Just FYI, as I got some criticism that the list of 72 things was too long, I will be publishing a shorter list (10 things) very soon — just the most important things you can do to start the simplifying process.

Rest assured, though, that the step you’ve already done and the ones you’re doing now are still on the list.

Good luck! Let me know if you have any questions.

I’ve also updated my list:

Life—survival and the propagation of life
Knowledge—learning the truth
Peace—contentment and satisfaction
Compassion—suffering with others and working to alleviate the unnecessary pains of life—to love and be loved
Reciprocity—rendering to others what I would wish if roles were reversed

Some cultures don’t have the same meaning for love as we in our “western culture” have.

So being a fatalist, I can say there is no such thing as love because it’s a made up human concept. We social propagate toward like minded individuals. We become sexually stimulated at the thought of mating. We are attached to our young ones because we are biologically trying to ensure the survival of our species. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

You say there is no god, I say there is no love. And I’m right. You can’t prove to me that love exists. So stop trying to point it out. It doesn’t exist. It’s a made up idea.

And come up with something more real and physical.

Love is the cause of sins (for lack of a better word) against humanity and its individuals. Love is the cause of wars, lies, incest, indoctrination, abuse, divorce, selfishness, suicide, mindfuck, greed, envy, slothfulness, pride, lust, gluttony, wrath… Need I go on?

Check the news, read a novel, brush up on history.

I’ll make my case that we need love about as much as you claim we need god.

So next time you tell someone you love them, think about it.

“Emptiness is loneliness, and loneliness is cleanliness, and cleanliness is godliness, and godliness is lovingness, and love is empty just like me.”

“Imagine there’s no love. Leave it behind. No hate to follow. Let no emotions bind. Imagine all the people Living free for thought…”

“If you’ve got to belong to something, Belong to us and we’ll make you pc, Peace and Love, Incorporated.”

“I like it – I’m not gonna crack, I miss you – I’m not gonna crack, I love you – I’m not gonna crack, I killed you – I’m not gonna crack.”

You give a pretty good description of what love is: an emotional brain state. I would also say that love is the actions that we take based on those feelings. Both of those are demonstrable. I think you might enjoy Your mama’s soul doesn’t love you and Crazy Little Thing Called Love.

So what if love is a product of oxytocin? It still does all the things that I want: it feels good, it helps us to work cooperatively, etc. Lack of sufficient love causes those things that you mentioned. Love as I define it does exist and is easily observable.

It just doesn’t exist in some abstract, love-conquers-all, God-is-love kind of way. If someone wants to define God as identical to love, I could get into that. Just don’t say God created the universe. I see no reason to believe that love created the universe.

Unless we’re talking about our interior universe. Perhaps love is the center of our minds in some weird, undemonstrated way. Perhaps God/Love is the creator of the reflection of the universe which is our mind:

I tried to find Him on the Christian cross, but He was not there;
I went to the temple of the Hindus and to the old pagodas, but I could not find a trace of Him anywhere.
I searched on the mountains and in the valleys, but neither in the heights nor in the depths was I able to find Him.
I went to the Kaaba in Mecca, but He was not there either.
I questioned the scholars and philosophers, but He was beyond their understanding.
I then looked into my heart, and it was there where He dwelled that I saw Him;
He was nowhere else to be found.
—Rumi

I don’t see love as physically measurable. It’s not scientific. It has nothing to do with mathematics. Except maybe procreation… 1+1=3

Then define love. People have different definitions for god, morality, ethics. It still doesn’t make it real or positive.

And in this argument, if you want to relate god with love. That would only help to prove the point that it doesn’t exist. It’s not real. The interior universe is not measurable.

I’m not sure which point I’m trying to make which lacks proof and is useless. If it’s about the tangibility of love, well, the fact that you and I have experienced love proves that those experiences exist. Further, certain scientific studies have linked the experience of love to the action of certain hormones like oxytocin. Love is well grounded in reality.

If you object that people have also experienced God, I would point out that their experience is real and measurable. If someone wants to define God as a feeling of transcendence and a particular set of brain states, that’s fine. I believe in that God because he has been demonstrated. I’ve had those experiences myself. If that’s God, then I believe. I don’t believe, however, that those experiences connected me with the creator of the universe, or a person who answers my prayers.

Love is different than an ethical or moral system. It requires no precise definition. Morality seeks to categorize actions into “right” and “wrong”. It needs to be precisely defined in order to do its job. Love, on the other hand, is a feeling. It’s not right or wrong. It’s an emotion that we feel that motivates us to act in the interest of another person and to be favorably disposed toward them. That’s about as precise a definition as is necessary. I want to cultivate that feeling.

These things—life, knowledge, peace, compassion, and reciprocity—are my axioms. Just as I said earlier, I can’t justify my axioms any more than just saying that’s what I want. I could try to understand why I want them, but that’s not really necessary. These things are what I want.

I know what love feels like to me. I can’t prove that you and I feel the same things, but that doesn’t matter. The scientific method doesn’t dictate what I want. I want what I want, and one of those things is to continue to feel what I call love.

If we could eliminate emotion, like Vulcans, I doubt that our society would be cohesive. In fact, I doubt we would see the need to continue to exist. An emotionless community is an nihilistic one, I believe, and therefore ultimately dysfunctional.

I believe that the definition of love that I offered is accurate enough. We will continue to experience love whether or not it is properly defined. Love is still useful even if we can’t put our finger on what it is.

Not so with ethics. Ethics’ only utility is in its definitions. If you can’t consult your ethics and determine whether an action is right or wrong, then it is useless. We cannot embody what we call morality within an ethical system. At least I’ve never seen an ethical system that does. Further, each of us has our own idea of morality that more or less resembles each other’s ideas. A universal moral/ethical system can’t be defined, and is therefore useless.

Regarding love and hate. I think the problems you describe arise because of an exclusive kind of love which values self, friends, and family to the exclusion of others. Or they are the problems due to the perversion of love into the hatred of a formerly loved person. They are not problems inherent in an inclusive, universal love.