• 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!

Leprechauns and Spaghetti monsters

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Long enough to know that nobody makes that argument.

You are most welcome to prove me wrong and link me to a post that shows otherwise.


Six pages is a lot. Only one person I can think of mentioned correspondence to pixies. One other post did a number of list of different non-existing comparisons. Unless you call me a flat out liar, you may not have came across it but I have.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
It's not an appeal to ridicule either.

As I explained already, the point of the leprechaun analogy is NOT to compare leprechauns with gods.


What the analogy is about, is the absence of evidence for both leprechauns and gods.
The comparison is about the supposed evidence in support of such entities. Not the entities themselves. Not even their existence. Merely and only the lack of evidence in support of their existence.

Okay...
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Each culture has their own definition of this. Brain scans don't show "love". We interpret neurons and brain signals as love but in reality, it's just a human nature response to bonding with others for survival. Love is a cultural thing not a universal thing.

This is simply not true.
No matter the culture, the same regions of the brain will light up when the emotion / sensation that we call "love" manifests.



Of course not

Off course, yes.

That's where trust comes in. You trust that the other loves you.


A trust, that is based on evidence. And that evidence, is past experience of that person's behavior towards me.

If that the track record of that person consists solely of stabbing me in the back, gossiping about me, never saying a friendly word, calling me ugly names instead of saying "high", showing me the middle finger instead of a friendly hello,.... Do you think I will "trust" that this person "loves" me, or do you think I will "trust" that that person doesn't like me instead?

Now contrast that with a person that calls me up at random times just to ask how I'm doing, someone that is always ready to help me out with whatever, someone that offers emotional support when I feel down for whatever reason, someone that gives me random gifts "just because", someone that motivates me to do good and stay on the right path,...

Which of these two people can you trust more to love you and which to not love you?

That person can cheat on you and any number of things can happen.

Sure. Considering my 2 examples above, who do you think will be more likely to cheat me?


Behavior doesn't mean love as a universal rule. Love isn't a universal law.

Behavior is heavily influenced by it.
That seems rather obvious.

You can see the same observation with people who believe in god just as people believe in love. Just do the other accept that behavior as from god or not.

I'm not talking about mere beliefs.

My love could be your definition of rudeness

Give a practical example of such a thing.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Give a practical example of such a thing.

For example, if love is behavioral and someone's behavior is in conflict with them saying "I love you", most likely you'd probably not believe them. They could actually love you, but the words take a backburner to that. I don't know all cultures. I know US is behavioral based and a lot of the sub-cultures are. Though, individually, because of our circumstances, it's just not a universal rule. Some people just don't trust other people's behaviors and yet still find love in the words because words are probably the only thing they have to register that love. So, a lot of trust is involved when knowing someone else who says I love you actually does.

Love isn't universal. Our need for companionship probably is. Though, there are loners who don't or aren't pulled to such thing. I can't think of anything that signals love to be universal. Even respect is different in each culture. It's not a bad thing. Just the universal/generalization/all humanity thing doesn't take into account individual people some don't fit that mold.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
This is simply not true.

No matter the culture, the same regions of the brain will light up when the emotion / sensation that we call "love" manifests.

How does body signals mean love?

The body doesn't have language signals that correspond with love without some cultural influence that translate that as so. We bond for survival. Emotions aren't subjective to the brain. In cultures, they are.

A trust, that is based on evidence. And that evidence, is past experience of that person's behavior towards me.

If that the track record of that person consists solely of stabbing me in the back, gossiping about me, never saying a friendly word, calling me ugly names instead of saying "high", showing me the middle finger instead of a friendly hello,.... Do you think I will "trust" that this person "loves" me, or do you think I will "trust" that that person doesn't like me instead?

In my personal experience, I didn't hear "I love you" a lot if not near at all. I can count them on my fingers that's how little I got the words. My mother took care of me with my illness, so that particular behavior she loved me but for some reason it didn't click without those particular words (or similar words). Anyone can take care of me but not many would say they love me as a child. So I don't see them separate especially to those who behave one way but their brain tells them something else. I have that personal experience so I rather people listen to my words (and ask for clarification if my words are off) than look at my behavior. It's by individual circumstance.

Now contrast that with a person that calls me up at random times just to ask how I'm doing, someone that is always ready to help me out with whatever, someone that offers emotional support when I feel down for whatever reason, someone that gives me random gifts "just because", someone that motivates me to do good and stay on the right path,...

Which of these two people can you trust more to love you and which to not love you?

If that same person called you up, gave you a give, and said I hate you, wouldn't there be some invalidation in the behavior from what he said or vis versa?

Sure. Considering my 2 examples above, who do you think will be more likely to cheat me?

Probably not. Takes a lot of trust involved, but not a universal rule. Depends on individual circumstance, really. Some people trust others easer than their peer.

Behavior is heavily influenced by it. That seems rather obvious.

I put a lot of credit to words.

Of course behavior can prove someone has positive feelings towards you. Not many people like to be hugged and may even think such a thing is rude while someone else that's their expression of love. So, theirs a lot of interpretation involved and highly cultural.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Do you know leprechauns and spaghetti monsters do not exist?
If so, how do you know?

Do you believe there "could" be evidence to convince you there are leprechauns and spaghetti monsters "even if" you believed it is not true (since belief doesn't influence probabilities)?

I was reading a bunch of fallacies and one of which many atheists (going by RF) quote is comparing existence of god to leprechauns and spaghetti monsters. So, instead of talking about god at all, if the same laws of evidence applies to god as L/S monsters, do you believe they do not exist? Do you know?

I know christians (well, the abrahamics, I'll say) have many fallacies (Full alphabetic list of Fallacies) that support their beliefs. I don't see atheists (don't take generalizations personally) any different.

The fallacy here is making a claim something is false (god) by comparing to something ridiculous (monster) that the latter most people assume is false, therefore the former must be false: aka if a monster does not exist, then god does not exist.

Likewise the other way around, associating something that's, say, beauty to the existence of god: The beauty of the forest exists therefore god exists

Well, except that you cannot prove that something does not exist. There may be a parallel dimension where leprechauns do exist. All you can prove is that you have not been able to see it.

Therefore spaghetti monsters must exist. They're called ropers btw.

 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
How does body signals mean love?

Love is an emotion. Emotions occur in the brain.
Various parts of the brain are responsible for various things.

Put a mother under a brainscanner and show her a picture of her kids and the "love" region will light up and show activity.

Put an apple fanboy under a scanner and show him an iphone and the "religious" region of the brain will light up (showing that apple fanboys follow their dear apple as if it were a cult :p )

The body doesn't have language signals that correspond with love without some cultural influence that translate that as so

You're talking about behavior and / or cultural practices now. I'm talking about brain chemistry.

We bond for survival. Emotions aren't subjective to the brain. In cultures, they are.

Emotions occur in the brain. It's brain chemistry at bottom. And this chemistry is pretty much the same for all humans.


In my personal experience, I didn't hear "I love you" a lot if not near at all. I can count them on my fingers that's how little I got the words. My mother took care of me with my illness, so that particular behavior she loved me but for some reason it didn't click without those particular words (or similar words). Anyone can take care of me but not many would say they love me as a child. So I don't see them separate especially to those who behave one way but their brain tells them something else. I have that personal experience so I rather people listen to my words (and ask for clarification if my words are off) than look at my behavior. It's by individual circumstance.



If that same person called you up, gave you a give, and said I hate you, wouldn't there be some invalidation in the behavior from what he said or vis versa?

I love how you went out of your way to not actually respond to what I said. Instead, you piled on with your own additions, just so you can avoid acknowledging the obvious.

Probably not. Takes a lot of trust involved, but not a universal rule. Depends on individual circumstance, really. Some people trust others easer than their peer.

You again didn't answer the question. "probably not" is not a valid answer to my question.
It's like answering "yes" when I ask you "2+2 is how many?"


It's painfully obvious what the right answer is to the question I'm actually asking.
You just don't want to answer because it would kind of undermine your entire case you've been making here.

I put a lot of credit to words.

That's funny, because I actually don't.
As the saying goes: "actions speak louder then words"!

My girlfriend could tell me 100x per day that she loves me. If I find her in another man's bed every other day, I'm not going to believe her words.

On the other hand, a girlfriend that only sporadically (if at all) tells me that she loves me, while every actions she does demonstrates, or is consistent with the idea, that she loves me... I'll be fairly trusting that she actually loves me. She'ld be giving me valid and rational reasons to believe so.

Someone who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk, is not someone who deserves trust. Or respect, for that matter.

Of course behavior can prove someone has positive feelings towards you.

Consistency in such behavior is the only thing that demonstrates / supports such.
Mere words don't. Sporadic behavior doesn't. Continued, consistent behavior does.


Not many people like to be hugged and may even think such a thing is rude while someone else that's their expression of love.

I never once mentioned "hugging".


So, theirs a lot of interpretation involved and highly cultural.

Not really.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
For example, if love is behavioral and someone's behavior is in conflict with them saying "I love you", most likely you'd probably not believe them. They could actually love you, but the words take a backburner to that. I don't know all cultures. I know US is behavioral based and a lot of the sub-cultures are. Though, individually, because of our circumstances, it's just not a universal rule. Some people just don't trust other people's behaviors and yet still find love in the words because words are probably the only thing they have to register that love. So, a lot of trust is involved when knowing someone else who says I love you actually does.

Love isn't universal. Our need for companionship probably is. Though, there are loners who don't or aren't pulled to such thing. I can't think of anything that signals love to be universal. Even respect is different in each culture. It's not a bad thing. Just the universal/generalization/all humanity thing doesn't take into account individual people some don't fit that mold.

You didn't provide an example of what I actually asked you.

Maybe go back and reread your own post, in reply of which I asked you for an example and then try to actually provide an example of that.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
You didn't provide an example of what I actually asked you.

Maybe go back and reread your own post, in reply of which I asked you for an example and then try to actually provide an example of that.

I probably did in another side post. Having no example that's "scientific" I guess, I don't have (I can't think of anything that signals love to be universal). Usually, these things are from experience, opinion, and observation. So, no. It's not a direct Q&A example. Read it in context

Not providing a detailed example doesn't mean I'm wrong.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Love is an emotion. Emotions occur in the brain.
Various parts of the brain are responsible for various things.

Put a mother under a brainscanner and show her a picture of her kids and the "love" region will light up and show activity.

Put an apple fanboy under a scanner and show him an iphone and the "religious" region of the brain will light up (showing that apple fanboys follow their dear apple as if it were a cult :p )



You're talking about behavior and / or cultural practices now. I'm talking about brain chemistry.



Emotions occur in the brain. It's brain chemistry at bottom. And this chemistry is pretty much the same for all humans.




I love how you went out of your way to not actually respond to what I said. Instead, you piled on with your own additions, just so you can avoid acknowledging the obvious.



You again didn't answer the question. "probably not" is not a valid answer to my question.
It's like answering "yes" when I ask you "2+2 is how many?"


It's painfully obvious what the right answer is to the question I'm actually asking.
You just don't want to answer because it would kind of undermine your entire case you've been making here.



That's funny, because I actually don't.
As the saying goes: "actions speak louder then words"!

My girlfriend could tell me 100x per day that she loves me. If I find her in another man's bed every other day, I'm not going to believe her words.

On the other hand, a girlfriend that only sporadically (if at all) tells me that she loves me, while every actions she does demonstrates, or is consistent with the idea, that she loves me... I'll be fairly trusting that she actually loves me. She'ld be giving me valid and rational reasons to believe so.

Someone who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk, is not someone who deserves trust. Or respect, for that matter.



Consistency in such behavior is the only thing that demonstrates / supports such.
Mere words don't. Sporadic behavior doesn't. Continued, consistent behavior does.




I never once mentioned "hugging".




Not really.

"We" call it love. The brain doesn't do that. It's just neurons, signals, and stuff like that. The idea that love is brain chemistry is studied though (EVOLUTIONARY ASPECTS OF LOVE AND EMPATHY). Probably things like empathy (‘I Feel Your Pain’: The Neuroscience of Empathy) is universal. Though the expressions of empathy varies by culture. One would have to know that culture to pick it out even if one calls it that.

Love is such a vague word. Maybe caring for others? Emotional bond between humans? I'm not sure.

I'm not proving you wrong. So... I'll get back to the other stuff a bit later.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Love is an emotion. Emotions occur in the brain.
Various parts of the brain are responsible for various things.

Put a mother under a brainscanner and show her a picture of her kids and the "love" region will light up and show activity.

Put an apple fanboy under a scanner and show him an iphone and the "religious" region of the brain will light up (showing that apple fanboys follow their dear apple as if it were a cult :p )

Of course the brain creates emotions. How did you get love (and not say, compassion, empathy, or so have you) out of all that, though?

You're talking about behavior and / or cultural practices now. I'm talking about brain chemistry.

How we interpret brain chemistry (say in the example of love) is dependent on one's culture and experiences. I never had the experience of "verbal" love so to the behavior was only based on what I know not a universal concept of love. It could be anything from compassion or plain survival, for lack of better words. The brain doesn't say which emotion (compassion, empathy, love, lust, etc). It just does what it does.

Emotions occur in the brain. It's brain chemistry at bottom. And this chemistry is pretty much the same for all humans.

How did you get the word love from that, though?

What's the universal definition that is not tied into say empathy, compassion, or even just maternal instinct or the emotion behind two people in a relationship?

I love how you went out of your way to not actually respond to what I said. Instead, you piled on with your own additions, just so you can avoid acknowledging the obvious.

Now you're being rude. Assumptions are the root of all evil.

If you noticed I used "I think/my opinion/I understand/in my experience." I never said "this is a fact."

So, I am not proving you wrong. What's up with the rudeness?

You again didn't answer the question. "probably not" is not a valid answer to my question.
It's like answering "yes" when I ask you "2+2 is how many?"

That's my answer. Probably not. Take or leave it.

Emotions aren't like mathematics. You got to explain how neuro chemistry can dictate or differentiate, rather, love, maternal instinct, lust, compassion, etc. How did you get love?

It's painfully obvious what the right answer is to the question I'm actually asking.
You just don't want to answer because it would kind of undermine your entire case you've been making here.

Emotions, culture (yes culture), behaviors, things like that the brain doesn't decide which is what. People do.

That's funny, because I actually don't.
As the saying goes: "actions speak louder then words"!

My girlfriend could tell me 100x per day that she loves me. If I find her in another man's bed every other day, I'm not going to believe her words.

My mother never said I love you more than what three or four times I can count. Her mother never had either. So, the word love and behavior doesn't quite equate because I have no definition in which to say "this behavior" is love and "that behavior" is not.

I never did like the actions speak louder than words. I have a behavioral problem medically and if someone interpreted my actions as if it were my identity or opinion, I'd have no friends or anything like that. So, they MUST depend on my words and hopefully, they will be congruent with my behavior. Most of the time yes, sometimes not. So, I value words.

On the other hand, a girlfriend that only sporadically (if at all) tells me that she loves me, while every actions she does demonstrates, or is consistent with the idea, that she loves me... I'll be fairly trusting that she actually loves me. She'ld be giving me valid and rational reasons to believe so.

Someone who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk, is not someone who deserves trust. Or respect, for that matter.

I don't see it that way. I don't know how to explain it. It has more to do with personal experiences (like all people) not universal fact and definitely not based on any other person's criteria for truth.

Consistency in such behavior is the only thing that demonstrates / supports such.
Mere words don't. Sporadic behavior doesn't. Continued, consistent behavior does.

I don't see it that way.

I never once mentioned "hugging".

I did.

Not really.

Where are you from?

Culture defines a lot of how we interpret the world, what we do, what we believe, and so forth. That's a fact.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
My mother never said I love you more than what three or four times I can count. Her mother never had either. So, the word love and behavior doesn't quite equate because I have no definition in which to say "this behavior" is love and "that behavior" is not.

I never did like the actions speak louder than words. I have a behavioral problem medically and if someone interpreted my actions as if it were my identity or opinion, I'd have no friends or anything like that. So, they MUST depend on my words and hopefully, they will be congruent with my behavior. Most of the time yes, sometimes not. So, I value words.

That's another story. I'm talking about "normal" people, not people with behavioral problems. And I don't mean "normal" to be derogatory towards you.

But now that you said this, this explains a lot concerning why we are having this argument.
One of my employees is heavily autistic. Brilliant programmer. Extremely intelligent. And what he has in excess in IT skills and intelligence, he severely lacks in social skills and expressing emotion (both verbally as well as behaviorally). So yeah, I get it and I understand the disconnect between us now.


I cut this argument short here and delete everything I wrote before this quote.
It's normal that we don't see eye to eye on this. You have different expectations and another view of social settings that I "understand", but not really and likely vice versa.

So I think this has become a pointless argument that we will not be resolving.

Where are you from?

Belgium. The land of beer, chocolate and french fries.
And 2 world records of "longest time without a government" due to bickering among politicians.
We broke our own world record this year. :D
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
That's another story. I'm talking about "normal" people, not people with behavioral problems. And I don't mean "normal" to be derogatory towards you.

But now that you said this, this explains a lot concerning why we are having this argument.
One of my employees is heavily autistic. Brilliant programmer. Extremely intelligent. And what he has in excess in IT skills and intelligence, he severely lacks in social skills and expressing emotion (both verbally as well as behaviorally). So yeah, I get it and I understand the disconnect between us now.


I cut this argument short here and delete everything I wrote before this quote.
It's normal that we don't see eye to eye on this. You have different expectations and another view of social settings that I "understand", but not really and likely vice versa.

So I think this has become a pointless argument that we will not be resolving.



Belgium. The land of beer, chocolate and french fries.
And 2 world records of "longest time without a government" due to bickering among politicians.
We broke our own world record this year. :D

Thanks for that. I get what you're saying (I read it all), I just come from a different experience. I am still curious how you (or studies?) can tell the difference between love, compassion, etc by looking at a brain scan?

I'm familiar with affection and learning about compassion, but the experience of what people call love, in the spiritual sense I guess in context, I'm not sure. Maternal love (as we call it) can be seen on brain scans. If I knew more neuro-biology, I can use better terms. Maybe the majority of people feel comfortable seeing love as a universal thing because they feel it connects them with humanity and something "Greater". I've never had that either.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Why do some people insist on misrepresenting the positions of atheists?

Its a generalization but only really offends the person who takes it as so. I'm an atheist myself and don't have these arguments but many RFians do. So, if it doesn't apply to the atheist reading, then it doesn't. They can answer objectively and give their opinion without incorporating what they don't believe. I see it a lot with belief here too. Someone says something about god and someone else have to post "but my religion X doesn't teach that, so..." without answering the question or reading on.

So, all of it is pretty much being picky and bringing up issues that have already been addressed in the OP (and future ones).
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
If you made an argument that god does not exist because leprechauns don't exist, would that make sense that one supports the other's argument or claim when they both (believed by the person who says it) don't exist?

I wouldn't make such an argument in the first place, because I can understand the existence of God is not dependant on the existence of leprechauns, and vice versa.

The argument "Thing A doesn't exist because Thing B doesn't exist," only makes sense if Thing A requires Thing B. Since God does not depend on leprechauns, the argument is invalid.
 
Top