Thread: Is lucid dreaming satanic?

Originally Posted by vivianhawthorne

I don't see how knowing you're asleep is any more sinful than knowing you're awake, but wanted to hear your opinions. Attachment 6843

Just getting back to the original question, I don't see that lucid dreaming itself is sinful. It depends what you do in your dream. All the talk of maybe pretending to be God etc. is equally applicable whether dreaming or awake. The consequences just seem to be much less when dreaming because of the element of privacy (from other human beings).
If you LD and don't engage in sinful activity, I would argue you are not sinning period.

Originally Posted by Goldenspark

If you LD and don't engage in sinful activity, I would argue you are not sinning period.

Show me one Christian DJ, where I wouldn't come across the dreamer lucidly sinning in some way.

Originally Posted by Goldenspark

If you LD and don't engage in sinful activity, I would argue you are not sinning period.

But what is "sinful activity"? If nobody is actually harmed, is what you're doing really a sin?

Branding all manner of activity a sin is a good way to keep others suppressed and easy to control, with no consideration of the well being of he "sinner." And isn't that in itself a sin?

Originally Posted by Nailler

But what is "sinful activity"? If nobody is actually harmed, is what you're doing really a sin?

I think, we all agree, that the temptation to do things in lucid dreams, you wouldn't do irl, is huge and has many facets.
Firing these neural circuits will change, who you are in these respects in real life - by simple neural feedback mechanisms.
Wanting to LD so much, our Christians don't seem to care, if they could become a more sinful entity along those lines.
Lets see, what the officials will say!

Originally Posted by Nailler

Branding all manner of activity a sin is a good way to keep others suppressed and easy to control, with no consideration of the well being of he "sinner." And isn't that in itself a sin?

Branding all humans as carriers of the original sin, who desperately need the salvation, which can only be had by following the doctrine of Christianity is exactly what made the churches powerful and devastating.

How can you bring yourself to believe, that a willing human sacrifice 2000 years ago did away with our ultimate responsibility - as long as we let the Christ enter our hearts, confessing and whatnot afterwards.
Now that's an easy out!
But all, who have and had - in history and now - not have access to that happy message are lost.
God doesn't care about them.

How nice for the ego to reckon, every single minute of one's life has so much significance to god and the devil - it's constantly being fought over.
I can see the attraction.


I always wondered, why humans supposedly need the ten commandments to know, that you shouldn't kill etc.? I mean seriously - nobody would have made it to mount Sinai, if they hadn't had that inborn moral compass and capacity to compassion and altruism in their genes!

You get the belief in a life after death as the carrot to follow and never reach - now isn't that perfect, no need for existential fear - how cosy!
But this delusion makes you more gullible, easier to suppress and enslave.
And it lets you treasure the here and now less, than you should.

Are you a Christian, Nailler?
If so - what exactly do you believe in?

Really hard to make out, what Christianity actually entails.
No wonder - disagreeing on the meanings in a book, written hundreds of years after the actual stories are supposed to have taken place - and after the editing and political decisions, as to what is to stay, and what to go - who can honestly call himself a literalist? The NT not even claimed to be written by Jesus, or even his apostles themselves.

Originally Posted by StephL

Firing these neural circuits will change, who you are in these respects in real life - by simple neural feedback mechanisms..

I don't believe that for a second. It's the same argument made about violent video games, when in fact juvenile crime rates plummeted even as such games became ever more popular.

aaaaaa.jpg

Are you a Christian, Nailler?

I'm not a Christian.

I'm one of the "demons" who possesses a body in order to have a game... as are we all.

Well yeah - most probably it is not so easy, when it comes to higher brain-functions - but in principle it's true.
What I try to do is argue the case, that it could lead to you becoming a more "sinful" person irl - not an objectively more harmful person.
It is not about running around and actually killing people or actually having sex - more about the sinful thoughts, and while the law and statistics don't care about those - Christianity does.

Another aspect: playing a game doesn't activate the same brain-regions than doing something irl or in an LD does.
If you run in an LD the respective regions light up on fMRI in the absence of running - that is not so in a video game - at least till we'll have virtual reality.

What I know for sure, is that doing martial arts training - as I used to - leads to thoughts about violence and fighting - I've been daydreaming about violence a lot back then.

If it was as I propose - practising prayer and devotion to Christ in LDs would then make you a more devout person as well.
Just how high is the motivation to do that - compared to the temptations?
Does somebody practise prayer-plus in their LDs?
If so - how is the relation between devout LDing and just fun stuff like fighting and having sex?

I really wonder, what for example Sensei's teachers think of the topic..
Maybe I'm wrong, they laugh, and say LDing is all fine - I really doubt it, though.


As to your demon notion - that's your dualistic model - happy to hear you at least hold it without the Christian ballast!

I am my body - and I'm playing the game as well - just with the notion, that once I ultimately crash myself/the body - it's game over and no reload!
I wouldn't choose it such, of course - but wishful thinking can't do away with the honest analysis of evidence.
And all of that points towards the fact, that in order to display all these wonderful higher and lower mental faculties - I need a brain - a working living brain. Maybe one day, a personality can change matrix - "upload" or something - but not into the void, you needed a physical computation arrangement.

Originally Posted by StephL

Show me one Christian DJ, where I wouldn't come across the dreamer lucidly sinning in some way.

So, people sin. That still doesn't make lucid dreaming itself sinful. (I'm just trying to make a case for the OP here).

Since I'm not particularly religious, I'd rather de-couple this from using the word "sin" and talk rather about morality.
Lucid dreaming itself is not amoral, just as real life is not amoral. What you do within that life can be, but the very act of living, or LDing, is not in itself amoral.

The big difference with lucid dreams is that they can be much more private than real life (unless you live on a desert island).
That means lucid dreams can be beyond the control of the law makers, and beyond religious control, which is probably why some religious people don't like it.

Originally Posted by Nailler

But what is "sinful activity"? If nobody is actually harmed, is what you're doing really a sin?

Branding all manner of activity a sin is a good way to keep others suppressed and easy to control, with no consideration of the well being of he "sinner." And isn't that in itself a sin?

That's a good point. In the privacy of an LD each person will have different levels of what they consider to be acceptable behaviour.
Each individual can justify any actions with that argument. Then it's down to that individuals religious conviction.

As I relied to StephL, I would rather talk about morality than sin. I think the same holds true.

There are some dangers I would suggest, and these are probably similar to those in waking life.
An example would be de-sensitisation from moral values, like watching violent films can shift the real world response, or bad treatment of others could lead to learned behaviour etc..

The simple moral values of "Do as you would be done by", or treating all others with respect etc. are still good values whether your in waking life or an LD.

As to exploring amoral or dangerous acts in an LD to re-affirm that they are amoral / dangerous - there could be some value in that. Knowing that it is a "simulation" and that nobody gets harmed.
I can enjoy a Schwarzenegger or Willis action film like many others, knowing that no-one actually dies and that it's not real.
It probably even can help to release aggression.

It's obviously a wide grey area.

However, if you are of religious conviction, and are worried about burning in hell for all eternity, just don't sin in your LDs and you should be fine!

Originally Posted by Goldenspark

I would rather talk about morality than sin. I think the same holds true.

Perhaps the thing to talk about here, rather than sin or morality, is guilt?

It seems that whenever I encounter a thread like this, especially one whose OP really has nothing to do with doing bad things in LD's, I have to wonder from where the argument is sourced. Though religion always comes up, I think it's more a question of basic humanity.

Good people do not want to do bad things, period. But we all get the occasional urge to, say, rip our co-worker's head off, strangle our neighbor's dog, or drive our cars right into the trunk of the asshole on the phone who just pulled out in front of us. We get the urge, but, knowing that doing any of those things is fundamentally wrong, we curb our feelings and go on with our lives. But when in a LD, we don't have to curb those feelings; indeed, we can fuel them and act on them to our hearts content. But can we really? Even while doing bad things in dreams, don't good people get the sensation that the thing they are doing is wrong, and wrong period, not wrong because it is illegal in waking-life, or because God said it was wrong.

By fundamentally I mean that we know, instinctively, that doing evil deeds in dreams (i.e., murder, rape, torture) is wrong. Even though no one will catch us, and no one gets hurt, the things we are doing conflict with our basic human nature... human nature shared by atheists and bible-thumpers, whether they like it or not. This knowledge is amplified by the NLD-residual impression that your dream environment is a real place, and DC's are real people (hell, how many LD'ers announce that there dreams are "realer than real," whatever that means?).

I wonder if there isn't some unconscious guilt going on when people so staunchly defend the freedom to do whatever you want in a dream? Forget religion, forget philosophical morality, and just boil all this down to simple human nature. Bad things are bad things, wherever you do them, because the badness of those things is ultimately defined by you, by both your innate nature and intellectual world view, and not by any religious or legal doctrine.

So you do bad things in a LD, things that might be a lot of fun, and might indeed relieve pressure that can build by not doing them in waking-life. But a part of you knows that, because you are lucid, it is still you doing those bad things. You intellectually dismiss that misgiving, perhaps rightfully so, but I wonder if it doesn't still linger after waking, manifesting itself in things like these long, energetic, and often angry defenses of doing bad things in dreams.

Just a thought; and one that I can't help but notice has nothing whatsoever to do with the arguably amoral (and sin-free) event of Satanic possession during LD's.

The OP is unfortunately gone it seems - so we do not get to know, if it was only about gathering ammunition, while not honestly hoping for a yes/no answer from us, because he or she didn't seriously consider daemons and the devil as real.
But lets say - and I saw such a thread in BD - somebody honestly wants to know, if LDing is recommended, or at least irrelevant, for a devout Christian - as defined by who knows.

Dear OP - why would you talk about your LDing with your family in the first place - none of their business - no need to come with distorted pseudo-arguments, acknowledging their religiosity, which you yourself deem over the top.
What is in your head only, is also your business only - don't buy into confession, please don't!
That's a tool for control.

Originally Posted by Goldenspark

So, people sin. That still doesn't make lucid dreaming itself sinful. (I'm just trying to make a case for the OP here).

Would you deny that there is a certain heightened sexuality in LDs (I have nothing against that, just to make sure nobody gets me wrong)?
Or that feeling omnipotence is within human reach in LDs?
Correct - you don't have to - but why put yourself in strong temptation?
Remember - this is specifically about Christianity - not Islam - not common sense and garden variety innate human morals and social relevance.

Originally Posted by Goldenspark

Since I'm not particularly religious, I'd rather de-couple this from using the word "sin" and talk rather about morality.
Lucid dreaming itself is not amoral, just as real life is not amoral. What you do within that life can be, but the very act of living, or LDing, is not in itself amoral.

Completely agree - LDing is not unethical, and inside your own head - you do not need to justify yourself for anything.
But that is my opinion - as an agnostic atheist and Humanist as well as existential nihilist - I only lately found the names for the latter two.

But in Christian terms it is sinful behaviour or at least bringing yourself under temptation on purpose.
It starts with that you have more time to sin, if you are conscious in a dream and gain moral agency subjectively - instead of being innocently asleep.

Originally Posted by Goldenspark

The big difference with lucid dreams is that they can be much more private than real life (unless you live on a desert island).
That means lucid dreams can be beyond the control of the law makers, and beyond religious control, which is probably why some religious people don't like it.

There you go - that's what I say - the motion of the thread, if LDing is Satanic/sinful has the answer: YES
Within Christianity, mind you, see above.

Originally Posted by Goldenspark

It's obviously a wide grey area.
However, if you are of religious conviction, and are worried about burning in hell for all eternity, just don't sin in your LDs and you should be fine!

Ha - so you say, once they kill or have sex with something other than wife/husband - then they do sin?
This is a question for theologians - but nice that you make my point - that there is a point to be made, namely!

But if you LD like a saint - and once you believe in daemons and sorcery and necromancy - consider my summing up on page one - it is highly likely considered part of these things by certain or maybe most theologians.
Or really opens to partial possession - think, I made my points there.
You can not be sure, that you'll be fine! wink.gif

Originally Posted by Sageous

Perhaps the thing to talk about here, rather than sin or morality, is guilt?

It seems that whenever I encounter a thread like this, especially one whose OP really has nothing to do with doing bad things in LD's, I have to wonder from where the argument is sourced. Though religion always comes up, I think it's more a question of basic humanity.

Just a thought; and one that I can't help but notice has nothing whatsoever to do with the arguably amoral (and sin-free) event of Satanic possession during LD's.

Sageous seriously?
The thread is about if LDing is Satanic, and Satan's supposed main job is tempting people to sin.
So this is not reduced to being a more or less passive victim of vicious entities.
Of course it is about doing bad things in LDs as well, and if that counts - and it was me who brought it up.

The question could be reformulated: Is LDing compatible with Christianity? Only with moderate Christianity, or also with biblical literalism, like Sensei practises?

To leave fairy tale land for a little while and consider matters closer to a useful concept for ethics and morality - our innate moral compass.
As I mentioned above - how could the Israelites have even reached mount Sinai for Moses to get that revolutionary new and special moral codex - if not for our human nature and our general benevolence and moral compass.
As default - if people kept murdering and raping and stealing and breaking up monogamous partnerships in spite and lied and cheated to considerable effects - they would have gotten nowhere. Period.

And what you said in your post was an homage to this humanity - and I fullheartedly agree - we are not somehow implicitly bad creatures - we are wonderful.
It is Christianity telling us otherwise - we would all be inherently and a priori sinful, and we absolutely need salvation, and god would still be our vengeful, absolute tyrant - killing firstborns, or all of humanity except Noah's bunch - if not for Jesus being a consciously accepting half-human-half-god sacrifice.
No - I am human - there is nothing wrong with that - I am not at the mercy of a sacrifice 2000 years ago to be potentially and eventually forgiven.

This thread is not in the framework of Humanism or even moderate religion - but raw Christianity with Satan and daemons and such surely thought-crimes, too.

But mainly I want to see, if for example Sensei's bible companions and teachers would be completely okay with LDing, after reading this thread.
I doubt it - but on the other hand I would like to be positively surprised!



Sensei - don't feel pressured by me, please - don't show it to them, if you are reasonable, I would even say.
Except you are really sure of yourself, of course - then it would be very interesting!

Also relevant - if 83% of Americans identify themselves as Christians - we should have our fair share here.
Should come out, that LDing is highly discouraged - I would have theoretically helped save souls by informing them in time!
Or they see the light and the absurdity in the whole faith and join the jolly atheists.
Ah - I feel a bit like a nasty old woman - sort of sorry..

hiding.gif

Originally Posted by StephL

What I try to do is argue the case, that it could lead to you becoming a more "sinful" person irl - not an objectively more harmful person.
It is not about running around and actually killing people or actually having sex - more about the sinful thoughts, and while the law and statistics don't care about those - Christianity does.

Wouldn't any truly loving God consider making others worry about their "sinful"" thoughts a sin?

Originally Posted by StephL

Sageous seriously?
The thread is about if LDing is Satanic, and Satan's supposed main job is tempting people to sin.
So this is not reduced to being a more or less passive victim of vicious entities.

Seriously.

I guess I was taking the OP literally, Steph. Possession, should it exist, is very much a non-temptation event, brought about by the encroachment of vicious entities upon the minds/souls of, yes, potentially passive victims. In other words, with possession, Satan is acting, not tempting, and the victim's actions or intentions are inconsequential.

From what I understand, possession does not require a sinful act on the part of the possessed. So, to me, sin does not matter... even if the OP appears to have thought it did.

That aside, I think this conversation about sinning in LD's is much more interesting than a bunch of people saying, "No, LD'ing does not open you to possession," and your posts (especially the last one) are excellent, and the OP is gone, so why not talk sin?

Nailler:

Wouldn't any truly loving God consider making others worry about their "sinful"" thoughts a sin?

I would say yes to that; and up the ante by saying that a truly loving God would not care at all about the thoughts (or deeds, for that matter) of anyone. Aside from having better things to do than spy on the thoughts of uncounted billions of entities, you'd think His unconditional love would forgive or (more likely) ignore the petty transactions of individual minds (minds He built to have those thoughts, BTW).

Originally Posted by Sageous

Satan is acting, not tempting, and the victim's actions or intentions are inconsequential.

From that point of view, it stands to reason that Satan might choose as his targets the most innocent among us.

Maybe people are still subject to the control and domination methods of organized religion because in an evolutionary sense, to do so once increased the survival potential of the organism. If religions do gain their power to dominate from outdated hard-wiring in the psyche, that might explain why some religious people are willing to accept the truly ridiculous at face value. If it's hard-wired in the construct of their personal reality that the "word of God" is always true, then anything contradictory would automatically be assumed to be false. It would also explain why arguing religion is always a futile endeavor.

Not meaning to insult anyone. I do know that religion can also be a force for good in present day.

Originally Posted by Nailler

Wouldn't any truly loving God consider making others worry about their "sinful"" thoughts a sin?

Surely - but is a god truly loving, if he kills off all his first batch of humans except for the righteous Noah and his family? Nope.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Seriously.

I guess I was taking the OP literally, Steph. Possession, should it exist, is very much a non-temptation event, brought about by the encroachment of vicious entities upon the minds/souls of, yes, potentially passive victims. In other words, with possession, Satan is acting, not tempting, and the victim's actions or intentions are inconsequential.

From what I understand, possession does not require a sinful act on the part of the possessed. So, to me, sin does not matter... even if the OP appears to have thought it did.
That aside, I think this conversation about sinning in LD's is much more interesting than a bunch of people saying, "No, LD'ing does not open you to possession," and your posts (especially the last one) are excellent, and the OP is gone, so why not talk sin?

Yeah - I sort of thought, I bring "Satanic" in a second context, than the mentioned example in the OP.
I even read up a bit on possession as concept, and it seems it is mainly considered something happening to non-Christians or wavering but also innocent Christians - and it does not require an invitation, as far as doctrine has it.
I just meant - do you seriously think, that talking about sin is off topic.

Originally Posted by Sageous

I would say yes to that; and up the ante by saying that a truly loving God would not care at all about the thoughts (or deeds, for that matter) of anyone. Aside from having better things to do than spy on the thoughts of uncounted billions of entities, you'd think His unconditional love would forgive or (more likely) ignore the petty transactions of individual minds (minds He built to have those thoughts, BTW).

There you go - you are a classical deist, it seems to me - theism redux - god as the ultimate cause and source - but after bringing everything up to speed, so to speak - he keeps his fingers well off us and (hopefully) loves us unconditionally.
That's a nice form of religion - but certainly, it's not Christianity.

Originally Posted by Nailler

Maybe people are still subject to the control and domination methods of organized religion because in an evolutionary sense, to do so once increased the survival potential of the organism.
If religions do gain their power to dominate from outdated hard-wiring in the psyche, that might explain why some religious people are willing to accept the truly ridiculous at face value. If it's hard-wired in the construct of their personal reality that the "word of God" is always true, then anything contradictory would automatically be assumed to be false.

I remember an argument evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins made, which goes along those lines and more in here:
Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion.pdf
Starts on page 171 - in chapter 5 "The Roots Of Religion" (which starts on page 161) - still reading myself...

Originally Posted by Nailler

It would also explain why arguing religion is always a futile endeavor.

It is not always a futile endeavour - many a religious person has come off it - not least, because people like Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens as well, write and debate and others do other things to try and enlighten those, who are not on their trees by the count of ten.

The history of Christianity is written in blood, many of it's traditions are stolen (or rather, reluctantly incorporated), and many of it's scare tactics (demons for example) are a corruption of originally beautiful pagan values and concepts. I was a Lutheran until I was ten years old; when I read the bible. I became anti-christian on the spot, and after studying history, I cannot imagine why anyone would be drawn to this religion. No offense to Christians of course; you are not your ancestors.

I admire your attempts to argue Steph; I used to try to argue religion and politics, but in the end I was just getting nowhere, and making people angry by only presenting facts about history. People tend to identify themselves with their opinions; as if they were eternal or a part of their body that you are attempting to amputate. I just try to be an example and leave it at that now. I can't imagine anyone being angry with you though; you have a way with words. Just don't let it frustrate you.

"You can hold your breath until you turn blue, but they'll still go on doing it." - Marcus Aurelius

i havnt come across many lucid dreaming books by christians, other then Lucid Dreaming: Dawning of the Clear Light
he actually uses lucid dreaming to get closer to jesus

Originally Posted by StephL

There you go - you are a classical deist, it seems to me - theism redux - god as the ultimate cause and source - but after bringing everything up to speed, so to speak - he keeps his fingers well off us and (hopefully) loves us unconditionally.
That's a nice form of religion - but certainly, it's not Christianity.

I never thought of myself as a deist; at least not for 30 years or so. One of my books even opens with the phrase, "First, there is no God." I was speaking hypothetically with Nailler, trying to extend the logic of a truly loving God's nature or motives. Perhaps it was my catholic upbringing peeking through the words...maybe the message of 16 yrs of catholic school is truly indelible!

I'm personally of the mind these days that all the mystical stuff (if there even is any), including our souls, is created by our own minds during our own lifetimes, with nothing bestowed upon us but DNA. Speaking of DNA, I actually think love itself isn't quite the magical force we've built it up to be, but just a powerful natural device that ensures procreation and protection of our young. Should He exist, I have a feeling that God would be a little confused about our elevation of a corporeal emotion to spiritual status -- but then I guess He would just sigh and say, "Well, I gave them imaginations, so I can't complain."

And I suppose, Steph, if God does exists, I would not be surprised if that existence were manifest exactly as you describe above... not terribly christian at all, for sure, but not terribly terrible, either!

Originally Posted by Sageous

Should He exist, I have a feeling that God would be a little confused about our elevation of a corporeal emotion to spiritual status

Or maybe it should be: "Should they exist..."

What if we are to the gods as goldfish are to us?

I read an article about how evolution tends to occur in spurts, every so many million years. Got me to thinking maybe the gods who set up this aquarium check back every now and again to make adjustmetns. Maybe next time they drop by they'll decide to clean the tank again, like they did when they got sick of the dinosaurs.

I actually think love itself isn't quite the magical force we've built it up to be...

Maybe it depends upon the kind of love we're talking about. It's almost like we need different words for the different kinds of love. The experience of "love" the first time I "fell in love" with a girl was a very different experience from "loving" my dog, or my dad.

Originally Posted by StephL

It is not always a futile endeavour - many a religious person has come off it - not least, because people like Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens as well, write and debate and others do other things to try and enlighten those, who are not on their trees by the count of ten.

I have a theory that human beings have a need to believe something that cannot be proved. Something that is at best illogical, and at worst, just plain nuts. If it isn't religion, it'll be something else just as suspect... anthropogenic global warming or communism for example.

While we can plainly see absurd beliefs in others, we can't see our own.

Atheists who believe they can scientifically prove there is no god, and I've met a few, are as nutty as they come.

Anyway, that's my theory, so in regards to nutty ideas, I think we all live in glass houses and shouldn't be throwing stones.

thank-you.gif so much for chiming in, Meskhetyw!


And soz Sageous - even better - the Deists have a hard time (to say the least) justifying their god's existence anyway.
Great start for a book as well!
Cool.gif


Nailler - no atheist will tell you they can prove there is no god, if they are worth their water - it only means we don't believe in god.
You can't prove a negative - and I really can't see how being an agnostic atheist would in some way be believing in absurd things.

Like somebody threw an asteroid to clean the basin, or came up with and let loose the methane spewing bacteria, which are now believed to have caused the Permian mass extinction - much, much worse than the asteroid could manage millions of years later.

I see what you mean, though - there is highly probably a connection between traits, which have helped us to survive and our receptiveness for religion - also dualism - check out Dawkins for some nice deliberations on that.
But we are bestowed with higher mental faculties, which enable us to emancipate us from this ballast.
idea.gif

Holy Crap! Sorry so much about the delay. I haven't even been on the computer much lately, and when I am, my daughter has been pretty upset, so it is hard to think. I took the day at work to think up a response. I will finally have time tomorrow to give an answer that will satisfy everyone. muhaha. Well maybe not everyone, but at least StephL. It might be a bit preachy... But honestly... Y'all asked for it, so y'all are gonna get preaching Sensei.

It will also show exactly to what extent I am ridiculously crazy.

Great!!

Originally Posted by Nailler

Or maybe it should be: "Should they exist..."

What if we are to the gods as goldfish are to us?

I read an article about how evolution tends to occur in spurts, every so many million years. Got me to thinking maybe the gods who set up this aquarium check back every now and again to make adjustments. Maybe next time they drop by they'll decide to clean the tank again, like they did when they got sick of the dinosaurs.

Could be. Indeed, it's just as likely to be true as all the rest. I just hope I'm gone before the next adjustment!

Maybe it depends upon the kind of love we're talking about. It's almost like we need different words for the different kinds of love. The experience of "love" the first time I "fell in love" with a girl was a very different experience from "loving" my dog, or my dad.

I would argue that the baseline "love" in all those experiences is identical. What is different is the amplification you make to the already rich feeling that the baseline emotion provides. When falling in love, you might be intellectually multiplying the cool effect (perhaps driven unconsciously by other procreational drivers, especially in cases of 'love at first sight') of the no doubt powerful injection of baseline love into your system. Since you are sentient, that effect can reach a point where that effect engulfs your imagination, and you construct a state of being "in love." In a sense, you created your deep love, designed by your imagination and fueled by your nature.

I guess what I'm saying is that that transcendental love you feel and share is created completely by you, and not some unique esoteric energy. There is of course nothing wrong with that -- hell, transcendental (or romantic) love is probably the greatest side-effect of sentience there is -- but there is also nothing magical or mystical about it.

Since there is nothing mystical about it, there is no reason to think that God loves at all, much less decide that God is love. I think the idea of a loving God might just be a bit of anthropomorphism, or perhaps just taking the best thing in our little lives and deciding that God must be that thing. I don't know. Who does?

Okay, now we're completely off topic from the off topic discussion we were having before! Maybe Brandon -- oh, crap, I mean maybe Sensei will get us back on track...

Originally Posted by StephL

Nailler - no atheist will tell you they can prove there is no god, if they are worth their water - it only means we don't believe in god.
You can't prove a negative - and I really can't see how being an agnostic atheist would in some way be believing in absurd things.

Depends on the atheist, Steph. Just as there are Christian zealots, there are atheist zealots that claim otherwise.

Proving or disproving the existence or non-existence of god(s) is equally difficult.