# Do Atheist believe in love?



## marketgunner (Aug 18, 2015)

How can Atheist believe in love? The effects can be seen but not love itself, It is not rational either? Can love be real?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 18, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> How can Atheist believe in love? The effects can be seen but not love itself, It is not rational either? Can love be real?




Oh goodness.  Did you even try to google that before you asked it?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 18, 2015)

no, Iam not looking for an answer but personal opinions.

Do you have either one ?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 18, 2015)

I don't know if they believe in it but they have the capacity to love. Man was made in the image of God. Part of that image is to love.
They have the capability to love God and or fellow man if they choose to do either. God loves them and they can love God back.


----------



## Hoot (Aug 18, 2015)

First, the plural of the word atheist has an "s" at the end.  Most religious people seem to leave that off.

Regarding the OP question, that is a very silly implied comparison.

Are you asking how atheists can believe that their minds feel an emotion, while they cannot believe in the existence of someone that they cannot see any evidence of with their physical senses?

"Apples and oranges", to borrow an expression.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 19, 2015)

Flush and repeat as necessary.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 19, 2015)

Just wow.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 19, 2015)

Marketgunner,

Tell me what you think love is and I'll answer your question.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 19, 2015)

Yes. I also believe in depression, happiness and other emotions. 
These are chemical / electrical signals in the brain in response to certain stimuli. 
You actually CAN see love. Just got to have the right instruments.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 19, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yes. I also believe in depression, happiness and other emotions.
> These are chemical / electrical signals in the brain in response to certain stimuli.
> You actually CAN see love. Just got to have the right instruments.



Way to open the door to the rest of us just not being as well equipped as the faithful.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 19, 2015)

Without even reading the responses, I will say yes........with perhaps the small exception for those who take a completely mechanical view of the human experience......now I gotta read back and see if I'm right


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 19, 2015)

....I can't tell if I am or not, and I don't care enough to google it.  I think every person is capable of love, however it is defined, and that it is also defined differently according to the individual.  So, the concept is abstract anyway.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 19, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> ....I can't tell if I am or not, and I don't care enough to google it.  I think every person is capable of love, however it is defined, and that it is also defined differently according to the individual.  So, the concept is abstract anyway.



It's a little easier to define than "beauty".  It's attached to biological impulses that can be readily understood.  

People are interesting and complicated.  

We often override our biological impulses in bizarre ways.  I was attracted to a girl in college who was severely deformed by fire as a baby. I believed I could have loved her but I was with someone else at the time.

Perhaps she was a good breeding match for me, biologically,  in a damaged package.  It was an interesting and complicated relationship.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 19, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> ....I can't tell if I am or not, and I don't care enough to google it.  I think every person is capable of love, however it is defined, and that it is also defined differently according to the individual.  So, the concept is abstract anyway.



You can't ignore the importance of the "mechanical" aspects of the thing.  They're huge.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 19, 2015)

Hoot said:


> First, the plural of the word atheist has an "s" at the end.  Most religious people seem to leave that off.
> 
> Regarding the OP question, that is a very silly implied comparison.
> 
> ...



oh, not appples and oranges ,  examples of unseen forces affecting the physical world.

Do atheists belive that an unseen unmeasurable force  change the physical world?

Are you implying that love is of the mind? you love with your mind, it is logical?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> It's a little easier to define than "beauty".  It's attached to biological impulses that can be readily understood.
> 
> People are interesting and complicated.
> 
> ...



The key word is "could have loved her"   that is not love.


----------



## Hoot (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> oh, not appples and oranges ,  examples of unseen forces affecting the physical world.
> 
> Do atheists belive that an unseen unmeasurable force  change the physical world?
> 
> Are you implying that love is of the mind? you love with your mind, it is logical?



Nope - I wasn't implying that.  I stated it directly.  I think love is an emotion in the mind.  It is something we "feel" with our minds.  What else could it be?  What other part of our body is capable of feeling love?  None that I can think of.

And I don't know in detail what atheists believe about unseen unmeasurable forces changing the physical world.  I don't study their beliefs.  I am agnostic.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 19, 2015)

Hoot said:


> Nope - I wasn't implying that.  I stated it directly.  I think love is an emotion in the mind.  It is something we "feel" with our minds.  What else could it be?  What other part of our body is capable of feeling love?  None that I can think of.
> 
> And I don't know in detail what atheists believe about unseen unmeasurable forces changing the physical world.  I don't study their beliefs.  I am agnostic.



Emotions have nothing to do with the minds but rather are distinguished from logical thinking.
Emotions are actually a response to stimuli,   

love is not,  we can love without an object to love


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> The key word is "could have loved her"   that is not love.



There's timing involved.  There's maturity level.  I project that I could have loved her.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> oh, not appples and oranges ,  examples of unseen forces affecting the physical world.
> 
> Do atheists belive that an unseen unmeasurable force  change the physical world?
> 
> Are you implying that love is of the mind? you love with your mind, it is logical?



Like ghosts?  Like spells, prayers and incantations?  Like fate?


----------



## Hoot (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Emotions have nothing to do with the minds but rather are distinguished from logical thinking.
> Emotions are actually a response to stimuli,
> 
> love is not,  we can love without an object to love



Then what part of the body experiences emotions, if not the mind?

Are you saying love is not an emotion?

I agree that one can feel love for an inanimate object, meaning an idea.  Or an imaginary object.  But I think there has to be some focal object of the emotion love, be it physical or imaginary.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> There's timing involved.  There's maturity level.  I project that I could have loved her.



when, you  love someone, you do not use the word "could have,"

You either love, or you don't. Love is unconditional


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 19, 2015)

Can love exist without hate?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 19, 2015)

Hoot said:


> Then what part of the body experiences emotions, if not the mind?
> 
> Are you saying love is not an emotion?
> 
> I agree that one can feel love for an inanimate object, meaning an idea.  Or an imaginary object.  But I think there has to be some focal object of the emotion love, be it physical or imaginary.



no . love is from the heart (pnuema) not the psyche, We can't use  our minds for love. It doesn't work , it is not logical.

love is from within,   I might love something or someone , but it come from within then out .
some emotions, fear, perhaps has a outside stimuli normally.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> no . love is from the heart (pnuema) not the psyche, We can't use  our minds for love. It doesn't work , it is not logical.
> 
> love is from within,   I might love something or someone , but it come from within then out .
> some emotions, fear, perhaps has a outside stimuli normally.



Do what?


----------



## Hoot (Aug 19, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Do what?



My question, too.


----------



## Hoot (Aug 19, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Can love exist without hate?



I often ask myself things like that too.  Can good exist without evil?  Could a God exist without a Satan?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 19, 2015)

Love is not from the mind. Country sing title "It aint no thanking thang"

It is from the heart.

When we know something we can 1) logically determine the veracity of facts and believe something to be true  or 2) we can know something, without facts, and believe it to be true not based upon the use of our mind but our heart  , 

This use of "heart" is in the Greek NT "pnuema" or perhaps "spirit"or "soul"

Love comes from within,  other emotions are from outside stimuli, like grief or fear. We can love without an object to love. We can love our spouse before meeting them. 

I love my as yet to be conceived grandkids. 

How can an atheist reject a spiritual existence yet engage in  real honest love?
Love is something we cannot see or understand yet we see the results in a physical world.
Spiritual effects the physical


----------



## Hoot (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Love is not from the mind. Country sing title "It aint no thanking thang"
> 
> It is from the heart.
> 
> ...



My turn to say, "Do what"?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 19, 2015)

I don't know how to explain it to a double naught spy.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Love is not from the mind. Country sing title "It aint no thanking thang"
> 
> It is from the heart.
> 
> ...



I get what you are saying, but I disagree. Every emotion we feel is chemical/biological. The mind controls the body. Everything comes from the mind/brain.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Love is not from the mind. Country sing title "It aint no thanking thang"
> 
> It is from the heart.
> 
> ...


Where is this spiritual existence you speak of? Is this another one of your claims with no facts to back it up?
Love, like everything else, is an individual experience. It is not universal. You have love for things that no one else will and for a variety of reasons for each. 
The features of a certain woman that causes you to Love her won't do a thing for the next guy. Just like the things that attract you to religion turn someone else away.
It is an individual feeling.
No belief in god needed to love.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 19, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I get what you are saying, but I disagree. Every emotion we feel is chemical/biological. The mind controls the body. Everything comes from the mind/brain.


Exactly. I will love my yet to be conceived grandkids because of the special way they will effect me in a biological way but marketgunner isn't going to love MY grandkids for those same reasons.
His belief in a god has ZERO effect on any sort of universal love the same way a persons disbelief in a god has an effect on their ability to love.
An individuals feelings are just that. Individual.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 19, 2015)

That is lust , not love. 

Not a belief in God  but a understanding, from the evidence, that spiritual things (love) affect the physical, even though you can see love. 

You are a spiritual being as well as physical.  Spiritual beings are capable of love,etc.  Physical only beings are not. If you are only a physical being, you should not be able to have real love.
But atheist do exhibit and respond to spiritual


----------



## bullethead (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> That is lust , not love.
> 
> Not a belief in God  but a understanding, from the evidence, that spiritual things (love) affect the physical, even though you can see love.
> 
> ...


Forgive me but I just cannot take your word for it.
At some point you are going to actually have to provide some facts and proof to back up your claims. You have not done it once despite being asked to do so constantly.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> That is lust , not love.
> 
> Not a belief in God  but a understanding, from the evidence, that spiritual things (love) affect the physical, even though you can see love.
> 
> ...


And can you please quote what/who you are replying to?
What is lust and not love?


----------



## Hoot (Aug 20, 2015)

If the OP starts talking in circles a little faster, he/she might start getting dizzy.

Wait...


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 20, 2015)

If I were atheist, I would be asking why those claiming to have love have never took in a homeless person, never sold his property and gave the money to the poor, never gave his vacation to a poor single mom, etc. Talk is cheap. One of the reasons I left the church after 40 years.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 20, 2015)

I live in an area where there is a church everywhere you look. Likely 300+ in my county alone. You would think we would not have a poor, hungry, homeless person in this county.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 20, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> That is lust , not love.
> 
> Not a belief in God  but a understanding, from the evidence, that spiritual things (love) affect the physical, even though you can see love.
> 
> ...



Meanwhile, in other similarly framed arguments...


----------



## bullethead (Aug 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Meanwhile, in other similarly framed arguments...


That meme is hysterical.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 20, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> That is lust , not love.
> 
> Not a belief in God  but a understanding, from the evidence, that spiritual things (love) affect the physical, even though you can see love.
> 
> ...



Tell me about this "spiritual being".  How do know about it?  How can you test for it or measure it?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> And can you please quote what/who you are replying to?
> What is lust and not love?



this statement,



> The features of a certain woman that causes you to Love her won't do a thing for the next guy.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 20, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Tell me about this "spiritual being".  How do know about it?  How can you test for it or measure it?



That is the point of the OP, if we respond to spiritual stimuli or exhibit spiritual characteristics, then we are spiritual beings.

Does an atheist ever feel guilty?


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 20, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> then we are spiritual beings.



Uh oh, only one way to deal with spirits


----------



## bullethead (Aug 20, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> this statement,


Not just physical features. Her traits her qualities, her affection, her personality, ...all the features that make her HER.
You obviously would love your wife for a variety of reasons yet to someone else they might not be capable of loving her because of the qualities she has.
The reasons you love her and have love and show love are individual to YOU. Being a Christian or a member if any religion doesn't increase or decrease your own inner feelings.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 20, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> That is the point of the OP, if we respond to spiritual stimuli or exhibit spiritual characteristics, then we are spiritual beings.
> 
> Does an atheist ever feel guilty?



Tell me about spiritual stimuli.  What does it entail?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 21, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> That is the point of the OP, if we respond to spiritual stimuli or exhibit spiritual characteristics, then we are spiritual beings.
> 
> Does an atheist ever feel guilty?



So guilt = God because emotion = God? 

C'mon man, you're gonna have to do better than that.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 21, 2015)

Judas Iscariot seemed to have some form of guilt, although I'm not sure I would classify him as an atheist.Jesus called him a devil and the son of perdition. 
But then again, I'm not sure how real his "guilt" was either.He gave back the bribe money and went out and hung himself. I think it was more of a condemnation than rremorse, but I'm not sure.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 21, 2015)

I think it can be said that love is not real. It is a fig newton of our imaginations. 
I have been in love a few times and in 'lust' a thousands of times. 
Both are in the 'eyes' of the beholder.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 21, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> That is the point of the OP, if we respond to spiritual stimuli or exhibit spiritual characteristics, then we are spiritual beings.
> 
> Does an atheist ever feel guilty?


The OP, your questions and the direction you are trying to take them in show what a complete and total lack of knowledge you have in the subject you are trying to discuss.  You should go away, educate yourself and then come back. 
You know how in the other thread where the poll results showed AAs scoring the highest in overall religous knowledge?
There is a reason for that and its not because they just stuck with their preconcieved, baseless, factless notions.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> The OP, your questions and the direction you are trying to take them in show what a complete and total lack of knowledge you have in the subject you are trying to discuss.  You should go away, educate yourself and then come back.
> You know how in the other thread where the poll results showed AAs scoring the highest in overall religous knowledge?
> There is a reason for that and its not because they just stuck with their preconcieved, baseless, factless notions.



Get that man some ice for his burn.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> The OP, your questions and the direction you are trying to take them in show what a complete and total lack of knowledge you have in the subject you are trying to discuss.  You should go away, educate yourself and then come back.
> You know how in the other thread where the poll results showed AAs scoring the highest in overall religous knowledge?
> There is a reason for that and its not because they just stuck with their preconcieved, baseless, factless notions.



How do cornflakes taste with urine instead of milk?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> How do cornflakes taste with urine instead of milk?


Yeah I usually have a higher tolerance for the mind numbing ignorance of some of these arguments. It just seems to be over the top lately. 
Maybe its time for some R&R from here.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Aug 21, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yes. I also believe in depression, happiness and other emotions.
> These are chemical / electrical signals in the brain in response to certain stimuli.
> You actually CAN see love. Just got to have the right instruments.



When I trashed my lower back two weeks ago my wife gave me some drugs that allowed me to see the Matrix. But I'm not sure that's what he's after here.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Judas Iscariot seemed to have some form of guilt, although I'm not sure I would classify him as an atheist.Jesus called him a devil and the son of perdition.
> But then again, I'm not sure how real his "guilt" was either.He gave back the bribe money and went out and hung himself. I think it was more of a condemnation than rremorse, but I'm not sure.



He was like many of us , trying to get God to do what we want, when we want it.

He was trying to get Jesus to conquer the Romans and set up the Jewish kingdom. By betraying Him, he though he could force Jesus hand.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> The OP, your questions and the direction you are trying to take them in show what a complete and total lack of knowledge you have in the subject you are trying to discuss.  You should go away, educate yourself and then come back.
> You know how in the other thread where the poll results showed AAs scoring the highest in overall religous knowledge?
> There is a reason for that and its not because they just stuck with their preconcieved, baseless, factless notions.



Did they poll boundless arrogance?

Did you even read how the Pew poll was taken? Did you know the population of atheist compared to the population of "Christians" is so different comparative sample techniques are  more than questionable?

How do you know what questions were asked to compare these two groups?

I was only criticizing the sampling and statistical inferences of the poll


The % of Atheist is just  less ignorant as the % of the"religious" ? Is that your claim?  Do you want to be proud of that position?

What if I totally agree with you?  I will with this.

MOST people are ignorant of , not religious" , notice the wording, but spiritual matters.

Religion is mans attempt to reach god,  even Jesus rejected that.


Are you actually wearing socks in that kayak?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 21, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Did they poll boundless arrogance?
> 
> Did you even read how the Pew poll was taken? Did you know the population of atheist compared to the population of "Christians" is so different comparative sample techniques are  more than questionable?
> 
> ...



Since you won't answer my questions about what you think constitutes spiritual matters, spiritual stimuli, spirituality and spirits in general I'll skip to the punch line and assert that you don't have a clue what those things are.  

You have heard those concepts batted around probably since you were a little kid and have just accepted them as fact.  You may have never even questioned whether or not they're valid concepts.  How do you test for spirituality?  What's your methodology?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 21, 2015)

I am sorry, what questions have I missed?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 21, 2015)

to test for  the spiritual, stimulate the spiritual,  look at a beautiful sunset, why do you enjoy it?

how about a picture of loved one? any response?

How about the guilt when you done something wrong or just was rude ?  why do you feel bad, or not?

Why might you like certain music?

etc.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 21, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> to test for  the spiritual, stimulate the spiritual,  look at a beautiful sunset, why do you enjoy it?
> 
> how about a picture of loved one? any response?
> 
> ...



That you like certain music is a test of the spirit?   What condition is someone's spirit in if they love Marilyn Manson music or Rap?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 21, 2015)

maybe they are substituting,   

if music appeals to the inner man, then it is spiritual,,  both good and bad


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> maybe they are substituting,
> 
> if music appeals to the inner man, then it is spiritual,,  both good and bad



Do you have ANYTHING to back up what you say or do you think because you think it then it must be true?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> That you like certain music is a test of the spirit?   What condition is someone's spirit if they love Marilyn Manson music or Rap?



Reiki music sounds spiritual to me. But I mostly relax to Radiohead or Calexico. I think Calexico is an alt-country type of Radiohead. Just the slow Radiohead songs and not the Mexican tinged Calexico songs either.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 22, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Reiki music sounds spiritual to me. But I mostly relax to Radiohead or Calexico. I think Calexico is an alt-country type of Radiohead. Just the slow Radiohead songs and not the Mexican tinged Calexico songs either.



Is it well with your soul?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 22, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Do you have ANYTHING to back up what you say or do you think because you think it then it must be true?



I thought is was rather obvious, and common knowledge

Music Therapy  , Movie songs played during a scene,  etc.

Do I have to provide a bibliography?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I thought is was rather obvious, and common knowledge
> 
> Music Therapy  , Movie songs played during a scene,  etc.
> 
> Do I have to provide a bibliography?


No, no indeed. You just carry on. Again thank you. Thank you very much.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 23, 2015)

welderguy said:


> How do cornflakes taste with urine instead of milk?



Gracious 

Walt's one of the better guys to have a discussion with on this board.  I've been around here five years and have never seen him be anywhere near as disrespectful towards others as some Christians can get.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Gracious
> 
> Walt's one of the better guys to have a discussion with on this board.  I've been around here five years and have never seen him be anywhere near as disrespectful towards others as some Christians can get.



I have to agree.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 23, 2015)

Walt is probably very gracious until he was made to be uncomfortable.  I perceived by the limited discourse and the avatar, (I have nothing else), he prefers to be in control of himself, the discussion and others in a discussion. He showed the normal resistance to my presentation, first phase , repeating his position multiple times, as if the other side didn't read it correctly initially. Secondly, Repeatedly present irrelevant points as if the direct the discussion to where he is more comfortable. Third,  which he was rather patient, attack the messenger.   
He might currently be in a ignore stage for regrouping or he might just be busy.

Anyway, it is not me making him uncomfortable,


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 23, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> He was like many of us , trying to get God to do what we want, when we want it.
> 
> He was trying to get Jesus to conquer the Romans and set up the Jewish kingdom. By betraying Him, he though he could force Jesus hand.



Kinda silly to think our creator follows our actions isn't it?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 23, 2015)

Silly?, he puts is scenarios to get a response,

Mat 11:16
But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows,

Mat 11:17
And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.

Judas was doing what we do , trying to get our way over God's.  We all do it, it is just a matter of degree, some of us even say we are not going to believe in God since we didn't get something we wanted when we wanted it.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 23, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Silly?, he puts is scenarios to get a response,
> 
> Mat 11:16
> But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows,
> ...


And to think...for a few million years before this biblical nonsense was written humans and their ancestors got by just fine. Since the bible, more people have been killed by other people BECAUSE of the bible based off of this loving all-knowing god junk. I guess he didn't see that coming.
And all we really have for it is people who tell us what a mysterious god it is and then go on to explain how THEY know what it thinks what it wants what it means etc etc etc. When in reality you are all stuck on a fictional novel.
Please stop this nonsense.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 24, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Gracious
> 
> Walt's one of the better guys to have a discussion with on this board.  I've been around here five years and have never seen him be anywhere near as disrespectful towards others as some Christians can get.


Thanks JB and Art I appreciate it.
I stand by my comments although I do admit I could have been more uh diplomatic about it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 24, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Walt is probably very gracious until he was made to be uncomfortable.  I perceived by the limited discourse and the avatar, (I have nothing else), he prefers to be in control of himself, the discussion and others in a discussion. He showed the normal resistance to my presentation, first phase , repeating his position multiple times, as if the other side didn't read it correctly initially. Secondly, Repeatedly present irrelevant points as if the direct the discussion to where he is more comfortable. Third,  which he was rather patient, attack the messenger.
> He might currently be in a ignore stage for regrouping or he might just be busy.
> 
> Anyway, it is not me making him uncomfortable,




If nothing else you are certainly consistent.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I stand by my comments although I do admit I could have been more uh diplomatic about it.



I thought they were diplomatic given the nature of the discussion.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Walt is probably very gracious until he was made to be uncomfortable.



I think frustrated is a more accurate term than uncomfortable.  These guys will tackle any subject head-on.  



marketgunner said:


> I perceived by the limited discourse and the avatar, (I have nothing else), he prefers to be in control of himself, the discussion and others in a discussion. He showed the normal resistance to my presentation, first phase , repeating his position multiple times, as if the other side didn't read it correctly initially. Secondly, Repeatedly present irrelevant points as if the direct the discussion to where he is more comfortable. Third,  which he was rather patient, attack the messenger.
> He might currently be in a ignore stage for regrouping or he might just be busy.
> 
> Anyway, it is not me making him uncomfortable,



I think you are giving too much credit to your presentation.  These guys are trying to get you to give a direct defense to your claims.  You must first recognize their worldview and yours are not the same.  The only common basis of any discussion are the tangible things we can all agree on.  From there, logical conclusions can be debated and discussed relevant to the evidence at hand.  Ultimately, believing you are going to change anybody on here will only lead to frustration.  For instance, try and imagine debating the existence of unicorns with somebody who truly believes in them.  If they said "the sunrise proves there is a unicorn" you would scratch your head and wonder how they got there.

That is the perspective a skeptic takes to any claim you and I will make about our faith.  If we choose to engage in a defense of the faith, we have to recognize that and begin with what is and not insult other folks' intelligence because they do not have the same conclusions you and I have.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 24, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I think frustrated is a more accurate term than uncomfortable.  These guys will tackle any subject head-on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



JB's the man. That's a very excellent synopsis on why things are the way they are in here.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 24, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> JB's the man. That's a very excellent synopsis on why things are the way they are in here.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I think frustrated is a more accurate term than uncomfortable.  These guys will tackle any subject head-on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hats off to you JB.
Spot on.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 24, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> If nothing else you are certainly consistent.



I should have included  that your response was normal or typical and expected. 

And you might appreciate, the strongest resistance I have ever had on a forum was from a "Christian" who was very secure with his knowledge of doctrines or everything, but if he didn't learn something on his own, it wasn't true. He could not be told anything, even to benefit his statements.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 24, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I think frustrated is a more accurate term than uncomfortable.  These guys will tackle any subject head-on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I should have been more forthcoming. I am only testing and noting the responses on this forum for my research.   I am only collecting information as to how to develop a more practical presentation of a larger series, a package, of teachings which are not  used in current "church" teachings. If I do not include those who do not believe in God, my presentations will be severely wanting. This exercise expected to find an extreme position here on this forum. But it hasn't, just another version of the same confusion found in "church" groups.

I understand their  actual worldview and their proclaimed worldview. The limited view is why they are here as Atheists/Agnostics. There are views, just different type but just as limited in all circles.

Does any discourse only deal with the beliefs of one party?
Can new information not be proposed and even defended in a discussion?
The Apologetics section of this forum means defend your opinion.
Those that posted here have for the most part done that.

Any position , mine or yours, must be able to withstand logical scrutiny, The facts used in debate can be questioned but the steps of any argument must be logical

It is wrong to say, "It is my opinion, People do not have opinions" and "There is no omniscient being, I have to know this because I know all things".

It is all good.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 24, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I should have been more forthcoming. I am only testing and noting the responses on this forum for my research.   I am only collecting information as to how to develop a more practical presentation of a larger series, a package, of teachings which are not  used in current "church" teachings. If I do not include those who do not believe in God, my presentations will be severely wanting. This exercise expected to find an extreme position here on this forum. But it hasn't, just another version of the same confusion found in "church" groups.
> 
> I understand their  actual worldview and their proclaimed worldview. The limited view is why they are here as Atheists/Agnostics. There are views, just different type but just as limited in all circles.
> 
> ...



I'd be curious to see this new information.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 24, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I should have been more forthcoming. I am only testing and noting the responses on this forum for my research.   I am only collecting information as to how to develop a more practical presentation of a larger series, a package, of teachings which are not  used in current "church" teachings. If I do not include those who do not believe in God, my presentations will be severely wanting. This exercise expected to find an extreme position here on this forum. But it hasn't, just another version of the same confusion found in "church" groups.
> 
> I understand their  actual worldview and their proclaimed worldview. The limited view is why they are here as Atheists/Agnostics. There are views, just different type but just as limited in all circles.
> 
> ...


Personally I hope you pack your crap up and go somewhere else. We arent your guniea pigs.
You are a dishonest piece of crap. I guess it didnt occur to you to just be honest up front about your agenda.
This forum is for discussion and debate not your personal research.
If I was a mod I would bounce you out of here faster than your ignorant head could spin.
Now that you didnt find anybody stupid enough to swallow your nonsense surely your "testing" here is done and you will move along.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 24, 2015)

Welp, now I've seen everything. Someone really got to Walt. That's an achievement I wouldn't want.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 24, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Welp, now I've seen everything. Someone really got to Walt. That's an achievement I wouldn't want.


And I was all Rested&Relaxed and ready for some intelligent discussion.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 24, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> And I was all Rested&Relaxed and ready for some intelligent discussion.



Then why did you click in this subforum?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 24, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Then why did you click in this subforum?


More accurately, why didnt I just put marketgunner on Ignore BEFORE coming back instead of waiting until now.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 24, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> More accurately, why didnt I just put marketgunner on Ignore BEFORE coming back instead of waiting until now.



You're a romantic. You hoped beyond hope that he would be the one to give you a genuine challenge. 

Sadly, he's not your huckleberry.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 24, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You're a romantic. You hoped beyond hope that he would be the one to give you a genuine challenge.
> 
> Sadly, he's not your huckleberry.




Maybe one of us should try to play Christs' Advocate.

I'll try.

Look how amazing the Universe is.  How could it not be a creation of God?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 24, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You're a romantic. You hoped beyond hope that he would be the one to give you a genuine challenge.
> 
> Sadly, he's not your huckleberry.


Its true I am a romantic I cant debate that.
Im sensitive and caring too


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 24, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Personally I hope you pack your crap up and go somewhere else. We arent your guniea pigs.
> You are a dishonest piece of crap. I guess it didnt occur to you to just be honest up front about your agenda.
> This forum is for discussion and debate not your personal research.
> If I was a mod I would bounce you out of here faster than your ignorant head could spin.
> Now that you didnt find anybody stupid enough to swallow your nonsense surely your "testing" here is done and you will move along.



I like it. Thank you for saying this out loud.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Maybe one of us should try to play Christs' Advocate.
> 
> I'll try.
> 
> Look how amazing the Universe is.  How could it not be a creation of God?



We play that all the time. Those are the times when we acknowledge our own beliefs on whether Christ existed or not, preached or not, and performed miracles or not. 




WaltL1 said:


> Its true I am a romantic I cant debate that.
> Im sensitive and caring too



Maybe, but you didn't build that. God did.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 24, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I like it. Thank you for saying this out loud.


1. Dont be suprised when you see "BANNED" under my name in my avatar.
2. Why I would never be elected to be a Mod.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 24, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> We play that all the time. Those are the times when we acknowledge our own beliefs on whether Christ existed or not, preached or not, and performed miracles or not.





That's the problem, I have an answer for any question I can ask.

an interesting question:  since our brains evolved in a way that led to the development of a God concept, would it be reasonable to say that maybe it had and still has a use?  

Is it possible that like choosing to be vegan, despite one's biology, psychology, physiology that being an atheist might do more harm than good? What are the benefits and downfalls of atheism?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> That's the problem, I have an answer for any question I can ask.
> 
> *an interesting question:  since our brains evolved in a way that led to the development of a God concept, would it be reasonable to say that maybe it had and still has a use?  *
> 
> Is it possible that like choosing to be vegan, despite one's biology, psychology, physiology that being an atheist might do more harm than good? What are the benefits and downfalls of atheism?



Based on a flawed premise. Evolution does not target anything. Evolution is random mutation that may or may not benefit the creature being experimented with, if it gives a better chance of survival that creature passes the mutation on. If it doesn't, they die. 

It could be that those with the faith "mutation" worked harder, stronger, and longer in survival situations and did better than their non-faithful counterparts. There's something to be said about the efficacy of a higher purpose, or reason, to one's life in those kinds of situations. Those lacking the drive, whatever the reason for it is, often don't survive as long, or as well, as those that do. 

I don't think faith evolved out of a need to survive, per se. I think faith evolved out of trying to make sense of the natural world, and its seeming randomness all around us, and putting practical lessons into parable form. 

For example, a caveman wouldn't remember that 365 days from now the weather would turn cold and winter would come. But, if he looked to the heavens and saw a familiar shape every time it came then he could correlate the two, and creating a myth around them helped the story to pass. 

"Zeus created X and put them in the heavens..." is much more interesting than, "Lucius Bobbyus Rayus drew some lines to connect the stars and it looked like a lion to him, so Leo..."


----------



## bullethead (Aug 24, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> 1. Dont be suprised when you see "BANNED" under my name in my avatar.
> 2. Why I would never be elected to be a Mod.



Boy I hope not to see #1 happen. I think under the circumstances your response was warranted and tame.
I do not appreciate being part of a study group that I did not know about up front. And there is not a doubt in my mind that we were being set up so he could gain information now to use as he wanted later.

I'd say he got off very easy and your response was within the guidelines on a forum considering what you had to respond to. I doubt it would have been as tame in person nor should have.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 24, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Based on a flawed premise. Evolution does not target anything. Evolution is random mutation that may or may not benefit the creature being experimented with, if it gives a better chance of survival that creature passes the mutation on. If it doesn't, they die.
> 
> It could be that those with the faith "mutation" worked harder, stronger, and longer in survival situations and did better than their non-faithful counterparts. There's something to be said about the efficacy of a higher purpose, or reason, to one's life in those kinds of situations. Those lacking the drive, whatever the reason for it is, often don't survive as long, or as well, as those that do.
> 
> ...



Our brains developed in such a way as to allow the concept of God.  That we have sought for a long time the type of explanations you describe  is without doubt.  That it might be part of our propensity to find patterns and understand cause and effect can probably be tied into survival.  

I'm just trying to model how a God concept might have developed in its infancy to what we have today.

I agree with present anthropological theory that it probably started out as Animism.

"Animism (from Latin anima, "breath, spirit, life")[1][2] is the worldview that non-human entities—such as animals, plants, and inanimate objects—possess a spiritual essence.[3][4][5]

Animism is used in the anthropology of religion as a term for the belief system of some indigenous tribal peoples,[6] especially prior to the development of organized religion.[7] Although each culture has its own different mythologies and rituals, "animism" is said to describe the most common, foundational thread of indigenous peoples' "spiritual" or "supernatural" perspectives. The Animistic perspective is so fundamental, mundane, everyday and taken-for-granted that most animistic indigenous people do not even have a word in their languages that corresponds to "animism" (or even "religion");[8] the term is an anthropological construct."

                                                        --Wiki


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Our brains developed in such a way as to allow the concept of God.  That we have sought for a long time the type of explanations you describe  is without doubt.  That it might be part of our propensity to find patterns and understand cause and effect can probably be tied into survival.
> 
> I'm just trying to model how a God concept might have developed in its infancy to what we have today.
> 
> ...



Again, you have it backwards. Our brains didn't evolve to allow a God, our brains evolved to recognize patterns and ask deep questions. God was created because humanity abhors an unanswered question, even if the answer is incomplete.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 24, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Again, you have it backwards. Our brains didn't evolve to allow a God, our brains evolved to recognize patterns and ask deep questions. God was created because humanity abhors an unanswered question, even if the answer is incomplete.



Ok.  I don't see the difference.

A brain evolved.  It became complex enough to be able to create weird ideas like God and Harry Potter.  Before it evolved it didn't allow for complex ideas.

I'll call it whatever you like.  I don't want to nit pick that point.  There's better issues to discuss.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Ok.  I don't see the difference.
> 
> *A brain evolved.  It became complex enough to be able to create weird ideas like God and Harry Potter.  Before it evolved it didn't allow for complex ideas.*
> 
> I'll call it whatever you like.  I don't want to nit pick that point.  There's better issues to discuss.



Now you have it correct. The brain evolved, and the stories are a side effect. It wasn't a targeted evolution.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 24, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Now you have it correct. The brain evolved, and the stories are a side effect. It wasn't a targeted evolution.



I don't think I ever implied that the evolution of the brain was specifically intended to invent God.   Evolution has no intent.  I understand that.

I thought that I made it pretty clear that when the hardware developed that the software could run thus the use of the word "allowed".

But I'm REALLY REALLY gonna not belabor the point anymore.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 24, 2015)

At any rate, syntax nitpicking aside, would anyone like to create an illustration of how we got to "The inspired Word of God"?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think I ever implied that the evolution of the brain was specifically intended to invent God.   Evolution has no intent.  I understand that.
> 
> I though that I made it pretty clear that when the hardware developed that the software could run thus the use of the word "allowed".
> 
> But I'm REALLY REALLY gonna not belabor the point anymore.



No need. We understand each other finally. End of story, and day.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 24, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No need. We understand each other finally. End of story, and day.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> That's the problem, I have an answer for any question I can ask.
> 
> an interesting question:  since our brains evolved in a way that led to the development of a God concept, would it be reasonable to say that maybe it had and still has a use?
> 
> Is it possible that like choosing to be vegan, despite one's biology, psychology, physiology that being an atheist might do more harm than good? What are the benefits and downfalls of atheism?


I don't know that there are benefits to atheism. More free time on Sunday perhaps?

Downfalls?  Well being in the south, my thoughts run contrary to literally everyone I know. So much so I just have to keep my mouth shut and grin/grimace. I don't know why I feel the way I do, but I trust myself. Everyone else can stick it

By the way, just like most of you, I don't label myself atheist. I don't know what the answers are, but I ain't buying what they are peddling upstairs.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> That's the problem, I have an answer for any question I can ask.
> 
> an interesting question:  since our brains evolved in a way that led to the development of a God concept, would it be reasonable to say that maybe it had and still has a use?
> 
> Is it possible that like choosing to be vegan, despite one's biology, psychology, physiology that being an atheist might do more harm than good? What are the benefits and downfalls of atheism?





> What are the benefits and downfalls of atheism?


I can think of a serious downfall of Atheism (Agnostics too) if we are wrong 
Although that also depends on if they/we just sleep or go to he11 or get sizzled instantly or.......


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 24, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I can think of a serious downfall of Atheism (Agnostics too) if we are wrong
> Although that also depends on if they/we just sleep or go to he11 or get sizzled instantly or.......



Yes, but do you really think you are wrong?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 24, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Yes, but do you really think you are wrong?


This might be slightly dodging your question but -
At this point in our knowledge I dont think there is a "right or wrong".
Do I think there is a God (any of them)? No. I know of no evidence that even comes close to leaning toward the existence of a god particularly one that created the universe, us etc. 
Will I claim that Im right? No not at this point because its not a proven fact how the universe, us etc were created.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Aug 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think I ever implied that the evolution of the brain was specifically intended to invent God.   Evolution has no intent.  I understand that.
> 
> I thought that I made it pretty clear that when the hardware developed that the software could run thus the use of the word "allowed".
> 
> But I'm REALLY REALLY gonna not belabor the point anymore.



Evolution has no intent? So genetic adaptation is purely random and serves no purpose?

As if any of this has anything to do with "love".


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 25, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Evolution has no intent? So genetic adaptation is purely random and serves no purpose?
> 
> As if any of this has anything to do with "love".



Correct. Random mutations occur within a species and it either benefits, harms, or has no impact on survival ability and adaptation to the environment. If it benefits the individual those genes get passed down and the trait becomes more prolific. If it harms the individual then it dies out, sometimes before reproduction can occur. In humans we've kind of detached ourselves from all but the most severely crippling traits and had our own impact on our, and species within our control, evolution. Such as domesticated animals like dogs and livestock. 

Personally, I reserve the term evolution to apply exclusively to natural selection, rather than the guided efforts of man which would be intelligent selection. But that's just me.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Aug 25, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Correct. Random mutations occur within a species and it either benefits, harms, or has no impact on survival ability and adaptation to the environment. If it benefits the individual those genes get passed down and the trait becomes more prolific. If it harms the individual then it dies out, sometimes before reproduction can occur. In humans we've kind of detached ourselves from all but the most severely crippling traits and had our own impact on our, and species within our control, evolution. Such as domesticated animals like dogs and livestock.
> 
> Personally, I reserve the term evolution to apply exclusively to natural selection, rather than the guided efforts of man which would be intelligent selection. But that's just me.


Your definition covers genetic mutation, not genetic adaptation.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 25, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Your definition covers genetic mutation, not genetic adaptation.



Okay, what's an example of the latter?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Aug 25, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay, what's an example of the latter?



Adaptations occur solely for the benefit of the species survival within it's environment.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 25, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Adaptations occur solely for the benefit of the species survival within it's environment.



Adaptations don't occur across all members of a species simultaneously. That kind of statement takes a present-looking-back view of evolution. That to get here we had to do that...

That's not the way it works.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 25, 2015)

I could be missing something though, so that's why I'm asking, but every discussion on evolution I've ever heard was about random mutations causing certain traits that had unknown effects on survival ability until tested against nature. 

A polar bear, for example, was discussed as having randomly mutated a white fur color, as the original was brown when they still lived in more southerly latitudes, and those bears could out compete their brown relatives, thus the white fur gene was passed on where the brown was not.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 25, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I don't know what the answers are, but I ain't buying what they are peddling upstairs.




Always remember what Charlton Heston said about "upstairs":


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Personally I hope you pack your crap up and go somewhere else. We arent your guniea pigs.
> You are a dishonest piece of crap. I guess it didnt occur to you to just be honest up front about your agenda.
> This forum is for discussion and debate not your personal research.
> If I was a mod I would bounce you out of here faster than your ignorant head could spin.
> Now that you didnt find anybody stupid enough to swallow your nonsense surely your "testing" here is done and you will move along.



you are still in the "attack the messenger" mode.

When the argument looses strength , you attack anybody  you can, even your loved ones. don't you?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 25, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> you are still in the "attack the messenger" mode.
> 
> When the argument looses strength , you attack anybody  you can, even your loved ones. don't you?



Mods?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Aug 25, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Adaptations don't occur across all members of a species simultaneously. That kind of statement takes a present-looking-back view of evolution. That to get here we had to do that...
> 
> That's not the way it works.



Never said they did, in fact they occur in geographic areas to species that may be global but are indigenous to that particular areas environmental factors that other members of the species are not subject to in their particular locations. That in and of itself lends validity to the process.

But like I said earlier, this has exactly what? to do with love?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 25, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Yes, but do you really think you are wrong?



Maybe as an atheist or agnostic, you just do not have enough information? maybe the information , evidence, you have been given to make a decision has been wrong , rather not completely correct?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 25, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I should have been more forthcoming. I am only testing and noting the responses on this forum for my research.   I am only collecting information as to how to develop a more practical presentation of a larger series, a package, of teachings which are not  used in current "church" teachings. If I do not include those who do not believe in God, my presentations will be severely wanting. This exercise expected to find an extreme position here on this forum. But it hasn't, just another version of the same confusion found in "church" groups.
> 
> I understand their  actual worldview and their proclaimed worldview. The limited view is why they are here as Atheists/Agnostics. There are views, just different type but just as limited in all circles.
> 
> ...



How did we fair on the "God is Jesus, Jesus is God," "Jesus never claimed to be God" or "who condemned me" threads upstairs? 
Will you tell them soon of your experiment? 
Why did you choose or find the GON? You could try the Puritan forum, it looks pretty interesting.

http://www.puritanboard.com/


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 25, 2015)

I've done the church groups. I know what I am up against.

, Many , especially those that post on forums, are just as confused as this those on this forum, ya'll are choosing to believe a different set of facts to disbelieve,. They (many) do not know why  they believe the things they say.

Do you want to hear the complete scenario and see if it "plausible"?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 25, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I've done the church groups. I know what I am up against.
> 
> , Many , especially those that post on forums, are just as confused as this those on this forum, ya'll are choosing to believe a different set of facts to disbelieve,. They (many) do not know why  they believe the things they say.
> 
> Do you want to hear the complete scenario and see if it "plausible"?



Sure, could you start with your beliefs and what you base them on?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 25, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> you are still in the "attack the messenger" mode.
> 
> When the argument looses strength , you attack anybody  you can, even your loved ones. don't you?



Come on, man.  Uncool.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Come on, man.  Uncool.


It's fine. Now that I know what he is and what he's about Ive dismissed him.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Come on, man.  Uncool.



Walt's posts attack me long ago. 

I was expecting it much sooner.

I was asking a question about the others.

Didn't get an answer.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> It's fine. Now that I know what he is and what he's about Ive dismissed him.



you know very little about me, you dismiss things you do not like.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> This might be slightly dodging your question but -
> At this point in our knowledge I dont think there is a "right or wrong".
> Do I think there is a God (any of them)? No. I know of no evidence that even comes close to leaning toward the existence of a god particularly one that created the universe, us etc.
> *Will I claim that Im right? No not at this point because its not a proven fact how the universe, us etc were created.*



WaltL1 ,I want to thank you for this  line highlighted in bold print

I think this is the BEST and most real statement on this entire forum.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> It's fine. Now that I know what he is and what he's about Ive dismissed him.



 

We need to get that fishing trip on the calendar.  I'll skip deer hunting to catch a fish, btw.  Not limited to summer.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> We need to get that fishing trip on the calendar.  I'll skip deer hunting to catch a fish, btw.  Not limited to summer.



Let's book one of the striper charters, but I have to keep some fish to eat.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Let's book one of the striper charters, but I have to keep some fish to eat.



I'm in.  I know a decent fella who fishes out of Lanier.  My dad just caught 11 with him yesterday.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 25, 2015)

Sh may know a decent guide.....


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 25, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I'm in.  I know a decent fella who fishes out of Lanier.  My dad just caught 11 with him yesterday.



I've been talking to myself about doing it for a long time....


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 25, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Maybe as an atheist or agnostic, you just do not have enough information? maybe the information , evidence, you have been given to make a decision has been wrong , rather not completely correct?



What do you think the chances are that YOU are the one with the wrong information?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I've been talking to myself about doing it for a long time....



Well, I'm up for the trip.  It's fun when they are biting.  We can take it to pm or email to work out details.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 26, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> you know very little about me, you dismiss things you do not like.



Can you tell us a little more about yourself, this experiment, and how you arrived at this forum? 
How did we compare to the other religious forum sites you ran your experiment on?
When will you tell the guys upstairs on the Christian forums?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 26, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Never said they did, in fact they occur in geographic areas to species that may be global but are indigenous to that particular areas environmental factors that other members of the species are not subject to in their particular locations. That in and of itself lends validity to the process.
> 
> But like I said earlier, this has exactly what? to do with love?



I'm trying to understand your view point, that's all. It sounds like you're saying that the average environment can force adaptations, is that correct? I would agree with elements like radiation, but not with cold, or heat, or other flora or fauna. Everything short of radiation, based on what I've learned about evolution, merely allows an underlying trait to be exploited either for benefit or harm, and the environment decides if the adaptation is successful or not. 

There is an evolutionary benefit to feelings like love, or fear. They keep you away from danger, bonded to other individuals so that you have a better chance of survival on your own, and allow you to cooperate with others as is expressed in our overall social nature. We wouldn't be where we are, as a species, without the evolution of feelings like those. 

In the new _Cosmos_ series, there's a great little explanation about the first wolves to be less aggressive towards humans having an advantage over their other members. They got out of the cold, got fed more regularly, and as a result their "good" nature was passed down until they became dogs. Other wolves didn't need that, and were quite capable of surviving on their own in the remaining environment. That's why we have wolves AND dogs, where we don't have Neanderthals and homo sapiens. Neanderthals couldn't adapt to the changing environment as quickly as could homo sapiens, unlike wolves to dogs, so they faded into extinction. There are also fossil records of one species exterminating the other wherever they were found.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 26, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Sh may know a decent guide.....



It's hard to go wrong with any of the Lanier guides, but I know Jeff Blair has been killing them as of late. 

Speaking of which, I have one open seat for a night trip this Saturday if anyone is interested. Planning to meet up at 3 or so, head out to get bait from OBT, and then power reel until the sun goes down with downlining and bottom fishing for cats/stripers until we get too tired to stand while putting out a light for crappie at the same time. It may turn into an all night trip, but at the very least is a very late return home.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 26, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm trying to understand your view point, that's all. It sounds like you're saying that the average environment can force adaptations, is that correct? I would agree with elements like radiation, but not with cold, or heat, or other flora or fauna. Everything short of radiation, based on what I've learned about evolution, merely allows an underlying trait to be exploited either for benefit or harm, and the environment decides if the adaptation is successful or not.
> 
> There is an evolutionary benefit to feelings like love, or fear. They keep you away from danger, bonded to other individuals so that you have a better chance of survival on your own, and allow you to cooperate with others as is expressed in our overall social nature. We wouldn't be where we are, as a species, without the evolution of feelings like those.
> 
> In the new _Cosmos_ series, there's a great little explanation about the first wolves to be less aggressive towards humans having an advantage over their other members. They got out of the cold, got fed more regularly, and as a result their "good" nature was passed down until they became dogs. Other wolves didn't need that, and were quite capable of surviving on their own in the remaining environment. That's why we have wolves AND dogs, where we don't have Neanderthals and homo sapiens. Neanderthals couldn't adapt to the changing environment as quickly as could homo sapiens, unlike wolves to dogs, so they faded into extinction. There are also fossil records of one species exterminating the other wherever they were found.



I exclude radiation because it has been shown to damage DNA, like gamma bursts and other cosmic particles, and force a mutation rather than allow a congenital mutation to be expressed more passively. I just wanted to clarify.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 26, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm trying to understand your view point, that's all. It sounds like you're saying that the average environment can force adaptations, is that correct? I would agree with elements like radiation, but not with cold, or heat, or other flora or fauna. Everything short of radiation, based on what I've learned about evolution, merely allows an underlying trait to be exploited either for benefit or harm, and the environment decides if the adaptation is successful or not.
> 
> There is an evolutionary benefit to feelings like love, or fear. They keep you away from danger, bonded to other individuals so that you have a better chance of survival on your own, and allow you to cooperate with others as is expressed in our overall social nature. We wouldn't be where we are, as a species, without the evolution of feelings like those.
> 
> In the new _Cosmos_ series, there's a great little explanation about the first wolves to be less aggressive towards humans having an advantage over their other members. They got out of the cold, got fed more regularly, and as a result their "good" nature was passed down until they became dogs. Other wolves didn't need that, and were quite capable of surviving on their own in the remaining environment. That's why we have wolves AND dogs, where we don't have Neanderthals and homo sapiens. Neanderthals couldn't adapt to the changing environment as quickly as could homo sapiens, unlike wolves to dogs, so they faded into extinction. There are also fossil records of one species exterminating the other wherever they were found.



This is interesting.

http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/neanderthal-human-interbreed-dna.htm


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 26, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> This is interesting.
> 
> http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/neanderthal-human-interbreed-dna.htm



It is.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 26, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's hard to go wrong with any of the Lanier guides, but I know Jeff Blair has been killing them as of late.
> 
> Speaking of which, I have one open seat for a night trip this Saturday if anyone is interested. Planning to meet up at 3 or so, head out to get bait from OBT, and then power reel until the sun goes down with downlining and bottom fishing for cats/stripers until we get too tired to stand while putting out a light for crappie at the same time. It may turn into an all night trip, but at the very least is a very late return home.



I would definitely take you up on that, but me n the mrs are headed out of town for a quick weekend trip.  Otherwise, I would love to jump on the opportunity.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 26, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I would definitely take you up on that, but me n the mrs are headed out of town for a quick weekend trip.  Otherwise, I would love to jump on the opportunity.



No worries, some other time. Enjoy the trip with the Mrs.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 26, 2015)

FYI, if I ever hitch a ride, I always get the gas n bait.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 26, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> FYI, if I ever hitch a ride, I always get the gas n bait.



Paper/rock/scissors.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 26, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> What do you think the chances are that YOU are the one with the wrong information?



I am not saying that at all.  

I am just agreeing to what Waltl1 says.  It is prudent to wait for satisfactory proof, in any situation.

My acceptance level is different from yours.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 26, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> My acceptance level is different from yours.



So is your definition of proof.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 26, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> So is your definition of proof.



yes, sufficient proof would be the same as acceptance level


----------



## bullethead (Aug 31, 2015)

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8058740?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
This article sums up an atheist pretty well.


----------



## Bpruitt (Sep 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> when, you  love someone, you do not use the word "could have,"
> 
> You either love, or you don't. Love is unconditional



I don't agree,it's one of the most conditional things I can think of.


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 7, 2015)

That is not love, 

Real love might be heartbreaking, it may hurt but it is not conditional..

A relationship with a love one may not be possible to maintain, but not love it remains and is not conditional.

Ask the mothers of those prisoners who have disappointed them, did they stop loving.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 8, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> That is not love,
> 
> Real love might be heartbreaking, it may hurt but it is not conditional..
> 
> ...


Of course.
And ex-husbands and ex-wives all still love their ex-spouses too.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 8, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Of course.
> And ex-husbands and ex-wives all still love their ex-spouses too.



Love is not defined by a warm fuzzy feeling.Although that is often a by product of it.
It's also a by product of lust and infatuation too though.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Love is not defined by a warm fuzzy feeling.Although that is often a by product of it.
> It's also a by product of lust and infatuation too though.


That doesnt change the fact that a person can love someone and then for various reasons not love them any more.
Those various reasons are conditions.
It refutes this -


> love it remains and is not conditional.


----------



## fireman32 (Sep 8, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> That doesnt change the fact that a person can love someone and then for various reasons not love them any more.
> Those various reasons are conditions.
> It refutes this -



How does this square with the belief of prewired homo/heterosexuality?


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 8, 2015)

fireman32 said:


> How does this square with the belief of prewired homo/heterosexuality?


Two entirely different subjects.
Other than they both have "how your brain works" in common.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 8, 2015)

Fireman,
You're probably gonna have to ask the question and not allow so much wiggle room.He's a real slippery fellow.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Fireman,
> You're probably gonna have to ask the question and not allow so much wiggle room.He's a real slippery fellow.



I think Walts answer was dead on. Love and sexuality are not closely related.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Fireman,
> You're probably gonna have to ask the question and not allow so much wiggle room.He's a real slippery fellow.


Was there some other question he meant to ask?
I directly and factualy answered the question that was asked.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Fireman,
> You're probably gonna have to ask the question and not allow so much wiggle room.He's a real slippery fellow.


I get the feeling that fireman is capable of having an intelligent conversation and is able to understand the answers as given.
Walt is very to the point, if you think he is slippery it may be that you do not have the level of understanding it takes to fully comprehend the answers.
I am not saying that in a negative way. It is just that to many of us Walt's answers are easily understood yet your replies to his answers usually seem off track. Like marketgunner you seem to either totally avoid the direct answers given to you or take them in a direction that was not implied or intended. It is either ignorantly  intentional or because you do not understand.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 8, 2015)

fireman32 said:


> How does this square with the belief of prewired homo/heterosexuality?



What does this have to do with anything?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 8, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I get the feeling that fireman is capable of having an intelligent conversation and is able to understand the answers as given.
> Walt is very to the point, if you think he is slippery it may be that you do not have the level of understanding it takes to fully comprehend the answers.
> I am not saying that in a negative way. It is just that to many of us Walt's answers are easily understood yet your replies to his answers usually seem off track. Like marketgunner you seem to either totally avoid the direct answers given to you or take them in a direction that was not implied or intended. It is either ignorantly  intentional or because you do not understand.




I think it's semi-intentional.  I think they realize that if they agree with Walt that it will take them to places they can't deal with.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 8, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I think it's semi-intentional.  I think they realize that if they agree with Walt that it will take them to places they can't deal with.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 8, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Was there some other question he meant to ask?
> I directly and factualy answered the question that was asked.



I was more or less just trying to pull your chain,but it looks like I pulled the chains of all your posse members instead...bonus points.

but I am pretty hurt way down deep inside by bullet's ugliness,even though he claims it wasn't in a negative way(I know better)


----------



## welderguy (Sep 8, 2015)

660griz said:


> I think Walts answer was dead on. Love and sexuality are not closely related.



Sadly,in this day that we live in,I have to agree with you.But I don't believe it was originally designed that way.I believe sexuality was designed by God to be very intimate between a married man and woman who were in love with one another.
Sexuality has been perverted and exploited to such terrible extremes that the intimacy and love has been obscured drastically from it's original design.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I was more or less just trying to pull your chain,but it looks like I pulled the chains of all your posse members instead...bonus points.
> 
> but I am pretty hurt way down deep inside by bullet's ugliness,even though he claims it wasn't in a negative way(I know better)


That just goes to show that what I said about you is true. For whatever reason you take what is presented to you and give it a different meaning.


----------



## fireman32 (Sep 8, 2015)

Just comparing two supposedly unconditional things.  I don't think you can choose who you love, but you can choose to whom you give love.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 8, 2015)

fireman32 said:


> Just comparing two supposedly unconditional things.  I don't think you can choose who you love, but you can choose to whom you give love.


Whats the difference between loving someone and giving someone love?
By "giving someone love" do you mean sex?
If your answer is yes then I would ask -
Can you choose who you are attracted to or is all you know "yeah I think he/she is hot"?
And I dont think anything is "unconditional" when it comes to human thought, feelings, emotions etc. 
Its just a feel good phrase thats been proven false millions of times over.


----------



## Bpruitt (Sep 9, 2015)

Bpruitt said:


> I don't agree,it's one of the most conditional things I can think of.



I didn't even mean sex at all but yall prolly aint paying me no mind anyway.I'm just saying that if someone don't usually have your best interests at heart why would loving them even cross your mind?


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 9, 2015)

Bpruitt said:


> I didn't even mean sex at all but yall prolly aint paying me no mind anyway.I'm just saying that if someone don't usually have your best interests at heart why would loving them even cross your mind?



Did you say something?


----------



## welderguy (Sep 9, 2015)

Bpruitt said:


> if someone don't usually have your best interests at heart why would loving them even cross your mind?



Jesus did that very thing for His people. While we were His enemies, He loved us.It was an unconditional love.
And He's called us to do the same, even for our enemies.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Sadly,in this day that we live in,I have to agree with you.But I don't believe it was originally designed that way.I believe sexuality was designed by God to be very intimate between a married man and woman who were in love with one another.
> Sexuality has been perverted and exploited to such terrible extremes that the intimacy and love has been obscured drastically from it's original design.



Considering all of the sexually related laws presented in Leviticus, the perversion started a long time ago.

Do you see a difference between the sex God designed for man as compared to the sex God designed for plants and animals?

I don't really see a connection between sex and love but I do see a connection between love and marriage. If one is married then he should only have sex with his spouse as a condition of his love for his spouse.
It is out of love that a man shouldn't sleep with his neighbor's wife. Well that and the fact he might get shot.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Jesus did that very thing for His people. While we were His enemies, He loved us.It was an unconditional love.
> And He's called us to do the same, even for our enemies.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 9, 2015)

Nope, it's a construct by the Hallmark company in order to sell flowers, chocolates, and jewelry a few times a year.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 9, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Considering all of the sexually related laws presented in Leviticus, the perversion started a long time ago.
> 
> Do you see a difference between the sex God designed for man as compared to the sex God designed for plants and animals?
> 
> ...





> Do you see a difference between the sex God designed for man as compared to the sex God designed for plants and animals?


Man is classified as animals.
And like the vast majority of other animals we dont do well staying with just one partner.
US statistics -


> •Over 50% of first marriages end in divorce in less than 8 years
> •Marriage rates in the US are decreasing as divorce rates are increasing
> •60 % of all divorces happen to individuals aged 25 to 39
> •The divorce rate for second marriages is 65%
> •Over a 40 year period, 67 % of first marriages terminate


And its worth noting these numbers specify ALL marriages in the US. 
And Atheists represent less than 3% of the popluation in the US so ...........


----------



## welderguy (Sep 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> welderguy said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus did that very thing for His people. While we were His enemies, He loved us.It was an unconditional love.
> ...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Notice, I said "for His people".
> 
> Even His people are called to suffer and also die, often tragically. It doesn't mean He loves us any less.*The suffering draws us closer to Him*, and death ushers us right into His arms forever.



It amazes me that you guys don't see how this is the same line an abused spouse uses to justify staying with the abuser.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 9, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It amazes me that you guys don't see how this is the same line an abused spouse uses to justify staying with the abuser.



Utterly amazing......


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> WaltL1 said:
> 
> 
> > Notice, I said "for His people".
> ...


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 9, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It amazes me that you guys don't see how this is the same line an abused spouse uses to justify staying with the abuser.


The psychological circumstances are very similar -
1. Eliminate self worth - I am a sinner and not worthy
2. Promote fear - Believe in me or go to he11
3. Create dependency - without me you will fall apart and your life will suck
4. Isolation - our world vs the secular world
5.  Blame others for behavior - its man's fault I drowned them all
The list goes on.
The very definition of an abuser/abused relationship.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> welderguy said:
> 
> 
> > Unconditional
> ...


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 9, 2015)

> Originally Posted by welderguy
> You are absolutely right. God's love is conditional.Upon the condition of Jesus' blood.


Im sure that workaround makes you feel better but its obvious to us its just a workaround so you can avoid what is directly in front of your face.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> The psychological circumstances are very similar -
> 1. Eliminate self worth - I am a sinner and not worthy
> 2. Promote fear - Believe in me or go to he11
> 3. Create dependency - without me you will fall apart and your life will suck
> ...



I don't disagree with you, but I won't go so far as to call it that kind of relationship, unless one can be their own abuser by proxy, and I only say that because one specific God is of dubious existence. That's why I left it at saying that the statements are similar.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> WaltL1 said:
> 
> 
> > You are absolutely right.
> ...


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 9, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't disagree with you, but I won't go so far as to call it that kind of relationship, unless one can be their own abuser by proxy, and I only say that because one specific God is of dubious existence. That's why I left it at saying that the statements are similar.


Actually I remove "God" from the equation and am referring to the men who created the stories for indoctrination purposes ie the abusers.
Its the exact same format.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Actually I remove "God" from the equation and am referring to the men who created the stories for indoctrination purposes ie the abusers.
> Its the exact same format.



A fair point.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 9, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So He can have an unconditional love that is conditional. Brilliant!


We have to fix the quoting feature thats going on here. It makes it looks like Im the one who said that nonsense  -



welderguy said:


> > Quote:
> > Originally Posted by WaltL1
> >
> > You are absolutely right.
> > God's love is conditional.Upon the condition of Jesus' blood.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> We have to fix the quoting feature thats going on here. It makes it looks like Im the one who said that nonsense  -



I thought I did. My bad.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> WaltL1 said:
> 
> 
> > You are absolutely right.
> ...


----------



## 660griz (Sep 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> The psychological circumstances are very similar -
> 1. Eliminate self worth - I am a sinner and not worthy
> 2. Promote fear - Believe in me or go to he11
> 3. Create dependency - without me you will fall apart and your life will suck
> ...



Don't forget:
"Give me money."


----------



## 660griz (Sep 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What I should have said was God's love is not conditional upon anything we do, but IS conditional upon Jesus's blood.
> 
> Does that help you with your comprehension?



Got it the first time. God's love is conditional. 
Got it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What I should have said was God's love is not conditional upon anything we do, but IS conditional upon Jesus's blood.
> 
> Does that help you with your comprehension?



Only until we introduce the elect.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 9, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Only until we introduce the elect.



Why does that give you trouble?

Rom.9:11 says:
"For the children, being not yet born,neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calleth."

Then vs.13:
"As it is written, Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated."


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Why does that give you trouble?
> 
> Rom.9:11 says:
> "For the children, being not yet born,neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calleth."
> ...



Because these say nothing about Jesus, and speak specifically about just being called.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> welderguy said:
> 
> 
> > What I should have said was God's love is not conditional upon anything we do, but IS conditional upon Jesus's blood.
> ...


----------



## welderguy (Sep 9, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Because these say nothing about Jesus, and speak specifically about just being called.



Put it alongside John 3:16 and see what you come up with.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> welderguy said:
> 
> 
> > My comprehension was fine to begin with.
> ...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Put it alongside John 3:16 and see what you come up with.



And put that against this:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/21-32.html

And you get more jumbled. We're elect, but you have to come through Christ, but you also have to repent. 

Lastly, thank you, I've put the Bible to my own tests, that's why I'm agnostic.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The reason God flooded the whole earth is twofold.
> First, to demonstrate His fierce judgement on deserving wickedness. Second, to demonstrate His great grace to undeserving faithfulness.


You are wasting your time on here and at your job. Quit both and become a reverend. You seem to think that you know what a god wants and thinks and are able to interpret his actions and speak for him too.
I can't wait to see how successful you are.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The reason God flooded the whole earth is...



He made a mistake and wanted a do-over.


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 9, 2015)

The physical line was mostly contaminated, it wasn't a do over.

It corrected the mess the sinful spiritual beings had made with the physical.

This is humanism to believe man's existence was the ultimate of God's plans. It is a method to redeem sinners, not the end goal


----------



## fireman32 (Sep 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Whats the difference between loving someone and giving someone love?
> By "giving someone love" do you mean sex?
> If your answer is yes then I would ask -
> Can you choose who you are attracted to or is all you know "yeah I think he/she is hot"?
> ...



Nah, loves way deeper than sex.  I disagree with all love being unconditional.  I'm sure there are many instances that it is, but there are many that I've witnessed and am a part of that are unconditional.  One problem with it is, that unconditional love isn't always reciprocated, mother/ child for instance.
I don't think one person can define love for another, because its different for all people. 
I don't think you can choose who you're attracted to,  but you can know who deserves you.


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 12, 2015)

Love is love  , how it is redefined by individuals doesn't change the real definition.

REAL Love in Unconditional, to the sadness of many a parent with kids in trouble with drugs or in prison.. 

REAL love exists without being reciprocated.

REAL Love IS NOT SEX


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 12, 2015)

Real love is unconditional,  to the sadness of many a mother with kids in trouble with drugs or in prison.

Real Love unconditional , even if it is not reciprocated.

REAL love has nothing to do with sex

That is the trouble, many are desperately looking for love but settling for sex.

What was Tina Turner song?


----------



## 660griz (Sep 14, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Real love is unconditional,  to the sadness of many a mother with kids in trouble with drugs or in prison.



What about the kid that kills all of its siblings? Would the mother still love the remaining? I wouldn't.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 14, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Real love is unconditional,  to the sadness of many a mother with kids in trouble with drugs or in prison.
> 
> Real Love unconditional , even if it is not reciprocated.
> 
> ...


Websters has a dictionary and marketgunner has his own dictionary.
His differs greatly from the other proven and trusted source.


----------



## gemcgrew (Sep 14, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Websters has a dictionary and marketgunner has his own dictionary.
> His differs greatly from the other proven and trusted source.


Are you sure? Have you checked prior versions of Webster?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 14, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Are you sure? Have you checked prior versions of Webster?


Yes. Marketgunner makes up his own definitions to suit his skewed research.
I hope he tells his study group that his research is based off of his own made up definitions and his results reflect accordingly.


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Yes. Marketgunner makes up his own definitions to suit his skewed research.
> I hope he tells his study group that his research is based off of his own made up definitions and his results reflect accordingly.



nope, I know the meaning of love, real love,

you do not.

If you love with conditions or limitations, it is negotiation

Love is like a covenant,  not a contract.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 17, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> nope, I know the meaning of love, real love,
> 
> you do not.
> 
> ...


We have witnessed your knowledge in here. We know what we are dealing with.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 17, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> How can Atheist believe in love? The effects can be seen but not love itself, It is not rational either? Can love be real?



"Do atheist believe in love? ".  That's not the point.  the question is "Can atheist give a rational explanation for love?"  

You will find that atheist share many beliefs with Christians; morals, trust in their ability to reason, the belief in other beings outside of themselves, beauty, Justice, etc.  What you won't find is a rational explanation for how they justify believing these things given a naturalist/materialist framework, because there is none.

No one HERE is going to admit that of course.  All you're going to get here is denial, denigration, ad hominem arguments, straw men, etc. for the most part, but if you care to read what some intellectually honest atheist have to say on the subject start with Nagel, Hoyle, and maybe Davies.  Their critiques are well reasoned and a far cry from the ill conceived and shallow memes that for the most part dominate the atheist landscape today.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 17, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> "Do atheist believe in love? ".  That's not the point.  the question is "Can atheist give a rational explanation for love?"
> 
> You will find that atheist share many beliefs with Christians; morals, trust in their ability to reason, the belief in other beings outside of themselves, beauty, Justice, etc.  What you won't find is a rational explanation for how they justify believing these things given a naturalist/materialist framework, because there is none.
> 
> No one HERE is going to admit that of course.  All you're going to get here is denial, denigration, ad hominem arguments, straw men, etc. for the most part, but if you care to read what some intellectually honest atheist have to say on the subject start with Nagel, Hoyle, and maybe Davies.  Their critiques are well reasoned and a far cry from the ill conceived and shallow memes that for the most part dominate the atheist landscape today.


Many justified and rational reasons have been given. Examples were provided to back them up.
It is not anyone's in HERE fault that you totally ignore all the legitimate answers and then make untrue statements in order to give the impression that no one has shown you those legitimate answers.
Morals are not a shared belief. Morals are not a belief at all.  All the things you mention are evolutionary traits and have been shown to be the results of evolution multiple times by multiple people.
In order to point an intellectually honest finger at others you first have to be intellectually honest yourself. Try it sometime.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 18, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> "Do atheist believe in love? ".  That's not the point.  the question is "Can atheist give a rational explanation for love?"



Love -  Long term attachment. It is what allows people to raise families, which means that it is evolutionarily crucial, in a species such as ours, where long-term parental investment is vital for the survival and well being of the offspring. The chemistry here is dominated by oxytocin and vasopressin, and the duration is indefinite, ranging from several years to a lifetime.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 18, 2015)

660griz said:


> Love -  Long term attachment. It is what allows people to raise families, which means that it is evolutionarily crucial, in a species such as ours, where long-term parental investment is vital for the survival and well being of the offspring. The chemistry here is dominated by oxytocin and vasopressin, and the duration is indefinite, ranging from several years to a lifetime.



Isn't God's plan amazing?


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 18, 2015)

660griz said:


> Love -  Long term attachment. It is what allows people to raise families, which means that it is evolutionarily crucial, in a species such as ours, where long-term parental investment is vital for the survival and well being of the offspring. The chemistry here is dominated by oxytocin and vasopressin, and the duration is indefinite, ranging from several years to a lifetime.



I hate to burst your bubble, but love is a hindrance to procreation. Sometimes couples fall in love only to find out they can't procreate, but for love they stay together.

Lust is all that's needed for procreation. And I realize you said families are evolutionary crucial...I beg to differ.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 19, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I hate to burst your bubble, but love is a hindrance to procreation. Sometimes couples fall in love only to find out they can't procreate, but for love they stay together.
> 
> Lust is all that's needed for procreation. And I realize you said families are evolutionary crucial...I beg to differ.


Give some thought to what happens after procreation takes place in terms of education, health care, living in society, contributing in a positive way to that society, family unit strength etc etc.
On average, where/with who will the long term advantage lie?


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 19, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> "Do atheist believe in love? ".  That's not the point.  the question is "Can atheist give a rational explanation for love?"
> 
> You will find that atheist share many beliefs with Christians; morals, trust in their ability to reason, the belief in other beings outside of themselves, beauty, Justice, etc.  What you won't find is a rational explanation for how they justify believing these things given a naturalist/materialist framework, because there is none.
> 
> No one HERE is going to admit that of course.  All you're going to get here is denial, denigration, ad hominem arguments, straw men, etc. for the most part, but if you care to read what some intellectually honest atheist have to say on the subject start with Nagel, Hoyle, and maybe Davies.  Their critiques are well reasoned and a far cry from the ill conceived and shallow memes that for the most part dominate the atheist landscape today.



well said,

I wanted an atheist to explain to their spouse , how love is just a chemical reaction!


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> well said,
> 
> I wanted an atheist to explain to their spouse , how love is just a chemical reaction!



My wife is sensible and intelligent.  I don't need to explain such simple ideas to her.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> well said,
> 
> I wanted an atheist to explain to their spouse , how love is just a chemical reaction!


Love is an emotion.
We know where emotions come from.
Ones religious beliefs or lack there of and their wifes response doesnt change that fact.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> My wife is sensible and intelligent.  I don't need to explain such simple ideas to her.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 20, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> well said,
> 
> I wanted an atheist to explain to their spouse , how love is just a chemical reaction!



Infatuation is just a chemical reaction. 

Long term love speaks to individual fulfillment, companionship, friendship and shared experiences both good and bad. 

I don't love my wife because of dopamine. I love her because we've built something together that's much larger and deeper than that.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> My wife is sensible and intelligent.  I don't need to explain such simple ideas to her.



Beat me to it.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 21, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I hate to burst your bubble, but love is a hindrance to procreation.


 Read it again. Procreation not part of the definition.





> Sometimes couples fall in love only to find out they can't procreate, but for love they stay together.


 O.K. 



> Lust is all that's needed for procreation.


 Not even that. Much simpler. 


> And I realize you said families are evolutionary crucial...I beg to differ.


 Differ away. No need to beg.  
I may have said it but, I didn't just make up the answer out of thin air while smoking a fat one.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 21, 2015)

Why is all of the "Love" in this thread only centered around procreative relationships?
For the OP, the "Love" that was the greatest commandment in the Bible had nothing to do with procreation.
So are you questioning whether Atheist have the capacity to care for their fellow human being in a sympathetic compassionate manner?


----------



## welderguy (Sep 21, 2015)

Unbelievers do indeed love.I know this because of what Jesus said in John 15:19
"If ye were of the world,the world would love his own.But because ye are not of the world,but I have chosen you out of the world,therefore the world hateth you."

So,those of the world(the unchosen) do love others of the world.But are incapable of loving God,and in fact exhibit hatred toward things of God.

The OP's question was actually "do atheists believe in love".
I can't answer that for an atheist ,being myself theist.I would certainly hope they believe in love since they practice it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Unbelievers do indeed love.I know this because of what Jesus said in John 15:19
> "If ye were of the world,the world would love his own.But because ye are not of the world,but I have chosen you out of the world,therefore the world hateth you."
> 
> *So,those of the world(the unchosen) do love others of the world.But are incapable of loving God,and in fact exhibit hatred toward things of God.*
> ...



Prove that hatred, please.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Prove that hatred, please.



I've never witnessed any love for the things of God from an atheist.None.Only disregard,disrespect,disdain,and disbelief. That equates to hatred in my view.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I've never witnessed any love for the things of God from an atheist.None.Only disregard,disrespect,disdain,and disbelief. That equates to hatred in my view.



Disbelief = hatred for you. Got it.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I've never witnessed any love for the things of God from an atheist.None.Only disregard,disrespect,disdain,and disbelief. That equates to hatred in my view.



If by 'things of God', you mean religion, I do not hate religion. I just think it is obsolete and dangerous.
If you mean God, I cannot hate something that does not exist.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Disbelief = hatred for you. Got it.



What is your opinion of what is stated in John 15:19 then?

I present this question to 660Gris also.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What is your opinion of what is stated in John 15:19 then?
> 
> I present this question to 660Gris also.



It sounds a lot like what you posted. I am of this world and don't subscribe to an afterlife, and yet I don't hate you. 

Now, I did ask you to prove the hate earlier, and you just equated it with doubt and disbelief in your views. By the same standard, it could be said that you hate me because you doubt and don't believe in mine. Is that true?


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I've never witnessed any love for the things of God from an atheist.None.Only disregard,disrespect,disdain,and disbelief. That equates to hatred in my view.


Just curious -
If an Atheist doesnt believe a god exists do you actually think they are showing or feel disregard, disrespect, disdain towards that god?
Or what they believe to be the man made stories about that god?
Give it some thought.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It sounds a lot like what you posted. I am of this world and don't subscribe to an afterlife, and yet I don't hate you.
> 
> Now, I did ask you to prove the hate earlier, and you just equated it with doubt and disbelief in your views. By the same standard, it could be said that you hate me because you doubt and don't believe in mine. Is that true?



Thanks for not hating me.I don't hate you either.Perhaps neither of us are of this world.If so,that's great news,don't you think?


----------



## welderguy (Sep 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Just curious -
> If an Atheist doesnt believe a god exists do you actually think they are showing or feel disregard, disrespect, disdain towards that god?
> Or what they believe to be the man made stories about that god?
> Give it some thought.



It's not just the unbelief.It's the active opposition to things of God.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Thanks for not hating me.I don't hate you either.Perhaps neither of us are of this world.If so,that's great news,don't you think?



Perhaps neither of us are of the next world. There is an opposing possibility here.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It's not just the unbelief.It's the active opposition to things of God.


There are no "things of god" to an Atheist.
Their active opposition in this case is to this particular "thing of man".

Its like if you got some ballerina slippers for Christmas.
You going to direct your dissapointment, disdain, disapproval at Santa?
Or at the person who gave them to you? (assuming you didnt want ballerina slippers for Christmas).

My opinion here based on what you are saying -
You WANT to believe an Atheist hates God. 
Even though an Atheist just told you he cant hate something he doesnt believe exists.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> There are no "things of god" to an Atheist.
> Their active opposition in this case is to this particular "thing of man".
> 
> Its like if you got some ballerina slippers for Christmas.
> ...



Does an Atheist get stressed, anxious, angry when they can't be at a prescribed, important meeting on time? After all, time is only a gauge created by man. The universe cares not what happens and when.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 21, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Does an Atheist get stressed, anxious, angry when they can't be at a prescribed, important meeting on time? After all, time is only a gauge created by man. The universe cares not what happens and when.


Not sure I get your point.
But note I specifically said


> Their active opposition in this case is to this particular "thing of man".


There are things "of man" that we all agree/disagree with.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Perhaps neither of us are of the next world. There is an opposing possibility here.



Perhaps.My faith says differently though.

I wish you and I could discuss this faith with mutual understanding. A whole world of understanding would open up between you and I.Maybe someday.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Perhaps.My faith says differently though.
> 
> I wish you and I could discuss this faith with mutual understanding. A whole world of understanding would open up between you and I.Maybe someday.



Your faith says different. My experience says something else. I've experienced death, and there was nothing on the other side. No lights, no voices, nothing. Just a void in the time between consciousness. Like dreamless sleep where you're aware that time has moved on, but you've got no yardstick to say how much has passed. I was here, I was out, and then I was back with the doctors telling me I had died. 

Again, you presume that I don't understand it. I can assure you that's not the case. I understand it very well, but my experience has shown me that A) at the very least we've got a flawed understanding of it in religion, or B) that there is nothing to have faith in. I've listened to sermons with the same themes you hear now, I've gone to Bible School and Sunday school and varying worship services of many denominations. I've been to Pentecostal, Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, non-denominational, Church of God and outdoor services held by individuals. I've read the passages, investigated their meaning, and shared my thoughts with others. I've even traced the lineage of religions from around the world, compared and contrasted them, and look at what they promise versus what they can be assured to deliver. 

I didn't lose my faith because of laziness. I didn't lose my faith out of hate, or fear, or to be trendy. I lost my faith because I can't abide a God who is all powerful working in media like cancer, and ripping children from their father to have them wind up in a threatening household where they are traumatized by death threats, held under the thumb of a "mother" who only wants them for what they can be used to extort money and resources from others. It's one thing to speak in abstracts like Him killing the world via flood because they were wicked, it's something else entirely to speak of Him working in mysterious ways when your innocent, young children are made to suffer. 

You've accepted the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. You then proceed to quote it like it's the only book out there with those messages, tone, and promise. It's not. That's why we can't speak on common ground, because I've seen just how many religions have those same common themes and parables, and rather than seeing it as justification for one, I see it as justification for none. The message is the same because the people are the same and the desire is the same. To get an ancient and simple people to not be afraid of the uncontrollable. To give them a glimmer of hope to keep their heads up and keep moving forward in their lives rather than confront a difficult possibility. I don't hate it, I don't denigrate it, and I don't have problems with people who want to believe it. 

I do have problems with pointing to one book, whose only credibility derives from itself and the belief of the person reading it, and holding it up as perfectly factual. I could pick up any work of fiction, amend it to include a passage about it saying that it is the word of what actually happened, and then espouse my personal belief in it and be on equally proven factual footing with the Bible. I do acknowledge that I might be wrong, but looking at the facts that we can be sure about, and that we can demonstrate to each other we can say:
1) It's a book.
2) It was written by man.
3) The book claims itself as factual evidence of something.
4) I believe it to be true. 

Those 4 criteria are the only justification for the Bible being the inerrant word of God, just the same as my Star Wars novel being the inerrant word of Skywalker. Those novels also have themes about perseverance, adherence to a moral code, tragedy tales, the consequences of immoral behavior, and a hope to be something better than we are now. 

Jonah and the whale could be equal to Boba Fett and the sarlacc. Note the could be. I'm not saying they are. I'm saying that for what we could prove to each other, they could be equals.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Your faith says different. My experience says something else. I've experienced death, and there was nothing on the other side. No lights, no voices, nothing. Just a void in the time between consciousness. Like dreamless sleep where you're aware that time has moved on, but you've got no yardstick to say how much has passed. I was here, I was out, and then I was back with the doctors telling me I had died.



As have I, and my experience was completely different. 
The question within the divergence of the two experiences which should be of great concern should be; was that a result of "non-believer" vs "believer"? or just a coincidence?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 21, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> As have I, and my experience was completely different.
> The question within the divergence of the two experiences which should be of great concern should be; was that a result of "non-believer" vs "believer"? or just a coincidence?



What proof is there of either actually happening? The only thing we could prove to each other is that we were both passed. 

That's not the only question. Another would be to ask what an fMRI looked like when we were in that state, and what chemical reactions were taking place? 

As much as I acknowledge, and I do, that I might not have been dead "enough" to experience what you did, you should be willing to acknowledge that your brain made all that up as it was shutting down. At least I think you would, if one wants to be honest with themselves.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 21, 2015)

I guess, welder, if you wanted to approach common ground and speak about God, let's leave the Bible out of it and speak about our experiences with Him.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> What proof is there of either actually happening? The only thing we could prove to each other is that we were both passed.
> 
> That's not the only question. Another would be to ask what an fMRI looked like when we were in that state, and what chemical reactions were taking place?
> 
> As much as I acknowledge, and I do, that I might not have been dead "enough" to experience what you did, you should be willing to acknowledge that your brain made all that up as it was shutting down. At least I think you would, if one wants to be honest with themselves.


It is a conundrum of endless proportion of which the true answer will be discovered only once, that is the only certainty in this debate.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 21, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> It is a conundrum of endless proportion of which the true answer will be discovered only once, that is the only certainty in this debate.



Yes, sir. The rest is individual belief, and nothing more. 

I'm fine with living in a random universe.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm fine with living in a random universe.



You do so love fomenting topics for new debate don't you?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 21, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> You do so love fomenting topics for new debate don't you?



What? 

It's related. I don't know if there is a God, but I do believe in a random universe with random happenings. Mainly because I can see it...


----------



## welderguy (Sep 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I guess, welder, if you wanted to approach common ground and speak about God, let's leave the Bible out of it and speak about our experiences with Him.



Not trying to diminish your experience at all.And acknowledging that I know very little about the medical field,I believe that when a person truly dies,his spirit is immediately taken from this earth.When doctors pronounce someone dead,it's because the physical body has shut down.That's all they can monitor.They can't monitor the spirit.If the spirit has not left the body,then the person was not actually dead.
"For it is appointed for man once to die,and then the judgement."


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Not trying to diminish your experience at all.And acknowledging that I know very little about the medical field,I believe that when a person truly dies,his spirit is immediately taken from this earth.When doctors pronounce someone dead,it's because the physical body has shut down.That's all they can monitor.They can't monitor the spirit.If the spirit has not left the body,then the person was not actually dead.
> "For it is appointed for man once to die,and then the judgement."



There was research done on the soul with dying people. Something about a different energy level after death than what could be explained by the processes of the body. 

I can't recall where or when I saw it, but if you feel like googling it should still be there.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 22, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There was research done on the soul with dying people. Something about a different energy level after death than what could be explained by the processes of the body.



So,by this,are you saying you believe there is a spirit\soul that inhabits the body? And upon death this spirit\soul leaves the body?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 22, 2015)

welderguy said:


> So,by this,are you saying you believe there is a spirit\soul that inhabits the body? And upon death this spirit\soul leaves the body?



No, I said research was done on it and that I found it intriguing when I saw it, if inconclusive. 

I believe in eternal "life" through living memory. My passed family members live on through me, and those I pass their lessons/memories on to. There may be more, there may be nothing, I just don't know.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 22, 2015)

Gotcha.


----------

