My "Beef" With Atheists

I've debated several more evolutionists besides yourself, so I know where this is going.You say there are objective and subjective aspects to love.I would then enquire about the subjective aspects.Then you make up some story about how it is very complex, that there are trillions of possible connections between neurons in the brain.Then I reply that your subjectivity seems objective also, that we can measure these neurons.Then you reply something like it is too complicated to measure, so it is not objective.Then I reply it is principally still objective, we could measure small parts of what is supposedly subjective.Then you reply that maybe in the future science can explain love fully and objectively, that science is edging it's way to cover more aspects of love objectively.Then I reply that there is no real subjectivity at all in your consideration of it.Then you say scientists must be objective.Then I say you are the same as the nazi race scientists.Then you say scientists are loving and nazi's are hateful and science can prove that partially for the objective aspects of love. For example scientists did not kill so many people.Then I say 1+1=2 Darwinism gets to be popularized and 3 dictators show up, Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito who all have as their main beliefs a natural selection derivative that measures love.Then you say there is no evidence of that.Then I point to the evidence of the schoolbook for the Hitleryouth, Mein Kampf, the transcripts of the meeting to work out the holocaust, Mussolini with his natural selection speeches, Hirohito the amateur marine biologist with his Darwinized version of Shinto.Then you will just go on about how great the scientific method is, and talk about the virtues of gathering evidence, and that the evidence more points towards religion as the cause of the holocaust.Then I will just say again 1+1=2 they objectify love, you objectify love.And so on, and so onLet's leave this simple. You know you are getting close to the edge of what's allowed in science, the line between talking about what ought and ought not is very thin and obscure with you. Objective aspects of love and subjective aspects mixed in together, leaving you perfect deniability to establish if you break the rules or not. But we can see that you are close to the border, and I think that is already disrespectful of the rule not to speak about what ought and ought not as science, and you should be punished for that.

And to pre-empt some of your argument.A good way to consider what the nazi's really believed is a thought-experiment in which you think about what you would tell a spy about what nazi's believed, who has a mission to go get the secret documents in the safe on the top floor of a building filled with high ranking SS officers.So basically if you tell the spy that nazi's are christians, would that help the spy to pass themselves of as an SS officer, and succeed in the mission? Is that credible. Or otherwise some garbled selectionist notions of heritable virtue, measurable spirituality, would that help the spy succeed?

Symasu, lets have a little fun with your perspective of love.Explain love to us?In detail, omiting nothing. Give me your discription.A few key things though.

• 1. Do not use anything as a reference i.e. "I love my mom", "I love fruit", "I love a warm summer breeze" etc, etc.
• 2. You must describe it so that it makes sense i. e. "The feeling I get when I bit into a fresh Georga Peach"...And NOT "You know...that thing that happens...when you feel tingly inside...when you feel warm and stuff..."
• 3. You must explain how it is that you (A) know your feeling it, and (B) defined it as love.

*This should be simple, and a fun exercise that i've done in class.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky