Mike,

>>Animals have no notion of love
>
>http://www.anthro.ucdavis.edu/features/stp/stptiti.htm
>
>To the point, at this risk of being labeled a heartless asshole, despite how obvisoully wrong your statement is, if it were true, what does this prove?

I don't think folks will do that Mike. I wont.

Well, essentially there are two generalized notions regarding man and his nature. One, from the pov that most hold is that mankind is generally moving upwards. This includes the notion of evolution and so forth. The other is that man has fallen and is moving downwards in a general sense. Governments, morals, and so forth are degrading naturally rather than becoming better.

I think that most folks arrive at discussions like this with a fundamentally preset mindset and these are often not discussions with a goal to discovering the truth but of protecting one's own position(s). You and I certainly have done this though I've trid not to and I presume you have as well. It's hard to do candidly and why I will sometimes get 'griped' at my Christian colleagues who haven't taken the time and effort to really examine why they believe what they believe.

Anyway, Christians would assert that this ability for selfless love (as opposed to physical sex - called 'love' or emotional 'love') is an expression of God's nature within man. "Made in His image" and all that. So, when man sees himself as only animal it is a denial of a part of humanity, if that makes sense.

>
>Romantic love is a checmical reaction. Sweaty palms and all.
>
>http://www.observer.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,628118,00.html
>
>Hazan and many others cite extensive evidence that the role of 'chemistry' in human sexual attraction is more than just a metaphor. It's phenylethylamine, dopamine and oxytocin, too - the brain chemicals that scientists believe are 'triggered' through social conditioning.

I don't doubt that there are chemicals involved in romantic love. That's not the kind of love I'm thinking about though.

>
>Loving your familiy and friends is also good ol' human conditioning. There is nothing supernatural involved with the concept of love.

IMO a gratuitous assertion without much proof.

>
>That said, let me defend myself from those of you ready to burn me at the stake.

*chuckle*

Guess I'll have to return the tar and feathers then.. <g>


>
>Now, I'm aware of the fact that the love I feel for my girlfriend is chemically based. Does that make it any less special to me? Does that make love somewhat undesirable even for a moment? Hell no.

I would think that there is more than chemicals.

>
>Learn to cherish feeling great regardless of its origin and you will move one step closer to freeing yourself from the shackles of religion and irrationality.

Well, again.. Definitions of words matter. Depends on your definition of 'religion' here. I am quite against irrational thinking though.

>
>And while we're on the topic, this is where the major irony comes in. Those that think the same way I do, paradoxally find it easier to follow the "word of god", while those that think love is something divine, fall prey to breaking basic Christian commandments. Interesting, to say the least.

Hmm.. Interesting point. I think you're probably correct if you take the notion that those whom you've observed are using their adherence to Hristian principles as a means of gaining God'a favor. Paul talks about these kinds of things in the first few chapters of the Book of Romans. He (Paul) asserts that those who aren't Jews but who naturally keep the law are more Jewish than those who proclaim their 'Jewishness' but break the commandments.

Yet another 3 hour discussion topic. <g>