“I hope you’re just going to ignore that loser.”
“Nope, I plan on posting about it on my blog.”
Jodi let out a resigned, slightly disgusted sigh. I’m sorry dear, but I just can’t let stuff like this go.
Zdenny, Christian un-thinker and god-bot par excellence, decided that rather than continuing the argument he started here, he would instead post a reiteration of his initial arguments, with a few sentences from my rebuttal interspersed, over at his own blog. (I assume the male gender here because I’m not 100% sure, though the proselytizers have a strong tendency toward being the males in a Christian relationship. I could be wrong.) You really don’t even have to click the link, honestly, as its entire contents will be posted below with my reply. I provide it only to prove he actually said it, and this is unaltered from its original form.
DuWayne tells me he attempted to post there, however his comment was not published. Zdenny did apparently answer the comment via e-mail, so he’s seen it, however I guess he’s not seen fit to publish it as Heaven forbid dissent be posted on a Christian’s blog — a religious sycophant’s comment made it through just fine though. Because of these facts, I post my reply here, where I know it will be published. Perhaps you should take a cue from my allowing of your hate-filled rhetoric on my earlier post, Zdenny?
Most of my arguments against this stuff are already written in the original comment thread that he took a dump in. He rebuts basically none of it, but imagines that he has come away from the experience enlightened, from having walked amongst the heathen for a while.
I had a thoughtful discussion with an atheist named Jason about real love. He deemed that it was “hateful” to claim that Atheist are not able to love their children.
No shit it’s hateful. It’s patently hateful on its face, in fact! You don’t need any kind of special 3D hate-seeing glasses to pick it out. You take something fundamental to humanity — the ability to love — then you claim that a group of people with whom you disagree, are incapable of it. Saying that someone is fundamentally incapable of something that actually defines humanity, is classifying that someone as sub-human. By classifying me as sub-human, you are enabling all sorts of vicious hate-crimes against me. You are tangibly endangering me and my beloved fiancee and anyone else who happens to not believe in your magic sky man.
And you still can’t see fit to pluralize the word. It’s “atheists” when referring to more than one. You Christian sure are asshole sometimes.
If God is love, then it is true that an atheist is incapable of loving their child. Atheist by definition reject God; therefore, an atheist is not capable of loving their children. God’s love never fails; however, an atheist love will fail based on the chemical make up of that person.
My argument to this, in full, from my own comment thread:
If atheists believe God probably doesn’t exist, then does it not follow that they also don’t ascribe any particular properties to this non-existent deity (e.g. love)? Why would an atheist, that does not believe in God, believe that God is love?
Additionally, you said “God is love”, which you’d have to prove anyway, rather than “love is God”, which would then apply the transient property of God-ness to the state of love, which makes your argument make a whole lot more sense. Since you did this the wrong way around, I could say “God is Love, love is blind, therefore God is Ray Charles”.
So, first, you have to believe that God exists. Then you have to believe that he is made of love. This implies that a priori love exists outside of God — that it is extrinsic to the concept of God — and that God is love in its purest form. Then, you have to assume that because God is the purest form of love, that all love that exists in the universe comes from him. Then you have to assume that because atheists do not believe in God, they don’t get to tap into the super-special love waves that religious folks have; that atheists don’t get pipelines shunted directly into their aorta the way believers do.
But even if you believe that God is made of pure love, that means love exists outside of the scope of God just like you can say that a table is made of wood but not all wood comes from tables. So you don’t even understand your own argument.
If you’re saying that all love comes from God, then I ask you right now — if you were shown videos or pictures of atheists who love one another, and religious folks who love one another, without any indication as to whether they were religious or not (e.g. crucifix necklaces, t-shirts that say “God probably doesn’t exist”, etc.), could you tell the difference between them? Could you with any certainty identify the people who really loved each other and the people who, I guess, are just pretending?
Additionally, would you be willing to submit to electrochemical tests to see whether or not the love you feel for your children provokes electrochemical responses similar to the responses shown by an atheist to their children? I’m not saying I could set up such a test, but I can tell you right now that if there are any differences between the love you show for someone and the love an atheist shows for someone, the differences would be entirely measurable in the brain, and not by the size of your crucifix necklace.
Evolution when determined by natural selection informs us that our chemicals will eventually change. A parent would be justified in not even caring for their children under the parameters set by evolution. We witness animals not caring for their offspring in nature so it is very possible that humans could evolve to the point of not caring for their children.
Not in the scope of our lifetimes. You don’t understand how evolution works. We have evolved to have the capacity for love. While chemical imbalances can interfere with our ability to love, on a case by case basis, it’s impossible for one person to “evolve out of” a particular behaviour. Evolution suggests that populations of creatures — humans, for example — will, over time, through random mutation and natural selection, acquire and propagate traits with more frequency that are beneficial to the species. Since loving your children and your partner and your family confers direct evolutionary advantages in a social animal such as apes, we have retained these traits. They express themselves as love. They are the result of electrochemical processes in our brains, but that doesn’t make the state any less real.
Here’s the thing, though. As a society, we put extremely high value on protecting our young (for instance, through anti-child-abuse and anti-child-pornography laws), and those people who do despicable things to young folks are removed from the system by being put into jail, or otherwise vilified. Likewise, people who have children but cannot care for them properly, have their children taken away from them. They are therefore not allowed to raise the children out of fear that these children will grow up stunted emotionally or socially.
The “parameters set out by evolution” (by which you mean biology and chemistry, not evolution, which only describes how traits pass through populations), stating that love is an electrochemical process, says only that these processes happen through natural, comprehensible means that can be measured and modified. It does not say that necessarily we individuals could just stop loving our children or wives or family all-of-a-sudden. If for some reason we evolved to, in the future, no longer be capable of love, the only reason that would ever have happened is because it was evolutionarily advantageous — but I honestly cannot see any such reason. Loving others the way that we do is so fundamental and intrinsic to being a human that society as we know it would not exist.
I would argue that it is not hateful to explain to an atheist the implications of their beliefs; rather, it is simply a logical conclusion.
This is really starting to get redundant here — expect less meat from now on.
This is a logical conclusion from flawed premises and hateful bias. You fail at logic.
If you define love as the right chemical balance that results in a person taking care of their child or even having feelings towards that child, you really just end up with chemicals forcing a person (parents) to take care of their child.
Guess what? That’s actually what’s happening right now. Here’s a pretty good explanation of how chemicals kick things off.
If love is merely a chemical solution, then we really should create it and inject it into everyones veins so that everyone could love their children; however, everyone with an ounce of common sense knows this isn’t love.
Already answered that:
Neglecting for the moment that a sensation of love can be effectively faked (either directed at you via the universe, or a sensation that you love everyone around you) through recreational pharmaceuticals, true love is a forging of new neural pathways associating a person (or in some weird cases, an object) with a level of need to protect, cherish and be around as much as possible. Imagine what would happen in your view of the universe for a moment if nothing else was different, except that you learn you were mistaken about God’s existence. Would you suddenly shun all those things that you love, because you learn you were wrong? Or would those electrochemical pathways in your brain continue to fire regardless of your epistemological views?
But you ignored this completely.
If love is based on material reality, then the material reality of a rock has as much love as an atheist in theory. Chemicals may help explain emotions, but they do not explain the reality of love. Love that never fails belongs only to Christians who participate in the nature of God.
Already answered the “rock has love too” crap, as well.
No. A rock is an inanimate chunk of matter. It does not reproduce, it does not self-perpetuate, it does not consume other rocks for food, and it does not have a brain.
Chemicals help explain emotions, but do not explain the reality of love…? Argument from special pleading much? How is love, as an emotion, any different, or have any different purposes from an evolutionary standpoint, as compared to hate, trust, loneliness, longing, fear, anger, lust, or happiness? Every one of these has excellent reasons to have evolved.
And what about all those times God failed to love unconditionally, such as every single time he decides someone who doubted his existence should be tortured eternally? Or, say, how he killed all the firstborns of Egypt — the innocent children — because he didn’t like what the grown adults were doing? Plagues, locusts? Famine? The great flood where he decided to wipe everything out except for the animals, dinosaurs, mosquitoes and freshwater fish that Noah somehow kept aboard his Ark of Holding for 60 days? Thousands of innocent women being killed over “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”? Animal and human sacrifices? Destroying entire countries over a perceived slight? Allowing Lot to save his two angels from rape by giving up his daughters to rape instead? Killing Lot’s wife for daring to look over her shoulder to see how big of an explosion God conjured up to destroy the entire fucking city?
Your God’s love is not unconditional, and it is not even love in any sense that I would recognize it, and yet you claim that it is impossible to love without being like this monstrous warrior god of yours. It is to laugh.
Jason the atheist responded by saying, ““Love is not unconditional, there is no love that “never fails”, and love is fleeting, because love is merely the word we have for the same evolutionarily derived needs to protect and cherish other valued humans in our lives, and as soon as we die, that’s it, we’re done.”
The atheist decided that real love doesn’t exist. Love is a mere illusion being simply a “word” without eternal meaning. The statement also demonstrates that he is an individual without hope.
I decided that your idea of “real love as derived from God and ONLY God” doesn’t exist. Love itself most certainly does exist, and without any need for your imaginary deity. And telling me that I don’t love Jodi, is not only wrong, but hateful. And demonstrably hateful, as per the “sub-human” argument above.
I have hope that one day assholes like you won’t be around, because people will stop believing that a two-thousand-year-old book gives you the right to declare other people as sub-humans incapable of love. Not only do I hope for that day, but I actively work for it.
Jason the atheist analysis was very honest recognizing that without the Love of God he is without Hope. In the end he would agree that an atheist is not able to really love their children since love is a vacuous concept.
No I fucking wouldn’t agree to that, you dishonest, brainwashed, arrogant ass. Just because love doesn’t span the ages as intrinsic to some existentially unprovable deity, doesn’t mean love doesn’t exist. It is a real phenomenon for which all humans are capable. I do not have children presently, but if and when I do, I guarantee you that I will love my children unequivocally. I will love them so much that I will provide them with the ability to tell the difference between reality and make-believe, and I will give them the tools with which to examine this world, and THEN I will introduce them to your religion so that they can critically analyze, weigh and measure it, and afterward (though I will by no means force them at this), hopefully they will come to the conclusion that your religion is in the make-believe category and that they will therefore be careful in talking to people like you, so as not to draw you into a theological conversation, because you hold irrational beliefs along the same lines as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or invisible pink unicorns in your closet.
Of course it doesn’t have to be that way. Jason could decide to accept Christ and begin a life of faith experiencing the Love of God that is found in Jesus Christ our Lord.
Perish the thought. You obviously know nothing about me, or you might know I was brought up Catholic, and realized that everything that was said in the Bible, in the Sunday-school lessons, in the Sunday sermons, by every religious asshole, and by every televangelist and preacher, was complete and utter bullshit. I state with a great deal of confidence right now that I know more about your religion than you do, and I defy you to prove that I merely don’t understand your concept of White Jesus.
Seriously… me, find Christ? How long has he been missing?