Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Then we are ALL CHRISTIAN

This whole argument about Jesus being the Embodyment or Personification of Love has a major loophole.

WE HAVE ALL EXPERIENCED LOVE IN SOME FORM, AND WE ALL POSSESS IT. WE ALL POSSESS THE CAPABILITIES OF LOVE, IT IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO CHRISTIANITY....

So please....Conservative Fundmentalist Christians, please stop claiming that LOVE is only a Christian thing, because LOVE has existed way before Christianity and it exists WITHOUT CHRISTIANITY...

Love is independent of any religion...Love is NOT A PERSON, it is a FORCE that we ALL HAVE ACCESS TO AND EQUAL ABILITY TO POSSESS AND SHARE.


Like I said....if Jesus TRULY IS LOVE PERSONIFIED, then we ALL HAVE JESUS WITHIN US BECAUSE WE ALL LOVE......in some way, shape, or form.

So please..minds like JIA and Sonnet who claim that those who are not Christians do not know the meaning of love, ENOUGH of that horse-half ass ignorance !

I do thank you guys for inspiring this thread, however.

Thoughts ?

Here's one, what is love? Because to me love doesn't exist. It's as real as god itself.

Just my opinion.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Here's one, what is love? Because to me love doesn't exist. It's as real as god itself.

Just my opinion.

Love is the caring for someone else more then your self.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Love is the caring for someone else more then your self. But that's not natural. Animals have the natural instinct to care and protect your self over everyone else.

Originally posted by lord xyz
But that's not natural. Animals have the natural instinct to care and protect your self over everyone else.

True love is not natural. True love comes from the Buddha within each of us.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
True love is not natural. True love comes from the Buddha within each of us. Okay, that statement is as meaningful to me, as christians saying love comes from Jesus.

Unless that was supposed to be a joke. If so, lol.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Okay, that statement is as meaningful to me, as christians saying love comes from Jesus.

Unless that was supposed to be a joke. If so, lol.

OK, I will try to help you. Take a little time, like a hour, and sit in a quiet dark room. Try to still all of your thoughts, and think about nothing. You will find that this is difficult to do, but don't give up. You could chant a chant or look at a candle flame. What you are looking for is a very deep part of yourself that knows what you should do. That part of you is your Buddha nature. Look for it, and find it, then you will understand what I am talking about. This is real, not fiction like Christianity.

Originally posted by lord xyz
But that's not natural. Animals have the natural instinct to care and protect your self over everyone else.

You are actually wrong here....

Mother Lions have fought to the death to protect thier children.

There is a type of sea creature, a mother who dies giving birth to her children...they literally eat her out at time of birth.

Human Beings have proven to be capable of Love and Hate. I find it very sad that you have had no experience with it, and therefore have no beleif in its existance.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
True love is not natural. True love comes from the Buddha within each of us.

I disagree with you for once.

True Love is natural, because it is not a choice and occurs without our consent.

True Love is not just a human quality...it exists within animals as well, and I am pretty sure they are unware of thier inner "Buddha"

Originally posted by lord xyz
But that's not natural. Animals have the natural instinct to care and protect your self over everyone else.

To quote Joseph Campbell:

Survival is only the second rule of our existence.
The first is that we are all one.


...

Also, speaking to the "Buddha" in each of us isn't like talking about Jesus. Jesus was another being seperate from us. Buddha refers to the state of buddha-hood within each of us. It's not a person, it's a level of consciousness. So that's what shakya was saying, not trying to get you to identify with a historical figure.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, I will try to help you. Take a little time, like a hour, and sit in a quiet dark room. Try to still all of your thoughts, and think about nothing. You will find that this is difficult to do, but don't give up. You could chant a chant or look at a candle flame. What you are looking for is a very deep part of yourself that knows what you should do. That part of you is your Buddha nature. Look for it, and find it, then you will understand what I am talking about. This is real, not fiction like Christianity. 1. I don't believe in Buddha, nor would I do something meaningless and time wasting.
2. You saying that your religion is true, but another religion is fake is just as bad as JIA.
3. You're sounding like a fundamentalist.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I disagree with you for once.

True Love is natural, because it is not a choice and occurs without our consent.

True Love is not just a human quality...it exists within animals as well, and I am pretty sure they are unware of their inner "Buddha"

Well, I was using the term unnatural to get a point across. I also disagree, most animals are a lot closer to their Buddha nature then humans.

Originally posted by lord xyz
1. I don't believe in Buddha, nor would I do something meaningless and time wasting.

Meaningless? You mean like speaking ? I find most of your posts a waste of time....


Originally posted by lord xyz
2. You saying that your religion is true, but another religion is fake is just as bad as JIA.


WRONG Shaky is not telling you how to live your life. He is not condemning you either. He is simply trying to share his discovery with you.

JIA, on the other hand, wants you to throw away everything you learned on your own, close your mind, and blindly beleive something he has no proof of.

Shaky wants you to discover what he discovered for yourself, so that you don't HAVE to blindly take in what he says.



Originally posted by lord xyz
3. You're sounding like a fundamentalist.



If Athiesm had fundamentalists, you my freind would be the first....

You display consistant and almost intentional ignorance, close mindedness, and solid beleif in the non existance of anything you cannot SEE.

You are just as "wrong" as Christian and Muslim Fundamentalists for your refusal to investigate anything that contradicts your current mindset.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, I was using the term unnatural to get a point across.

Okay....



Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I also disagree, most animals are a lot closer to their Buddha nature then humans.

What I meant was they are probably not aware of it. But I do agree...I think they are more in touch with their true selves than WE as human beings are

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, I will try to help you. Take a little time, like a hour, and sit in a quiet dark room. Try to still all of your thoughts, and think about nothing. You will find that this is difficult to do, but don't give up. You could chant a chant or look at a candle flame. What you are looking for is a very deep part of yourself that knows what you should do. That part of you is your Buddha nature. Look for it, and find it, then you will understand what I am talking about. This is real, not fiction like Christianity. Agreed. Although, I would term it our divine nature instead of Buddha nature.

Originally posted by lord xyz
1. I don't believe in Buddha, nor would I do something meaningless and time wasting.
2. You saying that your religion is true, but another religion is fake is just as bad as JIA.
3. You're sounding like a fundamentalist.

You are confused by terms. Buddha mean enlightened one, and that is you. To listen to your self is not meaningless, or is it?

I never said my religion was true. True is irrelevant, winning is what matters.

I give you a way to test what I am saying. That is not what a fundamentalist would do.

Originally posted by Regret
Agreed. Although, I would term it our divine nature instead of Buddha nature.

Two names for the same concept. What's in a name ?

"A rose by any other name would still prick you with its thorns"




Yeah...yeah...i know, I'm Gay lol

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You are actually wrong here....

Mother Lions have fought to the death to protect thier children.

There is a type of sea creature, a mother who dies giving birth to her children...they literally eat her out at time of birth.

Human Beings have proven to be capable of Love and Hate. I find it very sad that you have had no experience with it, and therefore have no beleif in its existance. Fighting to pretect your children is natural like fighting to protect your gameboy. The mother lion feels as though, since the cubs depend on the mother, it's the mother's duty to protect the cubs at all cost. It's like subconscious responsibility or something.

That's biological normal. It happens in spiders aswell.

Describe this "experience with love". I mean, first you say love is an emotion, then a force, then a natural instict, which is it?

Originally posted by Regret
Agreed. Although, I would term it our divine nature instead of Buddha nature.

And I would not use the word divine because it has bad connotations. It seems we are in the same boat.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
To quote Joseph Campbell:

Survival is only the second rule of our existence.
The first is that we are all one.


...

Also, speaking to the "Buddha" in each of us isn't like talking about Jesus. Jesus was another being seperate from us. Buddha refers to the state of buddha-hood within each of us. It's not a person, it's a level of consciousness. So that's what shakya was saying, not trying to get you to identify with a historical figure. Then I apologise to Shakya for my ignorance. I do not know much about Buddhism I admit. But the way I heard there was a guy called Buddha, that started it all. I may be wrong, but at least I have admitted being ill-informed.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Then I apologise to Shakya for my ignorance. I do not know much about Buddhism I admit. But the way I heard there was a guy called Buddha, that started it all. I may be wrong, but at least I have admitted being ill-informed.

His name was Siddhartha Gautama. He only became "Buddha" when he acheived Enlightenment. But, in that sense, we all have the power to be Buddhas, at least within traditional Buddhist thought.

But no worries. Lack of knowledge and inherent biases, both good and bad, are things I try to dispel when I can. Partial knowledge is a dangerous thing, and usually leads to people either resenting other religions, or not fully understanding their own religion (which I would contend is the state of most fundamentalists).

Originally posted by lord xyz
Then I apologise to Shakya for my ignorance. I do not know much about Buddhism I admit. But the way I heard there was a guy called Buddha, that started it all. I may be wrong, but at least I have admitted being ill-informed.

That person was called Shakyamuni. His real name was Shuddhodana Gautama. Buddha was what he became when he was enlightened. The word Buddha is kind of like the word saint. A person can be a saint or saint can me a state of being. Someone who is saintly, as an example.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Fighting to pretect your children is natural like fighting to protect your gameboy. The mother lion feels as though, since the cubs depend on the mother, it's the mother's duty to protect the cubs at all cost. It's like subconscious responsibility or something.


You have no fkn idea what you are talkn about do you ?

There are mother lions who allow thier children to be killed by a new dominating male. Then there are mother lions who fight to the death to protect thier own children, even from a new male dominator.

It is NOT a program.....

On National Geographic there was ONE female lion, in the midst of many, the ONLY female lion who fought TWO grown male lions to protect her cubs. The two lions cut her side open, and she STILL FOUGHT...she fought until she DIED....

The other lionesses just sat there and watched, allowing thier children to get killed one by one....


On another account, a female lion left one of her cubs alone to die....he had a broken leg, and could not continue moving.....she abandoned him because she had no way of furthering thier journey.

Mother lions protect thier young at all costs huh?


Your ignorance is ASTOUNDING

Originally posted by lord xyz
That's biological normal. It happens in spiders aswell.


Biologically normal? Every animal is different, even among the same species.

Crocidile mothers are known to commonly eat thier own children....interesting, isn't it ? How the "motherly program" isn't present in every single creature....



Originally posted by lord xyz
Describe this "experience with love". I mean, first you say love is an emotion, then a force, then a natural instict, which is it?

It is a natural force. I never said it was an emotion alone.....

I beleive Love is beyond words...sorry, but the above was the best definition I could come up with. The fact that you cannot forumlate your own, because you feel it does not exist , I find sad

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Meaningless? You mean like speaking ? I find most of your posts a waste of time.... Says the guy who's hobbie is to tell catholics they don't know the bible, and has the record of threads about homosexuality in christianity.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
WRONG Shaky is not telling you how to live your life. He is not condemning you either. He is simply trying to share his discovery with you.

JIA, on the other hand, wants you to throw away everything you learned on your own, close your mind, and blindly beleive something he has no proof of.

Shaky wants you to discover what he discovered for yourself, so that you don't HAVE to blindly take in what he says. I was merely stating that Shakya telling me what to do, is just like what JIA does.

Disclaimer: I have already admitted my ignorance of Buddhism.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If Athiesm had fundamentalists, you my freind would be the first.... Just because I am against everything supernatural doesn't make me a fundamentalist.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You display consistant and almost intentional ignorance, close mindedness, and solid beleif in the non existance of anything you cannot SEE. I can't see air but I believe in it. I'm not intentionally ignorant, I just don't see why people think it's okay to believe in special magical forces and shit, then laugh at people who believe in different magical special forces. It's the same thing. Anything made up, to me is bullshit, and something I won't believe.

God
Fate
Magic
Karma

These are examples of things made-up (not all things made-up). some of you here that believe in 1 or 2 of these probably laugh at others who believe in some of the others. It's all the same basic stuff really.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You are just as "wrong" as Christian and Muslim Fundamentalists for your refusal to investigate anything that contradicts your current mindset. Not really, if I am shown facts that prove things like the above list, I shall take note, and see them as fact.

I'm just not the kind of person who would believe in something made-up to make my life easier. There is nothing that decides things, nothing that makes moralities an absolute when it comes to society. In the real world, it's the smart people who stay on top.

And the fact that you're calling me a fundamentalist shows your ignorance. If you haven't noticed already, I reply to as much people as I can in a debate, I look at what everyone is saying, I admit when I am wrong. Can't say the same about fundamentalists or.... you.

Originally posted by lord xyz
... Not really, if I am shown facts that prove things like the above list, I shall take note, and see them as fact...

I don't believe this. I gave to a way to find proof, and you rejected it without even trying.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
His name was Siddhartha Gautama. He only became "Buddha" when he acheived Enlightenment. But, in that sense, we all have the power to be Buddhas, at least within traditional Buddhist thought.

But no worries. Lack of knowledge and inherent biases, both good and bad, are things I try to dispel when I can. Partial knowledge is a dangerous thing, and usually leads to people either resenting other religions, or not fully understanding their own religion (which I would contend is the state of most fundamentalists). Ah yes, I learned about him last year, great and noble man. Religious, but great and noble nonetheless.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That person was called Shakyamuni. His real name was Shuddhodana Gautama. Buddha was what he became when he was enlightened. The word Buddha is kind of like the word saint. A person can be a saint or saint can me a state of being. Someone who is saintly, as an example. Ah I see. Thankyou for clearing that up for me.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You have no fkn idea what you are talkn about do you ?

There are mother lions who allow thier children to be killed by a new dominating male. Then there are mother lions who fight to the death to protect thier own children, even from a new male dominator.

It is NOT a program..... When the **** did I ever say program?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
On National Geographic there was ONE female lion, in the midst of many, the ONLY female lion who fought TWO grown male lions to protect her cubs. The two lions cut her side open, and she STILL FOUGHT...she fought until she DIED....

The other lionesses just sat there and watched, allowing thier children to get killed one by one....


On another account, a female lion left one of her cubs alone to die....he had a broken leg, and could not continue moving.....she abandoned him because she had no way of furthering thier journey.

Mother lions protect thier young at all costs huh?


Your ignorance is ASTOUNDING So is your debating tactic. I mean, all you do is flame and insult, calling people stupid attacking them where you think they are wrong. That's all you do. You are not a good debator, you are a troll. You have no purpose on these forums.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Biologically normal? Every animal is different, even among the same species.

Crocidile mothers are known to commonly eat thier own children....interesting, isn't it ? How the "motherly program" isn't present in every single creature.... That's not what I said you retard. "motherly program"? Where did you get that from? I said that the babies eating the mother is natural. I didn't mention anything about a "motherly program". And you're calling me ignorant.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It is a natural force. I never said it was an emotion alone.....
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I beleive Love is beyond words...sorry, but the above was the best definition I could come up with. The fact that you cannot forumlate your own, because you feel it does not exist , I find sad This part of your post is probably the dumbest thing someone's ever said to me. You are ignorant, yourt posts alone against catholicism have shown that all you do here is flame other people's point of views. Your credibility is quite possibly one of the lowest.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't believe this. I gave to a way to find proof, and you rejected it without even trying. I merely didn't understand Shakya; I respect what you said.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I merely didn't understand Shakya; I respect what you said.

OK.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Says the guy who's hobbie is to tell catholics they don't know the bible, and has the record of threads about homosexuality in christianity.
I was merely stating that Shakya telling me what to do, is just like what JIA does.

1) A lot of Catholics AND Protestants happen to know very little about thier own source of reference.

2) Shakya is NOT telling you what to do....he made a suggestion so you can see from his perspective. Your refusal to give his advice a try, when it can harm you in NO WAY, nor does it require you to surrender yourself, ONLY discover it- shows an INTENT of ignorance.

You might say "Oh yeah Urizen ! Well you bash Christianity all the time, but you never truly investigated thier religion, have you?"

And I would simply reply that I was raised Catholic, I have read the Bible all my life, beleived all my life..and OUTGREW IT...atleast I INVESTIGATEDwhat I now refer to as "bullshit"

You, on the other hand, seem to make NO EFFORT to investigate what you doubt. You say you do not beleive in Buddhism, that it is "bullshit", yet you admitted that you know nothing about it.

How pathetic...




Originally posted by lord xyz
Disclaimer: I have already admitted my ignorance of Buddhism.
Just because I am against everything supernatural doesn't make me a fundamentalist.


True, but your immediate denial of the existance of forces other than what you see as FACT is what makes you an "Athiest" fundamentalist, in metaphoric terms of speaking.

You have a stern pre-disposition to claim that if something cannot be proven then it DOES NOT EXIST..period.

The FUNDAMENTALISM in that is CLEAR. Show me proof..if you cannot, then you are lying. That simple.

THAT IS JUST AS IGNORANT AND FUNDAMENTAL AS SAYING "BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO"......

Originally posted by lord xyz
I can't see air but I believe in it. I'm not intentionally ignorant, I just don't see why people think it's okay to believe in special magical forces and shit, then laugh at people who believe in different magical special forces. It's the same thing. Anything made up, to me is bullshit, and something I won't believe.


You can't see Air, but you breathe it. There is your proof..nice try.

Air is also scientifically proven...

I am not saying you have to beleive in something that there is no proof of. You don't...but to tear down someone else's beleif, to call if "bullshit" whether it be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, whatever....when you have no true knowledge of what those Faiths consist of....is willful ignorance.

I admit that I find it hilarious when people argue whose mythology is real. Yes, I am guilty as charged....but atleast I made an effort to know what those "mythologies" consist of before I began making those kind of remarks.

Buddhism is not a belief in any God or any supernatural force. It is a beleif in man and the possibility that mankind can elevate to something better, that every individual can find enlightenment as a human being through personal journey and interaction with other human beings. It is a PHILOSOPHY first, and a religion second.

And it is BASED on much much logic if you actually took the TIME to read up on it.


Originally posted by lord xyz
These are examples of things made-up (not all things made-up). some of you here that believe in 1 or 2 of these probably laugh at others who believe in some of the others. It's all the same basic stuff really.


Shaky does not laugh at JIA for his beleifs....Shaky laughs at JIA for his ignorance and hypocrisy.

It is not all the same stuff...Christianity, Judaism, and Islam fall under Monotheism. Hinduism falls under Polytheism. Buddhism falls more under philosophical theology.....each has a different basis.




Originally posted by lord xyz
Not really, if I am shown facts that prove things like the above list, I shall take note, and see them as fact.


Seems logical to me...however, it seems to me that you claim statements such as "God does not exist" or "Buddhism is bullshit" as FACT rather than your own opinion.


Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm just not the kind of person who would believe in something made-up to make my life easier. There is nothing that decides things, nothing that makes moralities an absolute when it comes to society. In the real world, it's the smart people who stay on top.


In the Real World it's the rich people that stay on top. A lot of smart people end up on the loosing end due to personal weaknesses.

And since when are Athiests automatically smart ?

There are lots of intelligent Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Agnostics.

And FYI....a lot of people do not become Christian or Buddhist to make thier lives easier... only cowards do.

A lot of people turn to a certain Faith because that is what they TRULY beleive.


Originally posted by lord xyz
And the fact that you're calling me a fundamentalist shows your ignorance. If you haven't noticed already, I reply to as much people as I can in a debate, I look at what everyone is saying, I admit when I am wrong. Can't say the same about fundamentalists or.... you.


You are a Fundamentalist in Athiesm. You have already displayed a willful ignorance of anything that contradicts your current beleifs, and you possess a closed mind to anything that cannot be immediately proven.


I always admit when I am wrong.....just point out where I am wrong in THIS argument, and I will confess.

If Jesus is Love
and Love is blind
Then Ray Charles must be Jesus!

Originally posted by lord xyz
When the **** did I ever say program?


You claimed that a Mother Lion protects her child out of instincts, and not love. That is suggesting her concern for her child is programmed.

Originally posted by lord xyz
So is your debating tactic. I mean, all you do is flame and insult, calling people stupid attacking them where you think they are wrong. That's all you do.


When did I insult you ? I only insult people who insult me first.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You are not a good debator, you are a troll. You have no purpose on these forums.


That deserves a big


Not a good debator? The only person whose insulting anyone here is you....I have not insulted you once.

I have called out your ignorance. You took that offensively ? Please....

I am making a sincere argument against you, and instead of addressing it you resort to name calling and baby like behavior.



Originally posted by lord xyz

That's not what I said you retard.


And I am insulting ? wow

Originally posted by lord xyz
"motherly program"? Where did you get that from? I said that the babies eating the mother is natural. I didn't mention anything about a "motherly program". And you're calling me ignorant.

Read the above....




Originally posted by lord xyz


droolio



Originally posted by lord xyz
This part of your post is probably the dumbest thing someone's ever said to me. You are ignorant, yourt posts alone against catholicism have shown that all you do here is flame other people's point of views. Your credibility is quite possibly one of the lowest.


How so ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then we are ALL CHRISTIAN


It all depends on how one defines a Christian. How do you define one?Just posting the simple statement "then we are all christian" does not a Christian make. If a Christian is one who follows Christ, would that then mean that a Christian is anyone who practices love? Perhaps--or perhaps not. The easiest way to answer your original inquiry is by defining what love is -- biblically speaking of course.



Are you dicourteous Urizen? Are you selfish? Are you proud? If you are any one of these, then I do believe -- yes I do indeed believe, that biblically speaking, you would not be considered loving. So what does this mean? Many would assert that this definition of love does not coincide with yours on a technical level, specifically in regards to what a Christian is supposed to demonstrate. So of course -- without obfuscating the terminology any more than necessary, one could then assume that your definition of what a Christian is--quite certainly, is an incorrect one.(of course, one would have to assume that all my statements above are clearly objective for this assumption to be factual)


Originally posted by Lord Urizen
This whole argument about Jesus being the Embodyment or Personification of Love has a major loophole.

WE HAVE ALL EXPERIENCED LOVE IN SOME FORM, AND WE ALL POSSESS IT. WE ALL POSSESS THE CAPABILITIES OF LOVE, IT IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO CHRISTIANITY....



Ha Ha Ha. Loophole, how so? I seem to recall a certain individual posting that to know love is to know the "Christian" experience. Once again, if we go by the defition of love as defined by the bible, then Jesus does indeed represent the "embodyment" of love as you put it, at least when relating to it from a "Christian" perspective.

What you are trying to do is convolute the biblical-Christian version of love with the worldly definition of the term. These definitions are not interchangeable -- since the righteous-godly love that Jesus personifies, requires a much greater understanding, is far more complex, and far less fickle then what we as humans consider love to be. So it would appear Urizon, that the only "loophole" -- is the one you've presented with seriously flawed logic.


Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So please....Conservative Fundmentalist Christians, please stop claiming that LOVE is only a Christian thing, because LOVE has existed way before Christianity and it exists WITHOUT CHRISTIANITY...

Love is independent of any religion...Love is NOT A PERSON, it is a FORCE that we ALL HAVE ACCESS TO AND EQUAL ABILITY TO POSSESS AND SHARE.


Like I said....if Jesus TRULY IS LOVE PERSONIFIED, then we ALL HAVE JESUS WITHIN US BECAUSE WE ALL LOVE......in some way, shape, or form.

So please..minds like JIA and Sonnet who claim that those who are not Christians do not know the meaning of love, ENOUGH of that horse-half ass ignorance !

I do thank you guys for inspiring this thread, however.

Thoughts ?


My initial thought is that that Jesus is indeed present in some--specifically, those who believe him to be the "I am" listed in the bible--who in turn also believe him to be the savior of mankind--as well as believe him to be God incarnate. I also think that your definition of love is an erroneous one, particularly when you attempt to relate it to "love" as it defined in the bible.

Love in animals in not what we call love, they protect their young not because they love them but it is they instinct and survival, they must breed and multiply or they die. You also forget that most species kill their young as well if they are not fit to survive.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Love in animals in not what we call love, they protect their young not because they love them but it is they instinct and survival, they must breed and multiply or they die. You also forget that most species kill their young as well if they are not fit to survive.

I don't think you post is completely true. I think the true answer is somewhere in the middle.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't think you post is completely true. I think the true answer is somewhere in the middle. Are their different degrees, yes but they only do this for survival not love or what we consider love. There is a caring nature for some species but in general it is not love.

What is love?
Changes in neurotransmitter and hormone levels.
With regard to the mother lion thing; oxytocin levels have been shown to correlate with maternal aggression, and inhibiting oxtocin results in reduction of maternal behaviors; in the rat model at least.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Are their different degrees, yes but they only do this for survival not love or what we consider love. There is a caring nature for some species but in general it is not love.

The main reason I disagree with you is my cat has the ability to show companionate love for me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The main reason I disagree with you is my cat has the ability to show companionate love for me. What you are doing is adding your views to your cat not that the cat is showing you love but it requires comfort and companionship, it could easily be anyone else.

Originally posted by ThePittman
What you are doing is adding your views to your cat not that the cat is showing you love but it requires comfort and companionship, it could easily be anyone else.

What is the difference between myself and my cat. Please do not tell me that my cat is an animal and I am not. Because I will only tell you that I am also an animal. I have a bigger brain then my cat, and therefore can experience things that she cannot, but I do not believe that love is one of those. We need comfort and companionship, are you saying that that is not love?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then we are ALL CHRISTIAN

This whole argument about Jesus being the Embodyment or Personification of Love has a major loophole.

WE HAVE ALL EXPERIENCED LOVE IN SOME FORM, AND WE ALL POSSESS IT. WE ALL POSSESS THE CAPABILITIES OF LOVE, IT IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO CHRISTIANITY....

So please....Conservative Fundmentalist Christians, please stop claiming that LOVE is only a Christian thing, because LOVE has existed way before Christianity and it exists WITHOUT CHRISTIANITY...

Love is independent of any religion...Love is NOT A PERSON, it is a FORCE that we ALL HAVE ACCESS TO AND EQUAL ABILITY TO POSSESS AND SHARE.


Like I said....if Jesus TRULY IS LOVE PERSONIFIED, then we ALL HAVE JESUS WITHIN US BECAUSE WE ALL LOVE......in some way, shape, or form.

So please..minds like JIA and Sonnet who claim that those who are not Christians do not know the meaning of love, ENOUGH of that horse-half ass ignorance !

I do thank you guys for inspiring this thread, however.

Thoughts ?
We also all have access to the salvation Christ brought. Not all of us choose to take it, though.

I've never heard a Christian say that love was exclusively a Christian thing...did I miss a JIA post?

Neurochemical imbalance...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Neurochemical imbalance...

Can that happen in another animal other then humans?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please give me more of your definition of love. Love for me is wanting to be with that person and becoming one with that person, blending of the two personalities to become one, having their problems become your problems and their flaws become your flaws. (for my wife)

Love in others is overlooking their flaws and caring for them no matter what they do be it good or bad or even against your beliefs, being there for them in their time of need even if it causes you pain or suffering.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Can that happen in another animal other then humans? Yes. However the abstract concept applied to this neuroendocrine abnormality "love" is a term usually reserved for human interaction.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Love in animals in not what we call love, they protect their young not because they love them but it is they instinct and survival, they must breed and multiply or they die. You also forget that most species kill their young as well if they are not fit to survive.

Then explain why a domestic dog will often adopt a kitten, or vise versa. Explain why a mother cat will breast feed puppies, or why a male German Shepard would adopt 3 baby birds as his own....

Explain why a pack of wolves would raise a child..or why a female gorilla would protect a fallen child in a zoo from her mate and her own children ?


These are unexplained scenarios that HAVE actually occurred....

Love isn't there huh ?

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
It all depends on how one defines a Christian. How do you define one?Just posting the simple statement "then we are all christian" does not a Christian make. If a Christian is one who follows Christ, would that then mean that a Christian is anyone who practices love? Perhaps--or perhaps not. The easiest way to answer your original inquiry is by defining what love is -- biblically speaking of course.


If Jesus is Love....then we are all Christian, because we all possess Love...therefore we possess Christ.

Biblical definition of Love is not the complete, factual, or relevant definition in this matter.

Love is beyond a definition, beyond words, beyond the limits of our language. If you cannot understand that, then you are as limitted as your precious Bible is. Sorry


Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Are you dicourteous Urizen? Are you selfish? Are you proud? If you are any one of these, then I do believe -- yes I do indeed believe, that biblically speaking, you would not be considered loving.


Am I discourteous? At times

Am I selfish? At times

Am I proud? VERY much so

Am I loving ? Oh yesss...

Wait...the Bible says I'm not. Guess what....that means sh*t to me. The Bible is not fact. Please do not confuse the two.



Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
So what does this mean? Many would assert that this definition of love does not coincide with yours on a technical level, specifically in regards to what a Christian is supposed to demonstrate. So of course -- without obfuscating the terminology any more than necessary, one could then assume that your definition of what a Christian is--quite certainly, is an incorrect one.(of course, one would have to assume that all my statements above are clearly objective for this assumption to be factual)


It is quit true that your statements must be objective to even pass as factual, but the very fact that your own bias is going into your arguments don't quite validate them as factual.

That is okay because who is to say that my definition of Love is factual?

Oh wait....I almost forgot ! I don't HAVE a definition of Love...no one does....it exists, but we cannot fully define it, because it exists in US ALL, and therefore our own intepretations and mental constructs will individualize this force we call love, therefore making no one definition accurate.

Logically speaking, if Christ is Love, then we all are of Christ...whether we realize it or not.

Love is not just a "Christian" concept...please get that through your head.


Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Ha Ha Ha. Loophole, how so? I seem to recall a certain individual posting that to know love is to know the "Christian" experience. Once again, if we go by the defition of love as defined by the bible, then Jesus does indeed represent the "embodyment" of love as you put it, at least when relating to it from a "Christian" perspective.


But I am not relating it from a "Christian" perspective. I am relating it to NO individual perspective whatsoever.

We all have our own concept of Love, we all possess it. If it is FACT that Jesus is the actual embodyment of Love, then all who LOVE possess Christ, and are by default, Christian.

I am not Christian

But I love my mother. I love my boyfreind. I love my brothers and sisters. Dearly...I know I love them. I dont care what definition you or anyone else would give Love. The very FACT that you are even TRYING to define Love shows how limitted your mental and emotional capacity for this force is, which is sad, but that is besides the point.

I know I love the people I love....dearly.....I need not prove this, for I cannot prove this, because the proof in this matter is subjective.

But if you claim that Christ is Love, then I possess him or it into my being since I possess Love.

Is this computing in your theological set mind ?



Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
What you are trying to do is convolute the biblical-Christian version of love with the worldly definition of the term.

Never have I attempted such a thing, you obviously don't get the point.

The love that Christians have as human beings is equal to the Love I have as a human being.

Love is not Christian, it is not buddhist, it is not bound by any Human construct.



QUOTE=7690001]Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
These definitions are not interchangeable -- since the righteous-godly love that Jesus personifies, requires a much greater understanding, is far more complex, and far less fickle then what we as humans consider love to be. So it would appear Urizon, that the only "loophole" -- is the one you've presented with seriously flawed logic.

You have shown your ignorance in this very statement. How sad

LOVE in general is beyond our full understanding. As if Christian Love is any greater, less, or different than the Love that we ALL know to exist.

Seriously flawed logic? Such a mighty claim ! I admire that ! Now can you back it up ? WITH FACT ?

So far you have not displayed ONE FACT in your arguments. NOT ONE.








Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
My initial thought is that that Jesus is indeed present in some--specifically, those who believe him to be the "I am" listed in the bible--who in turn also believe him to be the savior of mankind--as well as believe him to be God incarnate. I also think that your definition of love is an erroneous one, particularly when you attempt to relate it to "love" as it defined in the bible.



I made no solid definition of Love. I do not define it as a natural force, I metaphorically classify it as such for sake of argument.

You claim Christian Love is superior to "standard" Love as if it is Fact. If this is so fact, then I assume you can PROVE IT.

And please...no Biblical passages as evidense, because the Bible does NOT qualify as proof of anything.

How limitted you must be to think that all the complexities of this Universe, let alone this world, can be solved and answered through an outdated, self contradicting book...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What is love?
Changes in neurotransmitter and hormone levels.

That would be infatuation.

A probable form of Love, but not the only kind of Love that exists.

1) If neurotransmitter and hormone levels determine the creation of "love" then what creates "hate" ? What chemicals in us create bigotry, disgust, and the various forms of prejudice?


2) Can you explain the chemical cause of love that occurs between mother and child? What about the lack of love between mother and child?


3) What about favoritism between a mother and one child over another child?


4) What about loving one person, and not loving another?


5) What about when a mother only loves her husband but hates her children? What about when she only loves her children, but hates her father? What about when she hates everyone in her family, except her nephew?


6) What about when a person loves one pet, but is disgusted by another?


7) What chemical reaction is responsible for racism ?


You attempted to explain Love through physical scientific means....so now I expect you to finish what you started. If you do not, I will disregard your assertion entirely.




Originally posted by xmarksthespot
With regard to the mother lion thing; oxytocin levels have been shown to correlate with maternal aggression, and inhibiting oxtocin results in reduction of maternal behaviors; in the rat model at least.



So you are comparing a Lioness to a rat ? Sounds logical to me

A creature of massive intelligence to a creature of pathetically low intelligence. As if thier love capacities are the same....hey, perhaps they are..who knows.



So what causes these chemical differences ? Is a lioness any less "loving" because she is not maternally aggressive? How do we know that a lioness who allows her children to be killed, didn't back out of fear and isn't in total devestation over the death of her kin?

During the Holocaust, many Jews watched as thier children, parents, siblings, etc. were slaughtered.....many of them did not fight. Does that mean they love thier family any less?

Did you consider the possibility that WEAKNESS (physical or mental) was a factor in a lioness or human's decision to put thier life before the life of thier loved one ?

Urizen, I really have no idea if animals feel love like we higher brain function animals do. I'd like to think so from my own experience with cats & dogs and the affection they have showed me when I pet, play and talk with them but, in respect to your lioness scenario. It could simply be that the one lioness in question had a much higher 'protect the offspring' instinct than the other lionesses as most female animals and some males are instinctively inclined to protect their young, sometimes at any cost.

Originally posted by Robtard
Urizen, I really have no idea if animals feel love like we higher brain function animals do. I'd like to think so from my own experience with cats & dogs and the affection they have showed me when I pet, play and talk with them but, in respect to your lioness scenario. It could simply be that the one lioness in question had a much higher 'protect the offspring' instinct than the other lionesses as most female animals and some males are instinctively inclined to protect their young, sometimes at any cost.

Robtard, Instinct is a universal primal force by definition. If it exists, then it exists in all animals, not just a few.

Emotions or biases can vary in animals of the same species, but not instinct.

One lioness cannot have more "instinct" than another. Instinct is innate, it is born into the animal....according to the theory of instinct.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Robtard, Instinct is a universal primal force by definition. If it exists, then it exists in all animals, not just a few.

Emotions or biases can vary in animals of the same species, but not instinct.

One lioness cannot have more "instinct" than another. Instinct is innate, it is born into the animal....according to the theory of instinct.

Self preservation is an instinct, why do some people and animals have a greater self preservation instinct than others if instinct is linear and equal across the board?

Originally posted by Robtard
Self preservation is an instinct, why do some people and animals have a greater self preservation instinct than others if instinct is linear and equal across the board?

Define Self Preservation.

I will respond according to your own definition...keep in mind.....self preservation is more than just an instinct. It is a desire, an ideal, an influence.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Define Self Preservation.

I will respond according to your own definition...keep in mind.....self preservation is more than just an instinct. It is a desire, an ideal, an influence.

Self Preservation would be surviving. i.e. Running out of a house on fire, taking cover when under gunfire, hacking off your own hand to free yourself from a death trap (real scenario) etc.

Self preservation may be more than instinct in humans, but it is still instinct. In general, people will do what it takes to stay alive in a life threatening situation.

But in respect to animals (the lioness), self preservation would be instinct and in respect to your scenario, it could very well be possible that her 'protect the offspring' instinct was much greater than her self preservation instinct and that is why she stayed and fought to the death instead of fleeing for her life.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That would be infatuation.

A probable form of Love, but not the only kind of Love that exists.

1) If neurotransmitter and hormone levels determine the creation of "love" then what creates "hate" ? What chemicals in us create bigotry, disgust, and the various forms of prejudice?

2) Can you explain the chemical cause of love that occurs between mother and child? What about the lack of love between mother and child?

3) What about favoritism between a mother and one child over another child?

4) What about loving one person, and not loving another?

5) What about when a mother only loves her husband but hates her children? What about when she only loves her children, but hates her father? What about when she hates everyone in her family, except her nephew?

6) What about when a person loves one pet, but is disgusted by another?

7) What chemical reaction is responsible for racism ?

You attempted to explain Love through physical scientific means....so now I expect you to finish what you started. If you do not, I will disregard your assertion entirely. Neurotransmitter and endocrine functions shape and underlie all emotion and cognition, under which the collection of emotions one ascribes to lust, attraction and attachment i.e. love fall.

You attempt to assert love is a purely intangible "quantity", when there is proof positive of a rudimentary physical basis for emotion, cognition and personality. Perhaps you should provide proof of your intangible love force.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So you are comparing a Lioness to a rat ? Sounds logical to me

A creature of massive intelligence to a creature of pathetically low intelligence. As if thier love capacities are the same....hey, perhaps they are..who knows.

So what causes these chemical differences ? Is a lioness any less "loving" because she is not maternally aggressive? How do we know that a lioness who allows her children to be killed, didn't back out of fear and isn't in total devestation over the death of her kin?

During the Holocaust, many Jews watched as thier children, parents, siblings, etc. were slaughtered.....many of them did not fight. Does that mean they love thier family any less?

Did you consider the possibility that WEAKNESS (physical or mental) was a factor in a lioness or human's decision to put thier life before the life of thier loved one ? The rat model is a commonly used experimental model in biomedical research. Similar findings have also been reported in the sheep model. Funnily enough researchers don't tend to use the lion model.

You ask baseless and leading hypothetical strawman questions. Did I say oxytocin was the be all and end all of maternal behaviour? Complicated neuroendocrine interaction is involved in cognitive behaviour.

I'm sure a few hours of Animal Planet have made you an expert on lion behaviour but aside from a massive hysterical response to everyone who posts an opinion differential to yours do you have anything to offer?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Neurotransmitter and endocrine functions shape and underlie all emotion and cognition, under which the collection of emotions one ascribes to lust, attraction and attachment i.e. love fall.



You are arguing that Love , like every other mental existance, has a physical root.....I take it you are a Materialist?

Nothing wrong with your assertion, but ultamately, regardless of Love's possible physical existance, you are still arguing that IT EXISTS.

Am I right or wrong ?





Originally posted by xmarksthespot



I assert Love as not explainable by language, logic, science, religion, or any human construct available. Therefore, I have no proof. Only argument.



Originally posted by xmarksthespot







Originally posted by xmarksthespot




How are my questions baseless? You attempt to simplify Love as chemical existance, I asked you to explain in detail each of those scenarios.

Instead of giving me a complete answer, you give me a summation of your previous point....

You seem very knowledgable in the scientific field, so I assumed you would have no problem answering those questions. Why put them down as "baseless" when they are sincere, and thier answers could result in further enlightenment on the matter?


Originally posted by xmarksthespot




I am no expert on Lion behavior. I have made the assertion that Love exists in human and animal alike, based on a LOT of difference experiences, references, etc.

Hysterical Response...please....I have much to offer in a debate. Why not just debate me instead of trying to belittle my arguments with petty insults, huh ? It makes you seem arrogant...

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You are arguing that Love , like every other mental existance, has a physical root.....I take it you are a Materialist?I base my opinions of phenomena on the tangible correlates with sufficient evidence for causation. Call it what you will.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Nothing wrong with your assertion, but ultamately, regardless of Love's possible physical existance, you are still arguing that IT EXISTS.

Am I right or wrong ? Love, in the manner you assert it, has no reproducible evidences supporting it. The concept/term of "love" which humans ascribe to the emotions they feel has roots in the physical.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I assert Love as not explainable by language, logic, science, religion, or any human construct available. Therefore, I have no proof. Only argument. An argument of personal belief without evidence is worthless and logically fallacious. You're critical of those responses put forward by others, while at the same time admitting that your view is objectively evidenceless. You approach those with arguments with basis trying to find flaw as if it negates evidence for that basis, while at the same time holding a position (that others can not really question as all it's) based on (is) personal belief. Which is really no different than what creationists/intelligent design "theor"ists attempt with evolution.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I'm not exactly sure what that's supposed to mean, but animal models are used for the study of many aspects of human cognition and physiology.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
How are my questions baseless? You attempt to simplify Love as chemical existance, I asked you to explain in detail each of those scenarios.

Instead of giving me a complete answer, you give me a summation of your previous point.... Human neurochemical interactions, simple? I made a statement expressing opinion for a physical basis for the emotions that fall under "love".

Your questions are essentially attempts at creating hypothetical anecdotal evidence. You approach this with the god of gaps philosophy, e.g. if one cannot provide a definitive singular physical reason for racism, then your baseless "theory of love" must be correct.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You seem very knowledgable in the scientific field, so I assumed you would have no problem answering those questions. Why put them down as "baseless" when they are sincere, and thier answers could result in further enlightenment on the matter?For one thing if you claim to have sincere motive, then perhaps you should ask less fatuous questions. For another I read literature beyond my field when I have time but I'm not a reproductive biologist, endocrinologist or cognitive neuroscientist. My field of research is neurodegenerative/neurological disorder.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I am no expert on Lion behavior. I have made the assertion that Love exists in human and animal alike, based on a LOT of difference experiences, references, etc. Anecdotal evidence.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hysterical Response...please....I have much to offer in a debate. Why not just debate me instead of trying to belittle my arguments with petty insults, huh ? It makes you seem arrogant... I see hysterical. I call it hysterical. I've seen you 'debate', all you tend to do is ask leading questions, cf this thread with the section of the abortion thread regarding pain perception in the prenatal fetus.

Hey guys, just for reference, saying things like "You're ignorance is astounding" doesn't exactly improve whatever situation you're adressing, and is probably equally as rude as the comments it is responding to.

This forum has, uncharacteristically, come up in the reports a bunch recently. I'd advise anyone who has had discipline run-ins (you know who you are) to calm the hell down and keep your comments respectful. Because this isn't my forum, but I hate to see it devolve like this.

And the recent discussion might not concern this directly, but I didn't know where else to say this.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I base my opinions of phenomena on the tangible correlates with sufficient evidence for causation. Call it what you will.


Nothing wrong with that


Originally posted by xmarksthespot



But it has evidence nonetheless. Just because something cannot be proven does not mean it doesn't exist.

I beleive that everything, mental, emotional, and physical is all related.

I beleive everything you say, except one thing: That Love is purely physical....your logic is so materialistically biased, you have not considered the obvious:

All you can SEE is the physical....physicality is the ONLY PROOF you can EVER FIND because our senses are not advanced enough to fully grasp or recognize the mental or emotional existances.





Originally posted by xmarksthespot



So would you argue that what Buddha taught is worthless? He seemed to have made a significant and meaningful impact on mankind in my opinion.

Would you argue that thought or opinion of any kind is worthless? Is curiosity, questioning, or rationalizing also worthless ?

I guess that means Literature is worthless as well, as are feelings, as are our desires as human beings.






Originally posted by xmarksthespot



I have found flaws for which no one has answered, not even you

Evolution has an astounding amount of evidense to support it. You have evidense to relate the phenomena or "thoery" of love to the physical, but because we physically dependent beings, you will never find proof of the mental or emotional (or even spiritual) truth behind Love.

The fact that you will never see that, does not render it non existant

Geez...for such an intelligent person, you are SO LIMITTED...

What amazes me about your hardcore scientists is how you TRULY BELIEVE that you can discover the absolute and final truth behind ALL things





Originally posted by xmarksthespot



I was laughing because I know we wouldn't dare do these tests on lions....we as human beings are generally cowards and will only perform such tests on animals who can do us no harm.

We think we are that much better....

Originally posted by xmarksthespot



My "theory of love" is not baseless simply because I am not relying on a PHYSICAL MEANS....

I bet you think you can PROVE that God, or some superior guiding force doesn't exist. How foolish....




Originally posted by xmarksthespot

For one thing if you claim to have sincere motive, then perhaps you should ask less fatuous questions. For another I read literature beyond my field when I have time but I'm not a reproductive biologist, endocrinologist or cognitive neuroscientist. My field of research is neurodegenerative/neurological disorder.
Anecdotal evidence.



Yet for someone so knowledgable in one field, you sorely lack knowledge in another.....


You do not know everything...you cannot know everything. OFCOURSE LOVE and ALL MENTAL/EMOTIONAL existances are going to have a PHYSICAL ASPECT...

BUT TO CLAIM THAT THE PHYSICAL IS THE ROOT WHEN YOU HAVE NEVER TESTED OR SEEN THE MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL, IS FOOLISH.....

YOU CAN ONLY SEE THE PHYSICAL...YOU, WITH ALL YOUR FANCY SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO SEE/SMELL/TOUCH WHAT LIES BEYOND THE PHYSICAL REALM.

You are a FOOL for not realizing that....for thinking that the physical is ALL that EXISTS because it's all you can SEE

Originally posted by xmarksthespot




Your closemindedness despite you being a scientist is more hysterical than my curiosities and reasoning could ever be.

And as for the Abortion issue....I have taken back that point. We are all entitled to mistakes.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Nothing wrong with that Indeed.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But it has evidence nonetheless. Just because something cannot be proven does not mean it doesn't exist.

I beleive that everything, mental, emotional, and physical is all related.

I beleive everything you say, except one thing: That Love is purely physical....your logic is so materialistically biased, you have not considered the obvioustating that "just because something cannot be proven does not mean it doesn't exist" does not constitute evidence. Your beliefs are not evidenced. And attempting to use them to denounce evidenced research is inadequate. You attempt to disregard research because of use of an animal model for experiments, yet you have no research, no model, no experiments. Highly hypocritical.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
All you can SEE is the physical....physicality is the ONLY PROOF you can EVER FIND because our senses are not advanced enough to fully grasp or recognize the mental or emotional existances.That's a nice, but unsubstantiated belief. And a strawman argument, I never said it was purely physical. Simply that evidence at this time indicates a physical basis.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So would you argue that what Buddha taught is worthless? He seemed to have made a significant and meaningful impact on mankind in my opinion.

Would you argue that thought or opinion of any kind is worthless? Is curiosity, questioning, or rationalizing also worthless ?

I guess that means Literature is worthless as well, as are feelings, as are our desires as human beings. Very nice strawmanning indeed, and further proof of the manner in which you "debate". The context was clearly with regard to when one forms an argument or explanation of phenomena based purely on personal belief. The edicts of Buddha with regard to how one should strive to live, independent thought and opinion, and works of literary fiction being completely irrelevant to the point I made.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I have found flaws for which no one has answered, not even you I.e. god of gaps. An incomplete understanding does not imply that the premise is incorrect, nor does it support an intangible explanation. Secondly what flaws? Your bizarre questions?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Evolution has an astounding amount of evidense to support it. You have evidense to relate the phenomena or "thoery" of love to the physical, but because we physically dependent beings, you will never find proof of the mental or emotional (or even spiritual) truth behind Love.

The fact that you will never see that, does not render it non existant

Geez...for such an intelligent person, you are SO LIMITTED...

What amazes me about your hardcore scientists is how you TRULY BELIEVE that you can discover the absolute and final truth behind ALL things Further strawmanning. Based on the evidence at hand there is a physical basis for emotion. Based on the lack of evidence for your theory it is not credible. It is purely an argument of personal belief.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I was laughing because I know we wouldn't dare do these tests on lions....we as human beings are generally cowards and will only perform such tests on animals who can do us no harm.

We think we are that much better.... Commentary on human arrogance from you is rich.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
My "theory of love" is not baseless simply because I am not relying on a PHYSICAL MEANS....

I bet you think you can PROVE that God, or some superior guiding force doesn't exist. How foolish....One cannot prove or disprove the existence of god as the concept is intangible and supernatural.
One cannot prove or disprove your theory as in it you make the concept of love intangible and essentially supernatural.

One can however show the origin of species through evolution and geology indicating that the god of the Bible did not create the earth in days and humans from dirt.
One can investigate and find evidence for a physical basis for emotion which in the same manner places doubt upon your theory that there is no tangible explanation for love.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yet for someone so knowledgable in one field, you sorely lack knowledge in another.....

You do not know everything...you cannot know everything. OFCOURSE LOVE and ALL MENTAL/EMOTIONAL existances are going to have a PHYSICAL ASPECT...

BUT TO CLAIM THAT THE PHYSICAL IS THE ROOT WHEN YOU HAVE NEVER TESTED OR SEEN THE MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL, IS FOOLISH.....

YOU CAN ONLY SEE THE PHYSICAL...YOU, WITH ALL YOUR FANCY SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO SEE/SMELL/TOUCH WHAT LIES BEYOND THE PHYSICAL REALM.

You are a FOOL for not realizing that....for thinking that the physical is ALL that EXISTS because it's all you can SEEOh you're not hysterical in your posts at all. Very demure and poised.

There is a physical basis for human cognition, emotion and personality. There is a physical basis for human consciousness. One can easily see this in the altered emotion, cognition and perception of those with neurological disorder. One can easily see this in that people die. I state there is a basis for emotion in the physical because there is evidence for this. That does not preclude other avenues. However there is no evidence of the other avenues sufficient for them to be credible.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Your closemindedness despite you being a scientist is more hysterical than my curiosities and reasoning could ever beThat's nice, Cujo. Especially considering how avidly you refuse to accept the ideas of others. This thread being exemplary. You're more than welcome to your beliefs and opinions, and to express them. But while everyone is entitled to their own opinions, they aren't entitled to their own facts.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Love is beyond a definition, beyond words, beyond the limits of our language.



Oh yes -- tis a very thought provoking response indeed. Odd, how one can't recall you using this same definitional rationale in the proceeding post --

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If Jesus is Love....then we are all Christian, because we all possess Love...therefore we possess Christ.


So I guess if one defines Jesus as being "love", and then uses this very same "definition" to synonomously define what makes one a Christian, any intelligent individual can certainly see that no sort of definition of what love is -- has been provided in the above referenced quote, particularly when given additional veritable "definitions" of what love isn't in previous quotes.(unless of course you believe that you have given us no veritable definitions at all, which would then lead me to believe that you have alluded that you are be a liar.)


Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Am I discourteous? At times

Am I selfish? At times

Am I proud? VERY much so

Am I loving ? Oh yesss...

Wait...the Bible says I'm not. Guess what....that means sh*t to me. The Bible is not fact. Please do not confuse the two.


Hahahaha.... Hahahahaha. So the biblical defintion of love means "sh*t" to you? How are you still not defining what love is? If your interpretation of love is not dependant upon the bible, then you are still giving us your "definition" of what you believe love is, by defining what it is not.

And yet again, this "definition" is followed by another "definition" of the "undefinable" love which you've so graciously introduced us to --

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
it exists, but we cannot fully define it, because it exists in US ALL, and therefore our own intepretations and mental constructs will individualize this force we call love, therefore making no one definition accurate.


And still another definition--

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Logically speaking, if Christ is Love, then we all are of Christ...whether we realize it or not.


And yet still others --

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But if you claim that Christ is Love, then I possess him or it into my being since I possess Love.

The love that Christians have as human beings is equal to the Love I have as a human being.

Love is not Christian, it is not buddhist, it is not bound by any Human


Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Seriously flawed logic? Such a mighty claim ! I admire that ! Now can you back it up ? WITH FACT ?


Oh I don't need to back it up, nothing that you have argued has a single grain of truth to it. Not a single functional or logical component. With each post you only continue to demonstrate this, by proceeding to give us "defintions" to what you consider to be "undefinable."

Love can indeed be defined Urizon, however, it's just that you and I don't possess the necessary intellect or ability to completely comprehend it in all of its glory and splendor.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You claim Christian Love is superior to "standard" Love as if it is Fact. If this is so fact, then I assume you can PROVE IT.


I made no such claim. I merely stated that Christian love, as biblically defined and as personified in Christ, is much different than the worldly version of love which you have miserably failed in relating it to. Does taking things out of context and purposely trying to confuse and confuddle others with warped logic come easy to you?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And please...no Biblical passages as evidense, because the Bible does NOT qualify as proof of anything.

How limitted you must be to think that all the complexities of this Universe, let alone this world, can be solved and answered through an outdated, self contradicting book...


Hmmm...but providing us with your own self-contradicting, self proclaimed "factual" opinions is proof? You are indeed correct about one thing Urizon, I do limit my interaction and understanding when confronted with stupidity. Now please excuse me for a moment as I get back to my laughter...HaHaHaHaHa...

This forum has gone to the shits.

You only just noticed?

Maybe its because I'm just furious now.

You probably just need more Jesus in your life.

Perhaps these psychos need more, not me.

Originally posted by Alliance
Maybe its because I'm just furious now.

Is it this forum that has made you furious, or something outside the forum that has made you furious, thus allowing you to see the forum in all its... well something that definitely isn't glory?

Oh no, certianly outside events...but the forum certainly didn't help.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Indeed.


Glad we agree on something

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Stating that "just because something cannot be proven does not mean it doesn't exist" does not constitute evidence. Your beliefs are not evidenced. And attempting to use them to denounce evidenced research is inadequate. You attempt to disregard research because of use of an animal model for experiments, yet you have no research, no model, no experiments. Highly hypocritical.

My beleifs.....I am drawing a hypothetical conclusion that if Jesus is Love, then we are all part of Jesus....what evidense do you expect anyone to find ? You DO remember that you are in the RELIGION forum, right ? Evidense and Proof is almost RARE in these forums lol


I see nothing wrong with arguing philosophy in a religion forum, the same way you insist on arguing science in the religion forum. Im sad that you see it that way.


Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That's a nice, but unsubstantiated belief. And a strawman argument, I never said it was purely physical. Simply that evidence at this time indicates a physical basis.

Take your own advice then....

All you have is the physical....you have no proof or disproof of the mental / emotional / spiritual existance or description of Love as a whole. Therefore, no matter how much science jumbo you throw my way, you could never truly disprove my assertion, the same way I cannot disprove yours.

Sorry.....


Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Very nice strawmanning indeed, and further proof of the manner in which you "debate". The context was clearly with regard to when one forms an argument or explanation of phenomena based purely on personal belief. The edicts of Buddha with regard to how one should strive to live, independent thought and opinion, and works of literary fiction being completely irrelevant to the point I made.


You just said that an argument with no factual basis to support it is WORTHLESS...you do REALIZE that 90% of the religion forum is NOT based on FACT but on beleif and personal philosophy right ?

By your own grammatically accurate statement, you also argue that what the Buddha taught is worthless, because Buddha had no factual basis behind his teachings....just his experience and bias.

It is highly relevant in this case. You are demeaning this entire THREAD worthless because PHYSICAL PROOF cannot be supplied for a philosophical take on the possibility of the mental/spiritual existance of Love.

You are foolish in this case, and you cannot see that....why not ?


Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I.e. god of gaps. An incomplete understanding does not imply that the premise is incorrect, nor does it support an intangible explanation. Secondly what flaws? Your bizarre questions?

I agree with your first statement...so what? There will never be "proof" that you or anyone else can recognize for my arguments...since when does the religion forum require proof for beleif ?

As for what flaws ?...go back and read...I answered every argument thrown at me.



Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That's nice, Cujo. Especially considering how avidly you refuse to accept the ideas of others. This thread being exemplary. You're more than welcome to your beliefs and opinions, and to express them. But while everyone is entitled to their own opinions, they aren't entitled to their own facts.


1) When have I ever closed off on someone else's point of view. Disagreeing with someone does not constitute my "refusal" to see things from another perspective. What a horrible accusation, I am actually offended by that

2) The only FACTS I have presented were those on animal behavior. As for the theory or argument on Jesus Christ and Love, no facts are possible. It is all logic, philosophy, and religion.....the last 2 things you seem to be INTOLERANT of

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Oh yes -- tis a very thought provoking response indeed. Odd, how one can't recall you using this same definitional rationale in the proceeding post --

Go on......

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
So I guess if one defines Jesus as being "love", and then uses this very same "definition" to synonomously define what makes one a Christian, any intelligent individual can certainly see that no sort of definition of what love is -- has been provided in the above referenced quote, particularly when given additional veritable "definitions" of what love isn't in previous quotes.(unless of course you believe that you have given us no veritable definitions at all, which would then lead me to believe that you have alluded that you are be a liar.)

Hmm...where do I begin on this.....Just because I refer to Jesus does not mean I have to refer to the Bible as my only reference.

Jesus, like Buddha is a historical figure, and I, as any person, have the right to my own intepretation of him, as you do.

Limitting myself to the Bible, then YES, I could only argue that If Jesus is Love, then only Christians are loving.....like you claim.

However, I am not limitting myself to the Bible. The Bible does not OWN Jesus, so I may refer to him as I wish.

It is my conclusion that if Jesus is truly the embodyment of Love, then everyone who LOVES is part of Christ. Regardless of whether or not they beleive in him...




Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo



Yes. It means sh*t to me, because I am not using the Bible in my conclusion.

I am not defining what Love is, because I beleive that as limitted human beings, we can EXPLAIN LOVE, but not define it.


Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo



An explanation...a description...not a definition






Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo



Read the above.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo



If you and I do not possess the intellect necessary to define Love, then no....we cannot define it. That was my stance before, and is still my stance now.

Can you define hate ?

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
I made no such claim. I merely stated that Christian love, as biblically defined and as personified in Christ, is much different than the worldly version of love which you have miserably failed in relating it to. Does taking things out of context and purposely trying to confuse and confuddle others with warped logic come easy to you?


I understand the Bible's stance, but I care not. I already told you I was not limitting myself to the Biblical definition of Love, because I beleive that no human source can truly define Love.

If anything, Love can best be explained through collective means. Since we ALL individualize what we call Love, no one definition could ever suffice.

Does my logic still appear "warped" to you, or are your brains still scrambled by scripture ?


Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo



And then you get mad when someone laughs at your religion ?

Especially when the Bible consists of no factual basis? Ay carajo, the fkn hypocrisy !

I never stated my assertion of Christ as fact. Get over it

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Go on......


If thou insists -- but let us first define what a "definition" is, so as not to further confound ourselves and others with our own varied, limited and personal interpretations of the terminology being used.



So what does thou believe that thou has given us pray tell? Perhaps we should look directly within the horse's mouth, in order to find an answer -

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
An explanation...a description...


But let us not limit ourselves, and our understanding to but one interpretation of what a certain Lord Urizen has given. Perhaps if we look deeper within the horse's mouth, we can find another "explanation" of "Love" that thou mayhaps hath provided --

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I am not defining what Love is, because I beleive that as limitted human beings, we can EXPLAIN LOVE, but not define it.



And if we -- once again, look further -- we can find another "explanation"
(and another misrepresentation of what I've stated -- if I might add)

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Limitting myself to the Bible, then YES, I could only argue that If Jesus is Love, then only Christians are loving.....like you claim.



And still others --

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
However, I am not limitting myself to the Bible. The Bible does not OWN Jesus, so I may refer to him as I wish.

It is my conclusion that if Jesus is truly the embodyment of Love, then everyone who LOVES is part of Christ. Regardless of whether or not they beleive in him...

Yes. It means sh*t to me, because I am not using the Bible in my conclusion.



Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If you and I do not possess the intellect necessary to define Love, then no....we cannot define it. That was my stance before, and is still my stance now.


Once again, sadly missing and/or misrepresenting the point. Love can indeed be defined, however, just giving a simple definition -- does not mean that one has a complete understanding of the definition they have given.

For example, one can give you an "explanation" of what a "definition" is, however, this "explanation" is only limited to the understanding and knowledge available to them at the time--

so what does thou think of those apples?(rhetorical witty question, no need to answer)

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Can you define hate ?


Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Read the above.



Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I understand the Bible's stance, but I care not. I already told you I was not limitting myself to the Biblical definition of Love, because I beleive that no human source can truly define Love.

If anything, Love can best be explained through collective means. Since we ALL individualize what we call Love, no one definition could ever suffice.

Does my logic still appear "warped" to you, or are your brains still scrambled by scripture ?


Again, God's version of love -- as it is described in the bible, can not be compared synonymously with your worldly version. This has been stated to you multiple times. Your defense is to attempt to confute and/or intermingle the pure Godly love personified in the form of Christ, with your own perverted worldly interpretations of it -- and it is very clear for all to see that this is what you are doing. I have no desire in needlessly arguing with you in a circular fashion, particularly when my point has already been proved multiple times.

Good day to you sir. God bless.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
If thou insists -- but let us first define what a "definition" is, so as not to further confound ourselves and others with our own varied, limited and personal interpretations of the terminology being used.


A definition and explanation are NOT the same thing. If you explain something descriptively you are not defining it. To define is to cast a permanent and complete label on something.

An explanation still leaves room for more intepretation.

Nice Try



Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
So what does thou believe that thou has given us pray tell? Perhaps we should look directly within the horse's mouth, in order to find an answer -


In a pathetic attempt to twist my words by accusing me of Defining Love when I am doing no such thing you have proven to me your own insecurity, not only with your religion, but your ability to debate.


Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
But let us not limit ourselves, and our understanding to but one interpretation of what a certain Lord Urizen has given. Perhaps if we look deeper within the horse's mouth, we can find another "explanation" of "Love" that thou mayhaps hath provided --


HA HAHA JU SO FONNY !

Another Christian insulting me....why am I not surprised ?

An explanation of Love from my perspective is just as valid as your own. We all possess Love. If Jesus is Love, then we all possess Jesus.



Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
And if we -- once again, look further -- we can find another "explanation"
(and another misrepresentation of what I've stated -- if I might add)

Yes, another explanation. NOT definition...



Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
And still others --

Yes, more explanations. I see nothing wrong with that.




Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Once again, sadly missing and/or misrepresenting the point. Love can indeed be defined, however, just giving a simple definition -- does not mean that one has a complete understanding of the definition they have given.


Love cannot truly be defined. Atleast I do not beleive so. It can be explained, but for a true definition of Love to exist, we must all accept it.

Not everybody accepts the Biblical description of Love, the same way not everyone accepts MY or Your own description of Love. What part do you not get ?

The Bible's definition is no more valid that my explanation, Shaky's explanation, your explanation, or even JM's dumb explanation.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
For example, one can give you an "explanation" of what a "definition" is, however, this "explanation" is only limited to the understanding and knowledge available to them at the time--

Yes, I agree with you here entirely.



Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
so what does thou think of those apples?(rhetorical witty question, no need to answer)

Are all your questions rhetorical ? Because I don't think they deserve answers






Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Again, God's version of love -- as it is described in the bible, can not be compared synonymously with your worldly version. This has been stated to you multiple times. Your defense is to attempt to confute and/or intermingle the pure Godly love personified in the form of Christ, with your own perverted worldly interpretations of it -- and it is very clear for all to see that this is what you are doing. I have no desire in needlessly arguing with you in a circular fashion, particularly when my point has already been proved multiple times.


"God's version of Love" is a myth that you have validated through your own bias. That's fine, but to argue it as FACT is wrong

The Bible's version cannot be compared with my own? OFCOURSE IT CAN ! It is no more factual than my own...neither I nor the Bible have a factual basis to back up our explanations of Love, only our own human biases. What part don't you get ?

MY OWN PERVERTED WORDLY INTEPRETATIONS - You sound like a MARCELLO whob-sock now. I just lost all respect for you.

Your point has not been proven in the least bit...you keep trying to shove the Bible up my ass, but there's only room there for dildos, so quit trying.



Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Good day to you sir. God bless.


You don't really mean that. And God cannot bless me if he doesn't exist. IF he in fact does exist, I challenge you to prove it. Otherwise, stop talking.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
My beleifs.....I am drawing a hypothetical conclusion that if Jesus is Love, then we are all part of Jesus....what evidense do you expect anyone to find ? You DO remember that you are in the RELIGION forum, right ? Evidense and Proof is almost RARE in these forums lol

I see nothing wrong with arguing philosophy in a religion forum, the same way you insist on arguing science in the religion forum. Im sad that you see it that way.When presented with an evidenced physical basis for the collection of emotions we refer to as "love". You denied it. Then attacked both it and me with an array of leading questions in subsequent posts. Then continued to assert your belief belligerently as if it were fact, as you have with every other person posting in this thread. You've also made several unsubstantiated statements about natural animal behaviour.

You stated you do have evidence. Now you state one cannot find evidence and should not have to.

You're more than welcome to your philosophical beliefs, but you cannot deny evidenced scientific relationship between neurobiology and emotion based on an argument of personal incredulity. If one is to deny the credibility of an evidenced relationship, they must do so with evidence.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Take your own advice then....

All you have is the physical....you have no proof or disproof of the mental / emotional / spiritual existance or description of Love as a whole. Therefore, no matter how much science jumbo you throw my way, you could never truly disprove my assertion, the same way I cannot disprove yours.

Sorry.....Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, yes. But absence of evidence is most certainly not evidence of existence. Your position is based on belief in an intangible existence, and nothing more, therefore it cannot be proven nor disproven. However you are arguing that one cannot prove you wrong therefore you can assert yourself as right. You're arguing your position is unquestionable because it's based on philosophy, while at the same time avidly questioning the philosophical and scientific stances put forward by others. As stated before hypocritical.

Conversely existence of evidence does show evidence of existence.
There is evidence for a physical basis for emotion. The evidence is sufficient for a physical basis for emotion to be considered fact. That is the extent to what I have implied.

You are right in that you cannot disprove this, but you're wrong in saying it's the same way. This can be disproven, however evidence that exists favours the current theory.

"There are invisible intangible flying monkeys." Prove me wrong.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You just said that an argument with no factual basis to support it is WORTHLESS...you do REALIZE that 90% of the religion forum is NOT based on FACT but on beleif and personal philosophy right ?

By your own grammatically accurate statement, you also argue that what the Buddha taught is worthless, because Buddha had no factual basis behind his teachings....just his experience and bias.

It is highly relevant in this case. You are demeaning this entire THREAD worthless because PHYSICAL PROOF cannot be supplied for a philosophical take on the possibility of the mental/spiritual existance of Love.

You are foolish in this case, and you cannot see that....why not ? I'm basically going to ignore this strawman segment. And reiterate the context was clearly with regard to when one forms an argument or explanation of phenomena based purely on personal belief. Especially when one does so in attempt to counter evidenced bases for the phenomena.

"The water cycle is wrong, invisible intangible flying monkeys piss water and that's how it rains."
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I agree with your first statement...so what? There will never be "proof" that you or anyone else can recognize for my arguments...since when does the religion forum require proof for beleif ?

As for what flaws ?...go back and read...I answered every argument thrown at me. The only argument I have used in defence of the position, is that there is evidence for a physical basis for love, and there is no evidence for your belief. To which the only response has been "You cannot prove me wrong." "I don't need to prove myself."
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) When have I ever closed off on someone else's point of view. Disagreeing with someone does not constitute my "refusal" to see things from another perspective. What a horrible accusation, I am actually offended by that

2) The only FACTS I have presented were those on animal behavior. As for the theory or argument on Jesus Christ and Love, no facts are possible. It is all logic, philosophy, and religion.....the last 2 things you seem to be INTOLERANT of A martyr complex. How quaint. You attack everything and anything that disagrees with your philosophy (I use the term broadly, not with regard to this thread). You've been unwilling to accept the physical basis for emotion and cognition as evidenced. Your debate consists of strawmanning, hysterical outbursts, invective and asking leading and baseless questions. Oh and smilies, let's not forget smilies.

As stated I base my opinions of phenomena on the tangible correlates with sufficient evidence for causation. I see nothing foolish or ignorant in this stance, nor do I feel the need to label those who don't hold this stance fools. As you seem to feel the need to do with regard to your beliefs.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
When presented with an evidenced physical basis for the collection of emotions we refer to as "love". You denied it. Then attacked both it and me with an array of leading questions in subsequent posts. Then continued to assert your belief belligerently as if it were fact, as you have with every other person posting in this thread. You've also made several unsubstantiated statements about natural animal behaviour.

1) I did not deny your evidense. I understand that the emotion and mental states of mind are definately linked with the physical. I am simply not convinced that everything mental/emotional or spiritual is purely physical in essense. I am convinced that the physical aspect is there, but not that Love is entirely physical and nothing more.

2) I never asserted by beleif as fact, I only backed up it with everything I could.

3) My statements about animal behavior are correct. I did not make any of it up. If I am wrong, it is because all my sources of information are misleading. Otherwise they are sincere and entirely valid.





Originally posted by xmarksthespot



Nope...I stated I have no PROOF....I already gave evidense for my assertions.

Proof and Evidense are two different things.....

I stated since there is no proof to validate the mental and/or spiritual existances, that scientific perspective is no more valid than philosophical perspective. Do you beg to differ ?



Originally posted by xmarksthespot



I never denied your evidense. I see it as valid. I never denied the relationship. I only denied that Love is purely physical, which was your initial argument. I think you are mistaken as to what my stance actually is. It may be my own fauly, so I apologize if so.




Originally posted by xmarksthespot




My position is based on factual events (in regard to the observations and studies of animal behavior) and the rest on philosophy.

You do remember what I am actually arguing correct ? That If Jesus Christ is Love embodied then we all are part of Jesus.

What scientific facts can you present to disprove that assertion ?


I do not see how I am being a hypocrit. You are trying to argue the source of what we call Love, while I never really addressed that issue to begin with..only when you brought it up.

This thread is based on a philosophical statement alone...yes, I welcome your scientific input very much, but to say that my statement is entirely wrong because no physical evidense can back it up is a false argument.

How do you aim to use scientific evidense in a philosophical hypothesis that is incapable of being proven or disproven through physical means ????



Originally posted by xmarksthespot



I agree and commend. There is nothing wrong there.



Originally posted by xmarksthespot




What theory are you talking about is what I am asking. I am arguing that if Jesus is love, then we all possess Christ in us.

I am also arguing that Love is NOT just a Christian ideal....again, how do you not see the foolishness in arguing against a purely philosophical idea with scientific data ?

That's sort of like me arguing with someone that Buddha is more loving than Jesus, and you jump in trying to use scientific data to make your stance.

Or like me arguing that Wolverine would beat Spiderman, and then you jumping in with a barrel load of scientific data where it doesn't really belong.

In terms of the argument as to "what is love" then yes, your arguments are indeed valid and welcome. But as to the hypothesis that if "Jesus is love, then we are all Christian" you could never come up with enough scientific information to make a valid argument.


Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"There are invisible intangible flying monkeys." Prove me wrong.


I cannot. Invisible Intangible Flying Monkeys are as valid as the beleif if God. You cannot prove or disprove either one.

Same with the idea of Kharma and Reincarnation....try proving or disproving those theories.


Originally posted by xmarksthespot



I did not attempt to counter your evidense, only your argument. I already know that Love has a physical aspect to it as well..... But initially you aimed to argue that Love is purely physical in nature, lacking any other aspect, and the rest is spawned from there....

I disagree.

I beleive that Love is physical, mental, emotional, AND spiritual. Unfortunately, as human beings we can only recognize the physical, and wondor about the rest.

Atleast we seem to agree that there IS a relationship between the physical and emotional.


Originally posted by xmarksthespot




And what exactly Is my belief? Do you even know ?

Again, you seem to think that I think Love has nothing to do with the physical, and I am telling you "YES I DO"...but I do not agree that it is physical in ROOT....

I also do not beleive Love can be defined. Your earliest argument I have actually read in articles, but those chemicals promote INFATUATION.....it's a form of Love, but not its entirety.

It still doesn't even FULLY explain the entirely of infatuation, so how could it explain the entirety of Love when none of us truly nor completely know what Love essentially is ?




Originally posted by xmarksthespot



Read the above, this statement is entirely false.



Originally posted by xmarksthespot
As stated I base my opinions of phenomena on the tangible correlates with sufficient evidence for causation. I see nothing foolish or ignorant in this stance, nor do I feel the need to label those who don't hold this stance fools. As you seem to feel the need to do with regard to your beliefs.



Don't try and play the "professional" here. I do think it is foolish to beleive that everything can be explained through physical means. We are not even fully equipped to understand the MIND in its complexity. For you to argue that Love is ONLY physical, and not spiritual or immaterial in ANYWAY is ignorant and foolish....

And accuse me of being "rude" all you want, but you have been just as rude as I have. So please....stop complaining and just debate. Thanks.

I've never stated that love is purely physical. I stated the known physical basis for emotions - neuroendocrine interaction. I wrote four lines.

Your response:
"No, that would be infatuation.
You attempted to explain Love through physical scientific means....so now I expect you to finish what you started. If you do not, I will disregard your assertion entirely." And an array of pointless questions.

I.e. denial of my point and attempt to deride it, while the behaviours one identifies with love have known biological correlates and causatives. Altering neurochemistry alters emotion, cognition and behaviour giving evidence for the physical basis. You do not believe it has physical root, yet you can offer nothing in opposition to the evidence for this except your own incredulity.

FYI proof and evidence. Synonyms. And arguing that a current lack of understanding and incomplete explanation for human emotions implies a supernatural or spiritual intangible existence is essentially a god of gaps approach.

While the OP was another one of your particular belligerent style of thread, the majority of the posts in it have been you questioning other people's personal views of what love is. Therefore saying my response to your denial of my simple statement on the known physical basis for emotion doesn't relate to your OP, which the majority of your post is saying, really isn't valid.

As to your last statements. You are more than happy to call proponents for a physical view of the world ignorant or foolish, and maintain a spiritual immaterial view of "love" based purely on your belief. Mirrored to your attacks on the religious for having no tangible evidences for their beliefs, you come off highly hypocritical.
" Can you prove that Satan has corrupted my mind? Can you prove that the Bible is Truth?

If not, then shut up ."
Apply that premise to your current stance. And heed your own words.

Your intolerance of my view of the world, your belief that one who holds such a view is ignorant and foolish, is of no significance to me. One can hold a physical view of the world and still admire it's beauty. The Aurora Borealis is no less beautiful to me simply because I know the manner in which it is produced. One can hold a position for the physical basis of emotion and still be enthralled in it.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I've never stated that love is purely physical. I stated the known physical basis for emotions - neuroendocrine interaction. I wrote four lines.


Then I was mistaken as to your stance. My apologies.



Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Your response:
"No, that would be infatuation.
You attempted to explain Love through physical scientific means....so now I expect you to finish what you started. If you do not, I will disregard your assertion entirely." And an array of pointless questions.


I don't see a problem here.

You have explained your way afterward, and I have considered and accepted your arguments, now that I am clear you are not stating that Love is purely physical in essence.

The questions were not pointless, because answering them would have not only proved to everyone the extent of your knowledge on the subject, but would have further validated your own point.

Why do you see them as pointless? Do they appear to be "idiotically easy" questions to answer? Oh forgive us great scientist for not having extensive scientific knowledge on the subject



Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I.e. denial of my point and attempt to deride it, while the behaviours one identifies with love have known biological correlates and causatives. Altering neurochemistry alters emotion, cognition and behaviour giving evidence for the physical basis. You do not believe it has physical root, yet you can offer nothing in opposition to the evidence for this except your own incredulity.


No. Your point, as you clarified, was that Love has a chemical aspect to it. I originally beleived that your point was that Love is ONLY physical in nature, and has no spiritual or true immaterial aspect to it. Now that I am corrected as to what your stance is, we can move on.

I do beleive Love has a physical aspect, as I already heard your argument beforehand from articles and such. But I am not entirely convinced that Love is just physical. Do you still have a problem with that ?



Originally posted by xmarksthespot
FYI proof and evidence. Synonyms. And arguing that a current lack of understanding and incomplete explanation for human emotions implies a supernatural or spiritual intangible existence is essentially a god of gaps approach.


Proof and Evidence are not the same thing. Evidence is anything factual or clear that can back up a point, while Proof leaves no room for denial.

They had much evidence against OJ Simpson, but his guilt in the murder of his wife was not proven.

I am surprised you did not know the difference.




Originally posted by xmarksthespot
While the OP was another one of your particular belligerent style of thread, the majority of the posts in it have been you questioning other people's personal views of what love is. Therefore saying my response to your denial of my simple statement on the known physical basis for emotion doesn't relate to your OP, which the majority of your post is saying, really isn't valid.



Read the Above




Originally posted by xmarksthespot
As to your last statements. You are more than happy to call proponents for a physical view of the world ignorant or foolish, and maintain a spiritual immaterial view of "love" based purely on your belief. Mirrored to your attacks on the religious for having no tangible evidences for their beliefs, you come off highly hypocritical.



Nope. Wrong again


I have no problem with a materialistic view of the world. But you attempted to refute my argument that Love doesn't exist as anything other than physical reaction (or atleast that is how I saw it), through physical means only.

I see it ignorant for someone to ONLY pay attention to the physical, and IGNORE all possibility of the emotional and spiritual.... Don't you ?

However, I think you already clarified that you did not close off on the immaterial aspect of Love yet.....



Originally posted by xmarksthespot
" Can you prove that Satan has corrupted my mind? Can you prove that the Bible is Truth?

If not, then shut up ."
Apply that premise to your current stance. And heed your own words.

That was in response to Sonnet who made a very offensive post, so I made a very offensive response back.

At the same time, even though neither of our stances provide proof, my stance still provides some evidense (animal behavior) and Logic. Sonnet's stance only provided closed Biblical text, and no logic what-so-ever.



Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Your intolerance of my view of the world, your belief that one who holds such a view is ignorant and foolish, is of no significance to me. One can hold a physical view of the world and still admire it's beauty. The Aurora Borealis is no less beautiful to me simply because I know the manner in which it is produced. One can hold a position for the physical basis of emotion and still be enthralled in it.




When did I say I was intolerant of your worldview? Please stop putting words in my mouth or making false accusations.

I simply beleive that an intentional view of only the physical, and ignorance of other possibilities..is...well..infact...ignorant.

However, I thnk you already clarified that you are not disregarding the immaterial existances, so for that I commend you.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Love in animals in not what we call love, they protect their young not because they love them but it is they instinct and survival, they must breed and multiply or they die. You also forget that most species kill their young as well if they are not fit to survive. See, this is what I've been saying.

But I don't get that "what we call love" what we call love is something religious. There is no love, only lust and instinct.

Think about it. Your mum or wife does things for you that you like. If it is done for a long time, say 10 years, then you would sub-concsiouncesly (sp?) depend on her and what she does. So if you see something bad happen to her, like if she's diseased, you would be sad because sub-consciounsly you rely on the things you do, and your mind realises that your life will have to change temporarily or permanent. And the fact that no human likes change (subconcsiounsly) ... well you get the idea.

It's the same with guilt. People don't feel "guilt" either. Is it guilt, or is it fear of getting caught? Some people who are told that stealing is bad, (and have gotten punished for stealing) will feal "guilt". However, if they weren't taught stealing is wrong, they won't feel guilt because they don't realise something bad might happen.

And that's basically what these things are. Love, Guilt, Religion, Philosophy, these things are taught to people as true (or a possibilty of being true), so they see something, they would see it as what the philosophical explanation, and not the scientific definition.

In my opinion, I see all religion as equal, all beliefs that are unexplanitory as equal with eachother and religion, and philosophical beliefs as the same.

One person would say that the Lord of the Rings book is absolute fiction and their is no such thing as an elf. Others would see gods and deities as fiction and none-existant.

The way I see it, they are all right. Anything that has flaws is wrong IMO. But yes, I'm only a young child, I may understand things as I am older, but for now, these are my opinions.

If you haven't already got what I've been saying, then this is what I'm trying to say:

Anything made-up can be true, goblins, wizards, god, fate, love, all made up, all could be true. But there is no proof that they are true, and there is no proof they are false. But the fact they are made up, is evidence enough to me to say they aren't true. But I will still keep an open mind about this. Prove me wrong, go on. I will listen to what you have said, I will learn, study, do whatever I can. But I do know if something is plain bullshit. It's not hard to spot. But I will listen nonetheless.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Why do you see them as pointless? Do they appear to be "idiotically easy" questions to answer? Oh forgive us great scientist for not having extensive scientific knowledge on the subject No mainly because like many of your posts I assumed they were an array of questions intended to denigrate the other person's viewpoint. And although you may retroactively claim alternative intention I'm going to continue to hold that assumption.

Here's an example of your tactic:
Lacking the receptors for dopamine, serotonin etc. i.e. the physical correlates, can one feel happy due to an immaterial spiritual causative force?

You need not answer the question if you don't wish to.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
No. Your point, as you clarified, was that Love has a chemical aspect to it. I originally beleived that your point was that Love is ONLY physical in nature, and has no spiritual or true immaterial aspect to it. Now that I am corrected as to what your stance is, we can move on.

I do beleive Love has a physical aspect, as I already heard your argument beforehand from articles and such. But I am not entirely convinced that Love is just physical. Do you still have a problem with that ? I've only put forward a viewpoint, you were the one on the attack. There is still no reason for one to believe in an immaterial causation, when there is physical explanation. That I don't deny the possibility of the immaterial does not mean I believe in it nor an argument of it's existence based on nothing more than belief. I'm still of the opinion that the physical processes underlie behaviour. Do you still have a problem with that?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Proof and Evidence are not the same thing. Evidence is anything factual or clear that can back up a point, while Proof leaves no room for denial.

They had much evidence against OJ Simpson, but his guilt in the murder of his wife was not proven.

I am surprised you did not know the difference.Proof and evidence are used as synonyms in everyday usage. I can substitute the word proof for evidence in that sentence and it's still cogent. If anything your statement shows that proof is not irrefutable, as he was proven innocent while in all likelihood he did kill his wife.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Nope. Wrong again

I have no problem with a materialistic view of the world. But you attempted to refute my argument that Love doesn't exist as anything other than physical reaction (or atleast that is how I saw it), through physical means only.

I see it ignorant for someone to ONLY pay attention to the physical, and IGNORE all possibility of the emotional and spiritual.... Don't you ?

However, I think you already clarified that you did not close off on the immaterial aspect of Love yet.....You seem a little confused. I attempted to refute your argument that love doesn't exist as anything other than physical reaction through physical means only? Anyway, I need not refute your argument as all it's based upon is personal belief.

No I don't find it arrogant. If one can find cause in the natural physical world, I see no need to look to the supernatural i.e. spiritual, and emotion is based on the physical so I am not ignoring it.

I still find your approach to this hypocritical. I neither accept nor deny an existence of the immaterial, whether it be a deity or an immaterial basis for love, however I do not find any reason to believe in either nor does that affect me in any way. While you are happy to accept the immaterial with regard to one matter without any tangible basis while equally happy to scorn those who accept the immaterial with regard to another.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That was in response to Sonnet who made a very offensive post, so I made a very offensive response back.

At the same time, even though neither of our stances provide proof, my stance still provides some evidense (animal behavior) and Logic. Sonnet's stance only provided closed Biblical text, and no logic what-so-ever. Your evidence is anecdotal, unsubstantiated and/or unreferenced, and in some cases plainly illogical i.e. on what basis do you derive that the level of instinctive behaviour is uniform across a species. Additionally what argument based on logic have you provided? NB Argument from personal incredulity, god of gaps argument and strawmanning are all recognised as logical fallacy.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
When did I say I was intolerant of your worldview? Please stop putting words in my mouth or making false accusations.
I simply beleive that an intentional view of only the physical, and ignorance of other possibilities..is...well..infact...ignorant.
However, I thnk you already clarified that you are not disregarding the immaterial existances, so for that I commend you. One does not need to say they are intolerant. You display a lack of willingness to entertain the thought that these other possibilities do not exist, which is equally "ignorant."

To clarify I am not disregarding the possibility of the immaterial, but that does not imply believing in it, which is perfectly rational.