[Jura-Glenlivet]

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

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

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

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

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

(T.N.Reptilian is a sweety)

[TotesNotReptilian]

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.

"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.

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

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

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

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

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

[Robaroni]

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.

"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.

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

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

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

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

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

Ignoring per your request.
R

[Robaroni]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See 2 above.

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

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

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

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

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

R

[Robaroni]

I'm running out of time here. I'll try to respond to the last few post but won't have time for much more.

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

R

[juner]

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.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

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.

[Robaroni]

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

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

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

If you don't need science, what is your reasoning?
R

[Robaroni]

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

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

You'll get a response from , I'm juggling several things at the moment.
R

[Robaroni]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R

[Robaroni]

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

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

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

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

R

[juner]

...why do you die to save your loved one?

Because they are a loved one.

[Robaroni]

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

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

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

"for me it's evolution."

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

Anthropomorphism, great word!

R

[Robaroni]

...why do you die to save your loved one?

Because they are a loved one.

Exactly! but what's the science?
R

[Rama Set]

...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.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

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. 

[Robaroni]

...why do you die to save your loved one?

Because they are a loved one.

Exactly! but what's the science?
R

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

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

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

[Rama Set]

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:

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

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

[Robaroni]

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Robaroni]

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

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

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

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

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

R