Does evil exist? If so, why do you think so? If not, why?

Of the things I've wondered regarding the beliefs of those who do not believe in a divine creator, I've never been able to understand their concept of evil.  I've heard a wide variety of answers regarding this topic and have seen no consensus.  I thought I would thus pose the question to you all.

One argument I've heard is that all morality is relative.  Morals should thus be decided by the individual and "to each his own."  My issue with this is that we somehow believe all should be treated fairly.  Do we get this from cultural conditioning?  If so, why is it we expect other cultures to fix their moral problems?  Would that mean we, though say we believe in relative morals, actually expect people to follow a universal moral code?  We expect others to live by our own moral code. 

Others have said that we have through evolution gained a moral code governed simply by our biology.  If this is the case, why do we often think our instincts are wrong? If our morals are simply in place so that humanity as a whole prospers, then would not self-centeredness be wrong?  Would we then not be allowed to define our own moral code? Is such morality governed by ourselves? Our culture? Our government? Our biology? Or maybe a divine being?

People, we believe, ought not to suffer, be excluded, die of hunger or oppression.  Does this not contradict the evolutionary teaching that the strong should take advantage of the weak assuming there are no outside reasons? On what basis does the atheist judge the natural world to be horribly wrong, unfair, and unjust?  Why do we even imagine an "ideal world" unless we acknowledge this to be a fallen world?

Sometimes people try to say that the existence of evil proves a good and all-powerful God does not exist.  Would not the mere acknowledgement of evil show that such a God does indeed exist?  Such a belief in evil's existence would assume a moral code outside ourselves.

What makes evil, evil?

The whole God created evil to test us hypothesis is bogus to me. I'm sorry but I never wrapped my head around a divine being that tests his own creations on a world he created and governs.

I can't say that i've thought of the topic long enough to give you a proper answer.

If our morals are simply in place so that humanity as a whole prospers, then would not self-centeredness be wrong? mindstorm

I think that through biology evolution our moral are in a place so that a human and not humanity as a whole prospers. The each man on his own thing. People 90% of the time will pick a choice in favour of self-interest rather that help everyone out and not themselves.

This will be a long answer because you asked a lot of questions.

One argument I've heard is that all morality is relative. Morals should thus be decided by the individual and "to each his own." My issue with this is that we somehow believe all should be treated fairly. Do we get this from cultural conditioning? If so, why is it we expect other cultures to fix their moral problems? Would that mean we, though say we believe in relative morals, actually expect people to follow a universal moral code? We expect others to live by our own moral code.mindstorm

That's quite a stretch. Raising a child/teenager will be hell if you just let him/her do whatever he/she wants. For example, you need to teach them that by raping an innocent person who they've never met, they are engaging in something that violates the other person's freedom. Furthermore, rapes often cause the victim to be scarred for life; it will lower the victim's trust in whatever gender the rapist was, and they may even develop mental disorders such as post traumatic stress disorder. The victim has not done anything to deserve the rape, thus, it is wrong.

Others have said that we have through evolution gained a moral code governed simply by our biology. If this is the case, why do we often think our instincts are wrong? If our morals are simply in place so that humanity as a whole prospers, then would not self-centeredness be wrong? Would we then not be allowed to define our own moral code? Is such morality governed by ourselves? Our culture? Our government? Our biology? Or maybe a divine being? mindstorm

We aren't programmed machines that are guarenteed to have the same morals as our parents.

We often think our instincts are wrong because we are coming to the realization that our emotions got the best of us. For example, if I am in a bad mood one day and I am at a restaurant where the waitress gave me food that I didn't order, my instinct would be to let her know of her error in a snarky manner because I am being influenced by stress that was built up throughout the day. Once I cool down, I can come to the realization that my instinct was wrong because the waitress was not aware of my bad day, and she is merely a human-- she makes mistakes.

People, we believe, ought not to suffer, be excluded, die of hunger or oppression. Does this not contradict the evolutionary teaching that the strong should take advantage of the weak assuming there are no outside reasons? On what basis does the atheist judge the natural world to be horribly wrong, unfair, and unjust? Why do we even imagine an "ideal world" unless we acknowledge this to be a fallen world? mindstorm

The first point is a strawman because I can think of some cases where suffering would be justifiable. Sending someone to prison for a heinous act. The criminal sure as hell doesn't want to be locked up, but he/she deserves it for the crime that was committed.

The atheist judges a world to be unfair based on the fact that they believe the world violates what he/she believes to be right. This belief can be as common as tax reductions being needed, or as uncommon as the the NWO being behind everything bad.

Sometimes people try to say that the existence of evil proves a good and all-powerful God does not exist. Would not the mere acknowledgement of evil show that such a God does indeed exist? Such a belief in evil's existence would assume a moral code outside ourselves. mindstorm

I agree with the first statement, but since we are on the subject of morality, I won't elaborate on it. I can't answer the question on whether evil proves the existance of any god, since you haven't established what kind of evil act you are talking about.

What makes evil, evil? mindstorm

The threat that it poses against life, justice, and reason.

Genetic_Code

What if I could make an argument that it was reasonable to wipe out a group of people?  Why do we think life and justice are important?

This world is far from completely fallen, but it's not ideal. We imagine an ideal world to have as something to strive for. Genetic_Code

Why is it we even acknowledge the need for something better?  What about us thinks this world is not "right"? Would it be based purely on reason?

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]What makes evil, evil? foxhound_fox

I sense some Eastern ideas contributing to your beliefs. :P

So then is morality entirely dictated by us if only as a concept or did it exist before us?

If you are theist, what is evil is the things your deity condemns. But how did that deity invent this "correct" system?itsTolkien_time

This answer might be more of a philosophical or natural theological argument than anything but would not good simply be defined by the very nature of who God is?  Would not everything in alignment with this God's will be good and everything against it, bad thus making it impossible for this said God to be evil?

I sense some Eastern ideas contributing to your beliefs. :Pmindstorm

So then is morality entirely dictated by us if only as a concept or did it exist before us?mindstorm

I have yet to see a real, objective "thing" (like Satan, a green fog, or something of the sort) that is in physical essence "evil."foxhound_fox

What if I could make an argument that it was reasonable to wipe out a group of people?  Why do we think life and justice are important?mindstorm

The argument would be wrong. That's utilitarian thinking and that's exactly what the Nazi's did to the Jews. The reason life and justice is so important is because without it, existence would be meaningless. 

Why is it we even acknowledge the need for something better?mindstorm

Because there are flaws in this world that restrict it from being better.

What about us thinks this world is not "right"?mindstorm

All the chaos and corruption in this world.

Would it be based purely on reason?mindstorm

Every thought that is to be used as a foundation of improvement should be founded upon reason. Everything else is sinking sand.

I am personally of the stance that "evil" does not exist. And also, I have yet to see a convincing definition of "evil."foxhound_fox

You're pro-life. How do you argue against the evil that is abortion without calling it evil?

That's probably because "evil" is an abstract concept, not a concrete item that can be described and measured. Like love or kindness, or hate.ChiliDragon

Not true. What someone does for someone is a measurement of love, whether it be giving them flowers or deciding to marry them. That's what makes love unique. The same is true for evil, but instead of being unique, it is horrifying. Evil can be something relatively small, such as watching a filthy show and enjoying it, to actually killing someone. Don't let mysticism tell you that evil can't be measured. 

Not true. What someone does for someone is a measurement of love, whether it be giving them flowers or deciding to marry them. That's what makes love unique. The same is true for evil, but instead of being unique, it is horrifying. Evil can be something relatively small, such as watching a filthy show and enjoying it, to actually killing someone. Don't let mysticism tell you that evil can't be measured.Genetic_Code

It has nothing to do with mysticism. What color is evil? What does it smell like? That's what I meant, as basic as that. Evil is not an object that we can point to and say "that's what it looks like". What you described are just the results of evil, not evil itself. Just like a second-degree burns are the result of heat, they are not heat itself.ChiliDragon

Fair enough. 

You're pro-life. How do you argue against the evil that is abortion without calling it evil?Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]What makes evil, evil? foxhound_fox

EDIT so i dont make multi posts let me adress these here

GC: watcing a filthy movie and liking it is horrifying?

Foxhound: If the creature in question isnt a sentient being then it isnt a life

Foxhound: If the creature in question isnt a sentient being then it isnt a life Thessassin

"Foxhound: If the creature in question isnt a sentient being then it isnt a life.Thessassin

an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproductionMerrian-Webster Online

What you are getting into is an argument about a "soul" or "self." Which can not really be well supported outside of a philosophical or scriptural argument.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Thessassin"]Foxhound: If the creature in question isnt a sentient being then it isnt a life foxhound_fox

Even 'plants to animals' is quite exclusive, don't forget Archaea, bacteria, fungi, protocista etc.

[QUOTE="Thessassin"]Foxhound: If the creature in question isnt a sentient being then it isnt a life foxhound_fox

hmm now that i look back im thinking i think something was lost in translation from my brain to my text. either way what i did mean was that i wouldnt consider a fetus as human, untill it passes through the vagina ( or by way of c-section) its not a human to me.Thessassin

[QUOTE="Thessassin"]hmm now that i look back im thinking i think something was lost in translation from my brain to my text. either way what i did mean was that i wouldnt consider a fetus as human, untill it passes through the vagina ( or by way of c-section) its not a human to me.foxhound_fox

By using the human right to life argument; and that no human has the right to take the life of another human away from them, no matter what stage of development they are in.foxhound_fox

Why does a human have no right to take another life from another human being? How do you determine that without invoking morality?

Well, life would be meaningless without life and justice to enforce the longevity of life.  

How do you determine that without invoking morality?Genetic_Code

By defining that something that is "genetically human" and "biologically alive" has the inherent right to life? What about "morality," which is entirely relative, applies to defining what life is?foxhound_fox

Defining what is life does not have anything to do what is right or wrong. That much is clear. However, defending someone's right to life does.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]By defining that something that is "genetically human" and "biologically alive" has the inherent right to life? What about "morality," which is entirely relative, applies to defining what life is?Genetic_Code

Defining what is life does not have anything to do what is right or wrong. That much is clear. However, defending someone's right to life does.

So are you against contraception then?

Did you know that the worlds population has tripled in the last 50 years?

[QUOTE="Thessassin"]GC: watcing a filthy movie and liking it is horrifying?Genetic_Code

So are you against contraception then?

Did you know that the worlds population has tripled in the last 50 years?RationalAtheist

I'm not against contraception per se but I wouldn't advise it for anyone seeking to avoid pregnancy, and I fail to see how that relates to the actual process of abortion. If I was against it, does that make my position on abortion illogical? You seem to be implying as such. That's an interesting line of thought that you have there.

Define "filthy". Are we taking about pornographic smut, or are we talking about glorified violence? And is it in the form of a good movie where it fits in the context of the story or a very bad movie that is using the sex and violence to sell because it has nothing else going for it? In the first case, I'd say you're fine. In the second, I might not call you "evil" but I will certainly question your taste in movies and entertainment.ChiliDragon

If there's evil in a movie, but it's used to counter-balance good, then that's acceptable, as long as the movie doesn't celebrate evil.

If there's evil in a movie, but it's used to counter-balance good, then that's acceptable, as long as the movie doesn't celebrate evil.Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]So are you against contraception then?

Did you know that the worlds population has tripled in the last 50 years?Genetic_Code

I'm not against contraception per se but I wouldn't advise it for anyone seeking to avoid pregnancy, and I fail to see how that relates to the actual process of abortion. If I was against it, does that make my position on abortion illogical? You seem to be implying as such. That's an interesting line of thought that you have there.

The instant after conception, the chance of life begins, so you seem to say.

If you are not against contraception, why wouldn't you advise it for people to avoid pregnancy? What would you suggest to prevent global over-population?

Note, I'm just asking simple questions. You are the one reading inferences into them. 

It's rare that you and I agree on anything, but I think we have found another common ground here. My opinion is, evil in entertainment media is fine, but it should not be the entertaining part of it. The entertainment should be in the evil people losing to the good guys. :)ChiliDragon

Same, but occasionally, I'm guilty of rooting for the villains, or at least for them to stay around so they can be used in later episodes. I sometimes cringe when a villain is killed off.

The instant after conception, the chance of life begins, so you seem to say.

If you are not against contraception, why wouldn't you advise it for people to avoid pregnancy? What would you suggest to prevent global over-population?RationalAtheist

If they want to have sex, and they don't want to bear children, then use protection, but it's better to not have sex. I don't think avoiding sex is a completely unrealistic goal, although many people disagree me. Personally, I find the view that humans cannot withstand the temptation to have sex very insulting, but more times than not, true.

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]It's rare that you and I agree on anything, but I think we have found another common ground here. My opinion is, evil in entertainment media is fine, but it should not be the entertaining part of it. The entertainment should be in the evil people losing to the good guys. :)Genetic_Code

Same, but occasionally, I'm guilty of rooting for the villains, or at least for them to stay around so they can be used in later episodes. I sometimes cringe when a villain is killed off.

The instant after conception, the chance of life begins, so you seem to say.

If you are not against contraception, why wouldn't you advise it for people to avoid pregnancy? What would you suggest to prevent global over-population?RationalAtheist

If they want to have sex, and they don't want to bear children, then use protection, but it's better to not have sex. I don't think avoiding sex is a completely unrealistic goal, although many people disagree me. Personally, I find the view that humans cannot withstand the temptation to have sex very insulting, but more times than not, true.

In regards to the second half, it's entirely possible for humans to withstand the temptation to have sex. Is it hard? Heck yes. But it's possible. We're surrounded by sexual influences 24/7, and a lot of times we go out of our way to to find sexually stimulating things. Now if we spend our time looking at sexual things and indulging in sexual thoughts are we going to be able to withstand having sex? Of course not, the temptation would be far too high. The only way you're ever going to withstand the desire to have sex would be to abstain from sexual influences as much as possible. You can't control everything but you can't definitely control what you let your mind think about.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]It's rare that you and I agree on anything, but I think we have found another common ground here. My opinion is, evil in entertainment media is fine, but it should not be the entertaining part of it. The entertainment should be in the evil people losing to the good guys. :)OhhSnap50893

Same, but occasionally, I'm guilty of rooting for the villains, or at least for them to stay around so they can be used in later episodes. I sometimes cringe when a villain is killed off.

The instant after conception, the chance of life begins, so you seem to say.

If you are not against contraception, why wouldn't you advise it for people to avoid pregnancy? What would you suggest to prevent global over-population?RationalAtheist

If they want to have sex, and they don't want to bear children, then use protection, but it's better to not have sex. I don't think avoiding sex is a completely unrealistic goal, although many people disagree me. Personally, I find the view that humans cannot withstand the temptation to have sex very insulting, but more times than not, true.

In regards to the second half, it's entirely possible for humans to withstand the temptation to have sex. Is it hard? Heck yes. But it's possible. We're surrounded by sexual influences 24/7, and a lot of times we go out of our way to to find sexually stimulating things. Now if we spend our time looking at sexual things and indulging in sexual thoughts are we going to be able to withstand having sex? Of course not, the temptation would be far too high. The only way you're ever going to withstand the desire to have sex would be to abstain from sexual influences as much as possible. You can't control everything but you can't definitely control what you let your mind think about.

[QUOTE="OhhSnap50893"][QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]It's rare that you and I agree on anything, but I think we have found another common ground here. My opinion is, evil in entertainment media is fine, but it should not be the entertaining part of it. The entertainment should be in the evil people losing to the good guys. :)Teenaged

Same, but occasionally, I'm guilty of rooting for the villains, or at least for them to stay around so they can be used in later episodes. I sometimes cringe when a villain is killed off.

The instant after conception, the chance of life begins, so you seem to say.

If you are not against contraception, why wouldn't you advise it for people to avoid pregnancy? What would you suggest to prevent global over-population?RationalAtheist

If they want to have sex, and they don't want to bear children, then use protection, but it's better to not have sex. I don't think avoiding sex is a completely unrealistic goal, although many people disagree me. Personally, I find the view that humans cannot withstand the temptation to have sex very insulting, but more times than not, true.

In regards to the second half, it's entirely possible for humans to withstand the temptation to have sex. Is it hard? Heck yes. But it's possible. We're surrounded by sexual influences 24/7, and a lot of times we go out of our way to to find sexually stimulating things. Now if we spend our time looking at sexual things and indulging in sexual thoughts are we going to be able to withstand having sex? Of course not, the temptation would be far too high. The only way you're ever going to withstand the desire to have sex would be to abstain from sexual influences as much as possible. You can't control everything but you can't definitely control what you let your mind think about.

The way I see it, when you have sex with all these different people you're giving them little chunks of your heart that you really don't get back. And I want to be able to say to my wife that I waited for her and only her. Again, is it easy? No. Is it worth it? Yes.

 Does any of that make sense? lol

Personally I believe in waiting until your married to have sex. Sex isn't evil at all but it wasn't designed so that we could sleep around with whoever we want and throw caution to the wind. Sex isn't just a physical thing, it creates emotional bonds with the people you're having sex with. It's designed to strengthen the bond between husband and wife but unfortunately that's rarely how it's used, and the more you have sex before you're with your permanent spouse the more bonds you'll have with other people.

The way I see it, when you have sex with all these different people you're giving them little chunks of your heart that you really don't get back. And I want to be able to say to my wife that I waited for her and only her. Again, is it easy? No. Is it worth it? Yes.

 Does any of that make sense? lol

OhhSnap50893

Secondly: I was gonna debate you as to what sex was designed for but I dont think I could invest in a debate right now. :P

Regardless as for the rest of your post: you are not wrong but neither are you right.

How is that possible? It depends on how one views sex and what they do it for. I would like for a moment to shift the premise from "have sex with the one you marry" to "have sex with the one you love". Thats right isnt it? I mean you yourself connected sex with emotions and I assume love is the most important. But feelings do change. Your first loved one may not be the ONE for ever. Emotional states change. Then you try again. But you DO love again. Is it like the first time? Nothing is. Should we not do it because of that and seek to forcefully solidify those feelings in the first case that they appear? Neither yes nor no. You cant plan things out to such degree to know who you will end up with. You cant force yourself to take a relationship to the level of marriage and neither can you know if you should invest in it. You just try. You take the risk and from then on you just face life as it comes.

The same with sex. We already connected it to love. Why not experience it with the person I love, even though I have no certainty if we will marry?

But then again maybe thats just me: I connect sex more to love and not to marriage at all.

If they want to have sex, and they don't want to bear children, then use protection, but it's better to not have sex. I don't think avoiding sex is a completely unrealistic goal, although many people disagree me. Personally, I find the view that humans cannot withstand the temptation to have sex very insulting, but more times than not, true.

Genetic_Code

But I'm married! And I disagree, although I understand its not everyone's cup of tea.

Sex is human function. It's quite an involved part of our physical form. Intricate ritual patterns and processes are displayed in countless animal species, as well as in humans. I don't think you can easily dismiss it. We've evolved science and society now to protect our offspring. We've reduced the miscarriage and infant death rate so rapidly that we face an unsustainable future.

When it comes to having children, I think the main moral consideration people should have is on the burden they'd place on society. 

[QUOTE="OhhSnap50893"]Personally I believe in waiting until your married to have sex. Sex isn't evil at all but it wasn't designed so that we could sleep around with whoever we want and throw caution to the wind. Sex isn't just a physical thing, it creates emotional bonds with the people you're having sex with. It's designed to strengthen the bond between husband and wife but unfortunately that's rarely how it's used, and the more you have sex before you're with your permanent spouse the more bonds you'll have with other people.

The way I see it, when you have sex with all these different people you're giving them little chunks of your heart that you really don't get back. And I want to be able to say to my wife that I waited for her and only her. Again, is it easy? No. Is it worth it? Yes.

 Does any of that make sense? lol

Teenaged

Secondly: I was gonna debate you as to what sex was designed for but I dont think I could invest in a debate right now. :P

Regardless as for the rest of your post: you are not wrong but neither are you right.

How is that possible? It depends on how one views sex and what they do it for. I would like for a moment to shift the premise from "have sex with the one you marry" to "have sex with the one you love". Thats right isnt it? I mean you yourself connected sex with emotions and I assume love is the most important. But feelings do change. Your first loved one may not be the ONE for ever. Emotional states change. Then you try again. But you DO love again. Is it like the first time? Nothing is. Should we not do it because of that and seek to forcefully solidify those feelings in the first case that they appear? Neither yes nor no. You cant plan things out to such degree to know who you will end up with. You cant force yourself to take a relationship to the level of marriage and neither can you know if you should invest in it. You just try. You take the risk and from then on you just face life as it comes.

The same with sex. We already connected it to love. Why not experience it with the person I love, even though I have no certainty if we will marry?

But then again maybe thats just me: I connect sex more to love and not to marriage at all.

 Well if we're treating love as an emotion then it will change with how we're feeling One day we'll love someone and the next day we'll love someone else. Or maybe we'll just starting loving one person less and less until we find we're loving someone else. So when you say you want to experience sex with the person you love it really means the person you love at the time, which hardly sounds like love at all.

I think that love is more of an action. I think you love people rather than feel love for people. I think that when you say you're "in love" it shouldn't mean you think your partner is attractive and you really like spending time with each other. It should mean you each devote time and energy into loving each other. I don't really know how to wrap that all together without bringing faith into the mix but I believe that if you and the person you "love" are treating love as an action and an attitude that requires work and you're both putting that work into it the relationship isn't going to fail.

If you're having sex with the one you love then we're pretty much on the same page, I just think it should wait until marriage because of my personal beliefs. It's when it turns into having sex with more than one person that you love that we differ. I think if you look back at the people you've "loved" with an objective view you'll find that you probably didn't love them as much as you thought you did at the time, that maybe it was more of an emotional high than true love.

 Well if we're treating love as an emotion then it will change with how we're feeling One day we'll love someone and the next day we'll love someone else. Or maybe we'll just starting loving one person less and less until we find we're loving someone else. So when you say you want to experience sex with the person you love it really means the person you love at the time, which hardly sounds like love at all.OhhSnap50893

That is because by your own standards, I assume, love comes only once. That doent say anything though. Your belief is not fact. You cant know if a person really feels love if they have claimed to have loved more than one person in their lives. You cant just draw that convenient conclusion.

I think that love is more of an action. I think you love people rather than feel love for people. I think that when you say you're "in love" it shouldn't mean you think your partner is attractive and you really like spending time with each other. It should mean you each devote time and energy into loving each other. I don't really know how to wrap that all together without bringing faith into the mix but I believe that if you and the person you "love" are treating love as an action and an attitude that requires work and you're both putting that work into it the relationship isn't going to fail. OhhSnap50893

Again that is an assumption. You cannot label things as you wish in order to have a suiting-for-your-ideals conclusion. When I speak about love I certainly dont mean just physical attraction.

Sometimes relationship do not fail because love is not true. There is constant interaction which sometimes has tension and fights. In that case its not about love not being enough but about people not adapting and evolving inside their relationship. And that has nothing to do with love. It can happen with or without it.

If you're having sex with the one you love then we're pretty much on the same page, I just think it should wait until marriage because of my personal beliefs. It's when it turns into having sex with more than one person that you love that we differ. I think if you look back at the people you've "loved" with an objective view you'll find that you probably didn't love them as much as you thought you did at the time, that maybe it was more of an emotional high than true love.

OhhSnap50893

It is very possible that somebody throughout their life, have loved more than one person with relatively the same intensity and truthfulness. We cant use assumptions to create absolutes.

That is because by your own standards, I assume, love comes only once. That doent say anything though. Your belief is not fact. You cant know if a person really feels love if they have claimed to have loved more than one person in their lives. You cant just draw that convenient conclusion.Teenaged

Again, love doesn't just come. Either you choose to love someone or you choose to not love them.

Again that is an assumption. You cannot label things as you wish in order to have a suiting-for-your-ideals conclusion. When I speak about love I certainly dont mean just physical attraction.

Sometimes relationship do not fail because love is not true. There is constant interaction which sometimes has tension and fights. In that case its not about love not being enough but about people not adapting and evolving inside their relationship. And that has nothing to do with love. It can happen with or without it.Teenaged

 If love is an action and an attitude it has everything to do with love. All relationships have tension and fights, I guarantee you've fought with your best friend and I gaurantee the 80 year old couple that's still madly in love has had hundreds of fights. But when you love someone you work through those fights and arguments. Love is patient, love is kind, it is not self seeking and it keeps no record of wrongs. If you treat whoever you're in a relationship with at the time with that kind of love I guarantee you'll find it much easier to "adapt and evolve" inside the relationship to the point where you love each other more after going through the tough fights. 

But by simple logic, love does not equate marriage. Marriage neither creates love, nor does it have the magical power to sustain it no matter what. Again marriage has necessary no place in the equation.

It is very possible that somebody throughout their life, have loved more than one person with relatively the same intensity and truthfulness. We cant use assumptions to create absolutes.

Teenaged

You're right that love does not equate marriage, but marriage is the product of love. As I said I don't see us agreeing on the marriage aspect because that's entirely based on my own beliefs on the purpose of sex.

Again, love doesn't just come. Either you choose to love someone or you choose to not love them.OhhSnap50893

(RED) What? I am sorry but we'll have to agree to disagree as I dont believe anyone's deepest and innate feelings are choice-driven.

 If love is an action and an attitude it has everything to do with love. All relationships have tension and fights, I guarantee you've fought with your best friend and I gaurantee the 80 year old couple that's still madly in love has had hundreds of fights. But when you love someone you work through those fights and arguments. Love is patient, love is kind, it is not self seeking and it keeps no record of wrongs. If you treat whoever you're in a relationship with at the time with that kind of love I guarantee you'll find it much easier to "adapt and evolve" inside the relationship to the point where you love each other more after going through the tough fights.  OhhSnap50893

No. Love sometimes is not enough to overcome all those difficulties. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. Love doesnt guarantee success, it just gives more possibilities for a more worthwhile relatioship (for as long as it lasts - of course always aiming to make it last for as long as possible). A failrue of a relationship does not mean that there wasnt love or that the two people didnt try their best (to their intentions at least).

[QUOTE="OhhSnap50893"]

Again, love doesn't just come. Either you choose to love someone or you choose to not love them.Teenaged

(RED) What? I am sorry but we'll have to agree to disagree as I dont believe anyone's deepest and innate feelings are choice-driven.

If love was a feeling and was so deep and innate then why do you find yourself loving more than one person? You make it sound rather definite, and as if you were simply compelled to love this person beyond your own personal will. Something like that sounds like it would have a 0% chance of failure. After all, neither of you had anything to do with it. It just happened, as if it was destined.

Now lets just assume that I'm right, and love is an action. If that were the case then you could choose to "love" someone or choose to not "love" them. Are there certain qualities that attract you to certain people? Definitely, but that's not love, that's attraction. It becomes love when you develop a relationship and CHOOSE to LOVE them. And if you were to choose not to love them (or they choose not to love you), the relationship would almost definitely end in failure.

 So if love is a feeling that we really don't control and it just happens to us then there should either be a 0% chance of a relationship failing or a 0% chance of it succeeding. Meanwhile if love is an action then you are at least partially in control of whether or not a relationship is going to succeed or fail, hence relationships that work and ones that don't.

Pardon the sarcasm, I know there was a bit of it.

[QUOTE="OhhSnap50893"]Again, love doesn't just come. Either you choose to love someone or you choose to not love them.Teenaged

If they want to have sex, and they don't want to bear children, then use protection, but it's better to not have sex. I don't think avoiding sex is a completely unrealistic goal, although many people disagree me. Personally, I find the view that humans cannot withstand the temptation to have sex very insulting, but more times than not, true.Genetic_Code

Yes, the best way to avoid pregnancy is to abstain from sex... but no extremely intimate and close romantic relationship is "complete" without sex, and the borderline divine emotional and physical expression of love. You can literally stop being your "self" and meld into a single entity.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]If they want to have sex, and they don't want to bear children, then use protection, but it's better to not have sex. I don't think avoiding sex is a completely unrealistic goal, although many people disagree me. Personally, I find the view that humans cannot withstand the temptation to have sex very insulting, but more times than not, true.foxhound_fox

If love was a feeling and was so deep and innate then why do you find yourself loving more than one person? You make it sound rather definite, and as if you were simply compelled to love this person beyond your own personal will. Something like that sounds like it would have a 0% chance of failure. After all, neither of you had anything to do with it. It just happened, as if it was destined.OhhSnap50893

No just as it was not my will to fall in love, its not my will to fall out of it. And no matter how much it is believeable from me, is not an excuse to justify the shifting from on sexual partner to the next. I am all for it if someone can fall in love with a person and that first person to be his/her loved one for the rest of his/her life. But that rarely happens.

Now lets just assume that I'm right, and love is an action. If that were the case then you could choose to "love" someone or choose to not "love" them. Are there certain qualities that attract you to certain people? Definitely, but that's not love, that's attraction. It becomes love when you develop a relationship and CHOOSE to LOVE them. And if you were to choose not to love them (or they choose not to love you), the relationship would almost definitely end in failure.OhhSnap50893

No, simply no. I dont choose it when my emotional attraction becomes something bigger. The things one can do to direct the result of any stage in this process are very limited.

So if love is a feeling that we really don't control and it just happens to us then there should either be a 0% chance of a relationship failing or a 0% chance of it succeeding. Meanwhile if love is an action then you are at least partially in control of whether or not a relationship is going to succeed or fail, hence relationships that work and ones that don't.

Pardon the sarcasm, I know there was a bit of it.

OhhSnap50893

Also being in partial control does not change the innateness of the feelings. We can control our actions (for instance I can choose to not ask this girl/guy out - which again it is debatable whether you can control thefeelings that make you hesitant) but I cant choose if I am emotionally attracted to them.

But is love an emotion? Most people, when they marry, promise to love each other, implying it's something that we can actively choose to do. The Swedish language has two words for love, one for the noun, the emotion. The other word is for the verb, the act of loving someone. Our actions are ours to control, and some would say that is what love is. Not the happy feelings of infatuation and attraction towards the person we love, but the active decision to do our best to feed these emotions, to treasure and nourish them, and to treat the one we love as if they truly are the most important person in the entire world. To care for the relationship and to keep it as alive, intimate and committed as it was they day when 80-year old couple first decided they wanted to get married.ChiliDragon

Possibly all feelings have ainnate/impulsive/subconscious part and another one which is more conscious.

We would spend lots of days to find a definition of "emotion" that pleases us both.

Have you ever tried having a close romantic relationship without sex? Because in my experience and in the experiences of people very close to me it has been far from impossible to not have sex. As a matter of fact, I've found that when relationships turn physical they tend to fail very soon after, unless the goal was to have a physical relationship.OhhSnap50893

Have you ever tried having a close romantic relationship without sex?OhhSnap50893

Sex is more than just a physical expression. The high level of intimacy has incredible emotional effects as well. At least, if you are having sex with someone you love and have agreed to share yourself with them.foxhound_fox

Because in my experience and in the experiences of people very close to me it has been far from impossible to not have sex. As a matter of fact, I've found that when relationships turn physical they tend to fail very soon after, unless the goal was to have a physical relationship.OhhSnap50893

Possibly all feelings have ainnate/impulsive/subconscious part and another one which is more conscious.Teenaged