Love
Posted on: February 24, 2012 - 1:27am
Offline
Love
If there is no purpose and reason in life for the atheist, then what role does Love play in one's life?
For example:
Marriage
Family
Friends
Neighbors
Personal
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
- Login to post comments
Zaq described the love of God exactly.
God gave himself in the form of Jesus and then took it back - is God what they used to call in the old days an "Indian giver"?
God's "unconditional love" is based on the condition of the Christian's absolute obedience - do you see the contradiction yet?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hopefully the human purpose machine can eventually prove this wrong.
I also ponder the duality of man regularly. Would you agree with Mencius?.. Or Xun Zi?
"By nature men are similar; by practice men are wide apart" - Confucius
I hope not - Saying that "The Human Purpose Machine gives my life purpose" is no better than saying "God gives my life purpose".
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Conformity should be optional of course.
Unfortunately, applied in current U.S. society it would still form a financial rat race nonetheless.
The machine wouldn't care whether you conformed or not. Unfortunately, Yahweh's ego bruises really easily and he doesn't like it when people decide to use reason to discover the astounding lack of evidence he's left for his existence.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Of course the machine is not concerned with such things. You don't have to believe in Yahweh to be a theist.. there are many theories out there supported by reason. Many of them are much more fun and interesting than atheism.
What sort of theist are you then?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
CONTEXT is what you seem to ignore or don't get because you are stuck in very magical theistic thinking rather than the nature of reality and evolution.
Ultimately there IS NO purpose to life. Life was not around when the planet formed and life will not be around when the planet dies and the universe will continue on without us.
HOWEVER, as far as the list you mentioned that is because our species evolved to be social, and that has a benefit in safety in numbers in the ability to get to the point of reproduction.
Purpose is an individual thing, not an absolute, and not handed down by a magical being. Purpose can only be what the individual makes it.
I am sorry if reality isn't sexy enough for you. But people of other religions and atheists can do the same things and feel the same emotions and WE ARE NOT robots or fascists because we don't buy your superstition.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
A deist.
We don't know this for certain.. Our genetics may be driving us towards specific purposes and we may not even realize it. If you place a rat in a maze with cheese at the end, it will surely smell the cheese and attempt to navigate the maze. Humanity is similar. The universe is our maze, and although we currently lack the comprehension to identify our patterns, that doesn't mean a pattern doesn't exist. How about a race to the cheese?
YES WE DO.
THOUGHTS REQUIRE A MATERIAL PROCESS, since the universe is not a brain and does not think like a brain it cannot function like one therefore it cannot have intent.
You assume because a pattern exists that it is caused instead of seeing it as a non cognitive process, much like clouds don't think about becoming a snow storm or hurricane.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I don't have any problems with Deism though I do wonder why you have the same issue with the special pleading fallacy as those who believe in the Abrahamic religions.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The rat is in the maze, placed there by a intelligent being.
The maze has a pattern or design.
The rat is unaware that the maze has A design or pattern
Because of it's lack of intelligence .
But the rat does smell the cheese and will look for it, because it is food that is necessary for it's existence .
The intelligent being is God.
The universe is the maze.
And the rat is humanity .
The reason for the rat that is in the maze, is for the ultimate purpose of finding the cheese.
Is this correct Ax?
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
You become a selfish, Jesus addict constantly worried about life after death and jealous of alternative world views.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Jimenezj why are you still here ?
ProzacDeathWish, I have my dress up for Halloween outfit for an Avatar, so I am no one to talk.. Dude NEW Rule no one uses another member's avatar. IMHO, One of those rare moments where someone needs an Admin, this is about as good as gets for a change in the rules.
Chill out ! I'm only doing this out of respect for JeanChauv-it-in. You know how he's always reminding us how much he respects us with every one of his posts ? Now I'm showing him respect. Why can't you respect that ?
I is be chill'en My Brother . . .
Go on and go right ahead 0nly please differentiate your image from his image is all I'd ask
[img=http://img234.imagevenue.com/loc470/th_291965125_wordstoliveby__122_470lo.JPG]
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Hello,
When I end my posts Respectfully, what I mean is in reference to the truthful logical traditions found in Scripture. Not to hold any of you in honor, but rather in reference to the position which I held reflected by Scripture Alone.
But thanks for the Love Death Dude. I almost feel like we're family now.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
How can you respect what you've never read, Jeannine?
If you had, you'd see that Scripture is neither truthful nor logical.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I have faith that an algorithmic pattern will eventually be identified that illustrates common purposes among all humans aside from our primary purposes (survival). I am still working on some evidence to support this hypothesis.
If this pattern exists, it will raise additional questions as to why.
You are right that it is an assumption, but it is also an assumption to say the pattern was caused by something non cognitive. Neither of us can explicity support either cause, but I have faith that analysis of natural systems will eventually support my conclusion.
This faith is based on a variety of open-ended scientific questions, so only time will tell which of us is correct.
I attempt to include all details conceivable, but if I am consistently missing some please let me know.
Essentially and presumably, yes.
ProzacDeathWish, who is that in your new avatar? I'm wondering if nature has favored the means in which she distracts her prey (still a victim if willing?) or if she is employing a non-genetic technological advantage.
The special pleading I was talking about came from deism.com where it states "There is absolutely nothing known to man that created itself."
Yet they (and you?)believe in a Creator who did that very thing (coming into being from nothing).
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
My next question to you Ax is,
What do you think the cheese represents in thee
Ultimate purpose of humanity ( the rat)?
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
There are many points of view a deist might take to create a naturalistic ontological defense.
My stance on First Cause is generally agnostic, but if I am to lean towards one direction or the other, the dial on my religion guage is slighty pointed towards believing in a conscious First Cause.
The reasoning for the tilt in my dial is our generalized understanding of the universe seems to indicate randomness is an illusion of unperceived events. If randomness does not exist, then there must be at least one originating non-random action that (possibly even indirectly) directed all subsequent events.
I suggest this entity is conscious because I believe consciousness is a pattern which attempts to recreate and perpetuate itself naturally as a result of its inherent structure. It is of course tautological in this context to state consciousness is a pattern without elaborating further, but I'll end it here unless of course you're interested in hearing more.
The inner desire and search for immortality.
You said,
The inner desire and search for immortality.
How can this immortality be obtain , in your opinion?
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
You're not gonna try and put your hand down my pants are you ? I've heard about you sexually repressed Christians......
That's the big question.
I said,
But the rat does smell the cheese and will look for it, because it is food that is necessary for it's existence .
The reason for the rat that is in the maze, is for the ultimate purpose of finding the cheese.
Without food ( the cheese) the rat (humanity) will not survive.
John 6:35
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Luke 22:19
He took some bread and gave thanks to God for it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this to remember me."
After supper he took another cup of wine and said, "This cup is the new covenant between God and his people--an agreement confirmed with my blood, which is poured out as a sacrifice for you.
Jesus is the cheese in the maze, that is the ultimate purpose of humanity.
The ultimate purpose in life is not that far away. It is closer than you think.
God Bless
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
And
Farewell to all.
Your question is idiotic from the start.
Who says I have no purpose? It's not being a meat puppet for some cosmic monster, but my purpose is what I make it every day of my life.
My reason for living?
What an arrogant prick you are!
You don't have a CLUE who I am, where I've been or where I am going, yet you presume that your superstition trumps MY life...
Sonny...
I sleep with a goddess...
I have 14 kids, 8 adopted, 1 fostered, 36 grand kids.
I will GUARANTEE that my life has been better spent than yours, has had more REAL purpose and meaning than your pathetic, demon haunted fantasies can fathom.
I don't often say this, but I'll make an exception in your case.
Fuck you.
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
Hey Louis,
Jimen was just bringing your atheism to it's logical consistency that you are highly ignorant of. Ideas have consequences. The logical conclusive conseqence of atheism is nihilism and skepticism.
As a result, since you have no universals to tie your particualrs into, then via the consequence of consistency of your thinking, you cannot love.
You have no love for your wife, children, family or anything.
But the thing is Louis, you kind of suck at being an atheist. Because while a consistent atheist has no purpose or worth or cause or meaning to love, you do.
Thus since you suck at being an atheist, you are a very poor not very good atheist.
The reason why you do love is because you steal that thinking of worth and purpose from Christianity.
Thus the very "religion" you attack, you borrow from everyday in all the areas where your religion fails in the area of reality, and logic.
I would recommend that you either become a consistent atheist, and start murderering people like your hero mao, or you become a Chrisitan and stop stealing chrisitanity goodness, but embrace it totally.
You have one foot in Chrisitanity and one foot in atheism, just move the other foot over on my side and submit to Christ Louis, or continue to be inconsistent and steal Christian thinking.
Whatever floats your boat my theivery friend.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
I'm sorry piss head, I am simply not going to respond to you again until you learn to actually express a cogent thought.
As I told the other waste of semen, Go. Fuck. Yourself.
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
Until you come back again.
Farewell. Hello. Farewell. Hello.
Humanity's ultimate purpose is to eat Jesus?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
No shit. That's because I was pointing out the ways in which apparently selfless acts can sometimes provide benefits to the actor.
I think you meant to say that true love is given without expecting anything in return. But this is moot, because even if my helping your does in fact benefit me tangentially, I could still have decided to help you without expecting those tangential benefits.
Wait a minute, I've had many, many Christians tell me that God wants people to go join him in heaven. So if God did something like sacrificing Jesus in order to give us a path to heaven, doesn't he benefit from this by getting (to some extent) what he wants?
If you really want to insist that "true love" is doing something for someone and yet not reaping any benefit, then in order to "truely love" someone you have to help them while not wanting to help them, as otherwise you are getting the benefit of achieving some goal you had. Of course, few people would consider accidental help an act of love.
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
"God is love; I don't love you"
Fundamentalist Ignorance at it's finest. Because he is a 'atheist' he has " no love for (his) wife, children, family or anything." and Mao is his hero? Whaa?
Where do you get this? I really don't understand. You betray your smallmindedness and stupidity at every turn.
Literally every post you write is filled to the brim with nonsense. You are the a great example of the type of person all real Christians cannot stand.
I'm sure you won't reply with any logic because I have yet to see you actually, you know, do anything approaching debating or discussing reasonably.
It is clearly beyond your capability to understand other points of view.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
I do miss Jean the Dadaist.
Has he been thrown to trollville forever or something?
He says he's gone into a canyon to find evidence that dinosaurs were ridden by humans or something.
Whaa?
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
Oh Jimenez... what can I say to you?...
Of course there is purpose in an antheist life! As these guys should you! There is purpose in everyone's life as long as you have wishes!
To see the difference of someone who believes in an eternal and unifying existence of the Self and those who believe on an eternal oblivion of the Self you have to go much deeper. Although I suspect that from here on you will not understand a word I'm going to say... I'm going to try though...
The difference is fundamentally ethical! This reflects on other aspects of one's decisions and beliefs.
Many people, atheists or not, seek happyness and pleasure on many aspects of their lifes and follow biological impulses. You can, however, condition your choice in accordance to the amount of information you have on the full consequences of your actions in the future.
IF you postulate the 2 hypothesis of "oblivion" and "eternity" in contrast. Decison making may fail a logic check depending on what you believe in...
I would say the oblivion ethics is purely individualistic and relative. There is no right or wrong and any decision is of no consequence in Universal terms. So you can kill your rich grandmother and get her fortune to buy a resort in Tahiti, there is nothing wrong with that as long as you are happy about it. If you are happy enjoying yourself you actually made a favor to your sick grandmother who was not enjoying life anymore. There is nothing wrong with it... actually from your perspective you did something good! Her suffering was very brief and your pleasure is very long! If you feel like it kill her if it makes overall happyness greater. Remember that after she dies she doesn't feel a thing anymore, there is nothing. So I would say that people who don't do "ethically questionable acts", for their long term benefit knowing that they will not get caught and knowing that they will benefit overall at the end are not acting logically
May people do in fact act, logically, like this that's why we have crimes. And if we take a look at crime development over the years we see an increase disrespect for others and increase selfishness. These people are in fact behaving in accordance to their own beliefs which are neither right or wrong. These people think that oblivion is what awaits in the end all of us. OJ Simpson is an example of this.
On the other hand if you really think that somehow we are all connected and that on a metaphysical sense pain inflicted on other is pain inflicted on self you would think twice before making a decision which would have eternal repercussions on a cosmological scale. I may be using harder terms... religion uses simpler terms that many find it easier to understand, like: "Don't kill your grandmother because God will put you in hell". I don't say this because my IQ is greater than the people who believe in the Bible literally...
What I am trying to do is to highlight a starking difference between individual ethics and community ethics in the eternal oblivion of the Self. Which does not exist in the "eternal and unifying existence of the Self" because the self and the community are One thing.
I know I will get a mob linching from some people in this forum after this post but that's ok... I don't mind
I love y'all, and that is the purpose of my life. (even you dumbass theists and communists) Cheers.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
What kind of theist are you? I'm having a hard time
Understanding your point of view.
What category do you fall into ? The eternal and unifying existence of the Self or the eternal oblivion of the Self?
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
Saying that someone needs God to love someone else reminds me a little bit of calling overseas relatives in the early 90s. Before you can talk to them, you had to hit at least one switchboard in between. The question I'd have to ask of anyone who would ask a question like the OP is the following. Do you always think of God whenever you feel love for someone else? Do you feel you need to draw from God, to have that capacity? Do you feel you're communicating him at the moment you feel love, every time you feel it? I definitely doubt it, which answers your question.
If you DO feel love that way, well then that would mean that God is present any time you feel love, and would make sex feel like someone's watching.
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
I'm the weird kind.
Ok briefly put the "eternal and unifying existence of the Self" means that your soul (conscience) has a bond with everyone else and lives forever outside time. You can feel what others are feeling as if it's your feelings. You can read other thoughts and share memories telepathically. There is a methaphisical link between you and everyone. In essence you're not just you anymore. The whole you is part of a "river of life" (it's hard to explain concepts that have no parallel in normal human experience)
At it's base, love is the unifying essence between everyone.
eternal oblivion of the Self is very simple to explain, when your physical self dies your experience goes into oblivion. The absolute end. This is true if conscience is the sole product of the brain.
If you read reports of near death experiences by Pam Reynolds or Reinee Pasarow you get an idea of what I believe.
I have no sure definition or certainty of a deity so it's hard to find a word that would fit in a category for me. Ignostic may be the closest category I would fit. Although I feel confortable with attributing the quality of the origin of Love to a "God". I believe in an intentional first cause to the origin of the universe. But can this be considered a God? The problem with the God word is that it has a different meaning to everyone... that's why I don't like it so much when I'm talking about what I believe.
The bible says that God is Love. This word Love in the Greek
Is Agape, which means to give without expecting anything in return.
The spirit of God is a part of God, just like Jesus is God but in the human
Image or the physical state of the flesh.
Galatians 5:22
New Living Translation (©2007)
But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Some people will say that they are capable of producing these fruits without God. But the problem is that there are many translations or versions of Love. Everyone has their own meaning. But the Love of God is very distinctive and unique before the rest. I will give you some examples.
Brotherly love
The love of material things
Sexual love
The love of power
The love of knowledge
Emotional love
John 3:16 says
New International Version (©1984)
"For God (Agape) so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
A person can produce this kind of love with the Spirit of God. Without the Spirit, you will produce another type of love that will not last.
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
Everyone loves even people that don't believe in a God. You don't need to believe in a God.
Now if you're just saying that God and Love are synonim words... I don't have any beef with that. They might be on a metaphisical sense, I have no idea.
I don't care much about what the Bible says, but bear in mind that virtually all religions say God is love.
There are many types of Love. But there is only one God and therefore only one type of Love.
What is your definition of Love?
The bible is the word of God. If you do not read the bible and study it, then how can you understand God Love?
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
You're talking in circles.
I already read the Bible (not the whole of it... that would be a huge waste of time)
My definition of love is the feeling of empathy, deep fondness and deep tolerance towards the object of love. Love abjects suffering, love maximizes pleasure and awe. As with all subjective experiences, love is hard to explain.
I understand much better the concept of "God Love" when I started reading things outside the Bible. The Bible was just making me confused...