Now, I assume that being an atheist you are a FEer yourself?
Do I REALLY need a religion to be moral?Reality check: You do not need to be moral.
Now, I assume that being an atheist you are a FEer yourself?
What does one have to do with the other?
Do I REALLY need a religion to be moral? What If I don't agree with any religious moral principles (homosexuality, gender equality, etc.)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...QuoteScience? 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
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
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...QuoteScience? 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?
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
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.
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".QuoteYou 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.
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.
You seem very angry about this for no apparent reason.
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.
QuoteQuote"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;
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?
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?
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.
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.
Again,everyone who loves you disavows ever loving you, what's your life worth? Why? You still eat, procreate and survive.
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!)
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?
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
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.
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...
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.
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?
[/quote]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.QuoteI'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
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.
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 isthea manifestation of ones fear, it isthea 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?
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!
Excuse me, but you are the one who said:QuoteIs 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!
Oh... Meh...Excuse me, but you are the one who said:QuoteIs 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.
Excuse me, but you are the one who said:QuoteIs 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.
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.
Good start to a conversation, but maybe this should be in Philosophy, Religion & Society?LOL
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
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.
"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
Two things are true: Einstein did not say half the shit people attribute to him and people don't care.
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?
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 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?
"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
"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.QuoteWhat's you goal?
R
To discover your goal.
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?
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?
I don't have a goal!!
Run out of cut and paste options after reciprocal altruism?
What?QuoteDid I answer you the question you posed?
If a lie can be considered a proper answer, then sure.QuoteYes, 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?
You just posted 7 questions. Take a deep breath and post 1. Make it worth your while too.
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.
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
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.
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'?
Science is not a monolith. It has no single answer. It works on a consensus of experiments.
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
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
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.
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.
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.htmQuoteThe 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.
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.QuoteAlong 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?QuoteAll 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.QuoteWe 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.
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.QuoteIt 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.QuoteWho 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.QuoteMany 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.QuoteSide 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...why do you die to save your loved one?
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.
...why do you die to save your loved one?
Because they are a loved one.
...why do you die to save your loved one?
Because they are a loved one.
Exactly! but what's the science?
R
...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.
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.
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:QuoteThe 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?
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.
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:QuoteThe 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
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:QuoteThe 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.QuoteI 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... AgainQuoteBefore 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.QuoteYou gave an isolated paper on infants without thinking that the action goes beyond them.
Read the whole paper.QuoteSo spare me the "defeated" remarks and the non-peer reviewed papers that don't address the issue.
Read it.QuoteAnd 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.QuoteR
<- Your name is in the sidebar and you can create a signature below. No need to sign your initial in this format.
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.
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.
So what exactly are you looking for when you ask for a scientific answer?
If you disagree with my hypothesis, then you must give justification for man's actions and the facts I have outlined above.
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.
If you disagree with my hypothesis, then you must give justification for man's actions and the facts I have outlined above.
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."Rama Set:
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.
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.QuoteYou show me the proof.Freedom? I have it, no dogma or creed, no hope of redemption just the endless night, let me sleep."
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.
QuoteMe
"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.QuoteYou show me the proof.Freedom? I have it, no dogma or creed, no hope of redemption just the endless night, let me sleep."QuoteRobo
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.
Show me that perspective is a product of an open mind.
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?
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 needs to reproduce and have safety in numbers"
Man can reproduce without love. and exist in a symbiotic group without love.
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!
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.
" 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.QuoteIf 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.
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
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.
Some may be unwilling but this does not dismiss the fact that giving ones life is not uncommon.
"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.QuoteGiving 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)
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.
Symantics!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.
" 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.
The proof of God is that man is capable of love.
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?
Please! You do it out of compassion. No? Then why do you give your life for another?
Syemantics!
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?
" and has been explained, under an evolutionary paradigm". The what??
Where?
Having troubles with English?QuoteEvolution 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!QuoteI'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?QuoteYou went back to reciprocal altruism several times,
Yes, a well substantiated phenomenon which explains why groups help each other, sometimes sacrificing their lives.Quotewent 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.Quoteand 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.htmlQuoteWhat 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.QuoteA "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?QuoteAgain, 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?QuoteIt'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!
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 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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
Now I'm really getting bored!!
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
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:QuoteAlso 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.
Now I'm really getting bored!!
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.
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?QuoteScience 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.
What does reciprocity mean?
So you didn't bother reading anything.QuoteGeeze! 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.QuoteAnd I'm way past any concern about spelling at this point.
Clearly.
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.
Is compassionate Love a trade??
I read it!
You're not giving anything. Reciprocity altruism IS NOT LOVE!!!
R
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.
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!
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.
It may very well, but science can only give us the action/reaction not the benefit.
"So in your opinion the small pox vaccine does not benefit the health of people?"
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?
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.
It may very well, but science can only give us the action/reaction not the benefit.
"So in your opinion the small pox vaccine does not benefit the health of people?"
R
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?
If you agree reciprocal altruism is not love than how is it pertinent to the facts I posed to support my hypothesis?
Because:
QuoteLove 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?*QuoteAbsolutely 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.
QEDQuoteYou're dead! Not possible!It may very well, but science can only give us the action/reaction not the benefit.
"So in your opinion the small pox vaccine does not benefit the health of people?"
Yes it can give you the benefit. The benefit of life.QuoteIt can't make that determination. You take a vaccine, science can only tell you the reaction.
Absolutely not! There is no group, you're dying to save a loved one!
You're dead! Not possible!
It can't make that determination. You take a vaccine, science can only tell you the reaction.
Absolutely not! There is no group, you're dying to save a loved one!
The group continues on without the dead member.QuoteYou're dead! Not possible!
It absolutely increases the groups ability to survive.QuoteIt 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!!
Quoteand the earth is dead flat!!
Nope.
Nope.
and the earth is dead flat!!
Nope.
Nope.
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.
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.
look at the words - Ath-AuthI 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-AuthI 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?
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.
Do you think everyone surrounding you are stupid ?look at the words - Ath-AuthI 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?
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 ?look at the words - Ath-AuthI 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?
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)
relegere is religion ? where is the N come from ? what is this r in the end ?
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?
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:QuoteSo 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.QuoteIf 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.QuoteIf 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.
What does reading the classics have to do with intelligence? Ignorance =! Stupidity
Didn't we defeat you like She-Ra defeats Hordak?
Didn't we defeat you like She-Ra defeats Hordak?
Didn't we defeat you like She-Ra defeats Hordak?
I gave you facts that none of you refuted.
R
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:QuoteSo 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.QuoteIf 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.QuoteIf 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.
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 facts that none of you refuted.
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
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.
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.
And I'm still waiting for what intelligence means to you.
Some combination of knowledge, ability to understand complicated systems, and emotional maturity.^
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.
Nobody is arguing that love isn't a thing, just its root cause
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.
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.QuoteStatement2:
...
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.QuoteAnd I'm still waiting for what intelligence means to you.
....... third time's a charm?
|
|
VSome 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.QuoteYou 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-GlenlivetNobody is arguing that love isn't a thing, just its root causeQuote from: TotesNotReptilianLike 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."
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!
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.
"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!
Intelligence:
The ability to constructively resolve ones problems.
"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!
"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.
Hey look Robaroni still doesn't understand how reciprocity works!
"A system of denial is no system at all"
-Rama Set
"A system of denial is no system at all"
-Rama Set
That's a self contradictory statement. Brilliant!
R
"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.
To prove my original premise I only needed this statement from you: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.
"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.
"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
"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
To prove my original premise I only needed this statement from you: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.
"Yes, I suspect I am more intelligent than certain people. I suspect certain people are stupid." (In the context and order you stated)
Whatever. Yes, I suspect I am smarter than some people. I suspect some people are not particularly smart. What's the issue?QuoteI 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.
This discussion appears to have taken a turn for the autistic.
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.
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.
Give me the science showing that man will die if he doesn't love.(?)
Quote from: Robi the BotGive 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.
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.QuoteAgain, 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.QuoteGive 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.QuoteYou 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.
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!
[/quote]
It's not an impulse, an impulse is instinctive.
I know, that is why I chose the word.QuoteYou 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.QuoteAnd 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
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.
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.QuoteAnd 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.QuoteSomeone 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.QuoteTurning 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.QuoteYou'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.
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?
Go look at my original statement.
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.
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?
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.QuoteAgain, 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.QuoteGive 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.QuoteYou 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
Tribe Omega: One person jumps on the lion.
Oh, I get it!
You can read hearts, minds and souls!
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?
Tribe A: members have the "sacrificial love" character trait.How do you know that?
Tribe B: members don't have "sacrificial love" character trait.How do you know that?
Tribe B: Every man for himself.How do you know that?
Tribe A: One person jumps on the lion.You have no idea why.
You are full of shit with your shitty hypotheticals.
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)
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!
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.QuoteAgain, 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.QuoteGive 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.QuoteYou 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?
Try reasoned debate, you may learn something.There is no debate.
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
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?
Wow, there is no point presenting Robaroni with facts and evidence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.QuoteWe 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.QuoteWhy 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.QuoteNo, 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?
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?
"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!
That is NOT what evolution dictates. Please see my "story times" for an illustration of how evolution can promote self sacrifice.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.QuoteRama:
"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?
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
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.QuoteRama:
"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
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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)
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.
Bullshit! (http://www.vislab.ucl.ac.uk/pdf/NeuralBasisOfLove.pdf)[/color][/b]
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
'
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.)
"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?)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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation
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.)
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.)
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.
"Stupidity doesn't either, what's your point?" I made my point. You're the one who can't seem to make a point.
Loving and being loved is the core of human existence.
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.
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."
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
"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.
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, ...
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
"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.
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.Quotehttps://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.
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.
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.
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".
"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
"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
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?"
We already went through fear, desire, anger, lust. Go back and reread it and stop with the nonsense.
""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.
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."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.
""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
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?QuoteWe 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.
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!
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
Good Lord... Love vs Robaroni. It's the poorly-formatted-tangled-up-quotes apocalypse! Also, this thread may never end...
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.
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.
I don't feel diminished at all. Quite the opposite. I really don't know how to use this format.
[quote]
[quote]
This is a quote within a quote.
[/quote]
This is a quote.
[/quote]
This is not in a quote
QuoteThis is a quote within a quote.This is a quote.
It's for the children.
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.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.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... :)
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.
Heh, and?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.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... :)
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... :)
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
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... :)
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... :)
I have no problem with atheists except;Statistics say that 85% of statistics are made up on the spot. See what I did there?
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.
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!
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
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.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... :)
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... :)
, it's wise to choose the "IFs" that can give you at least one life more... :)
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.