9/11 wasn't about religion

[Ekimklaw]

I have heard people refer to those scum that murdered thousands on 9/11 as religious. No my friend. They were evil. Plain evil. Whatever religious beliefs thay may have thought they were advancing was not their purpose. Their purpose was to kill and destroy innocent people.

I've also heard people equate Christians with these murderous terrorists. No! All intolerance from Christians is based on sin not the sinner. If a person will not tolerate the sinner, then he is not of God. God hates the sin not the sinner! Therefore, so do I.

Unfortunately Islam makes no such distinction.

 

[Cris]

Ekimlaw,

Welcome to sciforums.

But I think you are quite wrong. The 9/11 event was purely the result of religion, and primarily Christian. If Christians had not persecuted and slaughtered thousands Moslems during the Crusades, which resulted in the unification of the Islam world, then Osama would not now be trying to seek his revenge.

But the hijackers were quite devout and it seems firmly believed they would be rewarded in an afterlife, as is the view shared by all Islamic suicide bombers. Again religion is purely to blame for encouraging as true the fiction of an afterlife.

Without religion the world would be a much safer and rational place to live. When people are encouraged to believe in fairy stories about gods and demons and a fantasy eternal afterlife then the inevitable result will be the irrational actions of Christian and Moslems that cause the havoc and chaos that we are now witnessing.

It is not the people who are evil but the religious regimes such as Christianity and Islam that spread such widespread confusion and deceit.

Cris

 

[Ekimklaw]

Thanks for the welcome by the way. Also, thanks for being civil. I enjoy a good debate, but am saddened that it always seems to descend into name calling. I don't/won't do that.

You say some things here that I find somewhat surprising. First:

"The 9/11 event was purely the result of religion, and primarily Christian. If Christians had not persecuted and slaughtered thousands Moslems during the Crusades, which resulted in the unification of the Islam world, then Osama would not now be trying to seek his revenge."

If what you say is true then Osama would have attacked England. Not the U.S.A. Surely you know that it was the English who carried out the Crusades between 1095 and 1249 (geez that's a long time isn't it?). Also, it was less about religion and more about nationalism. England (and much of Europe) at the time was dominated by the Catholic church. Incidently, many Jews were slaughtered as well. After all they were known as the "Killers of Christ". If not Britain, then surely the Muslim world would attack the Vatican (or Rome). Again, it was the Catholic Church that carried out the Crusades. If you know anything about the Catholic Church you know it was as far removed from true orthodox Christian beliefs as possible (at that time). Anyway, the terrorists attacked America because of one thing (aside from evilness). Jealousy. They attacked the one truly good nation on Earth. The land of opportunity.

The Muslim world is currently suffering their "dark age". Most muslim dominated societies are ravaged by poverty and hunger. Do not lay the blame for the 9/11 attacks on the Crusades. The Crusades were much more complex than simply "the west vs. the muslims".

You also said:
"Without religion the world would be a much safer and rational place to live. When people are encouraged to believe in fairy stories about gods and demons and a fantasy eternal afterlife then the inevitable result will be the irrational actions of Christian and Moslems that cause the havoc and chaos that we are now witnessing."

Using this logic we must also get rid of automobiles, and airplanes. Indeed most injuries happen in and around the home. Would the world be "safer" without these deadly domiciles? It is a fact that most Christians (and indeed most Muslims for that matter) are live and let live types. They believe in something greater than themselves. "Belief" is not the root of evil. Sin is. Sins of greed, jealousy and hate can creep into every heart whether it's religious or not.

Are you saying that if NO ONE was religious, every one would be happy and get along (are all atheists friends)? The absence of religion does not cure every negative thing in the world no more than the presence of religion does. Therefore the existence or nonexistence of religion is not the determining factor in whether the world is safe or rational. It his how one person treats another. If you hate someone, what does it matter why you hate them? Hate is bad no matter why.

I appreciate that you are a nonreligious person and that is your choice. But just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean those who do are intrisically bad.

Take care... and again thanks for the warm welcome.

-Mike

 

[Tyler]

"If what you say is true then Osama would have attacked England. Not the U.S.A. Surely you know that it was the English who carried out the Crusades between 1095 and 1249 (geez that's a long time isn't it?). Also, it was less about religion and more about nationalism. England (and much of Europe) at the time was dominated by the Catholic church. Incidently, many Jews were slaughtered as well. After all they were known as the "Killers of Christ". If not Britain, then surely the Muslim world would attack the Vatican (or Rome). Again, it was the Catholic Church that carried out the Crusades. If you know anything about the Catholic Church you know it was as far removed from true orthodox Christian beliefs as possible (at that time). Anyway, the terrorists attacked America because of one thing (aside from evilness). Jealousy."

Forgive me Cris if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's what he meant. The Moslem communitee is sick and tired of being used by America and Christians in general and are generally displeased with (what they see as) the unjust support of Israel over Palestine.



"They attacked the one truly good nation on Earth. The land of opportunity."

Saying things like that make other nations want to get rid of you. If America is the only truly good nation, than the world is much more fucked up than even George Carlin assumed. The next Yank who walks in here and claims America is the greatest nation on Earth is gettin' yelled at.


"Are you saying that if NO ONE was religious, every one would be happy and get along (are all atheists friends)? The absence of religion does not cure every negative thing in the world no more than the presence of religion does. Therefore the existence or nonexistence of religion is not the determining factor in whether the world is safe or rational. It his how one person treats another. If you hate someone, what does it matter why you hate them? Hate is bad no matter why."

Religion brings out much hate in human beings. It adds another reason for war.

Get rid of religion, let everyone smoke pot, all become Buddhist.... There's many things that I believe would greatly lower the amount of war in the world.




To tackle your original post......

Many theists today will defend the idea that religion does not cause war. That any religious person claiming war in the name of their religion is not religious. That's plain wrong. Religion is a subject very open to interputations. These people are religious, they just have different interputations of the religions than you do. Strip away the all-powerful afterlife promise and you won't have nearly as many people wanting to be martyrs. Eliminate the segregation of peoples that religion causes and you have one less major reason to fight.



Welcome to sciforums.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ekimklaw, welcome to the snakepit.

I don't think it matters to some atheists who and what was responsible for 9/11 attacks as long as they can score points against religion.
It is obvious to anybody who reads scriptures that this kind of behaviour is anti-God, therefore irreligous.
But there are alot of questions that still need to be answered in order to get to the bottom of this terrible attack.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Ekimklaw]

My pro-America statements

Hello Tyler! A response here for you!

You:
"Saying things like 'They attacked the one truly good nation on Earth. The land of opportunity.' make other nations want to get rid of you. If America is the only truly good nation, than the world is much more f***ed up than even George Carlin assumed. The next Yank who walks in here and claims America is the greatest nation on Earth is gettin' yelled at."

Me:
I mistyped. I stand corrected. I SHOULD have said... They attacked ONE OF the best nations on Earth. Obviously I think America is THE best but then I am an American (I realize we aren't perfect, but who is?). But I should NOT have put forth the opinion that we are the ONLY good nation on Earth. Forgive this posting faux paus!

By the way you probably think Canada is the best right? See?

-Mike

 

[Cris]

Ekimklaw,

I watched an in-depth analysis on Osama recently and it was quite clear he was motivated by past (1000 years) injustices against Islam. The presence of US troops in Islamic holy places makes the USA the first target. And the USA is perceived as one of the most Christian countries in the world. He does not think short term. He is not fighting for wealth, just a perverted ideology based on an interpretation of Jihad shared by a large number of Moslems.

The politics of the crusades and religion were inseparable. The nations loyal to Christianity were trying to impose their way of life on others and used the fantasy of religion to justify their violence. The pope even changed the interpretation of the Jesus teaching that one should love your enemies to mean only if one’s enemies are also Christian.

They attacked the one truly good nation on Earth.

I think you may have a problem. You should travel more. I’m British BTW.

Using this logic we must also get rid of automobiles, and airplanes. Indeed most injuries happen in and around the home. Would the world be "safer" without these deadly domiciles? It is a fact that most Christians (and indeed most Muslims for that matter) are live and let live types.

Safer in this sense means fewer feelings of terror of being attacked by irrational religious extremists.

Live and let live is fine but you don’t have to be religious to follow that guideline. But you are wrong, Christians in particular are not live and let live, their duty is to ‘spread the word’ to actively convince others of their beliefs.

They believe in something greater than themselves. "Belief" is not the root of evil. Sin is. Sins of greed, jealousy and hate can creep into every heart whether it's religious or not.

Sin means disobeying a god – if such a god does not exist then sin has no meaning. Religious belief is the root of many evils. Religious belief is a belief outside of reason and is highly dangerous since it has no factual basis. When one believes that a super-being can communicate through visions then the resultant aberrations can be highly dangerous. But a religious belief that death is a gateway to something better significantly detracts from efforts to make life on Earth a better place. Such beliefs suppressed centuries of scientific research, and caused many potential scientists to be persecuted and discouraged. Consider the millions who have died simply because anti-biotics were not developed until only recently.

The past damage caused by irrational religious beliefs, especially Christian, is unimaginably huge.

But greed, jealousy, hate, as you say are problems for everyone because these detract from healthy living but can be comprehended by everyone. We don’t need a fantasy super-being to tell us these things.

Are you saying that if NO ONE was religious, every one would be happy and get along (are all atheists friends)? The absence of religion does not cure every negative thing in the world no more than the presence of religion does.

Religion encourages beliefs in fantasies as if such things are true. When decisions are not based on reality then the results are likely to become highly unpredictable. Making decisions based on the real world is more likely to be productive. Atheists who positively reject theism usually do so because theistic beliefs are specifically not grounded in reality, and such individuals tend to live lives based on rational thought. But atheism is not the answer to everything since atheism is only a rejection of theism. What is needed is a positive secular humanist philosophy where activities are based on what is best for humanity, and not what is best for an imaginary deity.

But just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean those who do are intrinsically bad.

But they do believe fantasies are real and that is dangerous and can lead to evil-like results.

Have fun
Cris

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Cris
I watched an in-depth analysis on Osama recently and it was quite clear he was motivated by past (1000 years) injustices against Islam.

Was this before or after 9/1?

And the USA is perceived as one of the most Christian countries in the world.

Not as far as the UK is concerned, it is seen as decadant and violent.
Where else would you get someone wanting to marry his horse?
It is also percieved as one of the most freest countries.

The pope even changed the interpretation of the Jesus teaching that one should love your enemies to mean only if one’s enemies are also Christian.

If that is true, then religion cannot be blamed, only the misinterpretation of it, which is not religion.

Safer in this sense means fewer feelings of terror of being attacked by irrational religious extremists.

What about dangerous people in general, you ought to see the homicide arrests that were made in just 1 year in USA, and those were only the ones that were convicted and sentenced.

Live and let live is fine but you don’t have to be religious to follow that guideline.

True!

Sin means disobeying a god – if such a god does not exist then sin has no meaning.

But if such a god does exist it has meaning right?

Religious belief is the root of many evils. Religious belief is a belief outside of reason and is highly dangerous since it has no factual basis.

All belief can be the root of evil. Robert Oppenheimer a great scientist was responsible for a great number of deaths and misery which still has effect today, he believed he was doing society a service. Who do you blame for that?

When one believes that a super-being can communicate through visions then the resultant aberrations can be highly dangerous.

Your right it can be. But not nesaccerily.

But a religious belief that death is a gateway to something better significantly detracts from efforts to make life on Earth a better place.

With the belief that death is a gateway to a better life, for someone who accepts God, comes the responsibility of living this peacefully and respectful of all Gods creatures, not just humans but animals as well. Of all the attributes required the most important is non-violence.

We don’t need a fantasy super-being to tell us these things.

Of course we don’t, as in the same way we do not need people concocting fantasies like the whole cosmic manifestation came out of nothing and the love we feel for others is nothing more than a chemical reaction.

Religion encourages beliefs in fantasies as if such things are true.

Wrong, it encourages understanding of self, the parts that we cannot percieve or understand, irreligion encourages beliefs in fantasies.

Atheists who positively reject theism usually do so because theistic beliefs are specifically not grounded in reality, and such individuals tend to live lives based on rational thought.

Are you saying outright that God doesn’t exist?

What is needed is a positive secular humanist philosophy where activities are based on what is best for humanity, and not what is best for an imaginary deity.

Humanists think that:

this world and this life are all we have;
we should try to live full and happy lives ourselves and, as part of this, make it easier for other people to do the same;
all situations and people deserve to be judged on their merits by standards of reason and humanity;
individuality and social cooperation are equally important.

Apart from the first point, there is not much difference between that and religious principles as layed out in the scriptures.

Your alomost there!

Have fun Cris!!

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Cris]

Hi Jan,

The pope even changed the interpretation of the Jesus teaching that one should love your enemies to mean only if one’s enemies are also Christian.

If that is true, then religion cannot be blamed, only the misinterpretation of it, which is not religion.

Sure it can. That’s what religion does. It makes up rules and creates fantasies and since there is no factual or truthful basis to any of it then the authors are free to change their rules whenever they want. Religion is purely man made with no regard for truth or reason.

Safer in this sense means fewer feelings of terror of being attacked by irrational religious extremists.

What about dangerous people in general, you ought to see the homicide arrests that were made in just 1 year in USA, and those were only the ones that were convicted and sentenced.

Yes agreed, religious people are not the only ones who are irrational.

Sin means disobeying a god – if such a god does not exist then sin has no meaning.

But if such a god does exist it has meaning right?

Perhaps, but since the idea of gods is just imaginative fantasy; then there is really no hope that any are likely to appear any time soon. So the point is mute.

All belief can be the root of evil. Robert Oppenheimer a great scientist was responsible for a great number of deaths and misery which still has effect today, he believed he was doing society a service. Who do you blame for that?

Odd I thought the result of that episode was that hundreds of thousands and potentially millions were saved from death. The best way to stop evil is to destroy the source and its supporters.

But a religious belief that death is a gateway to something better significantly detracts from efforts to make life on Earth a better place.

With the belief that death is a gateway to a better life, for someone who accepts God, comes the responsibility of living this peacefully and respectful of all Gods creatures, not just humans but animals as well. Of all the attributes required the most important is non-violence.

There is no need to base true morality on a fantasy. Life has obvious value whether there are gods or not. And a fear of judgment is clearly the wrong motivation for true morality. But when life on earth is seen as temporary and a throwaway period then religionists have even less motivation to strive for peace and respect for life. Mortality is the strongest motivation to respect life.

….we do not need people concocting fantasies like the whole cosmic manifestation came out of nothing and the love we feel for others is nothing more than a chemical reaction.

So you are joking right? You are comparing the concept that the universe is infinite with the concept that an infinite magical super being beyond comprehension created everything. If we are comparing fantasies then the god idea is way out in front. And emotions, including love, are chemical and neuronal reactions; that is known. Your hopes that emotions are derived from something else remain, yet again nothing more than fantasy.

Religion encourages beliefs in fantasies as if such things are true.

Wrong, it encourages understanding of self, the parts that we cannot percieve or understand, irreligion encourages beliefs in fantasies.

What we cannot understand requires investigation, experimentation, education, observation, critical thinking, and intelligence, resulting in factual truth. Since when does truth represent fantasy? Theism says a god is responsible for everything and understanding isn’t needed, how does that encourage a desire to understand?

Atheists who positively reject theism usually do so because theistic beliefs are specifically not grounded in reality, and such individuals tend to live lives based on rational thought.

Are you saying outright that God doesn’t exist?

The question has no meaning or relevance. The idea of gods came from human imagination in the same way as most science fiction writers generate ideas. While many of the ideas are fascinating there is no need to make proclamations about whether such fantasy images might actually exist.

When the idea of gods can be narrowed to a clear comprehensible definition and where observations can be made for such an entity then the question could be entertained. At the moment you can’t present enough information to say whether such things are possible let alone whether they actually exist or not.

Humanists think that:

this world and this life are all we have;
we should try to live full and happy lives ourselves and, as part of this, make it easier for other people to do the same;
all situations and people deserve to be judged on their merits by standards of reason and humanity;
individuality and social cooperation are equally important.

Apart from the first point, there is not much difference between that and religious principles as layed out in the scriptures.

Great, then since the scriptures don’t add anything further of any practical value we can safely dismiss them and forge ahead building a better environment for humanity.

And I agree you are almost beginning to understand the irrelevance of religion.

Have fun
Cris.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Cris
Sure it can. That’s what religion does. It makes up rules and creates fantasies and since there is no factual or truthful basis to any of it then the authors are free to change their rules whenever they want. Religion is purely man made with no regard for truth or reason.

“It makes up rules” and “change their rules.”

You sound confused to me, maybe you should go away and decide which idea you wish to go with.

Yes agreed, religious people are not the only ones who are irrational/I]

If you are saying that all religious people are irrational religious terrorists, then there is no agreement?

The best way to stop evil is to destroy the source and its supporters.

Interesting quote, it could have come straight out of the mouth of George Bush, either.

Do you honestly believe dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshema and Nagasaki was the way to route out evil? Do you think it has succeeded? Do you think so many people deserved to die because they were Japanese?

But when life on earth is seen as temporary…..

Life is temporary, do you think you can live forever, much as you may want to?
Seeing life as anything more than temporary (at least for now) is fantasy.

and a throwaway period then religionists have even less
Mortality is the strongest motivation to respect life motivation to strive for peace and respect for life.

That is the biggest load of nonsense.
One day you should try asking a religionist if they have respect for life, or read a religious scripture.
People who don’t have respect for life, are people who don’t have any respect period, not even for themselves. How else could you justify murder.
.
You are comparing the concept that the universe is infinite with the concept that an infinite magical super being beyond comprehension created everything.

No, I’m comparing the concept of everything came out of nothing, to which chance is the source, that love is nothing more than chemicals reacting.... to the obvious design, to which there must be a designer, that constitutes and encompasses everything including ourselves, which lead to a Person a Supreme Person.

And emotions, including love, are chemical and neuronal reactions;

Reactions to what?
If you love someone “dearly” does that mean you produce more chemical and neuronal reactions?
Does it not have anything to do with the person?
Can they manufacture, in some way, love?

Your hopes that emotions are derived from something else remain, yet again nothing more than fantasy.

Oh well, I can always live in hope that I can live forever by uploading my memory into a computer, and do away with fantasy.

Theism says a god is responsible for everything and understanding isn’t needed

Does it?

Where;

theism n : the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods

The idea of gods came from human imagination

Evidence?

And I agree you are almost beginning to understand the irrelevance of religion.

Correct….you missed a bit off the end though, allow me to complete it……….as seen through the eyes of the intolerant.”

Have fun

I’ll try my best Cris, cheers.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Cris]

Jan,

“It makes up rules” and “change their rules.”

You sound confused to me, maybe you should go away and decide which idea you wish to go with.

Why do you think I am confused, it is religion that keeps changing and creating new rules, and I will admit I’m thinking primarily about Catholicism here. I hope you know your history well enough to remember the many changes that that religion has undergone over the past 2000 years.

If you are saying that all religious people are irrational religious terrorists, then there is no agreement?

I’m not sure how you reached that conclusion. ALL religious people are irrational for believing something as true which cannot be shown as true. Irrational thinking can lead to irrational actions of which violence is an example. The actions of religious people are therefore unpredictable.

The best way to stop evil is to destroy the source and its supporters.

Interesting quote, it could have come straight out of the mouth of George Bush, either.

Do you honestly believe dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshema and Nagasaki was the way to route out evil? Do you think it has succeeded? Do you think so many people deserved to die because they were Japanese?

In my 50 years of life I have traveled to many parts of the world. I have encountered a number of dangerous situations. My philosophy all my life has been to meet anger and violence from others with passive calmness. However, there have been times when that approach has not worked and I have been forced to defend myself with violence. The alternative would be to accept personal injury and potentially worse, and that is not acceptable.

My conclusion is that not all threatening situations can be solved through passivity; violence and self-defense is sometimes necessary. But this is also a reactive approach and that may not always be good either. I can foresee conditions where proactive violence would be more effective for self-defense than waiting to receive inevitable injuries and potentially death.

The use of the nuclear bombs was a proactive self-defensive action that is firmly believed to have saved the lives of potentially millions of allied soldiers and civilian lives.

I don’t like this, but if my own survival is at stake then I would make the same choice.

Life is temporary, do you think you can live forever, much as you may want to?
Seeing life as anything more than temporary (at least for now) is fantasy.

But that is my point. Most religionists believe they have an immortal soul that they will live forever. This is the basis for Christianity – Jesus said ‘believe in me and ye shall have eternal life’. Buddhism has re-incarnation. The fundamental basis of every major religion is a belief that individuals are immortal. That is the fantasy since there is nothing that indicates an eternal soul is possible.

Mortality is the strongest motivation to respect life and a motivation to strive for peace and respect for life.

That is the biggest load of nonsense.
One day you should try asking a religionist if they have respect for life, or read a religious scripture.
People who don’t have respect for life, are people who don’t have any respect period, not even for themselves.

No, you don’t understand the religious perspective.

Every major religion is a set of rules that if followed allegedly allow the practitioner to achieve either entrance to a paradise upon bodily death, or to be re-born under better conditions next time. The rules in every religion include a need for respect of life on Earth, although Islam includes some confusing statements that arguably allow suicide bombings.

Religionists are not showing a respect for life because that is inherently a good thing but because they have been told to respect life in order to be rewarded after they die. The fundamental motivation is to escape death and achieve a happier life beyond death. In essence every religion plays on the deep-seated human desire to cheat death. The belief that there is something beyond bodily death is the fundamental fantasy spread by every religion. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that indicates that anyone can survive bodily death – this is a fantasy.

Once we dismiss the fantasy and accept that bodily death means permanent non-existence then life on Earth can then be seen as truly temporary and priceless. A respect for life because life is important in itself is the only truly honest motivation, and this is only possible once one accepts his or her own mortality.

…I’m comparing the concept of everything came out of nothing, to which chance is the source, that love is nothing more than chemicals reacting.... to the obvious design, to which there must be a designer, that constitutes and encompasses everything including ourselves, which lead to a Person a Supreme Person.

I don’t support the ‘came out of nothing idea’; the simplest idea is that the universe just ‘is’. There is no need to be any more elaborate. If in the beginning there was nothing then nothing could ever have begun, clearly something must have always existed. i.e. something has the property of infinity.

The problem with a designer is that such an entity indicates complexity. The question then becomes who designed the designer, and so on. If you argue from the perspective that everything was designed then you must answer the question of how the designer originated. If you answer that God just ‘is’ then you have added a completely unnecessary level of abstraction to my point that the universe just ‘is’.

But all our experience shows that anything complex is derived from something simpler. You are using this argument to support your view of a designer. If this is consistent then the complex designer must have evolved from simpler things. If you follow this to its conclusion then God must have evolved from simpler fundamental components. In this case God would have been born and evolved from an infinite universe. The end result is that the universe just ‘is’. Adding a creator concept simply creates a circular argument. A creator is not needed to explain the universe. See my signature from Hawking.

And emotions, including love, are chemical and neuronal reactions;

Reactions to what?
If you love someone “dearly” does that mean you produce more chemical and neuronal reactions?
Does it not have anything to do with the person?
Can they manufacture, in some way, love?

Your entire being evolved based on the reactive-ness of basic chemical compounds. The basic forces of attraction and repulsion permeate through everything. In the higher lifeforms this has resulted in instincts for survival. Emotions include desires that support the survival instincts. Pleasure promotes life and survival. Love promotes pleasure and hence survival. The emotions and the intellect comprise the person, but the person has a brain that permits self-awareness.

I’m rambling here since I am not really sure what you are asking.

Oh well, I can always live in hope that I can live forever by uploading my memory into a computer, and do away with fantasy.

Awright, now you are talking.

Theism says a god is responsible for everything and understanding isn’t needed

Does it?

Where;

theism n : the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods

And your point is what? Your quote say it all – an unquestioning belief that something is true, e.g. no attempt to understand is required.

The idea of gods came from human imagination

Evidence?

The alternative is that a god can and has been observed. Show me that observation or how to observe a god? Without any detectable entity you have nothing but a fantasy idea.

And I agree you are almost beginning to understand the irrelevance of religion.

Correct….you missed a bit off the end though, allow me to complete it……….as seen through the eyes of the intolerant.”

Ah but tolerance for something detrimental has no value and should not be tolerated. Would you tolerate a murderer just because they share a different perspective?

Take care
Cris

 

[daktaklakpak]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Reactions to what?
If you love someone "dearly", does that mean you produce more chemical and neuronal reactions?
Does it not have anything to do with the person?
Can they manufacture, in some way, love?

Love is not an object. It's a condensed(abstract) description of a kind of human emotions. You can't package love and store it somewhere for later use. It's silly to say someone can manufacture love as love is some kind of packageable goods.

On the other hand, loving someone dearly does mean your brain is producing more chemical and triggering more neural reactions. The source of such increasing chemical production can be trace to external and internal stimuations. External stimuations include light(sight), sound, contact(touch), and chemical (smell and taste). Internal stimuation is when you review your memory of that person from external stimuation (neural reactions).