Why isn't JREF an atheist organisation?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yep, four of them.
Glue bonds; I love my kids

Now how about measuring and testing it (or any other type of love).

It's your claim, not mine.
Can you back it up or not?

If you wish to have a rational discussion, you will have to define love as you are using the term. Love is not a magical thing any more than sadness is magical. Emotions are biological brain processes. Humans are biological beings, we are not magical fairies with souls that exist outside our physical selves.

If you view love as a fictional rather than a biological process we should just agree to disagree because in my view, brains are biological things and you have no evidence that is not the case.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
I'm really hoping more and more people will adopt my use of "atheist" since as I'll have mentioned elsewhere it leaves the "belief" element where it belongs i.e. with those that are making a claim.

How about you adopt my belief, there is overwhelming evidence gods are fictional beings. It's silly to go on leaving the door open when it's obvious god beliefs are primitive things humans are growing out of.

 

[Prometheus]

My conclusion relies on the premise that once you see a clear pattern and that pattern is supported with overwhelming evidence, you can draw a conclusion about the whole.

Are you an agnostic about evolution because we have not mapped out every genome on the planet? Or have you seen enough evidence to draw a conclusion about evolution processes applying to all life on Earth?

AFAIK, I'm not agnostic about anything. It's always possible, at least in principle, to learn the truth about any proposition, evil demons and vatted brains notwithstanding. I'm an atheist. I've seen no evidence for the existence of any god or gods, and I find the notion that such beings might exist to be illogical--which is exactly what I would expect to be the case if, in fact, there were an omnipotent god who was an evil, vindictive, stark raving psychopath, full of hatred and jealousy (like the one in the Old Testament). It's impossible to draw an apt analogy between theism and evolution, though, because evolution is wholly rational and makes no untestable claims.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You aren't addressing the point and throw in irrelevancies. I didn't say anything about there being some magical thing. In my world view there aren't any magical feelings either, and I fully accept that human emotions are entirely the result of underlying neurology and biochemistry. But I do not think that the only valid way to look at love is measuring and describing its objective characteristics. There is also subjective experience.

I'm not quite sure what the problem is here. Did I say the only way to look at love was through science? We were talking about the fact one could look at love scientifically, not that you could only look at it that way.

I fully agree that it is a biological process, but I don't think you can provide any scientific evidence that it is "wonderful process"; that's a subjective value judgement that falls outside the magisterium of science.

I also never said there was no magisteria outside science though I can see how that has been misinterpreted. My point is that religion, especially god beliefs, can indeed be investigated with the scientific process. I merely object to using the NOMa as an excuse to avoid any critical thinking about god beliefs. And I object to the double standard claiming somehow people get something of value from god woo they don't get from other woo. I don't buy that.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

If you wish to have a rational discussion, you will have to define love as you are using the term. Love is not a magical thing any more than sadness is magical. Emotions are biological brain processes. Humans are biological beings, we are not magical fairies with souls that exist outside our physical selves.

If you view love as a fictional rather than a biological process we should just agree to disagree because in my view, brains are biological things and you have no evidence that is not the case.

If that's the way you want it fine.
It was you who said you could test it, not me.
I simply made a genuine request for you to show me how to test and measure.
You have moved the goalposts a few times and continue to do so. I have even given ground a few times to help you out. Still you play scemantics.

You bluffed, I called. You fail.

How about you adopt my belief, there is overwhelming evidence gods are fictional beings. It's silly to go on leaving the door open when it's obvious god beliefs are primitive things humans are growing out of.

You have been asked for evidence of this before too. None forthcoming except the same old unwinnable arguments.
Sorry SG, but you have your belief and understanding, not evidence.
my bold

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...."Magisterium" as Gould uses it, refers to a type of problem rather than an approach to solving it. NOMA posits that the science and religion deal with different sorts of problems altogether.

And that I definitely don't buy. That's like saying god beliefs are akin to love and wonderment and whatever the other 'things' that were outside the realm of science that were mentioned here.

In reality god beliefs are more akin to the placebo effect and the benefits one gets from false hope. It is a myth people get moral beliefs from religion other than dogmatic belief about sexual mores that one would just as easily get from social influences that are not religion based. The harshest of social requirements come from religion. Societies would be much better off without religious dogma influencing rules of behavior.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....According to Gould, religion's teaching-realm is ethics & morality and the like, while science's is the natural world. (That is, religion has the authority to answer values type of questions, while science answer questions about how things work.) However, the problem is that no religion limits itself to that realm AND the realm of ethics and morality and values is part of the natural world anyway.

See now I think this is the old view. In a paradigm shift to a more enlightened view, the human animal, just like all other species on Earth, evolved. And as such, behavior, be it moral behavior or the values we express, is the result of evolution, both biological and sociological. You can discuss the influence of society on the biological being's morals and other values. But the idea these values and morals come from some religion, god belief, or other 'special' source is false. And, it is a less useful context that viewing social cultural influences for what they are, human sourced influences.

 

[Egg]

I'm not avoiding any question. You may not agree with or understand my answer. But that is a different thing from avoiding a question. You want me to answer that I agree with you but I do not. This is not something I have spent little time thinking about. I have a different perspective on this than many people. But I have come to that perspective after careful thought.

Is it logical to say you cannot test fiction scientifically? Does that mean fiction does not exist? Or does it mean fiction could be real but you cannot say with science that it is or isn't?

The problem I have with your scenario is that you would have to conclude fiction could be real and science could not say if it was or was not. That is not logical to me. We can investigate the source of the fiction. We can discover the author or the history of the story and the characteristics that make it fiction.

You want to limit science to just testing Harry Potter's world and not apply science to the discovery of whether Potter is a fictional being or not.

I understand the semantics. I know all about the excuse that was devised years ago saying magical beliefs were not subject to scientific investigation.

But my world is rational and so I don't look at the question the same way you are looking at it. Can I test the wing shape of a rock that has no wings? Does that mean I cannot test that rock for anything?

It is not logical to test the wingless rock for the shape of its wings any more than I can test a fictional thing for its fictional claim. But make the claim gods or Harry Potter exists and you've made a testable claim. If you are not saying gods exist then testing the claim you haven't made is absurd. But, that in no way means gods are not fictional.

The thing is either you are saying the god exists or you've said nothing at all. To say, I am going to say the name, god, but make no claims, how does that even make sense? Claim the god exists and you've made a claim.

It's an argument in semantics to say you have said 'god' but you didn't claim said god exists.


In summary, if you are not saying god exists, then we are done. If you are saying god exists that is a testable claim. I would focus the test on the evidence the god was a fictional being. I am not limited to just testing the god the way you see fit.

You seem to be missing the point still - or intentionally avoiding it. The point is one about your philosophical position on what to conclude about a claim that either cannot be tested in principle or even that we currently have no way to test. You seem to be suggesting that believing in something that cannot be scientifically tested is an illogical position to take, but this suggestion itself is a philosophical position and, as far as I can see, cannot be tested by science.

The point, I believe, is relevant to the topic in so far that skepticism is a method, a way of approaching claims. Assuming something doesn't exist because we don't have evidence is not a logical position to take (it's a logical fallacy). The skeptical approach can get no further than "we don't know" in such a case. Other conclusions come from something other than science, such as from a particular philosophical position. If we try to apply skepticism to these philosophical positions we don't get very far.

It seems to me that your philosophical position defeats itself, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but probably not by irrelevant Harry Potter analogies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Cheers

Two things
On the definition of love.
I have none, and hence my question/challenge to have it tested, as well as the offer for you guys to select your own form; I felt than given my personal lack of definition I would leave it up to you. I could no more define it than try and describe why New Zealand cricket is shambolic; I can't, I just accept that it is.

So you have no definition of love but you want someone to test it. Talk about trying to stack the deck.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So you have no definition of love but you want someone to test it. Talk about trying to stack the deck.

Your words.
Your claims.
Your responsibility.

Again, use any definition you like.
My enquiry was and is genuine.

Can you or can't you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

AFAIK, I'm not agnostic about anything. It's always possible, at least in principle, to learn the truth about any proposition, evil demons and vatted brains notwithstanding. I'm an atheist. I've seen no evidence for the existence of any god or gods, and I find the notion that such beings might exist to be illogical--which is exactly what I would expect to be the case if, in fact, there were an omnipotent god who was an evil, vindictive, stark raving psychopath, full of hatred and jealousy (like the one in the Old Testament). It's impossible to draw an apt analogy between theism and evolution, though, because evolution is wholly rational and makes no untestable claims.

In your view, perhaps. But that is not my view.

Like I said above, if you are not saying any god exists then why even bring it up? If you are saying a god exists or even that a god could exist, those are testable claims.

Could a god exist? While I have no issue with the scientific principle anything is possible, I take issue with the inappropriate use of applying that principle to things for which there is no evidence for, and especially for things for which there is evidence for, but that evidence is being left out of the discussion.

In the case of god beliefs, the real problem is leaving out of the discussion the evidence gods are fictional beings. The scientific principle anything is possible is inappropriately used time and time again as if it was evidence god beliefs have validity. And that is what the problem is.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If that's the way you want it fine.
It was you who said you could test it, not me.
I simply made a genuine request for you to show me how to test and measure.
You have moved the goalposts a few times and continue to do so. I have even given ground a few times to help you out. Still you play scemantics.

You bluffed, I called. You fail.

Let's be clear here. You said test something you were thinking of but for which you refused to define and you rejected my definition.

When you get around to defining love, and supporting the basis of your definition, get back to me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You seem to be missing the point still - or intentionally avoiding it.

You must be intentionally trying not to understand my post.

Have you ever heard a lawyer or a politician try to force a false position out of someone? The interview in Congress by a Republican lawyer-legislator climate change denier interviewing Rick Piltz is a good example. It's hard to find the transcript but the exchange went something like this:

Lawyer/legislator: "So the climate science is uncertain?"
Piltz:"Science uses language of uncertainty, but the climate evidence is strong."
Lawyer/legislator: "So you cannot say with certainty the climate is warming?"
Piltz:"Science doesn't try to prove without a doubt but the evidence is more than convincing."
Lawyer/legislator: "Can you or can you not say with certainty the climate is warming?"
Piltz:"That is not how science answers that question."

Maybe you will or will not understand this analogy, however, I do think it applies here. It doesn't appear I'll be getting through to you anytime soon. Suffice it to say, I do not view the Universe from your view point. I'm happy to continue the discussion, but only if you drop the petty crap that I am intentionally not answering. The only intentional thing I am doing here is trying to explain my point of view to you. You don't have to agree. But you should at least try to understand what I've said before you go complaining the answer doesn't fit your pigeon hole.


I will address the rest of your post in a separate reply. I wanted to make it clear you are using insulting and unproductive language in your posts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your words.
Your claims.
Your responsibility.

Again, use any definition you like.
My enquiry was and is genuine.

Can you or can't you?

I did. You didn't like my definition of one kind of love. It's not up to me to guess what your definition of love is. Love is a biological thing and as such it is testable, measurable, and describable. As a magical thing, love does not really exist. That is a fantasy version of what love is.

 

[Earthborn]

So you have no definition of love but you want someone to test it. Talk about trying to stack the deck.

Isn't that the whole point? "Love" lacks a clear definition and therefore can't be tested, therefore it falls outside the magisterium of science... even if its objectively measurable characteristics are undoubtedly biological and can be studied by science.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... The point is one about your philosophical position on what to conclude about a claim that either cannot be tested in principle or even that we currently have no way to test. You seem to be suggesting that believing in something that cannot be scientifically tested is an illogical position to take, but this suggestion itself is a philosophical position and, as far as I can see, cannot be tested by science.

"Believing in", that is your problem. I translate that to [x] exists. Existence is a testable claim. You want to believe in something and claim you are not saying it exists at the same time?

...The point, I believe, is relevant to the topic in so far that skepticism is a method, a way of approaching claims. Assuming something doesn't exist because we don't have evidence is not a logical position to take (it's a logical fallacy).

Again, there are two kinds of claims when it comes to absence of evidence, one is a claim that still is truly an open question. We don't know and probably cannot know what happened before the Big Bang. We don't know if there are other universes.

The other kind of claim is totally fabricated. Can you prove Hogwartz is not a real place? Can you prove gods don't exist? In these claims it is false to say we have an absence of evidence. We have an equally important scientific principle that says follow the evidence to the conclusion, don't try to fit the evidence to the conclusion. If you do that the evidence is clear, Hogwartz is fictional and gods are fictional. END of story.

You are trying to apply the principle that new evidence could come along. True, but that doesn't stop us from drawing reasonable conclusions such as the fact evolution theory applies to all life on Earth and we don't have to test every organism to conclude that. You may not have seen enough evidence to conclude all gods are fictional, but I have.

We can conclude that fiction is fun, it's nice, but it is not evidence something exists. Outside the Universe and before the Big Bang are reasonable things to conclude we don't know. Hogwartz and gods are not reasonable things to conclude we don't know.

...The skeptical approach can get no further than "we don't know" in such a case. Other conclusions come from something other than science, such as from a particular philosophical position. If we try to apply skepticism to these philosophical positions we don't get very far.

It seems to me that your philosophical position defeats itself, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but probably not by irrelevant Harry Potter analogies.

Potter is just as fictional as gods are. Do you have one shred of evidence to the contrary? I repeat, You may not have seen enough evidence to conclude all gods are fictional, but I have. As for the, "can go no further", that boggles my mind. All the evidence we have that gods are fictional yet you cannot quite draw a general conclusion from that. Amazing.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Let's be clear here. You said test something you were thinking of but for which you refused to define and you rejected my definition.

When you get around to defining love, and supporting the basis of your definition, get back to me.

You can't then, fine.
I had a genuine question.
I'm over it

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You can't then, fine.
I had a genuine question.
I'm over it

Fine then, you cannot define love and you have no supportable claim love is not a biological process. Good enough.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Isn't that the whole point? "Love" lacks a clear definition and therefore can't be tested, therefore it falls outside the magisterium of science... even if its objectively measurable characteristics are undoubtedly biological and can be studied by science.

If you refuse to define it and you reject the definition it is a biological process? No, that was not a valid point in my book.

 

[Prometheus]

....if you are not saying any god exists then why even bring it up?

I don't bring it up. I respond when others do.

If you are saying a god exists or even that a god could exist, those are testable claims.

Just out of curiosity, how would you actually test, say, the Hindu claim that there's an evil and all-powerful god of deception responsible for the illusion that we call the natural world?

Could a god exist? While I have no issue with the scientific principle anything is possible, I take issue with the inappropriate use of applying that principle to things for which there is no evidence for, and especially for things for which there is evidence for, but that evidence is being left out of the discussion.

When is the 'anything's possible' principle appropriate if not before there's evidence either for or against whatever outlandish possibility one is concerned with?

More importantly, exactly which evidence is being left out of the discussion?

Besides, the Yaohnanen tribe actually has photographic evidence that their god exists.

In the case of god beliefs, the real problem is leaving out of the discussion the evidence gods are fictional beings. The scientific principle anything is possible is inappropriately used time and time again as if it was evidence god beliefs have validity. And that is what the problem is.

It seems like you are conflating 'gods' with 'god-beliefs' Of course there's all sorts of evidence that people's god-beliefs are works of fiction. This has no bearing at all on whether the objects of those beliefs happen to exist or not. You know, "Any resemblance to deities, living or dead, is purely coincidental," and all that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It may be hard for some of you to understand my paradigm shift away from the magisterial purview of the magical humanism. I don't have an issue about enjoying life. I enjoy it tremendously. I don't think one needs to be concerned about analyzing enjoyment or love via the scientific process. But that doesn't mean love and enjoyment are so unique as to be beyond biology.

I reject the magical world where love is somehow separate from our biological selves. Morals don't materialize out of nowhere. Religion and society may influence the individual's moral self, but they are not the 'source' of morality. Biology is. The brain does not have some magical esoteric center that is beyond the natural universe.

Humans are the result of biological evolution just as every other species on the planet is. We don't have any special qualities beyond our unique language and technological abilities. Our biological selves are influenced by the real or rational Universe, not by some esoteric magical universe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't bring it up. I respond when others do.

Then they make the claim gods exist.

Just out of curiosity, how would you actually test, say, the Hindu claim that there's an evil and all-powerful god of deception responsible for the illusion that we call the natural world?

Same way I've been discussing here. I'd look for evidence that belief was any less fictional than comparable beliefs. No such evidence exists. Hindu beliefs are just as fictional as every other religion.

When is the 'anything's possible' principle appropriate if not before there's evidence either for or against whatever outlandish possibility one is concerned with?

More importantly, exactly which evidence is being left out of the discussion?

The evidence people have made up fictional gods over and over again. We even have retrospective prediction which was then observed when the Cargo Cults were observed developing in historical times. The Mormon religion developed in historical times.

Besides, the Yaohnanen tribe actually has photographic evidence that their god exists.

See, you are familiar with an observed god myth developing and yet you still aren't sure the evidence is convincing that gods are mythical beings created by humans.

It seems like you are conflating 'gods' with 'god-beliefs' Of course there's all sorts of evidence that people's god-beliefs are works of fiction. This has no bearing at all on whether the objects of those beliefs happen to exist or not. You know, "Any resemblance to deities, living or dead, is purely coincidental," and all that.

No but there is evidence that whatever inspired god beliefs was not anything supernatural. You provided an example in this post.

Look at the entire Judeo/Christian/Islamic religion. All three religions grew from the same myths and texts. The Biblical texts (or Koran or Talmud) contain no evidence of any knowledge suggesting a supernatural source of information. The texts lack awareness of the germ theory. No need to avoid pork, they could have just cooked it thoroughly. No evidence the people were aware of the rest of the world's peoples and so on. One can find example after example these texts were written by men.

I'm confident the Hindu texts and all the others contain the same lack of supernatural evidence within them. These are works of fiction. Why do you give any credence to the idea maybe, despite all the overwhelming evidence, that there still might be a real god somewhere?

Not me. I'm content there is more than enough evidence to call this stuff fiction.

 

[Prometheus]

Then they make the claim gods exist.

Huh?

Same way I've been discussing here. I'd look for evidence that belief was any less fictional than comparable beliefs. No such evidence exists. Hindu beliefs are just as fictional as every other religion.

That's not a test.

The evidence people have made up fictional gods over and over again. We even have retrospective prediction which was then observed when the Cargo Cults were observed developing in historical times. The Mormon religion developed in historical times.

See, you are familiar with an observed god myth developing and yet you still aren't sure the evidence is convincing that gods are mythical beings created by humans.

This is a fallacious argument. Evidence that humans create false beliefs is exactly that: evidence that the beliefs are false. It says nothing whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of any gods.

No but there is evidence that whatever inspired god beliefs was not anything supernatural. You provided an example in this post.

Of course! This supports my point, not undermines it.

Look at the entire Judeo/Christian/Islamic religion. All three religions grew from the same myths and texts. The Biblical texts (or Koran or Talmud) contain no evidence of any knowledge suggesting a supernatural source of information. The texts lack awareness of the germ theory. No need to avoid pork, they could have just cooked it thoroughly. No evidence the people were aware of the rest of the world's peoples and so on. One can find example after example these texts were written by men. I'm confident the Hindu texts and all the others contain the same lack of supernatural evidence within them. These are works of fiction.

And again, we have no disagreement on this point at all. Only on what you can ultimately infer from it.

Why do you give any credence to the idea maybe, despite all the overwhelming evidence, that there still might be a real god somewhere?

I don't. I'm an atheist. I keep telling you that. I'm just pointing out that the evidence that there cannot possibly be any gods is not overwhelming. It doesn't need to be. Atheism is properly the default position, and the burden of proof rests squarely on anyone who opposes it.

And yes, we are looking at the same evidence. It does not mean what you think it means.

Not me. I'm content there is more than enough evidence to call this stuff fiction.

I agree. If I write an account of my previous career as an Argentinian ranch hand, then I have produced a work of fiction. I may even make a habit of writing false autobiographies that take place in locations I've never visited. If some clever reader should notice that my descriptions of these places are off, and the events I describe impossible, this would in no way be evidence that those places don't exist--just that I don't really know about them.

 

[Earthborn]

Did I say the only way to look at love was through science?

No, but you have criticised others for pointing out that there are others ways to look at it, completely misunderstanding the argument.

We were talking about the fact one could look at love scientifically, not that you could only look at it that way.

No, we were talking about the fact that while one could look at love scientifically, other views that fall outside of science and therefore belong to different magisteria can also be valid.

I also never said there was no magisteria outside science though I can see how that has been misinterpreted.

I can see how that has been misinterpreted too. You claimed that any example of magisteria outside of science was "bull".

My point is that religion, especially god beliefs, can indeed be investigated with the scientific process.

Then your point is irrelevant, because no one claimed god beliefs can't be scientifically studied.

And I object to the double standard claiming somehow people get something of value from god woo they don't get from other woo. I don't buy that.

Claiming that people get something out of god beliefs isn't a double standard. It is just true. The only thing that is arguably a "double standard" in this discussion is having different standards for testable and non-testable claims.

 

[Earthborn]

If you refuse to define it and you reject the definition it is a biological process? No, that was not a valid point in my book.

I'll refer to a quote by someone who apparently thinks it is a valid point:

Did I say the only way to look at love was through science? We were talking about the fact one could look at love scientifically, not that you could only look at it that way.

 

[Earthborn]

It may be hard for some of you to understand my paradigm shift away from the magisterial purview of the magical humanism.

Don't talk gibberish.

I don't have an issue about enjoying life. I enjoy it tremendously. I don't think one needs to be concerned about analyzing enjoyment or love via the scientific process.

Then why pretend to disagree with anyone for pointing out that there are other ways to approach life than science?

But that doesn't mean love and enjoyment are so unique as to be beyond biology.

No one here claimed otherwise.

I reject the magical world where love is somehow separate from our biological selves.

No one here claimed there is such a magical world.

Morals don't materialize out of nowhere.

No one here claimed otherwise.

Religion and society may influence the individual's moral self, but they are not the 'source' of morality.

No one here claimed otherwise. It is was claimed that science cannot answer moral questions, because science tries to steer away from value judgements. Other magisteria may have the appropriate tools to approach the questions, though not likely to definitively answer them.

Biology is.

That's a rather reductionist view. You might as well claim that chemistry or physics is the source of morality, even though they don't deal with moral questions at all. Why claim that morality needs a "source" at all?

The brain does not have some magical esoteric center that is beyond the natural universe.

No one here claimed that it did.

Our biological selves are influenced by the real or rational Universe, not by some esoteric magical universe.

No one here claimed that there was a magical universe.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Love is a biological thing and as such it is testable, measurable, and describable. As a magical thing, love does not really exist. That is a fantasy version of what love is.

Love is more than just biology. There are other scientific factors involved including chemical, sensory and intellectual.
There are others too that are not based in science

Neither is love just "bonding" as you have previously suggested. It is a factor, not the factor; it is just a part of the whole.

You say you can describe love, but I have yet to see your description.
You say you can measure love, but with what?
You say you can test love, but we see no tool.
"Why is that?", one is drawn to ask?

The feelings I can have for a child's small successes isn't simply bonding. Their first step, first day of school, academic or sporting achievement. This is not biology either.
Can you test and measure pride? That too is a type of love, or a feeling borne of love. Do other animals feel pride?

Is genuine affection simply bonding? I think not.
I might bond with my dog, but that is a lot different from the deep (dare I say, spiritual) love and passion that I have and feel for my wife. Or is love a matter of simple biomatching, something you could obtain through a dating service? Is that what you are saying? Is that your test?

I might say that I love ice cream. Is that bonding too?
Or that I love freedom, or sport, or my garden. Bonding? Lust? Biology?
I love animals, the great outdoors/nature and the flowers. Bonding, lust or biology?
And what of the man or woman who gives his their to their God or faith. Is that a test, or a measure, or a mere description of their sacrifice for love. Or is it again your bonding, lust and biology?

I love my fellow man, I might also love all the individual people of the earth - yet I don't know them all. Have I bonded with them too? Lust, biology?

Great poets wrote of love. Were Browning, Keates and Shakespeare talking of bonding? I doubt it. Lust, possibly. Wonder, awe and magic? Probably.

Is the measure of love what we will do to protect that love, or is it a test that we would be prepared to let it go?
Does one who will fight another for love show a true test of love? Or is that the opposite? Is jealousy the test? Or is this simply lust?

Is the protection a parent shows for their children biology and bonding alone? I would hope not.
Or is it the one who lays down his life for another (greater love hath no man..) who shows true love?

What is the test?

Is the first kiss with a true love not magical?
Or a child's laughter.
The love between an old couple holding hands in the park. Can you test that love? The one love of a lifetime? Is that lust, or biology or simply bonding? I doubt it, and so - I suggest would they.

Does love not feed the soul? How should we test that?
Does not love generate more love? Is it not exponential? How can we use science to test that?

When my heart breaks, is that lust, bonding or biology? No, it is the great grief that comes with great love and a great love lost. Can you test or measure for that? Or for that matter, measure my grief.

Love is magical.

All the mysteries of life are not uncovered, and as such not all can be explained by science as yet, seek as we try.
There remains magic in the world regardless of what you say. I see it every day. In love.

I feel sad for you, that you can't.

 

[athon]

Cheers

Two things
On the definition of love.
I have none, and hence my question/challenge to have it tested, as well as the offer for you guys to select your own form; I felt than given my personal lack of definition I would leave it up to you. I could no more define it than try and describe why New Zealand cricket is shambolic; I can't, I just accept that it is.

Love is more than just biology. There are other scientific factors involved including chemical, sensory and intellectual.
There are others too that are not based in science

Neither is love just "bonding" as you have previously suggested. It is a factor, not the factor; it is just a part of the whole. *snip*

For somebody who can't define it, you seem to think you know an awful lot about what it is and is not.

I think you're trying to have it both ways.

Athon

 

[Hallo Alfie]

For somebody who can't define it, you seem to think you know an awful lot about what it is and is not.

I think you're trying to have it both ways.

Athon

I just gave it some thought, and started waxing ridiculous.

 

[athon]

I just gave it some thought, and started waxing ridiculous.

Hehe. If it was a poetry class, I'd give you an A. If it was philosophy, maybe a B-.

Athon

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Hehe. If it was a poetry class, I'd give you an A. If it was philosophy, maybe a B-.

Athon

Thanks, that means a lot coming from our resident and current champion.

 

[The Atheist]

Cheers

Two things
On the definition of love.
I have none, and hence my question/challenge to have it tested, as well as the offer for you guys to select your own form; I felt than given my personal lack of definition I would leave it up to you. I could no more define it than try and describe why New Zealand cricket is shambolic; I can't, I just accept that it is.

Good analogy, there's a rational explanation for both, but it's off-topic, so start a thread or ask the mods to split off the posts on the subject of love.

Any way, the offer is still there, make your own definitions and then test it. Seriously, I am interested.

Ok, then go ahead!

Second
Agnostic

I might have to find another word to describe my position then. Please help me...

I see that it is possible for there to be god. I also see that it is improbable there is god.
I don't go to church - save weddings and funerals where appropriate.

What am I (apart from confused)? Thycurious?

An atheist agnostic.