Okay, let's recap.
As part of an argument against the existence of God, I state I don't believe in God - that to believe in either God or Love is something that, if you're a man of Faith, takes belief - takes Faith. To a logician (in this case, stated as a person believe solely in Logic) there would have to be a trail, a kind of logical set of steps, in order to prove it solely through logic. Since that seemingly isn't the case, to believe in God is an act of total faith and to try and prove it using "proof" is ill-founded.
From this, I moved onto Love, not actually the point of my argument merely a by-product. I was, in fact, only using it as an example - that seemingly this ill-defined, romantic notion of Love is simply chemicals, plain and simple. Your attraction for someone isn't voluntary (much as you'd like to believe so) and yet people believe it to be "other-worldly", "spiritual" or "ethereal". It isn't.
Then, boyWonder, I claimed that to believe in Love is like trying to believe in Lust as a notion. It's just a drive, a chemical necessity in order to get the male of the species to stick around long enough.
Here's where the kicker is kid. Your claim is that I falsely claim to not be a romantic. You then claim I don't act as I say. This is untrue. I don't believe in "love" in the way of a romantic - I do, however, believe that that chemical imbalance, that time of "being in love", is the happiest you can be and that this happiness is entirely chemical.
For example: If you drink 14 beers then claim that "drunk" is an ethereal state, a kind of total bliss, necessary for existence and happiness.
So, what I'm saying kid, is that while I'm not for "love", I'm all for the feeling of that state. I believe in chemicals dude.
As for your claims that my poetry, letter writing etc is a sign of my "romantic" side. Wrong, kid. Just because you're artistic or a writer doesn't make you a romantic.
You're arguing as a romantic and thus see through a romantic's eyes. I guess that's where we're going to differ in opinion. While I see my actions as normal for someone who wants to be in that state of chemical madness and happiness you see them as "romantic" - meaning what exactly? That you can simper over them? Or what? Define romance, kid. As for my turning down of girls, etc. Hell. I like Emily. I don't deny this. And I'd feel weird kissing those other girls, for the simple reason they wouldn't be her. But hell, that's all chemical too. My body/psyche figures she chemically perfect/looks like my mother/whatever else Freudian - I had the chance I'd get to choose who I like. I don't however.
Your entire second paragraph I find kinda baseless as well. You're arguing as a romantic, claiming things that are kinda hard to prove or are kinda evident. If I was a drunk I'd hang out with different people too - doesn't make my drinking any kind of "spritual" thing.
By the way, to any casual readers: I've never been in love and, to my knowledge, neither has Bright.
Fuck. It's all stupid terminology and baseless bickering anyway.