Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. - Authur Conan Doyle
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are Atheists Capable of Love
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. - Authur Conan Doyle
correcting someone doesn't require punishment.
love can correct by controlling, confining, and limiting self from situations and others that might harm
we do it all the time with babies.
Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
with much light comes much suffering.
no
love forgives them for they know not what they do. to correct doesn't require one to brow beat another, or physically beat another. it can be done by explaining just like a teacher provides examples of algebra concepts.
using negative reinforcement means the self is rote performing. she/he doesn't do it from self-realization but self-preservation
using positive reinforcement means the self is acting from their own light. their own potential. the light in everyone.
Obviously , according to Vedantic Hinduism at least.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Haha... I had a feeling. You couldn't do it. You couldn't answer that simple question. You turned to some irrelevant quote to dodge the bullet. Way to go man. Geez... I didn't expect you to cling that desperately to your "I'm spiritually refined", sounds-pretty-but-feels-empty, gobbledygook-esque, poser-to-the-tenth-power claptrap. But here we are. Too funny.
its a state of mind. mentality = spirituality. unlike mathematics language implies much and isn't fixed. it evolves and changes forms.
if you had faith as small as a vestigal mote, you might have been positively moved.
Last edited:
Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
Negative reinforcement/beating your kids, especially if its the first path in scolding, teaches kids to solve their own issues with violence.
sometimes people take the road less traveled. some take the high way.
negative reinforcement is the easy way
positive reinforcement takes patience
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
You make the mistake of assuming I have no appreciation for refined use of language. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's just that I like to also use my reading and comprehension abilities to try and recognize what ideas do and do not have merit. A tell-tale sign that yours have little in the way of merit lies in the very fact that you respond with obscure, unrelated "information" (if you can really call it that) when a simple, direct response is called for. You like to fluff things up, unnecessarily, in other words, and it is (in my experience) a sure sign that someone feels that it makes them sound smart or wise or "enlightened." And is especially so used by individuals who are none of those things.
My faith in anything spiritual/otherworldly/transmundane rests in the very comfortable position of ZERO. And yet there are definitely words that move me. Mostly those whose pith is apparent, and whose down-to-earth, unmistakeable truthiness is well at hand - not just hoped for.
Of course we are.
Now that is one piece of literalism that I doubt to cause much controversy.
It should be apparent that atheists are just as connected to love (and therefore to God, for those inclined to perceive them as one and the same thing) as anyone else.
Declaring from that that we are also gods is taking poetic language too far.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
There's a huge difference between exercising your mental capabilities and actually getting somewhere (like actually answering a question posed to you), and exercising them while not getting anywhere (like responding to a question with nothing even resembling an answer to that question whatsoever). I don't know that I would even feel comfortable doing the latter. It seems disingenuous, imparts a level of insecurity, and does not show solidarity or strength in one's position at all. You have a bias toward fear of betraying yourself as ______ (?).
Altfish
Veteran Member
Yes, why shouldn't we be.
If I asked a theist the same question, that too would be dumb.
Scott C.
Just one guy
Because of God, there is love. An atheist need not acknowledge God as the source of that love, in order for him (the atheist) to love others. But I do believe that a belief in and love for God intensifies our love for others.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
This is too complex formulated IMO. So below I try to wrap my head around it, to get a good understanding:
1) God is love is not correct. That would restrict God to love alone. Better say "Love is an attribute of God". Or "Love is God" if you desire short.
2) Then are "not atheists", also gods. "not atheists" = "theists". Better simple say "then atheists are also gods, don't you think so?"
3) gods is also questionable. At least from Christianity, Islam, Vedanta
So if the question is something like this: "Question to the Theists. If Love is an attribute of God then an atheist is also God, don't you think so?"
From Vedanta viewpoint is claimed "only God is truth". They call it consciousness. When thinking in forms and bodies they call it Maya, illusion.
So "atheist is God" is not true when you say "I am an Atheist". Where
"I" = Ego,
"am" = identification, dualism
"an Atheist" = Body conscious
Vedanta also says that "truth can never be explained in words". But "Words, although insufficient, help to read between the lines"
Another thing is that in "Love is God", we don't talk worldly or human love but transcendental Love.
= = =
So I think the point you want to make is that all humans have this Love capacity [transcendental] in them. That means they are a spark of divine. If that is the case, then "the true Self" in all humans, so also in Atheists is God. Where the spark is non different from the whole. Like the drop of water is the same as the ocean in essence. So we don't talk "gods" as different "gods" but 1 Ocean with many drops.
I am aware these are only just words. So not the truth. But maybe helping to shed some more light on this almost impossible to solve mystery.
Last edited:
unfortunately the term is associated with the idea of being ungodly, immoral, irreligious. some believe god, or gods, is exclusive to their religion.
love is the source of love. there is nothing apart from love. love is about creation. love is about destroying the illusion of ignorance. shiva, as nataraja, is a manifestation of that love. love transforms, or saves, like vishnu, like jesus.
god is a verb, an action. from which all things ascend and descend.
if then all things arise and fall based on god, then god is permanently impermanent, or constantly changing based on form but not in action.
Last edited: