21

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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

22

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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

23

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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

24

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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

25

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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

26

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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

27

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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

28

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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?

29

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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

30

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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

31

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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.

32

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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.

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

33

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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

34

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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

35

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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

36

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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

37

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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.

38

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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?

39

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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

40

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the problem with Atheism?

« 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