Happy Atheist Forum

Before any of you say that I copied this from Yahoo! Answers, I was the original poster. I am posting it here because I didn't get any good answers from Atheists on YA.

Romantic Love is something that doesn't really exist in a rationalists world view.

Yes, indeed, there are chemical reactions in the brain that happen when someone has an experience with a "loved one", but that is mating, not love. It is a desire to breed and have sensual joy, nothing more. Romantic attachmenet, passion, all of these things could easily be called what they are: Something that, in our distant evolutionary past, might have been beneficial, but is just a worthless delusion today.

Anti-Theists all the time say "look at all the evil religion has done to the world!" Well, my answer is simple: LOOK AT ALL THE EVIL DONE IN THE CONTEXT OF ROMANTIC LOVE!
Messy divorces, domestic violence, date rape, murder out of jealousy,  etc.

Look what happens after the marriage fails, as that looks very, VERY likely? Child support, alimony, lawyer fees etc. So, dear Rationalists just how "logical" is marriage and love anyway?! It isn't! In your world view isn't it better if people breed collectively under the command of the government in order to get the best genetic result?    

More women are killed by their husbands every week then people are killed in the name of Christianity every month (not to mention all the husbands killed by wifes and boyfriend/girlfriend murders)

Atheists always bring up the Crusades, which happened centuries ago, to show the "evils" of religion...but if I show them something like this: CNN.com - Wife, closeted lover guilty of husband's murder - Sep 29, 2006 that happened three years ago, would you agree with me about the evils of love?

Now, let's say one beats the odds and does not end up dead or beaten or divorced or any of the other horrible things that come with "love". What does love get you? It cost money, time, and effort. All things that, rationally, could be spent pursuing research papers or scientific research or any of the other things a good "rationalists" should be doing.

I mean, some religions expect you to give ten percent of your income to a church...in love, you are giving up 100% of your income to your 'lover' ! Which is worse, financially?

I have a GOD. Will GOD ever beat me up, rape me, divorce me, or steal my money? No. To you, dear anti-theists, I ask...can your spouse or lover do those things? Indeed, they can! So, who is more likely to get screwed over: You by your "lover" or me by GOD? GOD has never disapointed me...have you ever been disapointed by a lover? If so, then why, logically, continue believing in romantic love?

"But, you need love" you say? Well...I NEED GOD! Just as I have an irrational belief in GOD, you have an irrational belief in love. The only difference, as I have shown, is that my belief can never hurt me and will never commit an act of violence against me.

Just as many Anti-Theists snicker and say "GOD is a crutch for the weak minded" or "GOD is irrational", I content that, as I proved above, Love is indeed irrational and for the weak minded. Why become depended on a human being for emotional support, considering how weak humans are? That is irrational and weak minded in the utmost.

Just as Atheists say that they are happy without GOD, I am happy without love. I have never been on a date and never had a girlfriend in my life, and I often see the pain "love" causes and think "I am not missing much". Just as you can live without GOD and think the whole thing silly, I can live without love and think the whole thing silly. Also, just as you "cannot live without love", I cannot live without GOD.

However, while few anti-theists would ever try religion for a month and see what happens, I am indeed willing to try love for a time and see what happens...BUT I WILL NEVER SHUT MY SKEPTICS BRAIN OFF WHILE DOING SO. I will observe and be aware and coldly analytical, with no useless "faith" in the "chemistry", and I will even take notes. But, I have a strong feeling the empirical evidence will come to a conclusion that the "Rationalists" hypocrites refuse to believe:

"Love doesn't exist."

Originally I was going to break down your post and actually put forth effort into this. But I mean really? “LOOK AT ALL THE EVIL DONE IN THE CONTEXT OF ROMANTIC LOVE!
Messy divorces, domestic violence, date rape, murder out of jealousy, etc. “
Yes sometimes love bites. No I don’t like Def Leppard.

Statements like:

QuoteMore women are killed by their husbands every week then people are killed in the name of Christianity every month (not to mention all the husbands killed by wifes and boyfriend/girlfriend murders)

Are silly. Are you implying godfull people don’t kill their spouses or only the godless are capable of this?

QuoteNow, let's say one beats the odds and does not end up dead or beaten or divorced or any of the other horrible things that come with "love". What does love get you? It cost money, time, and effort.

Who is it that doesn’t believe in love?

This whole post is actually retarded. Did you actually read this before you hit the post button? Or do you really believe that non religious people are incapable of human emotion?

Quote from: "pj084527"Before any of you say that I copied this from Yahoo! Answers, I was the original poster. I am posting it here because I didn't get any good answers from Atheists on YA.

Thank you for mentioning this because you may have had an auto ban for spam otherwise.

QuoteAnti-Theists all the time say "look at all the evil religion has done to the world!" Well, my answer is simple: LOOK AT ALL THE EVIL DONE IN THE CONTEXT OF ROMANTIC LOVE!
Messy divorces, domestic violence, date rape, murder out of jealousy,  etc.

There is a difference here.  Theism sanctions this type of behavior and often times tells you that these atrocities are a good thing.  Go through almost any story of the Old Testament and you can see this for yourself.  I've had my best friend (whose a Christian) tell me that the Story in 2 Kings 2 when God sends 2 she-bears to tear apart 42 Children, that its a good thing because God did it and those children deserved it for calling God's prophet bald.  We know in our society that rape is wrong, murder is wrong, beating your wife is wrong (by the way all of those things are sanctioned in the bible) and when someone commits these acts we see it as wrong and punish them accordingly.  The Crusades, the Inquisition and the Nazi extermination of the Jews were seen as a good thing because of religion.  These weren't some nut jobs on the fringe of society who committed these things, they were the revered, mainstream society, and Gods supposed chosen people.    

QuoteLook what happens after the marriage fails, as that looks very, VERY likely? Child support, alimony, lawyer fees etc. So, dear Rationalists just how "logical" is marriage and love anyway?! It isn't! In your world view isn't it better if people breed collectively under the command of the government in order to get the best genetic result?    

False dichotomy.  There are other options in here like ... not getting married and staying with the person you love.  Or we can be like the religious loonies like Terri Schiavo's husband and believe marriage is until death so when you have a fallout with your spouse you can't leave unless one dies.  Roughly half or more of all marriages fail in the U.S. and 90% of the U.S. is Christian so perhaps you should be saying this to them instead of trying to bring it up as the solution.  (I'm assuming thats where you are going with this)

QuoteMore women are killed by their husbands every week then people are killed in the name of Christianity every month (not to mention all the husbands killed by wifes and boyfriend/girlfriend murders)

Are you sure of that?  Because I know in Nigeria the Christians are killing children they are accusing of being witches by retarded exorcisms such as beating the kids with sticks (and breaking half the bones in their body) or pouring acid down their throats.  There are shelters set up for children whose parents do this to them.  Lets see in Uganda the Christians are about to enact the kill they gays bill.  Anyone accused of being gay will surely be put to death and anyone associated with them sent to jail for years for not outing them to the government.  There is constantly Christian on Christian violence in Ireland (Protestants vs Catholics).  You can't just make stuff up here we will call you out on it.

QuoteAtheists always bring up the Crusades, which happened centuries ago, to show the "evils" of religion...but if I show them something like this: CNN.com - Wife, closeted lover guilty of husband's murder - Sep 29, 2006 that happened three years ago, would you agree with me about the evils of love?

Oh so because it happened centuries ago it doesn't count ... but your holy book is still good though it predates the crusades?  

QuoteNow, let's say one beats the odds and does not end up dead or beaten or divorced or any of the other horrible things that come with "love". What does love get you? It cost money, time, and effort. All things that, rationally, could be spent pursuing research papers or scientific research or any of the other things a good "rationalists" should be doing.

And what makes you think a good rationalist does these things?  Just making more stuff up again.

QuoteI mean, some religions expect you to give ten percent of your income to a church...in love, you are giving up 100% of your income to your 'lover' ! Which is worse, financially?

Some religions expect you to give them money regardless if you are able to make your house payment.  Which is worse having a house with someone you love or having no house because of religion?

QuoteI have a GOD. Will GOD ever beat me up, rape me, divorce me, or steal my money? No. To you, dear anti-theists, I ask...can your spouse or lover do those things? Indeed, they can! So, who is more likely to get screwed over: You by your "lover" or me by GOD? GOD has never disapointed me...have you ever been disapointed by a lover? If so, then why, logically, continue believing in romantic love?

Something that isn't real can't rape  you so i'm gonna agree with you and say no.  Just because there is a statistical chance that someone will physically hurt you doesn't mean that they will.  Something that isn't real can't physically hurt you at all.  Oh and also are you saying that instead of choosing a real companion you are clinging to something intangible and unattainable?  We have this one life that we know of and we would like to be happy through it, many find happiness with their significant other whether s/he is of the same sex or not.  You want everyone to give up the one person in the world that makes them truly happy and follow your god because of a statistical chance that you have claimed, with no evidence, is highly they that they will get beaten by this person?  You are going to fail miserably at that.  I'm ashamed to say that we are both human beings here.    

Quote"But, you need love" you say? Well...I NEED GOD! Just as I have an irrational belief in GOD, you have an irrational belief in love. The only difference, as I have shown, is that my belief can never hurt me and will never commit an act of violence against me.

So you admit your belief is irrational?  You've mentioned earlier that we have an evolutionary compulsion to mate.  It is in our nature, we choose our mates and it manifests as love.  Thats pretty easy to understand to me, not at all irrational.  But believing in something thats not real because he won't beat you is beyond irrational.

QuoteJust as many Anti-Theists snicker and say "GOD is a crutch for the weak minded" or "GOD is irrational", I content that, as I proved above, Love is indeed irrational and for the weak minded. Why become depended on a human being for emotional support, considering how weak humans are? That is irrational and weak minded in the utmost.

Just as Atheists say that they are happy without GOD, I am happy without love. I have never been on a date and never had a girlfriend in my life, and I often see the pain "love" causes and think "I am not missing much". Just as you can live without GOD and think the whole thing silly, I can live without love and think the whole thing silly. Also, just as you "cannot live without love", I cannot live without GOD.

However, while few anti-theists would ever try religion for a month and see what happens, I am indeed willing to try love for a time and see what happens...BUT I WILL NEVER SHUT MY SKEPTICS BRAIN OFF WHILE DOING SO. I will observe and be aware and coldly analytical, with no useless "faith" in the "chemistry", and I will even take notes. But, I have a strong feeling the empirical evidence will come to a conclusion that the "Rationalists" hypocrites refuse to believe:

"Love doesn't exist."

Alright i'm not reading the rest of this you just keep trying to reiterate your poor points.  Your summary is that god won't beat you but everyone else will.  lets see some evidence for this.  Also how is this proof for a God?  Because the flying spaghetti monster won't beat you does that mean it exists?  No.  Didn't think so.  Try another argument.

PJ, if you are not a cut and paste troll, then why did you cut and paste this in our forum and in other atheist forums, like here:
http://www.atheistforums.com/atheists-w ... 18472.html (http://www.atheistforums.com/atheists-why-do-you-claim-to-believe-in-love-but-not-god-t18472.html)

and here (a month ago):

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 306AAVTw62 (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091110052306AAVTw62)

or can you explain why you posted it here in July, 2009?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 306AAVTw62 (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091110052306AAVTw62)

It seems you are actually just the troll we thought you were. Between this thread and the other one you have started, consider this your first warning regarding breaking the HA Forum rules.[/color]

Quote from: "pj084527"Romantic Love is something that doesn't really exist in a rationalists world view.

I beg to differ.  From a paper I wrote a couple of years ago (which I actually need to update with some of the latest research) and have posted here before:

 "Love makes the world go round", the old saying goes. Men and women have written about, died for, sacrificed for, lament about, idolized, suffered for and sung praises of love for centuries. This concept is known to all yet it remains very much an enigma. Many cannot define it if asked to. So what is this thing we call love? What is this enigma that is the subject of sonnets and something we pursue throughout our lives in one form or another? The answer will differ from person to person.

So important to mankind is love that some of the most noted literature revolves around it. Plato wrote his Symposium of which the subject love was the topic of the night. Shakespeare wrote many sonnets about love and a play in which the characters die for it. A most curious aspect of life love is and a very important one to mankind.

Psychology has not left love untouched and has attempted to examine and explain what love is. There is no shortage of work in regards to the inquiry of love. Social theories, evolutionary theories, biological theories have all contributed to help us elucidate this thing we call love.

What exactly is this "love" concept we are referring to? A colloquial definition of love is a "deep affection and warm feeling for another" as well as "the emotion of sex and romance; strong sexual desire for another person" (Pickett, 2001). Unfortunately these definitions still leave much to be desired. It has simply explained an umbrella concept with other similar concepts. Breaking down love into more specific mechanisms and phenomena involved is shown within the literature. However, Sternberg (1986) warns, "a theory of love…can help one understand the range and composition of the phenomenon of love but should not result in the whole's being lost in its parts".

To further describe what love is and what it involves there has been a distinction of two general divisions, companionate and passionate love. Companionate love consists of feeling intimacy and affection for someone but it is not accompanied by any physiological arousal. Passionate love on the other hand involves an intense physiological arousal and an intense longing for another person (Aronson, Wilson & Akert, 2005). This division is referred to as the two-factor theory of love and are considered to be the two primary elements of love from which all the other varieties of love can be derived (Compton, 2005).

Expounding upon these fundamentals, Sternberg (1986) formulated his triangular theory of love. The three main components consisting of intimacy, passion, and decision/commitment. For Sternberg's theory, intimacy is defined as referring to feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness. Passion refers to "drives that lead to romance, physical attraction, sexual consummation, and related phenomena" (p. 119). Decision/commitment is divided into short-term and long-term. In the short term it involves the decision that an individual loves another and in the long-term, involving a commitment to maintain the love.

Of the three main divisions, Sternberg notes the stability of each stating:

“The emotional and other involvement of the intimacy component and the cognitive commitment of the decision/commitment component seem to be relatively stable in close relationships, whereas the motivational and other arousal of the passion component tends to be relatively unstable and to come and go on a somewhat unpredictable basis (pp. 120).”

Sternberg further notes that there are eight possible subsets that can be derived from the "love triangle". These are â€" nonlove, liking, infatuated love, empty love, romantic love, companionate love, and consummate love.
Nonlove is the term that is given when all of the three components of the triangle are not present. A relationship with an acquaintance of ours such as a business partner or the gentlemen from whom we buy a newspaper every morning would be classified as nonlove.

Liking involves only the intimacy component of the triangle. Liking in Sternberg's theory is what we would find in friendships where we feel a closeness toward someone "but the friend does not 'turn one on,' nor…that one plans to love the friend for the rest of one's life" (pp. 123). In popular language many people often say that they "love" their friends yet as defined in the context of this theory, we would say we 'like' our friends. The confusion can arise on this point since there is a vague hierarchy in a common sense that love is above like both of which are very abstract in colloquial usage which can prompt such questions as, "do you like him/her or do you like him like him". Despite the obvious clumsiness of the language, most people will understand what is meant.

The third subset is infatuated love. This type of love is what is present when someone experiences "love at first sight". Infatuation, which is often mistaken for a "deeper" type of love, "results from the experiencing of passionate arousal" (pp. 124). Infatuations can come and go, spontaneously arising and dissolving just as quickly. Being as it involves arousal of passion, many psychophysiological arousals occur such as increased heart rate and genital erection.

Empty love is a subset which involves the decision/commitment component. A person has decided that they love someone and is committed to it. There is no real intimacy or passion. Empty love can often be found towards the end of a relationship although it is not exclusive to a relationships finale. For instance, "in societies where marriages are arranged, the marital partners may start with the commitment to love each other, or to try to love each other, and not much more" (pp. 124).

Romantic love is the subset that we most often find as the subject of songs, sonnets and movies. Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is a classic example of romantic love. Romantic love involves intimacy and passion where both people are physically aroused and attracted to one another as well as sharing an emotional bond. However, some have argued that romantic love is no different than infatuation. Even Sternberg states that, "it is difficult to maintain romantic love over a long period of time" (pp. 133).

The combination of the intimacy and the decision/commitment components will result in companionate love. Sternberg likens this type of love to a long-term, committed friendship â€" one you might find in a marriage of an elderly couple where the fires of passion have burned down.

The final subset is consummate love. Consummate love contains all three components of the theory in full. It is simply the type of love for which most relationships seek to obtain. However it is not guaranteed perfect or to last for life, as Sternberg notes, "its loss is sometimes analogous to the gain of weight after a weight reduction program: one is often not aware of the loss of the goal until it is far gone" (pp. 124).

Within the triangular theory, there is also the relation between ideal and real involvement. The ideal involvement is exemplified by consummate love, however, over and underinvolvement where aspects of the relationships fall short or overshoot the components involved.

Along with ideal vs. real involvement is the relation of the two people involved in the relationship. Perfect matches share the same level of involvement in each component involved but a mismatch may occur if these are not close in both individuals. For instance one person may be more involved in the decision/commitment component and the other more involved in the passion component and this disparity will be considered a mismatch a mean that the relationship is in trouble.

Another sort of triangle or rather a three dimensional structure of what was term a prototype of love by Aron and Westbay (1996). The three dimensions, similar to Sternberg's theory, are passion, intimacy, and commitment. These three dimensions were gleaned from work by Beverly Fehr who identified 68 features central to prototypical love. Aron and Westbay state that the three dimensions can be understood in two ways. The first way is that they "represent a summary description in the sense of providing a parsimonious set of terms" (pp. 548). That is when people rate features (of the 68 outlined by Fehr) that are central or non-central to the prototype, features within the same dimension will be rated similarly. Secondly, the similarity in rating within the dimensions hints that there "a direct linkage among the features within a dimension in the way they are treated in cognitive processing" (p. 549). From their studies, Aron and Westbay conclude that, "there is a reliable latent structure of how people understand love and that this structure is characterized by three somewhat inter-correlated dimensions of passion, intimacy, and commitment" (pp. 550).

The idea of being mismatched in a relationship and seeking to come to a balance, to become close to equilibrium is core to the equity theory of love. The equity theory of relationships holds that the costs and benefits for each individual must be equal to have in order to be the most stable. Consequently, depending upon the costs and benefits for each person there may be under or overbenefit. Both those who experience underbenefit and overbenefit "should be motivated to restore equity to the relationship" (Aronson et al., 2005). While one who is experiencing underbenefit is obviously motivated to seek this restoration of equity, the theory holds that those experiencing overbenefit should be motivated as well. The motivation for the overbenefited is said to stem from a feeling of guilt because "equity is a powerful social norm" (pp. 334). However, the imbalance is seen as more of a problem by those who are underbenefited rather than those who are overbenefited.

Delving further into the component of commitment involved in love, Gonzaga, Keltner, Londahl, and Smith (2001) see commitment as beneficial into two major ways to the relationship. The first way is that love promoted commitment will motivate intimacy towards a partner and is "likely to countervail feelings of desire for others" in the absence of the partner (pp. 248). The second is that the outward displays of gestures, actions and speaking communicates the commitment and thereby serves to strengthen the bond by fostering feelings such as trust and mutual dependence.

In one study, Gonzaga et al. found that there were four cues that were correlated with partner estimates of love and self-reports. These four cues were head nods, Duchenne smiling, gesticulation, and forward leans. Duchenne smiling or "genuine smile" is a smile that is produced as a result of genuine emotion and characterized by the movement of the muscles near the eyes and around the corners of the mouth. Gesticulation are gestures, the non-verbal communication made with parts of the body â€" "body language" as it is commonly termed. The study also found that this was not correlated with self-reports of happiness or desire, "suggesting that this pattern of behavior may be unique to love" (pp. 254). It was also found that the display and experiencing of love was not related to any negative emotions, only positive ones leading them to conclude that love is not about reducing distress but pleasure.

Feeney and Noller (1990) examined attachment styles in relation to romantic relationships in adults. Their study was conducted upon a sample of 374 undergraduates with questionnaires measuring attachment style, attachment history, beliefs about relationships, self-esteem, limerence, love addiction, and love styles. Their study found that secure participants had positive family relationships and trusting attitudes toward others. Anxious-ambivalent participants had a perception of a lack of paternal support and had a desire or dependence for commitment. Avoidant subjects were "most likely to endorse items measuring mistrust of and distance from others" (pp. 286). The importance of their findings is that it shows how a person's attachment style can affect their relationships with others.

Murray, Holmes and Griffin (1996) studied positive illusions in romantic relationships. They examined dating couples and measured their idealization and well-being three times over the course of a year. Some of the ideas that relate to positive illusions in relationships are they outlined:

* They act as a mechanism which allows the couple to cope with disappointments.

* Married couples will more likely stay committed if positive interactions outweigh the negative ones by a ratio of 5:1.

* Illusions may act to insulate the couple from the effects of conflict and doubt â€" the buffering hypothesis.

It was found that when couples both idealized each other, the "relationships persisted, satisfaction increased, conflicts were averted, doubts abated, and personal insecurities diminished" (pp. 1178). With these findings in mind, it might answer the common question of many people's friends when they ask, "what does he/she see in them?" What we may see and what they may "see" might not be what exactly they see but what they focus on and what they ignore in the process of idealization of their partner. As Murray et al. found, "individuals who integrated a partner's virtues and faults within a compensatory 'Yes, buts…' are actually involved in more stable relationships than individuals who compartmentalize their partners' faults, leaving pockets of doubt" (pp. 1178).

The sweet sting of Cupid's arrow not only involves the production of illusions or rather idealization of another. Aron, Paris and Aron (1995) examined the consequences of falling in love. Their study consisted of undergraduates who had a high expectancy of falling in love, who were tested with open ended lists of self-descriptive terms and standard self-efficacy and self-esteem measures. What was found was, after having fell in love the students showed an increase in the diversity of self concepts as well as an increase in self-efficacy and self-esteem. A further analysis found that the results were not due simply to a mood change in the participants. Their findings simply solidify the fact that falling in love is a very positive experience for people which obviously has self-enhancing contributions.

In the study conducted by Gonzaga et al., they commented on two other areas of inquiry into love â€" the biological and evolutionary value. They stated that, "love may have distinct neural substrates" and it may serve as a commitment function that "may increase the ability of offspring to survive" (pp. 259). The idea of biological agents underlying love is not new. Aristophanes' story in Plato's Symposium tells of creatures who were bonded together and then separated by the gods. These creatures then spent the rest of their lives trying to find their other half. This is idea may be concluded from the observation of people when pursuing love stating that they want to find someone to "complete" them. Studies into the biology of love have shown there is distinct processes involved. While it may not be the drive to find our other halves, love does have quantifiable physiology involved.

Bartels and Zeki (2004) examined the brain activity of mothers viewing pictures of their children, acquainted children, best friend and acquainted adults. This maternal love was compared to data from romantic couples. When viewing their own children, cortical activity was found in the medial insula and in the cingulated gyrus dorsal and ventral of the genu. The medial insula is involved in emotional interpretations, especially visual ones and the cingulated gyrus is part of the limbic association cortex of which the dorsal and ventral bend or "genu" was implicated (Martin, 1996). These areas overlapped with the activity findings in romantic love. Subcortical activity which also overlapped with romantic love was found in striatum and in the substantia nigra and in subthalamic regions. The striatum is made up of the caudate nucleus and the putamen.

These two structures which are involved with voluntary movement. The substantia nigra works in conjunction with the striatum in controlling movement and has axons which project to the caudate nucleus and the putamen (Carlson, 2004). Some differences were noted however. In romantic love, activity was specifically found in the dentate gyrus/hippocampus and the hypothalamus and appeared the same in male and female participants. The areas activated in the study in romantic and maternal love are "sites with a high density of oxytocin and vasopressin receptors" (pp. 1162). The areas also are known to belong to the brain's "reward system". In line with the idea of the illusions formed in love, the study suggests that love inhibits negative emotions and "affects the network involved in making social judgments about that person" (pp. 1162). Deactivation of the social judgment network was observed in the areas of the middle prefrontal, inferior parietal and middle temporal cortices. These areas are mainly playing a role in cognition and involved in emotions which are often negative. Other areas which saw deactivation were the amygdale, temporal poles, parietotemporal junction and the mesial prefrontal cortex which have been consistently "associated to negative emotions and to social, moral and 'theory of mind' tasks" (pp. 1163).

In pair-bonding and sexual behavior the specific neuropeptides oxytocin and vasopressin act as neurotransmitters. These chemicals are also important in birth and other reproductive behavior. Oxytocin in females is important in lactation and smooth muscle contractions of the uterus (Hiller, 2004). Hiller also notes that oxytocin release in male rats increases after ejaculation and that through sensory stimuli it possibly creates "positive mental states including calmness and openness to social engagement" (pp.397). Vasopressin in the brain is linked to temperature and blood pressure regulation as well as promotes water reabsorption (Martin, 1996) as well as promoting sexual eagerness in men (Hiller, 2004). These two neurochemicals are regulated in part by oestrogen and testosterone and "provide a link between the demands of the organism and the social and physical environment" (pp.397).

The study of these chemicals as they relate to pair bonding and attachment has been extensively studied in the prairie vole. Prairie voles are small rodents which exhibit monogamous behaviors such as keeping only one mate, cohabitation of mates, males participating in parental care and the rejection of intruders. Insel (2000) notes many other the specific findings in studies on prairie voles as it relates to the chemicals oxytocin and vasopression. Investigation on females and the role of oxytocin finds that female prairie voles who are injected with an oxytocin antagonist resemble the non-monogamous montane voles where they "mate normally but show no lasting interest in their mate" (p. 180). Montane and prairie voles are very similar and very close evolutionarily. However when montane voles were given doses of oxytocin, it had little or no effect on their social behavior even when given high doses. This finding shows that "these species share the same receptor but differ in its regional expression" (pp. 180). For the males, the operative chemical is vasopressin. When given a vasopressin antagonist male prairie voles failed to develop a partner preference after mating as they normally would.

Lim, Hammock and Young (2004) focused their attention on vasopressin, the V1a receptor and a particular gene, V1aR. They found that while prairie and montane voles' V1aR shows 99% identical coding sequences making a protein that is nearly the same, they found some differences in the sequence upstream of the V1aR:

Specifically, in the prairie vole, there is approximately 500 bp of a highly repetitive sequence located at 622 bp upstream of the transcription start site, which is absent in the montane vole. Interestingly, a similar sequence is also found in the monogamous pine vole (Microtus pinetorum), and is absent in the non-monogamous meadow vole (Microtus penssylvanicus) (pp. 326).

To test if the V1aR gene is responsible for the pair bonding behavior, transgenic mice for the prairie voles were used. When the mice were injected with vasopressin they, "responded with increased affiliative behavior, much like prairie voles, whereas the wild-type mice had no changes in social behavior, much like the non-monogamous montane voles" (p. 327). However, the mice did not show binding in some of the brain areas thought to be critical for bonding in prairie voles and they also did not show a partner preference which suggests that there are other factors involved.

Another neurotransmitter involved in love is the well known and very important neurotransmitter dopamine. It is known to be involved in many items from schizophrenia to addictive behavior and the reinforcing "reward" system. Two specific brain areas are implicated accordingly â€" the caudate nucleus and the ventral tegmental area (VTA) as evidenced through studies utilizing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to assess activity. Both of the brain regions are part of the mesolimbic reward system. In light of this evidence, found also by Bartels and Zeki, Fisher (2000) states that the item we know as love evolved to "motivate individuals to engage in positive social behaviors and/or sustain their affiliative connections long enough to complete species-specific parental duties". Fisher also notes that the "tendency to focus on specific moments associated with the beloved are additional indications that dopamine is involved in the feeling of romantic attraction" (pp. 99). With the involvement of dopamine and the emotional reward complexes of the brain, it may not be too much of a stretch to say that when people fall in love, they can be in effect "addicted" to one another.

Wang, Yu, Cascio, Liu, Gingrich and Insel set out to further look into the role of dopamine and specific receptors involved by studying prairie voles. The team performed five experiments to test different aspects of the receptors with specific dopaminergic compounds. Their first experiment tested whether the dopamine agonist apomorphine would induce partner preference in the voles without mating. They also sought to examine whether the antagonist haloperidol would block partner preference after mating. Females treated with apomorphine spent more time with a partner than they did with a stranger. It was found that females injected with the haloperidol spent less time with a partner and more time with a stranger compared to saline-injected females. Experiment 2 focus was put upon receptor-specific antagonists and agonists to "define the receptor-mediated mechanism involved in dopamine regulation of partner preference" (p. 603). They found that D2 but not D1 receptor antagonist blocked partner preference formations. Females injected with quinpirole, a D2 receptor agonist, showed more contact with a partner than a stranger while partner preference was no observed in females who received an injection of the D1 receptor agonist SKF38393. Experiment 3 was set to examine D2 receptor antagonism on partner preference formation. Females who were injected with eticlopride before mating and females injected after mating both showed no partner preference although the control saline group did. Experiment 4 was to see if the D2 antagonist would have an effect 24 hours after mating which is presumed to be after memory consolidation has taken place. The D2 antagonist failed to block partner preference. Both females injected with eticlopride and saline still showed partner preference. Finally, experiment 5 was to test if dopamine works on the central nervous system to regulate partner preference formation. It was found that "females injected intracerebroventricularly with CSF displayed mating-induced partner preference, as they had more body contact with the partner than with a stranger" (pp. 607). Females injected with eticlopride, however, did not show partner preference which suggests that the antagonist's introduction into the brain blocked mating-induced partner preferences.

How might this information of neurochemicals in voles and mice be translated to humans? As Insel (2000) notes, oxytocin and oxytocin receptors are found in the human brain. The receptors are found in "particularly enriched dopaminergic regions, such as the substantia nigra" (pp. 182). It is also know that oxytocin is released when nursing and during copulation. For males the active chemical would be vasopressin. The dopamine "reward" system is also present and very important in humans and has been implicated to play a major role in addiction to drugs of abuse and may serve a similar function in partner pair formation.
The rise of pair-bonding and attachment became associated with the sexual mating behaviors and eventually became what we term love. This idea is noted by Diamond (2003) when she states that, "although sexual desire and romantic love are often experienced in concert, they are governed by different social-behavioral systems that evolved to serve different goals". Which in humans can be observed and is considered obvious when considered that there is often mating without any type of pair-bonding or attachment formation. Also there can be attachments and pair-bonding without the drive to mate at all. This goes into the many aspects in human social interaction that can be covered by the term love. One can love a parent, a friend and a mate but obviously not all involve sexual behaviors. One can love a friend and a parent which would consist of only attachment or bonding. As well, one can have a mate where there is sexual behavior but not any attachment involved. Also one can love a partner without sexual behavior present as well.

Focusing on the evolutionary aspect of attachment, Immerman (2003) explores the specific behaviors not found in other terrestrial primates such as male paternalistic behaviors and the sharing of resources. In examining this aspect, Immerman notes that the neurohormonal bases for mother and child bonding would be dissimilar from the extended man-woman and man-child bond which are not seen in any of the other great apes (pp. 140). To explain this in an evolutionary view, Immerman sees past female mate selection as the driving force, pushing the species toward what we now know collectively as love. Immerman concludes that the available research indicates that these tendencies seen in humans are "based on a successful reproductive strategy of our female ancestors…that enables them to exploit a novel resource for predictable sustenance for themselves and their offspring" (pp. 146). This also highlights a mating strategy difference between men and women that has evolved.

It is hypothesized that over time males and females have developed an asymmetry in relation to mating strategies. That is, males tend to seek to produce viable offspring to carry on their genetics and women seek support and protection for themselves and the young. Testing this hypothesis can be difficult given that we only have modern humans to work with. Cramer and Abraham (2001) set out to test the evolutionary view and compare it against an alternative view while investigating emotional and sexual infidelity. The alternative hypothesis compared against is that the concern over sexual infidelity in males is a means to logically infer that an emotional attachment is also present. In females, the emotional attachment is a means to logically infer that sexual infidelity is taking place as well. In their investigation 191 participants were involved and evaluated across three treatment groups â€" forced choice, conditional probability and combined infidelity. The forced choice treatment involved 31 men and 33 women who were asked to imagine their partner forming a deep emotional bond with another person and imagine their partner enjoying passionate sexual intercourse with another person. The results of the forced choice group agreed with the evolutionary hypothesis in that “more men than women were distressed by a partner’s sexual infidelity, and more women than men were distressed by a partner’s emotional infidelity” (pp. 331). In the conditional probability group the test used the differential infidelity implication with 30 men and 35 women. The DII is defined by Cramer and Abraham:

The DII is defined by the difference between two likelihood estimates, (a) the likelihood that a partner’s emotional infidelity serves as a basis for logically inferring that sexual infidelity is also occurring (female perspective) and (b) the likelihood that a partner’s sexual infidelity serves as a basis for logically inferring that emotional infidelity is also occurring (male perspective) (pp. 332).
The results of the test did not statistically support an alternative hypothesis. The results for the women reflected a “male perspective” instead of the “female perspective” as would be predicted by the alternative hypothesis. In the combined infidelity group, involving 30 men and 32 women, both were instructed to imagine a partner being emotionally and sexually unfaithful. The results from this condition also supported the evolutionary hypothesis indicating that women were more worried about an emotional bond and men were worried more about sexual relations. Explaining these findings in the view of the evolutionary hypothesis, Cramer and Abraham state:

Emotional infidelity is more distressing for women than men because, in theory, it threatens a romantic partner’s commitment, and therefore, continued access to material resources and economic stability. Men, on the other hand, find sexual infidelity more distressing than women to because it decreases paternity certainty resulting from the loss of sexual exclusivity (pp. 333).

Cramer and Abraham’s study was not the only one supporting the evolutionary view of infidelity in relationships. A similar study was performed by Ward and Voracek (2004) where they also compare the evolutionary hypothesis to the alternative hypothesis known as the social cognitive account. Ward and Voracek examine 268 participants with a questionnaire of 15 items as well as asking about age, sex and whether or not they were currently in a romantic relationship. The findings of this study seemed to coincide with the findings of Cramer and Abraham in that the males found sexual intercourse more distressing than did women who found emotional attachment more distressing than the sexual intercourse. Ward and Voracek conclude that the results support the evolutionary account, however they do not rule out other influences stating, “this does not mean that culture plays no part in a broader explanation of these sex differences” (pp. 170). They view culture as a moderator variable influencing the expression of a sex-typed disposition.

Taking a different approach to the attachments in mates, Fraley, Brumbaugh, and Marks (2005) utilized comparative phylogenetic methods to analyze archived data of 2 divisions of mammals. Their first examination involved 44 families of mammals. The information they recorded was in five categories: pair bonding, paternal involvement, developmental immaturity, social characteristics and body size. They found that in monogamous or pair bonded animals several common items. These were:

*  Animals were more likely to have fathers who played a role in child rearing.
*  Tended to have longer life spans.
*  Tended to have longer gestation times.
*  Take longer to leave the home or nest.
*  Reach puberty at a later age.
*  Tended to have fewer siblings or offspring
*  Social structure was in smaller groups.
*  Tended to be smaller than other animals (pp. 736-737)

In the second examination, 66 anthropoid primates were examined. Similar findings occurred for the primates as the other animals with the exception of siblings and offspring. While they also tended to have smaller social groups, pair-bonded primates had more siblings or offspring. Another difference was that monogamous primates "tended to have larger family groups, whereas the monogamous mammals in Study 1 tended to have smaller family groups" (p. 740). In their analysis, it was also shown that pair-bonding emerged after paternal care in mammalian evolution. They speculate that "the presence of paternal care set the stage for pair bonding rather than the other way around" (pp. 742). This may show that the mechanisms involved in what we have come to term love have been around quite a long time.

Love is indeed a complex item involving many different interacting items. Brain function, specific neurotransmitters and millions of years of natural selection have set the stage. Through evolutionary analyses we see that the seeds have been planted long ago for love. We also can pinpoint specific areas of our brain involved as well as specific chemicals like dopamine and oxytocin. We have developed psychological models which break love into specific categories and attachment styles. However, none of this seems to have stolen the awe and magic surrounding love. We still seek it throughout our lives, we base ideologies upon it, we write moving literature about its wonders and create emotion invoking musical compositions in praise of it. For all we have learned about love it is still declared a mystery by most. Even though we can break it down to simple neurofunctionality and evolutionary lineages, the intrigue remains and may continue for long after my generation and the one after have passed into antiquity.
References

Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-
concept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1102-1112.

Aron, A. & Westbay, L. (1996). Dimensions of the prototype of love. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 535-551.

Aronson, E., Wilson, T., & Akert, R. (2005). Social Psychology. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Bartels, A. & Zeki, S. (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. NeuroImage, 21, 1155-1166.

Carlson, N. (2004). Physiology of Behavior. (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Compton, W. (2005). An Introduction to Positive Psychology. Belmont: Thomson
Wadsworth.

Cramer, R. & Abraham, W. (2001). Gender differences in subjective distress to
emotional and sexual infidelity: Evolutionary or logical inference explanation? Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 20, 327-336.

Diamond, L. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model
distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110, 173-192.

Fisher, H. (2000). Lust, attraction, attachment: Biology and evolution of the three primary emotion systems for mating, reproduction, and parenting. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 25, 96-104.

Feeney, J. & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment styles as a predictor of adult romantic
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281-291.

Fraley, R., Brumbaugh, C. & Marks, M. (2005). The evolution and function of adult attachment: A comparative and phylogenetic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 731-746.

Gonzaga, G., Keltner, D., Londahl, E., and Smith M. (2001). Love and the commitment problem in romantic relations and friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 247-262.

Hiller, J. (2004). Speculations on the links between feelings, emotions and sexual behaviour: are vasopressin and oxytocin involved? Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 19, 393-412.

Immerman, R. (2003). Perspectives on human attachment (pair bonding): Eve's unique legacy of a canine analogue. Evolutionary Psychology, 1, 138-154.

Insel, T. (2000). Toward a neurobiology of attachment. Review of General Psychology, 4, 176-185.

Lim, M., Hammock, E., & Young, L. (2004). The role of vasopressin in the genetic and neural regulation of monogamy. Journal of Neuroendocrinology, 16, 325-332.

Martin, J. (1996). Neuroanatomy: Text and Atlas. (2nd ed.). Stamford: Appleton & Lange.

Murray, S., Holmes, J., & Griffin, D. (1996). The self-fulfilling nature of positive
illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155-1180.

Sternberg, R. (1986). The triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.

Wang, Z., Yu, G., Cascio, C., Liu, Y., Gingrich, B. & Insel, T. (1999). Dopamine D2 receptor-mediated regulation of partner preferences in female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster): A mechanism for pair bonding? Behavioral Neuroscience, 113, 602-611.

Ward, J. & Voracek, M. (2004). Evolutionary and social cognitive explanations of sex differences in romantic jealousy. Australian Journal of Psychology, 56, 165-171.

QuoteYes, indeed, there are chemical reactions in the brain that happen when someone has an experience with a "loved one", but that is mating, not love. It is a desire to breed and have sensual joy, nothing more. Romantic attachmenet, passion, all of these things could easily be called what they are: Something that, in our distant evolutionary past, might have been beneficial, but is just a worthless delusion today.

Negative ghostrider, they are extremely important for our social mating and courting practices which may ultimately lead to offspring and the perpetuation of the genes.

QuoteAnti-Theists all the time say "look at all the evil religion has done to the world!" Well, my answer is simple: LOOK AT ALL THE EVIL DONE IN THE CONTEXT OF ROMANTIC LOVE!
Messy divorces, domestic violence, date rape, murder out of jealousy,  etc.

You need to make a distinction between anti-theists and atheists, not all atheists are anti-theists.  I feel you may have a distorted view of atheists as a group - have you had some bad experiences with atheists in the past?

QuoteLook what happens after the marriage fails, as that looks very, VERY likely? Child support, alimony, lawyer fees etc. So, dear Rationalists just how "logical" is marriage and love anyway?! It isn't! In your world view isn't it better if people breed collectively under the command of the government in order to get the best genetic result?

There's a difference between marriage and government mandated eugenics buddy.  No one is advocating the collective breeding under the command of the government - strawman fallacy.    

QuoteMore women are killed by their husbands every week then people are killed in the name of Christianity every month (not to mention all the husbands killed by wifes and boyfriend/girlfriend murders)

Most often this has nothing to do with the fact that they are married or even in a relationship - most people are killed by someone they know well regardless of whether it is a romantic relationship or not.  Many people are killed by family members.  The comparison you are making is very superficial and not well supported by solid reasoning - too much emotion and personal bias instead of objective reasoning.

QuoteAtheists always bring up the Crusades, which happened centuries ago, to show the "evils" of religion...but if I show them something like this: CNN.com - Wife, closeted lover guilty of husband's murder - Sep 29, 2006 that happened three years ago, would you agree with me about the evils of love?

How about the guy that died the other day because he decided to pray instead of go to the hospital?  How about the kids that have been killed by their mothers over the last few years where religion was a theme in the murders?  We can play the religion kills, love kills game all you want.  However, your perspective is flawed - these abstract categories do no do anything, individuals kill each other and each are motivated by something different whether it fits into a theme connected to religion or love.  People have been killing and hurting each other since the dawn of mankind - it is nothing new nor will it ever end.  Such actions transcend religion, any social group affiliation, any emotion et cetera.  From your writing it seems your ranting is possibly connected to particular events or outcomes in your life - this has lent to a the formation of cognitive biases and has skewed your perspective.

QuoteNow, let's say one beats the odds and does not end up dead or beaten or divorced or any of the other horrible things that come with "love". What does love get you? It cost money, time, and effort. All things that, rationally, could be spent pursuing research papers or scientific research or any of the other things a good "rationalists" should be doing.

The wonders of the ability to multitask is that I can have my spouse AND work on research.

QuoteI mean, some religions expect you to give ten percent of your income to a church...in love, you are giving up 100% of your income to your 'lover' ! Which is worse, financially?

Only those who have high maintenance lovers.  My wife doesn't mind Wal-Mart.

QuoteI have a GOD. Will GOD ever beat me up, rape me, divorce me, or steal my money? No. To you, dear anti-theists, I ask...can your spouse or lover do those things? Indeed, they can! So, who is more likely to get screwed over: You by your "lover" or me by GOD? GOD has never disapointed me...have you ever been disapointed by a lover? If so, then why, logically, continue believing in romantic love?

Here you go with the anti-theists thing again, please refer what I wrote above in regard to this.  As for comparing my spouse to a deity - this my friend is called a faulty comparsion, it is a logically incorrect argument.  Will god ever do those things? No, of course not...neither will Vishnu, Odin, Apollo, Lucifer, Cthulhu, the Great Eagle Spirit, Zeus, or Dora the Explorer because they must be actual material beings in order to damage you.  God has the same probability of hurting you as Sagan's Dragon dose of eating you for dinner.

Quote"But, you need love" you say? Well...I NEED GOD! Just as I have an irrational belief in GOD, you have an irrational belief in love. The only difference, as I have shown, is that my belief can never hurt me and will never commit an act of violence against me.

Not all people "need love".  There is a difference between love and the drive to forge relationships.  Not all love, as my writings above show, is romantic love - you need to understand this distinction along with understanding that not all atheists are anti-theists.  If I were an anti-theist than I would not have a very good relationship with most of my family nor many of my friends one of which is pastor at a church in Omaha.

QuoteJust as many Anti-Theists snicker and say "GOD is a crutch for the weak minded" or "GOD is irrational", I content that, as I proved above, Love is indeed irrational and for the weak minded. Why become depended on a human being for emotional support, considering how weak humans are? That is irrational and weak minded in the utmost.

Again failing to make distinctions you are taking one concept as an umbrella for a vast array of things - this is incorrect.  Also, research has shown that social support is not only helpful in our everyday lives but also very beneficial in the treatment of many maladies.  I would wager to say that connections with other human beings and/or animals has aided in the health of more individuals than a diety has.  Social support is a well known concept within psychology and medicine - clinical psychologists encourage social support for aiding in the treatment of a wide variety of ailments just as physicians would recommend social support or bonding with another person/animal to aid in the maintenance of a more potent immune system in older adults residing in community homes.  As I said before, it seems you have a personal history which has led to these jaded opinions.

QuoteJust as Atheists say that they are happy without GOD, I am happy without love. I have never been on a date and never had a girlfriend in my life, and I often see the pain "love" causes and think "I am not missing much". Just as you can live without GOD and think the whole thing silly, I can live without love and think the whole thing silly. Also, just as you "cannot live without love", I cannot live without GOD.

Okay, good for you.

QuoteHowever, while few anti-theists would ever try religion for a month and see what happens, I am indeed willing to try love for a time and see what happens...BUT I WILL NEVER SHUT MY SKEPTICS BRAIN OFF WHILE DOING SO.

I spent a large portion of my life growing up in church.  Even as an adult I've been to many different churches of many different flavors of Christianity as well as having gone to Islamic mosques, been to a Taoist temple and even a Satanic church.  I've "tried" much religion my friend so please do not assume that we dismiss the idea of a deity and religion due to not "trying it out".

Interesting in that skeptics usually by default demand evidence and empirical support for just about everything - you haven't really demonstrated such in this or any other postings.

QuoteI will observe and be aware and coldly analytical, with no useless "faith" in the "chemistry", and I will even take notes. But, I have a strong feeling the empirical evidence will come to a conclusion that the "Rationalists" hypocrites refuse to believe:

"Love doesn't exist."

You should really look up "self fulfilling prophecy" as I think it would be very applicable in this situation.  That being said, I wish you luck in finding someone you jive with.

Quote from: "pj084527"Before any of you say that I copied this from Yahoo! Answers, I was the original poster. I am posting it here because I didn't get any good answers from Atheists on YA.

As McQ pointed out, copy pasting (even your own work) to multiple places on the internet is spam.  So, if you'd like to discuss with us here at HAF do us the courtesy of not giving us a wall of copy paste text.

QuoteRomantic Love is something that doesn't really exist in a rationalists world view.

That's news to me.

QuoteYes, indeed, there are chemical reactions in the brain that happen when someone has an experience with a "loved one", but that is mating, not love. It is a desire to breed and have sensual joy, nothing more.  

What everyone calls romantic love is the accumulation of all of these things.  Feeling love is not any less precious for being the caused by chemical reactions if anything it is even more amazing that something so simple can give us such magnificent and life changing experiences.

QuoteRomantic attachmenet, passion, all of these things could easily be called what they are: Something that, in our distant evolutionary past, might have been beneficial, but is just a worthless delusion today.

Um...emotions aren't delusions, they are real feelings.  Delusion is when you allow emotions to override rational thought.  If you think love is no longer beneficial to humanity, you are delusional.  How's that for defining a word in a sentence?

QuoteLOOK AT ALL THE EVIL DONE IN THE CONTEXT OF ROMANTIC LOVE!
Messy divorces, domestic violence, date rape, murder out of jealousy,  etc.

My simple response is....So?  I shouldn't even have to explain why there is a difference between acting out of passion and acting out planned plots to kill the infidel.

Btw, divorce, domestic violence, and date rape having absolutely nothing to do with romantic love (they would actually be an absence of it and/or people seeking to feel powerful)

QuoteLook what happens after the marriage fails, as that looks very, VERY likely? Child support, alimony, lawyer fees etc. So, dear Rationalists just how "logical" is marriage and love anyway?!

Considering that Christians have a higher divorce rate than atheists....maybe there would be fewer divorces if people didn't hurry into marriage just so they could have sex.  Not to mention that not all atheists believe that in order to love you have to marry nor that you should have to marry just one person....those are religious ideas that our culture has accepted.

QuoteIt isn't! In your world view isn't it better if people breed collectively under the command of the government in order to get the best genetic result?    

No...most of us value our freedom to do what we want with our bodies and to control our own reproductive life.  Your idea would make life suck and change humanity into nothing more than breeding dogs.

QuoteMore women are killed by their husbands every week then people are killed in the name of Christianity every month

And how many of these husbands started beating their wives because they believe their religion allows them to do so as head of the household?  Remember, not everyone marries for love...many marry because it is expected of them and crap like this happens.

QuoteAtheists always bring up the Crusades, which happened centuries ago, to show the "evils" of religion...but if I show them something like this: CNN.com - Wife, closeted lover guilty of husband's murder - Sep 29, 2006 that happened three years ago, would you agree with me about the evils of love?

You generally don't kill people you love...again, just because two people are married doesn't mean they love each other.  

And the cursades were evil, Hitler's use of god to support the Natzi party was evil, fundamentalist Muslims beating their wives and forcing them to live in isolation is evil, blowing up abortion clincs and shooting doctors is evil, flying planes into buildings is evil, indoctrinating children is evil, taking people's hard earned money to build crystal cathedrals is evil....Religion is not innocent now just as it was not innocent in the past; this should be pointed out to the religious so that they can avoid repeating past evils and help to stop current evils.

QuoteNow, let's say one beats the odds and does not end up dead or beaten or divorced or any of the other horrible things that come with "love". What does love get you? It cost money, time, and effort.  

Humans don't have problems spending money, time and effort on things they enjoy...so this is a non issue.

QuoteAll things that, rationally, could be spent pursuing research papers or scientific research or any of the other things a good "rationalists" should be doing.

ROFLOL...there is no handbook on what a "good rationalist" should do.  Nice strawman though.

QuoteI mean, some religions expect you to give ten percent of your income to a church...in love, you are giving up 100% of your income to your 'lover' ! Which is worse, financially?

Actually, we share our income and are better off financially together than apart because we also share a home, groceries, utilities etc and get tax breaks.  It's also not required to mix finances with someone you love...people can just as easily choose to continue living separately; I know some who do this and it works for them.  So your point is lost.

Btw, a lover is not someone you love, it's just someone who you go to to have a fun romp in the hay with no strings attached.

QuoteI have a GOD. Will GOD ever beat me up, rape me, divorce me, or steal my money? No.

Ya, um...things that don't exist tend to have a hard time harming others.

QuoteI have never been on a date and never had a girlfriend in my life, and I often see the pain "love" causes and think "I am not missing much".

It's called being asexual....which might explain why you don't understand love.  Normal people have real feelings of lust, attraction etc and all that is collectively called love when it is felt towards one person.

QuoteHowever, while few anti-theists would ever try religion for a month and see what happens, I am indeed willing to try love for a time and see what happens.

Most of us have "tried" religion and quite a few us of were heavily involved with church and that is what caused us to figure out that it just didn't make any sense when looked at deeply.  You can't just randomly try love...that's funny.

BTW, if you are going to post any further walls of text please try a bit harder to write them coherently and not make assumptions about your audience.

Squid..thanks for posting your paper, I was trying to find it because that was the first thing I thought about when reading the topic title.  Perhaps we should put your paper in a thread of it's own and sticky it for the theists?

Quote from: "Whitney"Squid..thanks for posting your paper, I was trying to find it because that was the first thing I thought about when reading the topic title.  Perhaps we should put your paper in a thread of it's own and sticky it for the theists?

Sure that would be cool.  I have more where that came from.  I have some recent work too - much of it is cognitive neuroscience with some neuroendocrinology though  

Quote from: "Squid"

Quote from: "Whitney"Squid..thanks for posting your paper, I was trying to find it because that was the first thing I thought about when reading the topic title.  Perhaps we should put your paper in a thread of it's own and sticky it for the theists?

Sure that would be cool.  I have more where that came from.  I have some recent work too - much of it is cognitive neuroscience with some neuroendocrinology though  

I'm all for posting stuff that most can't understand too...it make the sciencey part more obvious.

All those lines of text and you don't even define "Romantic Love"? Poor show.

There's a significant difference between lust, attraction, and being in a symbiotic attachment with someone versus love. On a a Romantic level I don't think people can truly fall in love, an act of submission like the first of things mentioned, but can only stand in love. Both are based in desire, however one's common and natural, the other demands wisdom which is why you won't see it very often. A person really in a love, although there's no such thing as it is commonly perceived, would require someone to love all things and not just a select few individuals. To break the illusion of good and evil is what love means to me. Which consequently is why Yahweh is incapable of love and only capable of trying to feed his insecure ego.

Quote from: "pj084527"Anti-Theists all the time say "look at all the evil religion has done to the world!" Well, my answer is simple: LOOK AT ALL THE EVIL DONE IN THE CONTEXT OF ROMANTIC LOVE!
Messy divorces, domestic violence, date rape, murder out of jealousy,  etc.

Look what happens after the marriage fails, as that looks very, VERY likely? Child support, alimony, lawyer fees etc. So, dear Rationalists just how "logical" is marriage and love anyway?! It isn't! In your world view isn't it better if people breed collectively under the command of the government in order to get the best genetic result?    

More women are killed by their husbands every week then people are killed in the name of Christianity every month (not to mention all the husbands killed by wifes and boyfriend/girlfriend murders)

Atheists always bring up the Crusades, which happened centuries ago, to show the "evils" of religion...but if I show them something like this: CNN.com - Wife, closeted lover guilty of husband's murder - Sep 29, 2006 that happened three years ago, would you agree with me about the evils of love?

Assuming you are correct in saying that rape is caused by romantic love (and not rage, lust, or hunger to dominate) and that spousal murder is caused by romantic love (and not possessive jealousy or mental instability) please note that religion is also a cause of rape and murder.  The murder part should be obvious but I'll spell a couple of examples of it out for you - children tortured (sometimes to death) for being witches (Christianity, 2009) and children stoned to death for losing their virginity by being raped by grown men held unaccountable for their actions according to religion (Islam, 2008).  Then there are honor killings of family members (Islam, in the present day).  Perhaps you wouldn't consider it to be so but there may soon be a huge, religiously inspired slaughter of homosexuals in Uganda (Christianity, coming soon).  As to religion causing rapes, there is something called "corrective" rape of lesbians (Christianity, 2009) - look it up, I want to finish writing before dinner time.

On top of that, thousands of people throw their children into the street each for being homosexual, coming out as a different religion, or for other perceived violations of parental religious belief.  And how many children die each year due to religiously motivated withholding of medical care?  

Quote from: "pj084527"I have a GOD. Will GOD ever beat me up, rape me, divorce me, or steal my money? No. To you, dear anti-theists, I ask...can your spouse or lover do those things? Indeed, they can! So, who is more likely to get screwed over: You by your "lover" or me by GOD? GOD has never disapointed me...have you ever been disapointed by a lover? If so, then why, logically, continue believing in romantic love?

Will SANTA CLAUS ever beat me up, rape me, divorce me, or steal my money?  So, you are correct, imaginary beings are incapable of all of those actions.

Quote from: "pj084527"Why become depended on a human being for emotional support, considering how weak humans are?

Because human beings are real and actually can provide emotional support.  They (barring a wee bit of affection from animals) are the only game in town.  Having a friend is far different from imagining you have a friend.  Besides, we evolved depending on each other for survival.
 

Quote from: "pj084527"However, while few anti-theists would ever try religion for a month and see what happens, I am indeed willing to try love for a time and see what happens..

But, you see, we'd have to think God were real to try it out.  There's evidence of love that we can see in our everyday lives but no evidence for God.  There's also scientific evidence for the existence of love as an emotion, again, none for God.  You may be able to decide or choose what you want to believe is real but you'll find many atheists can't just decide to believe something is real unless they actually think it is.

Here, you try - believe that Santa Claus is real for a month...  Yeah, didn't think so.

QuoteWhy do you claim to believe in love, but not God?

We believe in love?

FYI, PJ logged in at 5:50 forum time....so, unless you just want to respond for the sake of random readers,  you may not want to waste any more time responding until PJ decides to respond.

Quote from: "Ellainix"

QuoteWhy do you claim to believe in love, but not God?

We believe in love?

[youtube:3jckikqg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IETvxCQAa1M[/youtube:3jckikqg]

QuoteI have a GOD. Will GOD ever beat me up, rape me, divorce me, or steal my money? No. To you, dear anti-theists, I ask...can your spouse or lover do those things? Indeed, they can! So, who is more likely to get screwed over: You by your "lover" or me by GOD? GOD has never disapointed me...have you ever been disapointed by a lover? If so, then why, logically, continue believing in romantic love?

You god will never screw you over because it does not exist.

Quite simple really.

Speaking of love... you know what I love?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages51.fotki.com%2Fv1546%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F90492_girl_doing_a_nasty_thing-vi.gif&hash=011c981038d0bbc9dcf4dd730d78d6d001600ebf)

...noodles.

 

Who believes in love? Come on! Love isn't religion. There is nothing to believe. It's all serotonin that makes you feel all tingly inside.

speaking for my self, i don "believe" in love. I accept that some emotions occur because of hormones, brain impulses, smell and other things, and the behavior that comes from those is described as "love".
And no, scientific explanation does not take away any beauty from the emotion

Rah,Rah,Ramen! They're really really long! And really really good!

...
Free, free, my egg was free! And wewerall, LOOKOUT!

Hmmmm so you say you believe in God but not love?  Who was it that said God is love?  Paul? I forget, but it was one of those guys.

Anyways, you being self contradictory = /thread?

--Mike

Quote from: "pj084527"I have never been on a date and never had a girlfriend in my life,

Judging by your trolling... I coulda told you that.

Anyway, I joined the party late, but this thread truly is an epic fail.
To argue that there is love would be nothing but semantics and a waste of time. I noticed you didn't even attempt to define love either which was a mistake. Just another hit & run troll I guess.