[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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Read the whole paper.

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

Read it.

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

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

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

R

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

[Jura-Glenlivet]

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.

[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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the whole paper.

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

Read it.

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

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

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

R

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

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

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

Now read the quote you pasted above:

"it seems right to consider"

"This seems to be"

"it offers the possibility"

"the theory would explain"

more quotes from the essay:

"there seem no grounds for assuming"

"The conclusion perhaps is that"


IT'S AN ESSAY!

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

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

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

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

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

Rama Set:
"Atrium does not require science."

I have no idea what this statement means.

Rama Set:

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

R

[Rama Set]

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.

[Robaroni]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jura:

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

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

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

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

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

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

R

[Robaroni]

So a paper does not speak in absolutes, which is an honest position, and so you take away its credibility...

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

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

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

R

[Rama Set]

So what exactly are you looking for when you ask for a scientific answer?

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

How do you get "man seeks love and will give his life for a loved one" therefore God exists?  It is a total non sequitur.  We have already given one plausible answer which does not involve God: Reciprocal Altruism.  You have not said what is wrong with this idea and there are reams of papers on the topic.

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

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

[Robaroni]

So what exactly are you looking for when you ask for a scientific answer?

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

How do you get "man seeks love and will give his life for a loved one" therefore God exists?  It is a total non sequitur.  We have already given one plausible answer which does not involve God: Reciprocal Altruism.  You have not said what is wrong with this idea and there are reams of papers on the topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R

[Rama Set]

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

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

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

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

Love is not a trade! You die, you have nothing to trade. Science stops, science deals with the material world.

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

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

I did, your conclusion does not follow from the premises.  It is a non sequitur.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

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.

You 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.

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.

[Robaroni]

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.

You 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.

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

Fact:
Man seeks to love and be loved universally.

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

Fact:
Man can survive without compassionate love.


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

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

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

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

An essay written 25 years ago, not hardly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now that's berating!

God has to "guide you"? Why?
R

[Rama Set]

Fact:
Man seeks to love and be loved universally.

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

Fact:
Man can survive without compassionate love.


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

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

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

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

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

An essay written 25 years ago, not hardly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You didn't understand what he said.  He that he did not need God, which is different than a certitude, obviously.  You know, because it is part of your malformed argument above.  He also said that this came from having questions that a belief in God that did not answer.  Nothing there implies a certainty. 

[Jura-Glenlivet]

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?

[Robaroni]

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

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

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

Conclusion; Case not proven, is god bald?

" Man needs to reproduce and have safety in numbers"

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

" Some men not all."

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

" Man can survive without hair!"

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

R

[juner]

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.

[TotesNotReptilian]

" 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.

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

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

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

[Robaroni]

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

[Robaroni]

" 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

R

[Rama Set]

"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.

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)

[juner]

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.