Is there such a thing as rational Christianity?

Very rational too! Hey that's what the thread is about, isn't?
Ironically, the rational Christian is more rational then the rational atheist!!!! :p
LOL! :D

Yaba Daba! :m:
 
TruthSeeker said:
Very rational too! Hey that's what the thread is about, isn't?
Ironically, the rational Christian is more rational then the rational atheist!!!!

Yaba Daba!
Click to expand...
I guess that I'm seeing things from a different view point :rolleyes:
 
Why are you attacking me then ? :p
Buddhists dont flame others for nothing you know.

TruthSeeker. I was just giving the real information of love & then you suddenly pop up saying im ignorant.

Please control your self :confused:
 
Last edited:
Mythbuster said:
Why are you attacking me then ? :p
Buddhists dont flame others for nothing you know.
Click to expand...
You, sire, implied that I believe in some "magical fetish". :D

TruthSeeker. I was just giving the real information of love & then you suddenly pop up saying im ignorant.
Click to expand...
How's it real? Any proof that love is purely chemical? I don't see any. Did you provide any?

Please control your self
Click to expand...
I'm a master of self-control- NOT.
Specially with girls.... :p
 
Mythbuster said:
Hah. I have the very thing, but I doubt you will do either. I hope you won't concede to carry out the latter.

http://www.nel.edu/pdf_/26_3/260305R01_15990719_Esch--Stefano_.pdf

Ahh, isn't ignorance just a bitch? I don't approve of you killing yourself over it, though. Understanding a fundamental human emotion is hardly a good reason to do that.
Click to expand...

Wonderful attachment, thank you very much! A detailed nuts and bolts explaination of the chemical processes generated in the brain by the emotion of love, and the outside circumstances that can impact the process. The authors even make a stab at describing love as an adaption that confers an evolutionary advantage in survival.

They note it brings pleasure or pain, they discuss the different kinds of love people have. Given enough research, I imagine religious beliefs could be described in just as much detail, after all, they are generated in the brain too.

However, the authors don't address love as a rational or irrational expression or experience. They don't define love as a reality outside of the human experience, that is, it isn't a concrete stand-alone entity or event. In other words, emotions are an abstract, with a real world process that can be charted and measured in the brain.

I don't disagree or demand changes in their findings. However, as a thinking human, I reserve the right to hold that love can be more than the sum of its parts, its chemicals, its brain paths. As an aesthetic experience it has value, a value that transcends a technical description.
 
Mythbuster said:
How ridiculous of you, though. Scientists allegedly don't have the answer (and you presume they never will, I suppose), so you in your infinite wisdom suddenly know what god is?
Click to expand...
Heck, I'm an Atheist. When someone asks me if I believe in god, my first response is "Define your term."

The whole idea of the philosophy of the scientific method is that we will never have an ultimate answer to anything. Just the best explanation given our level of knowledge.

In addition, as I have clearly stated many times, assuming that god exists or is responsible for something because something is not, or inadequately explained is utterly, utterly stupid.
Click to expand...
As far as existence goes, that depends how someone defines 'god', doesn't it?
 
atthisaddress said:
Heck, I'm an Atheist. When someone asks me if I believe in god, my first response is "Define your term."
Click to expand...
your a deist, or an agnostic.
if you have any belief in a god/gods, your not an atheist.
atthisaddress said:
As far as existence goes, that depends how someone defines 'god', doesn't it?
Click to expand...
no, there is no evidence that a god/gods exist, so why try to define it.
 
mustafhakofi said:
your a deist, or an agnostic.
if you have any belief in a god/gods, your not an atheist.no, there is no evidence that a god/gods exist, so why try to define it.
Click to expand...

I'm an Atheist, I don't believe in a supernatural. Why ask them to define it? Because much of the time it is so broad, so undefined (the whole universe is a common answer) that it is meaningless. In our society in the US, there is peer pressure to say you believe in God, but not to define it - most folks never talk about that.
 
TruthSeeker said:
I never seen so many crappy arguments before in my life.
To say that love is purely chemical is like saying that the universe is purely visible. You can't get more ignorant then that. :bugeye:
Click to expand...


read the article on love and its chemical origins in this months issue of national geographic. get into it.
 
atthisaddress said:
Wonderful attachment, thank you very much! A detailed nuts and bolts explaination of the chemical processes generated in the brain by the emotion of love, and the outside circumstances that can impact the process. The authors even make a stab at describing love as an adaption that confers an evolutionary advantage in survival.

They note it brings pleasure or pain, they discuss the different kinds of love people have. Given enough research, I imagine religious beliefs could be described in just as much detail, after all, they are generated in the brain too.

However, the authors don't address love as a rational or irrational expression or experience. They don't define love as a reality outside of the human experience, that is, it isn't a concrete stand-alone entity or event. In other words, emotions are an abstract, with a real world process that can be charted and measured in the brain.

I don't disagree or demand changes in their findings. However, as a thinking human, I reserve the right to hold that love can be more than the sum of its parts, its chemicals, its brain paths. As an aesthetic experience it has value, a value that transcends a technical description.
Click to expand...

love is a product of psycho-chemical synthesis. its not just floating around out there in the world waiting to be picked up by people, animals, and plants. in order to have love, as humans imagine it to exist, you must have both the chemical impetus, and the means to produce an emotional response to the stimuli. i think that because people have seen love for something other than what it is for such a long time, the human experience has come to include it as something that has more weight than it actually should. i'm not saying that love doesnt create beautiful transcendent moments and feelings and bonds between people, but its still basically just a chemical high. try just doing ecstasy for a couple months when you start dating someone and tell me it isnt way better than love. or maybe synthesize some new drug that allows you to release lots of dopamine and oxytocin into your system and see if you can fall in love with a cactus or a house instead of a person.
 
What about choices? Committment? Concern?
Ok, respect. What are the chemical constituents of respect?

Also, "loving" an object is a misuse of the word.

Whatever.
 
cole grey said:
What about choices? Committment? Concern?
Ok, respect. What are the chemical constituents of respect?

Also, "loving" an object is a misuse of the word.

Whatever.
Click to expand...
Exactly. That's exactly what I told them. But most people in these forums are not intelligent enough to realize and accept that... :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top