For former Mormons who became atheists

[Guest]

don't make me laugh ... The only thing you care about is if your argument is gona win.

Actually, I could care less about that. I know there is a God because I've seen and experienced such a being. My view is it is inevitable that all people will encounter God in the life or the next. It is simply a matter of time.

I'm fine with God , and they have assured me they didn't write any of that baloney called scriptures.
Gods words are written in our DNA , they are basic truths that don't require a bunch of complicating nonsense to keep the masses in line and worry.
God is not a shepard and we are not meant to be sheep. However there are shepards out there in the world that seek to mass a flock. Unfortunately there are plenty of sentient beings that are comfortable with being sheep and getting fleeced.

You aren't far off. However, I view God as a natural part of the universe. My view of God is that given our technological progress over the past few centuries necessitates the existance of a God. Imagine intelligent life that evolved even a few billion years ago on an alien planet. They would have advanced to the point that they would be by every account be God in comparison to ourselves. I believe this is the very nature of God. THIS IS the Mormon God. THIS IS ALSO the Christian God. THIS IS ALSO the Muslim God, and all other encounters recorded throughout time with such advanced beings.

Did you miss the question ? What were you like before you found Mormonism?

I was an atheist and ex-mormon. So I'm on certain ground about this and know what I'm talking about.

[Guest]

Retracted Comment, God bless the Mormons and the other Christians here that dislike Atheists!

[_Drifting]

I for one, used to tear down other religions to make my own superior!

Christianity = Apostasy against the jews.
Protestants = Protested against the church of Rome.
CofE= Apostasy from the church of Rome.
and so on and so forth...

Other religions Pffff!
Gods with Elephant heads and 6 arms? not for me.
Reincarnation = who'd know?
Golden statues coming to life?

All I care about is where my next meal is coming from... Religion can do one!

British Society is my religion, no man is truly free, everyone is trying to govern someone else, but it also has its perks, when I can't feed my family the state does.

I will believe in reincarnation in my next life...

[_subgenius]

I see all religions as One and they are all true and not true at the same time.

That is a false statement because it it self-contradictory.

self-contradiction is not a determination for true or false. Coherence may not always require consistency.
Though, i recognize that some systems of thought would agree with your position, putting it forth as "must be false" is perhaps misleading.

My opinion is that creation started with the big bang and will end in a big crunch. It is simply the exhale and inhale of God. Like our own lungs and our own heart beat. Expansion and contraction, duality, is what creates time and space.

That, too, is false. For a little over 10 years now we've known that the universe is actually accelerating its rate of expansion. Therefore, there will be no big crunch; matter will continue outward forever.

for 10 years it has been a "theory"...we have not "known". Seemingly a semantic distinction, but science has "contradictory" views about expansion and contraction, with some theories proposing that both are occurring.......and surely you would admit that this "contradiction" does not render the premise "false"...does it?

[_SteelHead]

How does that pertain to the question at hand?

Because the former Mormons who become atheists weren't Mormon at all really. They were really atheists and unsurprisingly a religion, based on personal revelation and a "real" interaction with God, didn't work out for them. No-one should be too surprised about this outcome at all.

Still is non germane to the question of defining how love works from an atheist perspective. That some are atheist is already a given.

You have 0 posts in this thread relevant to the topic at hand. Please take your off topic discussion and start your own thread.

[_subgenius]

As do yours. But at least mine have something demonstrable, and measurable.

but unfortunately they have little to do with the question in the OP.
Anyone can float something "demonstrable and measurable" in a toilet bowl, but that does not give it merit.
"Demonstrable and Measurable" in the context of "what is love" carry what value? exactly how do those qualities, if actually applied to a valid response to the OP, promote any claim above another on that topic?
Atheists seemingly only find validation in that which "everyone else" is required to agree with - a requirement that is simply based on a notion of repetition, homogenization, and sterility. The most "consistent" measure of an atheist is the over inflation of their respective ego.

[_subgenius]

I am not sure why the OP even suggests an atheist doesn't know love.

pretty sure it is because, so far, we have all seen them do everything in response to the following questions from the OP except ANSWER them:

How can you define love? How can it be described scientifically? How can your intellect grasp it?

so, while you brag about the clarity in latest hi-resolution MRI of some guy's brain waves as he fawns over a picture of his mother, and exclaim "this must surely be what love looks like"! You have yet to actually "define" - "describe" - "grasp" that which you are looking at!

so, far we have seen amusing, and usual, arrogance about exclaiming that a runny nose and coughing must surely be what the flu is!

[_Drifting]

I am not sure why the OP even suggests an atheist doesn't know love.

pretty sure it is because, so far, we have all seen them do everything in response to the following questions from the OP except ANSWER them:

How can you define love? How can it be described scientifically? How can your intellect grasp it?

so, while you brag about the clarity in latest hi-resolution MRI of some guy's brain waves as he fawns over a picture of his mother, and exclaim "this must surely be what love looks like"! You have yet to actually "define" - "describe" - "grasp" that which you are looking at!

so, far we have seen amusing, and usual, arrogance about exclaiming that a runny nose and coughing must surely be what the flu is!

Okay, I'll call...

Love is an emotion of a strong affection and personal attachment.

[_subgenius]

The intellect, although very useful, cannot prove or disprove the Divine.

Actually the problem is that the divine is not defined well enough to prove or disprove.

and exactly what is "well enough"? in scientific terms for this subject?

I admit I haven't really seen atheists as a group filled with despair, and they seem to understand and employ love as well as any others.

and so if you have not seen it, then it must not be true....got it!

So, with all of that being said I would like to pose a question to atheists. How can you define love? How can it be described scientifically? How can your intellect grasp it?

We can start here http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love?s=t

Perhaps you can provide what you think it is.[/quote]
So, the poster stating "God/goddess is Love" somehow did not qualify with you for what they "think it is"?

your link states the following:
a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
hmmm
passionate = ruled by intense emotion or strong feeling <--- a position i believe you and most atheists take exception with...and consider it unreliable and detrimental.
hmmm
profoundly = penetrating deeply into thought and understanding <----contradicts passion, and contradictions are considered, by atheists, as being unreliable and detrimental.
affection = fond attachment, devotion, or love <--- well obviously using "love" means the dictionary you referenced is circular in its logic and that renders the whole book worthless and unreliable and detrimental...so you still need to provide an actual "definition". That or feel free to explain how an atheist would define, describe, or grasp "devotion" and/or "fond attachment".

personally the whole thing falls apart with "another person"...an atheist seeing something beyond themselves is quite difficult for them to "prove" let alone actually execute.

Nevertheless, your definition, or rather conclusion, as provided by you, is that Love must be...
"an unreliable and detrimental product from a reliable biochemical process in the human body resulting from an infinite combination of one or more environmental stimuli"

[_Drifting]

"an unreliable and detrimental product from a reliable biochemical process in the human body resulting from an infinite combination of one or more environmental stimuli"

Stop plagiarising Moroni's Promise...