Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Emnos
“
I see them but i don't see your point
I thought I made it very clear at the onset that there is a specific etymological usage of the word I was working with(and I even conceded the etymological usage you were going with) ... I mean to come midway with "different strokes for different folks" philosophy isn't really helpful
“
ordinarily love doesn't experience that difficulty in these cases ... I mean if a person can't rattle off at least a dozen things that they love about something it tend to raise doubts
you also have the option of invalidating it through analysis or example.
actually it was a response to your claim of loving nature.
You say you love nature
I say I love a chair
so what do you think?
How about if someone says they love air?
“
It means that if something is simply a means to your end (and cannot be indicated separate from your existence) you have no scope for entering into a relationship with it
its certainly difficult in regards to nature ... that's why I ask
“
it's not clear how either choice ties into love
sure
if the living entity didn't have minute independence there would be absolutely no question of loving god
well feel free to qualify it.
I mean if you can't see anything of Gumpy Gazza the guitarist I can fill you in on a few things
if a chair or a nuclear reactor isn't natural what is it?
supernatural?
You could perhaps argue that a nuclear reactor is artificial arrangement, but it doesn't house anything that isn't natural.
A nuclear reactor is not something "nature" (or god) cannot deal with, what to speak of a chair.
Is a stone that can be utilized as a chair somehow more lovable than a chair that is made from slapping a few bits of wood together? Or alternatively, is there something about a stone chair that qualifies it for love in obvious ways that can't be applied to a wooden chair?
well that's a bit of a no-brainer coming from an atheist
in regards to nature and its connection to god?
I would probably take the default position like everyone else and simply view nature in terms that is agreeable to my lifestyle (whether that be in the form of sustainable agriculture or the production of nuclear bombs)
love for what?
nature or just love in general?
“
no
I am saying no one can love nature, just like in the sense that no one can love a dress (they might like the person wearing it however, but since an atheist has an official stance that there is no person behind nature, that possibility doesn't arise) ... they may like the dress however, and be able to come up with quite a few good points on how they could utilize it... or even how their way to utilize it is unique and more sensitive than any other person's plans to utilize it ..... IOW the clear distinction is that the theist has the option of viewing the world as being possessed by someone else - namely god - whereas others simply have views on how they can get their greasy or not quite so greasy paws on it
if you mean is it relatively clear how to cultivate a loving relationship with someone, then yes
I can't think of anything that could give the desired result. Maybe try and reason with them after the act to fan any ambers of remorse ... but its not like we are omnipotent beings that can establish any result from any circumstance. That is god's prerogative, not ours.
sure
that's understandable
just like you may be in ignorance of gumpy gazza, but just let me tell you a thing or two about him ....
“
given that I have clearly stated several times now that the problem is not that "I don't love nature" (which is a value statement) but rather you haven't presented a basis for making value statements (which would allow for the terms of either love/or don't love), why do you think these categories are accurate?
You have yet to provide some sort of run down on nature that isn't simply an elaboration on how wonderful it is that it houses the human phenomena
I'm getting a bit tired of this.
Basically: I am saying that I love nature, and you are replying that it isn't love because I don't believe in God.
And yes you are saying that, because you said YOU can love nature because you can relate it to God (which you love, ironically).
You said its only liking for me.
I love nature, you say it's impossible.
You love God, I say it's impossible.
Done.
P.S.
To me, some of the statements in you post are pretty idiotic (no offense). But I will leave it at this.
Last edited: