OK.... relax.... uhh...    now, I can.

1) There were plenty of articles including articles in both scientific journals and magazines like Time on the topic of chemistry (literally) of love.  I encourage you to read some of them first.

2) Love exists between animals. You know that swans, for example, live in pairs. 

3) Love by no means = god/Jesus/Allah/Buddha 

4) I do think that humen "re-invented" love. 

5) Philosophically, there is material world and there is the world of ideas.  I do think that there is a lot of concepts and behaviors which can be described more conveniently in non-materialistic terms such as love.

6) As a Christian, do you experience orgasm? And do you think about Jesus at the moment of orgasm?

7) Does your wife think at night that it is Jesus and not you who is having sex with her?  

We as social animals create bonds with other animals around us. Why do you need magic to explain a social animal being social?

You really need to work on this whole, only the human animal has any thoughts or feelings and we have dominion over all bullshit. You have compared humans to other animals throughout your posts like it diminishes us in some way, yet you never give any reasoning for that besides your ancient fairy tales. All it shows us is your ignorance.

Easy, our idea of love does not include killing, torturing, maiming or forcing those we claim to love to worship us. It is a much more lovely idea of love.

Your questions only make sense if you think that all "series of reactions of chemicals in our brain" (or any brain) are the same thing.

Seriously, this is like asking : "If both bricks and boats are objects, then what's the difference between a brick and a boat ?"

 Yep, he posted all the exact same threads over at athiestforums.org

Yes, I was talking to you being sarcastic about the original post. It is cruel of you to tell a believer the truth. Stop doing that. Linus needs his blanket.

 As long as you seriously do not understand that just because we are atheist doesn't mean we aren't capable of love, I will try to answer this. First understand that we are human beings and that we are capable of love despite the label sometimes slapped on us that we have no feelings. Just like any other human being I do have maternal instincts and I do love my husband although he rakes my last nerve....a lot. Personally I love my children more than life itself and I would with no questions asked take any pain for them. I would absolutely give my life for any of my 3 children. I'm not sure if what you were saying was that you didn't understand that without god in  our lives meant that we aren't capable of loving anything but if so don't assume we aren't.

Hi rybak,

You ask about meaning as if you expect meaning to be something seperate from the action that is being performed.

For example, what is the meaning of brushing my teeth, well it is to stop decay. When I was a little boy and my mam told me to brush my teeth, I did it because she wanted me to. Now I am older and I brush my teeth, not because my mam asked me too, but because I wish to prevent tooth decay. The purpose of brushing my teeth has no greater meaning for my teeth simply because my mother told me to.

Now, why do you see love as any different. What is love? It is not some amorphous entity that floats around seperate from people and their actions. Love is a description of certain actions. If a father plays with his children, feeds them, looks after their health, hugs them and in general cares for their well being we say he loves his children. However, if he beats them, ignores them, and generally gives not one fig for their well being, then despite any verbal claim he makes of loving his children, we know the claim is false! How? because his actions are not those that show love.

You ask if there is no God, where is the meaning, where is the love? It is still there, your God adds nothing to it, however, it does take something from it/

Your belief in God can be detrimental to love. Is it right to feed a starving child? Yes! I give 5% of my disposable income to Oxfam for this purpose. However, I do not do it because a God(s) tell me to do this as I do not believe in God(s). What difference does a god belief, or lack of it, make to the hungry child who is fed? Or would you want to say it is right to feed a starving child only because God says one should? Does not that diminish an act of charity? Ie, the reason to feed a starving child is not found in the simple horrible fact that the child is starving, but instead the reason is found in the God who commands it? That if there was no God there would be no reason to feed a starving child?

Please tell me what you think? Do you think that if there is no God there is no reason to feed a starving child? That seems to be the conclusion of what you write.

If the meaning is not found in the action then do you really want to say the action has no meaning in of itself. To be consistent, you would have to say there is no reason to feed the starving child in and of  itself?????? That only if God exists is there is a reason to feed the starving child. I find that morally repugnent.

If you say the reason for doing something is serperate from the object that is acted upon - you do not add value to the action or the object - you actually diminish both. If you say the reason for feeding the starving child is seperate from the need of the starving child - you do not add more value to the child - you diminish the child. You say the child's hunger is not reason enough. 

God belief not only does not give meaning to an action - however it can- and often does - devalue it!

Wouldn't this whole idea make us incapable of hate as well? This would basicly mean a lack of care for anything I suppose. Just generic drone borg people milling around without the guiding hand of an invisible man.

Let's turn the question around.

What about an all powerful being living in an eternal,spiritual realm makes love more meaningful?

Seems like you're adding a middleman where none needs to be.

I'm an idiot.