Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #180 on: July 17, 2016, 10:30:50 AM »
Intelligence:

The ability to constructively resolve ones problems.

Is this supposed to be the correct answer or something? It's a decent definition, but I don't really like tying intelligence to the ability to act.

Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #181 on: July 17, 2016, 10:55:38 AM »
"This is from Statement 2 from above. Not Statement 1. Your following reasoning is invalid because you tangled up my quotes."


I tangled up your quotes?

I took your statements and analyzed them. You made those specific statements, the order is not important. You believe you are "more intelligent" than some people. Period!

Wow. This explains a lot. No wonder you seem to misunderstand almost everything we say. Time for a remedial reading comprehension course. Let's look at the following sentence:

(A implies B) and (C implies D).

You can indeed rearrange parts of this sentence without changing its meaning. For example, this has the same meaning:

(C implies D) and (A implies B).

However, you can NOT freely rearrange which statement implies which. For example, each of the following would be an invalid interpretation of the original sentence:

A implies D.

B implies A.

This is what you did to my original statements:

"Statement 1 does not imply I am intelligent." Was incorrectly rearranged to "Statement 2 does not imply I am intelligent".

I am not going to even bother responding to your following long post. You once again failed to understand most of what I said, and your responses are mostly not to the point. I will only say this: you keep saying that I still haven't provided an evolutionary explanation of your "facts", but I did. I provided a link to an earlier post of mine, and I recommended the peer reviewed papers that Rama provided.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2016, 11:02:29 AM by TotesNotReptilian »

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #182 on: July 17, 2016, 11:35:29 AM »
"This is from Statement 2 from above. Not Statement 1. Your following reasoning is invalid because you tangled up my quotes."


I tangled up your quotes?

I took your statements and analyzed them. You made those specific statements, the order is not important. You believe you are "more intelligent" than some people. Period!

Wow. This explains a lot. No wonder you seem to misunderstand almost everything we say. Time for a remedial reading comprehension course. Let's look at the following sentence:

(A implies B) and (C implies D).

You can indeed rearrange parts of this sentence without changing its meaning. For example, this has the same meaning:

(C implies D) and (A implies B).

However, you can NOT freely rearrange which statement implies which. For example, each of the following would be an invalid interpretation of the original sentence:

A implies D.

B implies A.

This is what you did to my original statements:

"Statement 1 does not imply I am intelligent." Was incorrectly rearranged to "Statement 2 does not imply I am intelligent".

I am not going to even bother responding to your following long post. You once again failed to understand most of what I said, and your responses are mostly not to the point. I will only say this: you keep saying that I still haven't provided an evolutionary explanation of your "facts", but I did. I provided a link to an earlier post of mine, and I recommended the peer reviewed papers that Rama provided.

To prove my original premise I only needed this statement from you:

"Yes, I suspect I am more intelligent than certain people. I suspect certain people are stupid." (In the context and order you stated)

I showed that Rama's papers and responses did not establish scientific justification for my facts.

R

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #183 on: July 17, 2016, 11:46:11 AM »
Hey look Robaroni still doesn't understand how reciprocity works!

I could use either system. I chose to use my own because I find it suits my debating skills better.

Some might ridicule that but in the end it is they whose lives merely exist on stale mediocrity of another's ideas and systems.

"You must create your own system or be enslaved by anothers"
William Blake

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5687
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #184 on: July 17, 2016, 12:48:46 PM »
"A system of denial is no system at all"

-Rama Set
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #185 on: July 17, 2016, 01:10:32 PM »
"A system of denial is no system at all"

-Rama Set

That's a self contradictory statement. Brilliant!

R

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5687
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #186 on: July 17, 2016, 01:43:11 PM »
"A system of denial is no system at all"

-Rama Set

That's a self contradictory statement. Brilliant!

R

You'll get it one day.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #187 on: July 17, 2016, 02:43:56 PM »
"A system of denial is no system at all"

-Rama Set

That's a self contradictory statement. Brilliant!

R

You'll get it one day.


What's wrong with your statement:

"A system of denial" is a system. a priori In your OPINION it is not a WORTHY system. But you didn't say that. I never said denial was a system, you established that premise. If you had said 'YOUR system, which is denial, is no system at all' it would not have been self contradictory.

You're assumption is that I'm in denial because I can't use the quote method of response. This goes along with your other OPINION that I don't need to sign my posts with "R" because my moniker already identifies me. Again, how I respond and the method I use to respond is my choice.

R



Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #188 on: July 17, 2016, 04:54:38 PM »
To prove my original premise I only needed this statement from you:

"Yes, I suspect I am more intelligent than certain people. I suspect certain people are stupid." (In the context and order you stated)
I have no earthly idea what your original premise was. You just started lambasting me for a relatively simple and straightforward comment, using some rather perplexing logic to try to argue... something about my intelligence... I have no idea what.

Whatever. Yes, I suspect I am smarter than some people. I suspect some people are not particularly smart. What's the issue?

Quote
I showed that Rama's papers and responses did not establish scientific justification for my facts.

I only remember you repeatedly denying a connection between love and reciprocal altruism. Please just read the post I linked to. It demonstrates how love can be developed by evolution. It is fully compatible with your aforementioned "facts" about love. It is fully compatible with sacrificial love. It is fully compatible with love not being strictly necessary for survival.

Your argument depends on love arising from evolution to be completely implausible. As long as I can provide a plausible scenario, your argument has nothing to stand on.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5687
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #189 on: July 17, 2016, 06:14:05 PM »
"A system of denial is no system at all"

-Rama Set

That's a self contradictory statement. Brilliant!

R

You'll get it one day.


What's wrong with your statement:

"A system of denial" is a system. a priori In your OPINION it is not a WORTHY system. But you didn't say that. I never said denial was a system, you established that premise. If you had said 'YOUR system, which is denial, is no system at all' it would not have been self contradictory.

You're assumption is that I'm in denial because I can't use the quote method of response. This goes along with your other OPINION that I don't need to sign my posts with "R" because my moniker already identifies me. Again, how I respond and the method I use to respond is my choice.

R

Nope
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #190 on: July 17, 2016, 11:40:17 PM »
"A system of denial is no system at all"

-Rama Set

That's a self contradictory statement. Brilliant!

R

You'll get it one day.


What's wrong with your statement:

"A system of denial" is a system. a priori In your OPINION it is not a WORTHY system. But you didn't say that. I never said denial was a system, you established that premise. If you had said 'YOUR system, which is denial, is no system at all' it would not have been self contradictory.

You're assumption is that I'm in denial because I can't use the quote method of response. This goes along with your other OPINION that I don't need to sign my posts with "R" because my moniker already identifies me. Again, how I respond and the method I use to respond is my choice.

R

Nope

OK let me give it to you in baby steps:

If you say 'denial is no system at all' your are not contradictory.

If you say, as you did, "a system of denial is no system at all" you are contradictory. You have already declared denial a system, then declared it isn't.

To simply say "nope" is not an valid response and does not in any way address your contradiction. It is at best intellectual bankruptcy!

Maybe "one day you'll get it" but after debating you I have my doubts.

R

George

Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #191 on: July 17, 2016, 11:59:43 PM »
This discussion appears to have taken a turn for the autistic.

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #192 on: July 18, 2016, 12:07:16 AM »
To prove my original premise I only needed this statement from you:

"Yes, I suspect I am more intelligent than certain people. I suspect certain people are stupid." (In the context and order you stated)
I have no earthly idea what your original premise was. You just started lambasting me for a relatively simple and straightforward comment, using some rather perplexing logic to try to argue... something about my intelligence... I have no idea what.

Whatever. Yes, I suspect I am smarter than some people. I suspect some people are not particularly smart. What's the issue?

Quote
I showed that Rama's papers and responses did not establish scientific justification for my facts.

I only remember you repeatedly denying a connection between love and reciprocal altruism. Please just read the post I linked to. It demonstrates how love can be developed by evolution. It is fully compatible with your aforementioned "facts" about love. It is fully compatible with sacrificial love. It is fully compatible with love not being strictly necessary for survival.

Your argument depends on love arising from evolution to be completely implausible. As long as I can provide a plausible scenario, your argument has nothing to stand on.

Please, not again! I went through your hypothetical story, most of it is symbiotic. The last part assumes science can determine good!

ben·e·fi·cial
ˌbenəˈfiSH(ə)l/
adjective
favorable or advantageous; resulting in good.
"the beneficial effect on the economy"
synonyms:   advantageous, favorable, helpful, useful, of use, of benefit, of assistance, valuable, of value, profitable, rewarding, gainful
"ladybugs and other species beneficial to the garden"

Beneficial is a relative term, like good.

If I take this pill will it be beneficial? Science can tell us the theory behind the chemical reaction in our bodies but it can't tell us if the result is beneficial or good. That's a product of human subjectivity. I feel 'good' from the pills I took.

Again, Give me the science showing that man will die if he doesn't love.

Give me the science to justify dying to save my loved one. I'm dead, no benefit to me, no material me (no science, science deals in the material only) and no ability for science to judge if my action is good for the group. You keep looking to evolution for your answer, I don't care what science you use but you haven't answered anything really.

R


Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #193 on: July 18, 2016, 12:19:46 AM »
This discussion appears to have taken a turn for the autistic.

You haven't contributed one salient point to the discussion, again, do you have something, anything constructive to add? All I've seen so far is your frowning avatar. I don't know why people post pictures of themselves frowning, perhaps they think it makes them look serious or intelligent.
To me they just look like sad people with no direction or true joy in their lives. But that's just the perspective of someone who has found great joy in his life and smiles constantly.

R

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5687
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #194 on: July 18, 2016, 12:38:45 AM »
Holy moving the goalposts, Robaroni!  At no point have you been arguing that man needs love to survive. Wow.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #195 on: July 18, 2016, 02:06:25 AM »
These same arguments again? Whelp... 6th... time's a charm!

Please, not again! I went through your hypothetical story, most of it is symbiotic. The last part assumes science can determine good!

Beneficial is a relative term, like good.

If I take this pill will it be beneficial? Science can tell us the theory behind the chemical reaction in our bodies but it can't tell us if the result is beneficial or good. That's a product of human subjectivity. I feel 'good' from the pills I took.

This has nothing to do with anything subjective, or with what science can "know". If a trait (like love) results in more species with that trait surviving, then it is beneficial to the survival of the speciese as a whole. That's all there is to it. If a trait causes an individual to sacrifice himself so that his children can survive, then that trait causes that individual's genetics to be passed on. This really is not up for debate. It's evolution 101. If you still don't understand, read an intro to evolution book.

Quote
Again, Give me the science showing that man will die if he doesn't love.

No. That is not how evolution works. Whoever told you that a trait must be vital for survival for it to be promoted by evolution was lying to you. The trait only has to be slightly beneficial to the species as a whole. Again, not up for debate. Evolution 101. If you disagree, go read any intro to evolution book.

Quote
Give me the science to justify dying to save my loved one. I'm dead, no benefit to me, no material me (no science, science deals in the material only) and no ability for science to judge if my action is good for the group.

Clearly you don't have the slightest idea how evolution works. Seriously, just go read an intro to evolution book. Evolution doesn't care about the survival of an individual. It cares about the survival of the group as a whole. More survivors => more chance to pass on the group's genetics => more people with those genes. It is as simple as that. Sacrificing oneself for your tribe or your children allows THEM to pass on your genes for you.

Quote
You keep looking to evolution for your answer, I don't care what science you use but you haven't answered anything really.

No, I am not looking to evolution for any answers. I'm not even trying to prove that evolution is true. I am merely showing how it is plausible, which is enough to counter your original argument.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 02:22:10 AM by TotesNotReptilian »

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1486
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #196 on: July 18, 2016, 10:30:02 AM »
Quote from:  Robi the Bot
Give me the science showing that man will die if he doesn't love.
(?)

You have got to be being intentionally obtuse, or you are the “bot” that the Truth warned us was here.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 10:34:31 AM by Jura-Glenlivet »
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #197 on: July 18, 2016, 11:48:01 AM »
Quote from:  Robi the Bot
Give me the science showing that man will die if he doesn't love.
(?)

You have got to be being intentionally obtuse, or you are the “bot” that the Truth warned us was here.



If man does not eat and drink he will die. We can prove this scientifically. Again, man can eat, drink, procreate, socialize, etc. without love, so why does he universally seek it? Why do you personally yearn to be loved and what is more important to than loving and being loved?

I'm the bot? You're the one attempting to show that love is just another mechanism of survival.

You're the one with the emotionless frown on your face.

And I'm the one who believes compassion is man's raison d'etre.

So who's the bot?

R

Offline Robaroni

  • *
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #198 on: July 18, 2016, 12:17:19 PM »
These same arguments again? Whelp... 6th... time's a charm!

Please, not again! I went through your hypothetical story, most of it is symbiotic. The last part assumes science can determine good!

Beneficial is a relative term, like good.

If I take this pill will it be beneficial? Science can tell us the theory behind the chemical reaction in our bodies but it can't tell us if the result is beneficial or good. That's a product of human subjectivity. I feel 'good' from the pills I took.

This has nothing to do with anything subjective, or with what science can "know". If a trait (like love) results in more species with that trait surviving, then it is beneficial to the survival of the speciese as a whole. That's all there is to it. If a trait causes an individual to sacrifice himself so that his children can survive, then that trait causes that individual's genetics to be passed on. This really is not up for debate. It's evolution 101. If you still don't understand, read an intro to evolution book.

Quote
Again, Give me the science showing that man will die if he doesn't love.

No. That is not how evolution works. Whoever told you that a trait must be vital for survival for it to be promoted by evolution was lying to you. The trait only has to be slightly beneficial to the species as a whole. Again, not up for debate. Evolution 101. If you disagree, go read any intro to evolution book.

Quote
Give me the science to justify dying to save my loved one. I'm dead, no benefit to me, no material me (no science, science deals in the material only) and no ability for science to judge if my action is good for the group.

Clearly you don't have the slightest idea how evolution works. Seriously, just go read an intro to evolution book. Evolution doesn't care about the survival of an individual. It cares about the survival of the group as a whole. More survivors => more chance to pass on the group's genetics => more people with those genes. It is as simple as that. Sacrificing oneself for your tribe or your children allows THEM to pass on your genes for you.

Quote
You keep looking to evolution for your answer, I don't care what science you use but you haven't answered anything really.

No, I am not looking to evolution for any answers. I'm not even trying to prove that evolution is true. I am merely showing how it is plausible, which is enough to counter your original argument.

And Jura thinks I'm the robot!

Nonsense!
Your loved one is dying are you thinking about evolution, about group dynamics? Are you thinking if I let this weak loved one die I can have more healthier loved ones? No, are you instinctively following some esoteric science man can't explain? No, there's no instinct involved, we already went through this. You're contemplating - thinking!
Are you thinking that you will be dead and if you are an atheist that life will be completely over? Yes!

So where's the science to justify it?

R

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5687
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: What is the problem with Atheism?
« Reply #199 on: July 18, 2016, 12:37:05 PM »
Why would someone have to think through evolution to act on an impulse? I don't have to think through physiology to turn on a light.  I just do it.

You are making no sense now.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.