Atheist's need to think about it?

Question

Can you see love? Can you touch it? Can you correspond with it? No, but evidently, it's there is it not? You can definantly feel it. Atheists should understand that God is no different. You cannot see him, nor touch him, nor correspond with him (in the literal sense), but you can feel his presense if you want to. I'm not talking about imaginary crazyness or pretending, I'm talking about actually feeling the presence of God, or a Divine Being. Take away the Bible, the Church, the Commandments, and anything documented as a religious article, and just focus on the essence of a Divine Being. Can you not feel it, even at least sometimes? Can you not combine love and God into one, because they are essentially the same thing. People get so stuck up in trying to force the image and likliness of God that eventually, it sounds like an absurd story. Atheists, don't dismiss the presence of anything. Just because we can't see it (ex. love) doesn't mean it's not there.

Phoenix, yes, it is possible to see emotions, but it is not possible to see love. Seeing love through emotions is not the same through seeing the essence of love. Therefore, you are kinda stupid. Cheers!

Same goes to you Vishal. Yes, we can see chemicals, but not the essence of love. It's not a hard concept.

xbutterfly, rant? You really think chemicals produced in the brain is the essence of love? You people make me sick....how do you even survive through a holiday?

Patriot, the apostrophe was my bad. I posted it before I could change it.

Krypton, quite right my friend. I fooled you all by coming from a Christians point of view. I'm actually quite agnostic, but the probability of God I never abstain from.

Nadine, that's because most of you are demonstrating lack of love. Not a hard concept either. Cheers to you!

Answer 1

I am an atheist, but find you description of God compelling. Sometimes when I am quite, I wonder what the breeze is saying to me. It is like I am listening to a thing said so softy that it can not be fully grasp.

It saddened to see many of my fellow atheists believe that poetry is part of the price of reason.

Answer 2

Love has been well documented as activity in the brain using MRI. It, like other emotions have a biological basis.

Now, do you believe in unicorns? Why not? No evidence is often a good reason not to believe in something.


EDIT:
If you have evidence that love is anything other than something produced by the brain, let us know.

Remember that scientists can create these feelings in someones brain just by stimulating them (with electrodes) in the right place.

Answer 3

Actually, that's not a bad definition, when you look at the properties of love as best we know them: Love is all in your head, it has no objective existence. Love is not a person - it has no thoughts, no ideals, and no personality of its own. Love is generally claimed to be a good thing, but people often do some very nasty and evil things in the name of love. Love did not create the world, did not create people, etc. Hrm. Now just replace the word 'love' with the word 'god' in the above sentences about love, and you will see that saying that 'God is love' is actually a statement of strong atheism

Answer 4

You could use the same logic to infer that Santa Claus is real since so many Children feel the lesson and adhere to the naughty or nice lesson.

And things like love and God can be seen as emotions made by synapses in the brain. But it doesn't mean that there is an external fairy thing causing your brain to feel love, it is internal.

Answer 5

This is one of the most annoying things about believers. I doubt that you meant to do this, but you come here with an old, invalid argument that seems to assume that atheists haven't thought about these things, and you post it with a heading that suggests that you think you're giving us something new to think about. Then on top of that, you misuse the possessive apostrophe.

In other words, you haven't thought much about religion, and some simple idea pops into your head, and you assume that we haven't gotten past this ages ago, and you run right to the internet and post it. From our point of view, this is as though you just read your first "Dick and Jane" book and ran right to the Nobel Prize committee to insist that it deserves the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Oh, and now you've come back calling people "stupid". Kid, you should learn to behave yourself properly in the presence of your superiors.

Answer 6

Love is the byproduct of a bunch of neurochemicals your brain pumps out. The same thing can be felt by eating large quantities of chocolate.

But simply because you can't see it doesn't mean it's automatically supernatural. I can't see the wind but I feel it on my face when I go outside. Or are you saying that because I can't see it, it automagically comes from gawd?

Answer 7

Thank you for your nonsensical rant. The concept of love can be explained by chemicals in the brain. This is not a valid argument for the existence of god.

Answer 8

Well I was going to answer and tear you apart for your illogical argument and obvious fallacies in the argument. But it appears as though you already have been torn apart quite a bit. Im not even an athiest and I can tell you this argument sucks.

Answer 9

This is called the God of the gaps logic. See, your substituting one gap which is,"you cant see love," for another gap, "you cant see god," and its quite obvious that this particular God is your God and no other. See the mistake you make now? Now, what if I say that you cant see love so believe in Thor? Does that make sense?

Answer 10

The chemical reactions in one's brain that leads to the feeling of love can be observed.

EDIT:
The point is that the factors that cause one to see love are replicable. Using the right chemical reactions, we could induce a feeling of love.

Your claim that the physical aspects of love being somehow qualitatively different from the "feeling" and therefore insufficient as an observational tools sounds very similar to substance dualism, a philosophically indefensible position.