So if atheists don't include unprovable concepts that we experience everday, do they believe in love?

Question

Love would be completely meta-physical in it's truest definition
What about anything that involves description of character. Believe in motivation, adventure, self-worth, anything, since none of them can be proved on paper and logic.
Hmm.
Still doesn't mean god exists though, that isn't the implication here. Let's take we we have here and that exclusively.

Explain it then?

I'm not saying I believe in god, that's not the point. I believe in afterlife but that's all I'm going to reveal.

Answer 1

There are several very thorough, accurate and comprehensible definitions for love. I have yet to find even ONE definition of "god" that is coherent in the least bit. To say "god exists" has the same meaning to me as "unie exists". Both concepts are nonsensical and therefore devoid of meaning, purpose or usefulness and must be assumed to be nothing more than wordplay until a satisfactory definition is provided.

Answer 2

Love is not metaphysical. It is an emergent behavior of the brain and can be explained in evolutionary terms.

-------

For simplicity, we will begin with early reptiles which did not stay near their eggs.

As reptiles become larger, clutch sizes become smaller, meaning a higher risk that there will be infant mortality. Some of these reptiles totally left the area and the eggs were on their own. Other reptiles, simply by virtue of ecology, were tethered to the general area -- it was their home turf. Now if momma's hungry, which momma is more likely to kill something trying to disturb the eggs?

So right there you have a selective pressure towards staying close to the eggs, and the beginning of an attractive instinct. This isn't quite love yet.

Fast forward a bit. Animals have evolved a bit more, but the specifics aren't important. The selective pressure remained valid for many species, especially these newer species called mammals. Their clutch sizes are nothing compared to reptilian clutches. So you end up with two mothers, one who hangs around until the offspring is developed enough to fend for itself, and one who does the same but, by same virtue of chaotic drift in the fractal pattern of the brain, shows the slightest nurturing behavior. Perhaps licking the placental matter off the infant to recover much needed nutrients, that cleans the child inadvertently. Which one do you think will more likely survive? The one covered in a perfect medium for bacterial growth, or the one that has been cleaned?

You now have not only attraction now, but nurturing.

Fastforward a bit more. You start to find mammalian species that have begun to live in groups. The old fashioned mating ritual now starts to take on new meaning -- there is an instinctive concept of 'nurture' (not itself emotional) that interacts with the mating ritual. The mating rituals have evolved on their own as indicators of genetic fitness.

So this attraction becomes a group-nuturing experience. Case in point -- the alpha male & female of a pack of wolves; they breed, everyone else helps. And this makes evolutionary sense. Since everyone of them is closely related, they share many genes in common. Remember, evolution doesn't care one BIT about the individual EXCEPT as a carrier of genetic material. If one of these wolves now sacrifices itself fending off an attacking bear from injuring the puppies, even if he or she was not a parent, the genes they carry, most of them at least, are alo in the puppies. Lose one adult, gain quite a few potential adults. The pack genetically comes out ahead.

You now have formal altruism.

Fastforward a bit, cognition comes along. All of a sudden, we can experience this urge to altruism and reaction to mating appropriateness as an awareness as opposed to an instinct.

The emotion of love evolved, and the roots of it started wayyyyyy back in the earliest reptiles.

Answer 3

"Love would be completely meta-physical in it's truest definition"

Truest definition? You mean your own made-up definition, then, and not an actual agreed upon definition. You can't prove a point by making up your own definition for a word. Love is not meta-physical.

Answer 4

Wow. i'm so happy D.A.M. defined my thoughts to me - i might by no skill have generic that i'm getting triumph over with rage and my anger has no bounds - and that Christians are lots greater advantageous than me. magnificent, considering i've got considered greater Christians fly off the cope with - here and in actual existence - than I even have ever considered atheists or different non secular human beings do. yet i could stay in an decision reality or fantasy international, reason D.A.M. informed us how all Christians are. unusual, here i thought we've been all human, all protecting an identical power of feeling, of pastime, selection of thoughts. happy I have been given an coaching. Now, can somebody tel me the thank you to income unbounded anger? reason it would in all probability help me shop from protecting my thoughts in lots that I reason myself actual ailment. after all, D.A.M. says it is the way i'm meant to be, and that i particular would not prefer to enable her down.

Answer 5

I don't think you got the idea. The point is not to be manipulated by unprovable concepts into doing things we suspect to be against us. So, we don't believe in churches, because they have a long history of manipulation and brainwashing. Love does in a way 'brainwash' you. But it's usually for your own benefit. So, who cares?

Answer 6

What you are talking about are not things. They are concepts that humans have created and defined and, thus, do not exist outside of the human definition of them. We are taking observations of behavior and assigning a word to them. Without the observations (i.e. something that exists), then there would be nothing to name. As the creator, we humans have actually dictated these concepts into existence.

God was supposedly here before humans, thus his existence is not dependent on a human definition. So, we should be able to show that he exists outside of human dictation of what he is.

Answer 7

I'm trying my best to follow your line of reasoning. I have to admit that I'm stumped.
I love my wife more than I can describe, and tell her so many many times every day. Also, I'm a non-believer. Are you suggesting that I should believe in God because I love my wife, or that I should not love my wife because I"m a non-believer.
Please explain what one thing has to do with the other.

Answer 8

It's the result of our physiology filtered through the context of the self... very simple. There is nothing supernatural about love.

Answer 9

The need to propagate the species is innate and has to do with pheromones. There is nothing metaphysical about this.

Answer 10

I don't believe in love, but it has nothing to do with being an atheist.