What does the word 'love' mean?

[A Vestigial Mote]

In a godless universe, love is an instinctive response only.. a drive to reproduce, raise and nurture offspring, and herd instinct. There could be no 'soul love!' or agape love, in a godless universe. There is self interest, and animal instinct, and humans delude themselves thinking there is more than that.

This is a completely baseless assertion. We, ourselves, get to decide how much or to what extent any "feeling" or emotion means to us. We don't have to surmise that because "biology" is at the root it necessarily means that it is something cold or sterile. It doesn't have to be if that isn't the way we perceive it or treat it. There may be underlying "facts" that will always be there, but we are the ones who feel the emotions and feelings, we are the ones who decide how to respond - even if it all boils down to mechanisms and machinations of biology and chemistry. In other words... even if biology and chemistry are the only real foundations for emotion and feeling - IT DOESN'T MATTER. We still feel the feelings the same, and we still must decide how we will react to them.

Put a different way - what do YOU believe would fundamentally change about the emotions and feelings you experience were it to be 100% proven that there is no God? Would they suddenly become worthless to you? Would the idea that they are biological or chemical in nature affect how they affect you? If so, then why? Aren't you still the same being you are now, with or without God? It's the same sort of confusion I feel when I hear about parents suddenly treating their children differently when they find out they are homosexual - WHAT CHANGED?

In a God made universe, it could be different. Altruistic senses could have been embedded by God, to elevate mankind above mere animal instinct. A spiritual Love as a deep seated sense & motivation.. a reflection of the values and nature of the Creator.. beauty, abstraction, thoughts of eternity, infinity, and purpose.. these are possibilities in a God made universe, but delusions in a godless one.

Again, with your last sentence, foolish and baseless assertions. Things like "beauty" and "purpose" actually exist to us and between us, but none of us can be sure that "God" exists - so that already proves to my mind that God is not necessary to experience those things. He can't be - otherwise His presence would have to also be intrinsically known, accepted and understood in order for me to conclude that something was "beautiful" or to understand anyone else's concept of "beautiful" - which I readily do, all the time. So where is the pre-requisite of "God" in that? There isn't one.

And the really crazy thing - we don't always agree on what "beauty" is, but no one runs around blowing one another up over differences of opinion on "beauty" - even though it is something we KNOW and ACCEPT exists. However, people do run around blowing one another up over opinions on God - and they can't even really know whether or not He/It exists!

 

[Polymath257]

In a godless universe, love is an instinctive response only.. a drive to reproduce, raise and nurture offspring, and herd instinct. There could be no 'soul love!' or agape love, in a godless universe. There is self interest, and animal instinct, and humans delude themselves thinking there is more than that.

I think your understanding of what a Godless universe would be like is faulty. There is no reason that love outside of instinct would be impossible. It's just that it would have evolved out of such other emotions.

In a God made universe, it could be different. Altruistic senses could have been embedded by God, to elevate mankind above mere animal instinct. A spiritual Love as a deep seated sense & motivation.. a reflection of the values and nature of the Creator.. beauty, abstraction, thoughts of eternity, infinity, and purpose.. these are possibilities in a God made universe, but delusions in a godless one.

Why would those be delusions in a Godless universe? Beauty, abstraction, contemplation of infinity, and purpose are all present whether there is a God or not. They have slightly different meanings and direction than those in a God-universe, but they still exist and are powerful motivators.

In particular, love, the feeling that another persons happiness and well-being are as important as your own, is an emotion that most of us, hopefully, will experience.

 

[Polymath257]

No, that is a distortion. Christianity has done more to elevate altruistic love than any other ideology. It is merely religious bigotry, from a competing ideology trying to smear Christianity, that accuses 'hate!', 'oppression!' and 'evil!' toward the only ideology that has actually brought equality, natural law, and inherent rights to the human collective.

You are deluded with a false narrative, from agenda driven ideologues.

Christianity continued the program started by pagans like Plato, Aristotle, Democritus, etc. But the *Bible* has some truly horrific parts to it showing the deity described (especially in the OT) to be rather like a hateful 4 year old.

 

[usfan]

Why would those be delusions in a Godless universe? Beauty, abstraction, contemplation of infinity, and purpose are all present whether there is a God or not.

They are present, because in reality this IS a 'God made universe'. But they are delusions in a godless one.. empty platitudes with no meaning or origin.. delusions from human manipulators.

Christianity continued the program started by pagans like Plato, Aristotle, Democritus, etc. But the *Bible* has some truly horrific parts to it showing the deity described (especially in the OT) to be rather like a hateful 4 year old.

Yes, so the indoctrinated narrative goes. But it is a lie, perpetuated by a competing ideology, to smear the true source of altruism in a world of evil and deception.

 

[JJ50]

They are present, because in reality this IS a 'God made universe'. But they are delusions in a godless one.. empty platitudes with no meaning or origin.. delusions from human manipulators.

Yes, so the indoctrinated narrative goes. But it is a lie, perpetuated by a competing ideology, to smear the true source of altruism in a world of evil and deception.

You have no evidence to support your statement, which is a mere belief you wish to be factual.

 

[Polymath257]

They are present, because in reality this IS a 'God made universe'. But they are delusions in a godless one.. empty platitudes with no meaning or origin.. delusions from human manipulators.

And I think you are wrong that they are illusory in an atheistic universe. I very much disagree that they become 'empty platitudes'.

Yes, so the indoctrinated narrative goes. But it is a lie, perpetuated by a competing ideology, to smear the true source of altruism in a world of evil and deception.

All you have to do is actually *read* the OT. And, for that matter, Plato, Aristotle, Democritus, and others that did their stuff before Christianity was around.

Altruism doesn't come from Christianity. It was around long before that and was seen as a good long before Jesus.

The 'true source of altruism' is our sense of compassion and fairness, which we share with other ape species.

 

[usfan]

This is a completely baseless assertion. We, ourselves, get to decide how much or to what extent any "feeling" or emotion means to us.

So you assert, without evidence.
I show the rational conclusions, and follow the possible source, of these abstract concepts, like 'love!', 'morality!', 'angst', and 'purpose!' Those are meaningless, empty platitudes, in a godless universe.. made up by human manipulators.

Only in a God made universe could they be real, at all.

Delusion is common in humanity. In a godless universe, it is epidemic.

Your ad hom and hysterical assertions do not support an argument for these things in a godless universe. They are merely your beliefs. That explains the irrational clinging to them, in the face of inevidence.

 

[usfan]

You have no evidence to support your statement, which is a mere belief you wish to be factual.

The very existence of 'Love', as more than an animal instinct, is evidence for God.

It is my belief that God is real, and embedded these traits in us. You believe in 'no God', apparently, how do you source these abstract, metaphysical qualities?

Do you have any evidence for YOUR beliefs? Or just believe them strongly, from the influences in your life?

 

[Audie]

And I think you are wrong that they are illusory in an atheistic universe. I very much disagree that they become 'empty platitudes'.



All you have to do is actually *read* the OT. And, for that matter, Plato, Aristotle, Democritus, and others that did their stuff before Christianity was around.

Altruism doesn't come from Christianity. It was around long before that and was seen as a good long before Jesus.

The 'true source of altruism' is our sense of compassion and fairness, which we share with other ape species.

Fundies do not like to admit that any animals
is capable of altruism.

 

[JJ50]

The very existence of 'Love', as more than an animal instinct, is evidence for God.

It is my belief that God is real, and embedded these traits in us. You believe in 'no God', apparently, how do you source these abstract, metaphysical qualities?

Do you have any evidence for YOUR beliefs? Or just believe them strongly, from the influences in your life?

You don't have any evidence, as there is none which supports the existence of a god apart from wishful thinking. There is a remote possibility one could exist, but the Biblical god character seems to have all the worst human characteristics and is therefore more than likely a creation of its authors.

 

[usfan]

Fundies do not like to admit that any animals is capable of altruism.

Progressive indoctrinees like to pretend there is 'beauty!', 'love!', 'purpose!', and 'morality!', in a godless universe where such platitudes can only be human inventions for manipulation.

You don't have any evidence, as there is none which supports the existence of a god apart from wishful thinking. There is a remote possibility one could exist, but the Biblical god character seems to have all the worst human characteristics and is therefore more than likely a creation of its authors.

There is plenty of evidence for God, all around, and within. You are just indoctrinated to blind yourself to possibility.

No problem.. you can believe whatever you want.. but why is it necessary for you to mock and ridicule other's beliefs?

 

[JJ50]

Progressive indoctrinees like to pretend there is 'beauty!', 'love!', 'purpose!', and 'morality!', in a godless universe where such platitudes can only be human inventions for manipulation.


There is plenty of evidence for God, all around, and within. You are just indoctrinated to blind yourself to possibility.

No problem.. you can believe whatever you want.. but why is it necessary for you to mock and ridicule other's beliefs?

You appear to be the indoctrinated one. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Vee]

What does that word mean to other posters?

For me it means that I care enough about a person to put their well being ahead of my personal interest, and that I want to seem them happy even if I have nothing to gain from their happiness.

 

[ChristineM]

In a godless universe, love is an instinctive response only.. a drive to reproduce, raise and nurture offspring, and herd instinct.

Can i therefore assume you have never actually loved anyone?

 

[Darkforbid]

Nothing these days, just saying. In the past it was never said without truly heartfelt intent. Now it's use is disposable, like yesterday's news

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So you assert, without evidence.
I show the rational conclusions, and follow the possible source, of these abstract concepts, like 'love!', 'morality!', 'angst', and 'purpose!' Those are meaningless, empty platitudes, in a godless universe.. made up by human manipulators.

Only in a God made universe could they be real, at all.

Delusion is common in humanity. In a godless universe, it is epidemic.

Your ad hom and hysterical assertions do not support an argument for these things in a godless universe. They are merely your beliefs. That explains the irrational clinging to them, in the face of inevidence.

You're not following anything close to a "rational" conclusion. That's what I'm doing.

God DOES NOT PRESENT HIMSELF within our universe. If you want to prove me wrong, go for it. Show me where/how/when God presents himself and I will shut up about it. Until then you don't get to insert God into ANYTHING that goes on in this universe without looking like a fool. You can swear up and down that "God created this" or "This can't exist without God" - but such statements mean absolutely nothing. No one has to take them seriously at all. You may as well be saying that "Beauty can't exist without invisible flying spagotrites" - there is just as much presentation of "invisible flying spagotrites" in our universe a there is presentation of "God." And everyone knows that "spagotrites" very mission in life is to support things like "beauty" and "love" and "purpose."

Do you see how DUMB I sound at the end of the above paragraph? That is precisely how dumb you sound when you invoke God in the same way. You have nothing to prove this! Meanwhile we DO have beauty. We DO have love. We DO realize purpose. Proof abounds for those. No proof-for or even hint-of God.

And you, seriously, need to stop using the phrase "ad hom" every time somebody says something you don't like. I DIDN'T ATTACK YOU. I attacked your ideas and words. You're using "ad hom" completely incorrectly. Show me where I directly insulted you (and not the points you made) within this thread (specifically before this post) or admit that you have no idea what "ad hom" even means. Those are your only two logical options. Otherwise you only succeed in proving yourself irrational and in denial.

 

[Darkforbid]

You're not following anything close to a "rational" conclusion. That's what I'm doing.

God DOES NOT PRESENT HIMSELF within our universe. If you want to prove me wrong, go for it. Show me where/how/when God presents himself and I will shut up about it. Until then you don't get to insert God into ANYTHING that goes on in this universe without looking like a fool. You can swear up and down that "God created this" or "This can't exist without God" - but such statements mean absolutely nothing. No one has to take them seriously at all. You may as well be saying that "Beauty can't exist without invisible flying spagotrites" - there is just as much presentation of "invisible flying spagotrites" in our universe a there is presentation of "God." And everyone knows that "spagotrites" very mission in life is to support things like "beauty" and "love" and "purpose."

Do you see how DUMB I sound at the end of the above paragraph? That is precisely how dumb you sound when you invoke God in the same way. You have nothing to prove this! Meanwhile we DO have beauty. We DO have love. We DO realize purpose. Proof abounds for those. No proof-for or even hint-of God.

And you, seriously, need to stop using the phrase "ad hom" every time somebody says something you don't like. I DIDN'T ATTACK YOU. I attacked your ideas and words. You're using "ad hom" completely incorrectly. Show me where I directly insulted you (and not the points you made) within this thread or admit that you have no idea what "ad hom" even means. Those are your only two logical options. Otherwise you only succeed in proving yourself irrational and in denial.

I like the way your entire post is Ad hominem

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I like the way your entire post is Ad hominem

Let's break it down, shall we?

You're not following anything close to a "rational" conclusion. That's what I'm doing.

Is this ad hominem? Am I attacking the character or person of @usfan? Or am I attacking the position he is maintaining? Stating someone's conclusions are not rational is not "ad hominem."

God DOES NOT PRESENT HIMSELF within our universe. If you want to prove me wrong, go for it. Show me where/how/when God presents himself and I will shut up about it. Until then you don't get to insert God into ANYTHING that goes on in this universe without looking like a fool. You can swear up and down that "God created this" or "This can't exist without God" - but such statements mean absolutely nothing. No one has to take them seriously at all. You may as well be saying that "Beauty can't exist without invisible flying spagotrites" - there is just as much presentation of "invisible flying spagotrites" in our universe a there is presentation of "God." And everyone knows that "spagotrites" very mission in life is to support things like "beauty" and "love" and "purpose."

Note that I didn't actually call @usfan a fool in this, I stated that he isn't able to insert God into anything that does not readily present God without looking like a fool. Again, I am calling his position that "God is in everything" foolish. If he takes that position, then he is a fool. I admit it is exceedingly close. So close that I am willing to admit that yes, I was attacking @usfan's position so strongly here that I was basically attacking him in the process. But the "fool" part is the only thing in the above paragraph that even comes close to being "ad hominem." And let's not forget, you said:

I like the way your entire post is Ad hominem

Next part:

Do you see how DUMB I sound at the end of the above paragraph? That is precisely how dumb you sound when you invoke God in the same way. You have nothing to prove this! Meanwhile we DO have beauty. We DO have love. We DO realize purpose. Proof abounds for those. No proof-for or even hint-of God.

I said my words were dumb, and then said that words of the same kind coming out of his mouth about God are just as dumb. Note what is dumb... the words. Did I actually state that @usfan was "dumb?" No. I said he sounded dumb, and what is directly attributed the adjective "dumb" was what was being said about God. in other words, "the position." Again, I admit this is a pretty fine line. But ultimately I am going after what he is saying, not "the man" himself. If I were to state that no one should listen to him because he is dumb, that would be attacking him directly, and not even involving the position he is taking. But I specifically reference his words on God... that is ALL position.

And lastly:

And you, seriously, need to stop using the phrase "ad hom" every time somebody says something you don't like. I DIDN'T ATTACK YOU. I attacked your ideas and words. You're using "ad hom" completely incorrectly. Show me where I directly insulted you (and not the points you made) within this thread or admit that you have no idea what "ad hom" even means. Those are your only two logical options. Otherwise you only succeed in proving yourself irrational and in denial.

Because of the ambiguity surrounding the "fool" comment, which I can't deny contains some direct applicability to @usfan by myself, I amended the post to include "(specifically before this post)", because that is explicitly what I meant. That he need find my "Ad hominem" words in the specific post he was replying to or before. And note here again, I didn't actually call the man irrational or say that he was in denial, but I will as soon as he comes back and tells me that any part of my earlier posts were "ad hominem," because he doesn't have any proof on his side for that case. And at that point, my statement that he is irrational or "in denial" will indeed be factual. He will be denying that my words were not ad hominem, which they most certainly were not, and he will be irrationally clinging to the idea that they were, when there is no case to be made for it. At which point I WILL THEN HAVE PROOF to back up my accusations, and they can no longer be considered baseless attacks of his person that are not relevant to the argument.

 

[Valjean]

So simple. God is love, love is God.

But love's not generally conceived as a personage, as is God.

I think love can be characterized as an extreme appreciation.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I define the word 'love' as liking someone very much, like my children. I could never love anyone I disliked.................

I find today many display the selfish distorted form of love as described at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13.

In sharp contrast, the definition of Christ-like love is defined at 1 Corinthians 13:4-6.
Christians would be identified by having the same type of love as Jesus displayed.
Jesus displayed 'self-sacrificing love'. In other words, we are now to love others 'more' than self- John 13:34-35
More than the Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18.

To love one's enemies does Not mean affection but principled love ( Agape' from the Greek )
Whereas storge' means love of family.
Philia' means brotherly love.
And Eros is sexual love.