Whoah! I think I’m in love…
By Free Lover
A good way to confound atheists when they deny God as ‘real’ or ‘relevant’ is to also make them deny the existence of love and friendship etc. since that makes them look like the nihilists they are. Everyone wants to have a go at God since it is not fashionable to be religious nowadays, but no one ever does a talk about ‘Does Love Exist’ or write a book called ‘The Love Delusion’ because they are afraid of public opinion and fashion. But this can be turned around on them since love is an immaterial thing and is impossible to prove by empirical or materialist criteria (all atheists are materialists even if they deny it). The only thing they like to say is: ‘Love exists because it is between two people who can experience the reality of these feelings for each other’ (what they mean is they feel chemical messengers and electrical impulses which they interpret to be a ‘reality’), which is crap because there are loads of people who ‘feel’ the existence of God and the atheists do not accept that as a proof of real existence. So you can make them deny the relevance of ‘Love’ and of other feelings and impulses if they want to deny God, and this makes them LOOK like idiots, even though it is not actually an argument, it is just a cheap shot, but a good one:
‘You can use the same criteria that you use to deny the existence of God to deny the existence of any immaterial or empirically indemonstrable ‘entity’ such as ‘love’, or ‘loyalty’ or ‘patriotism’ – but for purposes of public relations you don’t articulate your scepticism about things like love and we don’t see a book by Christopher Hitchens called ‘Love is Not Great’ because it would not prosecute a fashionable agenda. Thus you are insincere in your efforts to persuade people to follow a more truthful or intellectual path than belief in God because you have a hierarchy of which immaterial entities you will tolerate and which you will not. And as for one who says that belief in love or loyalty, romantic or otherwise does not prompt people to harm others or is innocuous and thus to be tolerated as ‘harmless’, I would address him to the contents of The Iliad or Shakespeare’.