Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #120 on: July 08, 2016, 06:07:19 PM »
These people got medals, but giving a life to save another is common. To prove the phenomena we only need to show that there are individuals willing to do it. I have personally risked my life to save another. I understood completely that my life was in danger and I very well could die.

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

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

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

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #121 on: July 08, 2016, 06:15:07 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #122 on: July 08, 2016, 06:19:22 PM »
Some may be unwilling but this does not dismiss the fact that giving ones life is not uncommon. In fact you may very well be willing. The fact stands.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a FACT!
R

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

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

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #123 on: July 08, 2016, 06:23:40 PM »
These people got medals, but giving a life to save another is common. To prove the phenomena we only need to show that there are individuals willing to do it. I have personally risked my life to save another. I understood completely that my life was in danger and I very well could die.

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

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

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

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

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

Rama Set

Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #124 on: July 08, 2016, 06:31:29 PM »
" and has been explained, under an evolutionary paradigm". The what??
 Where?

Having troubles with English?

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

You have been! 

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

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

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

So which is it? 

Quote
You went back to reciprocal altruism several times,

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

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

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

Quote
and brought in endorphins and oxycotin.

Yes and yes.

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

Quote
What are you going to cut and paste next?

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


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

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

Syemantics!

Fixed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #125 on: July 08, 2016, 06:47:24 PM »
" and has been explained, under an evolutionary paradigm". The what??
 Where?

Having troubles with English?

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

You have been! 

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

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

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

So which is it? 

Quote
You went back to reciprocal altruism several times,

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

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

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

Quote
and brought in endorphins and oxycotin.

Yes and yes.

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

Quote
What are you going to cut and paste next?

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


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

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

Syemantics!

Fixed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're dead, what's the future benefit reciprocal altruism promises! Absolutely rediculous, over and over the same ground!
R
« Last Edit: July 08, 2016, 06:50:02 PM by Robaroni »

Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #126 on: July 08, 2016, 06:47:57 PM »
Evolution hasn't explain the facts, you have not established that, no one here has, saying so doesn't change that! People here talking about baldness and fingers. Give me something to work with!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit:

I would like to add, that once the Hoomans start grouping up into tribes, none of these traits has to be directly beneficial to the individual. They just have to be beneficial to the tribe as a whole. Sacrificial love is obviously not beneficial to the survival of the individual, but it can definitely be beneficial to the tribe as a whole. Therefore, the tribes with a "sacrificial love trait" tend to do better than the tribes without it, and the "sacrificial love trait" gets passed on by those tribes.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2016, 07:00:09 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

Rama Set

Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #127 on: July 08, 2016, 07:00:24 PM »

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

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

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

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

Source? 

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

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

EDIT: Removed unnecessary quotes and fixed spelling.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2016, 07:11:38 PM by Rama Set »

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #128 on: July 08, 2016, 07:07:22 PM »
Evolution hasn't explain the facts, you have not established that, no one here has, saying so doesn't change that! People here talking about baldness and fingers. Give me something to work with!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


"The desire to fiercely protect fellow tribe members."

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

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

No compassion required - reciprocal altruism

"The desire to stay with the tribe."

No compassion required. Safety in numbers.

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

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

R

Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #129 on: July 08, 2016, 07:10:15 PM »
Am I dying to save the individual in pain? Where's the evolutionary justification for giving my life and the evolutionary benefit for me?R

Please read my edit. There does not need to be an individual benefit to have "evolutionary justification". This is the key to why everything you have said is wrong.

Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #130 on: July 08, 2016, 07:12:27 PM »
For your convenience, here is my edit:

Edit:

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

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #131 on: July 08, 2016, 07:12:37 PM »


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

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

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

Now I'm really getting bored!!
R

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #132 on: July 08, 2016, 07:15:13 PM »
For your convenience, here is my edit:

Edit:

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

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

Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #133 on: July 08, 2016, 07:18:21 PM »
For your convenience, here is my edit:

Edit:

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

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

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

Rama Set

Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #134 on: July 08, 2016, 07:28:27 PM »


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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
Now I'm really getting bored!!

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


Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #135 on: July 08, 2016, 07:45:58 PM »
For your convenience, here is my edit:

Edit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

R

Rama Set

Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #136 on: July 08, 2016, 07:49:54 PM »
Your sickly child is dying and you can save him by giving your life. Are you seriously thinking about the group dynamic? Of course not! It matters completely.

Do you know what it means to operate on instinct? 

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

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


What definition of good are you using now?  If you are trying to say that science cannot tell if something will benefit someone's chances at survival, then you must think medicine is all voodoo or inspired by a higher power.

I seriously think we are just getting trolled at this point.

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #137 on: July 08, 2016, 07:53:00 PM »


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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
Now I'm really getting bored!!

You are not being forced to post, so this is probably a lie.
[/quote]

What does reciprocity mean? Geeze! Quid pro quo. Is love a trade? I'll do this for you and you do that for me? How do you benefit when you're dead! How many times do i have to explain this!

And I'm way past any concern about spelling at this point.

R

Rama Set

Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #138 on: July 08, 2016, 07:55:53 PM »

What does reciprocity mean?

So you didn't bother reading anything. 
Quote
Geeze! Quid pro quo. Is love a trade? I'll do this for you and you do that for me? How do you benefit when you're dead! How many times do i have to explain this!

You probably should stop.  Explaining your limited semantic ideas of reciprocity, when there is very obvious and clear information that contradicts must be embarrassing for you.

Quote
And I'm way past any concern about spelling at this point.

Clearly.

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #139 on: July 08, 2016, 07:58:57 PM »
Your sickly child is dying and you can save him by giving your life. Are you seriously thinking about the group dynamic? Of course not! It matters completely.

Do you know what it means to operate on instinct? 

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

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


What definition of good are you using now?  If you are trying to say that science cannot tell if something will benefit someone's chances at survival, then you must think medicine is all voodoo or inspired by a higher power.

I seriously think we are just getting trolled at this point.

You take a pill, does science know that it will make you well? No, science only can give the perceived reaction to the pill. Science can not establish well or good, benefit, benefit to society, etc.
Science can not give absolutes. Will the pill fix the problem? Science can only give the chemical change.

R