The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Northman on June 13, 2016, 09:43:54 AM

Title: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Northman on June 13, 2016, 09:43:54 AM
I am an atheist, and many flat-Earthers I have talked to get angry at me for it. What is wrong with Atheism? Do I REALLY need a religion to be moral? What If I don't agree with any religious moral principles (homosexuality, gender equality, etc.)?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on June 14, 2016, 01:17:53 AM
Good start to a conversation, but maybe this should be in Philosophy, Religion & Society?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Roundy on June 14, 2016, 02:44:22 AM
You won't have that problem here, my friend.  A lot of FEers here are atheist.  Now, I assume that being an atheist you are a FEer yourself? 
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rounder on June 14, 2016, 12:31:19 PM
Now, I assume that being an atheist you are a FEer yourself?

What does one have to do with the other?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Charming Anarchist on June 14, 2016, 01:44:20 PM
You have talked to many flat-Earthers, have you??   and they give a shit about your faith, do they???? 
Okee dokee.  We will just pretend there is no shillery going on here. 

Do I REALLY need a religion to be moral?
Reality check:  You do not need to be moral. 

Here is a challenge for you:  Define the words "religion" and "moral" for yourself.  Try to be as clear as possible so that a person who has never heard those words before will understand you. 
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Roundy on June 17, 2016, 05:50:51 PM
Now, I assume that being an atheist you are a FEer yourself?

What does one have to do with the other?

Well, RE science has gotten itself into a bit of a pickle, imho.  In explaining the wonders of the universe down to almost the minutest detail, you've created a number of variables that, if even off slightly, would not have allowed life to exist (no, I'm not talking about the so-called "Goldilocks zone", you guys have covered that one brilliantly; what I speak of is more a "Goldilocks universe", a universe that was juuuuuuuust right for life to exist).

It just makes much more sense for such a universe to have been created, because otherwise you're looking at a statistically impossible coincidence that things turned out so perfect for life.  And if it was created, there is a creator, QED.

So it really makes no sense for me to be a REer and not believe in God.

On the other hand, FET is so wide-open and unexplored, its deepest mysteries have yet to be revealed.  It may come about that after exhaustive research into the origins of the universe we will run into the same issue.  But there's no reason to assume it at this point, so it's perfectly reasonable to be a FEer and also be an atheist.

Do I REALLY need a religion to be moral? What If I don't agree with any religious moral principles (homosexuality, gender equality, etc.)?

I see that you were probably a "one and done", but I thought this was worth addressing too in case you do come back.  It's easy to be religious and disagree with some of your religion's doctrines about morality.  I know lots of people who are able to achieve this.  All you have to do is turn your brain off and pretend it makes sense to pick and choose what you want to believe out of whichever book it is that you believe in that was supposedly transcribed by an infallible God.  That's all!
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: rabinoz on June 18, 2016, 08:19:32 AM

Well, RE science has gotten itself into a bit of a pickle, imho.  In explaining the wonders of the universe down to almost the minutest detail, you've created a number of variables that, if even off slightly, would not have allowed life to exist (no, I'm not talking about the so-called "Goldilocks zone", you guys have covered that one brilliantly; what I speak of is more a "Goldilocks universe", a universe that was juuuuuuuust right for life to exist).

It just makes much more sense for such a universe to have been created, because otherwise you're looking at a statistically impossible coincidence that things turned out so perfect for life.  And if it was created, there is a creator, QED.

So it really makes no sense for me to be a REer and not believe in God.


You say "Well, RE science has gotten itself into a bit of a pickle, imho" when rather than "RE science", what you are really criticising is "modern Cosmology".
In my opinion at least the only connection between "modern Cosmology" and whether the earth is flat or a globe is that it would be completely irrelevant if the earth were flat.

For most people the flat ~ globe issue was settled over two millennia ago and rotating earth 300 to 400 years ago.
Astronomers up to the start of the 20th century were restricted to the solar system and our own galaxy. The distances to some stars could be estimated by parallax, others had been guessed simply on the basis of apparent brightness.

But, my point is that all these people simply accepted the Heliocentric Globe as a given.

If you restricted you criticism to "modern Cosmology has gotten itself into a bit of a pickle," I would be much more in agreement, though some recent observations (gravitational lensing and gravitational waves - a bit more questionable so far) are certainly interesting.

But I don't think that the flat ~ globe issue is connected with modern Cosmology.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rounder on June 18, 2016, 04:39:26 PM
Well, RE science has ... a "Goldilocks universe", a universe that was juuuuuuuust right for life to exist ... makes much more sense for such a universe to have been created ... And if it was created, there is a creator, QED.  So it really makes no sense for me to be a REer and not believe in God.

On the other hand, FET is so wide-open and unexplored ... it's perfectly reasonable to be a FEer and also be an atheist.

I think your logic is unique (as in "You're all alone in this") and the majority of FE and RE do not think/believe the way you've proposed.  What I've seen here and elsewhere is that the more strict or fundamentalist one's belief in God, the more likely one is to engage in "God versus science" thinking, starting with evolution and ending with six-literal-day-creation and what that means about the nature of the universe.  They'll be happy if the razor's edge value of some cosmological value causes a scientist to believe there must be a Creator, but they'll still not believe the "Big Bang and billions of years" model that got him there.  And the more science one rejects, the more plausible it seems that God created just for Man a unique flat disc at the center of a tiny universe.  The more science one accepts, on the other hand, the more plausible it must seem that Man arose by chance on an otherwise unremarkable round rock much the same as billions of other round rocks, orbiting a star no different than a billion-billion other stars, located in a place NOT at the center of anything, much less the center of EVERYTHING.

Plus: The only people I've ever seen here at TFES who have invoked theological arguments to support one side or the other have been Flat Earthers.  It goes all the way back to Rowbotham himself, who spends a good part of Earth Not A Globe Chapter XIII (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm) trying to demonstrate that Hell is a real physical place under the ocean of the earth (singular 'ocean' used on purpose, go read Chapter XII (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm) to see why) and quotes extensively from the Bible throughout the book, listing these citations under the heading "Scripture Proofs" in his index.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on June 21, 2016, 09:21:31 PM
If one is on a bus and the bus is going a steady speed one's relative velocity will be the same as the busses and they will be able to move around the compartment as if they were on solid ground.  When acceloration is induced the velocity changes; since you are going from o acceleration to magnitude greater than zero there is a change in acceleration.  This change is called a jerk.  If you were on this same bus and it speeded up or slowed down you would find it very difficult to keep your balance and you would need something to hold onto.  The same would happen if you turned a corner.  You would feel the change in acceleration meaning you would feel the jerk.

Engineers define the jerk as J(t)=da/dt.  In three space acceleration is a vector quantity and the Del operator working on the acceleration vector components produces a gradient.  The gradient defines the magnitude and direction of the jerk.  Consider a point on the surface of the earth.   The velocity of this point at any given time is a summation of vectors.   We go around the moon just as much as it goes around us.   Therefore there is a tangential velocity vector from orbiting the moon.  Same with the sun.   Same with galaxy rotation...and perhaps, galaxies are rotating around something.  Anyway, these velocity vectors change therefore there is acceleration.   And it is clear that the acceleration vectors have to change also.  Thus we are subject to jerks.   But, nobody ever feels any jerks.  I find this strange.   A bus speeds up only a few miles an hour and it almost knocks you over.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on June 22, 2016, 12:55:45 PM
What is wrong with atheism is that it is nihilism.  Religion provides unifying political principles; basically a hierarchy and division of labor without which civilization would be impossible.  I define politics as the art of getting large numbers of people to build and maintain civilization.  Materialism/atheism are incapable of inspiring the masses therefore they are feckless with respect to being effective politically.

Is civilization a good thing? 
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: JohnDavis on June 23, 2016, 02:17:56 PM
My problem with atheism is that it delivers on none of the promises that support such a bold move.

They promise it is more reasonable, and yet I see as many fallacies come out of atheist reasoning as I do fundamentalist religion. They claim its equally moral, and yet I don't see this in the actions of atheists or out of non-religiously based groups in general like science. They say religion is so often hate based - and yet again the rhetoric of the atheist matches if not outstrips this hate. They are also a tyrannical belief - they will not tolerate religion existing side by side with atheism. They say there is some sort of war between religion and reason - this is patently against history and fact.

In general, I find the atheist is as faithful and dogmatic as any follower of a religion. They rely far more on how intelligent they think they are compared to folks they paint to look like they believe Zeus is throwing around lightning bolts. Mostly I'm against it because there is no real benefit. Like Love pointed out religion has served us quite well over the years. Atheism has yet to contribute anything. They believe what they do because they were taught it and gobbled it up whole.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on June 23, 2016, 03:45:08 PM
My problem with atheism is that it delivers on none of the promises that support such a bold move.

They promise it is more reasonable, and yet I see as many fallacies come out of atheist reasoning as I do fundamentalist religion. They claim its equally moral, and yet I don't see this in the actions of atheists or out of non-religiously based groups in general like science. They say religion is so often hate based - and yet again the rhetoric of the atheist matches if not outstrips this hate. They are also a tyrannical belief - they will not tolerate religion existing side by side with atheism. They say there is some sort of war between religion and reason - this is patently against history and fact.

In general, I find the atheist is as faithful and dogmatic as any follower of a religion. They rely far more on how intelligent they think they are compared to folks they paint to look like they believe Zeus is throwing around lightning bolts. Mostly I'm against it because there is no real benefit. Like Love pointed out religion has served us quite well over the years. Atheism has yet to contribute anything. They believe what they do because they were taught it and gobbled it up whole.

Atheism promises nothing.
For me it was the realisation that the universe is much simpler and more beautiful than I had been taught.

It isn’t more reasonable, it is reason. A word you have to suspend in respect to religion.

It is only as moral as the person practising, the same as religion.

Hate again is a human failing, that is why it is in all we do, but I don’t see bloody sectarian conflict between scientific factions, only on paper.

I tolerate the religious, both in society and in my family, I was bought up as one, most of us were.

Contributions to anything? It’s an abstract, it’s people not believing in something, what is it meant to do? As for atheist's contributing, some do some don’t, the same as the religious community.
Alan Turing, Stephen Hawking, Thomas Edison, make your own mind up.

Religion has served us well, up to a point. At its best it can comfort the grieving, bring people together, promote tolerance, encourage learning and was the precursor to science. You don’t need me to list the antithesis of these points, they are well documented and that is the point. If the whole world suddenly went atheist, Buddhist, Baptist or typist the bad would do bad, the good would do good and most of us would carry on in-between.

What it will never do is get us to the truth, because there is no creator, it’s just wishful thinking by those afraid of dying.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 01, 2016, 01:31:01 PM
Hate is not a human "failing". The root of hate is fear, is fear a human failing?

Socialized religions are non-moral, that is, they contain both moral and immoral individuals. Religions are not God, they are man's interpretation of God and their frailties and inequities do not disprove the existence of God. The proof of God is that man is capable of love, belief in God does not require the abandonment of reason.

To believe in God is not necessarily driven by a fear of death, it can simply be a belief that something exists beyond man.

There is a preponderance of evidence that the earth is round. In order for it be flat there would have to be millenniums of liars along with photos, first hand accounts, satellites in orbit, etc. that would have to be ignored or otherwise explained to accept a flat world. Socialized religions are based on faith and faith is blind acceptance of the unknown. For this reason individuals who live by faith are more willing to accept a flat world.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 01, 2016, 02:05:07 PM

Fear is not a failing, translating that fear to hate, is.

I'm not sure how the existence of love is proof of god, the evolutionary explanation, that an intense feeling towards those who share genes, or those who may serve as conduits to the future of them, or even those in a close community sharing resource and danger thereby creating a cooperative and protective group that is more liable to survive than an individual, would explain love without the need of god.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 02, 2016, 12:29:58 PM

Fear is not a failing, translating that fear to hate, is.

I'm not sure how the existence of love is proof of god, the evolutionary explanation, that an intense feeling towards those who share genes, or those who may serve as conduits to the future of them, or even those in a close community sharing resource and danger thereby creating a cooperative and protective group that is more liable to survive than an individual, would explain love without the need of god.

Xenophobia, fear of the strange or uncommon. What are we fearing? We are fearing the unknown, it's a defense mechanism and the root of that fear in the brain is the amygdala. We hate those who don't perceive reality as we do. Our reality is threatened we are afraid. Is that a failing or a protection mechanism? Greed, we fear not having enough, food, air, whatever. Is it a failing or a defense mechanism?

Your child needs your heart to survive, do you give it? Sure, we all do. Science? Science says let the weak die and have more healthier offspring for a better chance of genetic survival. Self preservation, man's greatest drive, even single cell organism strive for self preservation but we still give our life for the dying child. We do it because our love for our child is greater than our own existence. What are we thinking, pondering, our genes? We only see the dying child and our belief that Sartre's eternal nothingness awaits us is unimportant.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 02, 2016, 04:33:43 PM
Xenophobia, fear of the strange or uncommon. What are we fearing? We are fearing the unknown, it's a defense mechanism and the root of that fear in the brain is the amygdala. We hate those who don't perceive reality as we do.

Meh. Speak for yourself...

Quote
Science? Science says let the weak die and have more healthier offspring for a better chance of genetic survival. Self preservation, man's greatest drive, even single cell organism strive for self preservation but we still give our life for the dying child.

That's not what "science" says. The process of evolution tends to reward preservation of the species, but it doesn't necessarily instill an innate drive to preserve the species or self above all else.

T
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 02, 2016, 06:50:12 PM
Xenophobia, fear of the strange or uncommon. What are we fearing? We are fearing the unknown, it's a defense mechanism and the root of that fear in the brain is the amygdala. We hate those who don't perceive reality as we do.

Meh. Speak for yourself...

Quote
Science? Science says let the weak die and have more healthier offspring for a better chance of genetic survival. Self preservation, man's greatest drive, even single cell organism strive for self preservation but we still give our life for the dying child.

That's not what "science" says. The process of evolution tends to reward preservation of the species, but it doesn't necessarily instill an innate drive to preserve the species or self above all else.

T

"Self-preservation is a behavior that ensures the survival of an organism.[1] It is almost universal among living organisms.[citation needed] Pain and fear are parts of this mechanism. Pain motivates the individual to withdraw from damaging situations, to protect a damaged body part while it heals, and to avoid similar experiences in the future.[2] Most pain resolves promptly once the painful stimulus is removed and the body has healed, but sometimes pain persists despite removal of the stimulus and apparent healing of the body; and sometimes pain arises in the absence of any detectable stimulus, damage or disease.[3] Fear causes the organism to seek safety and may cause a release of adrenaline,[4][5] which has the effect of increased strength and heightened senses such as hearing, smell, and sight. Self-preservation may also be interpreted figuratively; in regard to the coping mechanisms one needs to prevent emotional trauma from distorting the mind (see: defence mechanism.)
Even the most simple of living organisms (for example, the single-celled bacteria) are typically under intense selective pressure to evolve a response to avoid a damaging environment, if such an environment exists."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation

Speak for myself about what? That a challenge to our reality angers us? Anger is fear, (unfulfilled expectations). That those living in a reality that doesn't fit our paradigm scares us? It does.

What is more important in your life than loving and being loved? What is life worth without compassion? If everyone you love disavowed ever loving you, what would your life be worth?

R

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 02, 2016, 07:27:02 PM


That's not what "science" says. The process of evolution tends to reward preservation of the species, but it doesn't necessarily instill an innate drive to preserve the species or self above all else.

T

Is math science? What's the probability of letting the child die and impregnating 100 women? 
"Innate drive"? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake, immediately you jump back. Is thought involved? No, the brain short circuits to the fear center. Now you look down and see it is only a stick, now we are thinking.
Your child is dying are you functioning through an innate response. You're thinking my child is dying, I' m not interested in more offspring, I'm not interested in the gene pool theory or any other theory, I'm in the immediate, the reality of right now. I'm an atheist but I don't care that I believe I face an eternal void. The dying child isn't a scientific theory it's a reality that I'm confronted with.

You want to give me a theory? You save your child because of a theory? No, you do everything you can to save you child out of complete and utter compassion. We all do. Loving and being loved is the core of human existence.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 02, 2016, 07:33:22 PM
Xenophobia, fear of the strange or uncommon. What are we fearing? We are fearing the unknown, it's a defense mechanism and the root of that fear in the brain is the amygdala. We hate those who don't perceive reality as we do.

Meh. Speak for yourself...

Quote
Science? Science says let the weak die and have more healthier offspring for a better chance of genetic survival. Self preservation, man's greatest drive, even single cell organism strive for self preservation but we still give our life for the dying child.

That's not what "science" says. The process of evolution tends to reward preservation of the species, but it doesn't necessarily instill an innate drive to preserve the species or self above all else.

T

"Self-preservation is a behavior that ensures the survival of an organism.[1] It is almost universal among living organisms.[citation needed] Pain and fear are parts of this mechanism. Pain motivates the individual to withdraw from damaging situations, to protect a damaged body part while it heals, and to avoid similar experiences in the future.[2] Most pain resolves promptly once the painful stimulus is removed and the body has healed, but sometimes pain persists despite removal of the stimulus and apparent healing of the body; and sometimes pain arises in the absence of any detectable stimulus, damage or disease.[3] Fear causes the organism to seek safety and may cause a release of adrenaline,[4][5] which has the effect of increased strength and heightened senses such as hearing, smell, and sight. Self-preservation may also be interpreted figuratively; in regard to the coping mechanisms one needs to prevent emotional trauma from distorting the mind (see: defence mechanism.)
Even the most simple of living organisms (for example, the single-celled bacteria) are typically under intense selective pressure to evolve a response to avoid a damaging environment, if such an environment exists."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation

Yes, that agrees exactly with what I said. Please notice: nowhere did it say that self preservation is man's greatest drive, above all else.

Quote
Speak for myself about what?

"We are fearing the unknown" ... "We hate those who don't perceive reality as we do."

Don't include me in your we. Be careful about projecting your own fears/hatreds onto everyone else. Yes, most people probably fear the unknown to some extent. The hatred part seems a bit too extreme to generalize to everyone though.

Quote
What is more important in your life than loving and being loved? What is life worth without compassion? If everyone you love disavowed ever loving you, what would your life be worth?

Sonny, true love is the greatest thing in the world - except for a nice MLT - mutton, lettuce, and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomatoes are ripe. They're so perky, I love that.

Quote
R

T
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 02, 2016, 07:46:35 PM


That's not what "science" says. The process of evolution tends to reward preservation of the species, but it doesn't necessarily instill an innate drive to preserve the species or self above all else.

T

Is math science? What's the probability of letting the child die and impregnating 100 women? 

Depends on your definition of science. I would say that math is a type of science. As for your second question... I have no earthly idea, and I have no idea why it is relevant.

"Science says" is a common phrase used by people who don't have the first clue what "science says". Just try to avoid it, please. Science has many definitions, but it isn't a force of nature. It doesn't tell people what to do, although people can act on knowledge gained through scientific pursuits.

Quote
"Innate drive"? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake, immediately you jump back. Is thought involved? No, the brain short circuits to the fear center. Now you look down and see it is only a stick, now we are thinking. Your child is dying are you functioning through an innate response. You're thinking my child is dying, I' m not interested in more offspring, I'm not interested in the gene pool theory or any other theory, I'm in the immediate, the reality of right now. I'm an atheist but I don't care that I believe I face an eternal void. The dying child isn't a scientific theory it's a reality that I'm confronted with.

I think you are confusing the word "innate" with "instinctual" "reflexive".

Quote
You want to give me a theory? You save your child because of a theory? No, you do everything you can to save you child out of complete and utter compassion. We all do. Loving and being loved is the core of human existence.

No, you don't save your child because of a theory. You save your child because most people have an innate desire to protect their children. They love their children. Evolution is just a theory that explains how this innate desire, or love, originated in our species.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 02, 2016, 08:56:12 PM


That's not what "science" says. The process of evolution tends to reward preservation of the species, but it doesn't necessarily instill an innate drive to preserve the species or self above all else.

T

Is math science? What's the probability of letting the child die and impregnating 100 women? 

Depends on your definition of science. I would say that math is a type of science. As for your second question... I have no earthly idea, and I have no idea why it is relevant.

"Science says" is a common phrase used by people who don't have the first clue what "science says". Just try to avoid it, please. Science has many definitions, but it isn't a force of nature. It doesn't tell people what to do, although people can act on knowledge gained through scientific pursuits.

Quote
"Innate drive"? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake, immediately you jump back. Is thought involved? No, the brain short circuits to the fear center. Now you look down and see it is only a stick, now we are thinking. Your child is dying are you functioning through an innate response. You're thinking my child is dying, I' m not interested in more offspring, I'm not interested in the gene pool theory or any other theory, I'm in the immediate, the reality of right now. I'm an atheist but I don't care that I believe I face an eternal void. The dying child isn't a scientific theory it's a reality that I'm confronted with.

I think you are confusing the word "innate" with "instinctual" "reflexive".

Quote
You want to give me a theory? You save your child because of a theory? No, you do everything you can to save you child out of complete and utter compassion. We all do. Loving and being loved is the core of human existence.

No, you don't save your child because of a theory. You save your child because most people have an innate desire to protect their children. They love their children. Evolution is just a theory that explains how this innate desire, or love, originated in our species.

in·nate
iˈnāt/Submit
adjective
inborn; natural.
"her innate capacity for organization"
synonyms:   inborn, inbred, inherent, indwelling, natural, intrinsic, instinctive, intuitive, unlearned;

Semantics. "Science says", nonsense, "we" more nonsense. Do you want to debate or do you want to skirt the issues and waste my time talking about sandwiches?

You have an innate desire to save your child? What's the source of that innate desire, the reason? We know the center of fear in the brain, is it out of fear? Your child is dying, you can give your heart at the expense of your own existence. What happened to self preservation? What happened to human thinking? You don't know your life will end? You absolutely know and the atheist also believe it's eternal. That's what you're thinking. Innate has nothing to do with it.

"Sonny, true love is the greatest thing in the world - except for a nice MLT - mutton, lettuce, and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomatoes are ripe. They're so perky, I love that."

And spare me the condescension and nonsense. Unless you're over 70, you're my junior. "True love"? What is true love, what's it's origin? Why do we need it, can't we function perfectly well without it? You're giving me a theory? Anything I can get from you I can get from a book, something someone else already thought of.

Again,everyone who loves you disavows ever loving you, what's your life worth? Why? You still eat, procreate and survive.

R



Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 02, 2016, 10:02:29 PM

Nobody is arguing that love isn't a thing, just its root cause, there are many cases of animals  defending their young in much the same way as you have described.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN9_gd0Knt0
Is this love? We can't know, personally I believe it is, either way it has the same outcome, continuation of the line. The mother, father or wildebeest isn't thinking in those terms, it is following those in built drives that command it to put its life on the line for its child, for you god puts it there for me it's evolution.
But if love is proof of god why does the wildebeest who is only a bit player do it? Last I heard they don't get to go to heaven.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 02, 2016, 10:19:19 PM

Nobody is arguing that love isn't a thing, just its root cause, there are many cases of animals  defending their young in much the same way as you have described.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN9_gd0Knt0
Is this love? We can't know, personally I believe it is, either way it has the same outcome, continuation of the line. The mother, father or wildebeest isn't thinking in those terms, it is following those in built drives that command it to put its life on the line for its child, for you god puts it there for me it's evolution.
But if love is proof of god why does the wildebeest who is only a bit player do it? Last I heard they don't get to go to heaven.

We have enough trouble understanding homo sapiens, let's leave the animals out of it.

"Last I heard they don't get to go to heaven."

Who did you hear that from? Personally I don't believe in "heaven" but since you do maybe you could tell me about it.

R

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: George on July 02, 2016, 10:27:52 PM
You seem very angry about this for no apparent reason.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 02, 2016, 10:28:15 PM
Did you see that "We" in my reply Totesnotreptilian? See definition 2 below.

Definition of we
1
:  I and the rest of a group that includes me :  you and I :  you and I and another or others :  I and another or others not including you —used as pronoun of the first person plural — compare i, our, ours, us
2
: Used by writers to keep an impersonal character

Get it now?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 02, 2016, 10:32:09 PM
You seem very angry about this for no apparent reason.

Not in the least. Intense, yes sometimes, but not angry. Get angry at words on a page that reflect someone's opinion?

Do you have something constructive to add to the debate?
R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 02, 2016, 11:15:25 PM

Nobody is arguing that love isn't a thing, just its root cause, there are many cases of animals  defending their young in much the same way as you have described.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN9_gd0Knt0
Is this love? We can't know, personally I believe it is, either way it has the same outcome, continuation of the line. The mother, father or wildebeest isn't thinking in those terms, it is following those in built drives that command it to put its life on the line for its child, for you god puts it there for me it's evolution.
But if love is proof of god why does the wildebeest who is only a bit player do it? Last I heard they don't get to go to heaven.

I just took a second look at your post, you do make a lot of assumptions.

"The mother, father or wildebeest isn't thinking in those terms"

I have no idea what terms they're thinking in, enlighten me!

I have no idea what their concept of death is, enlighten me on that too.

Bit player? I have no idea whatsoever what their role is, if indeed they have one or their relationship to God, if indeed they have one of those.

You "think it is" love? What is love then? Maybe you should have a conversation with Totesnotreptilian, she knows all about "true love". (she's a little weak on vocabulary and grammar though so don't ask her about any of that hard stuff!)

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 03, 2016, 05:13:16 AM
Quote
Quote
"Innate drive"? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake, immediately you jump back. Is thought involved? No, the brain short circuits to the fear center. Now you look down and see it is only a stick, now we are thinking. Your child is dying are you functioning through an innate response. You're thinking my child is dying, I' m not interested in more offspring, I'm not interested in the gene pool theory or any other theory, I'm in the immediate, the reality of right now. I'm an atheist but I don't care that I believe I face an eternal void. The dying child isn't a scientific theory it's a reality that I'm confronted with.

I think you are confusing the word "innate" with "instinctual" "reflexive".

in·nate
iˈnāt/Submit
adjective
inborn; natural.
"her innate capacity for organization"
synonyms:   inborn, inbred, inherent, indwelling, natural, intrinsic, instinctive, intuitive, unlearned;

Please notice that I crossed out instinctual and replaced it with reflexive. I realized as soon as I posted it that instinctual was the wrong word. You were confusing innate with reflexive.

Quote
Semantics. "Science says", nonsense, "we" more nonsense. Do you want to debate or do you want to skirt the issues and waste my time talking about sandwiches?

Feel free to ignore the "science says" comment. It was merely a suggestion. Every time I hear that phrase, alarm bells go off in my head telling me that I am about to hear something stupid. It rarely fails.

As for the "we" comment...

Did you see that "We" in my reply Totesnotreptilian? See definition 2 below.

2: Used by writers to keep an impersonal character

Get it now?

Yes, I am aware of the various literary uses of the word "we". When you used the word "we", you seemed to be talking about humanity as a whole. Hence, my objection.

Quote
Quote
"Sonny, true love is the greatest thing in the world - except for a nice MLT - mutton, lettuce, and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomatoes are ripe. They're so perky, I love that."

And spare me the condescension and nonsense. Unless you're over 70, you're my junior. "True love"? What is true love, what's it's origin? Why do we need it, can't we function perfectly well without it? You're giving me a theory? Anything I can get from you I can get from a book, something someone else already thought of.

No condescension intended. It's just a quote from a movie, The Princess Bride. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4ftmOI5NnI&t=88) Fantastic movie, highly recommended. The quote just fit too perfectly to pass up.

Quote
You have an innate desire to save your child? What's the source of that innate desire, the reason? We know the center of fear in the brain, is it out of fear? Your child is dying, you can give your heart at the expense of your own existence. What happened to self preservation? What happened to human thinking? You don't know your life will end? You absolutely know and the atheist also believe it's eternal. That's what you're thinking. Innate has nothing to do with it.

1. I don't know if anyone pinpointed a source love in the human brain. I am not sure why that is relevant though. The brain is extremely complex, and we really know very little about it.
2. I honestly have no idea where you are going with this "innate" argument. There are many things that factor into making a decision to sacrifice oneself for one's child. Self preservation, parental instincts, love. Evolution provides a reasonable explanation for the origin of all of them.

Quote
Again,everyone who loves you disavows ever loving you, what's your life worth? Why? You still eat, procreate and survive.

Like Jura said, no one is arguing that love isn't important, or that it doesn't exist. I am merely stating that evolution provides a reasonable explanation for it's existence.

Quote
Maybe you should have a conversation with Totesnotreptilian, she knows all about "true love". (she's a little weak on vocabulary and grammar though so don't ask her about any of that hard stuff!)

Eh?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 03, 2016, 02:21:25 PM
Definition of instinct
1
:  a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>
2
a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
b :  behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level


Please with this nonsense, I'm not confusing anything, what happens? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake. You jump back, is thought involved? No, sensory information goes right to the the amygdala, the center of fear in the brain.

I did ignore the "science says" and We? Just nitpicking, do you want to debate the issue or not?

The quote fit what perfectly? Are you having a debate with yourself??

Science has not pinpointed the source of human compassion in the brain. You can't say, well the brain is complex so human compassion is in there somewhere, maybe a nebulous mass in the rear integrative cortex or something. It has no value. I make a statement, man as a species yearns to love and be loved. Can he survive without it? Sure, he can have companionship, gather with others, procreate, eat, etc. So where is the justification for his compassion?  And not isolated but a drive that is intrinsic to the whole of humanity? So why do we love, what's the scientific justification for it ?(if you want to use science to disprove my premise that love is the spark of God in man) You have to show that compassion has a reason for existing in man. That's the question you have to answer, definitively. Talk to an analyst, what do we call the sociopath.... Godless.

Self preservation can't be an answer, we're dying to save our child, we're completely going against the science of man's drive for self preservation.
We give our life for parental instinct. What no thought involved? We went through this, thought is very much involved. We ponder that our existence will be eternal nothingness to save the weak of the flock, we know fully the consequences. It's not an instinct, we love someone deeply, the thought of their suffering is unbearable to us, our husband, wife, child, adopted child, whatever. Why do we do everything in our power to relieve their suffering to save them? Why do we jump in front of a moving train to save a strange child that has stayed onto the tracks? Why do we run into a battlefield to save a wounded comrade? Go to the aid of a stranger who falls down in  the street in front of us?

We have the center of fear in the brain and the justification for it. What's the opposite of fear? It's love. So what is love, what does it mean to love and be loved? You're saying no one is denying love, I'm asking why?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 03, 2016, 07:27:26 PM
Definition of instinct
1
:  a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>
2
a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
b :  behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level


Please with this nonsense, I'm not confusing anything, what happens? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake. You jump back, is thought involved? No, sensory information goes right to the the amygdala, the center of fear in the brain.

I did ignore the "science says" and We? Just nitpicking, do you want to debate the issue or not?

The quote fit what perfectly? Are you having a debate with yourself??

For the record, I object to some of the things you say here. However, they are somewhat of a tangent to the topic of conversation, so I'll just concede these points for now. Moving on...

Quote
Science has not pinpointed the source of human compassion in the brain. You can't say, well the brain is complex so human compassion is in there somewhere, maybe a nebulous mass in the rear integrative cortex or something.

You are correct. I cannot say for sure that love/compassion is "in there somewhere". Likewise, you can't say for sure that love/compassion is not "in there somewhere".

Quote
It has no value. I make a statement, man as a species yearns to love and be loved. Can he survive without it? Sure, he can have companionship, gather with others, procreate, eat, etc. So where is the justification for his compassion?  And not isolated but a drive that is intrinsic to the whole of humanity? So why do we love, what's the scientific justification for it ?(if you want to use science to disprove my premise that love is the spark of God in man) You have to show that compassion has a reason for existing in man. That's the question you have to answer, definitively. Talk to an analyst, what do we call the sociopath.... Godless.

If I understand correctly, your argument is this:

Love/compassion is not strictly necessary to survive. Therefore, love/compassion would not have developed under the evolutionary process.

Your incorrect assumption is that something must be necessary for survival for evolution to promote it. This is not true. For example, we do not need a pinky finger to survive. However, a pinky finger is beneficial to us. Therefore, people with pinky fingers generally get naturally selected for survival.

I think it is relatively self-evident that love/compassion is beneficial to people/animals that live within a social group. Especially love/compassion for one's child.

Please note that I am not trying to disprove that "love is the spark of God in man". All I am trying to show is that evolution is a reasonable explanation for the existence of love/compassion in humans.

Quote
Self preservation can't be an answer, we're dying to save our child, we're completely going against the science of man's drive for self preservation.

Science does not say that self-preservation is the most important drive. Where did you hear this?

Quote
We give our life for parental instinct. What no thought involved? We went through this, thought is very much involved.

No one is saying that no thought is involved. No one is claiming that love is a reflexive action.

Quote
We ponder that our existence will be eternal nothingness to save the weak of the flock, we know fully the consequences. It's not an instinct, we love someone deeply, the thought of their suffering is unbearable to us, our husband, wife, child, adopted child, whatever. Why do we do everything in our power to relieve their suffering to save them? Why do we jump in front of a moving train to save a strange child that has stayed onto the tracks? Why do we run into a battlefield to save a wounded comrade? Go to the aid of a stranger who falls down in  the street in front of us?

Love/compassion. Yes, we all agree that it exists. And evolution provides a valid explanation as to why it exists.

Quote
We have the center of fear in the brain and the justification for it. What's the opposite of fear? It's love. So what is love, what does it mean to love and be loved? You're saying no one is denying love, I'm asking why?

Why what? Why no one is denying love? Why would we? It is rather obvious that it exists.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Venus on July 04, 2016, 01:03:04 AM
Definition of instinct
1
:  a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>
2
a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
b :  behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level


Please with this nonsense, I'm not confusing anything, what happens? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake. You jump back, is thought involved? No, sensory information goes right to the the amygdala, the center of fear in the brain.

I did ignore the "science says" and We? Just nitpicking, do you want to debate the issue or not?

The quote fit what perfectly? Are you having a debate with yourself??

Science has not pinpointed the source of human compassion in the brain. You can't say, well the brain is complex so human compassion is in there somewhere, maybe a nebulous mass in the rear integrative cortex or something. It has no value. I make a statement, man as a species yearns to love and be loved. Can he survive without it? Sure, he can have companionship, gather with others, procreate, eat, etc. So where is the justification for his compassion?  And not isolated but a drive that is intrinsic to the whole of humanity? So why do we love, what's the scientific justification for it ?(if you want to use science to disprove my premise that love is the spark of God in man) You have to show that compassion has a reason for existing in man. That's the question you have to answer, definitively. Talk to an analyst, what do we call the sociopath.... Godless.

Self preservation can't be an answer, we're dying to save our child, we're completely going against the science of man's drive for self preservation.
We give our life for parental instinct. What no thought involved? We went through this, thought is very much involved. We ponder that our existence will be eternal nothingness to save the weak of the flock, we know fully the consequences. It's not an instinct, we love someone deeply, the thought of their suffering is unbearable to us, our husband, wife, child, adopted child, whatever. Why do we do everything in our power to relieve their suffering to save them? Why do we jump in front of a moving train to save a strange child that has stayed onto the tracks? Why do we run into a battlefield to save a wounded comrade? Go to the aid of a stranger who falls down in  the street in front of us?

We have the center of fear in the brain and the justification for it. What's the opposite of fear? It's love. So what is love, what does it mean to love and be loved? You're saying no one is denying love, I'm asking why?

R

Read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins
Gods and Goddesses were created by man to explain the unexplainable ... science has come a long way since those times when rainbows, clouds, earthquakes etc and our own existence could not be explained.
Science still does not have all the answers, but it is better to say "we don't know yet" than to plug "God" into all of the gaps in our knowledge.

Religion is one of the worst things ever created by humans...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyHhAoxTXKI

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: rabinoz on July 04, 2016, 12:44:08 PM

Science still does not have all the answers, but it is better to say "we don't know yet" than to plug "God" into all of the gaps in our knowledge.


The last one out should have turned out the lights and locked the door!

Or maybe everyone's just asleep.
so ssh! post quietly or you might wake everybody up!
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ad/79/57/ad79579bb947a0a61b2f058cbe78d622.jpg)

Guess they're all away on summer holidays!
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 04, 2016, 01:40:25 PM
Definition of instinct
1
:  a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>
2
a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
b :  behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level


Please with this nonsense, I'm not confusing anything, what happens? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake. You jump back, is thought involved? No, sensory information goes right to the the amygdala, the center of fear in the brain.

I did ignore the "science says" and We? Just nitpicking, do you want to debate the issue or not?

The quote fit what perfectly? Are you having a debate with yourself??

Science has not pinpointed the source of human compassion in the brain. You can't say, well the brain is complex so human compassion is in there somewhere, maybe a nebulous mass in the rear integrative cortex or something. It has no value. I make a statement, man as a species yearns to love and be loved. Can he survive without it? Sure, he can have companionship, gather with others, procreate, eat, etc. So where is the justification for his compassion?  And not isolated but a drive that is intrinsic to the whole of humanity? So why do we love, what's the scientific justification for it ?(if you want to use science to disprove my premise that love is the spark of God in man) You have to show that compassion has a reason for existing in man. That's the question you have to answer, definitively. Talk to an analyst, what do we call the sociopath.... Godless.

Self preservation can't be an answer, we're dying to save our child, we're completely going against the science of man's drive for self preservation.
We give our life for parental instinct. What no thought involved? We went through this, thought is very much involved. We ponder that our existence will be eternal nothingness to save the weak of the flock, we know fully the consequences. It's not an instinct, we love someone deeply, the thought of their suffering is unbearable to us, our husband, wife, child, adopted child, whatever. Why do we do everything in our power to relieve their suffering to save them? Why do we jump in front of a moving train to save a strange child that has stayed onto the tracks? Why do we run into a battlefield to save a wounded comrade? Go to the aid of a stranger who falls down in  the street in front of us?

We have the center of fear in the brain and the justification for it. What's the opposite of fear? It's love. So what is love, what does it mean to love and be loved? You're saying no one is denying love, I'm asking why?

R

Read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins
Gods and Goddesses were created by man to explain the unexplainable ... science has come a long way since those times when rainbows, clouds, earthquakes etc and our own existence could not be explained.
Science still does not have all the answers, but it is better to say "we don't know yet" than to plug "God" into all of the gaps in our knowledge.

Religion is one of the worst things ever created by humans...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyHhAoxTXKI


Look, I'm making an observation, I'm not "plugging" God into anything, the observation is that man universally seeks to love and be loved. We give our life to save our dying loved one. There's nothing selfish about it! It's an observation, Newton's apple falling from the tree.

So give me the science behind it.

Did I say anything about religion? We're not talking about the divisiveness of socialized religions, the dichotomy of heaven and hell, monotheistic, anthropomorphic Gods or any of that other nonsense. Is God the frailties and misinterpretations of Christianity?

You say in one breathe science doesn't have all the answers and in the next you want to give me a book by Dawkins. So then does Dawkins have the answers? How about an original idea, how about thinking for yourself?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 04, 2016, 01:44:35 PM
Sacrificing oneself for the group gives the group a better chance at surviving.  To be prompted to do this we would need some sort of positive feedback to overcome the fear and doubt, and this comes in the form of love. 
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 04, 2016, 01:54:35 PM
Sacrificing oneself for the group gives the group a better chance at surviving.  To be prompted to do this we would need some sort of positive feedback to overcome the fear and doubt, and this comes in the form of love.

Is that what you're thinking when your loved one is dying, save the group? We're robots? I'm not thinking that at all. I'm seeing my suffering loved one that I can save at the expense of my own existence. There is no group, there's only Sartre's nothingness and I'm painfully aware of it. I'm not overcoming fear doubt or anything else, I'm dead!

"Comes in the form of love"? I'm still waiting for someone here to tell me what love is, how about you?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 05, 2016, 03:41:42 AM
Sacrificing oneself for the group gives the group a better chance at surviving.  To be prompted to do this we would need some sort of positive feedback to overcome the fear and doubt, and this comes in the form of love.

Is that what you're thinking when your loved one is dying, save the group? We're robots? I'm not thinking that at all. I'm seeing my suffering loved one that I can save at the expense of my own existence. There is no group, there's only Sartre's nothingness and I'm painfully aware of it.

That's too bad. You will grow out of existential angst one day. I speculate that if I saw my son in imminent danger the desire to keep him safe would overwhelm instead of impotently staring in to the void.

Quote
I'm not overcoming fear doubt or anything else, I'm dead!

You overcome fear and doubt to act to save them, silly man.

Quote
"Comes in the form of love"? I'm still waiting for someone here to tell me what love is, how about you?

Before I attempt this, I need to know, do you have feelings? It's difficult to communicate the concept otherwise.

R
[/quote]
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 05, 2016, 10:47:06 AM
Sacrificing oneself for the group gives the group a better chance at surviving.  To be prompted to do this we would need some sort of positive feedback to overcome the fear and doubt, and this comes in the form of love.

Is that what you're thinking when your loved one is dying, save the group? We're robots? I'm not thinking that at all. I'm seeing my suffering loved one that I can save at the expense of my own existence. There is no group, there's only Sartre's nothingness and I'm painfully aware of it.

That's too bad. You will grow out of existential angst one day. I speculate that if I saw my son in imminent danger the desire to keep him safe would overwhelm instead of impotently staring in to the void.

Quote
I'm not overcoming fear doubt or anything else, I'm dead!

You overcome fear and doubt to act to save them, silly man.

Quote
"Comes in the form of love"? I'm still waiting for someone here to tell me what love is, how about you?

Before I attempt this, I need to know, do you have feelings? It's difficult to communicate the concept otherwise.

R
[/quote]

Your fear and doubt don't stop because you attempt to save the child, you save the child out of compassion. Is compassion fear? No. Is it doubt? No. And spare me your arrogance in the form of condescension. Arrogance, by the way, is fear, an attempt to act superior out of a fear of inadequacy and lack of self importance.

My feelings? You're not giving me your concept of compassion because you don't know if I have feelings? Rubbish! Do you want to debate or not? Don't waste my time, give your "concept" or stop responding to my posts.

R

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 05, 2016, 12:02:51 PM
I never said fear and doubt stopped, I said "overcome", there is a difference. Arrogance is not fear. It is not even a feeling. It is an attitude one adopts and yes, fear is something that can motivate it.

It is not rubbish. I would wager it is impossible to describe love to someone who does not know what emotions are. It is also not a waste of time to figure out what two people agree on before proceeding. That's ok though. I won't bother you anymore, please enjoy your edgy Satre-ness.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 05, 2016, 12:54:31 PM
I never said fear and doubt stopped, I said "overcome", there is a difference. Arrogance is not fear. It is not even a feeling. It is an attitude one adopts and yes, fear is something that can motivate it.

It is not rubbish. I would wager it is impossible to describe love to someone who does not know what emotions are. It is also not a waste of time to figure out what two people agree on before proceeding. That's ok though. I won't bother you anymore, please enjoy your edgy Satre-ness.

It doesn't overcome anything, it's compassion.

We don't have to agree, it's about reason and logic. If it doesn't stand to reason it falls regardless who says it. Agreement is not an issue, the only thing we agree on is mutual respect and not attempting to be manipulative with phrases like "silly man".

Arrogance is the manifestation of ones fear, it is the resultant action. It shows that you personally feel inadequate with some aspect of your intelligence. life, appearance or whatever. It's a 'tell', you're telling me about yourself.

You're avoiding the question, you think that I'm missing that?  I can't relay my concept of compassion if you're not capable of comprehending it on some level. Nonsense, if I can't comprehend it, I'll question it and you can clarify it. Does your concept stand to reason, is it logical? That's all it needs to be, whether I'm capable of feelings or not is a non sequitur. It's a debate, it's about the validity and rationality of a response and I'll take that wager.

"please enjoy your edgy Satre-ness." More nonsense, learn how to formulate a constructive rational response.  And I'm not the one who believes in nothingness, that's the realm of atheism, not theism, you didn't even get that right. You didn't make one salient point, why did you waste my time?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 05, 2016, 04:48:14 PM
I never said fear and doubt stopped, I said "overcome", there is a difference. Arrogance is not fear. It is not even a feeling. It is an attitude one adopts and yes, fear is something that can motivate it.

It is not rubbish. I would wager it is impossible to describe love to someone who does not know what emotions are. It is also not a waste of time to figure out what two people agree on before proceeding. That's ok though. I won't bother you anymore, please enjoy your edgy Satre-ness.

It doesn't overcome anything, it's compassion.

You can feel compassion and not act.  It takes more than the empathic connection to respond, in most cases, not all, of course.  Compassion is nothing more or less than the ability to identify, and empathize with the suffering of others.

Quote
We don't have to agree, it's about reason and logic. If it doesn't stand to reason it falls regardless who says it. Agreement is not an issue, the only thing we agree on is mutual respect and not attempting to be manipulative with phrases like "silly man".

Agreement on the scope and nature of a topic is of course important.  To say otherwise is silly, hence my playful comment.

Quote
Arrogance is the a manifestation of ones fear, it is the a resultant action. It shows that you personally feel inadequate with some aspect of your intelligence. life, appearance or whatever. It's a 'tell', you're telling me about yourself.

You can different reactions to fear: arrogance, anger, panic, courage... all of these are reactions that prompted by fear.

Quote
You're avoiding the question, you think that I'm missing that?  I can't relay my concept of compassion if you're not capable of comprehending it on some level. Nonsense, if I can't comprehend it, I'll question it and you can clarify it. Does your concept stand to reason, is it logical? That's all it needs to be, whether I'm capable of feelings or not is a non sequitur. It's a debate, it's about the validity and rationality of a response and I'll take that wager.

I was just hoping to get common ground.  You don't care about that, so lets struggle through.

Quote
"please enjoy your edgy Satre-ness." More nonsense, learn how to formulate a constructive rational response.  And I'm not the one who believes in nothingness, that's the realm of atheism, not theism, you didn't even get that right. You didn't make one salient point, why did you waste my time?

Excuse me, but you are the one who said:

Quote
Is that what you're thinking when your loved one is dying, save the group? We're robots? I'm not thinking that at all. I'm seeing my suffering loved one that I can save at the expense of my own existence. There is no group, there's only Sartre's nothingness and I'm painfully aware of it. I'm not overcoming fear doubt or anything else, I'm dead!

Alrighty, here is a definition of love for you:

Love is an endorphin and oxytocin producing emotion that draws one individual to another and engenders desires to care for, copulate with, initmately engage with, offer protection to, cooperate with, fixate on, etc... the object of their love.  Please note this is  not an exclusive list.

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 05, 2016, 05:27:58 PM
Excuse me, but you are the one who said:

Quote
Is that what you're thinking when your loved one is dying, save the group? We're robots? I'm not thinking that at all. I'm seeing my suffering loved one that I can save at the expense of my own existence. There is no group, there's only Sartre's nothingness and I'm painfully aware of it. I'm not overcoming fear doubt or anything else, I'm dead!

I think Robaroni was speaking from the theoretical point of view of an athiest. I'm not 100% positive though. His train of thought is rather hard to follow.

Carry on.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 05, 2016, 05:30:23 PM
Excuse me, but you are the one who said:

Quote
Is that what you're thinking when your loved one is dying, save the group? We're robots? I'm not thinking that at all. I'm seeing my suffering loved one that I can save at the expense of my own existence. There is no group, there's only Sartre's nothingness and I'm painfully aware of it. I'm not overcoming fear doubt or anything else, I'm dead!

I think Robaroni was speaking from the point of view of a theoretical athiest. I'm not 100% positive though. His train of thought is rather hard to follow.

Carry on.
Oh... Meh...
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 05, 2016, 06:08:17 PM
Excuse me, but you are the one who said:

Quote
Is that what you're thinking when your loved one is dying, save the group? We're robots? I'm not thinking that at all. I'm seeing my suffering loved one that I can save at the expense of my own existence. There is no group, there's only Sartre's nothingness and I'm painfully aware of it. I'm not overcoming fear doubt or anything else, I'm dead!

I think Robaroni was speaking from the theoretical point of view of an athiest. I'm not 100% positive though. His train of thought is rather hard to follow.

Carry on.

Correct!
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 05, 2016, 08:46:07 PM
Whattt??

"Before I attempt this, I need to know, do you have feelings? It's difficult to communicate the concept otherwise."

This is the definition you needed to know if I had feelings to comprehend?? Rubbish!

"Love is an endorphin and oxytocin producing emotion that draws one individual to another and engenders desires to care for, copulate with, initmately engage with, offer protection to, cooperate with, fixate on, etc... the object of their love.  Please note this is  not an exclusive list."

So if we have our pituitary glad removed we no longer have compassion? Our child is dying we will die, endorphins will make us euphoric? Is that what's happening? "Offer protection to"? So explain the process to me. My endorphins and oxycotin make me euphoric and my uterus contracts and that euphoria is so great that I don't care if I'm dead or alive? I stop thinking that I'm going to die saving my child, isn't that instinct when we stop thinking? I think it is.

So while the opposite of compassion - fear and adrenalin are in place to protect us, endorphins and oxycotin are there to what? Kill us?

Do I need compassion to care for someone? What if I'm taking care of an old curmudgeon to get his money when he dies?  Do I need compassion to copulate? Of course not.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2016, 03:58:50 AM
Whattt??

"Before I attempt this, I need to know, do you have feelings? It's difficult to communicate the concept otherwise."

This is the definition you needed to know if I had feelings to comprehend?? Rubbish!

"Love is an endorphin and oxytocin producing emotion that draws one individual to another and engenders desires to care for, copulate with, initmately engage with, offer protection to, cooperate with, fixate on, etc... the object of their love.  Please note this is  not an exclusive list."

So if we have our pituitary glad removed we no longer have compassion? Our child is dying we will die, endorphins will make us euphoric? Is that what's happening? "Offer protection to"? So explain the process to me. My endorphins and oxycotin make me euphoric and my uterus contracts and that euphoria is so great that I don't care if I'm dead or alive? I stop thinking that I'm going to die saving my child, isn't that instinct when we stop thinking? I think it is.

That was my definition of love, not compassion. Other than that, there are a bunch of straw men in there. For example, you are saying that sacrificing ones life is mutually exclusive with caring whether you live or die. I never said anything to suggest that. You are asserting what goes through someone's mind as they sacrifice their life as well. Sorry, but you have no basis to do so, unless... Do you know what is going through the mind of dead people?

Quote
So while the opposite of compassion - fear and adrenalin are in place to protect us, endorphins and oxycotin are there to what? Kill us?

I don't accept your premise that fear and adrenalin are the opposite of compassion. The opposite of compassion would be apathy; from empathizing with suffering to not. As for the rest, if you want to pretend that endorphins and oxytocin are only valuable in life or death situations, then your credibility will disappear fast.

Quote
Do I need compassion to care for someone?

No.

Quote
What if I'm taking care of an old curmudgeon to get his money when he dies?  Do I need compassion to copulate? Of course not.

Ok... And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

You appear to be trying to back me in to a corner when really I have nothing but fertile grassland behind me.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 06, 2016, 11:59:25 AM


Can we have compassion for our dying child without love? Doesn't that love manifest as compassion, a deep caring? That's what I've been talking about all along and that is the love I asked for your definition of. And what is the opposite of that love? Hate, jealousy,etc.? And what is the root of hate? It's fear and when we fear doesn't our Adrenalin escalate?
Do we give our heart to our neighbor's child? Why not? We don't love our neighbor's child, that's why. It is our love that motivates the action.

So the question is why? Why do we willingly give our life? It's not instinct, we are thinking, contemplating our life, our loved one's life, that we will die. Why do we do it? Why not let the weak die and have more children? Why not self preservation? Where's the science to justify the action?

"Ok... And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

You appear to be trying to back me in to a corner when really I have nothing but fertile grassland behind me."

No, you're switching tracks. Look at your definition of love. Are we talking about copulating? Is that what you're thinking when your loved one is dying?

I'm staying on topic, you gave me this nonsense about my "feelings" which is saying that I have this great depth of feelings and understanding but do you? Because if you don't then my definition will be beyond your ability to comprehend, which is arrogant. Then you gave me an answer that has little if anything to do with "feelings". But we're talking about feelings, about compassion, aren't we but your definition never addressed that, did it?

Answer the question above. Where's the science?
R

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Charming Anarchist on July 06, 2016, 12:27:34 PM
Good start to a conversation, but maybe this should be in Philosophy, Religion & Society?
LOL 







Message to sane/honest/intelligent true-earthers:  Notice how the Opening Poster has not participated AT ALL in this silly discussion. 
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2016, 01:29:32 PM


Can we have compassion for our dying child without love?

Absolutely.

Quote
Doesn't that love manifest as compassion, a deep caring?

Of course it can.  This is not an a=b therefore b=a sylogism though.

Quote
That's what I've been talking about all along and that is the love I asked for your definition of. And what is the opposite of that love? Hate, jealousy,etc.? And what is the root of hate? It's fear and when we fear doesn't our Adrenalin escalate?
Do we give our heart to our neighbor's child? Why not? We don't love our neighbor's child, that's why.

Or maybe we have others that we love more.  You are being awfully binary when the situation is much more complex than that.

Quote
It is our love that motivates the action.

Yeah, sometimes, maybe.  I would never claim to know what guides a complete stranger to give their life for another, but in the case of intimates sacrificing for one another, I think it is safe to assume that love is involved.

Quote
So the question is why? Why do we willingly give our life? It's not instinct, we are thinking, contemplating our life, our loved one's life, that we will die. Why do we do it? Why not let the weak die and have more children? Why not self preservation? Where's the science to justify the action?

Mutual altruism is an effective way to promote group well-being.

Quote
"Ok... And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

You appear to be trying to back me in to a corner when really I have nothing but fertile grassland behind me."

No, you're switching tracks. Look at your definition of love. Are we talking about copulating? Is that what you're thinking when your loved one is dying?

Why are you focusing on one part of my definition and excluding others, especially when I said the list is not exclusive?  It was not even the first thing I mentioned. You asked for a definition of love and I gave one that attempted to be somewhat thorough, and a somewhat thorough definition of love should try to include sex because a lot of people in love have sex.

Quote
I'm staying on topic, you gave me this nonsense about my "feelings" which is saying that I have this great depth of feelings and understanding but do you? Because if you don't then my definition will be beyond your ability to comprehend, which is arrogant. Then you gave me an answer that has little if anything to do with "feelings". But we're talking about feelings, about compassion, aren't we but your definition never addressed that, did it?

If you want me to define a feeling for you without appealing to poetry or metaphor, that is to say defining it in a rational, logical way,  it should probably not be either a) referring to other emotions, because it begs the question and/or b) be subjective.

Quote
Answer the question above. Where's the science?
R

http://neuro.hms.harvard.edu/harvard-mahoney-neuroscience-institute/brain-newsletter/and-brain-series/love-and-brain
greatergood.berkeley.edu/images/uploads/Trivers-EvolutionReciprocalAltruism.pdf
weber.ucsd.edu/~jmoore/publications/Recip.html

Are you telling me you have never looked it up?  You should research neuroscience, psychology, evolutionary biology and sociology.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 06, 2016, 01:41:23 PM
Good start to a conversation, but maybe this should be in Philosophy, Religion & Society?
LOL 







Message to sane/honest/intelligent true-earthers:  Notice how the Opening Poster has not participated AT ALL in this silly discussion.

That's rich!

Let's put silliness in perspective. This is a forum where people, in the 21st Century, actually believe the earth is flat and there are people arguing with them about it!!

"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. I'm not sure about the universe!"
Albert Einstein

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2016, 01:59:21 PM
Two things are true: Einstein did not say half the shit people attribute to him and people don't care.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 06, 2016, 02:04:12 PM


"Answer the question above. Where's the science?
R"


http://neuro.hms.harvard.edu/harvard-mahoney-neuroscience-institute/brain-newsletter/and-brain-series/love-and-brain
greatergood.berkeley.edu/images/uploads/Trivers-EvolutionReciprocalAltruism.pdf
weber.ucsd.edu/~jmoore/publications/Recip.html

"Are you telling me you have never looked it up?  You should research neuroscience, psychology, evolutionary biology and sociology."


"Many theories of love, said Schwartz and Olds, propose that there is an inevitable change over time from passionate love to what is typically called compassionate love—love that is deep but not as euphoric as that experienced during the early stages of romance."

Read the wording, what does it say? First, it's a Theory, now look up "P-Hacking". These theories come out on a daily basis mostly in attempts to generate grants, they're not peer reviewed because there's no money in reviewing them. Lots of guesses about what is happening.

Again, you're going off on a tangent!

One more time, you give your life for your loved one, you will be DEAD. Where's the science to support it? Theories about romantic love, is that what you want to give me? Chemicals made me do it? I'm a robot? We're talking about compassion, "compassionate love."

R


 


Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2016, 02:07:02 PM
The point of me posting 3 links that I dug up in 5 minutes is that you should do your own research instead of demanding it from someone else. What is your goal in all this anyway?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 06, 2016, 02:11:11 PM
Two things are true: Einstein did not say half the shit people attribute to him and people don't care.

Was this in the half that he said or didn't say? So basically your statement is ambiguous and valueless. "People don't care"?  Which ones? Do you have data to back up your opinions?

I didn't think so.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 06, 2016, 02:14:08 PM
The point of me posting 3 links that I dug up in 5 minutes is that you should do your own research instead of demanding it from someone else. What is your goal in all this anyway?

What makes you think that I didn't do research? You're making assumptions you can't support. Again!

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2016, 02:53:02 PM
The point of me posting 3 links that I dug up in 5 minutes is that you should do your own research instead of demanding it from someone else. What is your goal in all this anyway?

What makes you think that I didn't do research? You're making assumptions you can't support. Again!

R

The assumption I made is that you were conversing in good faith.  I notice you had nothing to say about reciprocal altruism by the way, which again makes me ask, what is your goal in all this?  Are you hoping to get people to admit to a point of view?  What is that point of view? 
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 06, 2016, 04:46:32 PM
The point of me posting 3 links that I dug up in 5 minutes is that you should do your own research instead of demanding it from someone else. What is your goal in all this anyway?

What makes you think that I didn't do research? You're making assumptions you can't support. Again!

R

The assumption I made is that you were conversing in good faith.  I notice you had nothing to say about reciprocal altruism by the way, which again makes me ask, what is your goal in all this?  Are you hoping to get people to admit to a point of view?  What is that point of view?

Reciprocal altruism is a trade with the expectation of future benefit? Is love a trade, I'll love you if you love me? Is love conditional? Not at all.

Why do we need it? Why do you need to be loved? You can function completely without it, eat sleep, procreate, whatever. Give me the science. Give me the science of giving my life for a loved one, no expectations of return, no I'll do this for you and you do this for me. Why does man need to love and be loved? The 'good' of the group? Science can't establish what is 'good'.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 06, 2016, 04:56:43 PM

"what is your goal in all this?"


What's my goal? I made a statement someone disagreed with and it went from there. What's you goal?
R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: George on July 06, 2016, 05:23:48 PM
Look, the Socratic method is all well and good, but you've been asking nonstop questions for the last few pages, and it's going nowhere.  It's not unreasonable at this point to ask that you stop firing off questions and make your case for whatever it is that you have in mind.  Are you saying that feelings of love and compassion aren't tied to brain chemistry, for example?  Or that science is by definition amoral, and not a guide to how anyone should live their lives?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2016, 06:25:24 PM

"what is your goal in all this?"


What's my goal? I made a statement someone disagreed with and it went from there.

That's not a goal.

Quote
What's you goal?
R

To discover your goal.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 06, 2016, 09:37:13 PM

"what is your goal in all this?"


What's my goal? I made a statement someone disagreed with and it went from there.

That's not a goal.

Quote
What's you goal?
R



To discover your goal.

I don't have a goal!!

Run out of cut and paste options after reciprocal altruism? Did I answer you the question you posed? Yes, how about answering mine?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 06, 2016, 09:38:23 PM
Look, the Socratic method is all well and good, but you've been asking nonstop questions for the last few pages, and it's going nowhere.  It's not unreasonable at this point to ask that you stop firing off questions and make your case for whatever it is that you have in mind.  Are you saying that feelings of love and compassion aren't tied to brain chemistry, for example?  Or that science is by definition amoral, and not a guide to how anyone should live their lives?

Go back and read my initial statements.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2016, 09:44:21 PM

I don't have a goal!!

Run out of cut and paste options after reciprocal altruism?

What?

Quote
Did I answer you the question you posed?

If a lie can be considered a proper answer, then sure.

Quote
Yes, how about answering mine?


All of them?  Why would I?  You ask them rhetorically.  Is there one in particular that is dear to your heart?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 06, 2016, 09:49:32 PM

I don't have a goal!!

Run out of cut and paste options after reciprocal altruism?

What?

Quote
Did I answer you the question you posed?

If a lie can be considered a proper answer, then sure.

Quote
Yes, how about answering mine?


All of them?  Why would I?  You ask them rhetorically.  Is there one in particular that is dear to your heart?

Here's my response to reciprocal altruism:

"Reciprocal altruism is a trade with the expectation of future benefit. Is love a trade, I'll love you if you love me? Is love conditional? Not at all."
R

You think that's a lie?

Here's the question I posed that you didn't answer:

"Why do we need love? Why do you need to be loved? You can function completely without it, eat sleep, procreate, whatever. Give me the science. Give me the science of giving my life for a loved one, no expectations of return, no I'll do this for you and you do this for me. Why does man need to love and be loved? The 'good' of the group? Science can't establish what is 'good'."
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2016, 09:57:20 PM
You just posted 7 questions. Take a deep breath and post 1. Make it worth your while too.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 06, 2016, 10:06:53 PM
Honestly Robaroni, it is really difficult to follow your train of thought. I have no idea what you are trying to argue, or the point you are trying to get across.

You make a ton of assumptions about the psychology of mankind, and then pass them off as fact. You string together these assumptions in a rather bewildering order that is hard to follow. None of your statements seem to logically follow each other.

Here is the point I (and Rama?) was trying to get across: evolution provides a valid explanation for the origin of love.

Now, without a ton of rhetorical questions, what exactly is your objection to that statement? Try to state it as clearly as possible.

Edit: If I understand you correctly, your overall goal is to show that evolution/science does not provide a valid explanation for the origin of love. Therefore, love must have a spiritual origin. What I don't understand is what your supporting points are.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 06, 2016, 10:12:54 PM
You just posted 7 questions. Take a deep breath and post 1. Make it worth your while too.

You can function completely without loving and being loved, eat sleep, procreate, whatever. Give me the scientific justification for why man needs to love?

R

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 06, 2016, 10:15:39 PM
Honestly Robaroni, it is really difficult to follow your train of thought. I have no idea what you are trying to argue, or the point you are trying to get across.

You make a ton of assumptions about the psychology of mankind, and then pass them off as fact. You string together these assumptions in a rather bewildering order that is hard to follow. None of your statements seem to logically follow each other.

Here is the point I (and Rama?) was trying to get across: evolution provides a valid explanation for the origin of love.

Now, without a ton of rhetorical questions, what exactly is your objection to that statement? Try to state it as clearly as possible.

Edit: If I understand you correctly, your overall goal is to show that evolution/science does not provide a valid explanation for the origin of love. Therefore, love must have a spiritual origin. What I don't understand is what your supporting points are.

Evolution does not! You think it does? Show me.

See my question to Rama.
R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2016, 10:24:07 PM
You just posted 7 questions. Take a deep breath and post 1. Make it worth your while too.

You can function completely without loving and being loved, eat sleep, procreate, whatever. Give me the scientific justification for why man needs to love?

R

It gives an impetus for socialization, procreation and protection of and with others. Group socialization is a good tactic for thriving of a species. Ergo, love helps a species thrive.

This is not a scientific justification, this is my justification, but it is reasonable and intuitive.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 06, 2016, 10:54:15 PM
You just posted 7 questions. Take a deep breath and post 1. Make it worth your while too.

You can function completely without loving and being loved, eat sleep, procreate, whatever. Give me the scientific justification for why man needs to love?

R

It gives an impetus for socialization, procreation and protection of and with others. Group socialization is a good tactic for thriving of a species. Ergo, love helps a species thrive.

This is not a scientific justification, this is my justification, but it is reasonable and intuitive.

So you don't have a scientific answer, just your opinion. 

Too bad, you should have said that long before this point in the debate. And, by the way, science is not capable of establishing 'good'.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2016, 11:03:56 PM
Science is not a monolith. It has no single answer. It works on a consensus of experiments. Is it important to you if it's my opinion or not?

And by the way, what does it matter if science can establish 'good'?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 06, 2016, 11:16:32 PM
Science is not a monolith. It has no single answer. It works on a consensus of experiments. Is it important to you if it's my opinion or not?

And by the way, what does it matter if science can establish 'good'?

You used "good" in your opinion, this shuts the door on science. Along with the fact that "societies, procreation and protection" can function and "thrive" without love which you also stated in your opinion. All that is needed is agreement within the group - reciprocal altruism. which is not love, again, it's a trade, it's symbiotic.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 06, 2016, 11:20:14 PM
Science is not a monolith. It has no single answer. It works on a consensus of experiments.

If you are saying that science is not capable of absolutes, I agree.

In this case science has no answer.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2016, 11:39:27 PM
Science is not a monolith. It has no single answer. It works on a consensus of experiments. Is it important to you if it's my opinion or not?

And by the way, what does it matter if science can establish 'good'?

You used "good" in your opinion, this shuts the door on science. Along with the fact that "societies, procreation and protection" can function and "thrive" without love which you also stated in your opinion. All that is needed is agreement within the group - reciprocal altruism. which is not love, again, it's a trade, it's symbiotic.

R

Ah pedantry, the last resort of the defeated. I obviously meant 'good' as a synonym for beneficial. Like broccoli is 'good for you'.

I also never said love was necessary but that does not undermine its value.

Science is not a monolith. It has no single answer. It works on a consensus of experiments.

If you are saying that science is not capable of absolutes, I agree.

In this case science has no answer.

R

That isn't what I said although I do agree science is not able to draw absolute conclusions.

As to the second part, he is a scientific answer that is similar to my own.

http://cogprints.org/3392/1/lovempat.htm

Quote
The deepening of the mother/infant attachment into love played, and still plays, an essential role in the transmission of culture from one generation to the next and in making possible the cohesion of the human group. This account fits well with recent research into the process and significance of the mother/infant relation.

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 06, 2016, 11:44:44 PM
You used "good" in your opinion, this shuts the door on science.

"good tactic"?? In this case, good is just a synonym for "effective". Science is perfectly capable of working with that term.

Quote
Along with the fact that "societies, procreation and protection" can function and "thrive" without love which you also stated in your opinion.

This is completely irrelevant. As was already stated, evolution does not require a trait to be strictly necessary for it to be promoted. It just needs to be beneficial to the survival of the group. Are you really going to argue that love is not beneficial to the survival of highly social group of people?

Quote
All that is needed is agreement within the group - reciprocal altruism. which is not love, again, it's a trade, it's symbiotic.

Not all reciprocal altruism is love, but love is a type of reciprocal altruism.

If your only objection is incredularity, just read the links Rama provided.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 07, 2016, 08:48:39 AM

I have been away for a few days so it has taken me a few minutes to read (struggle) through this.

Robi’ your circular arguments seem to stem from this “loves existence proves god exists”, comment, and that science must give you unequivocal proof to the contrary or stand aside, but as Rama & the Reptile have both pointed out, love & empathy as the product of Darwinian evolution would have beneficial effects both to the group and to the individuals’ genetic continuation. No god needed.

If you are unfamiliar with the up to date thinking in evolutionary biology, it’s probably best you don’t read about it on a Christian debunkers blog, but go to something like a Dawkins book as suggested, they are extremely well written and informative.

Getting back to the original proposition, that there is a problem with atheism. It seems that there can only be a problem with it, if you give it goals that it doesn’t actually have, as you do with science.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 07, 2016, 11:03:35 AM
Science is not a monolith. It has no single answer. It works on a consensus of experiments. Is it important to you if it's my opinion or not?

And by the way, what does it matter if science can establish 'good'?

You used "good" in your opinion, this shuts the door on science. Along with the fact that "societies, procreation and protection" can function and "thrive" without love which you also stated in your opinion. All that is needed is agreement within the group - reciprocal altruism. which is not love, again, it's a trade, it's symbiotic.

R

Ah pedantry, the last resort of the defeated. I obviously meant 'good' as a synonym for beneficial. Like broccoli is 'good for you'.

I also never said love was necessary but that does not undermine its value.

Science is not a monolith. It has no single answer. It works on a consensus of experiments.

If you are saying that science is not capable of absolutes, I agree.

In this case science has no answer.

R

That isn't what I said although I do agree science is not able to draw absolute conclusions.

As to the second part, he is a scientific answer that is similar to my own.

http://cogprints.org/3392/1/lovempat.htm

Quote
The deepening of the mother/infant attachment into love played, and still plays, an essential role in the transmission of culture from one generation to the next and in making possible the cohesion of the human group. This account fits well with recent research into the process and significance of the mother/infant relation.

It's a paper, an opinion, not a peer reviewed journal document! Did you read it? Geeze!

" The scientific exploration of the process of empathy has not got very far; some think it cannot be explained." Doesn't he mean gotten very far?

" Love had always been the one thing - perhaps the only thing - beyond the research scientist's ever-extending grasp...."

Rama Set
"Ah pedantry, the last resort of the defeated. I obviously meant 'good' as a synonym for beneficial. Like broccoli is 'good for you'. "

Defeated in what respect?

Science can't determine that either! You're just giving me semantics, a synonym doesn't change that science can't establish good, beneficial. Read the work of George Moore - Naturalistic Fallacy and David Hume "is - ought".

Did you graduate college with a science degree? I did.

Amazing!

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 07, 2016, 11:11:33 AM
You used "good" in your opinion, this shuts the door on science.

"good tactic"?? In this case, good is just a synonym for "effective". Science is perfectly capable of working with that term.

Quote
Along with the fact that "societies, procreation and protection" can function and "thrive" without love which you also stated in your opinion.

This is completely irrelevant. As was already stated, evolution does not require a trait to be strictly necessary for it to be promoted. It just needs to be beneficial to the survival of the group. Are you really going to argue that love is not beneficial to the survival of highly social group of people?

Quote
All that is needed is agreement within the group - reciprocal altruism. which is not love, again, it's a trade, it's symbiotic.

Not all reciprocal altruism is love, but love is a type of reciprocal altruism.

If your only objection is incredularity, just read the links Rama provided.

"Not all reciprocal altruism is love, but love is a type of reciprocal altruism."

I'll do this for you and you do that for me, is that compassionate love to you? Love can never be a trade, it's unconditional!

"If your only objection is incredularity, just read the links Rama provided."

The word is incredulity. See my response to Rama Set.

R


Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 07, 2016, 11:44:58 AM

I have been away for a few days so it has taken me a few minutes to read (struggle) through this.

Robi’ your circular arguments seem to stem from this “loves existence proves god exists”, comment, and that science must give you unequivocal proof to the contrary or stand aside, but as Rama & the Reptile have both pointed out, love & empathy as the product of Darwinian evolution would have beneficial effects both to the group and to the individuals’ genetic continuation. No god needed.

If you are unfamiliar with the up to date thinking in evolutionary biology, it’s probably best you don’t read about it on a Christian debunkers blog, but go to something like a Dawkins book as suggested, they are extremely well written and informative.

Getting back to the original proposition, that there is a problem with atheism. It seems that there can only be a problem with it, if you give it goals that it doesn’t actually have, as you do with science.

First, I said "The proof of God is that man is capable of love". It is based on the fact that man can survive completely without love, yet each individual intensely seeks to love and be loved, it is man's raison d'etre. We have this observable phenomena that exists universally and is integral to man to the point that he will give his life to save his weak dying loved one. Nothing establishes this more profoundly then in the atheist who believes that death holds nothing for him. Why does he do it, what's the benefit?

We have fear to protect the self but its opposite love does not. Fear is completely about the self and self preservation, it is a mechanism within man and its center is the amygdala in the brain. Fear is selfish, it's only concern is the self. Human compassionate love is completely unselfish, it is greater than the self and the individual is willing to give the self driven by it.

You may disagree with my hypothesis, Dawkins may give his hypothesis but what I've said is true and has been observed. To disagree you must show that compassionate love has a scientific justification. So far science has no answer, the drive of self preservation and survival of the fittest would dictate that the group is strengthened through letting the weak die.

What's your answer?

And no one is forcing you to "struggle" through this, you have the choice to participate or not participate, so spare me this. Wasn't that you who left the debate when I asked you to enlighten me as to how you knew what the Wilde beast was thinking and what his juxtaposition to God is? I'm still waiting for those answers too!

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 07, 2016, 12:40:46 PM

Getting back to the original proposition, that there is a problem with atheism. It seems that there can only be a problem with it, if you give it goals that it doesn’t actually have, as you do with science.

Atheism represents the death of thought. It is based on the assumption that all to know about the universe is known or will be known. The individual ceases to inquire and sticks his head in the proverbial sand. Better to think 'I do not know' and continue to inquire than to say it does not exist and in the future science will prove it.

Who here thinks that all there is to know is known or will be known?

Many theists run into the same problem at the other end of the spectrum. They believe God is well defined in some book or whatever and no further inquiry is required. Of the four major religions Christianity (Christ) is the most blatant in this respect. Taoism (Lao-Tze) the least, also the least structured.

Side note:
Interestingly enough if we explore the lessons of Christ, Lao-Tze, Siddhartha Gautama (Buddhism) and Krishna (Hinduism) we find that their core teaching was compassion. Problems in Christianity arose with the introduction of heaven and hell by man as a method of controlling the masses through fear.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 07, 2016, 01:57:59 PM

Getting back to the original proposition, that there is a problem with atheism. It seems that there can only be a problem with it, if you give it goals that it doesn’t actually have, as you do with science.

Atheism represents the death of thought.

Only if you look at it through a narrow lense.  In it's cultural context it represents a rejection of the authority of the church on the spiritual nature of the universe.  Freed of that, the atheist is free to forge their own path, and discover their own connection their spiritual side.  They can form new rituals and rites of passage, and rediscover the wisdom of man through a new prism.

Quote
It is based on the assumption that all to know about the universe is known or will be known. The individual ceases to inquire and sticks his head in the proverbial sand. Better to think 'I do not know' and continue to inquire than to say it does not exist and in the future science will prove it.

I am not sure where you get this idea.  Atheism would never claim this, but empiricism might.  Even then, I think on the most extreme minds would think that all that can be known will be known or that all is knowable.  For example, if you watch physicists talk about what came before the Big Bang, the answer is invariably, "We don't know, we may never know, but we will keep going where the evidence takes us."  Or some variation on that theme.

Quote
Who here thinks that all there is to know is known or will be known?

Not me.  To be fair, I am not an atheist either.  I may have anti-theist leanings, but I would never reject Deism out of hand, because I would be guilty of extreme dishonesty and over-reaching.

Quote
Many theists run into the same problem at the other end of the spectrum. They believe God is well defined in some book or whatever and no further inquiry is required. Of the four major religions Christianity (Christ) is the most blatant in this respect. Taoism (Lao-Tze) the least, also the least structured.

I think it is fair to say that extreme Dogmatism in any form leads to closed-mindedness.

Quote
Side note:
Interestingly enough if we explore the lessons of Christ, Lao-Tze, Siddhartha Gautama (Buddhism) and Krishna (Hinduism) we find that their core teaching was compassion. Problems in Christianity arose with the introduction of heaven and hell by man as a method of controlling the masses through fear.

Compassion should be a central tenet of any belief system, I think.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 07, 2016, 02:23:38 PM
Yet again you show that your understanding of the drives of evolution are hampered by misunderstanding, that is why I urge you to update that knowledge.

You completely misunderstand survival of the fittest, using the naturalistic fallacy that treating the weak badly is a consequence, whereas it should be "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations." Which has nothing to do with killing the weak.

Self-preservation (in the selfish sense you invoke) is also not the prime mover for evolution, there are few species that do not cooperate to some degree to maximise their survival, opting out of that in a dangerous situation may save your skin in the short term but if the survivors find you it will not go well.

Fear and love are both adaptations for survival, and fear is not just a selfish drive, have you never felt fear for the fate of someone you cared for?
 You continually ignore that empathy/love is just as much an integral part of evolution as any other drive, it cements families and brings about the surge of passion (endorphins-adrenalin) needed to defend them.
As for the wildebeest question (I left the debate for a short holiday in the New Forest), the reason I put them in was to underline that the love response is pan species, we are not special, as to their juxtaposition with god, I should imagine it is the same as mine, as I don’t see any proof of one.

As for atheism being the death of thought and inquiry? What rubbish! When it became obvious to me that I no longer had a shred of belief in a deity, it wasn’t because science had filled in all the gaps, more that god was such a poor answer to the questions I was asking, and still ask.

(T.N.Reptilian is a sweety)
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 07, 2016, 02:25:12 PM
Not all reciprocal altruism is love, but love is a type of reciprocal altruism.

If your only objection is incredularity, just read the links Rama provided.

"Not all reciprocal altruism is love, but love is a type of reciprocal altruism."

I'll do this for you and you do that for me, is that compassionate love to you? Love can never be a trade, it's unconditional!

Whether it is conditional or not is irrelevant. Read the second link Rama provided, or at least the abstract. It is peer reviewed. Also, allow me to clarify my statement. Some kinds of love can be seen as a type of reciprocal altruism. Others, like love for one's children, don't really fall under that category, but their evolutionary benefit is pretty obvious.

Quote
"If your only objection is incredularity, just read the links Rama provided."

The word is incredulity. See my response to Rama Set.

Yes, I saw your response. You accused them of P-hacking. You give no justification for this accusation, so forgive me if I don't take it seriously. You also complained that they aren't peer reviewed. The bottom 2 articles are both peer reviewed.

First, I said "The proof of God is that man is capable of love". It is based on the fact that man can survive completely without love, yet each individual intensely seeks to love and be loved, it is man's raison d'etre. We have this observable phenomena that exists universally and is integral to man to the point that he will give his life to save his weak dying loved one. Nothing establishes this more profoundly then in the atheist who believes that death holds nothing for him. Why does he do it, what's the benefit?

This is completely irrelevant. Evolution does not require every single action taken to be beneficial to individual survival. In general, love is beneficial to an individual surviving in a social group, and to the group as a whole. Just because it may also cause some individuals to selflessly sacrifice themselves, doesn't negate the overall benefit.

Quote
We have fear to protect the self but its opposite love does not. Fear is completely about the self and self preservation, it is a mechanism within man and its center is the amygdala in the brain. Fear is selfish, it's only concern is the self. Human compassionate love is completely unselfish, it is greater than the self and the individual is willing to give the self driven by it.

First of all, love is not the opposite of fear, despite what various flowery inspirational books might say. Basically, your argument here is that "love couldn't have evolved, because it doesn't help us survive." See my above comments. Love is directly beneficial to survival within a social group. Individual self-preservation in a dangerous situation is not the only driving force behind evolution.

Atheism represents the death of thought. It is based on the assumption that all to know about the universe is known or will be known. The individual ceases to inquire and sticks his head in the proverbial sand. Better to think 'I do not know' and continue to inquire than to say it does not exist and in the future science will prove it.

What!? I'm not even an atheist, but even I know that this is a load of hogwash. Atheism is NOT based on that assumption. And even if it was, why on earth would knowing that everything "will be known" (but isn't currently known) cause someone to stick their head in the sand?

Edit: "2 other posts have been made since you started writing this." Screw it, post anyway! Feel free to ignore this post. Jura gave the best response IMO.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 07, 2016, 02:39:44 PM
Not all reciprocal altruism is love, but love is a type of reciprocal altruism.

If your only objection is incredularity, just read the links Rama provided.

"Not all reciprocal altruism is love, but love is a type of reciprocal altruism."

I'll do this for you and you do that for me, is that compassionate love to you? Love can never be a trade, it's unconditional!

Whether it is conditional or not is irrelevant. Read the second link Rama provided, or at least the abstract. It is peer reviewed. Also, allow me to clarify my statement. Some kinds of love can be seen as a type of reciprocal altruism. Others, like love for one's children, don't really fall under that category, but their evolutionary benefit is pretty obvious.

Quote
"If your only objection is incredularity, just read the links Rama provided."

The word is incredulity. See my response to Rama Set.

Yes, I saw your response. You accused them of P-hacking. You give no justification for this accusation, so forgive me if I don't take it seriously. You also complained that they aren't peer reviewed. The bottom 2 articles are both peer reviewed.

First, I said "The proof of God is that man is capable of love". It is based on the fact that man can survive completely without love, yet each individual intensely seeks to love and be loved, it is man's raison d'etre. We have this observable phenomena that exists universally and is integral to man to the point that he will give his life to save his weak dying loved one. Nothing establishes this more profoundly then in the atheist who believes that death holds nothing for him. Why does he do it, what's the benefit?

This is completely irrelevant. Evolution does not require every single action taken to be beneficial to individual survival. In general, love is beneficial to an individual surviving in a social group, and to the group as a whole. Just because it may also cause some individuals to selflessly sacrifice themselves, doesn't negate the overall benefit.

Quote
We have fear to protect the self but its opposite love does not. Fear is completely about the self and self preservation, it is a mechanism within man and its center is the amygdala in the brain. Fear is selfish, it's only concern is the self. Human compassionate love is completely unselfish, it is greater than the self and the individual is willing to give the self driven by it.

First of all, love is not the opposite of fear, despite what various flowery inspirational books might say. Basically, your argument here is that "love couldn't have evolved, because it doesn't help us survive." See my above comments. Love is directly beneficial to survival within a social group. Individual self-preservation in a dangerous situation is not the only driving force behind evolution.

Atheism represents the death of thought. It is based on the assumption that all to know about the universe is known or will be known. The individual ceases to inquire and sticks his head in the proverbial sand. Better to think 'I do not know' and continue to inquire than to say it does not exist and in the future science will prove it.

What!? I'm not even an atheist, but even I know that this is a load of hogwash. Atheism is NOT based on that assumption. And even if it was, why on earth would knowing that everything "will be known" (but isn't currently known) cause someone to stick their head in the sand?

Edit: "2 other posts have been made since you started writing this." Screw it, post anyway! Feel free to ignore this post. Jura gave the best response IMO.

Ignoring per your request.
R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 07, 2016, 06:28:26 PM

Getting back to the original proposition, that there is a problem with atheism. It seems that there can only be a problem with it, if you give it goals that it doesn’t actually have, as you do with science.

Atheism represents the death of thought.

Only if you look at it through a narrow lense.  In it's cultural context it represents a rejection of the authority of the church on the spiritual nature of the universe.  Freed of that, the atheist is free to forge their own path, and discover their own connection their spiritual side.  They can form new rituals and rites of passage, and rediscover the wisdom of man through a new prism.

Quote
It is based on the assumption that all to know about the universe is known or will be known. The individual ceases to inquire and sticks his head in the proverbial sand. Better to think 'I do not know' and continue to inquire than to say it does not exist and in the future science will prove it.

I am not sure where you get this idea.  Atheism would never claim this, but empiricism might.  Even then, I think on the most extreme minds would think that all that can be known will be known or that all is knowable.  For example, if you watch physicists talk about what came before the Big Bang, the answer is invariably, "We don't know, we may never know, but we will keep going where the evidence takes us."  Or some variation on that theme.

Quote
Who here thinks that all there is to know is known or will be known?

Not me.  To be fair, I am not an atheist either.  I may have anti-theist leanings, but I would never reject Deism out of hand, because I would be guilty of extreme dishonesty and over-reaching.

Quote
Many theists run into the same problem at the other end of the spectrum. They believe God is well defined in some book or whatever and no further inquiry is required. Of the four major religions Christianity (Christ) is the most blatant in this respect. Taoism (Lao-Tze) the least, also the least structured.

I think it is fair to say that extreme Dogmatism in any form leads to closed-mindedness.

Quote
Side note:
Interestingly enough if we explore the lessons of Christ, Lao-Tze, Siddhartha Gautama (Buddhism) and Krishna (Hinduism) we find that their core teaching was compassion. Problems in Christianity arose with the introduction of heaven and hell by man as a method of controlling the masses through fear.

Compassion should be a central tenet of any belief system, I think.

Definition of atheism
1
archaic :  ungodliness, wickedness
2
a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity
b :  the doctrine that there is no deity

See 2 above.

Science stops at death, science only accepts matter as valid. Something that exists after death establishes the possibility of something greater than the self. Now you're in the realm of God.

Thought, according to science must then also stop at death.

The atheist formulates his premise that there is no God based on the belief that science is correct. so for the atheist thought stops at death.

"I am not sure where you get this idea.  Atheism would never claim this..... "

Again, Atheism is based on the premise that science is right. It is only science that can prove or disprove the existence of God to the atheist. In order for someone to be an atheist he or she must believe that they positively know through science that God does not exist. If tomorrow science finds 'new' data proving the existence of God then the atheist is wrong. Atheism is black or white as opposed to agnosticism, for the atheist's beliefs to be valid he would have to know all there is to know, before that point the possibility of God's existence can not be ruled out. The atheist has shut the door on this the instant he claims 'there is no deity'.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 07, 2016, 06:35:22 PM
I'm running out of time here. I'll try to respond to the last few post but won't have time for much more.

Thank you for your questions and enthusiasm, I have thoroughly enjoyed them!

R
Title: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: juner on July 07, 2016, 07:31:54 PM
Wow, this has to be one of the biggest strawman arguments I've ever seen. Also, where did you get that first "definition" of Atheism? I've got three dictionaries laying around, and don't see it in any of them. I think your bias is showing a little too much. I don't need science to not believe in a god. Simply noticing the overwhelming lack of evidence is enough for plebs like me.

On another note, you've almost filled out my logical fallacy bingo card. One more and I may just win something.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 07, 2016, 08:25:04 PM

Robi' you just haven't read a word, you have your agenda and will plough that furrow until you have finished, not listening or learning.

As Junker said, as we all (the athiests) have said, lack of evidence in a god leads to its rejection. Science may come up with some of the answers to questions we have about existence, but bottom line all the god stuff I was taught didn't cut it.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 07, 2016, 08:34:12 PM
Wow, this has to be one of the biggest strawman arguments I've ever seen. Also, where did you get that first "definition" of Atheism? I've got three dictionaries laying around, and don't see it in any of them. I think your bias is showing a little too much. I don't need science to not believe in a god. Simply noticing the overwhelming lack of evidence is enough for plebs like me.

On another note, you've almost filled out my logical fallacy bingo card. One more and I may just win something.

Apparently you don't have Webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

If you don't need science, what is your reasoning?
R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 07, 2016, 08:35:30 PM

Robi' you just haven't read a word, you have your agenda and will plough that furrow until you have finished, not listening or learning.

As Junker said, as we all (the athiests) have said, lack of evidence in a god leads to its rejection. Science may come up with some of the answers to questions we have about existence, but bottom line all the god stuff I was taught didn't cut it.

You'll get a response from , I'm juggling several things at the moment.
R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 07, 2016, 09:17:28 PM

Yet again you show that your understanding of the drives of evolution are hampered by misunderstanding, that is why I urge you to update that knowledge.

You completely misunderstand survival of the fittest, using the naturalistic fallacy that treating the weak badly is a consequence, whereas it should be "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations." Which has nothing to do with killing the weak.

Self-preservation (in the selfish sense you invoke) is also not the prime mover for evolution, there are few species that do not cooperate to some degree to maximise their survival, opting out of that in a dangerous situation may save your skin in the short term but if the survivors find you it will not go well.

Fear and love are both adaptations for survival, and fear is not just a selfish drive, have you never felt fear for the fate of someone you cared for?
 You continually ignore that empathy/love is just as much an integral part of evolution as any other drive, it cements families and brings about the surge of passion (endorphins-adrenalin) needed to defend them.
As for the wildebeest question (I left the debate for a short holiday in the New Forest), the reason I put them in was to underline that the love response is pan species, we are not special, as to their juxtaposition with god, I should imagine it is the same as mine, as I don’t see any proof of one.

As for atheism being the death of thought and inquiry? What rubbish! When it became obvious to me that I no longer had a shred of belief in a deity, it wasn’t because science had filled in all the gaps more that god was such a poor answer to the questions I was asking, and still ask.

I never said anything about killing the weak.  Don't die attempting to save the weak, have more offspring. That's the logical path. I'm saying individual survival is justification that should bias toward having more offspring and not dying but doesn't. Remember, I'm thinking about how to proceed faced with dying myself to save the sickly or not. What does logic dictate? Certainly self preservation. Probabilities favor living and having more offspring. If you want to use evolution to justify your dying to save the loved one go ahead and show me. I don't care what science you use, the problem is you haven't come up with anything to justify dying.

I'm not talking about "a few species", I'm talking about an individual faced with a dying loved one and the motivation for his actions. I'm not thinking about evolution, science or a book someone wrote. If you want to bring science into it then give me the science for my actions because someone facing the death of a loved one very likely doesn't give a fiddle about what Darwin thought. Give me a rational justification, can you do that without a book, without someone's theory?

Let's understand something. There is no individual, political or religious system greater than the truth. Darwin, Dawkins and everyone else on the planet has the privilege of an eraser on their pencil. Peers have disagreed with Darwin, Spencer and Dawkins, tell me a 100 years from now which and how many of their theories will be refuted. Science is not an absolute!

"Fear and love are both adaptations for survival, and fear is not just a selfish drive, have you never felt fear for the fate of someone you cared for?"

If fear is an "adaptation for survival"  then it is about the self so how can fear be anything but a selfish drive according to your own statement? Where's the proof that "love is an "adaptation for survival"? I'm giving my life for a loved one, where is the adaptation for survival"?

"Fear for the fate" is a fear of the unknown and fear of the unknown is about the self whether we are talking about person or a tree falling on our house.

So once you stopped believing in the existence of something greater than yourself you never returned to the inquiry. Right? If you are wrong than you will never know because your thought on the subject has ceased. So my statement is not "rubbish".

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 07, 2016, 09:27:23 PM

Robi' you just haven't read a word, you have your agenda and will plough that furrow until you have finished, not listening or learning.

As Junker said, as we all (the athiests) have said, lack of evidence in a god leads to its rejection. Science may come up with some of the answers to questions we have about existence, but bottom line all the god stuff I was taught didn't cut it.

To clarify, lack of evidence to YOU. Again, thought has stopped, reason has stopped, if you are wrong you will never know. Certitude, it fueled the Crusades!

You keep making the same statements about my "agenda" without answering the question, why do you die to save your loved one?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: juner on July 07, 2016, 10:10:27 PM
...why do you die to save your loved one?

Because they are a loved one.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 07, 2016, 10:10:57 PM

Is this love? We can't know, personally I believe it is, either way it has the same outcome, continuation of the line. The mother, father or wildebeest isn't thinking in those terms, it is following those in built drives that command it to put its life on the line for its child, for you god puts it there for me it's evolution.
But if love is proof of god why does the wildebeest who is only a bit player do it? Last I heard they don't get to go to heaven.

OK, explain to me again how you know what the wildebeest is thinking?

And tell me how you know it is only a "bit player"? And what the wildebeest's perceptions of death are, I'd like to know that too.

"for me it's evolution."

Oh, evolution knows what the wildebeest is thinking and its perceptions of death then?

Anthropomorphism, great word!

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 07, 2016, 10:12:07 PM
...why do you die to save your loved one?

Because they are a loved one.

Exactly! but what's the science?
R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 07, 2016, 10:16:24 PM
...why do you die to save your loved one?

Because they are a loved one.

Exactly! but what's the science?
R

You were linked to a paper with some science. If you aren't going to read it then don't continue the conversation.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 07, 2016, 10:20:16 PM

Fear (in your scenario)is the recognition of the nearness of pain or death, something that triggers the fight or flight response, love is what binds us to those we have invested our lives in, if my child dies there is a chance I may reproduce again, but I may not. Either way that investment is lost. Don't get me wrong I would not be having these thoughts at that time, I would obey my instincts and hopefully put my life on the line, in evolutionary terms the young are more valuable, they hold the future. If the old cling to life and let their young die that future is lost.
The dogs on that video recognised that their existence was on the line, she saved her calf, it wasn't worth the risk to them when there was other prey. Another time and place the dogs find a mother that runs, whose genes go on to the next stage.
If inquiry to you means only that pertains to the hereafter, that is a slim and poor view of what is to be found in the world, we can never know what is to come but to look to the universe and see the beauty and wonder out there is more than enough for me, treading some tired path to possible resurrection is not inquiry it is fatalism. No thanks. 
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 07, 2016, 10:38:54 PM
...why do you die to save your loved one?

Because they are a loved one.

Exactly! but what's the science?
R

You were linked to a paper with some science. If you aren't going to read it then don't continue the conversation.

Not true, the paper was someone's opinion. Here's what else it said:

" Love had always been the one thing - perhaps the only thing - beyond the research scientist's ever-extending grasp...."



Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 12:05:41 AM
The author of the paper was giving context on the study of love and so cited someone else who had previously written on the topic he is addressing. Your quote is prefaced by, "As a preliminary to examining possible evolutionary scenarios for love, it seems right to consider what has been said about love by other writers. "

Here is a conclusion reached based on a study of neurology from the same paper:
Quote
The intrinsic regulators of brain growth in the infant are specially adapted to be coupled, by emotional communication, to the regulators of adult brains of people who know more. This seems to be the key genetic brain strategy for cultural learning; it offers the possibility that transmission of concepts and skills from one generation to the next is facilitated by direct co-ordination between the motivations generated in a child and the feelings of adults; the theory would explain transmission of culture in terms of a specific and highly active epigenetic program for brain growth that needs brain-brain interaction in the context of an intimate affectionate relationship between infant and mother.

You talk about atheists and the end of thought?  Well perhaps you should address your own unwillingness to explore the exact challenge you asked for in this thread?  Or are you going to continue to be completely dishonest in your dealings here?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 12:27:10 AM
The author of the paper was giving context on the study of love and so cited someone else who had previously written on the topic he is addressing. Your quote is prefaced by, "As a preliminary to examining possible evolutionary scenarios for love, it seems right to consider what has been said about love by other writers. "

Here is a conclusion reached based on a study of neurology from the same paper:
Quote
The intrinsic regulators of brain growth in the infant are specially adapted to be coupled, by emotional communication, to the regulators of adult brains of people who know more. This seems to be the key genetic brain strategy for cultural learning; it offers the possibility that transmission of concepts and skills from one generation to the next is facilitated by direct co-ordination between the motivations generated in a child and the feelings of adults; the theory would explain transmission of culture in terms of a specific and highly active epigenetic program for brain growth that needs brain-brain interaction in the context of an intimate affectionate relationship between infant and mother.

You talk about atheists and the end of thought?  Well perhaps you should address your own unwillingness to explore the exact challenge you asked for in this thread?  Or are you going to continue to be completely dishonest in your dealings here?

He's giving an hypothesis "the theory would explain" -"This seems to be" and he's speaking of infants. Where's the justification for dying to save a loved one? I've used a child but what if your wife was dying and you could save her? I would die for my wife. I asked an atheist once if he would jump in front of a speeding train to push his wife to safety at the expense of his own life. He said, "In a heartbeat!".

Before you ask me to explore anything, open your own mind. You gave an isolated paper on infants without thinking that the action goes beyond them.

So spare me the "defeated" remarks and the non-peer reviewed papers that don't address the issue.

And I've outlined completely the flaws in atheism and its crippling certitude that's remarkably close to organized religious thinking. I'm still waiting for your rebuttal.
R



Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 12:30:26 AM

Fear (in your scenario)is the recognition of the nearness of pain or death, something that triggers the fight or flight response, love is what binds us to those we have invested our lives in, if my child dies there is a chance I may reproduce again, but I may not. Either way that investment is lost. Don't get me wrong I would not be having these thoughts at that time, I would obey my instincts and hopefully put my life on the line, in evolutionary terms the young are more valuable, they hold the future. If the old cling to life and let their young die that future is lost.
The dogs on that video recognised that their existence was on the line, she saved her calf, it wasn't worth the risk to them when there was other prey. Another time and place the dogs find a mother that runs, whose genes go on to the next stage.
If inquiry to you means only that pertains to the hereafter, that is a slim and poor view of what is to be found in the world, we can never know what is to come but to look to the universe and see the beauty and wonder out there is more than enough for me, treading some tired path to possible resurrection is not inquiry it is fatalism. No thanks.

Along with the wildebeest the dog knows what death is too? What's he thinking?

Who said anything about resurrection? Your perception of God is religion based, people just don't think for themselves. Someone mentions God and they think you need a book or you have to follow a religion, some ridiculous dogma. And then you complain when someone says you're limited by your certitude and closed mind.
Can you find something completely new, completely on your own? Because if you can't your life is nothing more than a mundane mediocre existence filled with what others think and what others have formulated.

Doesn't it make sense that if God exists you're not required to read a book of instructions on how to act. Wouldn't that be a feeble God? God blesses this person or that person depending on how many times they bow to the east or recite some nonsense. Ridiculous, but your mind is so closed that's all you see any possibility of God being.

Doesn't it make sense that if God exists than his benediction extends to every grain of sand in the universe or nothing and that the last thing he would be doing is encumbering you in dogmatic shackles and marching you off to a burning hell? You would be free, completely free because love in its purest form is truth and the truth will set you free.

R



Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 12:43:56 AM
The author of the paper was giving context on the study of love and so cited someone else who had previously written on the topic he is addressing. Your quote is prefaced by, "As a preliminary to examining possible evolutionary scenarios for love, it seems right to consider what has been said about love by other writers. "

Here is a conclusion reached based on a study of neurology from the same paper:
Quote
The intrinsic regulators of brain growth in the infant are specially adapted to be coupled, by emotional communication, to the regulators of adult brains of people who know more. This seems to be the key genetic brain strategy for cultural learning; it offers the possibility that transmission of concepts and skills from one generation to the next is facilitated by direct co-ordination between the motivations generated in a child and the feelings of adults; the theory would explain transmission of culture in terms of a specific and highly active epigenetic program for brain growth that needs brain-brain interaction in the context of an intimate affectionate relationship between infant and mother.

You talk about atheists and the end of thought?  Well perhaps you should address your own unwillingness to explore the exact challenge you asked for in this thread?  Or are you going to continue to be completely dishonest in your dealings here?

He's giving an hypothesis "the theory would explain" -"This seems to be" and he's speaking of infants. Where's the justification for dying to save a loved one? I've used a child but what if your wife was dying and you could save her?

The paper addresses this. Read it!!  It talks about the infant mother bond being the progenitor for love in adults.

Quote
I would die for my wife. I asked an atheist once if he would jump in front of a speeding train to push his wife to safety at the expense of his own life. He said, "In a heartbeat!".

So? This is a point that both sides agree on. Why bring it up... Again 

Quote
Before you ask me to explore anything, open your own mind.

I did. I tried to find about you and why you are even here and you were about as defensive as one can be and still have a conversation.

Quote
You gave an isolated paper on infants without thinking that the action goes beyond them.

Read the whole paper.

Quote
So spare me the "defeated" remarks and the non-peer reviewed papers that don't address the issue.

Read it.

Quote
And I've outlined completely the flaws in atheism and its crippling certitude that's remarkably close to organized religious thinking. I'm still waiting for your rebuttal.

3 of us did rebut your non sequitur laden pile. It is barely coherent. Atrium does not require science. It is a belief. Anyone can justify however they want. Obviously, not all justifications are equal and I personally give credence to those based on ethics, morals and empiricism. But that's me. As Jura so eloquently put it. There is a whole realm of intellectual, spiritual and philisophical inquiry that extends far beyond the scope of religion. To say that atheism is the death of thought is to say that some of the greatest philosophers in history did not philosophize. It is an absurd and empty claim on it face. You need to rethink it, or deepen it, perhaps. But as it stands now, it is not convincing in the slightest. And your argument itself is based on non sequiturs in your syllogism. So structurally your argument is illogical.

To wit, you likely could not be more wrong if you tried.

Quote
R

<- Your name is in the sidebar and you can create a signature below. No need to sign your initial in this format.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 08, 2016, 09:24:08 AM

Again you skim read and cherry pick, try concentrating on what people are saying to you rather than rushing to repeating yourself ad-nauseam about what you think we are saying.

The dogs; Evolution works like this, they, the pack are faced with a choice (this choice isn’t a sit down and chew it over choice, it’s instinctual choice), tackle the mother, armed as she is with “instinctual” love pushing her to protect her offspring, hooves and a set of fuck off horns that could disembowel them, to get the prize of food to stop them starving. Or go look somewhere else

So let’s go through some of the options and how this works out in evolutionary terms.

The dogs always just pile in; in this situation someone is gonna get hurt, in any situation there are those in the pack that at the front and they will take the brunt, if they are uninjured they are liable to be the more aggressive and get the best bits, the distractors that were round the back get less.

Who does this favour, well in the long run it would be the less aggressive smarter ones, as attacking “whatever” will take its toll on the front runners and if you are dead you can’t breed. If you look at hunting dogs, they are smart team workers they will worry a mother but keep out of her way while the others try to bring down the calf until such time as she either gives or tiredness means that they give up. None of this is reason as such, it is the accumulation of instinctive behaviours honed over millennia. 

Back to your version of god, that’s what it is, your version. What makes that right? It sounds just as full of mumbo jumbo as every other cult. Just to reiterate, I see no sign of a maker/greater being, no plan, no comforting presence guiding me. You show me the proof.
 Freedom? I have it, no dogma or creed, no hope of redemption just the endless night, let me sleep.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 12:36:14 PM
The author of the paper was giving context on the study of love and so cited someone else who had previously written on the topic he is addressing. Your quote is prefaced by, "As a preliminary to examining possible evolutionary scenarios for love, it seems right to consider what has been said about love by other writers. "

Here is a conclusion reached based on a study of neurology from the same paper:
Quote
The intrinsic regulators of brain growth in the infant are specially adapted to be coupled, by emotional communication, to the regulators of adult brains of people who know more. This seems to be the key genetic brain strategy for cultural learning; it offers the possibility that transmission of concepts and skills from one generation to the next is facilitated by direct co-ordination between the motivations generated in a child and the feelings of adults; the theory would explain transmission of culture in terms of a specific and highly active epigenetic program for brain growth that needs brain-brain interaction in the context of an intimate affectionate relationship between infant and mother.

You talk about atheists and the end of thought?  Well perhaps you should address your own unwillingness to explore the exact challenge you asked for in this thread?  Or are you going to continue to be completely dishonest in your dealings here?

He's giving an hypothesis "the theory would explain" -"This seems to be" and he's speaking of infants. Where's the justification for dying to save a loved one? I've used a child but what if your wife was dying and you could save her?

The paper addresses this. Read it!!  It talks about the infant mother bond being the progenitor for love in adults.

Quote
I would die for my wife. I asked an atheist once if he would jump in front of a speeding train to push his wife to safety at the expense of his own life. He said, "In a heartbeat!".

So? This is a point that both sides agree on. Why bring it up... Again 

Quote
Before you ask me to explore anything, open your own mind.

I did. I tried to find about you and why you are even here and you were about as defensive as one can be and still have a conversation.

Quote
You gave an isolated paper on infants without thinking that the action goes beyond them.

Read the whole paper.

Quote
So spare me the "defeated" remarks and the non-peer reviewed papers that don't address the issue.

Read it.

Quote
And I've outlined completely the flaws in atheism and its crippling certitude that's remarkably close to organized religious thinking. I'm still waiting for your rebuttal.

3 of us did rebut your non sequitur laden pile. It is barely coherent. Atrium does not require science. It is a belief. Anyone can justify however they want. Obviously, not all justifications are equal and I personally give credence to those based on ethics, morals and empiricism. But that's me. As Jura so eloquently put it. There is a whole realm of intellectual, spiritual and philisophical inquiry that extends far beyond the scope of religion. To say that atheism is the death of thought is to say that some of the greatest philosophers in history did not philosophize. It is an absurd and empty claim on it face. You need to rethink it, or deepen it, perhaps. But as it stands now, it is not convincing in the slightest. And your argument itself is based on non sequiturs in your syllogism. So structurally your argument is illogical.

To wit, you likely could not be more wrong if you tried.

Quote
R

<- Your name is in the sidebar and you can create a signature below. No need to sign your initial in this format.

I read the paper it's an essay written in 1992, an OPINION not a scientific peer reviewed journal. No one reviewed it, no scientific follow up. Here's what HE says:

"This paper is an essay towards this: it suggests that love"

Now read the quote you pasted above:

"it seems right to consider"

"This seems to be"

"it offers the possibility"

"the theory would explain"

more quotes from the essay:

"there seem no grounds for assuming"

"The conclusion perhaps is that"


IT'S AN ESSAY!

You jump in front of a train to save your wife, you die giving your liver in an an attempt to save your child. This essay doesn't address my question of why you knowingly willingly do it. It doesn't prove a single thing and since 1992 it's been peer reviewed how many times? None, it's an essay!

Rama
"So? This is a point that both sides agree on. Why bring it up... Again"

I'm asking everyone here WHY? Why do you give you life, what's the science? I'm asking you why love and being loved is core meaning of life and nothing is more important?

Rama Set:
"I did. I tried to find about you and why you are even here and you were about as defensive as one can be and still have a conversation."

Who I am, why I'm here is not important to this debate.

Rama Set:
"Atrium does not require science."

I have no idea what this statement means.

Rama Set:

"Your name is in the sidebar and you can create a signature below. No need to sign your initial in this format."

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 12:56:53 PM
So a paper does not speak in absolutes, which is an honest position, and so you take away its credibility...

Very good. So what exactly are you looking for when you ask for a scientific answer?  Apparently answers from scientists in annotated cited papers are not good enough for you.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 01:03:17 PM

Again you skim read and cherry pick, try concentrating on what people are saying to you rather than rushing to repeating yourself ad-nauseam about what you think we are saying.

The dogs; Evolution works like this, they, the pack are faced with a choice (this choice isn’t a sit down and chew it over choice, it’s instinctual choice), tackle the mother, armed as she is with “instinctual” love pushing her to protect her offspring, hooves and a set of fuck off horns that could disembowel them, to get the prize of food to stop them starving. Or go look somewhere else

So let’s go through some of the options and how this works out in evolutionary terms.

The dogs always just pile in; in this situation someone is gonna get hurt, in any situation there are those in the pack that at the front and they will take the brunt, if they are uninjured they are liable to be the more aggressive and get the best bits, the distractors that were round the back get less.

Who does this favour, well in the long run it would be the less aggressive smarter ones, as attacking “whatever” will take its toll on the front runners and if you are dead you can’t breed. If you look at hunting dogs, they are smart team workers they will worry a mother but keep out of her way while the others try to bring down the calf until such time as she either gives or tiredness means that they give up. None of this is reason as such, it is the accumulation of instinctive behaviours honed over millennia. 

Back to your version of god, that’s what it is, your version. What makes that right? It sounds just as full of mumbo jumbo as every other cult. Just to reiterate, I see no sign of a maker/greater being, no plan, no comforting presence guiding me. You show me the proof.
 Freedom? I have it, no dogma or creed, no hope of redemption just the endless night, let me sleep.

What do the dogs have to do with giving my life in an attempt to save a loved one? Do you know what the dogs are thinking? No, no one does, at best it's a theory. Again, let's stick to homo sapiens who we can actually converse with.

Jura:

"Back to your version of god, that’s what it is, your version. What makes that right? It sounds just as full of mumbo jumbo as every other cult. Just to reiterate, I see no sign of a maker/greater being, no plan, no comforting presence guiding me. You show me the proof.
 Freedom? I have it, no dogma or creed, no hope of redemption just the endless night, let me sleep."

I didn't give a version of God. I asked if it made sense that if God exists would we need a book of instructions. I questioned that it doesn't stand to reason that he would bless only a few.

You gave your  perception of what believing in God is "resurrection" "hope of redemption". You equated God to what you've been told or what you read. I asked if you could actually find something out for yourself without a book, completely original to you. So far anything I can get from you I can get from a book, from someone else.

"To say that atheism is the death of thought is to say that some of the greatest philosophers in history did not philosophize."

You believe that God doesn't exist. You have made up your mind, your thought on the issue of God is done, it's dead! If God does exist you will never know. I don't care what a philosopher said, they get the right to be wrong just like the rest of us and it doesn't change the fact that your certitude has completely closed your mind.

You only have one answer, it is science, if science is wrong, you're wrong. If the book you cling to is wrong, you're wrong. You will never see anything greater than someone else has seen, someone else's opinion. 

R

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 01:13:35 PM
So a paper does not speak in absolutes, which is an honest position, and so you take away its credibility...

Very good. So what exactly are you looking for when you ask for a scientific answer?  Apparently answers from scientists in annotated cited papers are not good enough for you.

I hypothesized that the proof of God is that man is capable of love (compassionate love). I drew this hypothesis on the FACTS that man, universally seeks to love and be loved and that he willingly gives his life, something greater than the self, for that love. That man can survive completely without love, he can eat, procreate, socialize, etc. That none more profoundly exemplify the power of compassionate love more than the atheist who believes that his existence is completely over in every respect in giving his life for his loved one.

If you disagree with my hypothesis, then you must give justification for man's actions and the facts I have outlined above.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 01:43:46 PM
So what exactly are you looking for when you ask for a scientific answer?

I hypothesized that the proof of God is that man is capable of love (compassionate love). I drew this hypothesis on the FACTS that man, universally seeks to love and be loved and that he willingly gives his life, something greater than the self, for that love. That man can survive completely without love, he can eat, procreate, socialize, etc. That none more profoundly exemplify the power of compassionate love more than the atheist who believes that his existence is completely over in every respect in giving his life for his loved one.[/quote]

How do you get "man seeks love and will give his life for a loved one" therefore God exists?  It is a total non sequitur.  We have already given one plausible answer which does not involve God: Reciprocal Altruism.  You have not said what is wrong with this idea and there are reams of papers (https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=studies+on+reciprocal+altruism&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmnY_k_uPNAhVIdj4KHQMuD4sQgQMIHDAA) on the topic.

Quote
If you disagree with my hypothesis, then you must give justification for man's actions and the facts I have outlined above.

It has been given.  You have an unarticulated problem with the justification given.  Please tell us what your problem is.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 01:57:21 PM
So what exactly are you looking for when you ask for a scientific answer?

I hypothesized that the proof of God is that man is capable of love (compassionate love). I drew this hypothesis on the FACTS that man, universally seeks to love and be loved and that he willingly gives his life, something greater than the self, for that love. That man can survive completely without love, he can eat, procreate, socialize, etc. That none more profoundly exemplify the power of compassionate love more than the atheist who believes that his existence is completely over in every respect in giving his life for his loved one.

How do you get "man seeks love and will give his life for a loved one" therefore God exists?  It is a total non sequitur.  We have already given one plausible answer which does not involve God: Reciprocal Altruism.  You have not said what is wrong with this idea and there are reams of papers (https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=studies+on+reciprocal+altruism&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmnY_k_uPNAhVIdj4KHQMuD4sQgQMIHDAA) on the topic.

Quote
If you disagree with my hypothesis, then you must give justification for man's actions and the facts I have outlined above.

It has been given.  You have an unarticulated problem with the justification given.  Please tell us what your problem is.
[/quote]

It has not and saying so doesn't change that fact! You gave me a 25 year old essay full of "possibles" with no peer review and no follow up, endorphins, oxycotin and reciprocal altruism.

Again, reciprocal altruism is a TRADE, it's not compassionate love. Love is not a trade! You die, you have nothing to trade. Science stops, science deals with the material world.

You're an atheist dying to save a loved one, you'll have to do a lot better than that!

"Rama Set:
How do you get "man seeks love and will give his life for a loved one" therefore God exists?  It is a total non sequitur. "

I'm showing through facts that something greater than the self universally exists. You can disagree with it but you have to give logical justification.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 02:24:59 PM
It has not and saying so doesn't change that fact! You gave me a 25 year old essay full of "possibles" with no peer review and no follow up, endorphins, oxycotin and reciprocal altruism.

I just linked to a google search that lists dozens and dozens of papers.  I thought you had done research.  If you had, you would know that reciprocal altruism is an extensively studied topic.  The paper I linked previously was not about reciprocal altruism, nor did I claim it was.

Quote
Again, reciprocal altruism is a TRADE, it's not compassionate love.

It is not a trade as in a direct 1 for 1.  No one has ever said that, nor is it how reciprocal altruism is thought of.  It works on the idea that a group will help the others in the group out, but no single member of the group need have an expectation that their altruism is returned.

Quote
Love is not a trade! You die, you have nothing to trade. Science stops, science deals with the material world.
"Rama Set:
How do you get "man seeks love and will give his life for a loved one" therefore God exists?  It is a total non sequitur. "

Quote
I'm showing through facts that something greater than the self universally exists. You can disagree with it but you have to give logical justification.

I did, your conclusion does not follow from the premises.  It is a non sequitur.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 08, 2016, 02:44:27 PM
Quote
Me
"Back to your version of god, that’s what it is, your version. What makes that right? It sounds just as full of mumbo jumbo as every other cult. Just to reiterate, I see no sign of a maker/greater being, no plan, no comforting presence guiding me.
Quote
You show me the proof.
Freedom? I have it, no dogma or creed, no hope of redemption just the endless night, let me sleep."

Quote
Robo
I didn't give a version of God. I asked if it made sense that if God exists would we need a book of instructions. I questioned that it doesn't stand to reason that he would bless only a few.

So round and round we go. So give me your version of god whose proof is the existence of Love, on second thoughts don't.
You don't need a god for love to exist, so your argument has no weight. It has been explained how and why, if you can't get it, fine back to your navel gazing, there are plenty of you out there in your personal wildernesses berating those of us that have moved on, we can take it.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 03:21:46 PM
Quote
Me
"Back to your version of god, that’s what it is, your version. What makes that right? It sounds just as full of mumbo jumbo as every other cult. Just to reiterate, I see no sign of a maker/greater being, no plan, no comforting presence guiding me.
Quote
You show me the proof.
Freedom? I have it, no dogma or creed, no hope of redemption just the endless night, let me sleep."

Quote
Robo
I didn't give a version of God. I asked if it made sense that if God exists would we need a book of instructions. I questioned that it doesn't stand to reason that he would bless only a few.

So round and round we go. So give me your version of god whose proof is the existence of Love, on second thoughts don't.
You don't need a god for love to exist, so your argument has no weight. It has been explained how and why, if you can't get it, fine back to your navel gazing, there are plenty of you out there in your personal wildernesses berating those of us that have moved on, we can take it.

Fact:
Man seeks to love and be loved universally.

Fact:
Man is willing to die in the hope of saving a loved on.

Fact:
Man can survive without compassionate love.


Jura
"You don't need a god for love to exist"

This is not a fact, it is an opinion, you haven't proved it.

I gave you the hypothesis, you can disagree with my hypothesis but you have to justify the facts I presented.

essay:
formal
an attempt or effort.
"a misjudged essay"
synonyms:   attempt, effort, endeavor, try, venture, trial, experiment, undertaking
"his first essay in telecommunications"
verbformal
eˈsā/
1.
attempt or try.
"essay a smile"

An essay written 25 years ago, not hardly.

You have to justify why man universally strongly seeks to love and be loved. and you have to justify why if man can survive without loving that he so desperately seeks it universally.

Jura:
"so your argument has no weight. It has been explained how and why, if you can't get it, fine back to your navel gazing, there are plenty of you out there in your personal wildernesses berating those of us that have moved on, we can take it."

The facts I outlined above have no weight? Then justify them.

I didn't berate you, I cited the fact that your certitude has closed your mind by your own admission that you believe unequivocally that God does not exist. a prioi

Show me that perspective is a product of an open mind.

"Jura:
you out there in your personal wildernesses berating those of us that have moved on, we can take it."

Now that's berating!

God has to "guide you"? Why?
R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 03:30:10 PM

Fact:
Man seeks to love and be loved universally.

Fact:
Man is willing to die in the hope of saving a loved on.

Fact:
Man can survive without compassionate love.


Jura
"You don't need a god for love to exist"

This is not a fact, it is an opinion, you haven't proved it.

I gave you the hypothesis, you can disagree with my hypothesis but you have to justify the facts I presented.

A hypothesis does not need rebutting.  You have not demonstrated that your hypothesis is supported in the slightest; not metaphysically, not empirically.  It is just an assertion at this point.

Quote
essay:
formal
an attempt or effort.
"a misjudged essay"
synonyms:   attempt, effort, endeavor, try, venture, trial, experiment, undertaking
"his first essay in telecommunications"
verbformal
eˈsā/
1.
attempt or try.
"essay a smile"

An essay written 25 years ago, not hardly.

You have to justify why man universally strongly seeks to love and be loved. and you have to justify why if man can survive without loving that he so desperately seeks it universally.

I am not sure who this is addressed to, or how it is anything more than a needless rehash of your previous paragraph.

Quote
Jura:
"so your argument has no weight. It has been explained how and why, if you can't get it, fine back to your navel gazing, there are plenty of you out there in your personal wildernesses berating those of us that have moved on, we can take it."

The facts I outlined above have no weight? Then justify them.

You justify them.  All of you have said is, "here are some facts, therefore God" without doing anything to bridge the gap.

Quote
I didn't berate you, I cited the fact that your certitude has closed your mind by your own admission that you believe unequivocally that God does not exist.

Show me that perspective is a product of an open mind.

You didn't understand what he said.  He that he did not need God, which is different than a certitude, obviously.  You know, because it is part of your malformed argument above.  He also said that this came from having questions that a belief in God that did not answer.  Nothing there implies a certainty. 
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 08, 2016, 03:55:20 PM

Fact:
Man seeks to love and be loved universally. Man needs to reproduce and have safety in numbers

Fact:
Man is willing to die in the hope of saving a loved on. Some men not all.

Fact:
Man can survive without compassionate love. Man can survive without hair!

Conclusion; Case not proven, is god bald?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 04:14:57 PM

Fact:
Man seeks to love and be loved universally. Man needs to reproduce and have safety in numbers

Fact:
Man is willing to die in the hope of saving a loved on. Some men not all.

Fact:
Man can survive without compassionate love. Man can survive without hair!

Conclusion; Case not proven, is god bald?

" Man needs to reproduce and have safety in numbers"

Man can reproduce without love. and exist in a symbiotic group without love.

" Some men not all."

The action of giving one's life is not singular. I am willing, atheists are willing. Some may be unwilling but this does not dismiss the fact that giving ones life is not uncommon. In fact you may very well be willing. The fact stands.

" Man can survive without hair!"

If man can survive without love than why does he give his life for his loved one out of love?  He's not giving his life because he's bald!

R

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: juner on July 08, 2016, 04:27:30 PM
Some may be unwilling but this does not dismiss the fact that giving ones life is not uncommon. In fact you may very well be willing. The fact stands.

What fact? Giving one's life is quite uncommon. Maybe saying that one would give his or her life isn't uncommon, but the actual act certainly seems to be. Unless you you have evidence to prove your claim, you can't simply call it a fact. As you eloquently stated before, repeating something doesn't make it true.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 08, 2016, 04:31:22 PM

" Man needs to reproduce and have safety in numbers"

Man can reproduce without love. and exist in a symbiotic group without love.

You seem to be of the opinion that evolution cannot affect something that isn't absolutely essential to survival. This seems to be the heart of your misunderstanding.

Man can also survive without a little finger. Does that prove that evolution has no part in producing a little finger? Of course not! That would be ridiculous. The same goes for love. Man can survive without love, but that does not prove that evolution has no part in producing love. Evolution can result in non-essential traits.

Quote
If man can survive without love than why does he give his life for his loved one out of love?  He's not giving his life because he's bald!

I see absolutely no connection between these two things. There is no causal link between the necessity of love for survival and a person's willingness to sacrifice himself, that I can see.

"Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post. " -- seriously!? every darn time...
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 05:15:35 PM
Some may be unwilling but this does not dismiss the fact that giving ones life is not uncommon. In fact you may very well be willing. The fact stands.

What fact? Giving one's life is quite uncommon. Maybe saying that one would give his or her life isn't uncommon, but the actual act certainly seems to be. Unless you you have evidence to prove your claim, you can't simply call it a fact. As you eloquently stated before, repeating something doesn't make it true.

Quite common, firemen do it daily. Soldiers do it daily. I have done it.
Here's an example:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/hero-u-s-soldier-gives-life-to-save-afghan-girl/
"It is a compelling war-zone story of heroism of a U.S. soldier who gave his own life to save an Afghan girl from certain injury.

Sgt. Dennis Weichel, 29, died in Afghanistan last week as he lifted an Afghan girl who was in the path of a large military vehicle barreling down a road."

http://www.liftbump.com/2014/12/30832-meet-carnegie-funds-19-everyday-heroes/

"Established more than 100 years ago, the Carnegie Hero Fund exists to honor the real and everyday heroes around us. In order to qualify for a Carnegie medal, the person nominated must have risked their lives, “to an extraordinary degree,” while saving (or attempting to save) the life of another person.

Eighty-four medals have been awarded in 2014, and 9,737 since the Fund was created in 1904. Honorees also receive a financial grant; the Fund has given out $36.7 million in grants, scholarships, death benefits, and other assistance in the past 110 years."

These people got medals, but giving a life to save another is common. To prove the phenomena we only need to show that there are individuals willing to do it. I have personally risked my life to save another. I understood completely that my life was in danger and I very well could die.

It's a FACT!
R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 05:24:26 PM

" Man needs to reproduce and have safety in numbers"

Man can reproduce without love. and exist in a symbiotic group without love.

You seem to be of the opinion that evolution cannot affect something that isn't absolutely essential to survival. This seems to be the heart of your misunderstanding.

Man can also survive without a little finger. Does that prove that evolution has no part in producing a little finger? Of course not! That would be ridiculous. The same goes for love. Man can survive without love, but that does not prove that evolution has no part in producing love. Evolution can result in non-essential traits.

Quote
If man can survive without love than why does he give his life for his loved one out of love?  He's not giving his life because he's bald!

I see absolutely no connection between these two things. There is no causal link between the necessity of love for survival and a person's willingness to sacrifice himself, that I can see.

"Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post. " -- seriously!? every darn time...

"Man can also survive without a little finger. Does that prove that evolution has no part in producing a little finger? Of course not! That would be ridiculous. The same goes for love. Man can survive without love, but that does not prove that evolution has no part in producing love. Evolution can result in non-essential traits."

Go read the facts I posted. You're not answering the question, not disputing the facts, you're giving an opinion. I posted facts, if you disagree than you must give a valid justification for the action.

Giving our "little finger", hair or whatever does not go beyond the self, the self is still intact. Giving one's life goes beyond the self! It's an observation that something exists that is greater than the self.

R

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 05:37:12 PM

"Man can also survive without a little finger. Does that prove that evolution has no part in producing a little finger? Of course not! That would be ridiculous. The same goes for love. Man can survive without love, but that does not prove that evolution has no part in producing love. Evolution can result in non-essential traits."

Go read the facts I posted. You're not answering the question, not disputing the facts, you're giving an opinion. I posted facts, if you disagree than you must give a valid justification for the action.

He is disputing the implications of your facts.  You are trying to make a case that these facts necessitate a God.  Part of that argument is that Love is not utilitarian from an evolutionary perspective.  What Totes is saying is that evolution is not a system that only produces maximally effective mutations and adaptations.

Quote
Giving our "little finger", hair or whatever does not go beyond the self, the self is still intact. Giving one's life goes beyond the self! It's an observation that something exists that is greater than the self.

So what?  All of this can still be explained, and has been explained, under an evolutionary paradigm.  You have to exclude evolution from this argument, otherwise a valid counterexample falsifies your hypothesis that only God can be responsible for love. (paraphrased)
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: juner on July 08, 2016, 05:37:43 PM
Some may be unwilling but this does not dismiss the fact that giving ones life is not uncommon. In fact you may very well be willing. The fact stands.

What fact? Giving one's life is quite uncommon. Maybe saying that one would give his or her life isn't uncommon, but the actual act certainly seems to be. Unless you you have evidence to prove your claim, you can't simply call it a fact. As you eloquently stated before, repeating something doesn't make it true.

Quite common, firemen do it daily. Soldiers do it daily. I have done it.
Here's an example:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/hero-u-s-soldier-gives-life-to-save-afghan-girl/
"It is a compelling war-zone story of heroism of a U.S. soldier who gave his own life to save an Afghan girl from certain injury.

Sgt. Dennis Weichel, 29, died in Afghanistan last week as he lifted an Afghan girl who was in the path of a large military vehicle barreling down a road."

http://www.liftbump.com/2014/12/30832-meet-carnegie-funds-19-everyday-heroes/

"Established more than 100 years ago, the Carnegie Hero Fund exists to honor the real and everyday heroes around us. In order to qualify for a Carnegie medal, the person nominated must have risked their lives, “to an extraordinary degree,” while saving (or attempting to save) the life of another person.

Eighty-four medals have been awarded in 2014, and 9,737 since the Fund was created in 1904. Honorees also receive a financial grant; the Fund has given out $36.7 million in grants, scholarships, death benefits, and other assistance in the past 110 years."

These people got medals, but giving a life to save another is common. To prove the phenomena we only need to show that there are individuals willing to do it. I have personally risked my life to save another. I understood completely that my life was in danger and I very well could die.

It's a FACT!
R

A handful of anecdotes still doesn't make it a fact, and your examples of firefighters and soldiers actually go against the point you're trying to make. Soldiers and firefighters likely don't know, and don't "love" the people they sacrificed themselves for, therefore it is entirely irrelevant to the argument you're trying to make.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 08, 2016, 06:07:19 PM
These people got medals, but giving a life to save another is common. To prove the phenomena we only need to show that there are individuals willing to do it. I have personally risked my life to save another. I understood completely that my life was in danger and I very well could die.

A handful of anecdotes still doesn't make it a fact, and your examples of firefighters and soldiers actually go against the point you're trying to make. Soldiers and firefighters likely don't know, and don't "love" the people they sacrificed themselves for, therefore it is entirely irrelevant to the argument you're trying to make.

To clarify junker's point, a handful of anecdotes proves that the phenomenon exists, but it does not prove that it is common. Your original statement was that the phenomenon is common ("not uncommon"):

Some may be unwilling but this does not dismiss the fact that giving ones life is not uncommon.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 06:15:07 PM

"Man can also survive without a little finger. Does that prove that evolution has no part in producing a little finger? Of course not! That would be ridiculous. The same goes for love. Man can survive without love, but that does not prove that evolution has no part in producing love. Evolution can result in non-essential traits."

Go read the facts I posted. You're not answering the question, not disputing the facts, you're giving an opinion. I posted facts, if you disagree than you must give a valid justification for the action.

He is disputing the implications of your facts.  You are trying to make a case that these facts necessitate a God.  Part of that argument is that Love is not utilitarian from an evolutionary perspective.  What Totes is saying is that evolution is not a system that only produces maximally effective mutations and adaptations.

Quote
Giving our "little finger", hair or whatever does not go beyond the self, the self is still intact. Giving one's life goes beyond the self! It's an observation that something exists that is greater than the self.

So what?  All of this can still be explained, and has been explained, under an evolutionary paradigm.  You have to exclude evolution from this argument, otherwise a valid counterexample falsifies your hypothesis that only God can be responsible for love. (paraphrased)

" and has been explained, under an evolutionary paradigm". The what??
 Where?

Evolution hasn't explain the facts, you have not established that, no one here has, saying so doesn't change that! People here talking about baldness and fingers. Give me something to work with!

I'm not trying to "necessitate a God". I'm giving facts that support the hypothesis that something greater than the self exists, you keep tripping over the same stone. You went back to reciprocal altruism several times, went back to an essay that doesn't justify the facts and brought in endorphins and oxycotin. What are you going to cut and paste next?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 06:19:22 PM
Some may be unwilling but this does not dismiss the fact that giving ones life is not uncommon. In fact you may very well be willing. The fact stands.

What fact? Giving one's life is quite uncommon. Maybe saying that one would give his or her life isn't uncommon, but the actual act certainly seems to be. Unless you you have evidence to prove your claim, you can't simply call it a fact. As you eloquently stated before, repeating something doesn't make it true.

Quite common, firemen do it daily. Soldiers do it daily. I have done it.
Here's an example:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/hero-u-s-soldier-gives-life-to-save-afghan-girl/
"It is a compelling war-zone story of heroism of a U.S. soldier who gave his own life to save an Afghan girl from certain injury.

Sgt. Dennis Weichel, 29, died in Afghanistan last week as he lifted an Afghan girl who was in the path of a large military vehicle barreling down a road."

http://www.liftbump.com/2014/12/30832-meet-carnegie-funds-19-everyday-heroes/

"Established more than 100 years ago, the Carnegie Hero Fund exists to honor the real and everyday heroes around us. In order to qualify for a Carnegie medal, the person nominated must have risked their lives, “to an extraordinary degree,” while saving (or attempting to save) the life of another person.

Eighty-four medals have been awarded in 2014, and 9,737 since the Fund was created in 1904. Honorees also receive a financial grant; the Fund has given out $36.7 million in grants, scholarships, death benefits, and other assistance in the past 110 years."

These people got medals, but giving a life to save another is common. To prove the phenomena we only need to show that there are individuals willing to do it. I have personally risked my life to save another. I understood completely that my life was in danger and I very well could die.

It's a FACT!
R

A handful of anecdotes still doesn't make it a fact, and your examples of firefighters and soldiers actually go against the point you're trying to make. Soldiers and firefighters likely don't know, and don't "love" the people they sacrificed themselves for, therefore it is entirely irrelevant to the argument you're trying to make.

Please! You do it out of compassion. No? Then why do you give your life for another?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 06:23:40 PM
These people got medals, but giving a life to save another is common. To prove the phenomena we only need to show that there are individuals willing to do it. I have personally risked my life to save another. I understood completely that my life was in danger and I very well could die.

A handful of anecdotes still doesn't make it a fact, and your examples of firefighters and soldiers actually go against the point you're trying to make. Soldiers and firefighters likely don't know, and don't "love" the people they sacrificed themselves for, therefore it is entirely irrelevant to the argument you're trying to make.

To clarify junker's point, a handful of anecdotes proves that the phenomenon exists, but it does not prove that it is common. Your original statement was that the phenomenon is common ("not uncommon"):

Some may be unwilling but this does not dismiss the fact that giving ones life is not uncommon.
Symantics!

A "handful", you don't know that. We don't know how many people do it, what's important is that we do it. Again, how many people are in the position, how many people we never hear about, etc. is not the issue. We know the phenomena exists.

 It's a fact, why do we do it, can I get that answer?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 06:31:29 PM
" and has been explained, under an evolutionary paradigm". The what??
 Where?

Having troubles with English?

Quote
Evolution hasn't explain the facts, you have not established that, no one here has, saying so doesn't change that! People here talking about baldness and fingers. Give me something to work with!

You have been! 

Quote
I'm not trying to "necessitate a God". I'm giving facts that support the hypothesis that something greater than the self exists, you keep tripping over the same stone.

You absolutely are trying to necessitate a god, or you are playing games.  From your first post in this thread:

The proof of God is that man is capable of love.

So which is it? 

Quote
You went back to reciprocal altruism several times,

Yes, a well substantiated phenomenon which explains why groups help each other, sometimes sacrificing their lives.

Quote
went back to an essay that doesn't justify the facts

Gives further context from the field of psychology that love for those outside familial relationships is related to the love for family.

Quote
and brought in endorphins and oxycotin.

Yes and yes.

http://www.eoht.info/page/Endorphin+theory+of+love
http://www.livescience.com/42198-what-is-oxytocin.html

Quote
What are you going to cut and paste next?

Is cutting and pasting links to evidence not approved?  Should I be hand-writing them all? 


Please! You do it out of compassion. No? Then why do you give your life for another?

Compassion is not a synonym for love.  You have had this explained.  Please try to understand the difference.

Syemantics!

Fixed.

Quote
A "handful", you don't know that. We don't know how many people do it, what's important is that we do it.

So your argument about how common it is was a complete waste of time.  Or is it that you were wrong and can't admit it?

Quote
Again, how many people are in the position, how many people we never hear about, etc. is not the issue. We know the phenomena exists.

You want to stick with facts.  Why don't we do that?

Quote
It's a fact, why do we do it, can I get that answer?

Hey!  Here is one, you may not have heard before: Reciprocal Altruism!
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 06:47:24 PM
" and has been explained, under an evolutionary paradigm". The what??
 Where?

Having troubles with English?

Quote
Evolution hasn't explain the facts, you have not established that, no one here has, saying so doesn't change that! People here talking about baldness and fingers. Give me something to work with!

You have been! 

Quote
I'm not trying to "necessitate a God". I'm giving facts that support the hypothesis that something greater than the self exists, you keep tripping over the same stone.

You absolutely are trying to necessitate a god, or you are playing games.  From your first post in this thread:

The proof of God is that man is capable of love.

So which is it? 

Quote
You went back to reciprocal altruism several times,

Yes, a well substantiated phenomenon which explains why groups help each other, sometimes sacrificing their lives.

Quote
went back to an essay that doesn't justify the facts

Gives further context from the field of psychology that love for those outside familial relationships is related to the love for family.

Quote
and brought in endorphins and oxycotin.

Yes and yes.

http://www.eoht.info/page/Endorphin+theory+of+love
http://www.livescience.com/42198-what-is-oxytocin.html

Quote
What are you going to cut and paste next?

Is cutting and pasting links to evidence not approved?  Should I be hand-writing them all? 


Please! You do it out of compassion. No? Then why do you give your life for another?

Compassion is not a synonym for love.  You have had this explained.  Please try to understand the difference.

Syemantics!

Fixed.

Quote
A "handful", you don't know that. We don't know how many people do it, what's important is that we do it.

So your argument about how common it is was a complete waste of time.  Or is it that you were wrong and can't admit it?

Quote
Again, how many people are in the position, how many people we never hear about, etc. is not the issue. We know the phenomena exists.

You want to stick with facts.  Why don't we do that?

Quote
It's a fact, why do we do it, can I get that answer?

Hey!  Here is one, you may not have heard before: Reciprocal Altruism!

I explained this. My hypothesis is that, through the several facts I have stated, that something exists greater than the self. I call this something God.
Get it now?

I'm getting very bored going over the same ground, over and over. I've ignored the rest as previously answered. endorphins and oxycotin, reciprocal altruism?

"In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time."

You're dead, what's the future benefit reciprocal altruism promises! Absolutely rediculous, over and over the same ground!
R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 08, 2016, 06:47:57 PM
Evolution hasn't explain the facts, you have not established that, no one here has, saying so doesn't change that! People here talking about baldness and fingers. Give me something to work with!

Alrighty, I'll try to explain how evolution can result in the phenomenon we know as "love". Story time!

Let's imagine a hypothetical species, that has no social structure. We will call them "Hoomans". They don't live in groups. They give birth, then go their separate ways. They are complete loners.

One day, a Hooman called Bob is born. Bob is a bit defective. For some reason, Bob likes to follow around other Hoomans. No one knows why Bob does this, and it doesn't really matter. Alice is a normal Hooman, but she reluctantly tolerates Bob tagging along behind her. Oddly enough, Bob and Alice do really well together. Together, they are more easily able to fight off predators. They can share food when one of them is hurt. There are drawbacks of course: they have to gather twice the amount of food from the same area, they are easier to spot, etc. However, in this case, the advantages outweigh the drawbacks.

Alice and Bob have a baby. Oh no! Bob's baby also has this defective "Bob gene", that causes him to follow around other Hoomans. However, like Bob, he does pretty well for himself. As it turns out, any Hooman with the "Bob gene" has a 60% rate of survival, compared to the 40% rate of survival for the average Hooman. Hoomans like Bob steadily become more common. The Bob-like Hoomans start forming small social groups, which becomes very beneficial to their survival. Other character traits develop in the same way that Bob's character trait developed:

The desire to fiercely protect fellow tribe members.
The desire to fiercely protect the tribe's young.
The desire to stay with the tribe.
Sadness at another tribe member's pain, which motivates them to try to relieve that pain.
etc.

The more of these group-beneficial traits a tribe has, the more successful they tend to be. Perhaps none of these traits by themselves is exactly what we would define as "love". But over time, these socially beneficial traits change and mix and over time, they begin to resemble the phenomenon that we call "love".

Obviously, this is just a hypothetical situation, but it demonstrates a possible evolutionary mechanism behind love. Since your argument seems to be "evolution can't result in love", I think this satisfactorily refutes your argument.

Edit:

I would like to add, that once the Hoomans start grouping up into tribes, none of these traits has to be directly beneficial to the individual. They just have to be beneficial to the tribe as a whole. Sacrificial love is obviously not beneficial to the survival of the individual, but it can definitely be beneficial to the tribe as a whole. Therefore, the tribes with a "sacrificial love trait" tend to do better than the tribes without it, and the "sacrificial love trait" gets passed on by those tribes.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 07:00:24 PM

I explained this. My hypothesis is that, through the several facts I have stated, that something exists greater than the self. I call this something God.
Get it now?

Yes, for your argument to be true the facts you stated must necessitate God, by whatever your definition is, and nothing else. Maybe you don't know what necessitate means.

Quote
I'm getting very bored going over the same ground, over and over. I've ignored the rest as previously answered. endorphins and oxycotin, reciprocal altruism?

"In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time."

Source? 

Quote
You're dead, what's the future benefit reciprocal altruism promises! Absolutely rediculous, over and over the same ground!

Your spelling is off again  No matter!  I won't comment on this until I see the source you are citing and if you are being thorough.

EDIT: Removed unnecessary quotes and fixed spelling.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 07:07:22 PM
Evolution hasn't explain the facts, you have not established that, no one here has, saying so doesn't change that! People here talking about baldness and fingers. Give me something to work with!

Alrighty, I'll try to explain how evolution can result in the phenomenon we know as "love". Story time!

Let's imagine a hypothetical species, that has no social structure. We will call them "Hoomans". They don't live in groups. They give birth, then go their separate ways. They are complete loners.

One day, a Hooman called Bob is born. Bob is a bit defective. For some reason, Bob likes to follow around other Hoomans. No one knows why Bob does this, and it doesn't really matter. Alice is a normal Hooman, but she reluctantly tolerates Bob tagging along behind her. Oddly enough, Bob and Alice do really well together. Together, they are more easily able to fight off predators. They can share food when one of them is hurt. There are drawbacks of course: they have to gather twice the amount of food from the same area, they are easier to spot, etc. However, in this case, the advantages outweigh the drawbacks.

Alice and Bob have a baby. Oh no! Bob's baby also has this defective "Bob gene", that causes him to follow around other Hoomans. However, like Bob, he does pretty well for himself. As it turns out, any Hooman with the "Bob gene" has a 60% rate of survival, compared to the 40% rate of survival for the average Hooman. Hoomans like Bob steadily become more common. The Bob-like Hoomans start forming small social groups, which becomes very beneficial to their survival. Other character traits develop in the same way that Bob's character trait developed:

The desire to fiercely protect fellow tribe members.
The desire to fiercely protect the tribe's young.
The desire to stay with the tribe.
Sadness at another tribe member's pain, which motivates them to try to relieve that pain.
etc.

The more of these group-beneficial traits a tribe has, the more successful they tend to be. Perhaps none of these traits by themselves is exactly what we would define as "love". But over time, these socially beneficial traits change and mix and over time, they begin to resemble the phenomenon that we call "love".

Obviously, this is just a hypothetical situation, but it demonstrates a possible evolutionary mechanism behind love. Since your argument seems to be "evolution can't result in love", I think this satisfactorily refutes your argument.


"The desire to fiercely protect fellow tribe members."

No compassion required. Protect the group, helps protect me.

"The desire to fiercely protect the tribe's young."

No compassion required - reciprocal altruism

"The desire to stay with the tribe."

No compassion required. Safety in numbers.

"Sadness at another tribe member's pain, which motivates them to try to relieve that pain."

Am I dying to save the individual in pain? Where's the evolutionary justification for giving my life and the evolutionary benefit for me?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 08, 2016, 07:10:15 PM
Am I dying to save the individual in pain? Where's the evolutionary justification for giving my life and the evolutionary benefit for me?R

Please read my edit. There does not need to be an individual benefit to have "evolutionary justification". This is the key to why everything you have said is wrong.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 08, 2016, 07:12:27 PM
For your convenience, here is my edit:

Edit:

I would like to add, that once the Hoomans start grouping up into tribes, none of these traits has to be directly beneficial to the individual. They just have to be beneficial to the tribe as a whole. Sacrificial love is obviously not beneficial to the survival of the individual, but it can definitely be beneficial to the tribe as a whole. Therefore, the tribes with a "sacrificial love trait" tend to do better than the tribes without it, and the "sacrificial love trait" gets passed on by those tribes.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 07:12:37 PM


Your spelling is off again  No matter!  I can't comment on this until I see the source you are citing and if you are being thorough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism

"In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time."

Now I'm really getting bored!!
R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 07:15:13 PM
For your convenience, here is my edit:

Edit:

I would like to add, that once the Hoomans start grouping up into tribes, none of these traits has to be directly beneficial to the individual. They just have to be beneficial to the tribe as a whole. Sacrificial love is obviously not beneficial to the survival of the individual, but it can definitely be beneficial to the tribe as a whole. Therefore, the tribes with a "sacrificial love trait" tend to do better than the tribes without it, and the "sacrificial love trait" gets passed on by those tribes.

You're dead! there is no tribe, there is no science, there is no evolutionary benefit! You give your life for another individual, are you thinking about the benefit to the tribe? No!
R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 08, 2016, 07:18:21 PM
For your convenience, here is my edit:

Edit:

I would like to add, that once the Hoomans start grouping up into tribes, none of these traits has to be directly beneficial to the individual. They just have to be beneficial to the tribe as a whole. Sacrificial love is obviously not beneficial to the survival of the individual, but it can definitely be beneficial to the tribe as a whole. Therefore, the tribes with a "sacrificial love trait" tend to do better than the tribes without it, and the "sacrificial love trait" gets passed on by those tribes.

You're dead! there is no tribe, there is no science, there is no evolutionary benefit! You give your life for another individual, are you thinking about the benefit to the tribe? No!
R

That doesn't matter. The sacrificial trait helped the tribe survive, and that's all that matters for there to be evolutionary benefit. I repeat, there does not need to be an individual benefit for the trait to be promoted by evolution.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 07:28:27 PM


Your spelling is off again  No matter!  I can't comment on this until I see the source you are citing and if you are being thorough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism

"In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time."

Thank you!  Ok, so that is the bare-bones definition given in the introduction.  Have you looked at any of the related material?  For example, the article on Altruism (biology) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology)) has a whole section on the mechanisms of reciprocity, and the one cited as most common is not a "tit for tat" system, as you are characterizing reciprocity, but rather one based on symmetry: 

Quote
Also known as the "buddy-system", mutual affection between two parties prompts similar behavior in both directions without need to track of daily give-and-take, so long as the overall relationship remains satisfactory. This is one of the most common mechanism of reciprocity in nature, this kind is present in humans, primates, and many other mammals.

Under this mechanism, enlightened self-interest can flourish, and it would be simple to see how sacrifice could appear in the way you are describing.[/quote]

Quote
Now I'm really getting bored!!

You are not being forced to post, so this is probably a lie.

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 07:45:58 PM
For your convenience, here is my edit:

Edit:

I would like to add, that once the Hoomans start grouping up into tribes, none of these traits has to be directly beneficial to the individual. They just have to be beneficial to the tribe as a whole. Sacrificial love is obviously not beneficial to the survival of the individual, but it can definitely be beneficial to the tribe as a whole. Therefore, the tribes with a "sacrificial love trait" tend to do better than the tribes without it, and the "sacrificial love trait" gets passed on by those tribes.

You're dead! there is no tribe, there is no science, there is no evolutionary benefit! You give your life for another individual, are you thinking about the benefit to the tribe? No!
R

That doesn't matter. The sacrificial trait helped the tribe survive, and that's all that matters for there to be evolutionary benefit. I repeat, there does not need to be an individual benefit for the trait to be promoted by evolution.

Your sickly child is dying and you can save him by giving your life. Are you seriously thinking about the group dynamic? Of course not! It matters completely.

Science only deals with matter thus evolutionary science can only deal with matter. Science can not establish good, it's not possible, good is a relative term. There's no proof that your dying will be good for the group, you have no way of knowing, science has no way of knowing.

ben·e·fit
ˈbenəfit/Submit
noun
1.
an advantage or profit gained from something.
"tenants bought their houses with the benefit of a discount"
synonyms:   good, sake, welfare, well-being, advantage, comfort, ease, convenience; More

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 07:49:54 PM
Your sickly child is dying and you can save him by giving your life. Are you seriously thinking about the group dynamic? Of course not! It matters completely.

Do you know what it means to operate on instinct? 

Quote
Science only deals with matter thus evolutionary science can only deal with matter. Science can not establish good, it's not possible, good is a relative term. There's no proof that your dying will be good for the group, you have no way of knowing, science has no way of knowing.

ben·e·fit
ˈbenəfit/Submit
noun
1.
an advantage or profit gained from something.
"tenants bought their houses with the benefit of a discount"
synonyms:   good, sake, welfare, well-being, advantage, comfort, ease, convenience; More


What definition of good are you using now?  If you are trying to say that science cannot tell if something will benefit someone's chances at survival, then you must think medicine is all voodoo or inspired by a higher power.

I seriously think we are just getting trolled at this point.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 07:53:00 PM


Your spelling is off again  No matter!  I can't comment on this until I see the source you are citing and if you are being thorough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism

"In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time."

Thank you!  Ok, so that is the bare-bones definition given in the introduction.  Have you looked at any of the related material?  For example, the article on Altruism (biology) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology)) has a whole section on the mechanisms of reciprocity, and the one cited as most common is not a "tit for tat" system, as you are characterizing reciprocity, but rather one based on symmetry: 

Quote
Also known as the "buddy-system", mutual affection between two parties prompts similar behavior in both directions without need to track of daily give-and-take, so long as the overall relationship remains satisfactory. This is one of the most common mechanism of reciprocity in nature, this kind is present in humans, primates, and many other mammals.

Under this mechanism, enlightened self-interest can flourish, and it would be simple to see how sacrifice could appear in the way you are describing.

Quote
Now I'm really getting bored!!

You are not being forced to post, so this is probably a lie.
[/quote]

What does reciprocity mean? Geeze! Quid pro quo. Is love a trade? I'll do this for you and you do that for me? How do you benefit when you're dead! How many times do i have to explain this!

And I'm way past any concern about spelling at this point.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 07:55:53 PM

What does reciprocity mean?

So you didn't bother reading anything. 
Quote
Geeze! Quid pro quo. Is love a trade? I'll do this for you and you do that for me? How do you benefit when you're dead! How many times do i have to explain this!

You probably should stop.  Explaining your limited semantic ideas of reciprocity, when there is very obvious and clear information that contradicts must be embarrassing for you.

Quote
And I'm way past any concern about spelling at this point.

Clearly.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 07:58:57 PM
Your sickly child is dying and you can save him by giving your life. Are you seriously thinking about the group dynamic? Of course not! It matters completely.

Do you know what it means to operate on instinct? 

Quote
Science only deals with matter thus evolutionary science can only deal with matter. Science can not establish good, it's not possible, good is a relative term. There's no proof that your dying will be good for the group, you have no way of knowing, science has no way of knowing.

ben·e·fit
ˈbenəfit/Submit
noun
1.
an advantage or profit gained from something.
"tenants bought their houses with the benefit of a discount"
synonyms:   good, sake, welfare, well-being, advantage, comfort, ease, convenience; More


What definition of good are you using now?  If you are trying to say that science cannot tell if something will benefit someone's chances at survival, then you must think medicine is all voodoo or inspired by a higher power.

I seriously think we are just getting trolled at this point.

You take a pill, does science know that it will make you well? No, science only can give the perceived reaction to the pill. Science can not establish well or good, benefit, benefit to society, etc.
Science can not give absolutes. Will the pill fix the problem? Science can only give the chemical change.

R

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 08:00:49 PM

What does reciprocity mean?

So you didn't bother reading anything. 
Quote
Geeze! Quid pro quo. Is love a trade? I'll do this for you and you do that for me? How do you benefit when you're dead! How many times do i have to explain this!

You probably should stop.  Explaining your limited semantic ideas of reciprocity, when there is very obvious and clear information that contradicts must be embarrassing for you.

Quote
And I'm way past any concern about spelling at this point.

Clearly.

Is compassionate Love a trade??
R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 08:06:24 PM
I read it!
You're not giving anything. Reciprocity altruism IS NOT LOVE!!!

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 08:15:48 PM
You take a pill, does science know that it will make you well? No, science only can give the perceived reaction to the pill. Science can not establish well or good, benefit, benefit to society, etc.
Science can not give absolutes. Will the pill fix the problem? Science can only give the chemical change.


So in your opinion the small pox vaccine does not benefit the health of people? 


Is compassionate Love a trade??


Sure.  For one example, you feel less compassion for those who show little or no compassion to you.  If someone is more compassionate to you, you tend to be more likely to be compassionate to them.  This is why saving strangers is less common than saving family members.

I read it!
You're not giving anything. Reciprocity altruism IS NOT LOVE!!!

R

No one said reciprocity is love.  Ever.  Love is a way of engendering altruism.  It rewards altruism and makes it more desirable through releasing endorphins.  More altruism, means more chances for a group to survive.  Get it yet?*


*Of course not.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 08, 2016, 08:27:37 PM
For your convenience, here is my edit:

Edit:

I would like to add, that once the Hoomans start grouping up into tribes, none of these traits has to be directly beneficial to the individual. They just have to be beneficial to the tribe as a whole. Sacrificial love is obviously not beneficial to the survival of the individual, but it can definitely be beneficial to the tribe as a whole. Therefore, the tribes with a "sacrificial love trait" tend to do better than the tribes without it, and the "sacrificial love trait" gets passed on by those tribes.

You're dead! there is no tribe, there is no science, there is no evolutionary benefit! You give your life for another individual, are you thinking about the benefit to the tribe? No!
R

That doesn't matter. The sacrificial trait helped the tribe survive, and that's all that matters for there to be evolutionary benefit. I repeat, there does not need to be an individual benefit for the trait to be promoted by evolution.

Your sickly child is dying and you can save him by giving your life. Are you seriously thinking about the group dynamic? Of course not! It matters completely.

This is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the sacrificial person's motivation is. All that matters is the result: is sacrificing oneself beneficial to the tribe? If so, then evolution promotes that action. It does not matter if the person sacrificing himself understands the mechanism behind evolution. It does not matter why he decided to sacrifice himself.

Quote
Science only deals with matter thus evolutionary science can only deal with matter. Science can not establish good, it's not possible, good is a relative term. There's no proof that your dying will be good for the group, you have no way of knowing, science has no way of knowing.

Once again, completely irrelevant. By "helping the tribe", "beneficial to the tribe", "good for the tribe", all I mean is that it increases the chances of the tribe's survival. All it is is statistics. Which tribe survives? If the tribe with the high preponderance of the sacrificial trait survives, then the sacrificial trait is promoted by evolution. All this mumbo jumbo about "science can not establish good" is completely beside the point.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 08:30:11 PM
You take a pill, does science know that it will make you well? No, science only can give the perceived reaction to the pill. Science can not establish well or good, benefit, benefit to society, etc.
Science can not give absolutes. Will the pill fix the problem? Science can only give the chemical change.


So in your opinion the small pox vaccine does not benefit the health of people? 


Is compassionate Love a trade??


Sure.  For one example, you feel less compassion for those who show little or no compassion to you.  If someone is more compassionate to you, you tend to be more likely to be compassionate to them.  This is why saving strangers is less common than saving family members.

I read it!
You're not giving anything. Reciprocity altruism IS NOT LOVE!!!

R

No one said reciprocity is love.  Ever.  Love is a way of engendering altruism.  It rewards altruism and makes it more desirable through releasing endorphins.  More altruism, means more chances for a group to survive.  Get it yet?*


*Of course not.

"So in your opinion the small pox vaccine does not benefit the health of people?"

It may very well but science can only give us the material change. I cant establish if it's good for you.

"Sure.  For one example, you feel less compassion for those who show little or no compassion to you.  If someone is more compassionate to you, you tend to be more likely to be compassionate to them.  This is why saving strangers is less common than saving family members."

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/154936-freedom-and-love-go-together-love-is-not-a-reaction

Here's a quote from the well know philospher Jiddu Krishnmurti:

“Freedom and love go together. Love is not a reaction. If I love you because you love me, that is mere trade, a thing to be bought in the market; it is not love. To love is not to ask anything in return, not even to feel that you are giving something- and it is only such love that can know freedom.”

To love is not asking anything in return. What have I been saying all along!

You keep trying to shoehorn reciprocal altruism in, give up the ghost! It's not love!

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 08:37:16 PM
Why hit the quote button if you are not going to use the quote function?


"So in your opinion the small pox vaccine does not benefit the health of people?"

It may very well but science can only give us the material change. I cant establish if it's good for you.

Uhhh, you aren't sure if smallpox is good for you?  Do you know what it does?

Quote
"Sure.  For one example, you feel less compassion for those who show little or no compassion to you.  If someone is more compassionate to you, you tend to be more likely to be compassionate to them.  This is why saving strangers is less common than saving family members."

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/154936-freedom-and-love-go-together-love-is-not-a-reaction

Here's a quote from the well know philospher Jiddu Krishnmurti:

“Freedom and love go together. Love is not a reaction. If I love you because you love me, that is mere trade, a thing to be bought in the market; it is not love. To love is not to ask anything in return, not even to feel that you are giving something- and it is only such love that can know freedom.”

To love is not asking anything in return. What have I been saying all along!

Oh wow!  You found someone who agrees with you!  Now, please tell me, aside from that, why Jiddu gets to decide what is love and what isn't?

Quote
You keep trying to shoehorn reciprocal altruism in, give up the ghost! It's not love!


I have never said it was.  In fact, my last post to you directly addressed this:

No one said reciprocity is love.  Ever.  Love is a way of engendering altruism.  It rewards altruism and makes it more desirable through releasing endorphins.  More altruism, means more chances for a group to survive.  Get it yet?*


*Of course not.

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 08:45:02 PM

"So in your opinion the small pox vaccine does not benefit the health of people?"

It may very well, but science can only give us the action/reaction not the benefit.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 08:47:23 PM

I have never said it was.  In fact, my last post to you directly addressed this:


If you agree reciprocal altruism is not love than how is it pertinent to the facts I posed to support my hypothesis?
R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 08:51:55 PM

If you agree reciprocal altruism is not love than how is it pertinent to the facts I posed to support my hypothesis?


Because:

 
Quote
Love is a way of engendering altruism.  It rewards altruism and makes it more desirable through releasing endorphins.  More altruism, means more chances for a group to survive.  Get it yet?*


*Of course not.

You wanted an evolutionary justification for love and compassion.  Love engenders altruism, which increases the ability to survive.

QED


"So in your opinion the small pox vaccine does not benefit the health of people?"

It may very well, but science can only give us the action/reaction not the benefit.

R

Yes it can give you the benefit.  The benefit of life.


Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 08:52:47 PM


Oh wow!  You found someone who agrees with you!  Now, please tell me, aside from that, why Jiddu gets to decide what is love and what isn't?



https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-without-limits/201111/what-is-love-and-what-isnt

Deborah Anapol Ph.D.

" Love does not come with conditions, stipulations, addenda, or codes. Like the sun, love radiates independently of our fears and desires.

Love is inherently free. It cannot be bought, sold, or traded. "

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 09:02:01 PM

If you agree reciprocal altruism is not love than how is it pertinent to the facts I posed to support my hypothesis?


Because:

 
Quote
Love is a way of engendering altruism.  It rewards altruism and makes it more desirable through releasing endorphins.  More altruism, means more chances for a group to survive.  Get it yet?*

Quote
Absolutely not! There is no group, you're dying to save a loved one!

You wanted an evolutionary justification for love and compassion.  Love engenders altruism, which increases the ability to survive.

QED
Quote
You're dead! Not possible!

"So in your opinion the small pox vaccine does not benefit the health of people?"

It may very well, but science can only give us the action/reaction not the benefit.


Yes it can give you the benefit.  The benefit of life.
Quote
It can't make that determination. You take a vaccine, science can only tell you the reaction.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 09:15:18 PM
Absolutely not! There is no group, you're dying to save a loved one!

The group continues on without the dead member.


Quote
You're dead! Not possible!

It absolutely increases the groups ability to survive.


Quote
It can't make that determination. You take a vaccine, science can only tell you the reaction.


This is just word games now. We both agree, I hope, that life is more beneficial than death?  If so, sacrificing your life to help you he group prosper is an effective tactic.

P.S. Thanks for using the quote function, next comes using it properly.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 08, 2016, 09:22:55 PM
Absolutely not! There is no group, you're dying to save a loved one!

The group continues on without the dead member.


Quote
You're dead! Not possible!

It absolutely increases the groups ability to survive.


Quote
It can't make that determination. You take a vaccine, science can only tell you the reaction.


This is just word games now. We both agree, I hope, that life is more beneficial than death?  If so, sacrificing your life to help you he group prosper is an effective tactic.

P.S. Thanks for using the quote function, next comes using it properly.

I give up, I don't care anymore, I'm just pushing buttons at this point! We're down to basic stuff!
Forget Skinner, Maslow, etc. any Psychology 101 will tell you love is not a trade but you need proof!

And you still grappling with the fact that science can not establish good. Amazing!!

I'm done, you're right, there is no God and the earth is dead flat!!

R



Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 09:32:44 PM

I give up, I don't care anymore, I'm just pushing buttons at this point! We're down to basic stuff!
Forget Skinner, Maslow, etc. any Psychology 101 will tell you love is not a trade but you need proof!

Go ahead and cite them then!  Give us facts, just like you expect from others!  Reciprocate!

Quote
And you still grappling with the fact that science can not establish good. Amazing!!

I understand exactly where you are coming from.  It actually does not matter.  What matters is that we agree that living is better than dying.  We can call it an underlying assumption and leave it at that.

Quote
I'm done, you're right, there is no God

Maybe.  You certainly did nothing to prove he exists.

Quote
and the earth is dead flat!!

Nope.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 12, 2016, 07:25:32 AM


Quote
and the earth is dead flat!!

Nope.

Nope.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 13, 2016, 12:47:19 PM
and the earth is dead flat!!

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: truth on July 13, 2016, 05:30:56 PM
I am an atheist, and many flat-Earthers I have talked to get angry at me for it. What is wrong with Atheism? Do I REALLY need a religion to be moral? What If I don't agree with any religious moral principles (homosexuality, gender equality, etc.)?
Atheist - is Ath which stand for Authenticity and theist which stand for destroying authenticity.
Religion is Real- the reality lig-lag gion is the name for the world - reality delaying the world.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 13, 2016, 10:08:56 PM
I am an atheist, and many flat-Earthers I have talked to get angry at me for it. What is wrong with Atheism? Do I REALLY need a religion to be moral? What If I don't agree with any religious moral principles (homosexuality, gender equality, etc.)?
Atheist - is Ath which stand for Authenticity and theist which stand for destroying authenticity.
Religion is Real- the reality lig-lag gion is the name for the world - reality delaying the world.

Ok, I am super curious now. Where do you get these definitions from?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: truth on July 13, 2016, 10:21:11 PM
I am an atheist, and many flat-Earthers I have talked to get angry at me for it. What is wrong with Atheism? Do I REALLY need a religion to be moral? What If I don't agree with any religious moral principles (homosexuality, gender equality, etc.)?
Atheist - is Ath which stand for Authenticity and theist which stand for destroying authenticity.
Religion is Real- the reality lig-lag gion is the name for the world - reality delaying the world.

Ok, I am super curious now. Where do you get these definitions from?
look at the words - Ath-Auth
theist - I took from my language - st mean to divert, frankly this is enough for me because the Theis I don't what is it.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 14, 2016, 01:13:13 AM
I am an atheist, and many flat-Earthers I have talked to get angry at me for it. What is wrong with Atheism? Do I REALLY need a religion to be moral? What If I don't agree with any religious moral principles (homosexuality, gender equality, etc.)?
Atheist - is Ath which stand for Authenticity and theist which stand for destroying authenticity.
Religion is Real- the reality lig-lag gion is the name for the world - reality delaying the world.

Ok, I am super curious now. Where do you get these definitions from?
look at the words - Ath-Auth
theist - I took from my language - st mean to divert, frankly this is enough for me because the Theis I don't what is it.

What is your native language? Turkish by any chance? There are many words that have similar sounds in English. Many of them are not related.

If you are going to just guess at word meanings by their sound, you will get many of the meanings wrong. Both of your above definitions are incorrect.

Theist and atheism come from the Greek word for God, "Theos".

Religion possibly comes from the Latin "relegere" (to re-read) or religare (rely, reliance)
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: truth on July 14, 2016, 10:19:27 AM
I am an atheist, and many flat-Earthers I have talked to get angry at me for it. What is wrong with Atheism? Do I REALLY need a religion to be moral? What If I don't agree with any religious moral principles (homosexuality, gender equality, etc.)?
Atheist - is Ath which stand for Authenticity and theist which stand for destroying authenticity.
Religion is Real- the reality lig-lag gion is the name for the world - reality delaying the world.

Ok, I am super curious now. Where do you get these definitions from?
look at the words - Ath-Auth
theist - I took from my language - st mean to divert, frankly this is enough for me because the Theis I don't what is it.

What is your native language? Turkish by any chance? There are many words that have similar sounds in English. Many of them are not related.

If you are going to just guess at word meanings by their sound, you will get many of the meanings wrong. Both of your above definitions are incorrect.

Theist and atheism come from the Greek word for God, "Theos".

Religion possibly comes from the Latin "relegere" (to re-read) or religare (rely, reliance)
Do you think everyone surrounding you are stupid ?

relegere is religion ? where is the N come from ? what is this r in the end ?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 14, 2016, 12:04:50 PM
I am an atheist, and many flat-Earthers I have talked to get angry at me for it. What is wrong with Atheism? Do I REALLY need a religion to be moral? What If I don't agree with any religious moral principles (homosexuality, gender equality, etc.)?
Atheist - is Ath which stand for Authenticity and theist which stand for destroying authenticity.
Religion is Real- the reality lig-lag gion is the name for the world - reality delaying the world.

Ok, I am super curious now. Where do you get these definitions from?
look at the words - Ath-Auth
theist - I took from my language - st mean to divert, frankly this is enough for me because the Theis I don't what is it.

What is your native language? Turkish by any chance? There are many words that have similar sounds in English. Many of them are not related.

If you are going to just guess at word meanings by their sound, you will get many of the meanings wrong. Both of your above definitions are incorrect.

Theist and atheism come from the Greek word for God, "Theos".

Religion possibly comes from the Latin "relegere" (to re-read) or religare (rely, reliance)
Do you think everyone surrounding you are stupid ?

relegere is religion ? where is the N come from ? what is this r in the end ?

No, I don't think everyone is stupid. I suspect some of them are though. I won't name any names.

Religion comes from the Latin word religionem, with the same meaning. Relegere and religare are possible ancient Latin origins for the word.

My information comes from www.etymonline.com (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=religion). It uses information from these sources (http://www.etymonline.com/sources.php). These are people that spend time studying the history of words. They are not just guessing.

You, on the other hand, are just guessing.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 14, 2016, 02:26:54 PM
TNR:
"No, I don't think everyone is stupid. I suspect some of them are though. I won't name any names."

To imply that someone is "stupid" or to not "think that everyone is stupid" is to imply that 'I'm intelligent' because, really, to differentiate one must at the least know what it means to be smart.

So can we deduce for your statement that you've read the great literature of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Camus, Balzac, etc? Plato, the philosophy of Kierkegaard? If I asked you to give me an algorithm to determine all the prime numbers over 10 million, you would be able to do that, right? if I asked you about Fast Fourier and Laplace transforms, beam stress analysis or angular velocity you would know exactly what I was talking about, right?  Programming embedded microcontrollers? Because any discussion of the earth would mean that an individual would hopefully have a broad in depth understanding of science. So what is your science background? What are your degrees in, because you know what smart is and you're on a forum that discusses science.

If I asked you, again since you claim to know what stupid is, what it means to be intelligent, what would you say?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 14, 2016, 04:05:09 PM
Wow, that is quite a few assumptions based on a rather simple statement. Let's explore them, shall we?

TNR:
"No, I don't think everyone is stupid. I suspect some of them are though. I won't name any names."

To imply that someone is "stupid" or to not "think that everyone is stupid" is to imply that 'I'm intelligent' because, really, to differentiate one must at the least know what it means to be smart.

Statement 1: "I don't think everyone is stupid".
This statement implies nothing about my own intelligence, except for what one can infer based on its accuracy, or lack thereof. For purposes of this discussion, I will define stupid as "well below average intelligence". My statement was either false (everyone is stupid), or true (someone isn't stupid). Please note that it only takes the existence of a single non-stupid person to make my statement true, regardless of my own intelligence. By my definition of stupid, it is logically impossible for everyone to be stupid. There must be someone above average for there to be people below average.

Statement 2: "I suspect some of them are though"
Notice the key word "suspect". I specifically included this uncertainty because I did NOT want to make any certain statements about my own intelligence.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

So no, neither of these statements implied that I am intelligent. Now, on to your "deductions", and your oddly specific criteria for intelligence:

Quote
So can we deduce for your statement that you've read the great literature of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Camus, Balzac, etc? Plato, the philosophy of Kierkegaard?

Meh. Some of it. I'm not really a fan of philosophic literature.

Quote
If I asked you to give me an algorithm to determine all the prime numbers over 10 million, you would be able to do that, right? if I asked you about Fast Fourier and Laplace transforms, beam stress analysis or angular velocity you would know exactly what I was talking about, right?  Programming embedded microcontrollers? Because any discussion of the earth would mean that an individual would hopefully have a broad in depth understanding of science. So what is your science background? What are your degrees in, because you know what smart is and you're on a forum that discusses science.

Yes to all, actually, although I'd have to brush up on a few things for some of them. As for my degree (if any), I would rather not say merely for privacy reasons. You are welcome to infer what you will.

Quote
If I asked you, again since you claim to know what stupid is, what it means to be intelligent, what would you say?

Some combination of knowledge, ability to understand complicated systems, and emotional maturity. Ask 10 psychologists and you will likely get 10 different answers.

On the other hand, I'll borrow from a common description of "love": I don't know exactly what intelligence is, but I can usually recognize when it isn't there.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 14, 2016, 04:44:51 PM
What does reading the classics have to do with intelligence?  Ignorance =! Stupidity
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 15, 2016, 11:41:35 AM
Wow, that is quite a few assumptions based on a rather simple statement. Let's explore them, shall we?

TNR:
"No, I don't think everyone is stupid. I suspect some of them are though. I won't name any names."

To imply that someone is "stupid" or to not "think that everyone is stupid" is to imply that 'I'm intelligent' because I know the difference because stupid is a relative term.

Statement 1: "I don't think everyone is stupid".
This statement implies nothing about my own intelligence, except for what one can infer based on its accuracy, or lack thereof. For purposes of this discussion, I will define stupid as "well below average intelligence". My statement was either false (everyone is stupid), or true (someone isn't stupid). Please note that it only takes the existence of a single non-stupid person to make my statement true, regardless of my own intelligence. By my definition of stupid, it is logically impossible for everyone to be stupid. There must be someone above average for there to be people below average.

Statement 2: "I suspect some of them are though"
Notice the key word "suspect". I specifically included this uncertainty because I did NOT want to make any certain statements about my own intelligence.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

So no, neither of these statements implied that I am intelligent. Now, on to your "deductions", and your oddly specific criteria for intelligence:

Quote
So can we deduce for your statement that you've read the great literature of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Camus, Balzac, etc? Plato, the philosophy of Kierkegaard?

Meh. Some of it. I'm not really a fan of philosophic literature.

Quote
If I asked you to give me an algorithm to determine all the prime numbers over 10 million, you would be able to do that, right? if I asked you about Fast Fourier and Laplace transforms, beam stress analysis or angular velocity you would know exactly what I was talking about, right?  Programming embedded microcontrollers? Because any discussion of the earth would mean that an individual would hopefully have a broad in depth understanding of science. So what is your science background? What are your degrees in, because you know what smart is and you're on a forum that discusses science.

Yes to all, actually, although I'd have to brush up on a few things for some of them. As for my degree (if any), I would rather not say merely for privacy reasons. You are welcome to infer what you will.

Quote
If I asked you, again since you claim to know what stupid is, what it means to be intelligent, what would you say?

Some combination of knowledge, ability to understand complicated systems, and emotional maturity. Ask 10 psychologists and you will likely get 10 different answers.

On the other hand, I'll borrow from a common description of "love": I don't know exactly what intelligence is, but I can usually recognize when it isn't there.

Not true. If someone says "I don't think everyone is stupid" they are making a judgement, an evaluation. "I won't name any names" is a specific evaluation of another individual as to their intelligence. Stupid is a relative term and a relative judgement, is someone who reads the classics intelligent? Maybe, maybe not. Is someone who can write complex algorithms and remember long series of numbers intelligent? Maybe, maybe not. That's education and it doesn't always indicate intelligence.

You'll "borrow from a common description of love" because all you can give me is what someone else thinks or says. I didn't ask you for someone else's perspective I asked what it means to be intelligent, after all you "suspect" certain individuals are stupid. Specifically what does it mean to be intelligent to YOU? If someone asks me that question I can tell them, without a book, without asking someone else.

I can get a book to tell me what intelligence and compassion are but to find out for myself requires introspection.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 15, 2016, 11:45:35 AM
What does reading the classics have to do with intelligence?  Ignorance =! Stupidity

Maybe nothing!
You get the same question, what does it mean to you to be intelligent? Is someone who can do complex math intelligent?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 15, 2016, 11:46:28 AM
Didn't we defeat you like She-Ra defeats Hordak?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 15, 2016, 12:45:18 PM
Didn't we defeat you like She-Ra defeats Hordak?

I gave you facts that none of you refuted. Oh, you gave me an essay from someone with no credentials, no PhD, no peer review and no follow up. Worse it didn't answer the questions in my hypothesis!

I said, reciprocal altruism was not love and that love was not a trade. You said give me a definition. I gave you a definition and you said, well that's a basic definition so you gave me another definition that said the same thing in different words.

I gave you a quote from Jiddu Krishnamurti who said "love is not a trade". You said, so you got some "guy" to agree with you, so I gave you a PhD from a peer reviewed journal saying exactly the same thing and you said you knew reciprocal altruism was not a love.

At that point I figured it was not longer worth debating your failed logic, laughed to myself and said "... and the world is dead flat!" The three of you all said "nope!". Really?? No kidding, I was being ironical!

What's really interesting is that you all jumped right in with "nope!" but when I asked what was more important than loving and being loved all I got was dead air. When I asked what would your life be worth if tomorrow everyone you loved disavowed ever loving you all I got was dead air!

So tomorrow everyone who thinks the world is flat decides it's not, how does your life change? That's rhetorical, it doesn't change, you've accomplished nothing. Never being loved again would change your life immensely but none of you have an answer for that!

What's wrong with this picture?

And by the way Krishnamurti, the "guy" you said I found to agree with me was considered one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th Century!

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 15, 2016, 12:52:17 PM
Didn't we defeat you like She-Ra defeats Hordak?

Intelligence, you're making my point exactly!
R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 15, 2016, 01:49:45 PM
Didn't we defeat you like She-Ra defeats Hordak?

I gave you facts that none of you refuted.



R

Nope.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 15, 2016, 03:46:45 PM
Wow, that is quite a few assumptions based on a rather simple statement. Let's explore them, shall we?

TNR:
"No, I don't think everyone is stupid. I suspect some of them are though. I won't name any names."

To imply that someone is "stupid" or to not "think that everyone is stupid" is to imply that 'I'm intelligent' because I know the difference because stupid is a relative term.

Statement 1: "I don't think everyone is stupid".
This statement implies nothing about my own intelligence, except for what one can infer based on its accuracy, or lack thereof. For purposes of this discussion, I will define stupid as "well below average intelligence". My statement was either false (everyone is stupid), or true (someone isn't stupid). Please note that it only takes the existence of a single non-stupid person to make my statement true, regardless of my own intelligence. By my definition of stupid, it is logically impossible for everyone to be stupid. There must be someone above average for there to be people below average.

Statement 2: "I suspect some of them are though"
Notice the key word "suspect". I specifically included this uncertainty because I did NOT want to make any certain statements about my own intelligence.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

So no, neither of these statements implied that I am intelligent. Now, on to your "deductions", and your oddly specific criteria for intelligence:

Quote
So can we deduce for your statement that you've read the great literature of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Camus, Balzac, etc? Plato, the philosophy of Kierkegaard?

Meh. Some of it. I'm not really a fan of philosophic literature.

Quote
If I asked you to give me an algorithm to determine all the prime numbers over 10 million, you would be able to do that, right? if I asked you about Fast Fourier and Laplace transforms, beam stress analysis or angular velocity you would know exactly what I was talking about, right?  Programming embedded microcontrollers? Because any discussion of the earth would mean that an individual would hopefully have a broad in depth understanding of science. So what is your science background? What are your degrees in, because you know what smart is and you're on a forum that discusses science.

Yes to all, actually, although I'd have to brush up on a few things for some of them. As for my degree (if any), I would rather not say merely for privacy reasons. You are welcome to infer what you will.

Quote
If I asked you, again since you claim to know what stupid is, what it means to be intelligent, what would you say?

Some combination of knowledge, ability to understand complicated systems, and emotional maturity. Ask 10 psychologists and you will likely get 10 different answers.

On the other hand, I'll borrow from a common description of "love": I don't know exactly what intelligence is, but I can usually recognize when it isn't there.

Not true. If someone says "I don't think everyone is stupid" they are making a judgement, an evaluation.

I specifically stated in my post exactly why this could not possibly be a judgement/evaluation of anyone. Please read the part labelled "Statement 1"

Quote
"I won't name any names" is a specific evaluation of another individual as to their intelligence.

No, it definitely isn't. It's a phrase that indicates my lack of desire/confidence to implicate anyone. The phrase before that was an evaluation of the intelligence of another individual. Please read the part labelled "Statement 2".

Quote
You'll "borrow from a common description of love" because all you can give me is what someone else thinks or says. I didn't ask you for someone else's perspective I asked what it means to be intelligent, after all you "suspect" certain individuals are stupid. Specifically what does it mean to be intelligent to YOU?

I gave you my definition in the preceding sentence. Please read the entirety of my post before lambasting me for what I did or did not say.

I strongly suspect you didn't even bother reading my post. (edit: my entire post. You clearly at least read bits and pieces.) Which brings us to this:

Quote
I gave you facts that none of you refuted.

We refuted everything you said. Most of it multiple times, because you seemed to ignore it all. Exactly like you seemed to ignore everything I said in my previous post.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 15, 2016, 09:12:22 PM

I read your statements, they're both wrong!

Statement 1:

Your statement indicates that you believe not everyone is stupid but some people are. 'I think everyone is stupid' would indicate that's what you thought and you would have said that.

IF you thought no one was stupid you would have said that. Neither of those statements was made by you, you believe not everyone is stupid but some people are. Example: 'Not everyone gets a prize.' This indicates that some individuals do get prizes, ergo some individuals are stupid.


Statement2:

"I suspect"

sus·pect
verb
səˈspekt/
1.
have an idea or impression of the existence, presence, or truth of (something) without certain proof.
"if you suspect a gas leak, do not turn on an electric light"
synonyms:   have a suspicion, have a feeling, feel, (be inclined to) think, fancy, reckon, guess, surmise, conjecture, conclude, have a hunch;

You are inclined to think, reckon, guess, conclude that some are stupid BUT you won't name those individuals. Clearly indicates that there are individuals you believe are stupid.

And I'm still waiting for what intelligence means to you.

"
We refuted everything you said. Most of it multiple times, because you seemed to ignore it all. Exactly like you seemed to ignore everything I said in my previous post."

You told me what was more important than loving and being loved? Several times? Than it should be easy for you to point me to one or two of those response in the debate.

Same response to you too Jura.

Saying "nope" doesn't make it true.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 15, 2016, 11:59:12 PM
I read your statements, they're both wrong!

Statement 1:

Your statement indicates that you believe not everyone is stupid but some people are... you believe not everyone is stupid but some people are.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant and it is exactly what I said. Good job. However, you claimed that this statement implied that I thought I was intelligent. This is completely false. It is merely a logical inevitability, and implies absolutely nothing about my own intelligence.

Quote
Statement2:
...
You are inclined to think, reckon, guess, conclude that some are stupid BUT you won't name those individuals. Clearly indicates that there are individuals you believe are stupid.

Correct again!! Good job! Keep in mind the inherent uncertainty in the word "suspect". Yes, I suspect I am more intelligent than certain people. I suspect certain people are stupid. However, I am not certain. I specifically indicated this uncertainty because I did not want to make any certain claims about anyone's intelligence, including my own.

Also, please don't try to twist what I say by substituting in a bunch of synonyms. Not all synonyms have exactly the same meaning. All those words have slightly different connotations to them.

Quote
And I'm still waiting for what intelligence means to you.

....... third time's a charm?

|
|
V
Some combination of knowledge, ability to understand complicated systems, and emotional maturity.
^
|
|

Please don't make me start highlighting it with bright colors. One rabinoz is enough.

Quote
You told me what was more important than loving and being loved? Several times? Than it should be easy for you to point me to one or two of those response in the debate.

First of all, that's not a fact, it's an opinion. It was also completely irrelevant to the topic. This was pointed out to you several times.

Just from page 2 (I don't feel like reading the entire conversation again):

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet
Nobody is arguing that love isn't a thing, just its root cause

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian
Like Jura said, no one is arguing that love isn't important, or that it doesn't exist. I am merely stating that evolution provides a reasonable explanation for it's existence.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 16, 2016, 03:00:57 PM
I read your statements, they're both wrong!

Statement 1:

Your statement indicates that you believe not everyone is stupid but some people are... you believe not everyone is stupid but some people are.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant and it is exactly what I said. Good job. However, you claimed that this statement implied that I thought I was intelligent. This is completely false. It is merely a logical inevitability, and implies absolutely nothing about my own intelligence.

Quote
Statement2:
...
You are inclined to think, reckon, guess, conclude that some are stupid BUT you won't name those individuals. Clearly indicates that there are individuals you believe are stupid.

Correct again!! Good job! Keep in mind the inherent uncertainty in the word "suspect". Yes, I suspect I am more intelligent than certain people. I suspect certain people are stupid. However, I am not certain. I specifically indicated this uncertainty because I did not want to make any certain claims about anyone's intelligence, including my own.

Also, please don't try to twist what I say by substituting in a bunch of synonyms. Not all synonyms have exactly the same meaning. All those words have slightly different connotations to them.

Quote
And I'm still waiting for what intelligence means to you.

....... third time's a charm?

|
|
V
Some combination of knowledge, ability to understand complicated systems, and emotional maturity.
^
|
|

Please don't make me start highlighting it with bright colors. One rabinoz is enough.

Quote
You told me what was more important than loving and being loved? Several times? Than it should be easy for you to point me to one or two of those response in the debate.

First of all, that's not a fact, it's an opinion. It was also completely irrelevant to the topic. This was pointed out to you several times.

Just from page 2 (I don't feel like reading the entire conversation again):

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet
Nobody is arguing that love isn't a thing, just its root cause

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian
Like Jura said, no one is arguing that love isn't important, or that it doesn't exist. I am merely stating that evolution provides a reasonable explanation for it's existence.

"It is merely a logical inevitability, and implies absolutely nothing about my own intelligence"

Wrong, let's see why.

You suspect that: "I am more intelligent than certain people."

"More intelligent" establishes your belief that you have intelligence, you can not have "more" if you do not have any intelligence, a priori. The word "more" also establishes that you "suspect" a greater degree exists over others who you will not name.

And you just contradicted the statement above it.

So you are making statements about your own intelligence and comparing your intelligence to that of others. Which is what I've been saying all along!

TNR
Intelligence - "Some combination of knowledge, ability to understand complicated systems, and emotional maturity."

So if you have the "knowledge" of mathematics and the "ability" to apply it to complex computer algorithms but fall down your front steps every morning on the way to work because you can't tie your shoes correctly are you intelligent?

----------------------

R:
"You told me what was more important than loving and being loved? Several times? Than it should be easy for you to point me to one or two of those response in the debate."


TNR
"First of all, that's not a fact, it's an opinion. It was also completely irrelevant to the topic. This was pointed out to you several times."

No, it's not an opinion, it's a question.

The facts are :
1.That man universally seeks to love and be loved.

2.That we have an understanding of what death is but are still willing to give our life in exchange for our loved ones.

3.That man can survive without love.

Those are to facts I posted and the hypothesis was that something greater than man exists. Again and again, you can disagree with my hypothesis but you have to give SCIENTIFIC evidence explaining each fact. It is germane to the argument!

TNR:
"Like Jura said, no one is arguing that love isn't important, or that it doesn't exist. I am merely stating that evolution provides a reasonable explanation for it's existence."

No it doesn't, saying so doesn't change, no one has given any evolutionary justification for the facts I posted. Again, show me, Jura's opinion doesn't count.

Give me the science showing that man will die if he doesn't love. (number 3 above)

I asked what is more important to you than loving and being loved to impress on you the significance of love in man, from the beginning of recorded history by the way, but if you believe there is something more important to you then I'm all ears.

What is it?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 16, 2016, 05:00:40 PM
"It is merely a logical inevitability, and implies absolutely nothing about my own intelligence"

Wrong, let's see why.

This statement was referring to Statement 1 from above. Not Statement 2.

Quote
You suspect that: "I am more intelligent than certain people."

This is from Statement 2 from above. Not Statement 1. Your following reasoning is invalid because you tangled up my quotes.

Quote
TNR
Intelligence - "Some combination of knowledge, ability to understand complicated systems, and emotional maturity."

So if you have the "knowledge" of mathematics and the "ability" to apply it to complex computer algorithms but fall down your front steps every morning on the way to work because you can't tie your shoes correctly are you intelligent?

You aren't going to get a precise definition from me. I doubt anyone can give you a precise definition that would allow you to unambiguously categorize everyone as intelligent or unintelligent. If I am comparing myself to someone else, I will use what knowledge of the other person that is available to me. It will not be an exact science. I recognize that my knowledge of others is incomplete and my knowledge of myself is both incomplete and biased. This is why I included the word "suspect".

Wow. Is this account of my statements acceptable to you, or is there more that you want to quibble about?

Quote
R:
"You told me what was more important than loving and being loved? Several times? Than it should be easy for you to point me to one or two of those response in the debate."


TNR
"First of all, that's not a fact, it's an opinion. It was also completely irrelevant to the topic. This was pointed out to you several times."

No, it's not an opinion, it's a question.

You asserted previously that love is the most important thing (or something like that). That is the opinion I was referring to.

Quote
The facts are :
1.That man universally seeks to love and be loved.

Opinion. Regardless, it is perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution, as has been shown.

Quote
2.That we have an understanding of what death is but are still willing to give our life in exchange for our loved ones.

Sometimes true, but not universally true. Also perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution, as has been shown.

Quote
3.That man can survive without love.

We agree on this one. Also perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution, as has been shown.

Quote
Those are to facts I posted and the hypothesis was that something greater than man exists. Again and again, you can disagree with my hypothesis but you have to give SCIENTIFIC evidence explaining each fact. It is germane to the argument!

How in the world are you making the connection between those "facts" and that hypothesis? All your "facts" are perfectly compatible with evolution. Therefore, your hypothesis doesn't follow.

I show how evolution is compatible with all those facts here (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5097.msg100672#msg100672). Rama also provided several links that described how those "facts" are compatible with evolution. The second two links were both peer-reviewed, as requested.

Quote
I asked what is more important to you than loving and being loved to impress on you the significance of love in man, from the beginning of recorded history by the way, but if you believe there is something more important to you then I'm all ears.

Basic sustenance: food, air, water. Basic level of safety.

Edit: And for the hundredth time, this is completely irrelevant. Evolution is completely compatible with love being super duper important. You have never given any reason as to why love being important is incompatible with evolution. I am absolutely perplexed why you keep bringing it up. Yes, love is important. I get it. I agree. It is irrelevant to this discussion.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 16, 2016, 08:17:54 PM
Intelligence:

The ability to constructively resolve ones problems.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 16, 2016, 08:20:49 PM



"This is from Statement 2 from above. Not Statement 1. Your following reasoning is invalid because you tangled up my quotes."


I tangled up your quotes?

I took your statements and analyzed them. You made those specific statements, the order is not important. You believe you are "more intelligent" than some people. Period!
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 16, 2016, 10:44:40 PM
TNR:

"You asserted previously that love is the most important thing (or something like that). That is the opinion I was referring to."

I asked a specific question and  you claimed it was an opinion. Period! You can't give an erroneous answer to the question and then say I was referring to something else you said!

R
"1.That man universally seeks to love and be loved."

TNR
"Opinion. Regardless, it is perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution, as has been shown."

People from all nations love, seek mates to love, love their children, etc.? Yes of course they do, it's a UNIVERSAL fact!  Where's the evolutionary explanation? You never gave one.

R
"2.That we have an understanding of what death is but are still willing to give our life in exchange for our loved ones."

"Sometimes true, but not universally true. Also perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution, as has been shown."

Even if it were sometimes true it is significant because it shows that man is willing to give his life for compassion. I HAVE! He's giving something greater than the self for love. Are their records of people around the world giving their lives for loved ones? Yes, then it's universally true.
Evolution has no answer for dying for a loved one but if you think it does, prove it, no one here has so far.

R
"3.That man can survive without love. "

TNR
"We agree on this one. Also perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution, as has been shown."

You're making my point! The fact that man can survive without love dismisses evolutionary justification for a need to love. He can procreate, socialize, eat sleep, etc. but yet he universally seeks to love and be loved. Evolution? You just agreed man can survive without love, there is no evolution!

So, can you specifically live without love? If everyone you love disavows loving you what is your life worth? I know what my life is worth, nothing!

R
"I asked what is more important to you than loving and being loved to impress on you the significance of love in man, from the beginning of recorded history by the way, but if you believe there is something more important to you then I'm all ears. "

TNR
"Basic sustenance: food, air, water. Basic level of safety."

Yes, of course, basic Maslow! You're making my point, everything you just stated can be justified scientifically.

I'm asking about your well being.

Here's an example of what doctors say:

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/03/people-die-love.html
People die without love: Why I prescribe the love drug
PAMELA WIBLE, MD | PHYSICIAN
The antidote for hate, neglect, apathy, misery, even sorrow is love. No prescription pad needed. No risk of overdose Love is my preferred potion. I give patients heart-shaped balloons. And hugs. Yes, I even tell patients, “I love you.” Some leave with my kiss on their forehead.

You don’t need a medical degree to say, “I love you.” Just three simple words can heal more wounds than all the doctors in the world."


So I'm asking for the science that justifies my giving my life to save my loved one, not your biological need for water.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 16, 2016, 11:44:17 PM
Hey look Robaroni still doesn't understand how reciprocity works!
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 17, 2016, 10:30:50 AM
Intelligence:

The ability to constructively resolve ones problems.

Is this supposed to be the correct answer or something? It's a decent definition, but I don't really like tying intelligence to the ability to act.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 17, 2016, 10:55:38 AM
"This is from Statement 2 from above. Not Statement 1. Your following reasoning is invalid because you tangled up my quotes."


I tangled up your quotes?

I took your statements and analyzed them. You made those specific statements, the order is not important. You believe you are "more intelligent" than some people. Period!

Wow. This explains a lot. No wonder you seem to misunderstand almost everything we say. Time for a remedial reading comprehension course. Let's look at the following sentence:

(A implies B) and (C implies D).

You can indeed rearrange parts of this sentence without changing its meaning. For example, this has the same meaning:

(C implies D) and (A implies B).

However, you can NOT freely rearrange which statement implies which. For example, each of the following would be an invalid interpretation of the original sentence:

A implies D.

B implies A.

This is what you did to my original statements:

"Statement 1 does not imply I am intelligent." Was incorrectly rearranged to "Statement 2 does not imply I am intelligent".

I am not going to even bother responding to your following long post. You once again failed to understand most of what I said, and your responses are mostly not to the point. I will only say this: you keep saying that I still haven't provided an evolutionary explanation of your "facts", but I did. I provided a link to an earlier post of mine, and I recommended the peer reviewed papers that Rama provided.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 17, 2016, 11:35:29 AM
"This is from Statement 2 from above. Not Statement 1. Your following reasoning is invalid because you tangled up my quotes."


I tangled up your quotes?

I took your statements and analyzed them. You made those specific statements, the order is not important. You believe you are "more intelligent" than some people. Period!

Wow. This explains a lot. No wonder you seem to misunderstand almost everything we say. Time for a remedial reading comprehension course. Let's look at the following sentence:

(A implies B) and (C implies D).

You can indeed rearrange parts of this sentence without changing its meaning. For example, this has the same meaning:

(C implies D) and (A implies B).

However, you can NOT freely rearrange which statement implies which. For example, each of the following would be an invalid interpretation of the original sentence:

A implies D.

B implies A.

This is what you did to my original statements:

"Statement 1 does not imply I am intelligent." Was incorrectly rearranged to "Statement 2 does not imply I am intelligent".

I am not going to even bother responding to your following long post. You once again failed to understand most of what I said, and your responses are mostly not to the point. I will only say this: you keep saying that I still haven't provided an evolutionary explanation of your "facts", but I did. I provided a link to an earlier post of mine, and I recommended the peer reviewed papers that Rama provided.

To prove my original premise I only needed this statement from you:

"Yes, I suspect I am more intelligent than certain people. I suspect certain people are stupid." (In the context and order you stated)

I showed that Rama's papers and responses did not establish scientific justification for my facts.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 17, 2016, 11:46:11 AM
Hey look Robaroni still doesn't understand how reciprocity works!

I could use either system. I chose to use my own because I find it suits my debating skills better.

Some might ridicule that but in the end it is they whose lives merely exist on stale mediocrity of another's ideas and systems.

"You must create your own system or be enslaved by anothers"
William Blake
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 17, 2016, 12:48:46 PM
"A system of denial is no system at all"

-Rama Set
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 17, 2016, 01:10:32 PM
"A system of denial is no system at all"

-Rama Set

That's a self contradictory statement. Brilliant!

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 17, 2016, 01:43:11 PM
"A system of denial is no system at all"

-Rama Set

That's a self contradictory statement. Brilliant!

R

You'll get it one day.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 17, 2016, 02:43:56 PM
"A system of denial is no system at all"

-Rama Set

That's a self contradictory statement. Brilliant!

R

You'll get it one day.


What's wrong with your statement:

"A system of denial" is a system. a priori In your OPINION it is not a WORTHY system. But you didn't say that. I never said denial was a system, you established that premise. If you had said 'YOUR system, which is denial, is no system at all' it would not have been self contradictory.

You're assumption is that I'm in denial because I can't use the quote method of response. This goes along with your other OPINION that I don't need to sign my posts with "R" because my moniker already identifies me. Again, how I respond and the method I use to respond is my choice.

R


Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 17, 2016, 04:54:38 PM
To prove my original premise I only needed this statement from you:

"Yes, I suspect I am more intelligent than certain people. I suspect certain people are stupid." (In the context and order you stated)
I have no earthly idea what your original premise was. You just started lambasting me for a relatively simple and straightforward comment, using some rather perplexing logic to try to argue... something about my intelligence... I have no idea what.

Whatever. Yes, I suspect I am smarter than some people. I suspect some people are not particularly smart. What's the issue?

Quote
I showed that Rama's papers and responses did not establish scientific justification for my facts.

I only remember you repeatedly denying a connection between love and reciprocal altruism. Please just read the post I linked to (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5097.msg100672#msg100672). It demonstrates how love can be developed by evolution. It is fully compatible with your aforementioned "facts" about love. It is fully compatible with sacrificial love. It is fully compatible with love not being strictly necessary for survival.

Your argument depends on love arising from evolution to be completely implausible. As long as I can provide a plausible scenario, your argument has nothing to stand on.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 17, 2016, 06:14:05 PM
"A system of denial is no system at all"

-Rama Set

That's a self contradictory statement. Brilliant!

R

You'll get it one day.


What's wrong with your statement:

"A system of denial" is a system. a priori In your OPINION it is not a WORTHY system. But you didn't say that. I never said denial was a system, you established that premise. If you had said 'YOUR system, which is denial, is no system at all' it would not have been self contradictory.

You're assumption is that I'm in denial because I can't use the quote method of response. This goes along with your other OPINION that I don't need to sign my posts with "R" because my moniker already identifies me. Again, how I respond and the method I use to respond is my choice.

R

Nope
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 17, 2016, 11:40:17 PM
"A system of denial is no system at all"

-Rama Set

That's a self contradictory statement. Brilliant!

R

You'll get it one day.


What's wrong with your statement:

"A system of denial" is a system. a priori In your OPINION it is not a WORTHY system. But you didn't say that. I never said denial was a system, you established that premise. If you had said 'YOUR system, which is denial, is no system at all' it would not have been self contradictory.

You're assumption is that I'm in denial because I can't use the quote method of response. This goes along with your other OPINION that I don't need to sign my posts with "R" because my moniker already identifies me. Again, how I respond and the method I use to respond is my choice.

R

Nope

OK let me give it to you in baby steps:

If you say 'denial is no system at all' your are not contradictory.

If you say, as you did, "a system of denial is no system at all" you are contradictory. You have already declared denial a system, then declared it isn't.

To simply say "nope" is not an valid response and does not in any way address your contradiction. It is at best intellectual bankruptcy!

Maybe "one day you'll get it" but after debating you I have my doubts.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: George on July 17, 2016, 11:59:43 PM
This discussion appears to have taken a turn for the autistic.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 18, 2016, 12:07:16 AM
To prove my original premise I only needed this statement from you:

"Yes, I suspect I am more intelligent than certain people. I suspect certain people are stupid." (In the context and order you stated)
I have no earthly idea what your original premise was. You just started lambasting me for a relatively simple and straightforward comment, using some rather perplexing logic to try to argue... something about my intelligence... I have no idea what.

Whatever. Yes, I suspect I am smarter than some people. I suspect some people are not particularly smart. What's the issue?

Quote
I showed that Rama's papers and responses did not establish scientific justification for my facts.

I only remember you repeatedly denying a connection between love and reciprocal altruism. Please just read the post I linked to (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5097.msg100672#msg100672). It demonstrates how love can be developed by evolution. It is fully compatible with your aforementioned "facts" about love. It is fully compatible with sacrificial love. It is fully compatible with love not being strictly necessary for survival.

Your argument depends on love arising from evolution to be completely implausible. As long as I can provide a plausible scenario, your argument has nothing to stand on.

Please, not again! I went through your hypothetical story, most of it is symbiotic. The last part assumes science can determine good!

ben·e·fi·cial
ˌbenəˈfiSH(ə)l/
adjective
favorable or advantageous; resulting in good.
"the beneficial effect on the economy"
synonyms:   advantageous, favorable, helpful, useful, of use, of benefit, of assistance, valuable, of value, profitable, rewarding, gainful
"ladybugs and other species beneficial to the garden"

Beneficial is a relative term, like good.

If I take this pill will it be beneficial? Science can tell us the theory behind the chemical reaction in our bodies but it can't tell us if the result is beneficial or good. That's a product of human subjectivity. I feel 'good' from the pills I took.

Again, Give me the science showing that man will die if he doesn't love.

Give me the science to justify dying to save my loved one. I'm dead, no benefit to me, no material me (no science, science deals in the material only) and no ability for science to judge if my action is good for the group. You keep looking to evolution for your answer, I don't care what science you use but you haven't answered anything really.

R

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 18, 2016, 12:19:46 AM
This discussion appears to have taken a turn for the autistic.

You haven't contributed one salient point to the discussion, again, do you have something, anything constructive to add? All I've seen so far is your frowning avatar. I don't know why people post pictures of themselves frowning, perhaps they think it makes them look serious or intelligent.
To me they just look like sad people with no direction or true joy in their lives. But that's just the perspective of someone who has found great joy in his life and smiles constantly.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 18, 2016, 12:38:45 AM
Holy moving the goalposts, Robaroni!  At no point have you been arguing that man needs love to survive. Wow.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 18, 2016, 02:06:25 AM
These same arguments again? Whelp... 6th... time's a charm!

Please, not again! I went through your hypothetical story, most of it is symbiotic. The last part assumes science can determine good!

Beneficial is a relative term, like good.

If I take this pill will it be beneficial? Science can tell us the theory behind the chemical reaction in our bodies but it can't tell us if the result is beneficial or good. That's a product of human subjectivity. I feel 'good' from the pills I took.

This has nothing to do with anything subjective, or with what science can "know". If a trait (like love) results in more species with that trait surviving, then it is beneficial to the survival of the speciese as a whole. That's all there is to it. If a trait causes an individual to sacrifice himself so that his children can survive, then that trait causes that individual's genetics to be passed on. This really is not up for debate. It's evolution 101. If you still don't understand, read an intro to evolution book.

Quote
Again, Give me the science showing that man will die if he doesn't love.

No. That is not how evolution works. Whoever told you that a trait must be vital for survival for it to be promoted by evolution was lying to you. The trait only has to be slightly beneficial to the species as a whole. Again, not up for debate. Evolution 101. If you disagree, go read any intro to evolution book.

Quote
Give me the science to justify dying to save my loved one. I'm dead, no benefit to me, no material me (no science, science deals in the material only) and no ability for science to judge if my action is good for the group.

Clearly you don't have the slightest idea how evolution works. Seriously, just go read an intro to evolution book. Evolution doesn't care about the survival of an individual. It cares about the survival of the group as a whole. More survivors => more chance to pass on the group's genetics => more people with those genes. It is as simple as that. Sacrificing oneself for your tribe or your children allows THEM to pass on your genes for you.

Quote
You keep looking to evolution for your answer, I don't care what science you use but you haven't answered anything really.

No, I am not looking to evolution for any answers. I'm not even trying to prove that evolution is true. I am merely showing how it is plausible, which is enough to counter your original argument.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 18, 2016, 10:30:02 AM
Quote from:  Robi the Bot
Give me the science showing that man will die if he doesn't love.
(?)

You have got to be being intentionally obtuse, or you are the “bot” that the Truth warned us was here.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 18, 2016, 11:48:01 AM
Quote from:  Robi the Bot
Give me the science showing that man will die if he doesn't love.
(?)

You have got to be being intentionally obtuse, or you are the “bot” that the Truth warned us was here.



If man does not eat and drink he will die. We can prove this scientifically. Again, man can eat, drink, procreate, socialize, etc. without love, so why does he universally seek it? Why do you personally yearn to be loved and what is more important to than loving and being loved?

I'm the bot? You're the one attempting to show that love is just another mechanism of survival.

You're the one with the emotionless frown on your face.

And I'm the one who believes compassion is man's raison d'etre.

So who's the bot?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 18, 2016, 12:17:19 PM
These same arguments again? Whelp... 6th... time's a charm!

Please, not again! I went through your hypothetical story, most of it is symbiotic. The last part assumes science can determine good!

Beneficial is a relative term, like good.

If I take this pill will it be beneficial? Science can tell us the theory behind the chemical reaction in our bodies but it can't tell us if the result is beneficial or good. That's a product of human subjectivity. I feel 'good' from the pills I took.

This has nothing to do with anything subjective, or with what science can "know". If a trait (like love) results in more species with that trait surviving, then it is beneficial to the survival of the speciese as a whole. That's all there is to it. If a trait causes an individual to sacrifice himself so that his children can survive, then that trait causes that individual's genetics to be passed on. This really is not up for debate. It's evolution 101. If you still don't understand, read an intro to evolution book.

Quote
Again, Give me the science showing that man will die if he doesn't love.

No. That is not how evolution works. Whoever told you that a trait must be vital for survival for it to be promoted by evolution was lying to you. The trait only has to be slightly beneficial to the species as a whole. Again, not up for debate. Evolution 101. If you disagree, go read any intro to evolution book.

Quote
Give me the science to justify dying to save my loved one. I'm dead, no benefit to me, no material me (no science, science deals in the material only) and no ability for science to judge if my action is good for the group.

Clearly you don't have the slightest idea how evolution works. Seriously, just go read an intro to evolution book. Evolution doesn't care about the survival of an individual. It cares about the survival of the group as a whole. More survivors => more chance to pass on the group's genetics => more people with those genes. It is as simple as that. Sacrificing oneself for your tribe or your children allows THEM to pass on your genes for you.

Quote
You keep looking to evolution for your answer, I don't care what science you use but you haven't answered anything really.

No, I am not looking to evolution for any answers. I'm not even trying to prove that evolution is true. I am merely showing how it is plausible, which is enough to counter your original argument.

And Jura thinks I'm the robot!

Nonsense!
Your loved one is dying are you thinking about evolution, about group dynamics? Are you thinking if I let this weak loved one die I can have more healthier loved ones? No, are you instinctively following some esoteric science man can't explain? No, there's no instinct involved, we already went through this. You're contemplating - thinking!
Are you thinking that you will be dead and if you are an atheist that life will be completely over? Yes!

So where's the science to justify it?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 18, 2016, 12:37:05 PM
Why would someone have to think through evolution to act on an impulse? I don't have to think through physiology to turn on a light.  I just do it.

You are making no sense now.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 18, 2016, 12:46:45 PM
Why would someone have to think through evolution to act on an impulse? I don't have to think through physiology to turn on a light.  I just do it.

You are making no sense now.

It's not an impulse, an impulse is instinctive. You are thinking, contemplating the fate of your loved one and your own fate.

And you do have to think about turning on a light, you're just not aware that you are. First you may be thinking, it's dark or I need more light to read this book. Also your motor skills to turn on the light are driven through your thought process. Can you move your arm without thinking where you want it to go? No!

"You are making no sense now." And spare me this nonsense!

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 18, 2016, 12:59:32 PM

It's not an impulse, an impulse is instinctive.

I know, that is why I chose the word.

Quote
You are thinking, contemplating the fate of your loved one and your own fate.

I will need some evidence for this.  Most accounts of people jumping in to urgent live-saving action are accompanied by anecdotes of, "I didn't have time to think, I just did what I had to do" or some variation thereof.

Quote
And you do have to think about turning on a light, you're just not aware that you are. First you may be thinking, it's dark or I need more light to read this book. Also your motor skills to turn on the light are driven through your thought process. Can you move your arm without thinking where you want it to go? No!

Absolutely incorrect.  You can move involving higher brain functions, but it is not required.  Hitting a baseball, one of the pinnacles of hand-eye coordination, happens too fast for you to think about, you have to train a reflex.  I think you need to learn about the reptilian brain and how it can coordinate movement without involving higher brain functions as you are claiming.  Perhaps you should start with the Fight or Flight reaction as it is particularly relevant here.

"You are making no sense now." And spare me this nonsense!

R
[/quote]
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 18, 2016, 01:38:05 PM

It's not an impulse, an impulse is instinctive.

I know, that is why I chose the word.

Quote
You are thinking, contemplating the fate of your loved one and your own fate.

I will need some evidence for this.  Most accounts of people jumping in to urgent live-saving action are accompanied by anecdotes of, "I didn't have time to think, I just did what I had to do" or some variation thereof.

Quote
And you do have to think about turning on a light, you're just not aware that you are. First you may be thinking, it's dark or I need more light to read this book. Also your motor skills to turn on the light are driven through your thought process. Can you move your arm without thinking where you want it to go? No!

Absolutely incorrect.  You can move involving higher brain functions, but it is not required.  Hitting a baseball, one of the pinnacles of hand-eye coordination, happens too fast for you to think about, you have to train a reflex.  I think you need to learn about the reptilian brain and how it can coordinate movement without involving higher brain functions as you are claiming.  Perhaps you should start with the Fight or Flight reaction as it is particularly relevant here.

"You are making no sense now." And spare me this nonsense!

R
[/quote]

Rama Set:
"I will need some evidence for this.  Most accounts of people jumping in to urgent live-saving action are accompanied by anecdotes of, "I didn't have time to think, I just did what I had to do" or some variation thereof."

That's not what's happening, your loved one is dying, you can save them with your organ that will cost you your life. It's not instinctive!

And I did save someone! I was keenly aware of the danger I was in, I was thinking what is the best way to proceed, what do I do next. If anything, my senses and thinking were more acute.

Someone jumps in front of a train to save someone else. Why do they do it? Who cares, let them die, better them than me! Save the group? Forget the group, who cares about some nebulous group!

Turning on the light requires thinking, I'm having trouble seeing the text I need to turn on the light, is this the light with the switch on the left or right, which way should I move my arm? You're not hitting a baseball. You're thinking should I turn on the light by the chair or the overhead light?

You're thinking my loved one is dying I can save them with my organ at the expense of my own life. You know completely what's going on. I would give my life, I know from experience.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 18, 2016, 02:09:38 PM
Rama Set:
"I will need some evidence for this.  Most accounts of people jumping in to urgent live-saving action are accompanied by anecdotes of, "I didn't have time to think, I just did what I had to do" or some variation thereof."

That's not what's happening, your loved one is dying, you can save them with your organ that will cost you your life. It's not instinctive!

This is not what was being discussed previously.  We were discussing people sacrificing their lives in a snap decision.  Organ donation is not performed if it will be fatal to the donor, so your situation is not even applicable.

Quote
And I did save someone! I was keenly aware of the danger I was in, I was thinking what is the best way to proceed, what do I do next. If anything, my senses and thinking were more acute.

Please tell me what you did in detail.

Quote
Someone jumps in front of a train to save someone else. Why do they do it? Who cares, let them die, better them than me! Save the group? Forget the group, who cares about some nebulous group!

Humans care about some nebulous group.  This is not in dispute.  You are behaving as if this has not all been addressed ad nauseam.

Quote
Turning on the light requires thinking, I'm having trouble seeing the text I need to turn on the light, is this the light with the switch on the left or right, which way should I move my arm? You're not hitting a baseball. You're thinking should I turn on the light by the chair or the overhead light?

I don't think about how I am turning on a light very often, I just reach up and do it, without premeditation.

Quote
You're thinking my loved one is dying I can save them with my organ at the expense of my own life. You know completely what's going on. I would give my life, I know from experience.

So what?  Even if fatal organ donations happened (they don't), all of this has been plausibly explained by Totesnotreptilian.  You seem utterly unable to address the substance of what he said.  Please address what he outlined, substantively, so this conversation can actually progress.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 18, 2016, 02:32:52 PM

 As you seem to have only a fundamentalist primary school grade education in evolution, and appear incapable of reading anything we put, or have any inclination in upgrading I see little point in continuing this line of debate.

From all you have said (over & over) you clearly feel you have hit on an important deal breaking revelation that no one else has come upon, that in some way circumvents all evolutionary arguments. That’s based on love.

You haven’t, it doesn’t.


You have a view that atheists rely on science for their non-belief in a deity, and are unable to comprehend that people actually look at the world and see no (zero, zip, zilch, nada) proof or need, what so ever of the said divine being/force or plan.

What about you?

Why so coy? What do you actually believe in? 
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 18, 2016, 10:03:12 PM
Rama Set:
"I will need some evidence for this.  Most accounts of people jumping in to urgent live-saving action are accompanied by anecdotes of, "I didn't have time to think, I just did what I had to do" or some variation thereof."

That's not what's happening, your loved one is dying, you can save them with your organ that will cost you your life. It's not instinctive!

This is not what was being discussed previously.  We were discussing people sacrificing their lives in a snap decision.  Organ donation is not performed if it will be fatal to the donor, so your situation is not even applicable.

Quote
And I did save someone! I was keenly aware of the danger I was in, I was thinking what is the best way to proceed, what do I do next. If anything, my senses and thinking were more acute.

Please tell me what you did in detail.

Quote
Someone jumps in front of a train to save someone else. Why do they do it? Who cares, let them die, better them than me! Save the group? Forget the group, who cares about some nebulous group!

Humans care about some nebulous group.  This is not in dispute.  You are behaving as if this has not all been addressed ad nauseam.

Quote
Turning on the light requires thinking, I'm having trouble seeing the text I need to turn on the light, is this the light with the switch on the left or right, which way should I move my arm? You're not hitting a baseball. You're thinking should I turn on the light by the chair or the overhead light?

I don't think about how I am turning on a light very often, I just reach up and do it, without premeditation.

Quote
You're thinking my loved one is dying I can save them with my organ at the expense of my own life. You know completely what's going on. I would give my life, I know from experience.

So what?  Even if fatal organ donations happened (they don't), all of this has been plausibly explained by Totesnotreptilian.  You seem utterly unable to address the substance of what he said.  Please address what he outlined, substantively, so this conversation can actually progress.

Go look at my original statement, it's exactly what I asked!

Rama Set:
"Most accounts of people jumping in to urgent live-saving action are accompanied by anecdotes of, "I didn't have time to think, I just did what I had to do" or some variation thereof."

"Humans care about some nebulous group.  This is not in dispute."

So which is it. We save someone and didn't have time to think or we did it because we care about some nebulous group?

Personally when I held the hand of my dying mother the last thing I thought about was a group, a species or anything else. Did you ever save a life? I gave someone CPR who dropped dead in front of me, saving her life. Never gave any group or species a thought. I did it out of compassion, out of love.

You reach for a light for what reason? You're thinking, the room is dark, I can't see what I'm doing or whatever. You don't reach to turn on a light in broad daylight.

You swing at a baseball, is it in the strike zone, it it a curve that I should drop my bat lower for, a fast ball? That's what you're thinking.

Apparently you missed my response to TNR:

"Your loved one is dying are you thinking about evolution, about group dynamics? Are you thinking if I let this weak loved one die I can have more healthier loved ones? No, are you instinctively following some esoteric science man can't explain? No, there's no instinct involved, we already went through this. You're contemplating - thinking!
Are you thinking that you will be dead and if you are an atheist that life will be completely over? Yes!

So where's the science to justify it?"

So Rama where's the science to justify it?

What is you life worth if you are not loved? What's your answer? Go into an institution, talk to an analyst and ask how people who think they are not loved act. Do you think they are contemplating the well being of the group? Not at all.

R





Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 18, 2016, 10:14:00 PM

 As you seem to have only a fundamentalist primary school grade education in evolution, and appear incapable of reading anything we put, or have any inclination in upgrading I see little point in continuing this line of debate.

From all you have said (over & over) you clearly feel you have hit on an important deal breaking revelation that no one else has come upon, that in some way circumvents all evolutionary arguments. That’s based on love.

You haven’t, it doesn’t.


You have a view that atheists rely on science for their non-belief in a deity, and are unable to comprehend that people actually look at the world and see no (zero, zip, zilch, nada) proof or need, what so ever of the said divine being/force or plan.

What about you?

Why so coy? What do you actually believe in?

I told you what I believe.

If not for science then what is the justification for your atheism?

Did evolution answer why I give my life for my dying loved one knowing my life is completely over? Why do it, let the loved one die, who cares, why should I die attempting to save a sick individual? I save my loved one because I'm thinking about the group? Hardly but that the best you can come up with. So it's not my education it's your response that's lacking.

Do you love? Why or why not? Have you even asked yourself that question? What does love mean to you? You want to give me evolution?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 18, 2016, 10:45:15 PM
Go look at my original statement.

Your original statement deals with fear, hate, organized religion and that the proof of God is love. Nothing about self-sacrifice much less organ donation.

Quote
Rama Set:
"Most accounts of people jumping in to urgent live-saving action are accompanied by anecdotes of, "I didn't have time to think, I just did what I had to do" or some variation thereof."

"Humans care about some nebulous group.  This is not in dispute."

So which is it. We save someone and didn't have time to think or we did it because we care about some nebulous group?

These ideas are not mutually exclusive.

Quote
Personally when I held the hand of my dying mother the last thing I thought about was a group, a species or anything else. Did you ever save a life? I gave someone CPR who dropped dead in front of me, saving her life. Never gave any group or species a thought. I did it out of compassion, out of love.

Cool story. What has been said repeatedly is that your compassion is something that has been nurtured by evolution. It plausibly explains everything you describe and so dismisses your arguments.

Quote
You reach for a light for what reason? You're thinking, the room is dark, I can't see what I'm doing or whatever. You don't reach to turn on a light in broad daylight.

I do that sometimes, because I am not thinking.

Quote
You swing at a baseball, is it in the strike zone, it it a curve that I should drop my bat lower for, a fast ball? That's what you're thinking.

You obviously have no knowledge of baseball. There is not enough time to think the problem through to that extent. You have to decide before the ball is released from the pitchers hand if you are going to swing or not. From there it is all instinct.

Quote
Apparently you missed my response to TNR:

"Your loved one is dying are you thinking about evolution, about group dynamics? Are you thinking if I let this weak loved one die I can have more healthier loved ones? No, are you instinctively following some esoteric science man can't explain? No, there's no instinct involved, we already went through this. You're contemplating - thinking!
Are you thinking that you will be dead and if you are an atheist that life will be completely over? Yes!

So where's the science to justify it?"

No I did not, but you have most assuredly ignored his responses to you.

Quote
So Rama where's the science to justify it?

Some of it is in this very thread!  You haven't rebutted any of it, only equivocated around the words "beneficial", "reciprocate" and "good".

Quote
What is you life worth if you are not loved? What's your answer? Go into an institution, talk to an analyst and ask how people who think they are not loved act. Do you think they are contemplating the well being of the group? Not at all.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand, however interesting the topic is.

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 19, 2016, 01:49:25 PM
I told you what I believe.

If not for science then what is the justification for your atheism?

Did evolution answer why I give my life for my dying loved one knowing my life is completely over? Why do it, let the loved one die, who cares, why should I die attempting to save a sick individual?

The answer is still that on the whole, this sort of altruism promotes the survival of the group. We are talking in statistics, not absolutes.

Quote
I save my loved one because I'm thinking about the group? Hardly but that the best you can come up with. So it's not my education it's your response that's lacking.

No one has ever said "you are thinking of the group" at the time of giving one's life, although it could be true. The thoughts do not have to coincide with the impact that the reciprocity has.

Quote
Do you love? Why or why not? Have you even asked yourself that question? What does love mean to you? You want to give me evolution?

The spiritual and subjective experience of love is different than the objective reality of love. You know your heart doesn't literally break?

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 19, 2016, 01:52:15 PM
Rama Set,
 I'll bet you don't even have a girlfriend! You have no idea what it is to reach across a table in your favorite restaurant year after year to hold the hand that has brought your more pure joy in your life than you could possibly imagine or to look into the sparkling eyes of a child that loves you unconditionally. To hold a loved one in your arms as the life ebbs out of them. You have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, what anything I've just said means.

You have no college degree and no expertise in any field and anything I can get from you or for that matter, Jura or TNR I can get from a Google search I've already done. Most of your posts just parrot someone else and when you try to be original you fall miserably on your face. Disingenuously asking me if I have "feelings" before giving me a flawed definition of love that requires zero feelings to understand. Making self contradictory statements that you need to be shown the error of more than once and knowing so little about what it means to love that you have no idea it can never be a trade.

Your last post is just more of your evasive, inexperienced, nonsense.

I wonder if any of you have ever had a long term loving relationship, it doesn't seem so from your responses. I doubt it's possible for any of you to see the magnitude of love and compassion, it's simply out of your realm of experience. You are in a small minority, the majority of individuals asked why they give their life for their loved one say it's out of their immense love.



It's my fault, what a waste of my time!

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 19, 2016, 02:04:30 PM
I am not sure why you resorted to this but surely you must know this only helps us and hinders you.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 19, 2016, 03:00:50 PM
If Love is proof of gods’ existence and has nothing to do with evolution how come biologists can turn it on or off with drugs.

The Science;

In terms of natural selection, the human adult pair bond seems to have developed from earlier structures involved in sustaining the attachment between mothers and their infants (Young 2009). This “adaptive workaround” (Eastwick 2009) may have been driven by the heightened importance—over generations of human evolution—of paternal investment in offspring with increasingly large and more complex cerebrums. These burgeoning baby brains took longer to reach maturity than their more ancestral counterparts, leaving the infant vulnerable and underdeveloped for extended periods of time. If parents fell in love and remained together at least during this fragile period for their offspring, their own genetic fitness would be enhanced (Fisher 1992).

Underlying human love, then, is a set of basic brain systems for lust, attraction, and attachment that have evolved among mammals. Helen Fisher and her colleagues (Fisher 1998; Fisher et al. 2002) have argued that the lust system promotes mating with a range of promising partners; the attraction system guides us to choose and prefer a particular partner; and the attachment system fosters long-term bonding, encouraging couples to cooperate and stay together until their parental duties have been discharged. These universal systems are hypothesized to form a biological foundation on which the cultural and individual variants of sexual, romantic, and longer term love are built (Gottschall and Nordlund 2006; Jankowiak and Fischer 1992).

From this perspective, love is a “complex neurobiological phenomenon” that has been wired into our biology by the forces of evolution. “Relying on trust, belief, pleasure, and reward activities” concentrated in the limbic system (Esch and Stefano 2005, 175), love's ability to bring together (and keep together) human beings—from prehistoric times until the present day—has played a key role in the survival of our species.
From the “American journal of bioethics” If I Could Just Stop Loving You: Anti-Love Biotechnology and the Ethics of a Chemical Breakup

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2013.839752

Albeit in it’s infancy, stifling feelings of love in people with dangerous fixations (abusive partners, paedophiles and other paraphilia’s) as well as more questionable uses (“fixing” homosexuality and decreasing lust in Ultraorthodox Jewish students) is a thing.
And this is science that has turned famously monogamous prairie voles, polygamous by blocking oxytocin and reduced stress levels in those that had lost long term partners by blocking corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF). 
 (see also https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129564-600-cure-for-love-chemical-cures-for-the-lovesick).


Now I know you are going to go for the phrases “seems to” etc but this is the language of real seekers of knowledge, peer reviewed and not a hunch merchant such as yourself.

(FYI. Rama is a sex-bomb who has to beat them off with a stick)

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 19, 2016, 06:32:10 PM
These same arguments again? Whelp... 6th... time's a charm!

Please, not again! I went through your hypothetical story, most of it is symbiotic. The last part assumes science can determine good!

Beneficial is a relative term, like good.

If I take this pill will it be beneficial? Science can tell us the theory behind the chemical reaction in our bodies but it can't tell us if the result is beneficial or good. That's a product of human subjectivity. I feel 'good' from the pills I took.

This has nothing to do with anything subjective, or with what science can "know". If a trait (like love) results in more species with that trait surviving, then it is beneficial to the survival of the speciese as a whole. That's all there is to it. If a trait causes an individual to sacrifice himself so that his children can survive, then that trait causes that individual's genetics to be passed on. This really is not up for debate. It's evolution 101. If you still don't understand, read an intro to evolution book.

Quote
Again, Give me the science showing that man will die if he doesn't love.

No. That is not how evolution works. Whoever told you that a trait must be vital for survival for it to be promoted by evolution was lying to you. The trait only has to be slightly beneficial to the species as a whole. Again, not up for debate. Evolution 101. If you disagree, go read any intro to evolution book.

Quote
Give me the science to justify dying to save my loved one. I'm dead, no benefit to me, no material me (no science, science deals in the material only) and no ability for science to judge if my action is good for the group.

Clearly you don't have the slightest idea how evolution works. Seriously, just go read an intro to evolution book. Evolution doesn't care about the survival of an individual. It cares about the survival of the group as a whole. More survivors => more chance to pass on the group's genetics => more people with those genes. It is as simple as that. Sacrificing oneself for your tribe or your children allows THEM to pass on your genes for you.

Quote
You keep looking to evolution for your answer, I don't care what science you use but you haven't answered anything really.

No, I am not looking to evolution for any answers. I'm not even trying to prove that evolution is true. I am merely showing how it is plausible, which is enough to counter your original argument.

And Jura thinks I'm the robot!

Nonsense!
Your loved one is dying are you thinking about evolution, about group dynamics? Are you thinking if I let this weak loved one die I can have more healthier loved ones? No, are you instinctively following some esoteric science man can't explain? No, there's no instinct involved, we already went through this. You're contemplating - thinking!
Are you thinking that you will be dead and if you are an atheist that life will be completely over? Yes!

So where's the science to justify it?

R

This doesn't come even remotely close to addressing anything I said. It doesn't matter what the person was thinking when he sacrificed himself. It doesn't matter why he sacrificed himself. The only thing that matters is the result. Storytime #2:

Tribe A: members have the "sacrificial love" character trait.
Tribe B: members don't have "sacrificial love" character trait.

Giant lion attacks both tribes.

Tribe B: Every man for himself. Everyone scatters. Lion hunts them all down individually in the night.

Tribe A: One person jumps on the lion. He knows he will die, but this gives the rest of the tribe time to stab the lion with spears.

Tribe A survives, tribe B doesn't. Tribe A passes on their "sacrificial love" trait to the next generation. Therefore, "sacrificial love" has an evolutionary advantage. Did it matter what the sacrificial person was thinking? No, it did not. All that mattered was the result. My arguments stand.

As to your tirade about how much more experience you have with love than all of us... You just got onto me for indirectly comparing my own intelligence to others. A bit hypocritical, don't you think?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Charming Anarchist on July 20, 2016, 01:44:09 AM
Tribe Omega: One person jumps on the lion.



Oh, I get it! 
You can read hearts, minds and souls! 
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 20, 2016, 02:08:00 AM
Tribe Omega: One person jumps on the lion.

Oh, I get it! 
You can read hearts, minds and souls!

What on earth are you talking about?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 20, 2016, 09:33:24 AM
Tribe Omega: One person jumps on the lion.

Oh, I get it! 
You can read hearts, minds and souls!

What on earth are you talking about?

He doesn't have the heart, and certainly not the mind to stick around for debate, so he just catcalls from the sidelines and then buggers off.

I think we have damaged Robi the Bot
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Charming Anarchist on July 20, 2016, 05:13:41 PM
You are full of shit with your shitty hypotheticals. 
Your entire hypothetical ONLY makes sense if it assumes telepathic ability ---- in which case, your hypothetical is redundant. 


Tribe A: members have the "sacrificial love" character trait.
How do you know that? 
Oh, I get it! 
You can read hearts, minds and souls! 

Tribe B: members don't have "sacrificial love" character trait.
How do you know that? 
Oh, I get it! 
You can read hearts, minds and souls! 

Tribe B: Every man for himself.
How do you know that? 
Oh, I get it! 
You can read hearts, minds and souls! 

Tribe A: One person jumps on the lion.
You have no idea why. 
Oh, I get it! 
You can read hearts, minds and souls! 
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 20, 2016, 05:37:43 PM
Dude... Tribe A and Tribe B, and their specified traits are the given premise. Their following actions are just a plausible result of the premise. The point is to illustrate the mechanism of evolution.

You know they don't actually exist, right? It's a hypothetical situation.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 20, 2016, 08:41:06 PM
You are full of shit with your shitty hypotheticals. 




Such anger!

Try reasoned debate, you may learn something.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 20, 2016, 11:50:07 PM
If Love is proof of gods’ existence and has nothing to do with evolution how come biologists can turn it on or off with drugs.

The Science;

In terms of natural selection, the human adult pair bond seems to have developed from earlier structures involved in sustaining the attachment between mothers and their infants (Young 2009). This “adaptive workaround” (Eastwick 2009) may have been driven by the heightened importance—over generations of human evolution—of paternal investment in offspring with increasingly large and more complex cerebrums. These burgeoning baby brains took longer to reach maturity than their more ancestral counterparts, leaving the infant vulnerable and underdeveloped for extended periods of time. If parents fell in love and remained together at least during this fragile period for their offspring, their own genetic fitness would be enhanced (Fisher 1992).

Underlying human love, then, is a set of basic brain systems for lust, attraction, and attachment that have evolved among mammals. Helen Fisher and her colleagues (Fisher 1998; Fisher et al. 2002) have argued that the lust system promotes mating with a range of promising partners; the attraction system guides us to choose and prefer a particular partner; and the attachment system fosters long-term bonding, encouraging couples to cooperate and stay together until their parental duties have been discharged. These universal systems are hypothesized to form a biological foundation on which the cultural and individual variants of sexual, romantic, and longer term love are built (Gottschall and Nordlund 2006; Jankowiak and Fischer 1992).

From this perspective, love is a “complex neurobiological phenomenon” that has been wired into our biology by the forces of evolution. “Relying on trust, belief, pleasure, and reward activities” concentrated in the limbic system (Esch and Stefano 2005, 175), love's ability to bring together (and keep together) human beings—from prehistoric times until the present day—has played a key role in the survival of our species.
From the “American journal of bioethics” If I Could Just Stop Loving You: Anti-Love Biotechnology and the Ethics of a Chemical Breakup

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2013.839752

Albeit in it’s infancy, stifling feelings of love in people with dangerous fixations (abusive partners, paedophiles and other paraphilia’s) as well as more questionable uses (“fixing” homosexuality and decreasing lust in Ultraorthodox Jewish students) is a thing.
And this is science that has turned famously monogamous prairie voles, polygamous by blocking oxytocin and reduced stress levels in those that had lost long term partners by blocking corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF). 
 (see also https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129564-600-cure-for-love-chemical-cures-for-the-lovesick).


Now I know you are going to go for the phrases “seems to” etc but this is the language of real seekers of knowledge, peer reviewed and not a hunch merchant such as yourself.

(FYI. Rama is a sex-bomb who has to beat them off with a stick)

"Underlying human love, then, is a set of basic brain systems for lust, attraction, and attachment that have evolved among mammals."

The root of lust is fear. In the form of desire, we are unfulfilled, incomplete - we desire. Lust is about the self. Love is never about the self, love is never fear. I give my life for my dying child, is it lust? No! Attraction? Is that what is driving our actions when we give our life? No.

Are we acting out of some nebulous evolutionary drive? No, we knowingly give our life for our dying child. We know exactly what is happening. Does an animal know what it means to face eternal nothingness? We have no idea, what is the animal thinking? We don't know. We do know that man has those capacities.

"FYI. Rama is a sex-bomb who has to beat them off with a stick."
Maybe you two should get together.

New pic, same frown.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 20, 2016, 11:52:35 PM
You are full of shit with your shitty hypotheticals. 
Your entire hypothetical ONLY makes sense if it assumes telepathic ability ---- in which case, your hypothetical is redundant. 


Tribe A: members have the "sacrificial love" character trait.
How do you know that? 
Oh, I get it! 
You can read hearts, minds and souls! 

Tribe B: members don't have "sacrificial love" character trait.
How do you know that? 
Oh, I get it! 
You can read hearts, minds and souls! 

Tribe B: Every man for himself.
How do you know that? 
Oh, I get it! 
You can read hearts, minds and souls! 

Tribe A: One person jumps on the lion.
You have no idea why. 
Oh, I get it! 
You can read hearts, minds and souls!

An ally!
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 21, 2016, 12:07:28 AM
Robaroni, your response to being provided the science you requested is a bunch of opinions?  Seriously?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 21, 2016, 12:34:21 AM
These same arguments again? Whelp... 6th... time's a charm!

Please, not again! I went through your hypothetical story, most of it is symbiotic. The last part assumes science can determine good!

Beneficial is a relative term, like good.

If I take this pill will it be beneficial? Science can tell us the theory behind the chemical reaction in our bodies but it can't tell us if the result is beneficial or good. That's a product of human subjectivity. I feel 'good' from the pills I took.

This has nothing to do with anything subjective, or with what science can "know". If a trait (like love) results in more species with that trait surviving, then it is beneficial to the survival of the speciese as a whole. That's all there is to it. If a trait causes an individual to sacrifice himself so that his children can survive, then that trait causes that individual's genetics to be passed on. This really is not up for debate. It's evolution 101. If you still don't understand, read an intro to evolution book.

Quote
Again, Give me the science showing that man will die if he doesn't love.

No. That is not how evolution works. Whoever told you that a trait must be vital for survival for it to be promoted by evolution was lying to you. The trait only has to be slightly beneficial to the species as a whole. Again, not up for debate. Evolution 101. If you disagree, go read any intro to evolution book.

Quote
Give me the science to justify dying to save my loved one. I'm dead, no benefit to me, no material me (no science, science deals in the material only) and no ability for science to judge if my action is good for the group.

Clearly you don't have the slightest idea how evolution works. Seriously, just go read an intro to evolution book. Evolution doesn't care about the survival of an individual. It cares about the survival of the group as a whole. More survivors => more chance to pass on the group's genetics => more people with those genes. It is as simple as that. Sacrificing oneself for your tribe or your children allows THEM to pass on your genes for you.

Quote
You keep looking to evolution for your answer, I don't care what science you use but you haven't answered anything really.

No, I am not looking to evolution for any answers. I'm not even trying to prove that evolution is true. I am merely showing how it is plausible, which is enough to counter your original argument.

And Jura thinks I'm the robot!

Nonsense!
Your loved one is dying are you thinking about evolution, about group dynamics? Are you thinking if I let this weak loved one die I can have more healthier loved ones? No, are you instinctively following some esoteric science man can't explain? No, there's no instinct involved, we already went through this. You're contemplating - thinking!
Are you thinking that you will be dead and if you are an atheist that life will be completely over? Yes!

So where's the science to justify it?

R

This doesn't come even remotely close to addressing anything I said. It doesn't matter what the person was thinking when he sacrificed himself. It doesn't matter why he sacrificed himself. The only thing that matters is the result. Storytime #2:

Tribe A: members have the "sacrificial love" character trait.
Tribe B: members don't have "sacrificial love" character trait.

Giant lion attacks both tribes.

Tribe B: Every man for himself. Everyone scatters. Lion hunts them all down individually in the night.

Tribe A: One person jumps on the lion. He knows he will die, but this gives the rest of the tribe time to stab the lion with spears.

Tribe A survives, tribe B doesn't. Tribe A passes on their "sacrificial love" trait to the next generation. Therefore, "sacrificial love" has an evolutionary advantage. Did it matter what the sacrificial person was thinking? No, it did not. All that mattered was the result. My arguments stand.

As to your tirade about how much more experience you have with love than all of us... You just got onto me for indirectly comparing my own intelligence to others. A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

You keep tripping over the same stone.

We knowingly give our life for our child, are we acting on some evolutionary impulse. Are we robots? No. Are we animals that we have no way of knowing, not only why they are thinking but what their perception of death is. None whatsoever!

You keep trying to shoehorn evolution into a viable answer. I gave you a fact. I risked my life for someone. I knew that I could die, it wasn't an impulse, people do it everyday, not just me. You're giving me a hypothetical, I'm giving you facts. You're attempting justify actions by dismissing the individual's ability to know what is transpiring. You want to make man a robot to fit your conclusion.

1. Man universally yearns to love and be loved. A fact.

2. Man gives his life knowingly for others. Fact. It's not instinct. Why doesn't he value his own life, his own survival above others? Evolutionary programming? Evolution dictates flight to save the self. Mathematics favors living and impregnating several women to have a better group survival chance.

"As to your tirade about how much more experience you have with love than all of us... You just got onto me for indirectly comparing my own intelligence to others. A bit hypocritical, don't you think?"

No, how little Rama knows about love! We're having a debate where compassion is the main theme, Knowing something about yourself, experiencing love certainly helps - a lot! He knows nothing but he thinks someone's theory is right. Not possible!
Have I experienced love, have I sat down and analyzed my actions? Yes, did I come to the conclusion on my own that love is not fear and that love can never be a trade? Yes. Did I find that analysts and philosophers agreed with my assessment. Yes.

 I think everyone should spend time inquiring into their actions and thinking. Love is the core of human existence, yet so many know so little about what it means to them, what life means.

Look at you, spending your time fighting with people about the shape of the earth. Again what will you gain if you are right? Nothing of any value. but I ask you what is more important than loving and being loved and the best you can do is"eat and drink".

So the floor is your's, again, what does it mean to you to love and be loved? Not some book, my idea, someone else's perspective. can you find out for yourself from completely within yourself. Or do you need to ask someone else? Because someone who does that is not alive, their life is nothing more than someone else's idea. So now they are an atheist because they never found out for them self if it's possible for something greater than their meager existence to be.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Charming Anarchist on July 21, 2016, 02:27:57 AM
Try reasoned debate, you may learn something.
There is no debate. 

There are only statements of facts. 
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 21, 2016, 09:32:43 AM
If Love is proof of gods’ existence and has nothing to do with evolution how come biologists can turn it on or off with drugs.

The Science;

In terms of natural selection, the human adult pair bond seems to have developed from earlier structures involved in sustaining the attachment between mothers and their infants (Young 2009). This “adaptive workaround” (Eastwick 2009) may have been driven by the heightened importance—over generations of human evolution—of paternal investment in offspring with increasingly large and more complex cerebrums. These burgeoning baby brains took longer to reach maturity than their more ancestral counterparts, leaving the infant vulnerable and underdeveloped for extended periods of time. If parents fell in love and remained together at least during this fragile period for their offspring, their own genetic fitness would be enhanced (Fisher 1992).

Underlying human love, then, is a set of basic brain systems for lust, attraction, and attachment that have evolved among mammals. Helen Fisher and her colleagues (Fisher 1998; Fisher et al. 2002) have argued that the lust system promotes mating with a range of promising partners; the attraction system guides us to choose and prefer a particular partner; and the attachment system fosters long-term bonding, encouraging couples to cooperate and stay together until their parental duties have been discharged. These universal systems are hypothesized to form a biological foundation on which the cultural and individual variants of sexual, romantic, and longer term love are built (Gottschall and Nordlund 2006; Jankowiak and Fischer 1992).

From this perspective, love is a “complex neurobiological phenomenon” that has been wired into our biology by the forces of evolution. “Relying on trust, belief, pleasure, and reward activities” concentrated in the limbic system (Esch and Stefano 2005, 175), love's ability to bring together (and keep together) human beings—from prehistoric times until the present day—has played a key role in the survival of our species.
From the “American journal of bioethics” If I Could Just Stop Loving You: Anti-Love Biotechnology and the Ethics of a Chemical Breakup

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2013.839752

Albeit in it’s infancy, stifling feelings of love in people with dangerous fixations (abusive partners, paedophiles and other paraphilia’s) as well as more questionable uses (“fixing” homosexuality and decreasing lust in Ultraorthodox Jewish students) is a thing.
And this is science that has turned famously monogamous prairie voles, polygamous by blocking oxytocin and reduced stress levels in those that had lost long term partners by blocking corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF). 
 (see also https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129564-600-cure-for-love-chemical-cures-for-the-lovesick).


Now I know you are going to go for the phrases “seems to” etc but this is the language of real seekers of knowledge, peer reviewed and not a hunch merchant such as yourself.

(FYI. Rama is a sex-bomb who has to beat them off with a stick)

"Underlying human love, then, is a set of basic brain systems for lust, attraction, and attachment that have evolved among mammals." Yep!

The root of lust is fear.Bullshit In the form of desire, we are unfulfilled, incomplete - we desire. Lust is about the self. Love is never about the self, love is never fear. I give my life for my dying child, is it lust? Nobody said it was, but it is almost certainly why you have one in the first place . No! Attraction? Is that what is driving our actions when we give our life? No.Notice you didn't put the "attachment" bit here(?)

Are we acting out of some nebulous evolutionary drive? No, we knowingly give our life for our dying child. We know exactly what is happening. Does an animal know what it means to face eternal nothingness? We have no idea, what is the animal thinking? We don't know. We do know that man has those capacities. Same old, same old. Your complete inability to separate deeply encoded instinctive drives from your nebulous thought process.

Your thought process (as we're on this) by the way is not the causal factor you imagine it to be, research shows that your brain has decided what you are going to do up to 10 seconds before your conscience “makes” the choice, your thoughts are mainly justification for your actions (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html). So your heroic intervention for your child is instinctual, you just validate the decisions if there is an afterwards, makes a good story for the camp fire. 




New pic, same frown. It looks to me like the kind of frown you get talking to dumb people.

R

See notes above;

And then answer, If Love is proof of gods’ existence and has nothing to do with evolution how come biologists can turn it on or off with drugs?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 21, 2016, 12:03:36 PM
If Love is proof of gods’ existence and has nothing to do with evolution how come biologists can turn it on or off with drugs.

The Science;

In terms of natural selection, the human adult pair bond seems to have developed from earlier structures involved in sustaining the attachment between mothers and their infants (Young 2009). This “adaptive workaround” (Eastwick 2009) may have been driven by the heightened importance—over generations of human evolution—of paternal investment in offspring with increasingly large and more complex cerebrums. These burgeoning baby brains took longer to reach maturity than their more ancestral counterparts, leaving the infant vulnerable and underdeveloped for extended periods of time. If parents fell in love and remained together at least during this fragile period for their offspring, their own genetic fitness would be enhanced (Fisher 1992).

Underlying human love, then, is a set of basic brain systems for lust, attraction, and attachment that have evolved among mammals. Helen Fisher and her colleagues (Fisher 1998; Fisher et al. 2002) have argued that the lust system promotes mating with a range of promising partners; the attraction system guides us to choose and prefer a particular partner; and the attachment system fosters long-term bonding, encouraging couples to cooperate and stay together until their parental duties have been discharged. These universal systems are hypothesized to form a biological foundation on which the cultural and individual variants of sexual, romantic, and longer term love are built (Gottschall and Nordlund 2006; Jankowiak and Fischer 1992).

From this perspective, love is a “complex neurobiological phenomenon” that has been wired into our biology by the forces of evolution. “Relying on trust, belief, pleasure, and reward activities” concentrated in the limbic system (Esch and Stefano 2005, 175), love's ability to bring together (and keep together) human beings—from prehistoric times until the present day—has played a key role in the survival of our species.
From the “American journal of bioethics” If I Could Just Stop Loving You: Anti-Love Biotechnology and the Ethics of a Chemical Breakup

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2013.839752

Albeit in it’s infancy, stifling feelings of love in people with dangerous fixations (abusive partners, paedophiles and other paraphilia’s) as well as more questionable uses (“fixing” homosexuality and decreasing lust in Ultraorthodox Jewish students) is a thing.
And this is science that has turned famously monogamous prairie voles, polygamous by blocking oxytocin and reduced stress levels in those that had lost long term partners by blocking corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF). 
 (see also https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129564-600-cure-for-love-chemical-cures-for-the-lovesick).


Now I know you are going to go for the phrases “seems to” etc but this is the language of real seekers of knowledge, peer reviewed and not a hunch merchant such as yourself.

(FYI. Rama is a sex-bomb who has to beat them off with a stick)

"Underlying human love, then, is a set of basic brain systems for lust, attraction, and attachment that have evolved among mammals." Yep!

The root of lust is fear.Bullshit In the form of desire, we are unfulfilled, incomplete - we desire. Lust is about the self. Love is never about the self, love is never fear. I give my life for my dying child, is it lust? Nobody said it was, but it is almost certainly why you have one in the first place . No! Attraction? Is that what is driving our actions when we give our life? No.Notice you didn't put the "attachment" bit here(?)

Are we acting out of some nebulous evolutionary drive? No, we knowingly give our life for our dying child. We know exactly what is happening. Does an animal know what it means to face eternal nothingness? We have no idea, what is the animal thinking? We don't know. We do know that man has those capacities. Same old, same old. Your complete inability to separate deeply encoded instinctive drives from your nebulous thought process.

Your thought process (as we're on this) by the way is not the causal factor you imagine it to be, research shows that your brain has decided what you are going to do up to 10 seconds before your conscience “makes” the choice, your thoughts are mainly justification for your actions (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html). So your heroic intervention for your child is instinctual, you just validate the decisions if there is an afterwards, makes a good story for the camp fire. 




New pic, same frown. It looks to me like the kind of frown you get talking to dumb people.

R

See notes above;

And then answer, If Love is proof of gods’ existence and has nothing to do with evolution how come biologists can turn it on or off with drugs?

Are you a "prairie vole"? Can I turn on your compassion and force you into giving your heart to save someone else? I can drug you into not know what you are doing but this is not what is happening when I act out of compassion sans drugs. Can I turn on your love for someone you have no interest in and force you live your life with them?

Lust is not love. A prostitute can satisfy an individual's lust. Is that love, human compassion? No it's a trade, I pay you, you have sex with me. you're making my point, man can procreate without love.

Jura:

"Your thought process (as we're on this) by the way is not the causal factor you imagine it to be, research shows that your brain has decided what you are going to do up to 10 seconds before your conscience “makes” the choice, your thoughts are mainly justification for your actions (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html). So your heroic intervention for your child is instinctual, you just validate the decisions if there is an afterwards, makes a good story for the camp fire.  [/color][/b]"

My child is dying the doctor comes to me and says your heart can save your child but you will die. Ten seconds? No you process the decision. We know all about thought going from the rear integrative cortex to the front integrative cortex and the time it takes. What you're talking about is the first answer is not always the best. The first student in class to answer a question hass less time to contemplate the answer, it takes time to think of all the possible solutions to a problem. It has nothing to do with running to save a loved one in trouble or giving ones life for a loved one. I'm sitting here right now and I know without a doubt that I would give my life for my loved ones. Ask me in an hour and I will tell you the same thing.

"Bullshit" That response in a debate is called intellectual bankruptcy. I have no viable answer so the best this is the best I can do.

R
"New pic, same frown."

Jura
It looks to me like the kind of frown you get talking to dumb people.

What does it say about you if "dump people" have that much effect on you?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 21, 2016, 01:19:19 PM
Wow, there is no point presenting Robaroni with facts and evidence.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 21, 2016, 02:01:23 PM

Wow, there is no point presenting Robaroni with facts and evidence.

Nope!

Speed reads it, doesn't understand, rinse & repeat.

Incidentally "Bullshit" is a wonderful response when someone makes a statement such as "The root of lust is fear".

That I frown in the presence of dumb people just goes to show my empathy, I see something really dumb (see above) but instead of ridicule I think "I can help here", so I give up my time to help, and I just keep on giving however much it becomes apparent that they will never quite get it, I swear one day I will become a saint.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 21, 2016, 02:47:33 PM

Wow, there is no point presenting Robaroni with facts and evidence.

Nope!

Speed reads it, doesn't understand, rinse & repeat.

Incidentally "Bullshit" is a wonderful response when someone makes a statement such as "The root of lust is fear".

That I frown in the presence of dumb people just goes to show my empathy, I see something really dumb (see above) but instead of ridicule I think "I can help here", so I give up my time to help, and I just keep on giving however much it becomes apparent that they will never quite get it, I swear one day I will become a saint.

 Richard Lazarus with Bernice N Lazarus, Passion and Reason: Making Sense of Our Emotions, 1994, New York: Oxford University Press ISBN 978-0-19-510461-5:

"Lust is an emotion or feeling of intense desire in the body. The lust can take any form such as the lust for sex, lust for expensive objects (extravagance) or the lust for power. It can take such mundane forms as the lust for food as distinct from the need for food. Lust is a psychological force producing intense wanting for an object, or circumstance fulfilling the emotion.[1]

Lust for sex, money, whatever. Lust is a strong desire. We desire because we are unfulfilled, wanting. We want for power, for example, because we believe we are powerless and we fear we will be preyed upon.

"apparent that they will never quite get it"

Get what? What you believe? And you know all there is to know about loving and being loved because of your great depth of experience, so you can make a determination that compassion is just science? I think you just read a book because the best you can do is parrot someone else's opinion.

Do you believe you get everything? All knowing? Pretty arrogant thinking others "don't get it".

Georg Cantor is frowning because Jura doesn't get Aleph Naught, the Set Theory and multiple infinities and never will.

R

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 21, 2016, 03:01:20 PM

 Richard Lazarus with Bernice N Lazarus, Passion and Reason: Making Sense of Our Emotions, 1994, New York: Oxford University Press ISBN 978-0-19-510461-5:

"Lust is an emotion or feeling of intense desire in the body. The lust can take any form such as the lust for sex, lust for expensive objects (extravagance) or the lust for power. It can take such mundane forms as the lust for food as distinct from the need for food. Lust is a psychological force producing intense wanting for an object, or circumstance fulfilling the emotion.[1]

Lust for sex, money, whatever. Lust is a strong desire. We desire because we are unfulfilled, wanting. We want for power, for example, because we believe we are powerless and we fear we will be preyed upon.

Your quote says nothing about fear, that is literally your opinion and not worth very much in this context.

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 21, 2016, 07:01:37 PM
You keep tripping over the same stone.

The irony in this statement is so thick you could sprinkle sugar on it and serve it as desert.

Quote
We knowingly give our life for our child, are we acting on some evolutionary impulse. Are we robots? No.

For the billionth time: it doesn't matter whether you did it knowingly, impulsively, instinctually, reflexively, flatulantly... It doesn't matter! It doesn't matter if you thought about it for 10 years or 10 microseconds. It doesn't matter why you did it. It doesn't matter! You seem to be under the misunderstanding that evolution has no way of influencing how you think. Just because you did something knowingly does not mean you are free from all past evolutionary influence. If that assumption is part of your reasoning, then all your conclusions will be extremely biased.

Quote
Why doesn't he value his own life, his own survival above others? Evolutionary programming? Evolution dictates flight to save the self. Mathematics favors living and impregnating several women to have a better group survival chance.

That is NOT what evolution dictates. Please see my "story times" for an illustration of how evolution can promote self sacrifice.

Quote
No, how little Rama knows about love! We're having a debate where compassion is the main theme, Knowing something about yourself, experiencing love certainly helps - a lot! He knows nothing but he thinks someone's theory is right. Not possible!
Have I experienced love, have I sat down and analyzed my actions? Yes, did I come to the conclusion on my own that love is not fear and that love can never be a trade? Yes. Did I find that analysts and philosophers agreed with my assessment. Yes.

 I think everyone should spend time inquiring into their actions and thinking. Love is the core of human existence, yet so many know so little about what it means to them, what life means.

Look at you, spending your time fighting with people about the shape of the earth. Again what will you gain if you are right? Nothing of any value. but I ask you what is more important than loving and being loved and the best you can do is"eat and drink".

So the floor is your's, again, what does it mean to you to love and be loved? Not some book, my idea, someone else's perspective. can you find out for yourself from completely within yourself. Or do you need to ask someone else? Because someone who does that is not alive, their life is nothing more than someone else's idea. So now they are an atheist because they never found out for them self if it's possible for something greater than their meager existence to be.

No thanks. I am not interested in discussing the meaning of love with you, anymore than I already have. Your philosophical ramblings demonstrate very little intellectual rigor or consistency. "The root of lust is fear." I agree with Jura. Bullshit. And I came to that conclusion based entirely on personal experience. That's what you asked for, isn't it?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 21, 2016, 09:56:34 PM

Wow, there is no point presenting Robaroni with facts and evidence.

Nope!

Speed reads it, doesn't understand, rinse & repeat.

Incidentally "Bullshit" is a wonderful response when someone makes a statement such as "The root of lust is fear".

That I frown in the presence of dumb people just goes to show my empathy, I see something really dumb (see above) but instead of ridicule I think "I can help here", so I give up my time to help, and I just keep on giving however much it becomes apparent that they will never quite get it, I swear one day I will become a saint.

 Richard Lazarus with Bernice N Lazarus, Passion and Reason: Making Sense of Our Emotions, 1994, New York: Oxford University Press ISBN 978-0-19-510461-5:

"Lust is an emotion or feeling of intense desire in the body. The lust can take any form such as the lust for sex, lust for expensive objects (extravagance) or the lust for power. It can take such mundane forms as the lust for food as distinct from the need for food. Lust is a psychological force producing intense wanting for an object, or circumstance fulfilling the emotion.[1]

Lust for sex, money, whatever. Lust is a strong desire. We desire because we are unfulfilled, wanting. We want for power, for example, because we believe we are powerless and we fear we will be preyed upon.

"apparent that they will never quite get it"

Get what? What you believe? And you know all there is to know about loving and being loved because of your great depth of experience, so you can make a determination that compassion is just science? I think you just read a book because the best you can do is parrot someone else's opinion.

Do you believe you get everything? All knowing? Pretty arrogant thinking others "don't get it".

Georg Cantor is frowning because Jura doesn't get Aleph Naught, the Set Theory and multiple infinities and never will.

R

Nope! Wrong again.

Lust can mean a strong desire, but in the context it was used it has no connection to love of money or food other than a semantic one.

“The lust system (libido or sex drive), for example, is distinguished by craving for sexual gratification and is largely associated with the hormones estrogen and testosterone in both men and women. The attraction system promotes focused attention, intrusive or obsessive thoughts about the object of desire, feelings of exhilaration, and so on, and is associated primarily with adrenaline, dopamine, and serotonin.”

Focus ;

“In order to explore the neurochemistry of any love-diminishing intervention, we need to begin by understanding love itself from the perspective of the brain. 11 From this perspective, love is a “complex neurobiological phenomenon” that has been wired into our biology by the forces of evolution. “Relying on trust, belief, pleasure, and reward activities” concentrated in the limbic system (Esch and Stefano 2005, 175), love's ability to bring together (and keep together) human beings—from prehistoric times until the present day—has played a key role in the survival of our species. “

Still not get it?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 22, 2016, 12:57:25 AM
You keep tripping over the same stone.

The irony in this statement is so thick you could sprinkle sugar on it and serve it as desert.

Quote
We knowingly give our life for our child, are we acting on some evolutionary impulse. Are we robots? No.

For the billionth time: it doesn't matter whether you did it knowingly, impulsively, instinctually, reflexively, flatulantly... It doesn't matter! It doesn't matter if you thought about it for 10 years or 10 microseconds. It doesn't matter why you did it. It doesn't matter! You seem to be under the misunderstanding that evolution has no way of influencing how you think. Just because you did something knowingly does not mean you are free from all past evolutionary influence. If that assumption is part of your reasoning, then all your conclusions will be extremely biased.

Quote
Why doesn't he value his own life, his own survival above others? Evolutionary programming? Evolution dictates flight to save the self. Mathematics favors living and impregnating several women to have a better group survival chance.

That is NOT what evolution dictates. Please see my "story times" for an illustration of how evolution can promote self sacrifice.

Quote
No, how little Rama knows about love! We're having a debate where compassion is the main theme, Knowing something about yourself, experiencing love certainly helps - a lot! He knows nothing but he thinks someone's theory is right. Not possible!
Have I experienced love, have I sat down and analyzed my actions? Yes, did I come to the conclusion on my own that love is not fear and that love can never be a trade? Yes. Did I find that analysts and philosophers agreed with my assessment. Yes.

 I think everyone should spend time inquiring into their actions and thinking. Love is the core of human existence, yet so many know so little about what it means to them, what life means.

Look at you, spending your time fighting with people about the shape of the earth. Again what will you gain if you are right? Nothing of any value. but I ask you what is more important than loving and being loved and the best you can do is"eat and drink".

So the floor is your's, again, what does it mean to you to love and be loved? Not some book, my idea, someone else's perspective. can you find out for yourself from completely within yourself. Or do you need to ask someone else? Because someone who does that is not alive, their life is nothing more than someone else's idea. So now they are an atheist because they never found out for them self if it's possible for something greater than their meager existence to be.

No thanks. I am not interested in discussing the meaning of love with you, anymore than I already have. Your philosophical ramblings demonstrate very little intellectual rigor or consistency. "The root of lust is fear." I agree with Jura. Bullshit. And I came to that conclusion based entirely on personal experience. That's what you asked for, isn't it?

"That is NOT what evolution dictates. Please see my "story times" for an illustration of how evolution can promote self sacrifice."

I saw it and disagreed with it. Again, your premise assumes that the individual is either thinking about the group dynamic or is functioning instinctively. That's not what the individual is doing. The individual has time to contemplate his actions. Again, right now I will tell you that I would give my life for my loved one without any doubt. Am I functioning under the premise that the group will benefit? No. Am I acting instinctively? No.  Isn't it common sense to NOT give your life, to save yourself and to let the child die and have a better chance of healthy offspring? Sure, I'm not interested in the theory of evolution. I'm certainly not thinking about what Darwin thought. Evolution is not a perfect science, science is not capable of absolutes.

TNR:
"No thanks. I am not interested in discussing the meaning of love with you, anymore than I already have. Your philosophical ramblings demonstrate very little intellectual rigor or consistency."

You'll have to prove those accusations and show me the inconsistency in my statements. You can't simply accuse, you have to validate your position.

 "The root of lust is fear." I agree with Jura. Bullshit. And I came to that conclusion based entirely on personal experience. That's what you asked for, isn't it?"

I gave Jura the logic behind my premise. If you disagree you have to show that a lust for power is not driven by the fear of powerlessness by the individual. You can't simply say "bullshit". Again, it's considered intellectual bankruptcy in debates and is valueless. But you never debated formally did you? If you had you would have been disqualified. But you know that because you really graduated college but won't tell me "for personal reasons". That's the first time I ever heard that one!

R



Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 22, 2016, 01:42:24 AM

Wow, there is no point presenting Robaroni with facts and evidence.

Nope!

Speed reads it, doesn't understand, rinse & repeat.

Incidentally "Bullshit" is a wonderful response when someone makes a statement such as "The root of lust is fear".

That I frown in the presence of dumb people just goes to show my empathy, I see something really dumb (see above) but instead of ridicule I think "I can help here", so I give up my time to help, and I just keep on giving however much it becomes apparent that they will never quite get it, I swear one day I will become a saint.

 Richard Lazarus with Bernice N Lazarus, Passion and Reason: Making Sense of Our Emotions, 1994, New York: Oxford University Press ISBN 978-0-19-510461-5:

"Lust is an emotion or feeling of intense desire in the body. The lust can take any form such as the lust for sex, lust for expensive objects (extravagance) or the lust for power. It can take such mundane forms as the lust for food as distinct from the need for food. Lust is a psychological force producing intense wanting for an object, or circumstance fulfilling the emotion.[1]

Lust for sex, money, whatever. Lust is a strong desire. We desire because we are unfulfilled, wanting. We want for power, for example, because we believe we are powerless and we fear we will be preyed upon.

"apparent that they will never quite get it"

Get what? What you believe? And you know all there is to know about loving and being loved because of your great depth of experience, so you can make a determination that compassion is just science? I think you just read a book because the best you can do is parrot someone else's opinion.

Do you believe you get everything? All knowing? Pretty arrogant thinking others "don't get it".

Georg Cantor is frowning because Jura doesn't get Aleph Naught, the Set Theory and multiple infinities and never will.

R

Nope! Wrong again.

Lust can mean a strong desire, but in the context it was used it has no connection to love of money or food other than a semantic one.

“The lust system (libido or sex drive), for example, is distinguished by craving for sexual gratification and is largely associated with the hormones estrogen and testosterone in both men and women. The attraction system promotes focused attention, intrusive or obsessive thoughts about the object of desire, feelings of exhilaration, and so on, and is associated primarily with adrenaline, dopamine, and serotonin.”

Focus ;

“In order to explore the neurochemistry of any love-diminishing intervention, we need to begin by understanding love itself from the perspective of the brain. 11 From this perspective, love is a “complex neurobiological phenomenon” that has been wired into our biology by the forces of evolution. “Relying on trust, belief, pleasure, and reward activities” concentrated in the limbic system (Esch and Stefano 2005, 175), love's ability to bring together (and keep together) human beings—from prehistoric times until the present day—has played a key role in the survival of our species. “

Still not get it?

The first thing you need to do is give me the link. Is lust love? Not even close! And

You're making the same mistake as TNR. I would give my life for my loved one without any doubts or regrets. I have had time over my life to contemplate the ramifications of my actions. Worse if I'm an atheist I believe I will face eternal nothingness. these are facts. Where is compassion centered in the brain? We know the center of fear, the Amygdala but science has no center for compassion. How does it play a key role to my survival? I give my life, I'm dead! Why not survive and have more offspring? Mathematical probabilities favor the group.I gave you facts, you keep giving me theories that don't justify my actions.

Again, give me the link to your quote. Science has not found any part of the human body that is the source of compassionate love , lust yes.

"Lust can mean a strong desire, but in the context it was used it has no connection to love of money or food other than a semantic one."

Not true:

http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/lust%20for%20power
lust   
1       n-uncount   Lust is a feeling of strong sexual desire for someone. 
His relationship with Angie was the first which combined lust with friendship..., His lust for her grew until it was overpowering.     
2       n-uncount   A lust for something is a very strong and eager desire to have it. 
oft N for n   (=passion) 
It was Fred's lust for glitz and glamour that was driving them apart.      lust after   , lust for 
1       phrasal verb   If you lust after someone or lust for them, you feel a very strong sexual desire for them. 
From what I hear, half the campus is lusting after her.      V P n 
2       phrasal verb   If you lust after or lust for something, you have a very strong desire to possess it. 
Sheard lusted after the Directorship.
      V P n 

Why does one individual lust after another individual that several other individual's have no desire for? Chemicals? Something has to start the chemicals flowing. Adrenaline doesn't just start by itself. We become afraid and then it starts to flow. Thought starts the process we see someone and we want to possess them, we desire them.

http://www.newliving.com/issues/jan_08/articles/desireandfear.html

"Desire and Fear: The Same Side of the Coin by Jeru Kabbal

     Desires and fears. How different they seem. How similar they truly are. How can desire and fear be so totally related? Think of it this way: if you say, "I want to be loved," it's the same thing as saying "I'm afraid I won't be loved."  If you say, "I want to have someone around me," it's the same as saying "I'm afraid of being alone." The truth is that fear and desire are at the root of each other. Rather, than leading us to fulfillment, desires take us away from it. The more desires we have, the greater the fear that those desires will not be fulfilled. And all desires represent one of two things: wanting something we don't have, such as great wealth, or not wanting something we have, such as a pile of overdue bills. We desire good health and vigor; we fear disease. We desire a loving relationship; we fear loneliness. Can you see that if you say, "I want to live," it's the same as saying "I'm afraid I will die,"?"

  "Finding Clarity:  A Guide to the Deeper Levels of Your Being" by Jeru Kabbal adapted by Leonard M. Zunin, M.D. and Robert Strock (North Atlantic Books; 2006),

http://jpmorganjr.com/what-you-fear-is-what-you-want/

"You can only experience fear for things you have desire for."

http://www.justiceschanfarber.com/the-trouble-with-desire-why-do-we-fear-what-we-want/

Justice Schanfarber Counselling – Campbell River BC
Counselling for Marriage, Couples, Individual, Family.

"The trouble with desire – Why do we fear what we want?"

I could give you more references, desire and fear have been linked for a very long time. Jung, Krishnamurti, etc.

Not "bullshit" at all, you're three very naive people.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 22, 2016, 02:21:15 AM

"That is NOT what evolution dictates. Please see my "story times" for an illustration of how evolution can promote self sacrifice."

I saw it and disagreed with it. Again, your premise assumes that the individual is either thinking about the group dynamic or is functioning instinctively.

His premise does not assume that, and as Jura said, conscious may be nothing more than ad hoc rationalization of a choice you have already made in some other neurological process.  If you think it is a necessary consequence of his premise, then please show why. 

Quote
That's not what the individual is doing. The individual has time to contemplate his actions. Again, right now I will tell you that I would give my life for my loved one without any doubt. Am I functioning under the premise that the group will benefit? No. Am I acting instinctively? No.  Isn't it common sense to NOT give your life, to save yourself and to let the child die and have a better chance of healthy offspring?

You make it seem like human's aren't capable of acting like other animals after giving it thought.  Racism is another example of just such behavior.  People think through racist acts all the time and create whatever rationalization they need, but it is just classic in-group/out-group behavior which is seen all through the animal kingdom.   The thoughts are an ad hoc rationalizations for their feelings.

Quote
Sure, I'm not interested in the theory of evolution. I'm certainly not thinking about what Darwin thought.

You have made that abundantly clear.

Quote
Evolution is not a perfect science, science is not capable of absolutes.

How is this relevant?

Quote
TNR:
"No thanks. I am not interested in discussing the meaning of love with you, anymore than I already have. Your philosophical ramblings demonstrate very little intellectual rigor or consistency."

You'll have to prove those accusations and show me the inconsistency in my statements. You can't simply accuse, you have to validate your position.

You have been, quite a lot.  We have pointed out assumptions you make that are unfounded and assertions that you present as facts.  You ask for scientific explanations, but can offer no scientific rebuttals when those explanations come knocking.  Instead you simply say, "thats not how it is!  Here is the truth!"

 
Quote
"The root of lust is fear." I agree with Jura. Bullshit. And I came to that conclusion based entirely on personal experience. That's what you asked for, isn't it?"

I gave Jura the logic behind my premise. If you disagree you have to show that a lust for power is not driven by the fear of powerlessness by the individual. You can't simply say "bullshit".

But... you do it all the time.  Anyway, as Jura pointed out, lust is not solely for power, so your explanation cannot be the root. 

Quote
Again, it's considered intellectual bankruptcy in debates and is valueless. But you never debated formally did you? If you had you would have been disqualified. But you know that because you really graduated college but won't tell me "for personal reasons". That's the first time I ever heard that one!

You obviously have not been on the internet very much.  It seems pretty obvious that you are older, likely a senior citizen and are just not aware of what the etiquette surrounding communication on public fora is.  It is ok, we understand, but you should probably behave with an appropriate amount of humility regarding internet etiquette.

Here is a primer on the topic, but please learn more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymity#Anonymity_on_the_Internet
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 22, 2016, 11:12:18 AM


That is NOT what evolution dictates. Please see my "story times" for an illustration of how evolution can promote self sacrifice.


Evolution doesn't "dictate" anything, it's a theory. Here's what evolution says:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."

Is the offspring with the defective heart in the "form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations"  No, the defect will repeat in future generations. Let the defective offspring die, don't give your life to save it have other healthier offspring.


TNR:
"No thanks. I am not interested in discussing the meaning of love with you, anymore than I already have. Your philosophical ramblings demonstrate very little intellectual rigor or consistency. "The root of lust is fear." I agree with Jura. Bullshit. And I came to that conclusion based entirely on personal experience. That's what you asked for, isn't it?"

And you would  be just as embarrassingly wrong as Jura. (see my response to her)

You're not interested in discussing love (you haven't really so far, by the way) because you have no idea what it is or means any more than you understand fear, desire or philosophy.

R


Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: GodTheAlmighty on July 22, 2016, 12:52:29 PM
Jura-Glenlivet you are an idiot ;D

You're arguments are poor, and don't make sense. I ask you to refer to Genesis 1.1, what more proof do you require that god exists. You non-believers will burn in limbo for your sins. You obviously haven't read the bible.
2 John 1:9-11 ESV / 444 helpful votes    Helpful  Not Helpful
Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

I have been chosen to preach gods word throughout America! All Atheism is a form of terrorism towards our good lord!

Donald trump is the son of god reincarnated, he has been sent to save AMERICA from racism and low IQ's.


God will soon cast down you non believers! Hail Donald TRUMP!

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 22, 2016, 01:20:21 PM

The first thing you need to do is give me the link. I did, before, go back and find it as you obviously didn't read it Is lust love? Not even close! Like I said, If you actually read the articles you wouldn't be typing crap.

You're making the same mistake as TNR. I would give my life for my loved one .........blah...................................repeat.....................................................................Where is compassion centered in the brain? We know the center of fear, the Amygdala but science has no center for compassion. Wrong! The middle insular & the anterior cingulate cortex for instance (see http://www.vislab.ucl.ac.uk/pdf/NeuralBasisOfLove.pdf)   How does it play a key role to my survival? I give my life, ............blah..............................bullshit......................repeat.............I gave you facts,   you keep giving me theories We all have patiently explained, we have given you the science but you don,t read it and then demand the links, that you either then don't read or don't get , that don't justify my actions.

Again, give me the link to your quote. Science has not found any part of the human body that is the source of compassionate love , lust yes. Crap.. see above

"Lust can mean a strong desire, but in the context it was used it has no connection to love of money or food other than a semantic one."

Not true: But then you list a dictionary definition, which is semantics!

http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/lust%20for%20power
lust   
1     Blaah blah

Why does one individual lust after another individual that several other individual's have no desire for? Chemicals? Something has to start the chemicals flowing. Adrenaline doesn't just start by itself. We become afraid and then it starts to flow. Massive huge steaming pile of guess what? And please don't list the words of life coaches, self styled guru's & wankers with beards as facts, it's embarrassing.


I could give you more references, desire and fear have been linked for a very long time. Jung, Krishnamurti, Homer Simpson, etc.

 I think you just read a book because the best you can do is parrot someone else's opinion.







Is the offspring with the defective heart in the "form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations"  No, the defect will repeat in future generations. Let the defective offspring die, don't give your life to save it have other healthier offspring. Idiot! If the heart defect kills it before it gets to breeding it most definitely won't repeat. If it is a long term problem that kills you any time after you have had the kid but before they have flown away it will lower their chance of survival (down one parent), If it kills you after they have gone, no selection pressure, that's why we will never be immortal


TNR:
"No thanks. I am not interested in discussing the meaning of love with you, anymore than I already have. Your philosophical ramblings demonstrate very little intellectual rigor or consistency. "The root of lust is fear." I agree with Jura. Bullshit. And I came to that conclusion based entirely on personal experience. That's what you asked for, isn't it?" Love you Totes



R

GodThe..... or Rushy?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: GodTheAlmighty on July 22, 2016, 02:19:14 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVm8RokoBA

Watch this and repent! I present you with scientific proof that their is a god!
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: GodTheAlmighty on July 22, 2016, 02:22:08 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqwFWD_Htfo
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 22, 2016, 10:10:33 PM
R

"Is the offspring with the defective heart in the "form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations"  No, the defect will repeat in future generations. Let the defective offspring die, don't give your life to save it have other healthier offspring."

Jura

 "Idiot! If the heart defect kills it before it gets to breeding it most definitely won't repeat. If it is a long term problem that kills you any time after you have had the kid but before they have flown away it will lower their chance of survival (down one parent), If it kills you after they have gone, no selection pressure, that's why we will never be immortal"

You're wrong. Again, this is what Darwin said:

"form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations".

How long the offspring will or won't live is a non sequitur. My actions are in clear opposition to Darwin. I am giving my life to save the defective offspring. The offspring is flawed, it damages further offspring if it procreates.

Jura:
"Wrong! The middle insular & the anterior cingulate cortex for instance (see http://www.vislab.ucl.ac.uk/pdf/NeuralBasisOfLove.pdf)."

I know about this study, it is referenced to romantic love not compassionate love. Am I romantically attracted to my dying child? Of course not. Romantic love and compassionate love are two entirely different things. Romantic love may play a role in procreation, although procreation can exist without it. Because you know so little on the subject you saw romantic love and falsely concluded it was the same origin as compassion. No where in the study did the student (it was a student paper) mention compassionate love. Personally I think he avoided it because, as Allman states below, the findings did not distinguish between love and lust sufficiently to satisfy him (Allman).

http://www.forbes.com/maserati/singles2004/cx_mh_0624love_04single.html

"Others are more skeptical. John Allman, a Caltech neuroscientist, says the areas that lit up in Bartels' work are not as specific as he would like. "The problem is distinguishing between love and lust"

Jura:
" I think you just read a book because the best you can do is parrot someone else's opinion."

Not at all. In my early 30's I decided to reason out my life for myself, it was at that time that I formulated my premise that desire had its origin in fear. After I formulated this and other views on compassion I read extensively and found this was a basic belief. The belief that compassion is the proof that something greater than the self exists is mine. I have not found any other view specifically stating it. The development of the hypothesis and the facts I posted are all mine as is the definition of intelligence. Which by the way a PhD Dean has adopted.
 
R
"The first thing you need to do is give me the link."

Jura:
 "I did, before, go back and find it as you obviously didn't read it"

No link there!

R


Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 23, 2016, 03:14:03 AM
TNR:
"No thanks. I am not interested in discussing the meaning of love with you, anymore than I already have. Your philosophical ramblings demonstrate very little intellectual rigor or consistency."

You'll have to prove those accusations and show me the inconsistency in my statements. You can't simply accuse, you have to validate your position.

Gladly. Give me a week or so. (I wasted too much time in the debate section tonight and will be busy for the next week.) Be careful what you wish for.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 23, 2016, 12:23:05 PM
TNR:
"No thanks. I am not interested in discussing the meaning of love with you, anymore than I already have. Your philosophical ramblings demonstrate very little intellectual rigor or consistency."

You'll have to prove those accusations and show me the inconsistency in my statements. You can't simply accuse, you have to validate your position.

Gladly. Give me a week or so. (I wasted too much time in the debate section tonight and will be busy for the next week.) Be careful what you wish for.

You too, along with science I studied ethics and philosophy in college and I graduated summa cum laude. Again, you haven't discussed love!

Utilitarianism anyone? Kant?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 23, 2016, 01:04:48 PM
What science did you study and where?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 24, 2016, 08:20:40 PM
R


Jura:
" I think you just read a book because the best you can do is parrot someone else's opinion." That was a quote from you.


R
"The first thing you need to do is give me the link."

Jura:
 "I did, before, go back and find it as you obviously didn't read it"

No link there! Look harder.


Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 24, 2016, 10:21:36 PM
R


Jura:
" I think you just read a book because the best you can do is parrot someone else's opinion." That was a quote from you.


R
"The first thing you need to do is give me the link."

Jura:
 "I did, before, go back and find it as you obviously didn't read it"

No link there! Look harder.



Not worth it! Probably just another student paper.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 24, 2016, 10:35:33 PM
R


Jura:
" I think you just read a book because the best you can do is parrot someone else's opinion." That was a quote from you.


R
"The first thing you need to do is give me the link."

Jura:
 "I did, before, go back and find it as you obviously didn't read it"

No link there! Look harder.



Not worth it! Probably just another student paper.

Facts don't care if you are a student or a lying senior citizen.

Where did you study science and what was your degree in?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 24, 2016, 10:44:55 PM
R


Jura:
" I think you just read a book because the best you can do is parrot someone else's opinion." That was a quote from you.


R
"The first thing you need to do is give me the link."

Jura:
 "I did, before, go back and find it as you obviously didn't read it"

No link there! Look harder.



Jura:

“The lust system (libido or sex drive), for example, is distinguished by craving for sexual gratification and is largely associated with the hormones estrogen and testosterone in both men and women. The attraction system promotes focused attention, intrusive or obsessive thoughts about the object of desire, feelings of exhilaration, and so on, and is associated primarily with adrenaline, dopamine, and serotonin.”

Focus ;

“In order to explore the neurochemistry of any love-diminishing intervention, we need to begin by understanding love itself from the perspective of the brain. 11 From this perspective, love is a “complex neurobiological phenomenon” that has been wired into our biology by the forces of evolution. “Relying on trust, belief, pleasure, and reward activities” concentrated in the limbic system (Esch and Stefano 2005, 175), love's ability to bring together (and keep together) human beings—from prehistoric times until the present day—has played a key role in the survival of our species. “


OK, where's the http link?

And where's the evolutionary answer to this question I posed:

R
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."

Is the offspring with the defective heart in the "form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations"  No, the defect will repeat in future generations. Let the defective offspring die, don't give your life to save it have other healthier offspring.

So why are individuals willing to die or the dying child? Where's the evolutionary answer?

R

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 24, 2016, 10:49:03 PM
It's already been shown how having this trait will give a group a greater chance of surviving. It may not be a net benefit in each individual instance, but overall it is.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 24, 2016, 11:05:33 PM
R


Jura:
" I think you just read a book because the best you can do is parrot someone else's opinion." That was a quote from you.


R
"The first thing you need to do is give me the link."

Jura:
 "I did, before, go back and find it as you obviously didn't read it"

No link there! Look harder.



Not worth it! Probably just another student paper.

Facts don't care if you are a student or a lying senior citizen.

Where did you study science and what was your degree in?

Why do you want to know? You want to discuss the Miller Effect on gate capacitance of 'N' type metal oxide silicon field effect transistors in high side 'H' bridge SMPS applications? I didn't think so!

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 24, 2016, 11:18:28 PM
It's already been shown how having this trait will give a group a greater chance of surviving. It may not be a net benefit in each individual instance, but overall it is.

Wrong!

Having the trait of giving one's life for the weak as many including myself are willing to do to save the sick child is in diametrical opposition to Darwin's hypothesis. It never benefits the group in giving one's life for the weak. It's not possible.

Rama:
"Facts don't care if you are a student or a lying senior citizen."

Science is not capable of absolutes. Individuals interpret "facts" but that doesn't mean because they form an hypothesis it is a "fact".

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 24, 2016, 11:21:08 PM
No, I want to see if this bravado is at all relevant. From the content of your pretentious little spiel there, the answer is no.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 24, 2016, 11:26:48 PM
It's already been shown how having this trait will give a group a greater chance of surviving. It may not be a net benefit in each individual instance, but overall it is.

Wrong!

Having the trait of giving one's life for the weak as many including myself are willing to do to save the sick child is in diametrical opposition to Darwin's hypothesis. It never benefits the group in giving one's life for the weak. It's not possible.

This is a straw man. We having been discussing having the trait of "sacrificial love", which can be applied to the strong or the weak.

Quote
Rama:
"Facts don't care if you are a student or a lying senior citizen."

Science is not capable of absolutes. Individuals interpret "facts" but that doesn't mean because they form an hypothesis it is a "fact".

R

Another straw man. Didn't you claim to be a good debater? 
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 24, 2016, 11:47:53 PM
No, I want to see if this bravado is at all relevant. From the content of your pretentious little spiel there, the answer is no.

And what makes you think you have any right whatsoever to know?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 25, 2016, 12:02:32 AM
It's already been shown how having this trait will give a group a greater chance of surviving. It may not be a net benefit in each individual instance, but overall it is.

Wrong!

Having the trait of giving one's life for the weak as many including myself are willing to do to save the sick child is in diametrical opposition to Darwin's hypothesis. It never benefits the group in giving one's life for the weak. It's not possible.

This is a straw man. We having been discussing having the trait of "sacrificial love", which can be applied to the strong or the weak.

Quote
Rama:
"Facts don't care if you are a student or a lying senior citizen."

Science is not capable of absolutes. Individuals interpret "facts" but that doesn't mean because they form an hypothesis it is a "fact".

R

Another straw man. Didn't you claim to be a good debater?

Again, you haven't said anything except more innuendos in the hopes of 'sounding' like you actually know something. Believe what you want but I find you dishonest (the "feelings" nonsense, etc) and a very poor critical thinker ("a system of denial....",etc). I haven't been responding to your remarks and that will continue because I don't find them worthy of my time or responses.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 25, 2016, 01:37:39 AM
No, I want to see if this bravado is at all relevant. From the content of your pretentious little spiel there, the answer is no.

And what makes you think you have any right whatsoever to know?

R

Remember when you got all high and mighty on TNR for not telling you where he went to school?  Yeah me too. Good times.

It's already been shown how having this trait will give a group a greater chance of surviving. It may not be a net benefit in each individual instance, but overall it is.

Wrong!

Having the trait of giving one's life for the weak as many including myself are willing to do to save the sick child is in diametrical opposition to Darwin's hypothesis. It never benefits the group in giving one's life for the weak. It's not possible.

This is a straw man. We having been discussing having the trait of "sacrificial love", which can be applied to the strong or the weak.

Quote
Rama:
"Facts don't care if you are a student or a lying senior citizen."

Science is not capable of absolutes. Individuals interpret "facts" but that doesn't mean because they form an hypothesis it is a "fact".

R

Another straw man. Didn't you claim to be a good debater?

Again, you haven't said anything except more innuendos in the hopes of 'sounding' like you actually know something. Believe what you want but I find you dishonest (the "feelings" nonsense, etc) and a very poor critical thinker ("a system of denial....",etc). I haven't been responding to your remarks and that will continue because I don't find them worthy of my time or responses.

R


You are responding a lot for someone who isn't responding. It's almost as if you are doing it instinctually.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Woody on July 25, 2016, 03:35:02 AM
I just skimmed this thread.

As for why we feel love there is certainly evidence that it is a desired trait in social species.  It encourages altruism, caring for young and basically getting along.

If you are interested Gregory Berns did an interesting study on love and dogs.  The conclusion is basically to create bonds to promote social comfort and security. The same reason people love each other. The same chemical and brain responses.

I think the only valid argument for love being proof of God is he guided evolution so social animals would feel love.
 
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 25, 2016, 09:08:27 AM
R


Jura:
" I think you just read a book because the best you can do is parrot someone else's opinion." That was a quote from you.


R
"The first thing you need to do is give me the link."

Jura:
 "I did, before, go back and find it as you obviously didn't read it"

No link there! Look harder.



Jura:

“The lust system (libido or sex drive), for example, is distinguished by craving for sexual gratification and is largely associated with the hormones estrogen and testosterone in both men and women. The attraction system promotes focused attention, intrusive or obsessive thoughts about the object of desire, feelings of exhilaration, and so on, and is associated primarily with adrenaline, dopamine, and serotonin.”

Focus ;

“In order to explore the neurochemistry of any love-diminishing intervention, we need to begin by understanding love itself from the perspective of the brain. 11 From this perspective, love is a “complex neurobiological phenomenon” that has been wired into our biology by the forces of evolution. “Relying on trust, belief, pleasure, and reward activities” concentrated in the limbic system (Esch and Stefano 2005, 175), love's ability to bring together (and keep together) human beings—from prehistoric times until the present day—has played a key role in the survival of our species. “


OK, where's the http link?

And where's the evolutionary answer to this question I posed:

R
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."

Is the offspring with the defective heart in the "form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations"  No, the defect will repeat in future generations. Let the defective offspring die, don't give your life to save it have other healthier offspring.

So why are individuals willing to die or the dying child? Where's the evolutionary answer?

R

I'm sorry, you were probably an absolute genius in your younger days and your bragging about random micro-fracture  analysis in muon charm feeders would have probably impressed a few people, most however would have smiled politely and called jerk as soon as you left the room. Your debating prowess was almost certainly second to none, the amount of times you dropped mic to a stunned room and left to silence (and a muttered chorus of "dick" ) being legendary.
Now I'm afraid it is time to leave it alone, you ramble and repeat yourself, struggle with concepts new to you and are incapable of sustained bouts of concentration.
All of the above  have been comprehensively and exhaustively (is that a word?) covered, time to get your slippers on and watch some Columbo.
The link by the way was on the previous page where I put "science bit", but you read all that didn't you?   
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 25, 2016, 11:50:58 AM
R


Jura:
" I think you just read a book because the best you can do is parrot someone else's opinion." That was a quote from you.


R
"The first thing you need to do is give me the link."

Jura:
 "I did, before, go back and find it as you obviously didn't read it"

No link there! Look harder.



Jura:

“The lust system (libido or sex drive), for example, is distinguished by craving for sexual gratification and is largely associated with the hormones estrogen and testosterone in both men and women. The attraction system promotes focused attention, intrusive or obsessive thoughts about the object of desire, feelings of exhilaration, and so on, and is associated primarily with adrenaline, dopamine, and serotonin.”

Focus ;

“In order to explore the neurochemistry of any love-diminishing intervention, we need to begin by understanding love itself from the perspective of the brain. 11 From this perspective, love is a “complex neurobiological phenomenon” that has been wired into our biology by the forces of evolution. “Relying on trust, belief, pleasure, and reward activities” concentrated in the limbic system (Esch and Stefano 2005, 175), love's ability to bring together (and keep together) human beings—from prehistoric times until the present day—has played a key role in the survival of our species. “


OK, where's the http link?

And where's the evolutionary answer to this question I posed:

R
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."

Is the offspring with the defective heart in the "form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations"  No, the defect will repeat in future generations. Let the defective offspring die, don't give your life to save it have other healthier offspring.

So why are individuals willing to die or the dying child? Where's the evolutionary answer?

R

I'm sorry, you were probably an absolute genius in your younger days and your bragging about random micro-fracture  analysis in muon charm feeders would have probably impressed a few people, most however would have smiled politely and called jerk as soon as you left the room. Your debating prowess was almost certainly second to none, the amount of times you dropped mic to a stunned room and left to silence (and a muttered chorus of "dick" ) being legendary.
Now I'm afraid it is time to leave it alone, you ramble and repeat yourself, struggle with concepts new to you and are incapable of sustained bouts of concentration.
All of the above  have been comprehensively and exhaustively (is that a word?) covered, time to get your slippers on and watch some Columbo.
The link by the way was on the previous page where I put "science bit", but you read all that didn't you?   

This is an opinion, you haven't answered my last question and you didn't give me a link to your quote. You wanted to use evolution to disprove my premise but instead I showed that the action is in total opposition to Darwin.
R

ps: You have to give links before of after the statement they apply to, not the previous page or whatever. Also, at this point I'm not involved in your comments especially, you keep saying the same thing so I addressed Darwin's natural selection specifically and showed how it doesn't answer the action I posed.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 25, 2016, 01:10:58 PM
Continuing to misunderstand the concept of "survival of the fittest" is doing you no favors. It is not a concept that applies to simple individual interactions, otherwise you would watch a bird fly in to a window and conclude, like a simpleton, that flight was not beneficial to survival in one's niche. The same goes for your notions of sacrificial love; occasionally yielding false positives is not a good argument against an overall benefit to survival.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 25, 2016, 01:13:53 PM
I just skimmed this thread.

As for why we feel love there is certainly evidence that it is a desired trait in social species.  It encourages altruism, caring for young and basically getting along.

If you are interested Gregory Berns did an interesting study on love and dogs.  The conclusion is basically to create bonds to promote social comfort and security. The same reason people love each other. The same chemical and brain responses.

I think the only valid argument for love being proof of God is he guided evolution so social animals would feel love.

I read a few links on Bern and I think he's doing interesting work. A couple of things, first, he's fMRI-ing patterns that show dogs have feelings just as humans do. We already know humans have feelings but science is basically naive when it comes to love. Scientists don't differentiate compassion from romantic love as we've seen often , the paper Jura cited is a prime example where the research solely explored romance.

Man can function completely without compassion, all his needs can be satisfied symbiotically. Even if we take it to the point where man can 'benefit' and the group can 'benefit' from an altruistic action by the individual we still haven't answered giving one's life for the sick which is not an anomaly and which evolution has no answer for. Compassion is clearly different.
If we look at Gandhi's Satyagraha where individuals didn't resist beatings by British soldiers and remained compassionate to them we see a completely different dynamic taking place. Bern was very compassionate to his dogs and he went out of his way to explain the importance of that in his experiments but what if he beat and forced the dog's to comply? Pavlov has already shown reward elicits favorable chemical responses in dogs but now we are in the realm of trade, not compassion.
The other thing we don't know is how dogs perceive death. A dog my a very well go to his death protecting his master but what does he know about the result of that action?

Again, my premise is that compassionate love is greater than the self. Even if we look at love from the aspect of companionship, man can have friends, be welcomed by the group and even be beneficial to the group but he will still yearn to be loved and to love, this a universal dynamic and so much so that the individual who believes he is not loved suffers immeasurably. This is an observable fact completely documented by analysts, ask any analyst about the problems children who grew up unloved have.

The other thing is that I don't see God as this anthropomorphic monotheistic force of the universe that sits on a thrown and asks you if you were a Protestant, my perception of God is closer to Jung's "Collective Unconscious". Socialized religion has made such a mess of spirituality that I understand completely the thinking of people like Jura who shun this nonsense. Even Hitchens argued against this frail religious dogma. So arguing the  possibility that something exists that is greater than the self often finds angry opposition. People just don't want this judgmental Christian snobbery, who can blame them!

R


Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 25, 2016, 01:14:39 PM
Continuing to misunderstand the concept of "survival of the fittest" is doing you no favors. It is not a concept that applies to simple individual interactions, otherwise you would watch a bird fly in to a window and conclude, like a simpleton, that flight was not beneficial to survival in one's niche. The same goes for your notions of sacrificial love; occasionally yielding false positives is not a good argument against an overall benefit to survival.

Not worthy of my time or response.
R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 25, 2016, 02:36:46 PM
Continuing to misunderstand the concept of "survival of the fittest" is doing you no favors. It is not a concept that applies to simple individual interactions, otherwise you would watch a bird fly in to a window and conclude, like a simpleton, that flight was not beneficial to survival in one's niche. The same goes for your notions of sacrificial love; occasionally yielding false positives is not a good argument against an overall benefit to survival.

Not worthy of my time or response.
R

Except that you responded.  You are not very good at this.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 25, 2016, 02:40:33 PM
Continuing to misunderstand the concept of "survival of the fittest" is doing you no favors. It is not a concept that applies to simple individual interactions, otherwise you would watch a bird fly in to a window and conclude, like a simpleton, that flight was not beneficial to survival in one's niche. The same goes for your notions of sacrificial love; occasionally yielding false positives is not a good argument against an overall benefit to survival.

Not worthy of my time or response.

R

Except that you responded.  You are not very good at this.

Not worthy of my time or response to your statement. Get it now?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 25, 2016, 02:49:24 PM
Continuing to misunderstand the concept of "survival of the fittest" is doing you no favors. It is not a concept that applies to simple individual interactions, otherwise you would watch a bird fly in to a window and conclude, like a simpleton, that flight was not beneficial to survival in one's niche. The same goes for your notions of sacrificial love; occasionally yielding false positives is not a good argument against an overall benefit to survival.

Not worthy of my time or response.

R

Except that you responded.  You are not very good at this.

Not worthy of my time or response to your statement. Get it now?

But see, now you are responding to my statement again.  If you want to ignore me, don't tell me you are going to ignore me, then you aren't ignoring me!  I thought you were cumma sum laude ffs! 

Anyway, please show Woody how you don't understand evolution, I can take the opportunity to eat popcorn.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 25, 2016, 03:08:00 PM


I read a few links on Bern and I think he's doing interesting work. A couple of things, first, he's fMRI-ing patterns that show dogs have feelings just as humans do. We already know humans have feelings but science is basically naive when it comes to love. Scientists don't differentiate compassion from romantic love as we've seen often , the paper Jura cited is a prime example where the research solely explored romance.
Bullshit!  (http://www.vislab.ucl.ac.uk/pdf/NeuralBasisOfLove.pdf)


Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 25, 2016, 09:33:49 PM
Continuing to misunderstand the concept of "survival of the fittest" is doing you no favors. It is not a concept that applies to simple individual interactions, otherwise you would watch a bird fly in to a window and conclude, like a simpleton, that flight was not beneficial to survival in one's niche. The same goes for your notions of sacrificial love; occasionally yielding false positives is not a good argument against an overall benefit to survival.

Not worthy of my time or response.

R

Except that you responded.  You are not very good at this.

Not worthy of my time or response to your statement. Get it now?

But see, now you are responding to my statement again.  If you want to ignore me, don't tell me you are going to ignore me, then you aren't ignoring me!  I thought you were cumma sum laude ffs! 

Anyway, please show Woody how you don't understand evolution, I can take the opportunity to eat popcorn.

No, I never responded to your rebuttal to my premise. I'm not ignoring you I just don't find your rebuttals to my premise worthy of an answer. Respond to my hypothesis and see what you get back. Go ahead - test your hypothesis.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 25, 2016, 09:37:38 PM


Bullshit!  (http://www.vislab.ucl.ac.uk/pdf/NeuralBasisOfLove.pdf)[/color][/b]




I gave you a rebuttal to this paper showing a peer disagreement with the findings. Also please give me the evolutionary support for my rebuttal to Darwin's natural selection.

Again to refresh your memory:
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."

Is the offspring with the defective heart in the "form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations"  No, the defect will repeat in future generations. Let the defective offspring die, don't give your life to save it have other healthier offspring.

R

Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 25, 2016, 10:33:52 PM
Continuing to misunderstand the concept of "survival of the fittest" is doing you no favors. It is not a concept that applies to simple individual interactions, otherwise you would watch a bird fly in to a window and conclude, like a simpleton, that flight was not beneficial to survival in one's niche. The same goes for your notions of sacrificial love; occasionally yielding false positives is not a good argument against an overall benefit to survival.

Not worthy of my time or response.

R

Except that you responded.  You are not very good at this.

Not worthy of my time or response to your statement. Get it now?

But see, now you are responding to my statement again.  If you want to ignore me, don't tell me you are going to ignore me, then you aren't ignoring me!  I thought you were cumma sum laude ffs! 

Anyway, please show Woody how you don't understand evolution, I can take the opportunity to eat popcorn.

No, I never responded to your rebuttal to my premise. I'm not ignoring you I just don't find your rebuttals to my premise worthy of an answer. Respond to my hypothesis and see what you get back. Go ahead - test your hypothesis.

R

This has been dealt with ad nauseam. You claimed that the proof of God is love. It has been shown that there is an evolutionary framework which can explain love arising by means of natural selection. It is a more rigorous position than yours since you have not justified yours in the slightest. Is the exact process and mechanism fully understood for love arising through evolution? No, but there are many pieces that are well understood.

Your pseudo-scientific woo regarding God being the source of love is utterly wanting and devoid of substance. You haven't even put forth a decent syllogism for your position, not in any succinct manner a reader could hope to decipher. All we get is empty proclamations of victory and Socratic dialogues and your bold proclamations of academic credentials that are neither relevant nor substantiated.

So please, go and try to understand that "survival of the fittest" (natural selection) is not a 100% efficient process and showing a case where it is not beneficial to survival does not mean it is never beneficial. Please, go and learn what biologists mean when they describe reciprocity. Please, stop pretending that nothing has been presented that contradicts your assertions. It is uncomfortable for us to have to continue to shoot you down.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 25, 2016, 11:29:23 PM
MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection acts for the good of the species.

CORRECTION: When we hear about altruism in nature (e.g., dolphins spending energy to support a sick individual, or a meerkat calling to warn others of an approaching predator, even though this puts the alarm sounder at extra risk), it's tempting to think that those behaviors arose through natural selection that favors the survival of the species — that natural selection promotes behaviors that are good for the species as a whole, even if they are risky or detrimental for individuals in the population. However, this impression is incorrect. Natural selection has no foresight or intentions. In general, natural selection simply selects among individuals in a population, favoring traits that enable individuals to survive and reproduce, yielding more copies of those individuals' genes in the next generation. Theoretically, in fact, a trait that is advantageous to the individual (e.g., being an efficient predator) could become more and more frequent and wind up driving the whole population to extinction (e.g., if the efficient predation actually wiped out the entire prey population, leaving the predators without a food source).

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b4

Credits:
This site is a collaborative project of the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rama Set on July 25, 2016, 11:46:26 PM
Of course it acts through the individual, no one ever claimed otherwise and of course the knowledge that a trait benefit is always through hindsight. So what?  If anything this only reinforces what I was saying, that no trait is beneficial in every circumstance as you appear to believe sacrificial love must be.

All we have said is that a trait where one member of a species, tribe, whatever, wil give their life for another can provide a net benefit to the group and promotes the groups survival.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 26, 2016, 10:27:39 AM
Sloppy arguments!

Having the trait of giving one's life for the weak as many including myself are willing to do to save the sick child is in diametrical opposition to Darwin's hypothesis. It never benefits the group in giving one's life for the weak. It's not possible.
Isn’t even sloppy it’s retarded.

Evolution is a long term process, it has no goals, no agenda, no thought process. You can go around all your life throwing yourself into burning buildings to save babies and puppies to the adulation of others (well, in your case, mostly yourself), “Evolution” doesn’t give a fuck, it couldn’t care less, it doesn’t even have any aspect that could care if it wanted too.

Now there are reasons where this could work in a positive way for you genetically, the mothers around the area might think well he’s brave and liable to defend me, I’ll shag him, your reckless throw yourself in the fire gene is passed on, two weeks after shagging all the mothers, the fathers throw you into a burning hut and seal it up (yey). You are dead, but your genes carry on and so does evolution.

Looking after, a sick child could conceivably work in your favour, any mother who sees you acting so selflessly may figure you as a better parent than Ug in cave three who bashed his kids head in with a rock when it got sick.

The fact is that there are many subtle ways selection can work or it can be the blunt instrument of luck.

You don’t have to be the fittest, many people of African descent have sickle-cell anaemia, if both of your parents pass on the gene to you, your life is liable to be shorter and more painful, however if you have only one copy then the altered blood cells rupture when the malaria parasite enters, it can’t breed you don’t get malaria. The sickle-cell lottery! Thanks god.

Now, we have shown that love could reasonably be part of this and you have proved squat, your proof of god has metamorphosed into not a god as such but a Jungian collective consciousness.

You expect us to be rigorous with our proofs but you can dip, weave and cherry pick.  Anyway it’s unlikely to penetrate your prejudice I do this for the exercise.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 26, 2016, 11:25:06 AM
Sloppy arguments!

Having the trait of giving one's life for the weak as many including myself are willing to do to save the sick child is in diametrical opposition to Darwin's hypothesis. It never benefits the group in giving one's life for the weak. It's not possible.
Isn’t even sloppy it’s retarded.

Evolution is a long term process, it has no goals, no agenda, no thought process. You can go around all your life throwing yourself into burning buildings to save babies and puppies to the adulation of others (well, in your case, mostly yourself), “Evolution” doesn’t give a fuck, it couldn’t care less, it doesn’t even have any aspect that could care if it wanted too.

Now there are reasons where this could work in a positive way for you genetically, the mothers around the area might think well he’s brave and liable to defend me, I’ll shag him, your reckless throw yourself in the fire gene is passed on, two weeks after shagging all the mothers, the fathers throw you into a burning hut and seal it up (yey). You are dead, but your genes carry on and so does evolution.

Looking after, a sick child could conceivably work in your favour, any mother who sees you acting so selflessly may figure you as a better parent than Ug in cave three who bashed his kids head in with a rock when it got sick.

The fact is that there are many subtle ways selection can work or it can be the blunt instrument of luck.

You don’t have to be the fittest, many people of African descent have sickle-cell anaemia, if both of your parents pass on the gene to you, your life is liable to be shorter and more painful, however if you have only one copy then the altered blood cells rupture when the malaria parasite enters, it can’t breed you don’t get malaria. The sickle-cell lottery! Thanks god.

Now, we have shown that love could reasonably be part of this and you have proved squat, your proof of god has metamorphosed into not a god as such but a Jungian collective consciousness.

You expect us to be rigorous with our proofs but you can dip, weave and cherry pick.  Anyway it’s unlikely to penetrate your prejudice I do this for the exercise.

Jura:

"Evolution is a long term process, it has no goals, no agenda, no thought process. You can go around all your life throwing yourself into burning buildings to save babies and puppies to the adulation of others (well, in your case, mostly yourself), “Evolution” doesn’t give a fuck, it couldn’t care less, it doesn’t even have any aspect that could care if it wanted too."

Absolutely correct! Evolution has no answer for human compassion.

Jura:
"Now there are reasons where this could work in a positive way for you genetically, the mothers around the area might think well he’s brave and liable to defend me, I’ll shag him"

She can't, you're dead. There is no way for you to pass on anything!

Jura:
"The fact is that there are many subtle ways selection can work or it can be the blunt instrument of luck."

This is a 'catch all' statement - evolution has the answer for everything, human compassion must be in there somewhere.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 26, 2016, 11:39:24 AM

Sloppy? retarded?

Worst case yet.

Columbo's on if you can't be bothered.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 03:13:54 PM
 

Being 'smart" is nothing to be proud of.  Lots of criminals are 'smart'.   I can't tell you how many times I have heard about the high IQ's possessed by Bundy, Gacy, Manson, and so many more.  It would seem that in order to be a psycho criminal one would have to be a genius.
 There are a lot of miserable 'smart' people.  And there are a lot of so called 'stupid' people who lead rich lives and are well loved; because having a good heart is more important than having a good mind.
It's not the idiots who create most of the problems for the human race.  It is the well accomplished with their fancy college degrees; expensive haircuts and clothes.
 Stupid people can't create big problems.    Only brainy people can create big problems or be master criminals.  Stupid people can't enthrall the crowds with rhetoric of glory and create bizarre political movements or start wars.  Stupid people can't do white collar crime; which as I understand it costs society, in terms of money,  more than so called street crime.
"There once was a golden age because golden hearts beat in it.  If it returns it will be scarcely due to science."  Louis Imogen Guiney
Thank you for reading.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 03:17:39 PM
Wanted to say hello to all! Hello, everybody!
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 03:48:15 PM
evolution is worthless except as a curiousity.    Applied mathematics=applied science.   A biochemist studying nucleotide chemistry using scientific method in the lab or field will come to the same conclusions whether they believe in evolution or not.  Ben Carson is a world class surgeon and a true genius; he knows more about biochemistry than any of us.  And he thinks that evolution is bullshit.  And he's right.


Mathematics is not the same thing as science.   The concept of 'theory' is useless in mathematics.
'
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 03:50:23 PM


Being 'smart" is nothing to be proud of.  Lots of criminals are 'smart'.   I can't tell you how many times I have heard about the high IQ's possessed by Bundy, Gacy, Manson, and so many more.  It would seem that in order to be a psycho criminal one would have to be a genius.
 There are a lot of miserable 'smart' people.  And there are a lot of so called 'stupid' people who lead rich lives and are well loved; because having a good heart is more important than having a good mind.
It's not the idiots who create most of the problems for the human race.  It is the well accomplished with their fancy college degrees; expensive haircuts and clothes.
 Stupid people can't create big problems.    Only brainy people can create big problems or be master criminals.  Stupid people can't enthrall the crowds with rhetoric of glory and create bizarre political movements or start wars.  Stupid people can't do white collar crime; which as I understand it costs society, in terms of money,  more than so called street crime.
"There once was a golden age because golden hearts beat in it.  If it returns it will be scarcely due to science."  Louis Imogen Guiney
Thank you for reading.

I agree that compassion makes a better world but "smart" doesn't have to be destructive, it depends on who wields it. The fact that Bundy could manipulate people doesn't make "smart" a bad thing. What about Sabin and the oral pill for Polio? If you lived through that era as I did parents were terrified of Polio and the work of Salk and Sabin was seen as a blessing to mankind.

I think science has its place but the trouble is too many people who don't truly understand it have made it a God. Now we have Dawkins with his nonsense about the "selfish" gene. People who don't understand science hold onto this as though it was absolute truth. 'God doesn't exist, read Dawkins, that's proof!' Science has, unfortunately, closed many people's minds.

Here's what prominent scientists think of Dawkins:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mindbloggling/201105/how-generation-was-misled-about-natural-selection

"Reaction of Biologists

Other than those who profited from Dawkins' popularization of their ideas, most leading evolutionary biologists, particularly Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Lewontin, Ernst Mayr, Carl Woese, Freeman Dyson, and Stuart Kauffman, were unreceptive to Dawkins' ideas. Ernst Mayr, one of the foremost evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, claimed that the replicator notion is "in complete conflict with the basics of Darwinian thought". I once had the interesting experience of driving Ernst Mayr, who was almost 100 years old at the time, from UCLA to a place an hour and a half away. He was charming, but the mere mention of Dawkins unsettled him so much that I thereafter avoided discussion of anything related to him. Stuart Kauffman describes Dawkins' ideas as "impoverished", and claims that the replicator concept does not capture the essential features of the kind of structure that evolves through natural selection."

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 03:54:01 PM
Also, science requires mathematics but math doesn't require science.   The same with art.  Science requires art but art doesn't require science.


Grain alcohol goes a long way back.   Probably wouldn't be any such thing as agriculture if people didn't need copious amounts of fruit, potatoes, grain to make alcoholic beverages.    Whiskey (distilled spirits in general), I have been told was invented about 500 ad.   Liquor is a product of human creativity and trial and error; in other words 'science'.   I would say that consumption of alcohol is the most horrible scourge of the human race; the number one agency of human misery.  And it is a product of science.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 03:58:16 PM
None of us are superior.   Intellect and talent are the cheapest commodities in the human experience.  If a person is a good person; and by that I mean they don't steal, practice extreme perversion or create mayhem, it has nothing to do with how smart or talented they are.


Consider those who work on a boat:  the smart ones are the ones who know how to swim.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 04:05:13 PM


Being 'smart" is nothing to be proud of.  Lots of criminals are 'smart'.   I can't tell you how many times I have heard about the high IQ's possessed by Bundy, Gacy, Manson, and so many more.  It would seem that in order to be a psycho criminal one would have to be a genius.
 There are a lot of miserable 'smart' people.  And there are a lot of so called 'stupid' people who lead rich lives and are well loved; because having a good heart is more important than having a good mind.
It's not the idiots who create most of the problems for the human race.  It is the well accomplished with their fancy college degrees; expensive haircuts and clothes.
 Stupid people can't create big problems.    Only brainy people can create big problems or be master criminals.  Stupid people can't enthrall the crowds with rhetoric of glory and create bizarre political movements or start wars.  Stupid people can't do white collar crime; which as I understand it costs society, in terms of money,  more than so called street crime.
"There once was a golden age because golden hearts beat in it.  If it returns it will be scarcely due to science."  Louis Imogen Guiney
Thank you for reading.

I agree that compassion makes a better world but "smart" doesn't have to be destructive, it depends on who wields it. The fact that Bundy could manipulate people doesn't make "smart" a bad thing. What about Sabin and the oral pill for Polio? If you lived through that era as I did parents were terrified of Polio and the work of Salk and Sabin was seen as a blessing to mankind.

I think science has its place but the trouble is too many people who don't truly understand it have made it a God. Now we have Dawkins with his nonsense about the "selfish" gene. People who don't understand science hold onto this as though it was absolute truth. 'God doesn't exist, read Dawkins, that's proof!' Science has, unfortunately, closed many people's minds.

Here's what prominent scientists think of Dawkins:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mindbloggling/201105/how-generation-was-misled-about-natural-selection

"Reaction of Biologists

Other than those who profited from Dawkins' popularization of their ideas, most leading evolutionary biologists, particularly Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Lewontin, Ernst Mayr, Carl Woese, Freeman Dyson, and Stuart Kauffman, were unreceptive to Dawkins' ideas. Ernst Mayr, one of the foremost evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, claimed that the replicator notion is "in complete conflict with the basics of Darwinian thought". I once had the interesting experience of driving Ernst Mayr, who was almost 100 years old at the time, from UCLA to a place an hour and a half away. He was charming, but the mere mention of Dawkins unsettled him so much that I thereafter avoided discussion of anything related to him. Stuart Kauffman describes Dawkins' ideas as "impoverished", and claims that the replicator concept does not capture the essential features of the kind of structure that evolves through natural selection."

R

People suffer just as much pain and grief as what they ever did.  Science has helped some in a limited sense but it as also hurt a lot of people.  Practically any tool can be a weapon and any medicine can be a poison.

I am 61 yrs old.   I know people who have suffered polio.  There would be no such thing as communicable diseases except people adopted agriculture and decided to live in cities.   And even then just washing one's hands after going to the bathroom goes a long way to minimizing disease.  There was effective medicine before Rene Descartes.

I never said brains are bad.  They are just neutral.  They don't stop people from being self destructive or malicious.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 04:05:40 PM
evolution is worthless except as a curiousity.    Applied mathematics=applied science.   A biochemist studying nucleotide chemistry using scientific method in the lab or field will come to the same conclusions whether they believe in evolution or not.  Ben Carson is a world class surgeon and a true genius; he knows more about biochemistry than any of us.  And he thinks that evolution is bullshit.  And he's right.


Mathematics is not the same thing as science.   The concept of 'theory' is useless in mathematics.
'

That's just wrong.

math·e·mat·ics
maTH(ə)ˈmadiks/
noun
the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics ), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics ).
the mathematical aspects of something.
plural noun: mathematics
"the mathematics of general relativity"

And:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mathematics

Full Definition of mathematics
1
:  the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations
2
:  a branch of, operation in, or use of mathematics <the mathematics of physical chemistry>

"Ben Carson is a world class surgeon and a true genius; he knows more about biochemistry than any of us.  And he thinks that evolution is bullshit.  And he's right."

This is wrong too. In science we call this thinking anecdotal fallacy.
Because he is a world class surgeon doesn't mean he is right any more than "knowing more than any of us" does. When Linus Pauling, winner of the Nobel Prize for his work in DNA, started telling everyone to take massive amounts of vitamin 'C' to basically save their lives he was completely wrong! You're not critically thinking here, because he thinks evolution is worthless doesn't make it worthless, your building your opinion on one person's perspective. This is the same mistake religious fundamentalist make when they step on a bus with a bomb strapped to their chest because someone they believe is right told them 21 virgins wait for them at death!

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 04:14:12 PM


Being 'smart" is nothing to be proud of.  Lots of criminals are 'smart'.   I can't tell you how many times I have heard about the high IQ's possessed by Bundy, Gacy, Manson, and so many more.  It would seem that in order to be a psycho criminal one would have to be a genius.
 There are a lot of miserable 'smart' people.  And there are a lot of so called 'stupid' people who lead rich lives and are well loved; because having a good heart is more important than having a good mind.
It's not the idiots who create most of the problems for the human race.  It is the well accomplished with their fancy college degrees; expensive haircuts and clothes.
 Stupid people can't create big problems.    Only brainy people can create big problems or be master criminals.  Stupid people can't enthrall the crowds with rhetoric of glory and create bizarre political movements or start wars.  Stupid people can't do white collar crime; which as I understand it costs society, in terms of money,  more than so called street crime.
"There once was a golden age because golden hearts beat in it.  If it returns it will be scarcely due to science."  Louis Imogen Guiney
Thank you for reading.

I agree that compassion makes a better world but "smart" doesn't have to be destructive, it depends on who wields it. The fact that Bundy could manipulate people doesn't make "smart" a bad thing. What about Sabin and the oral pill for Polio? If you lived through that era as I did parents were terrified of Polio and the work of Salk and Sabin was seen as a blessing to mankind.

I think science has its place but the trouble is too many people who don't truly understand it have made it a God. Now we have Dawkins with his nonsense about the "selfish" gene. People who don't understand science hold onto this as though it was absolute truth. 'God doesn't exist, read Dawkins, that's proof!' Science has, unfortunately, closed many people's minds.

Here's what prominent scientists think of Dawkins:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mindbloggling/201105/how-generation-was-misled-about-natural-selection

"Reaction of Biologists

Other than those who profited from Dawkins' popularization of their ideas, most leading evolutionary biologists, particularly Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Lewontin, Ernst Mayr, Carl Woese, Freeman Dyson, and Stuart Kauffman, were unreceptive to Dawkins' ideas. Ernst Mayr, one of the foremost evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, claimed that the replicator notion is "in complete conflict with the basics of Darwinian thought". I once had the interesting experience of driving Ernst Mayr, who was almost 100 years old at the time, from UCLA to a place an hour and a half away. He was charming, but the mere mention of Dawkins unsettled him so much that I thereafter avoided discussion of anything related to him. Stuart Kauffman describes Dawkins' ideas as "impoverished", and claims that the replicator concept does not capture the essential features of the kind of structure that evolves through natural selection."

R

People suffer just as much pain and grief as what they ever did.  Science has helped some in a limited sense but it as also hurt a lot of people.  Practically any tool can be a weapon and any medicine can be a poison.

I am 61 yrs old.   I know people who have suffered polio.  There would be no such thing as communicable diseases except people adopted agriculture and decided to live in cities.   And even then just washing one's hands after going to the bathroom goes a long way to minimizing disease.  There was effective medicine before Rene Descartes.

I never said brains are bad.  They are just neutral.  They don't stop people from being self destructive or malicious.

"People suffer just as much pain and grief as what they ever did.  Science has helped some in a limited sense but it as also hurt a lot of people.  Practically any tool can be a weapon and any medicine can be a poison."

If you are saying that social amenities don't make us civilized then yes that's true. Science doesn't hurt anyone, it can't do that! Hurting others is the providence of individuals, we do that, and yes science is a tool. Do hammers hurt people? No, of course not, it's people using hammers to hurt people or to build a house to shelter people from the elements.

"I never said brains are bad.  They are just neutral.  They don't stop people from being self destructive or malicious."

Stupidity doesn't either, what's your point?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 04:15:41 PM
"Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics )", Contradicts your argument.  Mathematics is the art (art being anything men make that otherwise wouldn't exist in nature) of organization.    I studied math and I am good at it.  As far as Doctor Ben goes it is well within forensic custom to quote experts.  And Dr. Ben is an expert in biochemistry.  He would have to be.  But you are right the ipse dixits can not be considered compelling.  Still, lawyers and professional advocates use them in forensic debate.  You haven't effectively refuted anything I said.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 04:20:17 PM
" Science doesn't hurt anyone, "  Oh, yes it does.    I use literary license by saying science instead of the people who promote and believe in it.  Science has made human propagated mass destruction and death easy.   Science is dangerous and scientists are irresponsible.  Science is not the answer to the problems of humanity.  Science also belongs to the people who fund it and I doubt the lord of the manor cares a whole lot for us peasants.   
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 04:23:24 PM
Hammers do to hurt people.   Accidents happen and I had to go to the emergency room one time because of an accident involving a hammer.  Dude you strain a gnat and swallow a camel.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 04:26:45 PM
"Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics ), Contradicts your argument."  Mathematics is the art (art being anything men make that otherwise wouldn't exist in nature) of organization.    I studied math and I am good at it.  As far as Doctor Ben goes it is well within forensic custom to quote experts.  And Dr. Ben is an expert in biochemistry.  He would have to be.  But you are right the ipse dixits can not be considered compelling.  Still, lawyers and professional advocates use them in forensic debate.  Yo haven't effectively refuted anything I said.

"I studied math and I am good at it."

This statement is valueless.

Did you ever hear of a book called "The ART of Electronics" by two Harvard professors. It's still science!

1
the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations

Saying evolution is "bullshit" is void of reason, it is an opinion regardless who says it!

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 04:27:56 PM
"Stupidity doesn't either, what's your point?"  I made my point.   You're the one who can't seem to make a point.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 04:31:31 PM
"Saying evolution is "bullshit" is void of reason, it is an opinion regardless who says it!"  It is bullshit.  If all the evolution texts just disappeared and professors quit teaching it the human race would still be in the same place as it is from a technical standpoint.   You are void of reason.  I think you just want to troll; which is okay with me.  We are all beautiful, even you.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 04:32:09 PM
Hammers do to hurt people.   Accidents happen and I had to go to the emergency room one time because of an accident involving a hammer.  Dude you strain a gnat and swallow a camel.

Can a hammer walk across a room and smack you on the thumb? No! You hurt yourself with the hammer, it was entirely you, the hammer is not alive. This is called anthropomorphic thinking!

"Dude you strain a gnat and swallow a camel."

Dude, I have no idea what you mean by this!

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 04:35:52 PM
"Can a hammer walk across a room and smack you on the thumb? No! You hurt yourself with the hammer, it was entirely you, the hammer is not alive. This is called anthropomorphic thinking!"  No.  But a hammer sure can slide off of a roof and smack somebody really hard and if the hammer wouldn't have been on the site in the first place there would have been no medical emergency. 

My reference to Jesus' famous quote means I think you are nitpicky and have a screwed up sense of priorities.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 04:37:27 PM
"I studied math and I am good at it."

This statement is valueless.
Not to me it isn't.  But, you are entitled to your opinion such as it is.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 04:39:15 PM
Gotta go!  be back later, maybe a week or 3.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 04:39:29 PM
"Saying evolution is "bullshit" is void of reason, it is an opinion regardless who says it!"  It is bullshit.  If all the evolution texts just disappeared and professors quit teaching it the human race would still be in the same place as it is from a technical standpoint.   You are void of reason.  I think you just want to troll; which is okay with me.  We are all beautiful, even you.

That's not true at all! Evolution is critical in knowing biology, of understanding the world we live in and understanding the world we live in enables us interrelate to it.

"We are all beautiful, even you."

This is an opinion, it is valueless. If 1000 people walk by you and tell you that you are beautiful does it make you any more beautiful than if no one told you? No, not one iota.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 04:44:15 PM
"That's not true at all! Evolution is critical in knowing biology, of understanding the world we live in and understanding the world we live in enables us interrelate to it."   ROFL

"We are all beautiful, even you."

"This is an opinion, it is valueless."  Not to me.    "If 1000 people walk by you and tell you that you are beautiful does it make you any more beautiful than if no one told you?" Yes it does make me more beautiful.   The more one shares beautiful things the more beautiful those things become.  It is the reason humanity loves artists.  " "No, not one iota."  Wrong again.  And you are still beautiful.  Everyone is.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 04:59:16 PM
"I studied math and I am good at it."

This statement is valueless.
Not to me it isn't.  But, you are entitled to your opinion such as it is.

First, it's relative, 'good' is a subjective term. are you better than Bernhard Riemann? Did you win the Fields Medal? Better than a sixth grader? In this debate you're arguing that mathematics is not science. I showed this statement to be wrong  by definition so how 'good' or for that matter 'bad' you are in math is a non sequitur.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 05:04:00 PM
"That's not true at all! Evolution is critical in knowing biology, of understanding the world we live in and understanding the world we live in enables us interrelate to it."   ROFL

"We are all beautiful, even you."

"This is an opinion, it is valueless."  Not to me.    "If 1000 people walk by you and tell you that you are beautiful does it make you any more beautiful than if no one told you?" Yes it does make me more beautiful.   The more one shares beautiful things the more beautiful those things become.  It is the reason humanity loves artists.  " "No, not one iota."  Wrong again.  And you are still beautiful.  Everyone is.

Beautiful is a subjective perspective. You just called "Manson Bundy, Gacy, Manson, and so many more psycho criminal" Are they beautiful? How about Hitler or Milosevic and his ethnic cleansing? I wouldn't call him beautiful.

"The more one shares beautiful things the more beautiful those things become."

According to this statement, they are already "beautiful". I don't think everything is beautiful. I don't think ticks that give people Lime Disease are beautiful, I don't think they are something I want to share or that they become more beautiful if I do share them.


 "It is the reason humanity loves artists."

I don't love artists, I may like artwork from specific artists. I like Kandinsky's work.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 05:16:33 PM
 "ROFL"

This is meaningless to me.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 30, 2016, 05:39:13 PM
TNR:
"No thanks. I am not interested in discussing the meaning of love with you, anymore than I already have. Your philosophical ramblings demonstrate very little intellectual rigor or consistency."

You'll have to prove those accusations and show me the inconsistency in my statements. You can't simply accuse, you have to validate your position.

As requested. My additions are highlighted in blue. Important parts of previous comments are highlighted in red.

For this post, I won't even bother venturing past the first page of this thread. Because I don't need to. Almost every page is just as bad.

Lack of Intellectual Rigor: Missing the point of a post. Responding with points that are completely irrelevant to the arguments presented.

Xenophobia, fear of the strange or uncommon... We are fearing the unknown... We hate those who don't perceive reality as we do.
Meh. Speak for yourself...

Speak for myself about what? That a challenge to our reality angers us? (No, that we fear the unknown or are xenophobic. Anger was not mentioned.) Anger is fear, (unfulfilled expectations). That those living in a reality that doesn't fit our paradigm scares us? It does.

What is more important in your life than loving and being loved? What is life worth without compassion? If everyone you love disavowed ever loving you, what would your life be worth? (Completely unrelated to my comment.)

And from that same comment:

Science? Science says let the weak die and have more healthier offspring for a better chance of genetic survival. Self preservation, man's greatest drive, even single cell organism strive for self preservation but we still give our life for the dying child.
That's not what "science" says. The process of evolution tends to reward preservation of the species, but it doesn't necessarily instill an innate drive to preserve the species or self above all else.
"Self-preservation is a behavior that ensures the survival of an organism... " (Nowhere in this quote does it say that self preservation is "man's greatest drive", which was the point of contention. Why bring it up?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation

And the very next comment, where you reply to my same comment again:

That's not what "science" says. The process of evolution tends to reward preservation of the species, but it doesn't necessarily instill an innate drive to preserve the species or self above all else.

Is math science? What's the probability of letting the child die and impregnating 100 women?  (Seriously, what on earth does this have to do with anything I said?)
"Innate drive"? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake, immediately you jump back. Is thought involved? No, the brain short circuits to the fear center. (Yes, we have reflexes... what's your point?)
Your child is dying are you functioning through an innate response. (I never claimed that you are functioning through an innate response. See above highlighted in red for my original claim.)You're thinking my child is dying, I' m not interested in more offspring, I'm not interested in the gene pool theory or any other theory, I'm in the immediate, the reality of right now. (No one claimed otherwise. Why are you rambling about this? I only claimed that self preservation isn't man's greatest drive...) ...

You want to give me a theory? You save your child because of a theory? (Seriously though. All I said was that self preservation isn't man's greatest drive. What on earth does this have to do with that??) No, you do everything you can to save you child out of complete and utter compassion. (Good for you. So... we agree that self preservation isn't man's greatest drive?)We all do. Loving and being loved is the core of human existence. (We have reached the end of this rambling load of nonsense, and you still haven't bothered to address the point of my comment. Self preservation is not man's greatest drive, as you claimed.)

Lack of Intellectual Consistency: False equivalence.

Anger is fear, (unfulfilled expectations). (Yes, there is often a correlation between anger and fear. No, they are NOT the same thing.

"Innate drive"? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake, immediately you jump back. Is thought involved? No, the brain short circuits to the fear center. (Although "innate drive" is fairly loosely defined, it is not the same thing as a reflex.)

Lack of Intellectual Rigor: Presenting generalizations/opinions as fact.

Your child needs your heart to survive, do you give it? Sure, we all do.

No, you do everything you can to save you child out of complete and utter compassion. We all do.

Loving and being loved is the core of human existence.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 05:43:09 PM
"Stupidity doesn't either, what's your point?"  I made my point.   You're the one who can't seem to make a point.


My point is that stupid people can be destructive and malicious just as much as smart people. Being smart doesn't automatically make you anything. You're making unsupportable generalizations.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 05:54:01 PM


Loving and being loved is the core of human existence.


I asked what is more important than loving and being loved? What is your life worth if everyone you love disavows ever loving you? So if you disagree with my premise than you have to show me what is more important to your emotional well being.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 30, 2016, 06:07:20 PM


Loving and being loved is the core of human existence.


I asked what is more important than loving and being loved? What is your life worth if everyone you love disavows ever loving you? So if you disagree with my premise than you have to show me what is more important to your emotional well being.

Once again, you have missed my point spectacularly. Whether I agree with the statement is beside the point. My point is that it is an opinion that you stated as a fact. Defining the "core" of human existence is not as cut and dry as you are presenting it. Ask 1000 people what the "core" of human existence is. Love will undoubtedly be a popular answer, but it certainly won't be the only answer.

Edit: Your previous post falls under the category "Lack of Intellectual Rigor: Missing the point of a post. Responding with points that are completely irrelevant to the arguments presented."
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 06:11:18 PM
R
"Science? Science says let the weak die and have more healthier offspring for a better chance of genetic survival. Self preservation, man's greatest drive, even single cell organism strive for self preservation but we still give our life for the dying child."

TNR
"That's not what "science" says. The process of evolution tends to reward preservation of the species, but it doesn't necessarily instill an innate drive to preserve the species or self above all else."

I don't see anything in my statement referring to evolution. It's basic logic. Live and have more offspring, why give my life to save the sick dying one? Mathematically (science) my chances of genetic survival, if that's my goal, are better if I let let the weak die and continually to procreate.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 06:24:36 PM


Loving and being loved is the core of human existence.


I asked what is more important than loving and being loved? What is your life worth if everyone you love disavows ever loving you? So if you disagree with my premise than you have to show me what is more important to your emotional well being.

Once again, you have missed my point spectacularly. Whether I agree with the statement is beside the point. My point is that it is an opinion that you stated as a fact. Defining the "core" of human existence is not as cut and dry as you are presenting it. Ask 1000 people what the "core" of human existence is. Love will undoubtedly be a popular answer, but it certainly won't be the only answer.

Edit: Your previous post falls under the category "Lack of Intellectual Rigor: Missing the point of a post. Responding with points that are completely irrelevant to the arguments presented."

It's an observation, I've observed the effects and massive importance of love and being loved on individuals universally and from that I made the statement above. Again, you can disagree with it but you must give me something more profound than loving and being loved.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sapient-nature/201401/the-need-love

"All of us have an intense desire to be loved and nurtured. The need to be loved, as Bowlby’s and others’ experiments have shown, could be considered one of our most basic and fundamental needs. "

Raj Raghunathan Ph.D.

" but it certainly won't be the only answer"

OK, than what's a better answer?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 06:36:06 PM

R
"Anger is fear, (unfulfilled expectations)."


TNR
 (Yes, there is often a correlation between anger and fear. No, they are NOT the same thing.

http://www.2knowmyself.com/relationship_between_anger_and_fear

"Behind anger always lies fear, Even if the angry person appears to be strong and in control fear will always be the reason behind his anger."

"Whenever you find yourself angry just ask yourself one question, what am I afraid of?
If you found yourself shouting at another driver then you might find that you were afraid of the damage that was going to happen to your car."

http://www.psychologyineverydaylife.net/2012/05/29/masks-of-anger-the-fears-that-your-anger-may-be-hiding/

"What Is Anger All About?
There is a strong relationship between anger and fear. Anger is the fight part of the age-old fight-or-flight response to threat."

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 30, 2016, 06:55:03 PM

R
"Anger is fear, (unfulfilled expectations)."


TNR
 (Yes, there is often a correlation between anger and fear. No, they are NOT the same thing.

http://www.2knowmyself.com/relationship_between_anger_and_fear

"Behind anger always lies fear, Even if the angry person appears to be strong and in control fear will always be the reason behind his anger."

"Whenever you find yourself angry just ask yourself one question, what am I afraid of?
If you found yourself shouting at another driver then you might find that you were afraid of the damage that was going to happen to your car."

http://www.psychologyineverydaylife.net/2012/05/29/masks-of-anger-the-fears-that-your-anger-may-be-hiding/

"What Is Anger All About?
There is a strong relationship between anger and fear. Anger is the fight part of the age-old fight-or-flight response to threat."

Once again, you missed my point spectacularly.

I agree, fear is often the reason behind anger. I agree that there is a strong relationship between the two. However, that is not my point.

You said "anger is fear". This is false.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 30, 2016, 07:01:40 PM
R
"Science? Science says let the weak die and have more healthier offspring for a better chance of genetic survival. Self preservation, man's greatest drive, even single cell organism strive for self preservation but we still give our life for the dying child."

TNR
"That's not what "science" says. The process of evolution tends to reward preservation of the species, but it doesn't necessarily instill an innate drive to preserve the species or self above all else."

I don't see anything in my statement referring to evolution. It's basic logic. Live and have more offspring, why give my life to save the sick dying one? Mathematically (science) my chances of genetic survival, if that's my goal, are better if I let let the weak die and continually to procreate.

I brought up evolution because that's what you seemed to be referring to by "Science says". If your only goal is the survival of your individual genetics, then yes, mathematically (scientifically?) speaking, you should absolutely let the child die. However, that is not the most important goal of any species according to any scientific theory I have heard of, including evolution. Your premise is that "self preservation" is "man's greatest drive". This premise is not supported by evolution, or any scientific theory that I have heard of.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 30, 2016, 07:08:50 PM


Loving and being loved is the core of human existence.


I asked what is more important than loving and being loved? What is your life worth if everyone you love disavows ever loving you? So if you disagree with my premise than you have to show me what is more important to your emotional well being.

Once again, you have missed my point spectacularly. Whether I agree with the statement is beside the point. My point is that it is an opinion that you stated as a fact. Defining the "core" of human existence is not as cut and dry as you are presenting it. Ask 1000 people what the "core" of human existence is. Love will undoubtedly be a popular answer, but it certainly won't be the only answer.

Edit: Your previous post falls under the category "Lack of Intellectual Rigor: Missing the point of a post. Responding with points that are completely irrelevant to the arguments presented."

It's an observation, ...


Fine. Present it as such. Not as a fact.

Quote
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sapient-nature/201401/the-need-love

"All of us have an intense desire to be loved and nurtured. The need to be loved, as Bowlby’s and others’ experiments have shown, could be considered one of our most basic and fundamental needs. "

Raj Raghunathan Ph.D.

Please notice the rather important qualifiers that I highlighted in red. could be... one of...

Quote
" but it certainly won't be the only answer"

OK, than what's a better answer?

Completely irrelevant. It's just an opinion. Not a fact. Stop spouting it off like it is an irrefutable fact.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 07:09:36 PM

R
"Anger is fear, (unfulfilled expectations)."


TNR
 (Yes, there is often a correlation between anger and fear. No, they are NOT the same thing.

http://www.2knowmyself.com/relationship_between_anger_and_fear

"Behind anger always lies fear, Even if the angry person appears to be strong and in control fear will always be the reason behind his anger."

"Whenever you find yourself angry just ask yourself one question, what am I afraid of?
If you found yourself shouting at another driver then you might find that you were afraid of the damage that was going to happen to your car."

http://www.psychologyineverydaylife.net/2012/05/29/masks-of-anger-the-fears-that-your-anger-may-be-hiding/

"What Is Anger All About?
There is a strong relationship between anger and fear. Anger is the fight part of the age-old fight-or-flight response to threat."

Once again, you missed my point spectacularly.

I agree, fear is often the reason behind anger. I agree that there is a strong relationship between the two. However, that is not my point.

You said "anger is fear". This is false.

Don't be ridiculous! Read back at what I've said all along. Fear is the root of anger! Geeze, Semantics? Don't waste my time.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Martin Luther II on July 30, 2016, 07:13:42 PM
I noticed this question & thought I would try to answer. 1st off, in my experience, most denizens of this board ARE atheists. So you shouldn't have too much of a problem there. As far as Atheism as a concept, yes, 1 can be a moral atheist. I've known several. What is wrong w/ it is that although individuals can be moral, there is no morality to follow per se. Its all up to each person. That is dangerous. Look at what that does when the person is Stalin or Mao. State Atheism has killed far more people than religion could ever have imagined in the worst holy war. But this is NOT to say that Organised Religion is w/o fault. The fact is, imposing anything on anyone is a horrible thing. I have come to have a healthy respect for, but slight suspicion of, Organised Religion.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 07:14:32 PM


Loving and being loved is the core of human existence.


I asked what is more important than loving and being loved? What is your life worth if everyone you love disavows ever loving you? So if you disagree with my premise than you have to show me what is more important to your emotional well being.

Once again, you have missed my point spectacularly. Whether I agree with the statement is beside the point. My point is that it is an opinion that you stated as a fact. Defining the "core" of human existence is not as cut and dry as you are presenting it. Ask 1000 people what the "core" of human existence is. Love will undoubtedly be a popular answer, but it certainly won't be the only answer.

Edit: Your previous post falls under the category "Lack of Intellectual Rigor: Missing the point of a post. Responding with points that are completely irrelevant to the arguments presented."

It's an observation, ...


Fine. Present it as such. Not as a fact.

Quote
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sapient-nature/201401/the-need-love

"All of us have an intense desire to be loved and nurtured. The need to be loved, as Bowlby’s and others’ experiments have shown, could be considered one of our most basic and fundamental needs. "

Raj Raghunathan Ph.D.

Please notice the rather important qualifiers that I highlighted in red. could be... one of...

Quote
" but it certainly won't be the only answer"

OK, than what's a better answer?

Completely irrelevant. It's just an opinion. Not a fact. Stop spouting it off like it is an irrefutable fact.

Now you're just giving me garbage!

"but it certainly won't be the only answer"

So, again, CERTAINLY what's a better answer?? AND AGAIN, what is your life worth without loving and being loved? I'm still waiting for this answer too.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 30, 2016, 07:16:40 PM

R
"Anger is fear, (unfulfilled expectations)."


TNR
 (Yes, there is often a correlation between anger and fear. No, they are NOT the same thing.

http://www.2knowmyself.com/relationship_between_anger_and_fear

"Behind anger always lies fear, Even if the angry person appears to be strong and in control fear will always be the reason behind his anger."

"Whenever you find yourself angry just ask yourself one question, what am I afraid of?
If you found yourself shouting at another driver then you might find that you were afraid of the damage that was going to happen to your car."

http://www.psychologyineverydaylife.net/2012/05/29/masks-of-anger-the-fears-that-your-anger-may-be-hiding/

"What Is Anger All About?
There is a strong relationship between anger and fear. Anger is the fight part of the age-old fight-or-flight response to threat."

Once again, you missed my point spectacularly.

I agree, fear is often the reason behind anger. I agree that there is a strong relationship between the two. However, that is not my point.

You said "anger is fear". This is false.

Don't be ridiculous! Read back at what I've said all along. Fear is the root of anger! Geeze, Semantics? Don't waste my time.

There is a huge difference between "anger is fear" and "anger is the root of fear" or "anger is related to fear". The fact that you don't seem to think so is exactly what I mean by "lack of intellectual rigor".
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 07:23:04 PM
I noticed this question & thought I would try to answer. 1st off, in my experience, most denizens of this board ARE atheists. So you shouldn't have too much of a problem there. As far as Atheism as a concept, yes, 1 can be a moral atheist. I've known several. What is wrong w/ it is that although individuals can be moral, there is no morality to follow per se. Its all up to each person. That is dangerous. Look at what that does when the person is Stalin or Mao. State Atheism has killed far more people than religion could ever have imagined in the worst holy war. But this is NOT to say that Organised Religion is w/o fault. The fact is, imposing anything on anyone is a horrible thing. I have come to have a healthy respecct for, but slight suspicion of, Organised Religion.

Socialized religions are nonmoral, that is they contain both moral and immoral individuals. The problem with religions is that they substitute a system of beliefs that defer personal responsibility from the individual. My book says 'we should kill all those who think differently than us'.

No one is arguing that one cannot be a moral atheist. The problem with atheism is that the individual's mind is closed. If something greater than the self exists the atheist never sees it because the atheist has stopped inquiring. a priori

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 07:37:38 PM

R
"Anger is fear, (unfulfilled expectations)."


TNR
 (Yes, there is often a correlation between anger and fear. No, they are NOT the same thing.

http://www.2knowmyself.com/relationship_between_anger_and_fear

"Behind anger always lies fear, Even if the angry person appears to be strong and in control fear will always be the reason behind his anger."

"Whenever you find yourself angry just ask yourself one question, what am I afraid of?
If you found yourself shouting at another driver then you might find that you were afraid of the damage that was going to happen to your car."

http://www.psychologyineverydaylife.net/2012/05/29/masks-of-anger-the-fears-that-your-anger-may-be-hiding/

"What Is Anger All About?
There is a strong relationship between anger and fear. Anger is the fight part of the age-old fight-or-flight response to threat."

Once again, you missed my point spectacularly.

I agree, fear is often the reason behind anger. I agree that there is a strong relationship between the two. However, that is not my point.

You said "anger is fear". This is false.

Don't be ridiculous! Read back at what I've said all along. Fear is the root of anger! Geeze, Semantics? Don't waste my time.

There is a huge difference between "anger is fear" and "anger is the root of fear" or "anger is related to fear". The fact that you don't seem to think so is exactly what I mean by "lack of intellectual rigor".

R
 "The root of lust is fear." #233

TNR
"I agree with Jura. Bullshit. And I came to that conclusion based entirely on personal experience. That's what you asked for, isn't it?"

     "Desires and fears. How different they seem. How similar they truly are. How can desire and fear be so totally related? Think of it this way: if you say, "I want to be loved," it's the same thing as saying "I'm afraid I won't be loved."  If you say, "I want to have someone around me," it's the same as saying "I'm afraid of being alone." The truth is that fear and desire are at the root of each other. Rather, than leading us to fulfillment, desires take us away from it. The more desires we have, the greater the fear that those desires will not be fulfilled. And all desires represent one of two things: wanting something we don't have, such as great wealth, or not wanting something we have, such as a pile of overdue bills. We desire good health and vigor; we fear disease. We desire a loving relationship; we fear loneliness. Can you see that if you say, "I want to live," it's the same as saying "I'm afraid I will die,"?"

  "Finding Clarity:  A Guide to the Deeper Levels of Your Being" by Jeru Kabbal adapted by Leonard M. Zunin, M.D. and Robert Strock (North Atlantic Books; 2006),

We already went through fear, desire, anger, lust. Go back and reread it and stop with the nonsense.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 07:38:11 PM
"Stupidity doesn't either, what's your point?"  I made my point.   You're the one who can't seem to make a point.

enjoying the conversation so I thought I would come back to make a few more comments.


"My point is that stupid people can be destructive and malicious just as much as smart people." Not true and obviously not true.   Stupid people can only be petty criminals whereas smart people can be master criminals.   "Being smart doesn't automatically make you anything."  You are right.  So far the only thing you said that is true.   "You're making unsupportable generalizations. "  No I am not.  I haven't said one thing that isn't true and easily observed to be true.  My initial post that you responded to still stands.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 07:43:01 PM
"Stupidity doesn't either, what's your point?"  I made my point.   You're the one who can't seem to make a point.

enjoying the conversation so I thought I would come back to make a few more comments.


"My point is that stupid people can be destructive and malicious just as much as smart people." Not true and obviously not true.   Stupid people can only be petty criminals whereas smart people can be master criminals.   "Being smart doesn't automatically make you anything."  You are right.  So far the only thing you said that is true.   "You're making unsupportable generalizations. "  No I am not.  I haven't said one thing that isn't true and easily observed to be true.  My initial post that you responded to still stands.

R

Can a stupid person kill someone? Yes! of course, is killing someone a "petty crime"? No!! and your original premise fell flat on its face.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 30, 2016, 07:51:20 PM

R
"Anger is fear, (unfulfilled expectations)."


TNR
 (Yes, there is often a correlation between anger and fear. No, they are NOT the same thing.

http://www.2knowmyself.com/relationship_between_anger_and_fear

"Behind anger always lies fear, Even if the angry person appears to be strong and in control fear will always be the reason behind his anger."

"Whenever you find yourself angry just ask yourself one question, what am I afraid of?
If you found yourself shouting at another driver then you might find that you were afraid of the damage that was going to happen to your car."

http://www.psychologyineverydaylife.net/2012/05/29/masks-of-anger-the-fears-that-your-anger-may-be-hiding/

"What Is Anger All About?
There is a strong relationship between anger and fear. Anger is the fight part of the age-old fight-or-flight response to threat."

Once again, you missed my point spectacularly.

I agree, fear is often the reason behind anger. I agree that there is a strong relationship between the two. However, that is not my point.

You said "anger is fear". This is false.

Don't be ridiculous! Read back at what I've said all along. Fear is the root of anger! Geeze, Semantics? Don't waste my time.

There is a huge difference between "anger is fear" and "anger is the root of fear" or "anger is related to fear". The fact that you don't seem to think so is exactly what I mean by "lack of intellectual rigor".

R
 "The root of lust is fear." #233

TNR
"I agree with Jura. Bullshit. And I came to that conclusion based entirely on personal experience. That's what you asked for, isn't it?"


I thought we were talking about your statement "Anger is fear". Why are you bringing up lust now? That statement is wrong as well... but why bring it up?

Quote
We already went through fear, desire, anger, lust. Go back and reread it and stop with the nonsense.

I know you talked about all those other topics. What does this have to do with your "anger is fear" statement?

Edit: Most people gave up responding to the ironically named "Love" a long time ago. Fair warning.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 07:53:25 PM
""That's not true at all! Evolution is critical in knowing biology, of understanding the world we live in and understanding the world we live in enables us interrelate to it."   ROFL
  Evolution is Bullshit.  The only people it helps are the sophists who get grants to write about it.  Dr. Ben Carson is a world class surgeon and he doesn't need evolution.  One can be an effective physician, engineer, biochemist and not believe in evolution.   Because applied math is the same thing as applied science and a biochemist studying nucleotide chemistry in the laboratory; using scientific method, will come to the same conclusions about their subject whether they believe in evolution or not.   

If you want to call mathematics science then fine.   But it really isn't.  Mathematics is free of any ideological influence.  The same can't be said for science.

By the way, "Dude" is a compliment.  It means a well dressed man who has a way with the ladies.  So thank you for addressing me as such.  Good day!

Learning music requires mathematics because the instructions for how to compose and play are complicated.   Music is not science.   But it needs mathematical analysis in order to expand into deeper levels of complexity.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 07:57:43 PM
the most important thing is life is to be able to get a good night's sleep.....I got this notion from reading Moby Dick ...... Woe to those who are unable to have an untroubled daily hiatus from consciousness.  Next to that I would say hope is the most important.  Hope will keep one going when everything else has gone away.

there is no shame in being wrong, only in doing wrong
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 08:05:13 PM
""That's not true at all! Evolution is critical in knowing biology, of understanding the world we live in and understanding the world we live in enables us interrelate to it."   ROFL
  Evolution is Bullshit.  The only people it helps are the sophists who get grants to write about it.  Dr. Ben Carson is a world class surgeon and he doesn't need evolution.  One can be an effective physician, engineer, biochemist and not believe in evolution.   Because applied math is the same thing as applied science and a biochemist studying nucleotide chemistry in the laboratory; using scientific method, will come to the same conclusions about their subject whether they believe in evolution or not.   

If you want to call mathematics science then fine.   But it really isn't.  Mathematics is free of any ideological influence.  The same can't be said for science.

By the way, "Dude" is a compliment.  It means a well dressed man who has a way with the ladies.  So thank you for addressing me as such.  Good day!

Learning music requires mathematics because the instructions for how to compose and play are complicated.   Music is not science.   But it needs mathematical analysis in order to expand into deeper levels of complexity.

How many times are you going to keep repeating this? I gave you two definitions of mathematics, what more do you need? I'm calling it science because it is science by definition. You're making up your own definition, that doesn't work here!

I don't care what "dude" signifies, it doesn't promote your premise one bit.

"ROFL" is not a logical defense of your position, it's valueless.

Again, I don't care what Ben Carson thinks. If he has a formidable, rational response than post it with a link.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 08:06:37 PM
"Stupidity doesn't either, what's your point?"  I made my point.   You're the one who can't seem to make a point.

enjoying the conversation so I thought I would come back to make a few more comments.


"My point is that stupid people can be destructive and malicious just as much as smart people." Not true and obviously not true.   Stupid people can only be petty criminals whereas smart people can be master criminals.   "Being smart doesn't automatically make you anything."  You are right.  So far the only thing you said that is true.   "You're making unsupportable generalizations. "  No I am not.  I haven't said one thing that isn't true and easily observed to be true.  My initial post that you responded to still stands.

R

Can a stupid person kill someone? Yes! of course, is killing someone a "petty crime"? No!! and your original premise fell flat on its face.
  Not at all.   My premise stands and you haven't shown where I am wrong.    A smart person can kill lots of people and get away with it for a long time because he can out smart the police.   A smart person can run a crew.   A smart person can run the Chicago mob like Al Capone did.   Kill is an ambiguous term.   Killing is not always a crime.    Can a stupid person plan a murder and carry it out and get away with it?   No.   But smart people can.   I haven't said anything wrong. You are a nitpicker.  Your argument holds no weight at all if all you have to pick on is terminology.  Being obstinate and nitpicky doesn't make you right and my original post still stands.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 08:12:37 PM
""That's not true at all! Evolution is critical in knowing biology, of understanding the world we live in and understanding the world we live in enables us interrelate to it."   ROFL
  Evolution is Bullshit.  The only people it helps are the sophists who get grants to write about it.  Dr. Ben Carson is a world class surgeon and he doesn't need evolution.  One can be an effective physician, engineer, biochemist and not believe in evolution.   Because applied math is the same thing as applied science and a biochemist studying nucleotide chemistry in the laboratory; using scientific method, will come to the same conclusions about their subject whether they believe in evolution or not.   

If you want to call mathematics science then fine.   But it really isn't.  Mathematics is free of any ideological influence.  The same can't be said for science.

By the way, "Dude" is a compliment.  It means a well dressed man who has a way with the ladies.  So thank you for addressing me as such.  Good day!

Learning music requires mathematics because the instructions for how to compose and play are complicated.   Music is not science.   But it needs mathematical analysis in order to expand into deeper levels of complexity.

"How many times are you going to keep repeating this? I gave you two definitions of mathematics, what more do you need? I'm calling it science because it is science by definition. You're making up your own definition, that doesn't work here!"  You are wrong.  Most mathematics has no practical application and exists outside the realm of science.   Math would exist without science but the opposite isn't true.

"I don't care what "dude" signifies, it doesn't promote your premise one bit."  Thank you anyway for calling me dude.  I take it as a compliment.

"ROFL" is not a logical defense of your position, it's valueless."  Not to me.   Not much in biology is well understood and evolution offers no insight at all.    Ben Carson is smarter than you and knows more about cellular chemistry than you and he thinks evolution is bullshit.  And it doesn't stop him from being a world class physician.    Obviously evolution offers no insight in medicine.  Nowhere else, either.

"Again, I don't care what Ben Carson thinks. If he has a formidable, rational response than post it with a link."  You have provided nothing formidable or rational so why should he?   He doesn't need evolution nor does any other Doctor.  Evolution is worthless except to put money into the pockets of sophists.  ROFL
R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 30, 2016, 08:18:17 PM
Good Lord... Love vs Robaroni. It's the poorly-formatted-tangled-up-quotes apocalypse! Also, this thread may never end...
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 08:20:20 PM

R
"Anger is fear, (unfulfilled expectations)."


TNR
 (Yes, there is often a correlation between anger and fear. No, they are NOT the same thing.

http://www.2knowmyself.com/relationship_between_anger_and_fear

"Behind anger always lies fear, Even if the angry person appears to be strong and in control fear will always be the reason behind his anger."

"Whenever you find yourself angry just ask yourself one question, what am I afraid of?
If you found yourself shouting at another driver then you might find that you were afraid of the damage that was going to happen to your car."

http://www.psychologyineverydaylife.net/2012/05/29/masks-of-anger-the-fears-that-your-anger-may-be-hiding/

"What Is Anger All About?
There is a strong relationship between anger and fear. Anger is the fight part of the age-old fight-or-flight response to threat."

Once again, you missed my point spectacularly.

I agree, fear is often the reason behind anger. I agree that there is a strong relationship between the two. However, that is not my point.

You said "anger is fear". This is false.

Don't be ridiculous! Read back at what I've said all along. Fear is the root of anger! Geeze, Semantics? Don't waste my time.

There is a huge difference between "anger is fear" and "anger is the root of fear" or "anger is related to fear". The fact that you don't seem to think so is exactly what I mean by "lack of intellectual rigor".

R
 "The root of lust is fear." #233

TNR
"I agree with Jura. Bullshit. And I came to that conclusion based entirely on personal experience. That's what you asked for, isn't it?"


I thought we were talking about your statement "Anger is fear". Why are you bringing up lust now? That statement is wrong as well... but why bring it up?

Quote
We already went through fear, desire, anger, lust. Go back and reread it and stop with the nonsense.

I know you talked about all those other topics. What does this have to do with your "anger is fear" statement?

Edit: Most people gave up responding to the ironically named "Love" a long time ago. Fair warning.

I already discussed -with references- the root of anger - fear, hate - fear, lust - fear, etc. You were wrong about lust which is desire and the root of that desire is fear. When we desire power, for example, we fear our powerlessness.

You disagreed with my premise that love is the core of human existence. fine, so give me something more important to your emotional well being.

TNR
"but it certainly won't be the only answer"

So, again, CERTAINLY what's a better answer?? AND AGAIN, what is your life worth without loving and being loved? I'm still waiting for this answer too.

You can't just disagree, you haven't given an answer. Something is more important? What is it?

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 08:21:31 PM
Good Lord... Love vs Robaroni. It's the poorly-formatted-tangled-up-quotes apocalypse! Also, this thread may never end...
  I am going away soon.    Hope all is well where you are!
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 08:23:10 PM
Good Lord... Love vs Robaroni. It's the poorly-formatted-tangled-up-quotes apocalypse! Also, this thread may never end...
  Thank you for reading,,, or at least trying to read
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 08:29:41 PM
Good Lord... Love vs Robaroni. It's the poorly-formatted-tangled-up-quotes apocalypse! Also, this thread may never end...

This statement is considered intellectual bankruptcy. It is an empty accusation in the attempt to diminish other debaters just as your statement at the beginning of this debate attempted to diminish me by calling me "Sonny". It didn't work then and it doesn't work now.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 08:33:17 PM
Being 'smart" is nothing to be proud of.  Lots of criminals are 'smart'.   I can't tell you how many times I have heard about the high IQ's possessed by Bundy, Gacy, Manson, and so many more.  It would seem that in order to be a psycho criminal one would have to be a genius.
 There are a lot of miserable 'smart' people.  And there are a lot of so called 'stupid' people who lead rich lives and are well loved; because having a good heart is more important than having a good mind.
It's not the idiots who create most of the problems for the human race.  It is the well accomplished with their fancy college degrees; expensive haircuts and clothes.
 Stupid people can't create big problems.    Only brainy people can create big problems or be master criminals.  Stupid people can't enthrall the crowds with rhetoric of glory and create bizarre political movements or start wars.  Stupid people can't do white collar crime; which as I understand it costs society, in terms of money,  more than so called street crime.
"There once was a golden age because golden hearts beat in it.  If it returns it will be scarcely due to science."  Louis Imogen Guiney
Thank you for reading.

My original point:   aptitude doesn't necessarily indicate good character.   I don't need to defend this statement as it is obviously true.

My other point:  Creation is beautiful and we are all beautiful.  That doesn't mean we don't do ugly things.  We do.  We are our own worst enemies.  None the less we are beautiful.

courage is more important than brains and kindness is more important than courage.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 08:38:12 PM
Good Lord... Love vs Robaroni. It's the poorly-formatted-tangled-up-quotes apocalypse! Also, this thread may never end...

This statement is considered intellectual bankruptcy. It is an empty accusation in the attempt to diminish other debaters just as your statement at the beginning of this debate attempted to diminish me by calling me "Sonny". It didn't work then and it doesn't work now.

R

I think totes makes a good point....I don't feel diminished at all.   Quite the opposite.  I really don't know how to use this format.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on July 30, 2016, 08:41:43 PM
No hard feelings.   Be well, all!  Back after a few weeks.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Robaroni on July 30, 2016, 08:44:54 PM
Being 'smart" is nothing to be proud of.  Lots of criminals are 'smart'.   I can't tell you how many times I have heard about the high IQ's possessed by Bundy, Gacy, Manson, and so many more.  It would seem that in order to be a psycho criminal one would have to be a genius.
 There are a lot of miserable 'smart' people.  And there are a lot of so called 'stupid' people who lead rich lives and are well loved; because having a good heart is more important than having a good mind.
It's not the idiots who create most of the problems for the human race.  It is the well accomplished with their fancy college degrees; expensive haircuts and clothes.
 Stupid people can't create big problems.    Only brainy people can create big problems or be master criminals.  Stupid people can't enthrall the crowds with rhetoric of glory and create bizarre political movements or start wars.  Stupid people can't do white collar crime; which as I understand it costs society, in terms of money,  more than so called street crime.
"There once was a golden age because golden hearts beat in it.  If it returns it will be scarcely due to science."  Louis Imogen Guiney
Thank you for reading.

My original point:   aptitude doesn't necessarily indicate good character.   I don't need to defend this statement as it is obviously true.

My other point:  Creation is beautiful and we are all beautiful.  That doesn't mean we don't do ugly things.  We do.  We are our own worst enemies.  None the less we are beautiful.

courage is more important than brains and kindness is more important than courage.

Lots of smart people aren't criminals too. And lots of smart people are happy, loving, compassionate people. You can't make generalizations that don't hold up to scrutiny.

I don't think "we are all beautiful". I think people who fly planes into building full of innocent people and leave children without mothers and fathers are not "beautiful" people. I think bigots are not "beautiful" people. I think people who rape other people are not "beautiful" people.

If smart people "enthrall the crowds with rhetoric of glory and create bizarre political movements or start wars" then who are the people acting on that rhetoric? Are they smart or are they stupid for being fooled?
Because I think if you educate yourself, read history and learn how the world works then "smart" people can never make you go into a war. It is the stupid masses that are lead into the sea like lemmings not the ones who have educated themselves.

R
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on July 30, 2016, 08:55:53 PM
I don't feel diminished at all.   Quite the opposite.  I really don't know how to use this format.


Code: [Select]
[quote]
[quote]
This is a quote within a quote.
[/quote]
This is a quote.
[/quote]

This is not in a quote

 |
 |
V

Quote
Quote
This is a quote within a quote.
This is a quote.

This is not in a quote
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on August 05, 2016, 12:27:30 PM
We are all beautiful in my opinion.  Any of us can be a monster but still at some level we are all an expression of a Divine Creator.  Luck (will of God?) more than anything else determines how our life will fall out.  We can plan and work but nobody knows the future or how are actions today will effect what happens tomorrow.  Some bad breaks and a few bad decisions and any of us could end up in jail.  I remember when I was in the Army (honorably discharged)  that if sent into combat I would follow orders and maybe kill innocent people in doing so;  who knows what they might be capable of in desperate situations like war?  We all make mistakes and I think practically everybody has times in their past when they wish they were smarter and better.

The same creative power in the likes of JS Bach or someone like that exists in all of us.  One more point: as Tolstoy pointed out beauty is often mistaken for goodness.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Rounder on August 06, 2016, 09:39:00 PM
Seventeen pages of commentary, and I cannot recall the last time anybody posted a comment remotely related to "Flat Earth General".  Perhaps this thread belongs in the "Philosophy, Religion, and Society (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?board=11.0)" category.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on August 09, 2016, 11:31:13 AM
It's for the children.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: cel on September 19, 2016, 06:27:47 PM
It's for the children.

Not really, for me, it's for the unwise or shall we say, fools. My reason? simple. If you choose to be atheist, well, religion, say christianity, teaches a life (heavenly life is more attractive than that of hell) after this earthly life. Now, if this next life is indeed true, then unbeliever, atheist by choice, will go to hell and the believer can have that heavenly next life (well, assuming he/she is good christian of course :)   ); and if it is not true, well, the believer and the atheist both end in nothing. Who is wiser then? Certainly, the believer. Let's just be wiser in making choices like this... :)
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on September 19, 2016, 06:38:50 PM
"...But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."  Matthew 5:22   None of us is superior.  Reason I said, 'it's for the children' is because that is what I was told was the motivation for one of the posters that come in here.   He wants to save the innocents from a life of being ignorant.  I say:  What is wrong with being ignorant if one is happy?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: andruszkow on September 20, 2016, 03:07:06 PM
It's for the children.

Not really, for me, it's for the unwise or shall we say, fools. My reason? simple. If you choose to be atheist, well, religion, say christianity, teaches a life (heavenly life is more attractive than that of hell) after this earthly life. Now, if this next life is indeed true, then unbeliever, atheist by choice, will go to hell and the believer can have that heavenly next life (well, assuming he/she is good christian of course :)   ); and if it is not true, well, the believer and the atheist both end in nothing. Who is wiser then? Certainly, the believer. Let's just be wiser in making choices like this... :)
Hell, you say. Now, this is God's version of it all. You know, the creator of everything, except hell. Until I've read Satan's side of the story, the Bible is just God pointing fingers.

The problem with religion is the absence of logic. From the believers that is. Adam and Eve populated earth, in all our colors, shapes and sizes, yet there's a surprisingly small amount of  people showing the symptoms of being inbred. This is just one of the humorous flaws.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: cel on September 21, 2016, 01:03:14 AM
It's for the children.

Not really, for me, it's for the unwise or shall we say, fools. My reason? simple. If you choose to be atheist, well, religion, say christianity, teaches a life (heavenly life is more attractive than that of hell) after this earthly life. Now, if this next life is indeed true, then unbeliever, atheist by choice, will go to hell and the believer can have that heavenly next life (well, assuming he/she is good christian of course :)   ); and if it is not true, well, the believer and the atheist both end in nothing. Who is wiser then? Certainly, the believer. Let's just be wiser in making choices like this... :)
Hell, you say. Now, this is God's version of it all. You know, the creator of everything, except hell. Until I've read Satan's side of the story, the Bible is just God pointing fingers.

The problem with religion is the absence of logic. From the believers that is. Adam and Eve populated earth, in all our colors, shapes and sizes, yet there's a surprisingly small amount of  people showing the symptoms of being inbred. This is just one of the humorous flaws.

Well, of course, you can say all you want to say against God and the Bible. You can despise and condemn religion with all your might. You really can. No one will prevent you from doing this. hehehe.... but the problem is everyone dies. You die. And when you die, this is the time when anyone, with or without believing God, can confirm in real time whether this "next life after this life" is true. My point is this. Believing or not believing a God out there who tells us that next life exists, we all gonna DIE. Unless you're also a God and 100% sure of where you're going to after this life, you'll be wise enough to choose to be atheist. Get what I mean? But you are not. You cannot even stop or exempt yourself from dying. If you don't die, well, I'll believe in you and likewise be an atheist, but you do die... :)   Well, who's wiser then in making a choice? the one who is open-mined opting for a chance to go on living a good next life or the one who is too narrow-minded opting for nothing, but only this present life? If you're a gambler, and you know you'll lose no matter what you do and how many times you bet, and still you keep on betting, well, what are you? simple, a fool... a wise gambler bets with a mindset that he'll win... meaning, hoping, believing, and taking a chance to win. Just like that, we take the same chance to go on living after this life.... well, i have no problem with your choice, you opted to live only once, well, good luck... it's your choice... :)
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: andruszkow on September 21, 2016, 05:38:12 AM
It's for the children.

Not really, for me, it's for the unwise or shall we say, fools. My reason? simple. If you choose to be atheist, well, religion, say christianity, teaches a life (heavenly life is more attractive than that of hell) after this earthly life. Now, if this next life is indeed true, then unbeliever, atheist by choice, will go to hell and the believer can have that heavenly next life (well, assuming he/she is good christian of course :)   ); and if it is not true, well, the believer and the atheist both end in nothing. Who is wiser then? Certainly, the believer. Let's just be wiser in making choices like this... :)
Hell, you say. Now, this is God's version of it all. You know, the creator of everything, except hell. Until I've read Satan's side of the story, the Bible is just God pointing fingers.

The problem with religion is the absence of logic. From the believers that is. Adam and Eve populated earth, in all our colors, shapes and sizes, yet there's a surprisingly small amount of  people showing the symptoms of being inbred. This is just one of the humorous flaws.

Well, of course, you can say all you want to say against God and the Bible. You can despise and condemn religion with all your might. You really can. No one will prevent you from doing this. hehehe.... but the problem is everyone dies. You die. And when you die, this is the time when anyone, with or without believing God, can confirm in real time whether this "next life after this life" is true. My point is this. Believing or not believing a God out there who tells us that next life exists, we all gonna DIE. Unless you're also a God and 100% sure of where you're going to after this life, you'll be wise enough to choose to be atheist. Get what I mean? But you are not. You cannot even stop or exempt yourself from dying. If you don't die, well, I'll believe in you and likewise be an atheist, but you do die... :)   Well, who's wiser then in making a choice? the one who is open-mined opting for a chance to go on living a good next life or the one who is too narrow-minded opting for nothing, but only this present life? If you're a gambler, and you know you'll lose no matter what you do and how many times you bet, and still you keep on betting, well, what are you? simple, a fool... a wise gambler bets with a mindset that he'll win... meaning, hoping, believing, and taking a chance to win. Just like that, we take the same chance to go on living after this life.... well, i have no problem with your choice, you opted to live only once, well, good luck... it's your choice... :)
Heh, and?

I'm not afraid of dying. I see how fear mongering is your MO, that's pretty classic with religion in general.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on September 21, 2016, 09:09:18 AM

So…..the reason I should go to church, get down on my knees and basically beg for forgiveness for sins I don’t feel I have committed, is to hedge my bets? That’s the best you’ve got?

What if I get the wrong god? How do I gauge if Islam isn’t right, or Hinduism isn’t true and I’m insulting Kali by idolising a man nailed to some wood? What if Odin is the man, and he just backed out because he thought the invention of gunpowder devalued the applicants for Valhalla? What if the bird is the word?

I’m with Andruszkow, history is written by the victors, Christianity/Abrahamic religion has spread through the world by conquest and repression. We only get one point of view, Lucifer could be the Che Guevara of the celestial realms, the “Bringer of light” doesn’t sound like a name of the evil one so perhaps Hell aint’ a bad place to be?

However, for me an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, religion, the child of the evolutionary wiring in our brains for pattern recognition and wishful thinking to stave off the long dark sleep.
I shan’t take your bet, I would rather have my convictions and plead my case (I don’t think I will have to), than sneak in having played “just in case” all my life, get some backbone
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on September 21, 2016, 09:55:50 AM
"“just in case” all my life, get some backbone"  They always have to get their little jabs in.   None of them ever show any wit.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: George on September 21, 2016, 12:48:07 PM
Pascal's Wager is an extremely weak argument.  There are too many options beyond the simple belief/non-belief dichotomy, as well as the assumption that belief itself is the most important thing to a deity.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: andruszkow on September 21, 2016, 03:15:52 PM
How do I know for sure, which of the ~4200 different religions I should practice? It's just, I don't want to piss off the other 4199 God's and go to hell. All 4199 versions of them.

Out of 4200 religions, you just happened to be brought up in the only true one? Impressive. And what a lucky coincidence as well, even though I thought things happening by chance were frowned upon by FES.

(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160921/f79ee4e2539c73127828f58c3c4489cd.jpg)
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: cel on September 22, 2016, 10:26:50 AM

So…..the reason I should go to church, get down on my knees and basically beg for forgiveness for sins I don’t feel I have committed, is to hedge my bets? That’s the best you’ve got?

What if I get the wrong god? How do I gauge if Islam isn’t right, or Hinduism isn’t true and I’m insulting Kali by idolising a man nailed to some wood? What if Odin is the man, and he just backed out because he thought the invention of gunpowder devalued the applicants for Valhalla? What if the bird is the word?

I’m with Andruszkow, history is written by the victors, Christianity/Abrahamic religion has spread through the world by conquest and repression. We only get one point of view, Lucifer could be the Che Guevara of the celestial realms, the “Bringer of light” doesn’t sound like a name of the evil one so perhaps Hell aint’ a bad place to be?

However, for me an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, religion, the child of the evolutionary wiring in our brains for pattern recognition and wishful thinking to stave off the long dark sleep.
I shan’t take your bet, I would rather have my convictions and plead my case (I don’t think I will have to), than sneak in having played “just in case” all my life, get some backbone

If life or your life is full of "ifs", then it's best to settle for Big "IFs" that go for something good. At least this way can give you chance... As you said, everything dies, well, does that exempt you? If not, it's wise to choose the "IFs" that can give you at least one life more... :)
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: andruszkow on September 28, 2016, 11:13:11 PM

So…..the reason I should go to church, get down on my knees and basically beg for forgiveness for sins I don’t feel I have committed, is to hedge my bets? That’s the best you’ve got?

What if I get the wrong god? How do I gauge if Islam isn’t right, or Hinduism isn’t true and I’m insulting Kali by idolising a man nailed to some wood? What if Odin is the man, and he just backed out because he thought the invention of gunpowder devalued the applicants for Valhalla? What if the bird is the word?

I’m with Andruszkow, history is written by the victors, Christianity/Abrahamic religion has spread through the world by conquest and repression. We only get one point of view, Lucifer could be the Che Guevara of the celestial realms, the “Bringer of light” doesn’t sound like a name of the evil one so perhaps Hell aint’ a bad place to be?

However, for me an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, religion, the child of the evolutionary wiring in our brains for pattern recognition and wishful thinking to stave off the long dark sleep.
I shan’t take your bet, I would rather have my convictions and plead my case (I don’t think I will have to), than sneak in having played “just in case” all my life, get some backbone

If life or your life is full of "ifs", then it's best to settle for Big "IFs" that go for something good. At least this way can give you chance... As you said, everything dies, well, does that exempt you? If not, it's wise to choose the "IFs" that can give you at least one life more... :)

At least you did a post without using the words "truth" and "seeker" in it. That makes me believe in something, at least.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on September 28, 2016, 11:23:04 PM

So…..the reason I should go to church, get down on my knees and basically beg for forgiveness for sins I don’t feel I have committed, is to hedge my bets? That’s the best you’ve got?

What if I get the wrong god? How do I gauge if Islam isn’t right, or Hinduism isn’t true and I’m insulting Kali by idolising a man nailed to some wood? What if Odin is the man, and he just backed out because he thought the invention of gunpowder devalued the applicants for Valhalla? What if the bird is the word?

I’m with Andruszkow, history is written by the victors, Christianity/Abrahamic religion has spread through the world by conquest and repression. We only get one point of view, Lucifer could be the Che Guevara of the celestial realms, the “Bringer of light” doesn’t sound like a name of the evil one so perhaps Hell aint’ a bad place to be?

However, for me an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, religion, the child of the evolutionary wiring in our brains for pattern recognition and wishful thinking to stave off the long dark sleep.
I shan’t take your bet, I would rather have my convictions and plead my case (I don’t think I will have to), than sneak in having played “just in case” all my life, get some backbone

If life or your life is full of "ifs", then it's best to settle for Big "IFs" that go for something good. At least this way can give you chance... As you said, everything dies, well, does that exempt you? If not, it's wise to choose the "IFs" that can give you at least one life more... :)

As logical as it might seem, I don't think hedging your bet is a very Biblical reason for believing in God.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: İntikam on September 30, 2016, 06:41:47 AM
I have no problem with atheists except;

They are liars, rogue, trickster, cheater, blackleg hominids; and a few "real victims".

Atheists are not really atheists.

A survey revealed as, actually 60 percent of atheists believing God. nevertheless they are defined themselves as atheist. because; most of them are victims of perception operation, and the small part is perception operator.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: andruszkow on September 30, 2016, 07:39:26 AM
I have no problem with atheists except;

They are liars, rogue, trickster, cheater, blackleg hominids; and a few "real victims".

Atheists are not really atheists.

A survey revealed as, actually 60 percent of atheists believing God. nevertheless they are defined themselves as atheist. because; most of them are victims of perception operation, and the small part is perception operator.
Statistics say that 85% of statistics are made up on the spot. See what I did there?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Martin Luther II on September 30, 2016, 05:12:16 PM
I agree. Pascal's Wager is a sorry excuse to believe in God. In order to TRULY be saved by the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, one must receive grace. By Grace Alone, Through Faith Alone, In Scripture Alone. We have not the power in ourselves to turn toward Christ w/o his giving us the Grace to do so. We can wish to do so, but w/o Grace...
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Custard_Cream on October 11, 2016, 05:08:42 AM
I'm a flat earther and a atheist buddy :-)
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Norr on October 11, 2016, 02:25:35 PM
Short answer: Nothing is wrong with Atheism, there are however many things wrong with individuals. Atheist or otherwise.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: CableDawg on October 16, 2016, 07:22:28 AM
Now, I assume that being an atheist you are a FEer yourself?

What does one have to do with the other?

Well, RE science has gotten itself into a bit of a pickle, imho.  In explaining the wonders of the universe down to almost the minutest detail, you've created a number of variables that, if even off slightly, would not have allowed life to exist (no, I'm not talking about the so-called "Goldilocks zone", you guys have covered that one brilliantly; what I speak of is more a "Goldilocks universe", a universe that was juuuuuuuust right for life to exist).

It just makes much more sense for such a universe to have been created, because otherwise you're looking at a statistically impossible coincidence that things turned out so perfect for life.  And if it was created, there is a creator, QED.

So it really makes no sense for me to be a REer and not believe in God.

On the other hand, FET is so wide-open and unexplored, its deepest mysteries have yet to be revealed.  It may come about that after exhaustive research into the origins of the universe we will run into the same issue.  But there's no reason to assume it at this point, so it's perfectly reasonable to be a FEer and also be an atheist.

Do I REALLY need a religion to be moral? What If I don't agree with any religious moral principles (homosexuality, gender equality, etc.)?

I see that you were probably a "one and done", but I thought this was worth addressing too in case you do come back.  It's easy to be religious and disagree with some of your religion's doctrines about morality.  I know lots of people who are able to achieve this.  All you have to do is turn your brain off and pretend it makes sense to pick and choose what you want to believe out of whichever book it is that you believe in that was supposedly transcribed by an infallible God.  That's all!

And you make the mistake that you can apply statistics/probability to a sample size of 1.

That we are able to have this discussion proves that our universe, far from being in the "goldilocks zone" and statistically impossible, is in fact in the realm of 100% possibility, that is to say actuality.

My challenge to you is for you to produce evidence of these other universes which proves our universe to be a statistical impossibility.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: CableDawg on October 16, 2016, 07:26:04 AM
Hate is not a human "failing". The root of hate is fear, is fear a human failing?

Socialized religions are non-moral, that is, they contain both moral and immoral individuals. Religions are not God, they are man's interpretation of God and their frailties and inequities do not disprove the existence of God. The proof of God is that man is capable of love, belief in God does not require the abandonment of reason.

To believe in God is not necessarily driven by a fear of death, it can simply be a belief that something exists beyond man.

There is a preponderance of evidence that the earth is round. In order for it be flat there would have to be millenniums of liars along with photos, first hand accounts, satellites in orbit, etc. that would have to be ignored or otherwise explained to accept a flat world. Socialized religions are based on faith and faith is blind acceptance of the unknown. For this reason individuals who live by faith are more willing to accept a flat world.

R

Proof of god is that man is capable of love?

I love tacos.  Which god does that prove?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: CableDawg on October 16, 2016, 07:42:28 AM
It's for the children.

Not really, for me, it's for the unwise or shall we say, fools. My reason? simple. If you choose to be atheist, well, religion, say christianity, teaches a life (heavenly life is more attractive than that of hell) after this earthly life. Now, if this next life is indeed true, then unbeliever, atheist by choice, will go to hell and the believer can have that heavenly next life (well, assuming he/she is good christian of course :)   ); and if it is not true, well, the believer and the atheist both end in nothing. Who is wiser then? Certainly, the believer. Let's just be wiser in making choices like this... :)
Hell, you say. Now, this is God's version of it all. You know, the creator of everything, except hell. Until I've read Satan's side of the story, the Bible is just God pointing fingers.

The problem with religion is the absence of logic. From the believers that is. Adam and Eve populated earth, in all our colors, shapes and sizes, yet there's a surprisingly small amount of  people showing the symptoms of being inbred. This is just one of the humorous flaws.

Well, of course, you can say all you want to say against God and the Bible. You can despise and condemn religion with all your might. You really can. No one will prevent you from doing this. hehehe.... but the problem is everyone dies. You die. And when you die, this is the time when anyone, with or without believing God, can confirm in real time whether this "next life after this life" is true. My point is this. Believing or not believing a God out there who tells us that next life exists, we all gonna DIE. Unless you're also a God and 100% sure of where you're going to after this life, you'll be wise enough to choose to be atheist. Get what I mean? But you are not. You cannot even stop or exempt yourself from dying. If you don't die, well, I'll believe in you and likewise be an atheist, but you do die... :)   Well, who's wiser then in making a choice? the one who is open-mined opting for a chance to go on living a good next life or the one who is too narrow-minded opting for nothing, but only this present life? If you're a gambler, and you know you'll lose no matter what you do and how many times you bet, and still you keep on betting, well, what are you? simple, a fool... a wise gambler bets with a mindset that he'll win... meaning, hoping, believing, and taking a chance to win. Just like that, we take the same chance to go on living after this life.... well, i have no problem with your choice, you opted to live only once, well, good luck... it's your choice... :)

Let's follow your logic...

You believe that Jesus died and was raised to heaven.

You believe that True Christians™ will also raised to heaven when they die.

This makes them exactly the same as their god.

Therefore they are, each of them, gods.

Do you have fervent belief in yourself?
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: CableDawg on October 16, 2016, 08:02:48 AM


, it's wise to choose the "IFs" that can give you at least one life more... :)

You say this as if (BIG IF here) it's a foregone conclusion that your particular belief system is the one which will give you at least one more life.

A question that comes to mind...

What kind of person are you, really, when the only thing that forces you into moral behavior is the THREAT of having your forever life taken away from you?  In case you didn't notice, I doubly emphasized threat because that's all religion really is.  A threat.  It's not a promise of anything.  It's a threat used to make people behave in a certain manner.

This is, I believe, what sets Atheist apart from and above the religious.  We don't need the ancient threats of an ancient, ignorant culture to force us into moral behavior.
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Love on October 18, 2016, 03:47:09 PM
from cable dog: "This is, I believe, what sets Atheist apart from and above the religious.  We don't need the ancient threats of an ancient, ignorant culture to force us into moral behavior."   You atheists are an inspiration to us all!
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Max_Almond on May 18, 2018, 06:08:35 PM
Much as I'd love to, I'm not going to read everything in this thread, but instead answer the main question as it's presented (even though it was really a question about whether an atheist can be moral - answer: "yes").

What is the problem with atheism?

On the one hand, no problem - it all depends on how it's presented.

Faith or knowledge of 'the spiritual' (i.e., God) is an experience. (Faith that is not experiential is mere belief; an idea of what one wants to be true, but doesn't know for sure).

The atheist in general seems to say: "I haven't experienced something (that sounds outlandish (to me)) and I know for a fact it can't possibly be true for anyone."

That doesn't even make logical sense.

There may also be a predilection for a hang-up on pure materialism, and on what can be physically measured and seen.

So no problem with a humble atheism, which says: "I haven't experienced any of that, and it sounds a bit far out to me, but I suppose that doesn't mean it's impossible."

And perhaps an even more humble atheism would seek to find out for themselves.

But who's got time for that? ;)
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Max_Almond on May 18, 2018, 06:19:10 PM
Other problems with atheism:

i) A failure to recognise their atheism as actually being anti-Christianity/anti-Bible. The atheist has no belief in God. God is not defined by The Bible. The Bible is merely a collection of some ancient people's ideas about life and God.

Thinking you have disproven God by showing the fallacies in The Bible is like pointing to an English high street at 11pm on a Friday night and thinking you have disproven the possibility of intelligent human life.

ii) Not knowing the subject well enough. A lot of atheists don't really have a well-rounded view of religion and spirituality, and yet feel qualified to critique it.

iii) Not understanding that God is an experience.

iv) Arguing against "an old man in the sky pointing his finger at people and judging them".

Whose idea of God is this? Absolutely the original strawman.

v) Repeating ideas they learned as teenagers - "Jesus didn't exist!" "It's like believing in Father Christmas!" "People just believe cos they're afraid of death!" - and not updating them as their brains grow.

Probably there are more. But ultimately I suppose there's no problem with atheism. Humans are the problem. We're proud and stubborn and lacking in loving kindness, and that's irrespective of our beliefs and ideas, whether religious, areligious, theistic, atheistic, or otherwise.

The kind atheist who seeks to master his own mind and be a peaceful and loving presence in the world is worth far more than the most pious and devout 'believer' who hurts others and themselves.

Indeed, an atheist may even have a greater 'faith' than a theist - though they would probably never agree to it.

That's all. ;)
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: ElTrancy on May 18, 2018, 06:26:45 PM
Other problems with atheism:

i) A failure to recognise the atheism as anti-Christianity/anti-Bible. The atheist has no belief in God. God is not defined by The Bible. The Bible is merely a collection of some ancient people's ideas about life and God.

Thinking you have debunked God by showing the fallacies in The Bible is like pointing to an English high street at 11pm on a Friday night and thinking you have proven the impossibility intelligent human life.

ii) Not knowing the subject well enough. A lot of atheists don't really have a well-rounded view of religion and spirituality, and yet feel qualified to critique it.

iii) Not understanding that God is an experience.

iv) Arguing against "an old man in the sky pointing his finger at people and judging them".

Whose idea of God is this? Absolutely the original strawman.

v) Repeating ideas they learned as teenagers - "Jesus didn't even exist!" "Do you believe in Father Christmas too?" - and not updating them as their brains grew.

Probably there are more. But ultimately I suppose there's no problem with atheism. Humans are the problem. We're proud and stubborn and lacking in loving kindness, and that's irrespective of our beliefs, whether religious, areligious, theistic, atheistic, or otherwise.

The kind atheist who seeks to master his own mind is worth far more in the eyes of God than the most pious and devout 'believer' who hurts others and themselves.

Indeed, an atheist may even have a greater 'faith' than a theist - though they would never agree to it.

That's all. ;)

Anti-Christianity? Anti-Bible? We would be anti-everything, including Satanism, and Judaism. You literally just contradicted every religious person I've ever met. I do know the subject very well. God is an experience...makes sense (not really). You just made a strawman. Jesus may have been a person, did he do the things they said he did? If so, why have we never found something (to my knowledge) written by him? None of us have faith, please don't say we have "faith" when referring to a god
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: Max_Almond on May 18, 2018, 06:55:00 PM
Anti-Christianity? Anti-Bible? We would be anti-everything, including Satanism, and Judaism. You literally just contradicted every religious person I've ever met. I do know the subject very well. God is an experience...makes sense (not really). You just made a strawman. Jesus may have been a person, did he do the things they said he did? If so, why have we never found something (to my knowledge) written by him? None of us have faith, please don't say we have "faith" when referring to a god.

I can't work out whether to write "point proven" or "case in point". ;)
Title: Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
Post by: J-Man on May 19, 2018, 02:43:14 AM
Remember Jesus said remove the dust from your feet and continue on with a hardy FU.......

Demons can't be saved.