My problem with the scientific criticism is that they were not based on sources that discuss this argument. If we can just use any sources to make our own claims, why not cite the Catholic church sex abuse scandals, news stories about God's Bigmouths and their homosexual prostitutes, some sources about the revenue of the US porn industry, and I'm sure we can find good sources about the divorce rate... There are plenty of sources we could use to back up the claim that the human track record on love, even that of deeply religious individuals, is precisely what you would expect from a creature made in the image of King Kong.
My understanding is that Wikipedia is not a debate Wiki. Even if the above criticism can be substantiated with reliable sources, it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is much more professional to cite what academic philosophers, theologians, and popular atheists that have written explicitly about this argument. Vesal (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
The article was extensively debated on AfD it should not be emasculated afterwards by one of the AfD proponents. (I'm sorry it took me ages to notice I've been on a big wikibreak) NBeale (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
- The close was "Keep but remove WP:OR and WP:SYNTH." Now, you have reintroduced the problematic sections. Do you have a source that identifies the proposition "there are compelling reasons for considering love to exist in a way that transcends its physical manifestations" as a "main premise" for a logical outline of this argument? Vesal (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Animals often can be seen to love each other, and even to love humans. What about the experience of love in animals, who are obviously unable to conceive of a religious basis for their love? Torquemama007 (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
