Do athiest think love is real?

[Heneni]

If you believe that God does not exist, you would have to believe that you can love without faith.

 

[Magic Man]

If you believe that God does not exist, you would have to believe that you can love without faith.

You mean love without faith in God, right? I have faith in my wife, and I love her.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

We all have the capacity to love, true. No one teaches us how to love, no one can stop it from happening when it does. Since there are thousands of different definitons of love, we could debate whether a person is really in love, or showing real love for hours.

Love
Heneni

The capacity for and the ability to love is determined by our upbringing. We are all programmed for the future by the events of our past. Children either learn or do not learn to form attachments to others from the moment they are born. Observation of others is how we learn. Living in a violent or loveless environment has monumental impact on a person's ability to feel and show compassion for others. If you don't experience it early on, it is very difficult to recognize it later in life and even if you do, it is often very foreign and uncomfortable to deal with. We are taught to love or to not love.

Have you ever been told by someone they love you, and you did not believe it? You didnt have faith in that person.

You ever loved someone and they did not believe you? They didnt have faith in you.

Love
Heneni

I have been told by someone that they loved me and not believed them. This was based on probability and past experience, not faith. Given the person's pattern of behavior in the past, and seeing that despite her claims that nothing had changed from what I already knew to be true about her, I concluded that she was the same manipulative lying hosebeast that she was before.

Despite my conclusion that everyone should find me amazing and irresistible, not everyone does and that has nothing to do with God or faith. Some people just don't feel for each other on the same level. It may be the wrong time or place in their life, or just the wrong person. Some people are just not capable of feeling or returning those emotions or have great difficulty doing so for reasons mentioned in the first part of this post.

 

[Autodidact]

If you believe that God does not exist, you would have to believe that you can love without faith.

No you don't. You just have to believe that you shouldn't love things that don't exist.

 

[Heneni]

Ok. Do you want to proceed to prove to me that love exists?

 

[Autodidact]

First, I don't rely on proof much in life; it's rarely available. I mostly use evidence, and I bet you do too.
Second, the evidence of love is the behavior of loving people.
Third, the evidence or even possibly proof of love in yourself is a feeling that cannot be doubted. I hope that you have experienced it. If so, I don't think any further proof is necessary.

My faith that my beloved loves me is based on her behavior toward me, which I have actually observed; that is, seen, felt, heard and so forth. I have never observed any behavior by God and in fact I think that God is defined as a being who cannot be observed. So the two are quite different.

 

[Heneni]

Ok so you say that you believe in your partners love because you can see the evidence of it, meaning you have faith in her love, because she is proving to you that she loves you.

You accept her behaviour as true signs of love since you are willing to accept and believe the proof she is giving you. You have put faith in her and therefore you accept her proof of love.

You are placing faith in that which is not seen, her heart, her intentions, and you believe because you can see the manifestations of her heart and intentions in her behaviour towards you.

A christian does exactly the same thing with God. God does not have to stand infront of me, for me to see, hear, and experience the manifestations of His love towards me. It it because I trust in his heart and his intentions which can not be seen. He demonstrates that love to me in ways that I can understand and that I believe.

So then...why can an atheist believe in the intentions of their partners heart, which can not be seen and can not be touched, but they can not believe in the intentions of the heart of God, which they cant see either.

An atheist can not believe in love unless they see the other person, in person. A christian believes in a god they can not see, but still see the manifestations of that love in their lives everyday. How then are we different? The one needs to be able to see the person to believe, the other doesnt.

So the real difference is...to love God you need faith. You dont need to see him infront of you, and the problem with most people that say they are in love is ..out of sight out of mind. And so the love lasts as long as there is a daily display of love in a tangable way. We love God which is not tangable but... out of sight out of mind.... is not a problem for us. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. Not so with atheists which cant continue to love someone that is not around, since for them that person would cease to exist in their world. And if they do, they would be lying. Since they themselves have acknowledged that they can not love something that does not exist. An atheist claims to have freedom, freedom from God, and have rather opted for the freedom to rule and reign their own 'universe'. So then, if someone had to leave that 'universe' they can not love them anymore.

But what if they say they still can...then it becomes more and more reasonable for them to believe that God exists.

 

[Autodidact]

Ok so you say that you believe in your partners love because you can see the evidence of it, meaning you have faith in her love, because she is proving to you that she loves you.

You accept her behaviour as true signs of love since you are willing to accept and believe the proof she is giving you. You have put faith in her and therefore you accept her proof of love.

You are placing faith in that which is not seen, her heart, her intentions, and you believe because you can see the manifestations of her heart and intentions in her behaviour towards you.

A christian does exactly the same thing with God. God does not have to stand infront of me, for me to see, hear, and experience the manifestations of His love towards me. It it because I trust in his heart and his intentions which can not be seen. He demonstrates that love to me in ways that I can understand and that I believe.

Except that God is invisible, and my beloved is not. Except that you can pray to God for what you want, and your chances of getting it are no greater than if you didn't pray. If I ask my sweetheart for a cup of coffee, she brings me a cup of coffee. If I ask Jesus for a cup of coffee, nothing happens unless I get up and get it myself. If you, a Christian, ask Jesus for a cup of coffee, you still have to get up and get it yourself; but you thank Jesus anyway. Try it. Pray to Jesus for a cup of coffee, and I'll ask my baby to bring me a cup of coffee, and we'll see who gets it first. Deal?

So then...why can an atheist believe in the intentions of their partners heart, which can not be seen and can not be touched, but they can not believe in the intentions of the heart of God, which they cant see either.

Because I can observe her and her actions. She's not invisible and intangible.

An atheist can not believe in love unless they see the other person, in person. A christian believes in a god they can not see, but still see the manifestations of that love in their lives everyday.

I'm with you right up until the manifestations. What is a manifestation of Jesus' love that cannot be explained without that love. For example, if you said your good health, then (1) Why do I, an atheist, enjoy robust good health, (2) Why do many Christians suffer from ill health?

How then are we different?

One exists; the other doesn't.

The one needs to be able to see the person to believe, the other doesnt.

Exactly. I need to either see the thing, or an effect of the thing, to consider it to be real. Things that cannot be seen, and leave no measurable effect, do not exist for me. You call believing in invisible things with no effect faith; I call it delusion.

So the real difference is...to love God you need faith. You dont need to see him infront of you, and the problem with most people that say they are in love is ..out of sight out of mind. And so the love lasts as long as there is a daily display of love in a tangable way.

Well, if she started being mean to me, I would no longer think she loved me. If she just had to go to China for six months, I would continue to believe that she loved me, based on her actions when she was here, and my acquaintance with her nature.

We love God which is not tangable but... out of sight out of mind.... is not a problem for us.

Or even never in sight.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

Well there's a difference between temporary and permanent absence. Permanent absence I call non-existence.

Not so with atheists which cant continue to love someone that is not around, since for them that person would cease to exist in their world.

But we're talking now about someone who is never around and has never been around. That's different from being at the store right now.

And if they do, they would be lying. Since they themselves have acknowledged that they can not love something that does not exist.

I had to bold this. Can you love something that doesn't exist? Please read it over again--you love somethign that doesn't exist?!?!

An atheist claims to have freedom, freedom from God, and have rather opted for the freedom to rule and reign their own 'universe'. So then, if someone had to leave that 'universe' they can not love them anymore.

I don't think so. I still love my mother, who has left this universe.

But what if they say they still can...then it becomes more and more reasonable for them to believe that God exists.

The only thing that would tend to make me belief this would be some evidence of same.

 

[Heneni]

I will not be able to provide you with evidence that would make you believe that God exists, not that there isnt any, but the evidence I would present will not constitute as 'proof' for you, and therefore you would not consider it evidence.

What I believe to be proof that God exists has been adequate to make me believe, since the proof presented was believable to me.

Who decides then what is adequate proof and what is not? We do. Communities do, social structures do, our parents do, but there comes a time when we have to decide what is it that is noteworthy for us as individuals.

You dont believe that God exists because you have not been presented with what you would consider to be acceptable proof.

I can therefore not judge you, and you can not judge me. Since there is no written code as to what is acceptable proof when it comes to proving without a shadow of a doubt that things that are not seen are real. And there is even less consensus for what would constitute as proof that someting that does exist is not real.

To present someone with evidence that God exists they would have to have faith. Without it, it is impossible to percieve God. And this is no co-incidence either. It does not seem that God has given everyone faith, since it is all that can make you believe in him. I therefore have stopped feeling complelled to defend my beliefs, since I would be arguing against someone who does not have faith.

If you tell me you still love your mother,you want me to believe you. You want me to put faith in your statement. I can only do that if I have faith in you. And it could be that you present me with much evidence but that it will not be considered to be acceptable evidence to me.

And so therefore God has chosen to reveal himself to those that have faith in him, and he says that he is the author and the finisher of that faith, so I cant blame you either for not believing that He exists.. If he wanted you to know He existed for sure, he would have given you faith.

I dont know why my God has chosen to exclude you from such perceptions, but since you dont believe he exists, it ought not to matter one iota.

love
heneni

 

[Autodidact]

I will not be able to provide you with evidence that would make you believe that God exists, not that there isnt any, but the evidence I would present will not constitute as 'proof' for you, and therefore you would not consider it evidence.

As I said, I don't need proof, just sufficient evidence. Anyway, the point is not persuading me, but the substance of the discussion itself. That is, it's not about me; it's about the evidence. I'm not surprised that you don't want to present it, however, as that would require subjecting it to everyone's scrutiny.

What I believe to be proof that God exists has been adequate to make me believe, since the proof presented was believable to me.

What was it?

Who decides then what is adequate proof and what is not? We do. Communities do, social structures do, our parents do, but there comes a time when we have to decide what is it that is noteworthy for us as individuals.

I use the same standard for God as I do for everything else: empirical evidence. What standard do you use? Is it the same one you use for other things?

You dont believe that God exists because you have not been presented with what you would consider to be acceptable proof.

Evidence.

I can therefore not judge you, and you can not judge me. Since there is no written code as to what is acceptable proof when it comes to proving without a shadow of a doubt that things that are not seen are real. And there is even less consensus for what would constitute as proof that someting that does exist is not real.

I think we probably have some things in common. For example, if I assert that I have a fairy friend, you would probably want to see it or some evidence of it. I just think we should apply the same standard to God, that there are not two different definitions of what it means for something to exist.

For example, if the Christian God existed, would He answer the prayers of Christians? By coincidence, it turns out that He answers prayers at exactly the same rate as if He didn't exist. In fact, in every regard He acts just as if He didn't exist.

To present someone with evidence that God exists they would have to have faith. Without it, it is impossible to percieve God.

Bingo. Same for all imaginary things. btw, how do you pick which God to have this faith in?

And this is no co-incidence either. It does not seem that God has given everyone faith, since it is all that can make you believe in him. I therefore have stopped feeling complelled to defend my beliefs, since I would be arguing against someone who does not have faith.

It also just happens to coincide with not existing.

If you tell me you still love your mother,you want me to believe you. You want me to put faith in your statement. I can only do that if I have faith in you. And it could be that you present me with much evidence but that it will not be considered to be acceptable evidence to me.

Actually I don't care, but have you known me to lie yet?

And so therefore God has chosen to reveal himself to those that have faith in him, and he says that he is the author and the finisher of that faith, so I cant blame you either for not believing that He exists.. If he wanted you to know He existed for sure, he would have given you faith.

That's an interesting theory. God exists but doesn't want me to believe in Him? Why would He do that?

I dont know why my God has chosen to exclude you from such perceptions, but since you dont believe he exists, it ought not to matter one iota.

Or maybe He just doesn't exist.

 

[Sunstone]

Love isn't real. It is just chemicals and hormones cementing your attraction to your mate. At best, love is just a falsehood to be strongly opposed. Love is inefficient and does nothing but cause people pain. As a result, swingerism is the best answer.

Your opinions are remarkably cynical.

 

[Nessa]

We all have the capacity to love, true. No one teaches us how to love, no one can stop it from happening when it does. Since there are thousands of different definitons of love, we could debate whether a person is really in love, or showing real love for hours.

To put it simple, and to complicate the matter exceedingly. To love one needs faith.

To revieve love one must have faith.

Have you ever been told by someone they love you, and you did not believe it? You didnt have faith in that person.

You ever loved someone and they did not believe you? They didnt have faith in you.

So if God says he loves everybody, some wont believe unless they have faith. Faith in him. Atheist dont have faith in God, and so they can not love God, neither respond to His love for them.

Would that mean that they dont believe in love? No it would mean they believe in a type of love that can both show itself and be received without faith in the other person.

Its up to them to decide if such love is possible. And I think many would say that it is not, but that would mean they also have the ability to love God, but they would rather not.

Love
Heneni

So are you suggesting that your god offers me conditional love based on whether I love him ? Or are you suggesting that he loves me unconditionally whether I love him back or not?

And how does my response to gods love, whether it's conditional or unconditional, effect my ability to love my parents?

 

[Aupmanyav]

If you do not love God, he would not raise you from dead. Tit for tat.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Atheists can love. But love is of many kinds. Sex, similar thinking, shared life, culture, language, country, religion - your way of living, etc. Some self-centered persons, both theists and atheists, do not have the capacity to love.

 

[Nessa]

Atheists can love. But love is of many kinds. Sex, similar thinking, shared life, culture, language, country, religion - your way of living, etc. Some self-centered persons, both theists and atheists, do not have the capacity to love.

Doesn't a self-centered person love themselves?

 

[Aupmanyav]

They do, to the consternation of other people.

 

[oldcajun]

It seems to me in a good marriage there is something more than can be explained in biology. Regardless of whether a person can explain what it is do atheist believe love is a real thing, you know.. "true love."

I think you have a reasonable question. Love to me is 'outgoing concern for another individual equal to or more than concern for self'. In my simplistic way of thinking atheism in it's purest form would be a selfish practice. All humans would be considered as biological units with only a material value. Atheism does not originate in the heart of man, it starts from the mind.

 

[reeferreaper]

Love is real in the exact same way god is "real" to people (not me). It exist in the mind of a person, generally a feeling of unique companionship, we use the word "love" to express our emotion as accurately as possible.

There is no such real thing as "love" other than the word.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In my simplistic way of thinking atheism in it's purest form would be a selfish practice.

You are right, atheist value society because a person's survival is dependent on society.