-meter, it is all pretend science, simply make-belief fantasy. And what is the worst of it is that you are basicly positing a science of good and evil, telling what ought and ought not as science funding.

I asked for clarity and you answer with something much more confussing to understand than your first reply... How do you know the spiritual exists outside of subjective experiences? This is nothing more than your opinion and so I will ignore it.Can you just explain, which is what I've been trying to understand, how does a universe experience love?And how would you be able to prove it?Thats all. You don't have to go into a speech about how you understand the world better than anyone else involved in science because you are spiritual or tell me why you believe scientist are evil...lets skip all that insanity and lets try to get a straight answer to those 2 questions I proposed...please

---

"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 writes:

quote:

---

Your science about love seems to leave the spiritual realm empty

---

As I asked you directly once before:When was it determined that love was supernatural?

quote:

---

You dont have a sentience meter just as you dont have a love-o-meter

---

Except we do. You've seen the latter. Now it is your job to do your homework and look up the former.Report back with specific studies, citations from the articles, and their bibliographic information.

---

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.

Both with people and the universe at large you can prove love with reasonable judgement.

No you don't have a sentience meter since i've seen top physics scientists comment on how physics is more essentially like psychology. Also the theory of psychologist Jung is based on pan-psychism, that sentience is everywhere. So science already proceeds by the notion that it is fundamental and therefore essentially not measurable.I know for sure that you know nothing about freedom on an intellectual level, that when asked about it you will go meandering thinking it up at that particular moment, not having any knowledge at the ready. So your posing as being much knowledgeable about it, is at best a joke.

Syamsu responds to me:

quote:

---

No you don't have a sentience meter since i've seen top physics scientists comment on how physics is more essentially like psychology.

---

I'll need the names, dates, places, and full quotes in complete context of these people. Otherwise, I claim you're just making it up.

quote:

---

Also the theory of psychologist Jung is based on pan-psychism, that sentience is everywhere.

---

Huh? What does Jung have to do with anything? You need to show your work. You're the one making the claim. It is your burden of proof.

quote:

---

So science already proceeds by the notion that it is fundamental and therefore essentially not measurable.

---

So why do they bother measuring it? How is it that they get results measuring something that you claim cannot be? Do they know that they're not actually capable of doing what they are doing?

quote:

---

I know for sure that you know nothing about freedom on an intellectual level, that when asked about it you will go meandering thinking it up at that particular moment, not having any knowledge at the ready. So your posing as being much knowledgeable about it, is at best a joke.

---

Non sequitur. Please rephrase.

---

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.

My burden is judgement on you. There is no need for me to prove love is not a material thing, but a spiritual thing.

Got to stop you there. Jung provided no actual evidence; just assertion.

Ok then explain...explain how you can judge that the 'universe, not people, expresses love.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

You have to argue what you see in terms of what should be. So then Paley argues for instance that nature is bountiful, the cup of nature is always overflowing, through reproduction. This Paley judges to be a good thing, but you might also argue that it is a bad thing because it leads to scarcity. So when it is judged good then it is from love, and when it is bad, then it is from hate. And neither are scientifically incorrect, but to posit either love or hate as objective, that is scientifically incorrect.

Yea, I got all this from your other posts. Now, can you please deal with how the universe experiences love. Don't give me a humans perspective, just tell me what mechanism is used by the univese to experience love.I get everything you're saying, believe it or not I agree with much of what you post about 'human subjective emotions'. I am also well educated on the subject so I can see your POV, to a certain extent. However, I feel you may have stepped out of the convetional understanding of human emotions, (such as love, hate, anger etc, etc.), when you begin to apply these emotions to a non-conscious entity such as a universe, or a tooth brush, or a brainless mouse. Here is where you must clarify what it is you mean, but just for this thread I would like a better understanding of "a universe which experinces love".

---

"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

Where there are alternatives there are decisions, and there love may be experienced. And we see this in nature everywhere that it can turn out alternative ways.