English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

This is a question I have been asked recently, and in all honesty I'm not really sure, so I thought I'd throw it out for some input on what you think.
We obviously reject the notion of God based on reason, and empirical scientific data failing to provide us with any proof.

Now when it comes to us as physical human beings we can explain things like attraction, and natural sexual instincts.
But what is love? I and many atheists I know would declare ourselves either in love, or to have been in love at some point. So how do we account for our "belief" in a concept which has no real proof?
The accusation is that love is just a feeling, or a notion, upon which I should not base any sensible thought or action when it can't be proved.
Part of the argument is that what happens when we are in love can be recreated through endorphins/serotonin, even chocolate! If it's just a chemical reaction shouldn't we dismiss love in a similar way to we dismiss faith?

Your ideas will be appreciated..

2007-11-27 06:27:59 · 16 answers · asked by johnny q 1 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

thanks for some great answers - apart from elmjunbu who is simply idiotic in his assumption that i am a religious nut. sorry for asking a question posed to me sir!

2007-11-27 07:40:03 · update #1

16 answers

You touched on some of it yourself. Our bodies respond to things in similar ways. I will use the following as an example:

Physiologically, a person's body responds to the "stress" of a divorce in the same way it responds to the "stress" of planning a wedding. Training, societal norms, and our perception of what is happening is what causes us to label the event in regard to emotion.

This seems to lend some credence to why, after we have fallen out of love, so to speak, we look back on it and say we were never really in love in the first place.

I do think it is more involved than that... I think there is "something" else that plays a role. But, from a text book, strictly biological and/or psychological perspective(s), this is what I have to offer. :)

2007-11-27 06:36:38 · answer #1 · answered by Trina™ 6 · 2 1

Do you already know the be conscious rational? What do you advise with the help of "Atheist ideals" first of all, the be conscious Rational. a million. agreeable to reason; useful; sensible: (what's sensible a pair of magical sky daddy? fairly one that is non-corporal, invisible, and for which there is not any info in any respect?) There are schizophrenics in hospitals that have ideals like this and we don't call them rational. What do you regard as Atheist ideals. Atheists have not got any shared ideals. Atheists do not attack faith. If the religion is being attacked, you're coping with an anti-theist and not an atheist. The anti-theist usually regards faith as a adverse. The atheist in basic terms would not have faith in faith. Atheists are people who do not have faith in faith. What they do have faith in is up for grabs. I have no concept in any respect what you seek advice from once you assert "Atheist ideals." Atheism is a reaction to the Christian undeniable fact that 'God Exists." The atheist asks, the place is your info or what info do you have. The christian can provide not something and so the atheist responds, "i don't have faith." to assert that :not perception is an identical element as perception could be like calling somebody a "non-stamp collector" because of the fact they did not assemble stamps. it somewhat is stupid. something of your rant is tries at justification. this would not tutor god would not exist and that would not tutor that god would not exist. You leave out the ingredient completely. What achievable reason will we could assert that God does exist? you have 5000 years of contradictions, around logic, and arguments consistent with fallacies. There at the instant are not any arguments for the existence of a God that have not been proved to be consistent with unsuitable assumptions or around logic. no person has to tutor that a God would not exist. you have made the fact, the place is your info.

2016-10-02 04:47:45 · answer #2 · answered by demosthenis 4 · 0 0

I think a lot of what "Love" is... is actually made from social construction.

Since we were little kids we were always told that we would grow up and fall in love. It's something I think we all kind of expect in a way.... but we don't know WHAT to expect, this is why "Love" is in the eye of the beholder. This is also why many people never think they have really fallen in love.

When we are in a relationship we sort of decide when we have fallen in love or not. Weither the person has fit your "in love" expectations or if you just decided you were in love one day.

What I consider love, you might not. We can all agree that it has something to do with liking someone intensely. But that's all it could be. We just need to call it love... because society puts pressure on us all to be in love with someone. Look at Valentines Day!

Believing in "God" is totally different. That has to do with having blind faith. People have more of an expectation of love than a faith, as I see it. Attraction just goes along with love. This is what separates someone from a friend and someone you want to simply have sex with. You can have both is one person, that's what helps make successful relationships.

2007-11-27 06:54:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

depends on how you define 'love' - it's just a word and we all use it differently in different contexts - you love your mom, you love your gf? the same? ewwww

same thing with being IN love - people use THAT in all sorts of ways too.

still - check out the history of science...all the good stuff comes from hunches, the dreaded f-word - feelings!!! scientific method is just that - a method that is pretty good at sorting useful from not useful, and you can apply it to almost everything! but u can't disprove something that isn't definable, measurable - so you can no more disprove or prove love than you can disprove or prove the existence of god. agnosticism is the scientific approach - atheism is an inductively supportable opinion, but it's not deductively true. why? cos you can't define what people mean when they say god...or love!

=)

2007-11-27 06:44:02 · answer #4 · answered by mlsgeorge 4 · 2 0

Love may be nothing but the recognition of a preference for what evokes pleasant physical or psychological responses. I am more of an agnostic than an atheist, because atheism is an affirmative belief that there is no god, while agnosticism is the acknowledgement that one does not know whether there is a god.

2007-11-27 07:13:33 · answer #5 · answered by Captain Atom 6 · 1 1

Love has many physical characteristics that are measurable. However these arguments, which you have stated, are not a complete measure of love.

Love, or the concept, is not unlike any other emotion in that it serves to provide as a barometer for us to measure and assess the world around us. Along with that, it is also a work in progress. Just as our intellect is still evolving, so too is our emotional awareness.
To dismiss any aspect of our existence 'out-of-hand' is to detract from what we honestly are.

Just my opinion.

2007-11-27 06:37:24 · answer #6 · answered by Gee Whizdom™ 5 · 1 1

Good Atheist (I am an Agnostic/Heretic) and posit this question to you: Can an Atheist have faith? I posit that they can...many if not all the Atheists I know have faith in humanity (regardless of how misplaced that may be). Also if your love for someone reflects in physical activity (sex) than the love has proof. Of course there are always baser instincts at work, but sex for the pure pleasure and closeness isn't impossible...and it usually reflects love. PEACE!

2007-11-27 07:35:04 · answer #7 · answered by thebigm57 7 · 1 1

Not right! There are endless proves that love exists. Have you ever thought about one person all day long? And when you go to the supermarket you just can´t help but buying something for her, or when you walk by a jewelry store you stop to look a the window and think "She/He would love that" Or when that person is sick you run to help her feel better, or when that person feels down you get all concerned, or when something good happens to you you just can´t wait to tell that person, or when people decide to spent their lives together, or... A million examples here boy. Well, THAT is love, and we get touched by it in many many ways (Thanks God for it) The God thing is different. You just don´t get to see his work as clearly as you can see love´s one! That is why there are some who don´t believe in Him, but there will always be romantics.

2007-11-27 07:19:17 · answer #8 · answered by Yabran Tariga 5 · 0 3

WOW. I was thinking of the exact same thing today! How do we know when a crush becomes a love? I'm going to take my own guess: love is something that lasts forever. You may not remain in love, but if you are unable to deny to yourself what you felt, it was love.

It may also be a strong attachment to something, like a child to her mother. It's usually a feeling that cannot be questioned: it's presence should be enough.

2007-11-27 07:59:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

We as Humans are social animals we not only crave the satisfaction of lust but of emotions too. When we have met someone who has in some way matched our lustful and emotional desires we are content or in zen "Whole." To ignore these we often corrupt our nature which in turn leaves us unbalanced leading to darker feeling such as depression, hopelessness, and/or loneliness.

As for the chemical aspect, humans have found (in my opinion) too many drugs to simulate feelings. A good example is a soldier coming back from war and becoming an alcoholic. By drinking he tricks his mind into thinking that he is getting over his grief but in reality it is becoming worse and the alcohol is only naming it in the short term.

2007-11-27 06:49:18 · answer #10 · answered by Marcus M 2 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers