Is Love Logical

[mymistake]

End if you "confess ignorance here" then why don't you just accept it when people explain reality to you? Learn something for a change.

[Ouroboros]

End if you "confess ignorance here" then why don't you just accept it when people explain reality to you? Learn something for a change.

It's called a bait and switch. It's like the poker player going into a game claiming he's never played before, but he's a card shark.

[Spectrox]

Here's one I thought worthy of exploration.......Is love logical.

Groan...

 

 

What is the smell of hope? What does "mean" mean? Is existence a reality?

 

It's all a big fat time waster.

 

What has any of this got to do with The Bible or Christianity? The Bible is highly illogical and it's mostly a book of hate not love.

 

What do you believe, End? Why do you believe it?

 

I hear what you are saying Spectrox. I find myself not being nearly as fundamental as I used to be, but everyone exists at some point in the life venture. So i believe in humanity, but not ready to sell out to any idea the appears "good". When those understandings come to me in some revelation-type truth, then I will camp on that understanding. There are many things I have yet to make a final decision on. And realistically, it all changes routinely. So whatta ya gonna do, except your best in this world, and pray that it works well for everyone else.

 

That's actually the least irritating answer you've given me. Maybe we're getting somewhere?

 

I just think that something as important as our alleged eternal souls is something we all need to be clear on. It's worth making a decision on whether or not you believe that Jesus was all-man and all-God, a God who is all-knowing and all-powerful & and all-loving and all-just. I've made up my mind on that one.

 

The Biblical God is God in man's image at the time - Jesus included. The whole thing is a distorted rip-off of the pagan solar messiahs anyway. The book makes extraordinary claims and expects people to believe it without any good evidence. It's a product of it's time. Which is why it's brutal and cruel in places. It's not the good book.

 

I think Christians are usually good people in spite of what it says in their holy book. I think you are beginning to struggle with some of it - I could be wrong. But if you are, that's healthy - and I support your journey. Just be honest, that's all I ask.

[Guest end3]

She didn't answer the question. Enough said. I got 500 that say she can't keep from beating on me some more and still not answer the question. I am asking for a simple yes or no. Call me lazy, Call me stupid....i prefer inane, but have the gonads to answer the question.

[Guest end3]

Here's one I thought worthy of exploration.......Is love logical.

Groan...

 

 

What is the smell of hope? What does "mean" mean? Is existence a reality?

 

It's all a big fat time waster.

 

What has any of this got to do with The Bible or Christianity? The Bible is highly illogical and it's mostly a book of hate not love.

 

What do you believe, End? Why do you believe it?

 

I hear what you are saying Spectrox. I find myself not being nearly as fundamental as I used to be, but everyone exists at some point in the life venture. So i believe in humanity, but not ready to sell out to any idea the appears "good". When those understandings come to me in some revelation-type truth, then I will camp on that understanding. There are many things I have yet to make a final decision on. And realistically, it all changes routinely. So whatta ya gonna do, except your best in this world, and pray that it works well for everyone else.

 

That's actually the least irritating answer you've given me. Maybe we're getting somewhere?

 

I just think that something as important as our alleged eternal souls is something we all need to be clear on. It's worth making a decision on whether or not you believe that Jesus was all-man and all-God, a God who is all-knowing and all-powerful & and all-loving and all-just. I've made up my mind on that one.

 

The Biblical God is God in man's image at the time - Jesus included. The whole thing is a distorted rip-off of the pagan solar messiahs anyway. The book makes extraordinary claims and expects people to believe it without any good evidence. It's a product of it's time. Which is why it's brutal and cruel in places. It's not the good book.

 

I think Christians are usually good people in spite of what it says in their holy book. I think you are beginning to struggle with some of it - I could be wrong. But if you are, that's healthy - and I support your journey. Just be honest, that's all I ask.

 

I was in this post....had been drinking, yet still honest. Thx.

[Guest end3]

End if you "confess ignorance here" then why don't you just accept it when people explain reality to you? Learn something for a change.

 

What I am seeing is the reality to this question is opinion. The one guy that isolated the monkeys got in trouble apparently, and unless the Natzis did some human research, I don't see how we can come to a factual answer. What facts would you like me to learn.

[Guest end3]

Look A, I tried/am trying to tell you my line of thought. I can think freely and ask questions and discuss without the criticism. Read about tabula rasa a minute ago.....so I am not alone in my "ignorance". I asked please, a yes or no question from your understanding.....not mine. Does an infant at birth know love already. I'm doing my work by looking as you suggest. Humor me in our relationship by giving me your opinion as you claim knowledge highground. You really don't have to beat me up as I confess ignorance here, and the book OB suggests is not in the office here where I work.....so I can't read it atm.

O poor persecuted me! I put forth arguements that don't make much sense, dance around them, and try to get others to agree with my nonsense that I put in The Lion's Den, and then I cry "stop beating me up!" I'm a victim!

 

No one is beating you up, you posted your arguement in the Lion's den, have thicker skin! I've posted stuff in here that people disagreed with, and my arguements got hammered. You don't see me crying victim.

 

Guilt trip not needed nor necessary.

 

I love how you ignored my response though.

 

The difference BD is when I make a statement, almost ANY statement, it's probably considered 98% wrong regardless. There aren't many like Roadrunner or Hans that will admit to someone having a valid opinion despite their religious orientation. Damn it, that's brilliance. CALL the ACLU! Call OBAMA! I have been discriminated upon. Quote from Sally, Charilie Brown's Christmas, "All I want is what I have coming to me. All I want is my fair share....10's and 20's".

[mymistake]

End it isn't religion, or lack there of, that makes an opinion valid or invalid. What makes an opinion valid is the merit of that idea. Merit comes from objective evidence and properly used logic.

 

Say valid things and people will find that persuasive.

 

Rant about how people don't accept your nonsense and people will scratch their heads about you.

 

Many people have answered your question. The answer is "no". Love is not logical. We have also shown that there is a logical reason for love to exist. So don't go there. Your question has been answered. What else can we do for you?

[Guest end3]

End it isn't religion, or lack there of, that makes an opinion valid or invalid. What makes an opinion valid is the merit of that idea. Merit comes from objective evidence and properly used logic.

 

Say valid things and people will find that persuasive.

 

Rant about how people don't accept your nonsense and people will scratch their heads about you.

 

Many people have answered your question. The answer is "no". Love is not logical. We have also shown that there is a logical reason for love to exist. So don't go there. Your question has been answered. What else can we do for you?

 

I appreciate that. I think it fair to say that most think it reductionistic on this site. But to me that doesn't answer the whole question. So let me ask you this please.....taking this another direction that has crossed my inane self. Do you think it a remote possibility that "sin" in concert with evolution produces something so very difficult change. I reference epigenetics....something I know little about as well.

[mymistake]

Sin is the creation of religious men. It's a list of things they didn't want others to do. It's as real as a song. Sin has no more effect on evolution or biology than a song does.

 

Religion is the opposite of curiosity. And the conflict between your curiosity and your religion is making you ask some very silly questions. Religion boils everything down to "God moves in mysterious ways". That is the final answer for everything - GMIMW. Why is the sunset beautiful? GMIMW! Why are cave shrimp white and blind? GMIMW! Why are gamma ray bursts appearing in deep space? GMIMW!!! That answer really means "Stop asking questions".

 

If you want to learn about the real world and how things work then drop religion and turn to science. Science is the way to learn real truth.

[Guest end3]

Sin is the creation of religious men. It's a list of things they didn't want others to do. It's as real as a song. Sin has no more effect on evolution or biology than a song does.

Oh good God sir. It doesn't matter whether we catagorize it as the word "sin", but there damn sure exists a human dichotomy that is capable of effecting evolution. Just to give you an example...suppose I choose to dump toxic chemicals from my laboratory into some water source...i.e. I don't CHOOSE to dispose of them where there isn't a chance that they will kill something or EVEN adversly effect some human's offspring. That doesn't have some effect on evolution? Or that something genetic something doesn't get turned off or on because of the exposure via MY choice?

 

See, I don't know what this religious deprogramming does to y'all, but it takes a the religious language for the factual event and then somehow makes the facts invalid as long as the religious language is still attached. It's all religion sir......just different "Law".

 

Religion is the opposite of curiosity. And the conflict between your curiosity and your religion is making you ask some very silly questions. Religion boils everything down to "God moves in mysterious ways". That is the final answer for everything - GMIMW. Why is the sunset beautiful? GMIMW! Why are cave shrimp white and blind? GMIMW! Why are gamma ray bursts appearing in deep space? GMIMW!!! That answer really means "Stop asking questions".

 

If you want to learn about the real world and how things work then drop religion and turn to science. Science is the way to learn real truth.

 

....the religion of science.

[mymistake]

Sin is the creation of religious men. It's a list of things they didn't want others to do. It's as real as a song. Sin has no more effect on evolution or biology than a song does.

Oh good God sir. It doesn't matter whether we catagorize it as the word "sin", but there damn sure exists a human dichotomy that is capable of effecting evolution. Just to give you an example...suppose I choose to dump toxic chemicals from my laboratory into some water souce...i.e. I don't choose to dispose of them where there is a chance that they will kill something or EVEN adversly effect some humans offspring. That doesn't have some effect on evolution. Or that something genetic something doesn't get turned off or on because of the exposure via MY choice?

 

Dumping toxic waste isn't a sin in the Bible. There is no Bible verse covering that concept because the men who wrote the Bible died before toxic waste became a problem.

 

As for human choice affecting evolution . . . of course humans can choose to kill other humans, compete against other populations, and such things help shape the current natural-selection environment. The trouble is that you are trying to force the religious and scientific concepts together in ways they don't actually fit.

 

Rape (of a unmarried woman) is another example of something that isn't a sin in the Bible but does affect genes in the next generation.

 

See, I don't know what this religious deprogramming does to y'all, but it takes a the religious language for the factual event and then somehow makes the facts invalid as long as the religious language is still attached.

 

Wrong. I can explain why but I can't make you accept it. Your objection is a cop out. No matter how well I argue my case you just toss up your hands and blame it on my bias against religion. However my bias is caused by religion's track record for failure.

 

Your religious language makes claims that are unsupported. That is what makes those claims invalid. Prove there is a God and prove that this God is offended by human actions before you use "sin" with the proven concept of evolution. Would you sacrifice a goat to Zeus before you install a lightning rod? Zeus and lightning rods don't mix because one is imaginary and the other actually works by using concepts discovered through science.

 

It's all religion sir......just different "Law".

 

Science is the opposite of religion. Science is not being satisfied with "God moves in mysterious ways". Science follows the objective evidence to the conclusion it supports. Religion chooses a desired conclusion and then ignores evidence that points to anything else.

[oddbird1963]

The "S" in the word sin stands for "shifting" the goal post.

 

The "I" stands for "irrelevant" connections.

 

The "N" stands for "nothing" but a mythological concept.

[Galien]

The desire to love others has always been innate in me. It certainly isn't logical because it makes most of my relationships unequal. From my observation most people are too busy loving themselves to care too much about anyone else on a deep level.

 

My desire made christianity perfect for me, because I erroneously assumed that all the other christians felt like I did. Man was I wrong. Actually outside the 10% of those with innate desire to love others, most of them are the most soulless people I ever met, I think they become christians because they are hoping for some kind of cure for their heartlessness. Doesn't work.

[Guest end3]

The desire to love others has always been innate in me. It certainly isn't logical because it makes most of my relationships unequal. From my observation most people are too busy loving themselves to care too much about anyone else on a deep level.

 

My desire made christianity perfect for me, because I erroneously assumed that all the other christians felt like I did. Man was I wrong. Actually outside the 10% of those with innate desire to love others, most of them are the most soulless people I ever met, I think they become christians because they are hoping for some kind of cure for their heartlessness. Doesn't work.

 

I think what you say is wonderfully accurate....give or take a few percent. Nonetheless, the assertions that love is innate in babies is speculative IMO. Truthfully, I used to think otherwise.

 

Also, the fact that I make "connections" where there are perhaps none to be made is just proof that people haven't looked at things from different perspectives. They may prove to be non-factual in the end, but sometimes they prove factual when the research finally "uncovers" them. I'm not going to apologize nor shrink down to the crap here unless I am modestly striving for grace....which is not often, because I am definately one of the lost.

 

But yes, what you say is exactly what I have observed as well. I wish that you wouldn't throw in the towel out of whatever.

[Guest end3]

The "S" in the word sin stands for "shifting" the goal post.

 

The "I" stands for "irrelevant" connections.

 

The "N" stands for "nothing" but a mythological concept.

 

You learned that in college right? lol. What language do you give our choices OB?

[Ouroboros]

She didn't answer the question. Enough said. I got 500 that say she can't keep from beating on me some more and still not answer the question. I am asking for a simple yes or no. Call me lazy, Call me stupid....i prefer inane, but have the gonads to answer the question.

You can't get a single answer to a question that can be interpreted multiple ways. If one interpretation leads to a yes answer, and another to a no, the answer can't be simply answered with a yes or no. It's like asking you if you stopped beating you wife yet. If your answer is yes, it assumes that you used to beat her. If you answer no, it assumes that you're still beating her. The question "is love logical" have multiple aspects and not a clear question.

[Akheia]

End, the reason I'm not engaging you in your question the way you want me to is that your question is inane (you're right--it's a perfect word). You're not being clear about what kind of love you're talking about--you've mentioned several different kinds, and to me they all mean something different from each other, come from different places, and accomplish different things. You've clearly chosen to disregard what science has said on the subject, consulting ONE study that doesn't even address what you did half-assedly explain about your question and then you diss science as a religion (which shows me how ignorant you are of science, because frankly we've gotten good at figuring out what objective reality is, and wow wait a sec I bet that actually is pretty scary for a religious person who thinks all reality is subjective and the truth is chooseable). You want my subjective opinion, but my opinion is formed by the science you just said you don't care about (an Honors bachelor's degree and very-near cum laude in psychology with emphasis in clinical and developmental psych, if you care; I was heading for a Psy.D. until my fundie Evil Ex wigged out and I had to flee the country, so actually yeah I do kind of know what I'm talking about, so be really careful of what assumptions you make about just what I know). You've gotten several good recs on where to start educating yourself. Why are you so resistant to doing that? Are you scared of finding out that your half-articulated, poorly-formed vague assumptions about this gauzy idea of "love" you have will get shot down and therefore that your religion might not have a solid basis in science? I ask sincerely, because it seems so sad to me that a man your age would deliberately stunt himself the way you do. Christianity makes men into weepy toddlers. You're hardly the first I've seen go that route. It's time to abandon the pull-ups and start wearing big boys' pants. You need to educate yourself about how we know what reality is, and why the scientific method works. Until you join the real world and know those two things, nothing I say is going to get through.

 

Face it, man. You asked a question that science has answered multiple times in multiple ways, and you don't like thinking that actually humans have a good bead on just about everything they once thought was the provenance of gods. You don't want to educate yourself. You want everybody to educate you. You're a grown man, not an infant. Please start acting like it. Once you've gotten through an intro text on developmental psych, why don't we revisit this question and see what you think about your "tabula rasa"?

[Guest end3]

She didn't answer the question. Enough said. I got 500 that say she can't keep from beating on me some more and still not answer the question. I am asking for a simple yes or no. Call me lazy, Call me stupid....i prefer inane, but have the gonads to answer the question.

You can't get a single answer to a question that can be interpreted multiple ways. If one interpretation leads to a yes answer, and another to a no, the answer can't be simply answered with a yes or no. It's like asking you if you stopped beating you wife yet. If your answer is yes, it assumes that you used to beat her. If you answer no, it assumes that you're still beating her. The question "is love logical" have multiple aspects and not a clear question.

 

No, that's not the question. The question later in the thread that I am asking her is do infants love one second after being born or is a function of stimuli after they are born.....the nurture vs. nature discussion I would gather. She says she knows but won't answer, yet beats on me for "intellectual laziness".

[Guest end3]

End, the reason I'm not engaging you in your question the way you want me to is that your question is inane (you're right--it's a perfect word). You're not being clear about what kind of love you're talking about--you've mentioned several different kinds, and to me they all mean something different from each other, come from different places, and accomplish different things. You've clearly chosen to disregard what science has said on the subject, consulting ONE study that doesn't even address what you did half-assedly explain about your question and then you diss science as a religion (which shows me how ignorant you are of science, because frankly we've gotten good at figuring out what objective reality is, and wow wait a sec I bet that actually is pretty scary for a religious person who thinks all reality is subjective and the truth is chooseable). You want my subjective opinion, but my opinion is formed by the science you just said you don't care about (an Honors bachelor's degree and very-near cum laude in psychology with emphasis in clinical and developmental psych, if you care; I was heading for a Psy.D. until my fundie Evil Ex wigged out and I had to flee the country, so actually yeah I do kind of know what I'm talking about, so be really careful of what assumptions you make about just what I know). You've gotten several good recs on where to start educating yourself. Why are you so resistant to doing that? Are you scared of finding out that your half-articulated, poorly-formed vague assumptions about this gauzy idea of "love" you have will get shot down and therefore that your religion might not have a solid basis in science? I ask sincerely, because it seems so sad to me that a man your age would deliberately stunt himself the way you do. Christianity makes men into weepy toddlers. You're hardly the first I've seen go that route. It's time to abandon the pull-ups and start wearing big boys' pants. You need to educate yourself about how we know what reality is, and why the scientific method works. Until you join the real world and know those two things, nothing I say is going to get through.

 

Face it, man. You asked a question that science has answered multiple times in multiple ways, and you don't like thinking that actually humans have a good bead on just about everything they once thought was the provenance of gods. You don't want to educate yourself. You want everybody to educate you. You're a grown man, not an infant. Please start acting like it. Once you've gotten through an intro text on developmental psych, why don't we revisit this question and see what you think about your "tabula rasa"?

 

It's valid to call science a reglion. If I religiously adhere to science, then it's religion. It absolutely does not scare me to discover some scientific fact. And lastly, the truth be known, the reason I don't read about whether babies can love right out of the shoot, is it doesn't interest me in the least.

 

The problem with this discussion is that you continue to discount my humanity, writing it off as laziness, fear, whatever, instead of simply answering the question.

 

Which is, do infants love immediately after being born......not do they have the potential to love. In the above paragraph you mention science addressing this numerous times. Please, please, please attempt drive a fear stake right through my Christian heart by answering.

[mymistake]

It's valid to call science a reglion. If I religiously adhere to science, then it's religion.

 

That is a lie that religious people tell each other to compensate for their insecurity. I have already been over how religion is the opposite of science. I don't see you addressing those reasons.

 

It absolutely does not scare me to discover some scientific fact.

 

So you accept that the universe is over 13,000,000,000 years old and Earth is over 3,000,000,000 years old and you accept that all life evolved over time by natural selection and there is no evidence that any gods exist?

 

Or did you mean some facts don't scare you but maybe others do?

 

And lastly, the truth be known, the reason I don't read about whether babies can love right out of the shoot, is it doesn't interest me in the least.

 

Yeah we can see your lack of interest by the way you brought the topic up!

 

The problem with this discussion is that you continue to discount my humanity, writing it off as laziness, fear, whatever, instead of simply answering the question.

 

Which is, do infants love immediately after being born......not do they have the potential to love. In the above paragraph you mention science addressing this numerous times. Please, please, please attempt drive a fear stake right through my Christian heart by answering.

 

groan

 

Man, nobody is discounting your humanity. People have answered your question. You just complain and beat around the bush. The very second an infant is born they have never met any other person. You do not actually feel love for another when you do not know anybody. This stuff isn't rocket science.

 

However you Christianity will remain unchanged because it is not effected by these debates.

[Akheia]

It's valid to call science a reglion. If I religiously adhere to science, then it's religion. It absolutely does not scare me to discover some scientific fact. And lastly, the truth be known, the reason I don't read about whether babies can love right out of the shoot, is it doesn't interest me in the least.

 

The problem with this discussion is that you continue to discount my humanity, writing it off as laziness, fear, whatever, instead of simply answering the question.

 

Which is, do infants love immediately after being born......not do they have the potential to love. In the above paragraph you mention science addressing this numerous times. Please, please, please attempt drive a fear stake right through my Christian heart by answering.

 

End, people have already answered this question. I've already suggested you educate yourself about developmental psychology. YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM ABOUT BABIES LOVING RIGHT AFTER BIRTH. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO MUST PROVIDE PROOF OF YOUR OPINION. NOT ME. DO NOT TRY TO SHIFT BURDEN OF PROOF LIKE THAT. The reason I'm not answering is that you're trying to shift burden of proof. You are the one making a claim for babies having the innate ability to love thanks to your deity. Please prove it using peer-reviewed science.

 

And can you please define a religion for me, since you believe science is a religion? To me, a religion is these things:

 

* An unproven/disproven ideology (science does not have disproven ideologies nor does it make unfounded speculations about things)

* An unwillingness to change core tenets (science has happily changed its tenets once proof is found of any errors)

* An insistence on financial support and government perks (science doesn't demand 10% of my pre-tax income or get tax-free benefit just for being science)

* A hierarchy of believers with those at the top considered to be a deity's main spokesperson (nobody takes Dawkins' word for anything unless he has evidence to back himself up; nobody is untouchable in science and nobody is science's supreme arbiter)

* Regular meetings and fellowshipping (there aren't any requirements that scientists meet every week)

* A holy book or books (nobody considers any scientific work as sacred or untouchable, not even Darwin's works; they are all subject to change if evidence arises against them and indeed the books fundies think scientists hold holy have seen their points refuted sometimes)

* Rituals and observances (some people may celebrate this or that scientist's birthday, but it's certainly not a universal thing; there are no prayers in science and no rituals--ie, practices with no functional purpose; scientists do not turn around three times before titrations or recite prayers to Saint Marie Curie before lighting bunsen burners)

* A belief in a main deity (science has no deities--not even Science itself as a concept)

and most importantly:

* Members' self-identification as religious (no scientist would ever claim that science is their religion)

 

Face it. Some fucktard made that claim not long ago, it sounded kewl and jingoistic, and now all the Christians are happily parroting it. It's a straw man. You heard this idea, followed the herd, and now you're attacking this idea you made up, and not the real issue, which is this: there is a way to know, objectively and truly, what reality is. Christianity is not reality. None of its claims are objectively true. If you feel that they are, then you are the one who must provide solid evidence for those claims. So get crackin'. I suggest as your first stab at educating yourself The Magic of Reality, which is a great introduction to the subject.

[Akheia]

Sorry to double post, but it occurs to me suddenly that if Christianity actually had scientific evidence of its claims, it wouldn't be spending so much time trying to discredit the scientific method. It'd be promoting it EVERYWHERE. It'd be demanding it be taught in schools. It wouldn't be so terrified of the idea of reality being objective and knowable, and it'd strut its evidence out everywhere. But it has no proof, no evidence of a single one of its claims, and so it must make the scientific method untrustworthy. Christians must "otherize" science, because science is anathema to its claims. If anything they cling to were objectively true, they wouldn't need to do that.

[asanerman]

It's valid to call science a reglion. If I religiously adhere to science, then it's religion. It absolutely does not scare me to discover some scientific fact. And lastly, the truth be known, the reason I don't read about whether babies can love right out of the shoot, is it doesn't interest me in the least.

 

The problem with this discussion is that you continue to discount my humanity, writing it off as laziness, fear, whatever, instead of simply answering the question.

 

Which is, do infants love immediately after being born......not do they have the potential to love. In the above paragraph you mention science addressing this numerous times. Please, please, please attempt drive a fear stake right through my Christian heart by answering.

 

End, not that it matters in the least, but you baffle me.

 

I can see where direct revelation as a method of inquiry is a good one for you.

 

Only Jehovah holds The Answer to your questionings.

 

Direct revelation will never let you down or betray you or get you kicked out of the Garden!

 

The persecution you experience on this site is not your fault, its ours for not using the infallible method of direct revelation.

 

In your mind the way your "humanity" is insulted or attacked (persecuted) is proof positive that you've got things all sized up and confirmed.

 

You duh man! The Authentic Believer.

 

You're thinking inspires legend.

[asanerman]

Please pardon the double!