TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Which atheists again, supposedly make that argument?True. It does make me wonder why some atheist use that argument.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which atheists again, supposedly make that argument?True. It does make me wonder why some atheist use that argument.
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.
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.
Strawman. Not the argument.
He has just explained to you how that is not the argument that is actually being made....
He then proceeded to clarify what IS the argument.
Why do you ignore it?
Which atheists again, supposedly make that argument?
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.
Of course not
That's where trust comes in. You trust that the other loves you.
That person can cheat on you and any number of things can happen.
Behavior doesn't mean love as a universal rule. Love isn't a universal law.
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.
My love could be your definition of rudeness
Give a practical example of such a 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.
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?
Sure. Considering my 2 examples above, who do you think will be more likely to cheat me?
Behavior is heavily influenced by it. That seems rather obvious.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 )
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.
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 )
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.
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.
Where are you from?
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.
... or any at all...The OP says don't take generalizations personally. It's very tiresome to keep saying some, many, more, a few, etc.
Why do some people insist on misrepresenting the positions of atheists?To those that it apply, so be. If it doesn't, let live. It has no relationship to the argument or claim proposed.
Why do some people insist on misrepresenting the positions of atheists?
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?