“cuz i can?” is a newbie troll whose blog has already won Zdenny’s praise for saying atheism is “self-refuting” and “love isn’t an emotion”. I wonder if he’s a sock-puppet, or perhaps one of Zdenny’s children.

Also, you’re dumb. Theism is Greek. Contra- is Latin. The correct spurious allegation you’re looking for is “antitheists”. And nobody in this thread is specifically motivated by being against THEISTS, just by lacking belief. That’s why we call ourselves ATHEISTS. Because it means “does not believe in a god or gods”.

Shhh!! Don’t tell anybody…ABOMINATION!!!!! They’ll probably try to kill me…

You actually gave me the impression that I got, with:

Just like the hurt of a lost loved one will fade over time, a new and real emotional connection can be formed either over time as with relationships, or through the electro-chemical changes (real, and measurable) that happen when a woman is pregnant. Once that attachment is formed, the emotions (need to protect, nurture and guide through life, for instance) are electro-chemical processes.

But I can see now, what you are getting at.

Your life is fleeting in context of the duration of the universe. Your love is therefore even more fleeting, since the likelihood that any one particular attachment of yours has lasted from birth through until death is rather low (given that you’re not likely to be sentient at birth, unless you’re some kind of creepy Dune-like “pre-born”). That I have to clarify my previous position indicates either that I was unclear to begin with, or that you’re predisposed to assume I meant love is fleeting even in the context of a person’s lifespan. That is assuredly not my meaning.

Everything else you’ve said, I agree with. I suspect you’ll probably agree with even that which you’ve strenuously objected to, now that you have the proper frame of reference in which I had intended my comments be read.

Jason is far from the last line on love and atheists. Not all of us would agree with him, just as not all Christians would come close to agreeing with your assertions, here or there.

I am an atheist, after spending the vast majority of my life trying to reconcile my Faith with reason and reality. I understand very clearly, many different Christian premises about the nature of love. Now you may just decide that because I am now an atheist, I must never have been a real Christian, in which case this is probably a pointless exercise. But I am not going to assume that you are rather bigger than that.

When I was a Christian, I was very caught onto this notion of love and godly love. I have written very extensively over the years, on 1 Cor. 13 and that has been an absolute my entire life. I have believed absolutely in loving everyone, unconditionally. When I was a Christian, I absolutely believed that this was the least I could do – the least I could be, as a living testament to my god. The thing is, now that I am not a Christian, I not only continue to love like I did – I have found a much deeper and meaningful love than I have ever experienced.

Emotions are chemical based, because we are chemical based – everything we think, is based in chemical processes. The difference between you and who I am now, is that you somehow see this as making you less of a person – less miraculous than you actually are. Rather than arguing that this is somehow mundane and degrading, I would ask; Why do you think that this degrades us? We are truly marvelous and beautiful creatures – what makes us who and what we are, is awe inspiring. It is much like the notion of creation, versus evolution – I am far more inspired and awestruck, by the understanding of how we – these significantly flawed, yet wholly remarkable creatures came to be, than by the notion that we and the universe around us, were just magically “poofed” into existence. I am awestruck by the notion of the billions of years and virtually infinite space that spans out universe.

But the thing that I actually really have to disagree with Jason about – rather strenuously even, is this idea that our emotions are fleeting things – they assuredly are not. While some of our emotions are fleeting things, that which is most important to us does not evaporate, it usually just gets buried. We humans have a remarkable capacity for compartmentalizing and do so on an ongoing basis. Were we to stop, we would quickly be completely overwhelmed by the inability to process absolutely everything. So the vast majority of what we see, what is happening around us, goes into tidy little compartments – some of them much like the RECYCLE function of our computers. Certain types of information are harder to reach while they are still there and only stay until we have put so much more in, that it disappears.

But there are a great many things that never leave us – though we may get past the worst of the impact of those events, people and the feelings they inspire. And when we dwell on them, it is easy enough to recall and experience those emotions again – unless we’ve repressed it, which is something that men are especially good at.

I don’t believe in gods anymore, don’t believe in the supernatural at all. That doesn’t mean I have any less capacity for love and emotions than you do. Indeed, believing as I now do, that such beliefs are dangerous and overall bad for us, I not only love you, but much as I am sure you love me and wish that I would come back to God’s grace, I wish you would come to reason and out of the dangers of magical thinking.

And I too, love my children. Ever so very deeply and in a way that to you, a fellow parent, can totally relate to.

A cure for atheism is sometimes just to get married. A woman in your life can sometimes show you the necessity of having real love rather because the chemical formula generally doesn’t work.

I sincerely doubt it.

Not only is this complete and utter bollocks but it doesn’t even make any sense. I know what you’re trying to get at with your ‘chemical formula’ statement, you’re talking about lust. And if you’re already the kind of guy who is hung up on lust and just wants lots of ‘chemical romance’ in the first place then how the hell is a woman who wants ‘real love’ really going to settle anything? That’s just doomed to failure from the outset. That’s the kind of relationship that has him drinking every night and her slaving away in the kitchen pinning for a life she never had. A woman will not be able to change a man like that.

But aside from that, I am the woman that Jason is soon to marry and I can assure you my presence is not going to make him turn to zombie jesus any time soon. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Do you mean apart from every time it does? Really. I’m not being cute. This is complete nonsense. You don’t even understand your own argument.

http://quichemoraine.com/2009/07/atheists-in-love/

Thanks for proving my point…

Your point was that love stems only from God, and God’s love is unconditional and eternal.

My point was that the only love you see in this world right now, is conditional upon the person being alive. As soon as they are dead, they can no longer love. Our points are not only unrelated, they are for all intents and purposes diametrically opposed to one another.

Perhaps I assert, like Nietzsche, that God is dead.

Or perhaps I assert that as God does not exist, the only love that exists is that which humans, and other animals capable of such, experience.

Most atheist would try to spin atheist concept of love into something positive. You were just straightforward in your presentation. I can respect that…

“Atheists“, please. You seem incapable of pluralizing the word. If you refuse to do so, I’ll start referring to “most Christian” or “most creationist” or “most insufferable asshole” when trying to paint the social groups to which you belong with such a broad brush as you do.

Love is most certainly a positive thing, there’s nothing negative about it just because it comes from electrochemical reactions in the brain instead of some invisible, unknowable (though you claim to know him pretty well!) deity. It is positive in that it has evolved along with our social evolution in order to forge bonds between you and other members of your race, especially your immediate family. I am merely realistic about its duration (only, at most, as long as you live), its source (your brain), and its provenance (to help bind society together).

A cure for atheism is sometimes just to get married. A woman in your life can sometimes show you the necessity of having real love rather because the chemical formula generally doesn’t work.

No. Marrying a religious woman might force you to subvert your own rationality in order to accept the religious tenets of your wife’s beliefs, and over time you might end up prone to the same short-circuit that religious people have in their brains. I am happy with being a rational, logical, intelligent and yet still emotional person. I do not want to go messing with the wiring of my brain just to appease some hypothetical religious woman.

My fiancee is a Humanist. She does not believe in a god or gods. I seriously doubt that our love suffers from this fact, and I doubt also that marrying her will suddenly find me “finding God” (by which I mean, short-ciruciting my own brain).

Do you care to argue against any of the points I made above, or will you, as I’ve seen you do elsewhere, merely ignore them, restate your arguments (possibly throwing in new lines of argumentation out of nowhere), and pretend like you’ve actually rebutted them?

Because if not, I have no further interest in speaking with you, who tells others that they are incapable of love. You are an evil, disgusting person for doing so, and additionally, you are a hypocrite for claiming to follow God while casting the first stone at every opportunity. You may not see your actions as hateful, but I assure you they are.