Offline truth

  • *
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #160 on: July 14, 2016, 10:19:27 AM »
I am an atheist, and many flat-Earthers I have talked to get angry at me for it. What is wrong with Atheism? Do I REALLY need a religion to be moral? What If I don't agree with any religious moral principles (homosexuality, gender equality, etc.)?
Atheist - is Ath which stand for Authenticity and theist which stand for destroying authenticity.
Religion is Real- the reality lig-lag gion is the name for the world - reality delaying the world.

Ok, I am super curious now. Where do you get these definitions from?
look at the words - Ath-Auth
theist - I took from my language - st mean to divert, frankly this is enough for me because the Theis I don't what is it.

What is your native language? Turkish by any chance? There are many words that have similar sounds in English. Many of them are not related.

If you are going to just guess at word meanings by their sound, you will get many of the meanings wrong. Both of your above definitions are incorrect.

Theist and atheism come from the Greek word for God, "Theos".

Religion possibly comes from the Latin "relegere" (to re-read) or religare (rely, reliance)
Do you think everyone surrounding you are stupid ?

relegere is religion ? where is the N come from ? what is this r in the end ?

Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #161 on: July 14, 2016, 12:04:50 PM »
I am an atheist, and many flat-Earthers I have talked to get angry at me for it. What is wrong with Atheism? Do I REALLY need a religion to be moral? What If I don't agree with any religious moral principles (homosexuality, gender equality, etc.)?
Atheist - is Ath which stand for Authenticity and theist which stand for destroying authenticity.
Religion is Real- the reality lig-lag gion is the name for the world - reality delaying the world.

Ok, I am super curious now. Where do you get these definitions from?
look at the words - Ath-Auth
theist - I took from my language - st mean to divert, frankly this is enough for me because the Theis I don't what is it.

What is your native language? Turkish by any chance? There are many words that have similar sounds in English. Many of them are not related.

If you are going to just guess at word meanings by their sound, you will get many of the meanings wrong. Both of your above definitions are incorrect.

Theist and atheism come from the Greek word for God, "Theos".

Religion possibly comes from the Latin "relegere" (to re-read) or religare (rely, reliance)
Do you think everyone surrounding you are stupid ?

relegere is religion ? where is the N come from ? what is this r in the end ?

No, I don't think everyone is stupid. I suspect some of them are though. I won't name any names.

Religion comes from the Latin word religionem, with the same meaning. Relegere and religare are possible ancient Latin origins for the word.

My information comes from www.etymonline.com. It uses information from these sources. These are people that spend time studying the history of words. They are not just guessing.

You, on the other hand, are just guessing.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2016, 12:33:38 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #162 on: July 14, 2016, 02:26:54 PM »
TNR:
"No, I don't think everyone is stupid. I suspect some of them are though. I won't name any names."

To imply that someone is "stupid" or to not "think that everyone is stupid" is to imply that 'I'm intelligent' because, really, to differentiate one must at the least know what it means to be smart.

So can we deduce for your statement that you've read the great literature of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Camus, Balzac, etc? Plato, the philosophy of Kierkegaard? If I asked you to give me an algorithm to determine all the prime numbers over 10 million, you would be able to do that, right? if I asked you about Fast Fourier and Laplace transforms, beam stress analysis or angular velocity you would know exactly what I was talking about, right?  Programming embedded microcontrollers? Because any discussion of the earth would mean that an individual would hopefully have a broad in depth understanding of science. So what is your science background? What are your degrees in, because you know what smart is and you're on a forum that discusses science.

If I asked you, again since you claim to know what stupid is, what it means to be intelligent, what would you say?

R
« Last Edit: July 14, 2016, 02:44:21 PM by Robaroni »

Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #163 on: July 14, 2016, 04:05:09 PM »
Wow, that is quite a few assumptions based on a rather simple statement. Let's explore them, shall we?

TNR:
"No, I don't think everyone is stupid. I suspect some of them are though. I won't name any names."

To imply that someone is "stupid" or to not "think that everyone is stupid" is to imply that 'I'm intelligent' because, really, to differentiate one must at the least know what it means to be smart.

Statement 1: "I don't think everyone is stupid".
This statement implies nothing about my own intelligence, except for what one can infer based on its accuracy, or lack thereof. For purposes of this discussion, I will define stupid as "well below average intelligence". My statement was either false (everyone is stupid), or true (someone isn't stupid). Please note that it only takes the existence of a single non-stupid person to make my statement true, regardless of my own intelligence. By my definition of stupid, it is logically impossible for everyone to be stupid. There must be someone above average for there to be people below average.

Statement 2: "I suspect some of them are though"
Notice the key word "suspect". I specifically included this uncertainty because I did NOT want to make any certain statements about my own intelligence.

So no, neither of these statements implied that I am intelligent. Now, on to your "deductions", and your oddly specific criteria for intelligence:

Quote
So can we deduce for your statement that you've read the great literature of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Camus, Balzac, etc? Plato, the philosophy of Kierkegaard?

Meh. Some of it. I'm not really a fan of philosophic literature.

Quote
If I asked you to give me an algorithm to determine all the prime numbers over 10 million, you would be able to do that, right? if I asked you about Fast Fourier and Laplace transforms, beam stress analysis or angular velocity you would know exactly what I was talking about, right?  Programming embedded microcontrollers? Because any discussion of the earth would mean that an individual would hopefully have a broad in depth understanding of science. So what is your science background? What are your degrees in, because you know what smart is and you're on a forum that discusses science.

Yes to all, actually, although I'd have to brush up on a few things for some of them. As for my degree (if any), I would rather not say merely for privacy reasons. You are welcome to infer what you will.

Quote
If I asked you, again since you claim to know what stupid is, what it means to be intelligent, what would you say?

Some combination of knowledge, ability to understand complicated systems, and emotional maturity. Ask 10 psychologists and you will likely get 10 different answers.

On the other hand, I'll borrow from a common description of "love": I don't know exactly what intelligence is, but I can usually recognize when it isn't there.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2016, 04:06:55 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5682
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #164 on: July 14, 2016, 04:44:51 PM »
What does reading the classics have to do with intelligence?  Ignorance =! Stupidity
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #165 on: July 15, 2016, 11:41:35 AM »
Wow, that is quite a few assumptions based on a rather simple statement. Let's explore them, shall we?

TNR:
"No, I don't think everyone is stupid. I suspect some of them are though. I won't name any names."

To imply that someone is "stupid" or to not "think that everyone is stupid" is to imply that 'I'm intelligent' because I know the difference because stupid is a relative term.

Statement 1: "I don't think everyone is stupid".
This statement implies nothing about my own intelligence, except for what one can infer based on its accuracy, or lack thereof. For purposes of this discussion, I will define stupid as "well below average intelligence". My statement was either false (everyone is stupid), or true (someone isn't stupid). Please note that it only takes the existence of a single non-stupid person to make my statement true, regardless of my own intelligence. By my definition of stupid, it is logically impossible for everyone to be stupid. There must be someone above average for there to be people below average.

Statement 2: "I suspect some of them are though"
Notice the key word "suspect". I specifically included this uncertainty because I did NOT want to make any certain statements about my own intelligence.

So no, neither of these statements implied that I am intelligent. Now, on to your "deductions", and your oddly specific criteria for intelligence:

Quote
So can we deduce for your statement that you've read the great literature of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Camus, Balzac, etc? Plato, the philosophy of Kierkegaard?

Meh. Some of it. I'm not really a fan of philosophic literature.

Quote
If I asked you to give me an algorithm to determine all the prime numbers over 10 million, you would be able to do that, right? if I asked you about Fast Fourier and Laplace transforms, beam stress analysis or angular velocity you would know exactly what I was talking about, right?  Programming embedded microcontrollers? Because any discussion of the earth would mean that an individual would hopefully have a broad in depth understanding of science. So what is your science background? What are your degrees in, because you know what smart is and you're on a forum that discusses science.

Yes to all, actually, although I'd have to brush up on a few things for some of them. As for my degree (if any), I would rather not say merely for privacy reasons. You are welcome to infer what you will.

Quote
If I asked you, again since you claim to know what stupid is, what it means to be intelligent, what would you say?

Some combination of knowledge, ability to understand complicated systems, and emotional maturity. Ask 10 psychologists and you will likely get 10 different answers.

On the other hand, I'll borrow from a common description of "love": I don't know exactly what intelligence is, but I can usually recognize when it isn't there.

Not true. If someone says "I don't think everyone is stupid" they are making a judgement, an evaluation. "I won't name any names" is a specific evaluation of another individual as to their intelligence. Stupid is a relative term and a relative judgement, is someone who reads the classics intelligent? Maybe, maybe not. Is someone who can write complex algorithms and remember long series of numbers intelligent? Maybe, maybe not. That's education and it doesn't always indicate intelligence.

You'll "borrow from a common description of love" because all you can give me is what someone else thinks or says. I didn't ask you for someone else's perspective I asked what it means to be intelligent, after all you "suspect" certain individuals are stupid. Specifically what does it mean to be intelligent to YOU? If someone asks me that question I can tell them, without a book, without asking someone else.

I can get a book to tell me what intelligence and compassion are but to find out for myself requires introspection.

R

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #166 on: July 15, 2016, 11:45:35 AM »
What does reading the classics have to do with intelligence?  Ignorance =! Stupidity

Maybe nothing!
You get the same question, what does it mean to you to be intelligent? Is someone who can do complex math intelligent?

R
« Last Edit: July 15, 2016, 11:49:50 AM by Robaroni »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5682
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #167 on: July 15, 2016, 11:46:28 AM »
Didn't we defeat you like She-Ra defeats Hordak?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #168 on: July 15, 2016, 12:45:18 PM »
Didn't we defeat you like She-Ra defeats Hordak?

I gave you facts that none of you refuted. Oh, you gave me an essay from someone with no credentials, no PhD, no peer review and no follow up. Worse it didn't answer the questions in my hypothesis!

I said, reciprocal altruism was not love and that love was not a trade. You said give me a definition. I gave you a definition and you said, well that's a basic definition so you gave me another definition that said the same thing in different words.

I gave you a quote from Jiddu Krishnamurti who said "love is not a trade". You said, so you got some "guy" to agree with you, so I gave you a PhD from a peer reviewed journal saying exactly the same thing and you said you knew reciprocal altruism was not a love.

At that point I figured it was not longer worth debating your failed logic, laughed to myself and said "... and the world is dead flat!" The three of you all said "nope!". Really?? No kidding, I was being ironical!

What's really interesting is that you all jumped right in with "nope!" but when I asked what was more important than loving and being loved all I got was dead air. When I asked what would your life be worth if tomorrow everyone you loved disavowed ever loving you all I got was dead air!

So tomorrow everyone who thinks the world is flat decides it's not, how does your life change? That's rhetorical, it doesn't change, you've accomplished nothing. Never being loved again would change your life immensely but none of you have an answer for that!

What's wrong with this picture?

And by the way Krishnamurti, the "guy" you said I found to agree with me was considered one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th Century!

R

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #169 on: July 15, 2016, 12:52:17 PM »
Didn't we defeat you like She-Ra defeats Hordak?

Intelligence, you're making my point exactly!
R

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1486
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #170 on: July 15, 2016, 01:49:45 PM »
Didn't we defeat you like She-Ra defeats Hordak?

I gave you facts that none of you refuted.



R

Nope.
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #171 on: July 15, 2016, 03:46:45 PM »
Wow, that is quite a few assumptions based on a rather simple statement. Let's explore them, shall we?

TNR:
"No, I don't think everyone is stupid. I suspect some of them are though. I won't name any names."

To imply that someone is "stupid" or to not "think that everyone is stupid" is to imply that 'I'm intelligent' because I know the difference because stupid is a relative term.

Statement 1: "I don't think everyone is stupid".
This statement implies nothing about my own intelligence, except for what one can infer based on its accuracy, or lack thereof. For purposes of this discussion, I will define stupid as "well below average intelligence". My statement was either false (everyone is stupid), or true (someone isn't stupid). Please note that it only takes the existence of a single non-stupid person to make my statement true, regardless of my own intelligence. By my definition of stupid, it is logically impossible for everyone to be stupid. There must be someone above average for there to be people below average.

Statement 2: "I suspect some of them are though"
Notice the key word "suspect". I specifically included this uncertainty because I did NOT want to make any certain statements about my own intelligence.

So no, neither of these statements implied that I am intelligent. Now, on to your "deductions", and your oddly specific criteria for intelligence:

Quote
So can we deduce for your statement that you've read the great literature of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Camus, Balzac, etc? Plato, the philosophy of Kierkegaard?

Meh. Some of it. I'm not really a fan of philosophic literature.

Quote
If I asked you to give me an algorithm to determine all the prime numbers over 10 million, you would be able to do that, right? if I asked you about Fast Fourier and Laplace transforms, beam stress analysis or angular velocity you would know exactly what I was talking about, right?  Programming embedded microcontrollers? Because any discussion of the earth would mean that an individual would hopefully have a broad in depth understanding of science. So what is your science background? What are your degrees in, because you know what smart is and you're on a forum that discusses science.

Yes to all, actually, although I'd have to brush up on a few things for some of them. As for my degree (if any), I would rather not say merely for privacy reasons. You are welcome to infer what you will.

Quote
If I asked you, again since you claim to know what stupid is, what it means to be intelligent, what would you say?

Some combination of knowledge, ability to understand complicated systems, and emotional maturity. Ask 10 psychologists and you will likely get 10 different answers.

On the other hand, I'll borrow from a common description of "love": I don't know exactly what intelligence is, but I can usually recognize when it isn't there.

Not true. If someone says "I don't think everyone is stupid" they are making a judgement, an evaluation.

I specifically stated in my post exactly why this could not possibly be a judgement/evaluation of anyone. Please read the part labelled "Statement 1"

Quote
"I won't name any names" is a specific evaluation of another individual as to their intelligence.

No, it definitely isn't. It's a phrase that indicates my lack of desire/confidence to implicate anyone. The phrase before that was an evaluation of the intelligence of another individual. Please read the part labelled "Statement 2".

Quote
You'll "borrow from a common description of love" because all you can give me is what someone else thinks or says. I didn't ask you for someone else's perspective I asked what it means to be intelligent, after all you "suspect" certain individuals are stupid. Specifically what does it mean to be intelligent to YOU?

I gave you my definition in the preceding sentence. Please read the entirety of my post before lambasting me for what I did or did not say.

I strongly suspect you didn't even bother reading my post. (edit: my entire post. You clearly at least read bits and pieces.) Which brings us to this:

Quote
I gave you facts that none of you refuted.

We refuted everything you said. Most of it multiple times, because you seemed to ignore it all. Exactly like you seemed to ignore everything I said in my previous post.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2016, 03:50:17 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #172 on: July 15, 2016, 09:12:22 PM »

I read your statements, they're both wrong!

Statement 1:

Your statement indicates that you believe not everyone is stupid but some people are. 'I think everyone is stupid' would indicate that's what you thought and you would have said that.

IF you thought no one was stupid you would have said that. Neither of those statements was made by you, you believe not everyone is stupid but some people are. Example: 'Not everyone gets a prize.' This indicates that some individuals do get prizes, ergo some individuals are stupid.


Statement2:

"I suspect"

sus·pect
verb
səˈspekt/
1.
have an idea or impression of the existence, presence, or truth of (something) without certain proof.
"if you suspect a gas leak, do not turn on an electric light"
synonyms:   have a suspicion, have a feeling, feel, (be inclined to) think, fancy, reckon, guess, surmise, conjecture, conclude, have a hunch;

You are inclined to think, reckon, guess, conclude that some are stupid BUT you won't name those individuals. Clearly indicates that there are individuals you believe are stupid.

And I'm still waiting for what intelligence means to you.

"
We refuted everything you said. Most of it multiple times, because you seemed to ignore it all. Exactly like you seemed to ignore everything I said in my previous post."

You told me what was more important than loving and being loved? Several times? Than it should be easy for you to point me to one or two of those response in the debate.

Same response to you too Jura.

Saying "nope" doesn't make it true.

R

Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #173 on: July 15, 2016, 11:59:12 PM »
I read your statements, they're both wrong!

Statement 1:

Your statement indicates that you believe not everyone is stupid but some people are... you believe not everyone is stupid but some people are.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant and it is exactly what I said. Good job. However, you claimed that this statement implied that I thought I was intelligent. This is completely false. It is merely a logical inevitability, and implies absolutely nothing about my own intelligence.

Quote
Statement2:
...
You are inclined to think, reckon, guess, conclude that some are stupid BUT you won't name those individuals. Clearly indicates that there are individuals you believe are stupid.

Correct again!! Good job! Keep in mind the inherent uncertainty in the word "suspect". Yes, I suspect I am more intelligent than certain people. I suspect certain people are stupid. However, I am not certain. I specifically indicated this uncertainty because I did not want to make any certain claims about anyone's intelligence, including my own.

Also, please don't try to twist what I say by substituting in a bunch of synonyms. Not all synonyms have exactly the same meaning. All those words have slightly different connotations to them.

Quote
And I'm still waiting for what intelligence means to you.

....... third time's a charm?

|
|
V
Some combination of knowledge, ability to understand complicated systems, and emotional maturity.
^
|
|

Please don't make me start highlighting it with bright colors. One rabinoz is enough.

Quote
You told me what was more important than loving and being loved? Several times? Than it should be easy for you to point me to one or two of those response in the debate.

First of all, that's not a fact, it's an opinion. It was also completely irrelevant to the topic. This was pointed out to you several times.

Just from page 2 (I don't feel like reading the entire conversation again):

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet
Nobody is arguing that love isn't a thing, just its root cause

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian
Like Jura said, no one is arguing that love isn't important, or that it doesn't exist. I am merely stating that evolution provides a reasonable explanation for it's existence.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2016, 12:07:04 AM by TotesNotReptilian »

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #174 on: July 16, 2016, 03:00:57 PM »
I read your statements, they're both wrong!

Statement 1:

Your statement indicates that you believe not everyone is stupid but some people are... you believe not everyone is stupid but some people are.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant and it is exactly what I said. Good job. However, you claimed that this statement implied that I thought I was intelligent. This is completely false. It is merely a logical inevitability, and implies absolutely nothing about my own intelligence.

Quote
Statement2:
...
You are inclined to think, reckon, guess, conclude that some are stupid BUT you won't name those individuals. Clearly indicates that there are individuals you believe are stupid.

Correct again!! Good job! Keep in mind the inherent uncertainty in the word "suspect". Yes, I suspect I am more intelligent than certain people. I suspect certain people are stupid. However, I am not certain. I specifically indicated this uncertainty because I did not want to make any certain claims about anyone's intelligence, including my own.

Also, please don't try to twist what I say by substituting in a bunch of synonyms. Not all synonyms have exactly the same meaning. All those words have slightly different connotations to them.

Quote
And I'm still waiting for what intelligence means to you.

....... third time's a charm?

|
|
V
Some combination of knowledge, ability to understand complicated systems, and emotional maturity.
^
|
|

Please don't make me start highlighting it with bright colors. One rabinoz is enough.

Quote
You told me what was more important than loving and being loved? Several times? Than it should be easy for you to point me to one or two of those response in the debate.

First of all, that's not a fact, it's an opinion. It was also completely irrelevant to the topic. This was pointed out to you several times.

Just from page 2 (I don't feel like reading the entire conversation again):

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet
Nobody is arguing that love isn't a thing, just its root cause

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian
Like Jura said, no one is arguing that love isn't important, or that it doesn't exist. I am merely stating that evolution provides a reasonable explanation for it's existence.

"It is merely a logical inevitability, and implies absolutely nothing about my own intelligence"

Wrong, let's see why.

You suspect that: "I am more intelligent than certain people."

"More intelligent" establishes your belief that you have intelligence, you can not have "more" if you do not have any intelligence, a priori. The word "more" also establishes that you "suspect" a greater degree exists over others who you will not name.

And you just contradicted the statement above it.

So you are making statements about your own intelligence and comparing your intelligence to that of others. Which is what I've been saying all along!

TNR
Intelligence - "Some combination of knowledge, ability to understand complicated systems, and emotional maturity."

So if you have the "knowledge" of mathematics and the "ability" to apply it to complex computer algorithms but fall down your front steps every morning on the way to work because you can't tie your shoes correctly are you intelligent?

----------------------

R:
"You told me what was more important than loving and being loved? Several times? Than it should be easy for you to point me to one or two of those response in the debate."


TNR
"First of all, that's not a fact, it's an opinion. It was also completely irrelevant to the topic. This was pointed out to you several times."

No, it's not an opinion, it's a question.

The facts are :
1.That man universally seeks to love and be loved.

2.That we have an understanding of what death is but are still willing to give our life in exchange for our loved ones.

3.That man can survive without love.

Those are to facts I posted and the hypothesis was that something greater than man exists. Again and again, you can disagree with my hypothesis but you have to give SCIENTIFIC evidence explaining each fact. It is germane to the argument!

TNR:
"Like Jura said, no one is arguing that love isn't important, or that it doesn't exist. I am merely stating that evolution provides a reasonable explanation for it's existence."

No it doesn't, saying so doesn't change, no one has given any evolutionary justification for the facts I posted. Again, show me, Jura's opinion doesn't count.

Give me the science showing that man will die if he doesn't love. (number 3 above)

I asked what is more important to you than loving and being loved to impress on you the significance of love in man, from the beginning of recorded history by the way, but if you believe there is something more important to you then I'm all ears.

What is it?

R

Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #175 on: July 16, 2016, 05:00:40 PM »
"It is merely a logical inevitability, and implies absolutely nothing about my own intelligence"

Wrong, let's see why.

This statement was referring to Statement 1 from above. Not Statement 2.

Quote
You suspect that: "I am more intelligent than certain people."

This is from Statement 2 from above. Not Statement 1. Your following reasoning is invalid because you tangled up my quotes.

Quote
TNR
Intelligence - "Some combination of knowledge, ability to understand complicated systems, and emotional maturity."

So if you have the "knowledge" of mathematics and the "ability" to apply it to complex computer algorithms but fall down your front steps every morning on the way to work because you can't tie your shoes correctly are you intelligent?

You aren't going to get a precise definition from me. I doubt anyone can give you a precise definition that would allow you to unambiguously categorize everyone as intelligent or unintelligent. If I am comparing myself to someone else, I will use what knowledge of the other person that is available to me. It will not be an exact science. I recognize that my knowledge of others is incomplete and my knowledge of myself is both incomplete and biased. This is why I included the word "suspect".

Wow. Is this account of my statements acceptable to you, or is there more that you want to quibble about?

Quote
R:
"You told me what was more important than loving and being loved? Several times? Than it should be easy for you to point me to one or two of those response in the debate."


TNR
"First of all, that's not a fact, it's an opinion. It was also completely irrelevant to the topic. This was pointed out to you several times."

No, it's not an opinion, it's a question.

You asserted previously that love is the most important thing (or something like that). That is the opinion I was referring to.

Quote
The facts are :
1.That man universally seeks to love and be loved.

Opinion. Regardless, it is perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution, as has been shown.

Quote
2.That we have an understanding of what death is but are still willing to give our life in exchange for our loved ones.

Sometimes true, but not universally true. Also perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution, as has been shown.

Quote
3.That man can survive without love.

We agree on this one. Also perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution, as has been shown.

Quote
Those are to facts I posted and the hypothesis was that something greater than man exists. Again and again, you can disagree with my hypothesis but you have to give SCIENTIFIC evidence explaining each fact. It is germane to the argument!

How in the world are you making the connection between those "facts" and that hypothesis? All your "facts" are perfectly compatible with evolution. Therefore, your hypothesis doesn't follow.

I show how evolution is compatible with all those facts here. Rama also provided several links that described how those "facts" are compatible with evolution. The second two links were both peer-reviewed, as requested.

Quote
I asked what is more important to you than loving and being loved to impress on you the significance of love in man, from the beginning of recorded history by the way, but if you believe there is something more important to you then I'm all ears.

Basic sustenance: food, air, water. Basic level of safety.

Edit: And for the hundredth time, this is completely irrelevant. Evolution is completely compatible with love being super duper important. You have never given any reason as to why love being important is incompatible with evolution. I am absolutely perplexed why you keep bringing it up. Yes, love is important. I get it. I agree. It is irrelevant to this discussion.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2016, 05:09:37 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #176 on: July 16, 2016, 08:17:54 PM »
Intelligence:

The ability to constructively resolve ones problems.

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #177 on: July 16, 2016, 08:20:49 PM »



"This is from Statement 2 from above. Not Statement 1. Your following reasoning is invalid because you tangled up my quotes."


I tangled up your quotes?

I took your statements and analyzed them. You made those specific statements, the order is not important. You believe you are "more intelligent" than some people. Period!
« Last Edit: July 16, 2016, 08:24:04 PM by Robaroni »

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #178 on: July 16, 2016, 10:44:40 PM »
TNR:

"You asserted previously that love is the most important thing (or something like that). That is the opinion I was referring to."

I asked a specific question and  you claimed it was an opinion. Period! You can't give an erroneous answer to the question and then say I was referring to something else you said!

R
"1.That man universally seeks to love and be loved."

TNR
"Opinion. Regardless, it is perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution, as has been shown."

People from all nations love, seek mates to love, love their children, etc.? Yes of course they do, it's a UNIVERSAL fact!  Where's the evolutionary explanation? You never gave one.

R
"2.That we have an understanding of what death is but are still willing to give our life in exchange for our loved ones."

"Sometimes true, but not universally true. Also perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution, as has been shown."

Even if it were sometimes true it is significant because it shows that man is willing to give his life for compassion. I HAVE! He's giving something greater than the self for love. Are their records of people around the world giving their lives for loved ones? Yes, then it's universally true.
Evolution has no answer for dying for a loved one but if you think it does, prove it, no one here has so far.

R
"3.That man can survive without love. "

TNR
"We agree on this one. Also perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution, as has been shown."

You're making my point! The fact that man can survive without love dismisses evolutionary justification for a need to love. He can procreate, socialize, eat sleep, etc. but yet he universally seeks to love and be loved. Evolution? You just agreed man can survive without love, there is no evolution!

So, can you specifically live without love? If everyone you love disavows loving you what is your life worth? I know what my life is worth, nothing!

R
"I asked what is more important to you than loving and being loved to impress on you the significance of love in man, from the beginning of recorded history by the way, but if you believe there is something more important to you then I'm all ears. "

TNR
"Basic sustenance: food, air, water. Basic level of safety."

Yes, of course, basic Maslow! You're making my point, everything you just stated can be justified scientifically.

I'm asking about your well being.

Here's an example of what doctors say:

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/03/people-die-love.html
People die without love: Why I prescribe the love drug
PAMELA WIBLE, MD | PHYSICIAN
The antidote for hate, neglect, apathy, misery, even sorrow is love. No prescription pad needed. No risk of overdose Love is my preferred potion. I give patients heart-shaped balloons. And hugs. Yes, I even tell patients, “I love you.” Some leave with my kiss on their forehead.

You don’t need a medical degree to say, “I love you.” Just three simple words can heal more wounds than all the doctors in the world."


So I'm asking for the science that justifies my giving my life to save my loved one, not your biological need for water.

R

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5682
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #179 on: July 16, 2016, 11:44:17 PM »
Hey look Robaroni still doesn't understand how reciprocity works!
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.