[Robaroni]

That's not what "science" says. The process of evolution tends to reward preservation of the species, but it doesn't necessarily instill an innate drive to preserve the species or self above all else.

T

Is math science? What's the probability of letting the child die and impregnating 100 women? 

Depends on your definition of science. I would say that math is a type of science. As for your second question... I have no earthly idea, and I have no idea why it is relevant.

"Science says" is a common phrase used by people who don't have the first clue what "science says". Just try to avoid it, please. Science has many definitions, but it isn't a force of nature. It doesn't tell people what to do, although people can act on knowledge gained through scientific pursuits.

"Innate drive"? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake, immediately you jump back. Is thought involved? No, the brain short circuits to the fear center. Now you look down and see it is only a stick, now we are thinking. Your child is dying are you functioning through an innate response. You're thinking my child is dying, I' m not interested in more offspring, I'm not interested in the gene pool theory or any other theory, I'm in the immediate, the reality of right now. I'm an atheist but I don't care that I believe I face an eternal void. The dying child isn't a scientific theory it's a reality that I'm confronted with.

I think you are confusing the word "innate" with "instinctual" "reflexive".

You want to give me a theory? You save your child because of a theory? No, you do everything you can to save you child out of complete and utter compassion. We all do. Loving and being loved is the core of human existence.

No, you don't save your child because of a theory. You save your child because most people have an innate desire to protect their children. They love their children. Evolution is just a theory that explains how this innate desire, or love, originated in our species.

in·nate
iˈnāt/Submit
adjective
inborn; natural.
"her innate capacity for organization"
synonyms:   inborn, inbred, inherent, indwelling, natural, intrinsic, instinctive, intuitive, unlearned;

Semantics. "Science says", nonsense, "we" more nonsense. Do you want to debate or do you want to skirt the issues and waste my time talking about sandwiches?

You have an innate desire to save your child? What's the source of that innate desire, the reason? We know the center of fear in the brain, is it out of fear? Your child is dying, you can give your heart at the expense of your own existence. What happened to self preservation? What happened to human thinking? You don't know your life will end? You absolutely know and the atheist also believe it's eternal. That's what you're thinking. Innate has nothing to do with it.

"Sonny, true love is the greatest thing in the world - except for a nice MLT - mutton, lettuce, and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomatoes are ripe. They're so perky, I love that."

And spare me the condescension and nonsense. Unless you're over 70, you're my junior. "True love"? What is true love, what's it's origin? Why do we need it, can't we function perfectly well without it? You're giving me a theory? Anything I can get from you I can get from a book, something someone else already thought of.

Again,everyone who loves you disavows ever loving you, what's your life worth? Why? You still eat, procreate and survive.

R

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Nobody is arguing that love isn't a thing, just its root cause, there are many cases of animals  defending their young in much the same way as you have described.
 
Is this love? We can't know, personally I believe it is, either way it has the same outcome, continuation of the line. The mother, father or wildebeest isn't thinking in those terms, it is following those in built drives that command it to put its life on the line for its child, for you god puts it there for me it's evolution.
But if love is proof of god why does the wildebeest who is only a bit player do it? Last I heard they don't get to go to heaven.

[Robaroni]

Nobody is arguing that love isn't a thing, just its root cause, there are many cases of animals  defending their young in much the same way as you have described.
 
Is this love? We can't know, personally I believe it is, either way it has the same outcome, continuation of the line. The mother, father or wildebeest isn't thinking in those terms, it is following those in built drives that command it to put its life on the line for its child, for you god puts it there for me it's evolution.
But if love is proof of god why does the wildebeest who is only a bit player do it? Last I heard they don't get to go to heaven.

We have enough trouble understanding homo sapiens, let's leave the animals out of it.

"Last I heard they don't get to go to heaven."

Who did you hear that from? Personally I don't believe in "heaven" but since you do maybe you could tell me about it.

R

[George]

You seem very angry about this for no apparent reason.

[Robaroni]

Did you see that "We" in my reply Totesnotreptilian? See definition 2 below.

Definition of we
1
:  I and the rest of a group that includes me :  you and I :  you and I and another or others :  I and another or others not including you —used as pronoun of the first person plural — compare i, our, ours, us
2
: Used by writers to keep an impersonal character

Get it now?

R

[Robaroni]

You seem very angry about this for no apparent reason.

Not in the least. Intense, yes sometimes, but not angry. Get angry at words on a page that reflect someone's opinion?

Do you have something constructive to add to the debate?
R

[Robaroni]

Nobody is arguing that love isn't a thing, just its root cause, there are many cases of animals  defending their young in much the same way as you have described.
 
Is this love? We can't know, personally I believe it is, either way it has the same outcome, continuation of the line. The mother, father or wildebeest isn't thinking in those terms, it is following those in built drives that command it to put its life on the line for its child, for you god puts it there for me it's evolution.
But if love is proof of god why does the wildebeest who is only a bit player do it? Last I heard they don't get to go to heaven.

I just took a second look at your post, you do make a lot of assumptions.

"The mother, father or wildebeest isn't thinking in those terms"

I have no idea what terms they're thinking in, enlighten me!

I have no idea what their concept of death is, enlighten me on that too.

Bit player? I have no idea whatsoever what their role is, if indeed they have one or their relationship to God, if indeed they have one of those.

You "think it is" love? What is love then? Maybe you should have a conversation with Totesnotreptilian, she knows all about "true love". (she's a little weak on vocabulary and grammar though so don't ask her about any of that hard stuff!)

R

[TotesNotReptilian]

"Innate drive"? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake, immediately you jump back. Is thought involved? No, the brain short circuits to the fear center. Now you look down and see it is only a stick, now we are thinking. Your child is dying are you functioning through an innate response. You're thinking my child is dying, I' m not interested in more offspring, I'm not interested in the gene pool theory or any other theory, I'm in the immediate, the reality of right now. I'm an atheist but I don't care that I believe I face an eternal void. The dying child isn't a scientific theory it's a reality that I'm confronted with.

I think you are confusing the word "innate" with "instinctual" "reflexive".

in·nate
iˈnāt/Submit
adjective
inborn; natural.
"her innate capacity for organization"
synonyms:   inborn, inbred, inherent, indwelling, natural, intrinsic, instinctive, intuitive, unlearned;

Please notice that I crossed out instinctual and replaced it with reflexive. I realized as soon as I posted it that instinctual was the wrong word. You were confusing innate with reflexive.

Semantics. "Science says", nonsense, "we" more nonsense. Do you want to debate or do you want to skirt the issues and waste my time talking about sandwiches?

Feel free to ignore the "science says" comment. It was merely a suggestion. Every time I hear that phrase, alarm bells go off in my head telling me that I am about to hear something stupid. It rarely fails.

As for the "we" comment...

Did you see that "We" in my reply Totesnotreptilian? See definition 2 below.

2: Used by writers to keep an impersonal character

Get it now?

Yes, I am aware of the various literary uses of the word "we". When you used the word "we", you seemed to be talking about humanity as a whole. Hence, my objection.

"Sonny, true love is the greatest thing in the world - except for a nice MLT - mutton, lettuce, and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomatoes are ripe. They're so perky, I love that."

And spare me the condescension and nonsense. Unless you're over 70, you're my junior. "True love"? What is true love, what's it's origin? Why do we need it, can't we function perfectly well without it? You're giving me a theory? Anything I can get from you I can get from a book, something someone else already thought of.

No condescension intended. It's just a quote from a movie, The Princess Bride. Fantastic movie, highly recommended. The quote just fit too perfectly to pass up.

You have an innate desire to save your child? What's the source of that innate desire, the reason? We know the center of fear in the brain, is it out of fear? Your child is dying, you can give your heart at the expense of your own existence. What happened to self preservation? What happened to human thinking? You don't know your life will end? You absolutely know and the atheist also believe it's eternal. That's what you're thinking. Innate has nothing to do with it.

1. I don't know if anyone pinpointed a source love in the human brain. I am not sure why that is relevant though. The brain is extremely complex, and we really know very little about it.
2. I honestly have no idea where you are going with this "innate" argument. There are many things that factor into making a decision to sacrifice oneself for one's child. Self preservation, parental instincts, love. Evolution provides a reasonable explanation for the origin of all of them.

Again,everyone who loves you disavows ever loving you, what's your life worth? Why? You still eat, procreate and survive.

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.

Maybe you should have a conversation with Totesnotreptilian, she knows all about "true love". (she's a little weak on vocabulary and grammar though so don't ask her about any of that hard stuff!)

Eh?

[Robaroni]

Definition of instinct
1
:  a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>
2
a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
b :  behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

Please with this nonsense, I'm not confusing anything, what happens? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake. You jump back, is thought involved? No, sensory information goes right to the the amygdala, the center of fear in the brain.

I did ignore the "science says" and We? Just nitpicking, do you want to debate the issue or not?

The quote fit what perfectly? Are you having a debate with yourself??

Science has not pinpointed the source of human compassion in the brain. You can't say, well the brain is complex so human compassion is in there somewhere, maybe a nebulous mass in the rear integrative cortex or something. It has no value. I make a statement, man as a species yearns to love and be loved. Can he survive without it? Sure, he can have companionship, gather with others, procreate, eat, etc. So where is the justification for his compassion?  And not isolated but a drive that is intrinsic to the whole of humanity? So why do we love, what's the scientific justification for it ?(if you want to use science to disprove my premise that love is the spark of God in man) You have to show that compassion has a reason for existing in man. That's the question you have to answer, definitively. Talk to an analyst, what do we call the sociopath.... Godless.

Self preservation can't be an answer, we're dying to save our child, we're completely going against the science of man's drive for self preservation.
We give our life for parental instinct. What no thought involved? We went through this, thought is very much involved. We ponder that our existence will be eternal nothingness to save the weak of the flock, we know fully the consequences. It's not an instinct, we love someone deeply, the thought of their suffering is unbearable to us, our husband, wife, child, adopted child, whatever. Why do we do everything in our power to relieve their suffering to save them? Why do we jump in front of a moving train to save a strange child that has stayed onto the tracks? Why do we run into a battlefield to save a wounded comrade? Go to the aid of a stranger who falls down in  the street in front of us?

We have the center of fear in the brain and the justification for it. What's the opposite of fear? It's love. So what is love, what does it mean to love and be loved? You're saying no one is denying love, I'm asking why?

R

[TotesNotReptilian]

Definition of instinct
1
:  a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>
2
a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
b :  behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

Please with this nonsense, I'm not confusing anything, what happens? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake. You jump back, is thought involved? No, sensory information goes right to the the amygdala, the center of fear in the brain.

I did ignore the "science says" and We? Just nitpicking, do you want to debate the issue or not?

The quote fit what perfectly? Are you having a debate with yourself??

For the record, I object to some of the things you say here. However, they are somewhat of a tangent to the topic of conversation, so I'll just concede these points for now. Moving on...

Science has not pinpointed the source of human compassion in the brain. You can't say, well the brain is complex so human compassion is in there somewhere, maybe a nebulous mass in the rear integrative cortex or something.

You are correct. I cannot say for sure that love/compassion is "in there somewhere". Likewise, you can't say for sure that love/compassion is not "in there somewhere".

It has no value. I make a statement, man as a species yearns to love and be loved. Can he survive without it? Sure, he can have companionship, gather with others, procreate, eat, etc. So where is the justification for his compassion?  And not isolated but a drive that is intrinsic to the whole of humanity? So why do we love, what's the scientific justification for it ?(if you want to use science to disprove my premise that love is the spark of God in man) You have to show that compassion has a reason for existing in man. That's the question you have to answer, definitively. Talk to an analyst, what do we call the sociopath.... Godless.

If I understand correctly, your argument is this:

Love/compassion is not strictly necessary to survive. Therefore, love/compassion would not have developed under the evolutionary process.

Your incorrect assumption is that something must be necessary for survival for evolution to promote it. This is not true. For example, we do not need a pinky finger to survive. However, a pinky finger is beneficial to us. Therefore, people with pinky fingers generally get naturally selected for survival.

I think it is relatively self-evident that love/compassion is beneficial to people/animals that live within a social group. Especially love/compassion for one's child.

Please note that I am not trying to disprove that "love is the spark of God in man". All I am trying to show is that evolution is a reasonable explanation for the existence of love/compassion in humans.

Self preservation can't be an answer, we're dying to save our child, we're completely going against the science of man's drive for self preservation.

Science does not say that self-preservation is the most important drive. Where did you hear this?

We give our life for parental instinct. What no thought involved? We went through this, thought is very much involved.

No one is saying that no thought is involved. No one is claiming that love is a reflexive action.

We ponder that our existence will be eternal nothingness to save the weak of the flock, we know fully the consequences. It's not an instinct, we love someone deeply, the thought of their suffering is unbearable to us, our husband, wife, child, adopted child, whatever. Why do we do everything in our power to relieve their suffering to save them? Why do we jump in front of a moving train to save a strange child that has stayed onto the tracks? Why do we run into a battlefield to save a wounded comrade? Go to the aid of a stranger who falls down in  the street in front of us?

Love/compassion. Yes, we all agree that it exists. And evolution provides a valid explanation as to why it exists.

We have the center of fear in the brain and the justification for it. What's the opposite of fear? It's love. So what is love, what does it mean to love and be loved? You're saying no one is denying love, I'm asking why?

Why what? Why no one is denying love? Why would we? It is rather obvious that it exists.

[Venus]

Definition of instinct
1
:  a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>
2
a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
b :  behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

Please with this nonsense, I'm not confusing anything, what happens? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake. You jump back, is thought involved? No, sensory information goes right to the the amygdala, the center of fear in the brain.

I did ignore the "science says" and We? Just nitpicking, do you want to debate the issue or not?

The quote fit what perfectly? Are you having a debate with yourself??

Science has not pinpointed the source of human compassion in the brain. You can't say, well the brain is complex so human compassion is in there somewhere, maybe a nebulous mass in the rear integrative cortex or something. It has no value. I make a statement, man as a species yearns to love and be loved. Can he survive without it? Sure, he can have companionship, gather with others, procreate, eat, etc. So where is the justification for his compassion?  And not isolated but a drive that is intrinsic to the whole of humanity? So why do we love, what's the scientific justification for it ?(if you want to use science to disprove my premise that love is the spark of God in man) You have to show that compassion has a reason for existing in man. That's the question you have to answer, definitively. Talk to an analyst, what do we call the sociopath.... Godless.

Self preservation can't be an answer, we're dying to save our child, we're completely going against the science of man's drive for self preservation.
We give our life for parental instinct. What no thought involved? We went through this, thought is very much involved. We ponder that our existence will be eternal nothingness to save the weak of the flock, we know fully the consequences. It's not an instinct, we love someone deeply, the thought of their suffering is unbearable to us, our husband, wife, child, adopted child, whatever. Why do we do everything in our power to relieve their suffering to save them? Why do we jump in front of a moving train to save a strange child that has stayed onto the tracks? Why do we run into a battlefield to save a wounded comrade? Go to the aid of a stranger who falls down in  the street in front of us?

We have the center of fear in the brain and the justification for it. What's the opposite of fear? It's love. So what is love, what does it mean to love and be loved? You're saying no one is denying love, I'm asking why?

R

Read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins
Gods and Goddesses were created by man to explain the unexplainable ... science has come a long way since those times when rainbows, clouds, earthquakes etc and our own existence could not be explained.
Science still does not have all the answers, but it is better to say "we don't know yet" than to plug "God" into all of the gaps in our knowledge.

Religion is one of the worst things ever created by humans...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyHhAoxTXKI

[rabinoz]

Science still does not have all the answers, but it is better to say "we don't know yet" than to plug "God" into all of the gaps in our knowledge.

The last one out should have turned out the lights and locked the door!

Or maybe everyone's just asleep.

so ssh! post quietly or you might wake everybody up!

Guess they're all away on summer holidays!

[Robaroni]

Definition of instinct
1
:  a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>
2
a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
b :  behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

Please with this nonsense, I'm not confusing anything, what happens? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake. You jump back, is thought involved? No, sensory information goes right to the the amygdala, the center of fear in the brain.

I did ignore the "science says" and We? Just nitpicking, do you want to debate the issue or not?

The quote fit what perfectly? Are you having a debate with yourself??

Science has not pinpointed the source of human compassion in the brain. You can't say, well the brain is complex so human compassion is in there somewhere, maybe a nebulous mass in the rear integrative cortex or something. It has no value. I make a statement, man as a species yearns to love and be loved. Can he survive without it? Sure, he can have companionship, gather with others, procreate, eat, etc. So where is the justification for his compassion?  And not isolated but a drive that is intrinsic to the whole of humanity? So why do we love, what's the scientific justification for it ?(if you want to use science to disprove my premise that love is the spark of God in man) You have to show that compassion has a reason for existing in man. That's the question you have to answer, definitively. Talk to an analyst, what do we call the sociopath.... Godless.

Self preservation can't be an answer, we're dying to save our child, we're completely going against the science of man's drive for self preservation.
We give our life for parental instinct. What no thought involved? We went through this, thought is very much involved. We ponder that our existence will be eternal nothingness to save the weak of the flock, we know fully the consequences. It's not an instinct, we love someone deeply, the thought of their suffering is unbearable to us, our husband, wife, child, adopted child, whatever. Why do we do everything in our power to relieve their suffering to save them? Why do we jump in front of a moving train to save a strange child that has stayed onto the tracks? Why do we run into a battlefield to save a wounded comrade? Go to the aid of a stranger who falls down in  the street in front of us?

We have the center of fear in the brain and the justification for it. What's the opposite of fear? It's love. So what is love, what does it mean to love and be loved? You're saying no one is denying love, I'm asking why?

R

Read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins
Gods and Goddesses were created by man to explain the unexplainable ... science has come a long way since those times when rainbows, clouds, earthquakes etc and our own existence could not be explained.
Science still does not have all the answers, but it is better to say "we don't know yet" than to plug "God" into all of the gaps in our knowledge.

Religion is one of the worst things ever created by humans...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyHhAoxTXKI

Look, I'm making an observation, I'm not "plugging" God into anything, the observation is that man universally seeks to love and be loved. We give our life to save our dying loved one. There's nothing selfish about it! It's an observation, Newton's apple falling from the tree.

So give me the science behind it.

Did I say anything about religion? We're not talking about the divisiveness of socialized religions, the dichotomy of heaven and hell, monotheistic, anthropomorphic Gods or any of that other nonsense. Is God the frailties and misinterpretations of Christianity?

You say in one breathe science doesn't have all the answers and in the next you want to give me a book by Dawkins. So then does Dawkins have the answers? How about an original idea, how about thinking for yourself?

R

[Rama Set]

Sacrificing oneself for the group gives the group a better chance at surviving.  To be prompted to do this we would need some sort of positive feedback to overcome the fear and doubt, and this comes in the form of love. 

[Robaroni]

Sacrificing oneself for the group gives the group a better chance at surviving.  To be prompted to do this we would need some sort of positive feedback to overcome the fear and doubt, and this comes in the form of love.

Is that what you're thinking when your loved one is dying, save the group? We're robots? I'm not thinking that at all. I'm seeing my suffering loved one that I can save at the expense of my own existence. There is no group, there's only Sartre's nothingness and I'm painfully aware of it. I'm not overcoming fear doubt or anything else, I'm dead!

"Comes in the form of love"? I'm still waiting for someone here to tell me what love is, how about you?

R

[Rama Set]

Sacrificing oneself for the group gives the group a better chance at surviving.  To be prompted to do this we would need some sort of positive feedback to overcome the fear and doubt, and this comes in the form of love.

Is that what you're thinking when your loved one is dying, save the group? We're robots? I'm not thinking that at all. I'm seeing my suffering loved one that I can save at the expense of my own existence. There is no group, there's only Sartre's nothingness and I'm painfully aware of it.

That's too bad. You will grow out of existential angst one day. I speculate that if I saw my son in imminent danger the desire to keep him safe would overwhelm instead of impotently staring in to the void.

I'm not overcoming fear doubt or anything else, I'm dead!

You overcome fear and doubt to act to save them, silly man.

"Comes in the form of love"? I'm still waiting for someone here to tell me what love is, how about you?

Before I attempt this, I need to know, do you have feelings? It's difficult to communicate the concept otherwise.

R
[/quote]

[Robaroni]

Sacrificing oneself for the group gives the group a better chance at surviving.  To be prompted to do this we would need some sort of positive feedback to overcome the fear and doubt, and this comes in the form of love.

Is that what you're thinking when your loved one is dying, save the group? We're robots? I'm not thinking that at all. I'm seeing my suffering loved one that I can save at the expense of my own existence. There is no group, there's only Sartre's nothingness and I'm painfully aware of it.

That's too bad. You will grow out of existential angst one day. I speculate that if I saw my son in imminent danger the desire to keep him safe would overwhelm instead of impotently staring in to the void.

I'm not overcoming fear doubt or anything else, I'm dead!

You overcome fear and doubt to act to save them, silly man.

"Comes in the form of love"? I'm still waiting for someone here to tell me what love is, how about you?

Before I attempt this, I need to know, do you have feelings? It's difficult to communicate the concept otherwise.

R

[/quote]

Your fear and doubt don't stop because you attempt to save the child, you save the child out of compassion. Is compassion fear? No. Is it doubt? No. And spare me your arrogance in the form of condescension. Arrogance, by the way, is fear, an attempt to act superior out of a fear of inadequacy and lack of self importance.

My feelings? You're not giving me your concept of compassion because you don't know if I have feelings? Rubbish! Do you want to debate or not? Don't waste my time, give your "concept" or stop responding to my posts.

R

[Rama Set]

I never said fear and doubt stopped, I said "overcome", there is a difference. Arrogance is not fear. It is not even a feeling. It is an attitude one adopts and yes, fear is something that can motivate it.

It is not rubbish. I would wager it is impossible to describe love to someone who does not know what emotions are. It is also not a waste of time to figure out what two people agree on before proceeding. That's ok though. I won't bother you anymore, please enjoy your edgy Satre-ness.

[Robaroni]

I never said fear and doubt stopped, I said "overcome", there is a difference. Arrogance is not fear. It is not even a feeling. It is an attitude one adopts and yes, fear is something that can motivate it.

It is not rubbish. I would wager it is impossible to describe love to someone who does not know what emotions are. It is also not a waste of time to figure out what two people agree on before proceeding. That's ok though. I won't bother you anymore, please enjoy your edgy Satre-ness.

It doesn't overcome anything, it's compassion.

We don't have to agree, it's about reason and logic. If it doesn't stand to reason it falls regardless who says it. Agreement is not an issue, the only thing we agree on is mutual respect and not attempting to be manipulative with phrases like "silly man".

Arrogance is the manifestation of ones fear, it is the resultant action. It shows that you personally feel inadequate with some aspect of your intelligence. life, appearance or whatever. It's a 'tell', you're telling me about yourself.

You're avoiding the question, you think that I'm missing that?  I can't relay my concept of compassion if you're not capable of comprehending it on some level. Nonsense, if I can't comprehend it, I'll question it and you can clarify it. Does your concept stand to reason, is it logical? That's all it needs to be, whether I'm capable of feelings or not is a non sequitur. It's a debate, it's about the validity and rationality of a response and I'll take that wager.

"please enjoy your edgy Satre-ness." More nonsense, learn how to formulate a constructive rational response.  And I'm not the one who believes in nothingness, that's the realm of atheism, not theism, you didn't even get that right. You didn't make one salient point, why did you waste my time?

R

[Rama Set]

I never said fear and doubt stopped, I said "overcome", there is a difference. Arrogance is not fear. It is not even a feeling. It is an attitude one adopts and yes, fear is something that can motivate it.

It is not rubbish. I would wager it is impossible to describe love to someone who does not know what emotions are. It is also not a waste of time to figure out what two people agree on before proceeding. That's ok though. I won't bother you anymore, please enjoy your edgy Satre-ness.

It doesn't overcome anything, it's compassion.

You can feel compassion and not act.  It takes more than the empathic connection to respond, in most cases, not all, of course.  Compassion is nothing more or less than the ability to identify, and empathize with the suffering of others.

We don't have to agree, it's about reason and logic. If it doesn't stand to reason it falls regardless who says it. Agreement is not an issue, the only thing we agree on is mutual respect and not attempting to be manipulative with phrases like "silly man".

Agreement on the scope and nature of a topic is of course important.  To say otherwise is silly, hence my playful comment.

Arrogance is the a manifestation of ones fear, it is the a resultant action. It shows that you personally feel inadequate with some aspect of your intelligence. life, appearance or whatever. It's a 'tell', you're telling me about yourself.

You can different reactions to fear: arrogance, anger, panic, courage... all of these are reactions that prompted by fear.

You're avoiding the question, you think that I'm missing that?  I can't relay my concept of compassion if you're not capable of comprehending it on some level. Nonsense, if I can't comprehend it, I'll question it and you can clarify it. Does your concept stand to reason, is it logical? That's all it needs to be, whether I'm capable of feelings or not is a non sequitur. It's a debate, it's about the validity and rationality of a response and I'll take that wager.

I was just hoping to get common ground.  You don't care about that, so lets struggle through.

"please enjoy your edgy Satre-ness." More nonsense, learn how to formulate a constructive rational response.  And I'm not the one who believes in nothingness, that's the realm of atheism, not theism, you didn't even get that right. You didn't make one salient point, why did you waste my time?

Excuse me, but you are the one who said:

Is that what you're thinking when your loved one is dying, save the group? We're robots? I'm not thinking that at all. I'm seeing my suffering loved one that I can save at the expense of my own existence. There is no group, there's only Sartre's nothingness and I'm painfully aware of it. I'm not overcoming fear doubt or anything else, I'm dead!

Alrighty, here is a definition of love for you:

Love is an endorphin and oxytocin producing emotion that draws one individual to another and engenders desires to care for, copulate with, initmately engage with, offer protection to, cooperate with, fixate on, etc... the object of their love.  Please note this is  not an exclusive list.