My "Beef" With Atheists

There goes another one, must be a million of them. Where is that love-o-meter that when you point it at the universe and it clicks to zero. Im sure scientists must have such a thing since countless sciencefans positively assert as objective fact that there is no love in the universe. Can you please point any paper on it that establishes this as fact.Or else, without evidence, arent you the pseudoscientists of the worst kind. Why is the stupid scientific method not reacting against this pseudoscience. Why would the science beast allow it to pass and seemingly encourage pseudoscience. Perhaps the scientific method is telling us that it does know love. For in terms of information theory even the scientific method is a thing in itself. It computes its next state from information of past present and future by decision, just as gravity does. So the science beast is trying to have its love be acknowledged.

Reference the paper which establishes as fact the love of people. What love consists of, and how it is measured.

Right, so you have no paper then, which is ofcourse because there is no love-o-meter, it's all pretend-science.

Those papers are by art of reasonable judgement, don't you understand anything?

The meaning of subjectivity is, by decision, it adds information. Objectivity means passing on information, nothing is added or substracted. So you see the essential difference here is between alternatives or no alternatives.

The psychologists are looking at decisions, the subjectivity of a person, and making judgement on it, which is another decision. For this they use reasonable judgement, as found in common knowledge, which people use in every-day life.To assert jealousy and such as objective statements of fact, means they are material things or processes, so that the spiritual realm is empty, and therefore it is atheistic.But I'm getting the feeling that by explaining it, I'm losing the discussion, because people who assert such things as objective fact should basically just be punished. Everybody knows it is wrong to objectify things such as love or jealousy, and talking about it, kind of doubting it, is really not allowed in my opinion.Usually the pretend-scientists begin by talking how complex love is, about trillions of possible interactions. But the shroud of complexity is just because the scientists know that the moment they define it precisely, people are going to reject their science. So they keep hovering over it like they have a handle on it, making promises of improving, but never delivering the precise detail.I think this also may explain why scientists and sciencefans are generally not normal, and lack emotion. In the seventies there was this big parasitical movement, where regular people invested meaning in words such as love and jealousy, and an intellectual selfsuperior upperclass which used up the meaning invested in those words by regular people. In the eighties this meaning was already used up, the party was over, and since then intellectuals have been searching for fresh blood in the shape of exotic cultures to parasite meaning from. Instead universities should enforce the rule not to speak about what ought and ought not more strictly. Edited by Syamsu, : No reason given.

Ah I cant believe you really dont know anything, so I am just explaing this pro forma. A measurement device such as a speedometer in a car simply passes on the information from uh the axle or something. And so too people can measure objectively just passing along information. But then is the car going fast or slow, well that can be decided in the moment, choosing between fast or slow. And so there is new info of the car going fast or slow, while the car is just providing the same info.But as before, parasitism is why people dont accept the spiritual. First you get the good people to invest meaning in a word like love, subjectively, then you get the bad people who parasite that meaning by for instance equating love with sex, objectifying love. And then the meaning of the word is consumed, and then they go on to the next victim. That has been going on since forever, except scientists are much more consistently evil this way, since they prize objectivity much more.

Its whatever. Somebody said there is no love in the universe at large, as a matter of scientific fact. Then you reference some papers that supposedly establishes love among people as scientific fact. If the papers dont assert love as a scientific fact, then you should not have referenced them.

Your science about love seems to leave the spiritual realm empty, it is atheistic, that is on topic. You dont have a sentience meter just as you dont have a love-o-meter, it is all pretend science, simply make-belief fantasy. And what is the worst of it is that you are basicly positing a science of good and evil, telling what ought and ought not as science funding.

Both with people and the universe at large you can prove love with reasonable judgement.

No you don't have a sentience meter since i've seen top physics scientists comment on how physics is more essentially like psychology. Also the theory of psychologist Jung is based on pan-psychism, that sentience is everywhere. So science already proceeds by the notion that it is fundamental and therefore essentially not measurable.I know for sure that you know nothing about freedom on an intellectual level, that when asked about it you will go meandering thinking it up at that particular moment, not having any knowledge at the ready. So your posing as being much knowledgeable about it, is at best a joke.

My burden is judgement on you. There is no need for me to prove love is not a material thing, but a spiritual thing.

You have to argue what you see in terms of what should be. So then Paley argues for instance that nature is bountiful, the cup of nature is always overflowing, through reproduction. This Paley judges to be a good thing, but you might also argue that it is a bad thing because it leads to scarcity. So when it is judged good then it is from love, and when it is bad, then it is from hate. And neither are scientifically incorrect, but to posit either love or hate as objective, that is scientifically incorrect.

Where there are alternatives there are decisions, and there love may be experienced. And we see this in nature everywhere that it can turn out alternative ways.

Your caustic laughing indicates you have objectified love, probably to a penis and vagina.