NationStates Jolt Archive

So it seems that most of us have irrational belifes of one kind or other, or delusions.

The second greatest perhaps being a belife in deity.

Which begs the question, what is the first great delusion.

Well I'm gonna say the belife that you are loved.

Now, now, hear me out, you at the back sit down for just a sec yeah.

I belive I am loved, by my siblings, by my spouse, my children, my parents, and the very best of my freinds.

There is though no empircal evidance to back this up, I rely that the words, and deeds of others that lead me to this conclusion are in fact true. I must belive that when my wife says 'I love you' she is in fact telling the truth.

Go on admit it, I'm right, innit!:D

You just gave me a cruel reality check. :(

But still, I believe I am loved by my loved ones, even if there's no empirical evidence to sustain this claim. :tongue:

can't observable "acts of love" be construed as evidence of love? if not, surely your arguement becomes wider than the emotion of love and encompasses all human emotions, including hate, fear, etc.

Nope. I'm fairly secure in my self-adoration.

In all sincerity, I agree with the point you make, but not the use of "delusion". "Delusion" connotes belief despite evidence to the contrary, whereas love would strike me as belief in accordance with all evidence which remains unsubstantiable.

Of course there's empirical evidence. We can observe someone to see if their behavior indicates someone who feelts towards us the emotional bonds we refer to as "love".

You say you "rely that ...deeds of others that lead me to this conclusion are in fact true." What do you think "empirical evidence"...is? It's information gained by means of observation, experience or experimentation. If you observe ones deeds in a way that seems to indicate they love you, that is empirical evidence.

I love myself. Nightly. Sometimes in the mornings too.

Nope. I'm fairly secure in my self-adoration.

In all sincerity, I agree with the point you make, but not the use of "delusion". "Delusion" connotes belief despite evidence to the contrary, whereas love would strike me as belief in accordance with all evidence which remains unsubstantiable.

I would argue your definition of the word 'delusion'. If for example you can offer me evidance to the contrary for the existance of a God, then I'll gladly use it as ammo the very next time somebody tells me that my belife in such is delusional.

That I belive I am loved, is similar to my belife in God, in that I have sufficent subjective proof to satisfy me on both counts.

Of course there's empirical evidence. We can observe someone to see if their behavior indicates someone who feelts towards us the emotional bonds we refer to as "love".

You say you "rely that ...deeds of others that lead me to this conclusion are in fact true." What do you think "empirical evidence"...is? It's information gained by means of observation, experience or experimentation. If you observe ones deeds in a way that seems to indicate they love you, that is empirical evidence.


Okay yes, I can agree with that. But the fact is they could be lying to you, or their actions could be false. At some point you must choose to belive that what they say, and the actions they make are true. In other words you take a leap of faith on their honesty.

Okay yes, I can agree with that. But the fact is they could be lying to you, or their actions could be false. At some point you must choose to belive that what they say, and the actions they make are true. In other words you take a leap of faith on their honesty.

To some extent, I suppose, but by the same logic you take a "leap of faith" that when you step out of bed in the morning, you won't slip through the floor and into the center of the earth.

At some point you just have to assume your observations are true, yes. That's true with just about everything.

To some extent, I suppose, but by the same logic you take a "leap of faith" that when you step out of bed in the morning, you won't slip through the floor and into the center of the earth.

At some point you just have to assume your observations are true, yes. That's true with just about everything.

Again I can readily agree with this, but there is a differance when it comes to trusting what others tell you.

I belive that I won't fall through the floor to the center of the Earth based on 40 years of observation, yes indeed, but I don't have to take anybody elses word for that. So the chance of my being deseved by the floor or the crust of the planet are zero.

The greatest delusion is the belief in one's own importance, from which you might derive the idea that people love or hate you.

But what you (the OP) seems to be suggesting is more akin to paranoia that everybody in the world is lying directly to your face as part of some elaborate scam to get ... things.

So it seems that most of us have irrational belifes of one kind or other, or delusions.

The second greatest perhaps being a belife in deity.

Which begs the question, what is the first great delusion.

Well I'm gonna say the belife that you are loved.

Now, now, hear me out, you at the back sit down for just a sec yeah.

I belive I am loved, by my siblings, by my spouse, my children, my parents, and the very best of my freinds.

There is though no empircal evidance to back this up, I rely that the words, and deeds of others that lead me to this conclusion are in fact true. I must belive that when my wife says 'I love you' she is in fact telling the truth.

Go on admit it, I'm right, innit!:D

This concept of "wuv" confuses and infuriates us!

The greatest delusion is the belief in one's own importance, from which you might derive the idea that people love or hate you.

But what you (the OP) seems to be suggesting is more akin to paranoia that everybody in the world is lying directly to your face as part of some elaborate scam to get ... things.

My lucky charms!

i think that the #1 delusion is that we are free.

i think that the #1 delusion is that we are free.

^^ That.

To some extent, I suppose, but by the same logic you take a "leap of faith" that when you step out of bed in the morning, you won't slip through the floor and into the center of the earth.

At some point you just have to assume your observations are true, yes. That's true with just about everything.

I did that once. Mole people aren't friendly...

I know even when I'm angry with certain people, I still love them and that won't change.

Okay yes, I can agree with that. But the fact is they could be lying to you, or their actions could be false. At some point you must choose to belive that what they say, and the actions they make are true. In other words you take a leap of faith on their honesty.

Well, that's why you have to ask yourself about other motives. I mean, if somebody acts in a manner consistent with loving me, I can probably more or less assume they probably actually do love me. I mean, I don't have much money or anything like that that would make it worthwhile to use me for that purpose.

Further, it's quite possible to read people and, quite often, tell if they're sincere or if they have ulterior motives. And it gets easier to do this the longer you know a person. Now, I'm not, by any means, excellent at reading people. But I can still often tell if somebody is not being honest with me.

So yeah, when somebody appears to love you, there is some chance they might not. But that doesn't mean that you just take it on faith in any meaningful sense of the word. Just because something can't be proven 100% doesn't mean that there is not strong evidence for it.

Honestly, the only reason people try to push things like this as being matters of faith is because they can't stand the idea that some people really do not use faith to determine what is or is not true. Why can't people accept that not everybody is like them in that regard?

So it seems that most of us have irrational belifes of one kind or other, or delusions.
The second greatest perhaps being a belife in deity.
Which begs the question, what is the first great delusion.
Well I'm gonna say the belife that you are loved.
Now, now, hear me out, you at the back sit down for just a sec yeah.
I belive I am loved, by my siblings, by my spouse, my children, my parents, and the very best of my freinds.
There is though no empircal evidance to back this up, I rely that the words, and deeds of others that lead me to this conclusion are in fact true. I must belive that when my wife says 'I love you' she is in fact telling the truth.
Go on admit it, I'm right, innit!:D
It has long been a belife of mine that all of us belive somethings without knowing why, or without proof of anykind.
Mine is obviously God.
What are yours?
Oh please, for crying out loud, install a frigging spell checker on your browser or learn how to spell the damn words!!!

The noun is spelled BELIEF, the verb is spelled BELIEVE.

As for the topic: Empirical evidence in love and religion ain't worth anything. Love, like faith, are nothing you could measure in numbers.

So it seems that most of us have irrational belifes of one kind or other, or delusions.

The second greatest perhaps being a belife in deity.

Which begs the question, what is the first great delusion.

Well I'm gonna say the belife that you are loved.

Now, now, hear me out, you at the back sit down for just a sec yeah.

I belive I am loved, by my siblings, by my spouse, my children, my parents, and the very best of my freinds.

There is though no empircal evidance to back this up, I rely that the words, and deeds of others that lead me to this conclusion are in fact true. I must belive that when my wife says 'I love you' she is in fact telling the truth.

Go on admit it, I'm right, innit!:D
if its true its not a delusion.

The greatest delusion is the belief in one's own importance, from which you might derive the idea that people love or hate you.

But what you (the OP) seems to be suggesting is more akin to paranoia that everybody in the world is lying directly to your face as part of some elaborate scam to get ... things.

Heh honestly I may well be the least paroniod man in existance.:D

The porpouse of this? Well really it's just to get people thinking about belief and it's origins and to debate the subject matter.

Oh please, for crying out loud, install a frigging spell checker on your browser or learn how to spell the damn words!!!

The noun is spelled BELIEF, the verb is spelled BELIEVE.

As for the topic: Empirical evidence in love and religion ain't worth anything. Love, like faith, are nothing you could measure in numbers.

Chill mate, you can read even my misspelt words and still understand me huh!

If for example you can offer me evidance to the contrary for the existance of a God, then I'll gladly use it as ammo the very next time somebody tells me that my belife in such is delusional.

That I belive I am loved, is similar to my belife in God, in that I have sufficent subjective proof to satisfy me on both counts.

But God is not standing in front of you, in pinchable flesh and blood, telling you that they love you, living with you, having children with you, having to lyingly laugh the next time you fart in bed and pull the covers over his/her head...

You know your own feelings, you are surrounded by people who react reasonably consistently, it's not the hardest deduction to imagine they're, at least, slightly more real than a God you've never seen.

At worst, the person is lying to you.

One might argue that it's all just electric signals to the brain, it could be an illusion..

It's irrelevant, it's a remarkably consistent illusion across all the senses, enormously detailed and surprising, whereas God fails on, at a minimum, sight and sound, I would argue on all senses aside from the fancies of the brain.

So either your partner is lying to you or not but you should, if you have any empathy at all, only have more evidence for your 'belief' in her statement, not that she exists.

So, different.

Chill mate, you can read even my misspelt words and still understand me huh!
maybe you should put "i am dyslexic so STFU" in your signature.

Honestly, the only reason people try to push things like this as being matters of faith is because they can't stand the idea that some people really do not use faith to determine what is or is not true. Why can't people accept that not everybody is like them in that regard?

This is quite interesting, are you telling me that you actualy belive nothing but all of your ideas are based on 100% certifiable empirical evidance?


You are correct though you can learn to read people, and if you take into account that you are certian when you love somebody you can then based on your experiances infer that you are in turn loved. But still you can't know for certian, it is at best an educated guess.

maybe you should put "i am dyslexic so STFU" in your signature.

You know I really can't be bothered, I'm 40 years old and have been dyslexic all of my life, I've grown used to it, other people will just have to do the same.:D

Why should I have to point out my disability just so that others don't get anoyed at my spelling, surley if they get so anoyed at such an inconsequencal thing, that is a problem with them? Rather a long winded of saying 'fuck em' but there you go.:D

But God is not standing in front of you, in pinchable flesh and blood, telling you that they love you, living with you, having children with you, having to lyingly laugh the next time you fart in bed and pull the covers over his/her head...

You know your own feelings, you are surrounded by people who react reasonably consistently, it's not the hardest deduction to imagine they're, at least, slightly more real than a God you've never seen.

At worst, the person is lying to you.

One might argue that it's all just electric signals to the brain, it could be an illusion..

It's irrelevant, it's a remarkably consistent illusion across all the senses, enormously detailed and surprising, whereas God fails on, at a minimum, sight and sound, I would argue on all senses aside from the fancies of the brain.

So either your partner is lying to you or not but you should, if you have any empathy at all, only have more evidence for your 'belief' in her statement, not that she exists.

So, different.

All true, but not relevant really.

This is what I said:

'That I belive I am loved, is similar to my belife in God, in that I have sufficent subjective proof to satisfy me on both counts.'

Chill mate, you can read even my misspelt words and still understand me huh!
;) I just couldn't believe you misspelled belief/believe in two threads in two days.

And while yes, I can grasp the meaning of what you're saying, it'd be a lot nicer if spelled correctly. (Having learned and studied the language, misspelled words always cause a "mismatch" in my inner dictionary and make me stumble while reading. It's nothing personal, mind you!)

I'd like to add that while you can never be sure with things that have no evidence, when it comes to love, words and deeds are to be taken face value. You'd "simply" have to trust that people who tell you that they love you, do so, and that their actions towards you are based on respect and love.

Otherwise, if you question statements or motives, you lose trust and/or drive yourself nuts.

This is what I said:

'That I belive I am loved, is similar to my belife in God, in that I have sufficent subjective proof to satisfy me on both counts.'

I rather like this statement.

I think I'm too slow today.:tongue:

Us. vs. Them.

You just gave me a cruel reality check. :(

But still, I believe I am loved by my loved ones, even if there's no empirical evidence to sustain this claim. :tongue:

I suspect that there are plenty of NSGers who would love to give you evidence of being loved :p

This is quite interesting, are you telling me that you actualy belive nothing but all of your ideas are based on 100% certifiable empirical evidance?


You are correct though you can learn to read people, and if you take into account that you are certian when you love somebody you can then based on your experiances infer that you are in turn loved. But still you can't know for certian, it is at best an educated guess.

You're acting as if there is only faith and proof. But that's silly. There are plenty of things that have strong evidence that can't be 100% proven.

;) I just couldn't believe you misspelled belief/believe in two threads in two days.

And while yes, I can grasp the meaning of what you're saying, it'd be a lot nicer if spelled correctly. (Having learned and studied the language, misspelled words always cause a "mismatch" in my inner dictionary and make me stumble while reading. It's nothing personal, mind you!)

I'd like to add that while you can never be sure with things that have no evidence, when it comes to love, words and deeds are to be taken face value. You'd "simply" have to trust that people who tell you that they love you, do so, and that their actions towards you are based on respect and love.

Otherwise, if you question statements or motives, you lose trust and/or drive yourself nuts.

Yes indeed you do, otherwise you would. But it is this 'at face value' that I am talking about.

The phrase is just another way of saying, 'I trust what you tell me' 'I require no further proof' and so on and such like.

This is quite interesting, are you telling me that you actualy belive nothing but all of your ideas are based on 100% certifiable empirical evidance?


You are correct though you can learn to read people, and if you take into account that you are certian when you love somebody you can then based on your experiances infer that you are in turn loved. But still you can't know for certian, it is at best an educated guess.

You can sense-check you ideas against the available data at any given time.
Love itself is a human creation. Or rather, a human definition used for all sorts of emotions.

So since we get to define what is love and what isn't, we also can run a reality check to see if we're loved. All we need to do is looking for behaviour that we have previously defined as "loving" in the people around us. If we find such behaviour, we are loved. If we don't, we're not.

Lying and not-lying, as well as an ability to detect liars, are very human traits and abilities. If we are faced with a person who claims to love us, but doesn't behave in the way to be expected, we can be pretty sure they are lying.
Example : a supposed best friend spreading rumours behind your back, a cheating partner, a neglectful parent, etc.

Yes indeed you do, otherwise you would. But it is this 'at face value' that I am talking about.

The phrase is just another way of saying, 'I trust what you tell me' 'I require no further proof' and so on and such like.
Trust is what you'll have to invest in any relationship, be it love or friendship.

I'm convinced that there is no way of being sure for sure, a 100%. So, instead of worrying about it, why not enjoy it (while it lasts)?

Now, I'm not saying that it's easy, especially when one has a past which keeps becoming bigger each day, adding more and more experience(s) to your life. I take it that it boils down to how much one cares to listen to the little nagging voice of doubt. After all, it's up to the person who feels said doubt without reason or evidence to disregard it.

If your partner or friend hasn't done anything to justify said doubt, it wouldn't be fair to expect them to somehow try to prove to you that they can be trusted. "All" they can do is love you for who you are, tell you and show you through their actions.

All true, but not relevant really.

This is what I said:

'That I belive I am loved, is similar to my belife in God, in that I have sufficent subjective proof to satisfy me on both counts.'

Loved - sight, sound, touch, taste, smell of the person telling you they love you

God - none of the above, fuck it, it's practically the same.

You have more evidence for the statement of the person telling you they love you than you do for the very existence of a God.

Even if you tell me you have experienced God through those 5 senses, it is not even remotely as consistently as you do with the person telling you they love you, nor are there as many other people both like you and that person to corroborate, who discuss this very subject more often than possibly any other subject.

I suspect that there are plenty of NSGers who would love to give you evidence of being loved :p

I don't doubt that. Problem is, I cannot correspond. But the thought counts, buddy. :)

All true, but not relevant really.

This is what I said:

'That I belive I am loved, is similar to my belife in God, in that I have sufficent subjective proof to satisfy me on both counts.'
it is not the same at all.

you know you are loved because you know what love is. because YOU love.

god is outside your experience so labelling certain things as "god" is an assumption on your part.

You're acting as if there is only faith and proof. But that's silly. There are plenty of things that have strong evidence that can't be 100% proven.

Not so mate, that is how you choose to inturpret what I say.

I belive that the best football club in the world is Leeds Utd, I belive that people who blindly follow fashion are sheep, I belive that I shall live to see 100 years old, I belive that I am loved, and I belive in a creator God.

All of them unsubstanciated, some of them highly delusional, and one of them I still belive in sipite of evidance to the contrary.

The point is though for each of these belifes I have enough subjective evidance in order to satisfy me.

'That I belive I am loved, is similar to my belife in God, in that I have sufficent subjective proof to satisfy me on both counts.'

I think, therefore I am?

Not so mate, that is how you choose to inturpret what I say.

I belive that the best football club in the world is Leeds Utd, I belive that people who blindly follow fashion are sheep, I belive that I shall live to see 100 years old, I belive that I am loved, and I belive in a creator God.

All of them unsubstanciated, some of them highly delusional, and one of them I still belive in sipite of evidance to the contrary.

The point is though for each of these belifes I have enough subjective evidance in order to satisfy me.

In order of likelihood, 1 being most likely...

1. I belive that people who blindly follow fashion are sheep (given understanding of word 'sheep' as a description)
2. I belive that I am loved (given you're human, likely, you have a mother at least, and with your face...)
3. I belive that I shall live to see 100 years old (certainly a possibility as a human, not sure of percentage)
4. I belive in a creator God (No real evidence)
5. I belive that the best football club in the world is Leeds Utd - HA HA HA! Now that really is delusional :)

You can sense-check you ideas against the available data at any given time.
Love itself is a human creation. Or rather, a human definition used for all sorts of emotions.

So since we get to define what is love and what isn't, we also can run a reality check to see if we're loved. All we need to do is looking for behaviour that we have previously defined as "loving" in the people around us. If we find such behaviour, we are loved. If we don't, we're not.

Lying and not-lying, as well as an ability to detect liars, are very human traits and abilities. If we are faced with a person who claims to love us, but doesn't behave in the way to be expected, we can be pretty sure they are lying.
Example : a supposed best friend spreading rumours behind your back, a cheating partner, a neglectful parent, etc.

Very true Cabra, but you know that man that beats his wife, can still be in love with her.

I was beaten by my dad as a kid, I still belive he loved me then, and continues to do so know.

Your choice of words though is hardly indicitive of 100% knowledge though 'we can be pretty sure..'. The friend that slags you off behind your back may just be angry with you and sorry the next day.

With all sorts of human emotional issues you have to take things at face value. My argument is that doing so is delusional behavouir.

Your first mistake is considering love to be (only) a feeling. Love is put to the test, feelings are not. For example, you can say: "That wasn't real love, just infatuation." But you can't say: "That wasn't real a pain (or sound, feeling, taste etc)." There is a clear logical difference between a feeling and the concept of love. So there are ways to know that people love you -- and whether they do is shown by a glance, a smile, or sometimes even kicking you out of the house.

It's not a question of evidence any more than the statement "The sunset is beautiful" is -- and if someone said, "But you don't have any evidence that it's beautiful!" I'd laugh at them and maybe tell them to go learn to speak English. Lack of a tautological proof of love or beauty isn't even relevant here.

Very true Cabra, but you know that man that beats his wife, can still be in love with her.

I was beaten by my dad as a kid, I still belive he loved me then, and continues to do so know.

Your choice of words though is hardly indicitive of 100% knowledge though 'we can be pretty sure..'. The friend that slags you off behind your back may just be angry with you and sorry the next day.

With all sorts of human emotional issues you have to take things at face value. My argument is that doing so is delusional behavouir.

The wife-beater might think he loves his wife, but are you sure she will feel loved?
I think there are two aspects to love, in the social definition that we gave it.

One is the internal, as in "I love somebody", the emotional experience of the individual.

The other one is the external, which is basically the expression of this love as observed by the lover's environment. As I said, we as a society have defined certain forms of behaviour to be "loving". This includes showing a certain amount of care, both mental and physical, for the loved person. It also includes certain forms of communication, verbal and physical. Basically, we are talking of an enormous amount of detailed actions and words, that will give the impression of "love" being felt.
No, there isn't one single evidence. But in day to day live, the small instances of evidence will mount up to become a quite clear evidence of love in time.

Your first mistake is considering love to be (only) a feeling. Love is put to the test, feelings are not. For example, you can say: "That wasn't real love, just infatuation." But you can't say: "That wasn't real a pain (or sound, feeling, taste etc)." There is a clear logical difference between a feeling and the concept of love. So there are ways to know that people love you -- and whether they do is shown by a glance, a smile, or sometimes even kicking you out of the house.

It's not a question of evidence any more than the statement "The sunset is beautiful" is -- and if someone said, "But you don't have any evidence that it's beautiful!" I'd laugh at them and maybe tell them to go learn to speak English. Lack of a tautological proof of love or beauty isn't even relevant here.

One could argue then that love is both: a feeling and something you can put to the test.

One could argue then that love is both: a feeling and something you can put to the test.Sure, I don't discount that. But love, as a concept, is much more than just a feeling. Otherwise it'd just be infatuation, not love.

Sure, I don't discount that. But love, as a concept, is much more than just a feeling. Otherwise it'd just be infatuation, not love.

If I may ask, how do you define love?

If I may ask, how do you define love?I don't, although I like some (limited) descriptions of it:


If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails....And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.I'm not religious but these words are true. It's not meant to delineate the entire concept of love, but just to show: these things are part of love, and other things can be also.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal

Quite.

Loved - sight, sound, touch, taste, smell of the person telling you they love you

God - none of the above, fuck it, it's practically the same.

You have more evidence for the statement of the person telling you they love you than you do for the very existence of a God.

Even if you tell me you have experienced God through those 5 senses, it is not even remotely as consistently as you do with the person telling you they love you, nor are there as many other people both like you and that person to corroborate, who discuss this very subject more often than possibly any other subject.

Meh! Again the issue here is not what form such evidance takes, the simularity is in the fact that 'I have sufficent subjective proof to satisfy me on both counts'.

Quite.Biblical authors were fond of figurative language, so sue me. :D

I don't, although I like some (limited) descriptions of it:

I'm not religious but these words are true. It's not meant to delineate the entire concept of love, but just to show: these things are part of love, and other things can be also.

That Biblical passage is, to date, the best description of love I've seen.

So it seems that most of us have irrational belifes of one kind or other, or delusions.

The second greatest perhaps being a belife in deity.

Which begs the question, what is the first great delusion.

Well I'm gonna say the belife that you are loved.

Now, now, hear me out, you at the back sit down for just a sec yeah.

I belive I am loved, by my siblings, by my spouse, my children, my parents, and the very best of my freinds.

There is though no empircal evidance to back this up, I rely that the words, and deeds of others that lead me to this conclusion are in fact true. I must belive that when my wife says 'I love you' she is in fact telling the truth.

Go on admit it, I'm right, innit!:D
Actually no, some people are never loved. If you're talking about unconditional positive regard then parents would be a logical place to start, then perhaps other people you meet. Still love is quite hard to define so how can it be a delusion? in fact while i'm on this what could you define as delusion?
I mean maybe the first delusion is that other people exist, or that you as a self exist, then again what is our definition of existance?
ahhh philosophy again, confusing as ever and no one is really right about anything or wrong about anything either.

it is not the same at all.

you know you are loved because you know what love is. because YOU love.

god is outside your experience so labelling certain things as "god" is an assumption on your part.

Heh talk about assumptions, you assume that God is outside of experiance, probably because you have not experianced it?

You are correct though, I assume that God is, but based(as I have said) on subjective evidence that is satisfatory to me.

I think, therefore I am?

Yeah, or perhaps I think that I think therefore I think that I am.:D

5. I belive that the best football club in the world is Leeds Utd - HA HA HA! Now that really is delusional :)


Hah well we all have aour crosses to bear!

So there are ways to know that people love you -- and whether they do is shown by a glance, a smile, or sometimes even kicking you out of the house.

It's not a question of evidence any more than the statement "The sunset is beautiful" is -- and if someone said, "But you don't have any evidence that it's beautiful!" I'd laugh at them and maybe tell them to go learn to speak English. Lack of a tautological proof of love or beauty isn't even relevant here.


That's a little contradictory no? 'It's not a question of evidence' vs 'whether they do is shown by a glance, a smile, or sometimes even kicking you out of the house'

So if a smile is evidance of love, or wind, or a deception, then it is subjective? You can take a smile as evidance of love, but even then you are choosing to belive that is what it is.

That's a little contradictory no? 'It's not a question of evidence' vs 'whether they do is shown by a glance, a smile, or sometimes even kicking you out of the house'

So if a smile is evidance of love, or wind, or a deception, then it is subjective? You can take a smile as evidance of love, but even then you are choosing to belive that is what it is.Forgive me. It's not a question of evidence for a feeling. Your previous argument was:

Love is a feeling.
Feelings are completely subjective.
Therefore, can't be sure if someone loves you.

I disagreed with the first premise.

The wife-beater might think he loves his wife, but are you sure she will feel loved?
I think there are two aspects to love, in the social definition that we gave it.

One is the internal, as in "I love somebody", the emotional experience of the individual.

The other one is the external, which is basically the expression of this love as observed by the lover's environment. As I said, we as a society have defined certain forms of behaviour to be "loving". This includes showing a certain amount of care, both mental and physical, for the loved person. It also includes certain forms of communication, verbal and physical. Basically, we are talking of an enormous amount of detailed actions and words, that will give the impression of "love" being felt.
No, there isn't one single evidence. But in day to day live, the small instances of evidence will mount up to become a quite clear evidence of love in time.

Yes you are right again, I certianly agree with this. The point though is that such evidance can still be faked.

The wife beater can still love his wife, even if the wife does not feel she is loved. In such a case the wife belives the opposite of what is 'true' based on the evidence of he mans actions. Similary a woman can marry a wealthy man and not love him but his money, whilst all the time keeping up the act of loving him.

In both cases we look at the actions and make our choice of just what to belive based on them. This evidance is not 100% certifiable, in fact in both cases a beliefe based on such evidence is wrong.

So I think my initial idea still has merit. You cannot really know that you are loved, you take such evidance as you have and choose to belive so.

Sure, I don't discount that. But love, as a concept, is much more than just a feeling. Otherwise it'd just be infatuation, not love.

Do you not consider infatuation to be a kind of love, perhaps a precuser even?

Do you not consider infatuation to be a kind of love, perhaps a precuser even?No, I consider it infatuation -- though I won't deny that infatuation often comes before love.

Forgive me. It's not a question of evidence for a feeling. Your previous argument was:

Love is a feeling.
Feelings are completely subjective.
Therefore, can't be sure if someone loves you.

I disagreed with the first premise.

Sorry I don't think I said that. If you are paraphrasing me, I think you have the wrong end of the stick mate.

Yes you are right again, I certianly agree with this. The point though is that such evidance can still be faked.

The wife beater can still love his wife, even if the wife does not feel she is loved. In such a case the wife belives the opposite of what is 'true' based on the evidence of he mans actions. Similary a woman can marry a wealthy man and not love him but his money, whilst all the time keeping up the act of loving him.

In both cases we look at the actions and make our choice of just what to belive based on them. This evidance is not 100% certifiable, in fact in both cases a beliefe based on such evidence is wrong.

So I think my initial idea still has merit. You cannot really know that you are loved, you take such evidance as you have and choose to belive so.

i'd be inclined to avoid confusing the thread with how wife beaters or women who marry for money can love their partners....
still i suppose i could explain the above by saying one key way to fall in love with someone or even just to like them more is to be in their company, just simply being near them will encourage feelings of support...

I figure now that in order to be able to love other people you will find it easier if others love you, in order to do so you have to be fully honest with the other person, most people know when others are bullshitting them and love is no exception...
then again would i describe a one night stand as love? probably not but if you did it enough with one person then maybe it is love toward them...

hmmm:confused:

No, I consider it infatuation -- though I won't deny that infatuation often comes before love.

What would you say the differance is?

Sorry I don't think I said that. If you are paraphrasing me, I think you have the wrong end of the stick mate.Yes, I paraphrased for clarity. In what way did I misunderstand you?

It's true, there are some things more delusional than "there is an omnipotent god", but they tend to "Xenu uses the interior of the hollow moon to create comet-following spaceships" and the like...

i'd be inclined to avoid confusing the thread with how wife beaters or women who marry for money can love their partners....
still i suppose i could explain the above by saying one key way to fall in love with someone or even just to like them more is to be in their company, just simply being near them will encourage feelings of support...

I figure now that in order to be able to love other people you will find it easier if others love you, in order to do so you have to be fully honest with the other person, most people know when others are bullshitting them and love is no exception...
then again would i describe a one night stand as love? probably not but if you did it enough with one person then maybe it is love toward them...

hmmm:confused:

I think it is integeral to the discussion, it helps to highlight that the belife that you are loved comes from many differant ques, many differant (as Cabra says) pieces of 'evidance', and that such can be misinturpreted.

Yes, I paraphrased for clarity. In what way did I misunderstand you?

I did not say that love is a feeling.

It's true, there are some things more delusional than "there is an omnipotent god", but they tend to "Xenu uses the interior of the hollow moon to create comet-following spaceships" and the like...

Heh but the latter is not delusional. There is (apperently) evidance based around an ancient systems of building measurements and numerolgy that conclusivly proves the claim!:D

i think that the #1 delusion is that we are free.
The concept of freedom is the result of a delusional belief in our own importance. If people didn't think that they were significant, they wouldn't have the delusional belief that their actions emerged from themselves, but would recognize themselves as merely the effect of prior, external causes.
Heh honestly I may well be the least paroniod man in existance.:D
You apparently think it is possible that everyone in your life really despises you, but is presenting a great deal of evidence to the contrary. That's pretty paranoid.
Not that it is really so unusual. I feel the same way about my writing. Obviously every newspaper, literary editor, classmate, English teacher and friend I've encountered in 21 years of life is simply being nice to me and hoping that the next one along the line will break the news to me that I'm completely incapable of stringing three coherent syllables together.

You apparently think it is possible that everyone in your life really despises you, but is presenting a great deal of evidence to the contrary. That's pretty paranoid.
Not that it is really so unusual. I feel the same way about my writing. Obviously every newspaper, literary editor, classmate, English teacher and friend I've encountered in 21 years of life is simply being nice to me and hoping that the next one along the line will break the news to me that I'm completely incapable of stringing three coherent syllables together.


Heh and you apparently cannot tell the differance between examples used in debate against my real life.

Which begs the question, what is the first great delusion.

Well I'm gonna say the belife that you are loved.

You are half-right: right in that that is a delusion, wrong in that I believe it.

You are half-right: right in that that is a delusion, wrong in that I believe it.

Ahh then in that case take' 'you' as meaning the more generic, 'people', rather than you personaly.

Shame though to quote a certian group from Lowestoft 'I belive in a thing called love'

Love is any of a number of emotions and experiences related to a sense of strong affection and attachment. The word love can refer to a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes, ranging from generic pleasure to intense interpersonal attraction. The word love is both a verb and a noun. Love is not a single feeling but an emotion built from two or more feelings. Anything vital to us creates more than one feeling, and we also have feelings about our feelings (and thoughts about our feelings). This diversity of uses and meanings, combined with the complexity of the feelings involved, makes love unusually difficult to consistently define, even compared to other emotional states.

As an abstract concept, love usually refers to a deep, ineffable feeling of tenderly caring for another person. Even this limited conception of love, however, encompasses a wealth of different feelings, from the passionate desire and intimacy of romantic love to the nonsexual emotional closeness of familial and platonic love to the profound oneness or devotion of religious love. Love in its various forms acts as a major facilitator of interpersonal relationships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love

Heh and you apparently cannot tell the differance between examples used in debate against my real life.
Ok. So if you don't really have any reason to doubt them, and they say something, and you don't actively doubt them, then how is believing what they say a delusion?
You might as well say that my belief in Hitler is a delusion. After all, I've never seen him. I've read books, but the people who wrote those books could have been lying. And what about Obama? I've never touched him, he could just be a hologram.

Ok. So if you don't really have any reason to doubt them, and they say something, and you don't actively doubt them, then how is believing what they say a delusion?
You might as well say that my belief in Hitler is a delusion. After all, I've never seen him. I've read books, but the people who wrote those books could have been lying. And what about Obama? I've never touched him, he could just be a hologram.

How would you define the word delusion?

How would you define the word delusion?
A:, something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated B: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary
Mainly the second one. It is a delusion if there is everyone reason to believe one thing, but you go the other way for whatever non-rational reason. In your case, it would seem there is every reason to believe that the people around you legitimately love you, so to say that a belief founded upon those reasons is delusional is, itself, a paranoid delusion.

EDIT: The main point of my Hitler example was that you've set the bar for evidence so high that nothing which one doesn't scientifically prove for oneself can be taken as true. So events that happened when I wasn't in the room are unknowable. Advanced scientific knowledge? I've got no interest in working on the LHC myself, so I guess I'll never know.

I did not say that love is a feeling.Nonetheless, I believe my point was valid. In your original post, it quite clearly indicates that love is taken to be subjective. In the same way we "can't know" whether someone feels pain, we "can't know" whether someone loves another. I disagreed with this idea and I gave an example for why it is not possible to coherently treat it as an exclusively subjective experience.

What would you say the differance is?Pretty much similar to wiki's answer on the subject. It's typically characterized by "a lack of trust, loyalty, commitment, and reciprocity." In my response to Nanatsu (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14505310&postcount=47) you can see some of the ways that love would be different from that.

So there are ways to know that people love you -- and whether they do is shown by a glance, a smile, or sometimes even kicking you out of the house.

It's not a question of evidence any more than the statement "The sunset is beautiful" is -- and if someone said, "But you don't have any evidence that it's beautiful!" I'd laugh at them and maybe tell them to go learn to speak English.
To be pedantic, the belief that the sunset is beautiful is on much more steady ground than the belief that another love's you.

To be pedantic, the belief that the sunset is beautiful is on much more steady ground than the belief that another love's you.Logically I don't think it does, which was my point. I wanted to show that, in this situation ("the sunset is beautiful") we do not question it-- but now we question another situation ("I love you") that has a similar logical form.

Suppose a parent - who makes their child lunches for school, flies kites with them on weekends, reads them bedtime stories, comforts them when they're hurt and protects them when in danger - says to their child, "I love you." Why is that more doubtful than than the statement "the sunset is beautiful"? I say: there is no steadier ground than this.

Suppose a parent - who makes their child lunches for school, flies kites with them on weekends, reads them bedtime stories, comforts them when they're hurt and protects them when in danger - says to their child, "I love you." Why is that more doubtful than than the statement "the sunset is beautiful"?
Because the statement, "the sunset is beautiful", is a statement relating to the self, and I agree with you that we cannot doubt our phenomenological expoeriences; at least, we cannot doubt that we are having them, that we experience an aesthetically pleasing scene.

There is more doubt, however, in regards to statements relating to others, such as someone else saying "I love you". I can doubt that you genuinely love me in a way I cannot when considering my own state of mind; no matter the outward behavoural evidence.

Though, we'd live a rather poor life if we constantly did doubt as I say above. It is, as I mentioned, a rather pedantic point.

Because the statement, "the sunset is beautiful", is a statement relating to the self, and I agree with you that we cannot doubt our phenomenological experiences; at least, we cannot doubt that we are having them, that we experience an aesthetically pleasing scene.

There is more doubt, however, in regards to statements relating to others, such as someone else saying "I love you". I can doubt that you genuinely love me in a way I cannot when considering my own state of mind; no matter the outward behavioral evidence.

Though, we'd live a rather poor life if we constantly did doubt as I say above. It is, as I mentioned, a rather pedantic point.I was thinking of someone else saying that the sunset was beautiful, just as someone else would say that they love you. I don't think we really disagree here.

I was thinking of someone else saying that the sunset was beautiful, just as someone else would say that they love you.
Ah, sincere apologies then.

Crossed wires.

I love myself. Nightly. Sometimes in the mornings too.

I've been such a good influence on you! :)

My lucky charms!

I thought you said I could share them? :(

So it seems that most of us have irrational belifes of one kind or other, or delusions.
-snip-


What's the first? Ourself being God?

The first and last irrational belief will fall on the deity.

Heh talk about assumptions, you assume that God is outside of experiance, probably because you have not experianced it?

You are correct though, I assume that God is, but based(as I have said) on subjective evidence that is satisfatory to me.
no i think that since you cannot BE god like you can love, its not the same thing at all.

you have no experience of being god but you do have the experience of loving.

before you can say that no one else loves you, you have to dispute your own ability to love.

Yes you are right again, I certianly agree with this. The point though is that such evidance can still be faked.

The wife beater can still love his wife, even if the wife does not feel she is loved. In such a case the wife belives the opposite of what is 'true' based on the evidence of he mans actions. Similary a woman can marry a wealthy man and not love him but his money, whilst all the time keeping up the act of loving him.

In both cases we look at the actions and make our choice of just what to belive based on them. This evidance is not 100% certifiable, in fact in both cases a beliefe based on such evidence is wrong.

So I think my initial idea still has merit. You cannot really know that you are loved, you take such evidance as you have and choose to belive so.

I would propose that the love the wife-beater feels for his wife differs enough from the general definition of love to be not actually regarded as love by anyone but himself.

As for the trophy wife pretending to love her husband, I have previously stated that external evidence of love cannot be tied to a single act or word, but to an accumulation of both over an undefined period of time. A wife who can keep up the act of being in love with her husband over several years would have to be a very, VERY good actress indeed. I think cases like this are generally helped by the husband ignoring the evidence of not being loved in favour of having a beautiful young wife.

Also, I took the statement that you cannot know if you are being loved to refer to more than just 2 people. I know my BF loves me, but I also know my mother loves me, I know my friends love me, and I know my brother and grandparents love me. I have decades of evidence.

A:, something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated B: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary
Mainly the second one. It is a delusion if there is everyone reason to believe one thing, but you go the other way for whatever non-rational reason. In your case, it would seem there is every reason to believe that the people around you legitimately love you, so to say that a belief founded upon those reasons is delusional is, itself, a paranoid delusion.

EDIT: The main point of my Hitler example was that you've set the bar for evidence so high that nothing which one doesn't scientifically prove for oneself can be taken as true. So events that happened when I wasn't in the room are unknowable. Advanced scientific knowledge? I've got no interest in working on the LHC myself, so I guess I'll never know.

Okay well I would go with:

A belife for which there is no conclusive objective proof. A belife is God is delusional not because it has been proved false and yet peopel still belive. It is delsuional because theer is no evidance to support the propersition.

The belife that you are loved, is based upon trust, and not conclusive objective proof, thus I claim it is delsuional.

Your edit makes a good point, but where science is conserned somebody has written down the experiments and the results, we could in theory all perform them to see for our selves, but somebody has already done that and provided objective evidence to support it.

Yes there is an element of trust in that, but the objective evidence is there for all to look through.

no i think that since you cannot BE god like you can love, its not the same thing at all.

you have no experience of being god but you do have the experience of loving.

before you can say that no one else loves you, you have to dispute your own ability to love.

Again though that assumes that we cannot be godlike. We just don't know, you are in fact engaging in your belife that we cannot be god like, there is no evidance that we cannot, so that to is a delusinal belife.

I would propose that the love the wife-beater feels for his wife differs enough from the general definition of love to be not actually regarded as love by anyone but himself.

As for the trophy wife pretending to love her husband, I have previously stated that external evidence of love cannot be tied to a single act or word, but to an accumulation of both over an undefined period of time. A wife who can keep up the act of being in love with her husband over several years would have to be a very, VERY good actress indeed. I think cases like this are generally helped by the husband ignoring the evidence of not being loved in favour of having a beautiful young wife.

Also, I took the statement that you cannot know if you are being loved to refer to more than just 2 people. I know my BF loves me, but I also know my mother loves me, I know my friends love me, and I know my brother and grandparents love me. I have decades of evidence.


Decades of subjective evidance yes.

This thread has made me think so much about the concept of love and all its gradations. I don't know if it's the headaches I've been suffering or that I am deeply exhausted, but I feel slightly lightheaded thinking about a few things I spoke with someone not 2 days ago.

Must one love someone to really feel something for a person? Must love be involved? I'm beginning to think love, although an amazing emotion, is not necessary to maintain a stable relationship. Feeling is necessary, but is love? And when I say feeling, there's a wide range of the term. Perhaps I'm delusional, as Peep's title goes.

Okay well I would go with:

A belife for which there is no conclusive objective proof. A belife is God is delusional not because it has been proved false and yet peopel still belive. It is delsuional because theer is no evidance to support the propersition.
This part makes sense.
The belife that you are loved, is based upon trust, and not conclusive objective proof, thus I claim it is delsuional.
But then this just sounds paranoid. The people around you demonstrate that they love you, don't they? That's evidence, and that's something you don't have for God.
Your edit makes a good point, but where science is conserned somebody has written down the experiments and the results, we could in theory all perform them to see for our selves, but somebody has already done that and provided objective evidence to support it.

Yes there is an element of trust in that, but the objective evidence is there for all to look through.
It is only objective for them, though. The moment I hear about it, it is subjective, and I have to take it on faith that physicists are just inventing silly words and diagrams, then retreating to their underground lairs to laugh at what fools the masses are.

Again though that assumes that we cannot be godlike. We just don't know, you are in fact engaging in your belife that we cannot be god like, there is no evidance that we cannot, so that to is a delusinal belife.
that still doesnt address my point.

My partner and I have been together for 7 years, and we don't say "I love you." I don't find "I love you" to be useful phrase.

When people say they love each other, sometimes it means "I'd really like to fuck you." Other times it means "You're getting on a flight and you'll be away for a week and I will miss you." Other times it means "Golly your pretty" or "You just said something profoundly awesome" or "This was a great evening together" or "I'm so very sorry for making an ass of myself the other day" or any of a million other things.

So as to whether it's a delusion to think that people love you, I guess to me the delusion is in thinking that's an important question. It's possible for somebody to 'love' you and still treat you like ass, so why not focus on the more important stuff? Like how they actually think and feel and behave toward you, specifically? Whether or not they love you is often completely beside the point.

I think the #1 delusion is that we can have control over anything outside of our own choice.

The #2 delusion is that our personal choice is just that - utterly personal, as in "it makes no difference to anyone else." ALL our choices have a cumulative effect that ripples out into the lives of those we know, those we don't know, and into the next generation (or more).

This part makes sense.

But then this just sounds paranoid. The people around you demonstrate that they love you, don't they? That's evidence, and that's something you don't have for God.

It is only objective for them, though. The moment I hear about it, it is subjective, and I have to take it on faith that physicists are just inventing silly words and diagrams, then retreating to their underground lairs to laugh at what fools the masses are.

I don't think you are getting me.

The people that love me demonstrate this, yes. So that is evidance that I am loved. However it is not objective or certifiable.

I also have evidance that God exists, it though is not objective nor certifiable.

The evidance of science is objective, even if you have not performed the experiment you can verify that it has been done, and that the results are as published.

that still doesnt address my point.

I'm sorry, please can you let me know what it was again?

My partner and I have been together for 7 years, and we don't say "I love you." I don't find "I love you" to be useful phrase.
Not to pry, but do you have an alternative short phrase expressing your love for one another?

I'm sorry, please can you let me know what it was again?
the basic point was that there is no equivalent between the problem if knowing whether or not there is a god and the problem of knowing whether or not your loved ones love you.

at the heart you are trying to equate knowing your own experience (in this case of god) with knowing the experience of someone else. they are 2 far different problems.

the equivalent would be "is god real or is it a delusion" and "is my own feeling of love real or is it a delusion"

Not to pry, but do you have an alternative short phrase expressing your love for one another?
Not a stock phrase, no.

If he just did something awesome and made me happy, that's what I tell him. If he's sad I'm going away for the weekend because he'll miss having me around, that's what he tells me. If I just randomly look over and realize that I'm damn lucky to have such a great person in my life, that's what I say.

The problem is the word delusion.

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception.

God can not be proven to be a false idea since there is a lack of proof either way

Derived from deception. Deception may or may not imply blameworthiness, since it may suggest cheating or merely tactical resource <magicians are masters of deception>. Did someone knowingly lie to us not according to everything that was written in the Bible.


So that leaves only one

Fanciful - marked by fancy or unrestrained imagination rather than by reason and experience <a fanciful person>

Some could argue that it was not the believers unrestrained imagination but it was based upon the word of those people would claim direct experience in dealing with God.

What this argument shows is reality and how it is perceived. You may say you love someone. That someone may say they love you too. If that person acts as a person would who was in love, then by our definition of love, there would be no difference between "love" and "fake love". We can't even really define what love is other than an emotion. The best you can say is that person seems to be in love with me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty

Uncertainty: The lack of certainty, A state of having limited knowledge where it is impossible to exactly describe existing state or future outcome, more than one possible outcome

I think a better definition might be:

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds an idea where there may be some uncertainty to be true.

The problem is the word delusion.

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception.

God can not be proven to be a false idea since there is a lack of proof either way

Derived from deception. Deception may or may not imply blameworthiness, since it may suggest cheating or merely tactical resource <magicians are masters of deception>. Did someone knowingly lie to us not according to everything that was written in the Bible.


So that leaves only one

Fanciful - marked by fancy or unrestrained imagination rather than by reason and experience <a fanciful person>

Some could argue that it was not the believers unrestrained imagination but it was based upon the word of those people would claim direct experience in dealing with God.

What this argument shows is reality and how it is perceived. You may say you love someone. That someone may say they love you too. If that person acts as a person would who was in love, then by our definition of love, there would be no difference between "love" and "fake love". We can't even really define what love is other than an emotion. The best you can say is that person seems to be in love with me.
id have to agree with that.

god is a belief, thinking that god is actively smiting my enemies so that i can be ruler of all the earth is a delusion.

id have to agree with that.

god is a belief, thinking that god is actively smiting my enemies so that i can be ruler of all the earth is a delusion.

Well said. I agree. It may seem that way or it maybe coincidence.

the basic point was that there is no equivalent between the problem if knowing whether or not there is a god and the problem of knowing whether or not your loved ones love you.

at the heart you are trying to equate knowing your own experience (in this case of god) with knowing the experience of someone else. they are 2 far different problems.

the equivalent would be "is god real or is it a delusion" and "is my own feeling of love real or is it a delusion"


Ahhh I see, but that makes no sense to me. I objectivly know what my feelings are.

With both questions 'Does God exist' and 'Am I loved' I rely on the subjective evidance avaliable to me. That is the simularity.

Decades of subjective evidance yes.

Not really... a lot of the behaviour I'm talking about hasn't only been experienced by me, but also witnessed by other friends and family members.

Not really... a lot of the behaviour I'm talking about hasn't only been experienced by me, but also witnessed by other friends and family members.

Subjective in the sense that you cannot objectivly verify it.

It's about the differance between proof and evidance.

Example:

You and I are in the same room we can't see each other as there is a wheeled screen between us, but we can hear each other.

I tell you that I am currently holding a red ball in my right hand.

Proof:

I wheel the screen away and you can see that indeed I have a red ball held in my right hand:

Evidance:

I describe the ball, the feel of it, the size of it, the make of it, what material it is made of, the temprature of it.

All of which can be taken as evidance that I may well have a ball,in my right hand, in my left, balanced on my head, bouncing up and down on the floor, but you then choose whether to belive in that evidance or not.

It could be taken as proof, it could not be.

Ahhh I see, but that makes no sense to me. I objectivly know what my feelings are.

With both questions 'Does God exist' and 'Am I loved' I rely on the subjective evidance avaliable to me. That is the simularity.

I question that part in bold. Can anyone objectively know what his or her feelings are? Even if you went to psychologist the best you could come up with likley is that you seem to be in love. Since the definition is vague at best.


Few areas in life are objective in this sense can you really ever step out of yourself and objectively analyze the situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

To be objective is to adhere strictly to truth-conducive methods in one's thinking, particularly, to take into account all available information, and to avoid any form of prejudice, bias, or wishful thinking.

That is usually not possible with feelings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

An emotion is a mental and physiological state associated with a wide variety of feelings, thoughts, and behavior.Emotions are subjective experiences, or experienced from an individual point of view. Emotion is often associated with mood, temperament, personality, and disposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love

Love is any of a number of emotions and experiences related to a sense of strong affection[1] and attachment. The word love can refer to a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes, ranging from generic pleasure to intense interpersonal attraction.

Love means many things which is why we have difficulty expressing it. You can measure the effects of love through biological means but it is difficult to distinguish between one cause and another. Possibly to a doctor it may look like lust or well being or any of number of conditions. At it root it is some type of pleasure. Love is somewhat of an umbrella emotion many things could be under it.

Ahhh I see, but that makes no sense to me. I objectivly know what my feelings are.

With both questions 'Does God exist' and 'Am I loved' I rely on the subjective evidance avaliable to me. That is the simularity.
not knowing whether or not you are loved is analagous to not knowing whether or not someone else's experience is from god.

you can tell if your wife loves you by the way she has treated you for the past 25 years.