Love thy Enemy

[Little_Birdie]

You will believe as I say or you will burn.

as i have stated over and over agin in this forum it is not about belive as much as it is searching for truth if you are actively searching that is all you need to be doning and the search is never over

You will be constrained to arbitrary behaviors that suit me.

to which behaviors do you adress? mass is a gething for fellowship and rembrance, confession is for the human mind seeking tangiblity, sacraments in gerneral are first passing on graces don't get me wrong, but second physicla sybmols of that grace

You will NOT question my teachings.

if you speak of galileo he was asked to explain himself and like the smart ass he was porceeded to mock the pope instead of share his idea, after which the church did not kill him they did not inprison him save in his own home and let him continue research, the church is not afraid of new knowldge only run by humans who get offended by smart ass genus

I am ultimately responsible for your failures and successes.

god shares in our wins and our loses but to say that he is ultimately responsible for failure is not what he presents

People with different "viewpoints" are to be converted, pitied, or killed as a last resort.

people with this view point think of relgion as truth and want to share their truth with the world some more extreme and so further from god than others, i'm not justifying just explaining

This is just a smattering of you "ideal" religious experience.

no not really but thanks for trying

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, right? Guns can be used to protect and to attack, just like religion. Either way you slice it though, it's living under the rule of the gun. Fuck that. The very principles of religion are an insidious set of traps for the dull-witted.

humans are recouseful anything can be used as tool even children can be chained to buildings so we don't blow them up does that make chilren evil, the fact that they are being used to an end that they are not apart of

 

[Cyperium]

Love comes from DNA.

How does DNA make you love?

Its a trick that makes us procreate, protect our young, and develop political relationships for personal gain and for the better of the population as a whole.

It's not a trick. Would it not be love if it helped us procreate and protect our young?

How come you think it is a trick just because it has purpouse??

And all that preachy bullshit is against forum rules.

I explained that we must share our love with God (not satan which rejected God), while the other guy thought that maybe we could love satan.

Not to say that plainly we can't, but rather to say that it's better to have the insight that if we did, then the possibility is great that he will let us down, or take us with him as he is destroyed, or in some other way harm us.

 

[Godless]

So Mr. Godless knows the cause of all the problems of our world, and he found it to be religion. Of course Mr. Godless cannot explain, for instance, the death of millions of Soviet dissidents by the atheist Stalin. But Mr. Godless doesn't seem to like to think; he prefers easy, ready-made answers to difficult questions. Just like the people he accuses of doing precisely the same thing.

The death of millions of soviets dissidents by stalin are merely a small number compared to the historical slaughter of billions of people through religious fanaticism. Religion is the root of all evil, that has stagnated humanity, and stagnates progress even today. Religion and it's many variances still is causing conflicts between different sects and ideals, mysticism is the stupidity desease, the mental depravity of humanity.

Stalin merely replaced one form of mysticism with another. Instead of the church, it became the state, that was the pseudomnipotent power of the people, this could have only taken place cause the very religious people of that state were willing to give up their power, to the state as they so to the church.

Godless

 

[Provita]

belief in a diety is not the root of all evil... the root of all evil is the stupidity of mankind trying to oppress their views and decisions on all around them and hurting and/or killing all who oppose them. People attacked other nations because they did not worship the same God... People slaughtered their own people because they disagreed with the government. So shall we destroy government?

The moment religious leaders try to use power for their own purposes is the moment things go wrong... religious leaders are meant to answer questions, inspire, and preach, not take control and order.

 

[(Q)]

The moment religious leaders try to use power for their own purposes is the moment things go wrong... religious leaders are meant to answer questions, inspire, and preach, not take control and order.

And what planet did you say you were from?

 

[Little_Birdie]

And what planet did you say you were from?

does it matter, the ideal religous learder is just as provita has claimed it is humanity's concupiscence that has currupted such an ideal

 

[Carcano]

...trying to oppress their views and decisions on all around them and hurting and/or killing all who oppose them.

Gasp! Sounds like the kind of behaviour condoned and practised throughout the Bible!

 

[SkinWalker]

How does DNA make you love?

Brain chemistry via protiens, dopamine, seratonin, etc.

It's not a trick. Would it not be love if it helped us procreate and protect our young?

I'll agree to call this particular set of chemical processes "love."

How come you think it is a trick just because it has purpouse??

The "purpose" is a free-form rationale. It doesn't have an express purpose, it is simply and evolved advantage. Natural selection at its finest. Those with the ability to "fall in love" or "love their offspring" will find ideal mates and protect/care for their young. Humans offspring have the longest infant dependency period and, as a species, has evolved mechanisms to ensure that the parent cares for the child. One of these mechanisms is what we call "love" and it isn't present because of a purpose. It simply evolved because organisms that had the mechanism were more likely to raise young to maturity. Those mature young were, therefore, more likely to bear young of their own.

Moreover, this is a mechanism that appears to be present in other species as well, particularly other primates species, demonstrating its evolutionary origins.

I explained that we must share our love with God (not satan which rejected God), while the other guy thought that maybe we could love satan.

You were still preaching and breaking the forum rules. This is a science forum. Nobody wants to be prosyletized here. Either we don't buy the shit your shoveling or there are those among us that are already steeped in it.

 

[baumgarten]

If that's what you call proselytization, then by attempting to refute the existence of God, you as well are preaching. You are preaching atheism.

Love is not a set of chemical reactions, though it is an emotion caused by them.

 

[SkinWalker]

I'm not attempting to refute the existence of any gods, including whichever you claim as your own. I'm questioning humanity's assertion of gods. I freely admit that there might be one or more gods in the universe (indeed, if the universe was capable of producing one, it follows that there can be many).

And if love can be the result of chemical reactions, then we can characterize love as chemistry. QED.

 

[Confutatis]

I'm not attempting to refute the existence of any gods, including whichever you claim as your own.

SW, in case you haven't noticed, Baumgarten is an atheist.

 

[SkinWalker]

I noticed he "claimed" to be. But that's beside the point. My inclusion of the pronoun "you" was intended to be in the general sense. What I should have said was "whichever one claims as one's own" to be clear. My mistake.

 

[baumgarten]

I'm not attempting to refute the existence of any gods, including whichever you claim as your own. I'm questioning humanity's assertion of gods. I freely admit that there might be one or more gods in the universe (indeed, if the universe was capable of producing one, it follows that there can be many).

Take it as a general statement, then.

And if love can be the result of chemical reactions, then we can characterize love as chemistry.

If you define "love" as the chemical product of the reactions that cause it, then yes. That is obvious. However, I already characterized love as an emotion, an emotion being a sensory experience. Although it can be considered the result of chemical reactions, as it is itself not a chemical but immaterial, it cannot possibly be characterized as chemistry.

 

[SkinWalker]

There is ample evidence, that emotions are chemically based. Neuroscientists can watch different regions of the brain "light up" in MRI and PET scans when stimuli are used to produce emotional responses. This is highly suggestive of electro-chemical explanations for the phenomena we call emotions. After all, we know that the phenomena of emotions exist -we all experience them. This alone implies a physical explanation that creates the "feeling" we have.

Emotions are electro-chemical responses that are brains produce when stimulated by other sensory input, including thoughts. We see something, touch something, hear something or think of something that has previously been experienced or imagined to be experienced. This produces the responses that induce fear, jealousy, anger, anxiety, love, etc. -each evolutionary mechanisms that have obvious advantages to our survival.

 

[Confutatis]

Emotions are electro-chemical responses that are brains produce when stimulated by other sensory input, including thoughts. We see something, touch something, hear something or think of something that has previously been experienced or imagined to be experienced. This produces the responses that induce fear, jealousy, anger, anxiety, love, etc. -each evolutionary mechanisms that have obvious advantages to our survival.

Nonsense. If there is nothing to emotions but chemistry, then there is no real object to any emotion. We would not be able to say "I love that person", we should only say "the thought of that person causes my brain to release X and Y chemicals". It would make the loved person irrelevant, and drugs could one day fill the vacuum left by the death of a loved one.

Are you really willing to go that far? Because you stopped your argument in the middle.

 

[baumgarten]

You're missing my point, SW. I'm not arguing that emotions are not chemically based. I am pointing out that the chemical reaction of an emotion is separate from the experience of an emotion: you do not feel love when you observe its constituent chemical reactions.

 

[Cyperium]

Brain chemistry via protiens, dopamine, seratonin, etc.

You still said that DNA makes you love, not brain chemistry via proteins etc., I'll agree with you that DNA plays a part of the human representation of love. But love don't come only through this (what would it hold on to?), natural love comes through experiances in life, thus is more than just chemistry, it is a life situation, and a natural representation of that situation.

The brain doesn't give rise to love, love comes through experiance.

I'll agree to call this particular set of chemical processes "love."

Rather you say that love is a "particular set of chemical processes".

How do we know that the particular set of chemical processes is love? And do our knowledge of it make us experiance it?

What is it with the chemical processes that makes us feel at all? Why is there a feel at all?

Why do you speak of things that are blind?

The "purpose" is a free-form rationale. It doesn't have an express purpose, it is simply and evolved advantage. Natural selection at its finest.

I don't know what a free-form rationale is.

Kinda like "we say it, but we don't really mean anything by it"?

What you mean when you say "express purpouse" is also unclear to me?

Kinda like "direct purpouse"??

You say it is evolved advantage, how come it was 'love' that evolved from that advantage and not something else?

Can you imagine anything else? Or is love something that is inherent in the universe?

Whatever we evolve there must be a object of it, don't you see? There is something that is love, we can't deny it cause we all feel it from time to time. For me it is hard to see anything else that can replace it.

If there is something that is 'love' (since we speak of it and experiance it) then it must be inherent in existance (since we exist and feel it exist), thus something as natural as the wind (which you also feel).

Because you feel it, it must mean something to you. What does love mean to you? Sure you appreciate it, would be strange otherwise since it feels so good.

Why does it feel good? Why do chemicals "feel"? Or how do the "template" of you feel the chemicals?

When you have answered that, then I ask again; "why does it feel good?".

Think about it, then you should realise that it is something of a miracle that we can feel at all. That there is such a thing as "feeling".

Those with the ability to "fall in love" or "love their offspring" will find ideal mates and protect/care for their young. Humans offspring have the longest infant dependency period and, as a species, has evolved mechanisms to ensure that the parent cares for the child. One of these mechanisms is what we call "love" and it isn't present because of a purpose. It simply evolved because organisms that had the mechanism were more likely to raise young to maturity. Those mature young were, therefore, more likely to bear young of their own.

I allready know all that, but that doesn't take away the real purpouse of love, which is far more greater than you can imagine using the "only what matters to the world" principle.

Moreover, this is a mechanism that appears to be present in other species as well, particularly other primates species, demonstrating its evolutionary origins.

I know other primates love and care for eachother, why is this simply a demonstration of evolutionary origins? How did love "travel" from species to species? Or did it evolve seperatly in these species? I've seen love in many animals, not just apes, so you say that love came from a simpler animal that we all evolved from? It wouldn't surprise me if insects have love too, protecting their queen and all.

Maybe love was something that evolved from a predescribed template in the very first life? So that it would be spread throughout the world?

You were still preaching and breaking the forum rules. This is a science forum. Nobody wants to be prosyletized here. Either we don't buy the shit your shoveling or there are those among us that are already steeped in it.

Was that shit? I thought it was something really nice, what is it that you give me? Flowers?

 

[usp8riot]

Emotions, love including, are chemically based. And love, for instance, is an emotion that was given because we don't always know what's best for us and ours. It helps us protect our young and pass on our genes. But you got to put reason before emotion. I only let myself love if reason tells me if it's for the good of all instead of one, or if it will cause more good than harm. Emotions are for the ones who aren't analytical, therefore, those who are thinkers, rationalists, and so on can step outside emotion and know what it really is and is for. It's easy to fool someone with emotion but hard to fool them with reason.

Edit: Just to clarify, Hitler and other tyrants have pursuaded so many with their emotion and intensity but the countless masses were fooled by their emotion and the intensity in which the leader seemed to exhume rather than the reason in their words. Same goes with emotional preachers. A great man of God can sway with reason, not emotion. Some preachers use that tactic and it gives a bad name to God. Emotional can be irrational or unreasonable while reason is always reasonable. Just as a lot of atheists also and christians try to sway with emotion, going on tyrades, cursing, mocking, etc. It seems to be more emotion = more right, which is false. Emotion is the enemy of reason.

 

[Cyperium]

Emotions, love including, are chemically based. And love, for instance, is an emotion that was given because we don't always know what's best for us and ours. It helps us protect our young and pass on our genes. But you got to put reason before emotion. I only let myself love if reason tells me if it's for the good of all instead of one, or if it will cause more good than harm. Emotions are for the ones who aren't analytical, therefore, those who are thinkers, rationalists, and so on can step outside emotion and know what it really is and is for. It's easy to fool someone with emotion but hard to fool them with reason.

Why are you trying to fool people?

I don't get that part.

Besides, people are smarter than you think, and you have probably allready made a fool of yourself but they take it with patience. That's why it tastes so bitter if you go around being proud of it too.

Sorry if you didn't mean to imply that you yourself go around trying to fool people.

 

[Provita]

Gasp! Sounds like the kind of behaviour condoned and practised throughout the Bible!

Well duh