Love

[The Night Owl]

You're correct.  I was talking about TNO's boring and boorish mocking of people of faith.

How is mocking religion any different from mocking say... liberalism?

[Chris_]

How is mocking religion any different from mocking say... liberalism?

I suppose that if you broadly define "liberalism" as a religion, the answer would be.........none.......

doc

[rubliw]

My reality ends when I end and nothing outside me can change that fact, ergo my desires are the only desires that matter.

I don't think there are any reasons for any action that arent essentially rooted in our own preferences, so we sort of agree.  But this is not fundamentally changed by the existence of an afterlife, or the likely possibility that our lives are only temporary, as you seem to suggest.  The fact that our reality ends, has nothing to do with it.  If our reality continued on for all time, our desires would still remain the only good reason we have to do anything at all.   

However, realizing that our own preferences are the only reasons for action that we have need not ential the amoral nihilism that you seem to adhere too.  Unless one is a true sociopath, one's own preferences will always include some concern for the welfare of at least a few other people, and may even compel one to be altruistic, philanthropic, and even self-sacrificing - these things will tickle electrons, as you say.

Judging from what you and TNO bring to the fight both you idiots together couldn't make a good argument for hot soup on a cold day.

Seriously? argumentum ad populum is the best you can bring?

Actually, I've put up several pretty clear refutations of your arguments as formulated, and spilled several hundred words on a brief sketches of my positions on various things, including meaning under atheism - most of which has been met with total silence.  

As it is, that particular bit wasnt an argument per se, but really just a wake up call, for one who seems to have begun and ended his entire philosophical enquiry with a couple paragraphs of Neitzsche.  You are hardly the last or best word on what the logical conclusions of atheism are - as such, your overtly emotional rants about the materialist universe (ironic, given that you at times seem to claim such emotions do not exist) are not something I, or any atheist, must feel rationally compelled to accept.  That is all.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

No, you haven't refuted anything. You only said that since you love the universe must be capable of love.

But my premise is that what you mistakenly call love is a biological happenstance of evolution.

I am challenging the denialism in the first place. Re-asserting the denial is not a refutation.

You are hardly the last or best word on what the logical conclusions of atheism...

Nothing I have presented can be scientifically refuted. If you want to posit that the particle-waves that comprise all matter and energy in the universe are capable of producing effects greater than their intrisic characteristics than it is you that should show the observed evidence/formula/calaculations for such things.

To claim one is guided by science but then surrender to such non-sensical ideas as a universe of "love" or "morality" or "justice" is absurd on its face.

your overtly emotional rants about the materialist universe (ironic, given that you at times seem to claim such emotions do not exist) are not something I, or any atheist, must feel rationally compelled to accept.  

I don't claim emotions do not exist. Psychological reactions to environmental stimuli do exist. Case in point a fight or flight response. But I do not call it cowardice, I call it fight or flight.

So too I call a "mother's love" what it really is: an evolutionary by-product for propagation. There is no romantic love, there is only a breeding instict. A child's love extends only so far as its dependency. "Charity" is a herd instinct. And so on.

You try to act all superior but then again you traffic in unsupported myths.

[thundley4]

So too I call a "mother's love" what it really is: an evolutionary by-product for propagation. There is no romantic love, there is only a breeding instict. A child's love extends only so far as its dependency. "Charity" is a herd instinct. And so on.

But what about feelings of love that can not in no way be connected to propagation or breeding instinct?  I have heard those two things used as excuses for philandering husbands time and again.

[The Night Owl]

I don't claim emotions do not exist. Psychological reactions to environmental stimuli do exist. Case in point a fight or flight response. But I do not call it cowardice, I call it fight or flight.

Oh?

"His cowardice will speak volumes for him."
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,33624.0/msg,355824.html

"Civilization was supposed to be a darwinian reflex to the need for survival and in it man grows accustomed to every vice: sloth, gluttony, cowardice, etc."
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,14876.msg178753.html#msg178753

"All they are doing is displaying their cowardice with acts of feigned bravado."
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,1607.0/msg,23566.html

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Congratulations. You've uncovered my deep-seated rhetorial flourishes.

Now if only you had facts to--after nearly 5 pages--to actually contest the OP.

Coward.

[The Night Owl]

Congratulations. You've uncovered my deep-seated rhetorial flourishes.

Now if only you had facts to--after nearly 5 pages--to actually contest the OP.

Coward.

I don't think I can top Wilbur but I can't resist challenges. So, here goes...

Earlier you made the following statement:

No thing can create anything that is not first inherent in its own being.

Untrue. Imagine a set of 2-sided triangles with no thickness. If the triangles are joined into a Möbius strip, they become a one-sided structure. That is, they become a structure with a property (one-sidedness) not found in any subset of triangles.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

And if a frog had wings...

 

[rubliw]

But my premise is that what you mistakenly call love is a biological happenstance of evolution.
I am challenging the denialism in the first place. Re-asserting the denial is not a refutation.

I have offered my opinion, that regardless of whether love is a happenstance of evolution, and/or is strictly a material process involving the collision of atoms, and/or mere undulations of “condensed particle waves”, it exists.  By mere fact of being one of those things, it exists.   To deny love exists then is to deny that such a material process exists.  I have argued that despite its natural origins and original evolutionary utility, it has value and meaning.

At this point, you just really need to elucidate on what you think love, in its incoherent form, is supposed to mean.  So far, all you have said on the matter is “If it were real it would involve choice” – pretty vague.  Its pretty obvious to me, that what you keep complaining about, is simply not what I hold love to be.  Your criticisms might hold true against some poet type with a wild imagination, but they simply don’t seem to apply to me.  We agree that love, like every other trait of living things, is a material process or thing which came about through evolution and natural selection.

Nothing I have presented can be scientifically refuted. If you want to posit that the particle-waves that comprise all matter and energy in the universe are capable of producing effects greater than their intrisic characteristics than it is you that should show the observed evidence/formula/calaculations for such things.

Why is love “greater” than?  Once again, you suspiciously smuggle in value judgments in your allegedly valueless worldview, where “greatness” must assuredly be right next to love in the fiction section.   Note, that “greater” is not something I have used in my brief explanations of love – its not something I am arguing for.  

And we’ve already agreed that love is some material process… in light of that fact, and by virtue of your reasoning, we must consider love an intrinsic property of matter.  After all, it happens through chemistry, just like an itch or a nerve impulse.

That aside, I also provided several trivial counter-examples of of “condensed particle waves” which have properties that their individual components lack.   Brains are not an intrinsic property of atoms.  Telling time is not an intrinsic property of the atoms of a watch.  These condensed particle waves have properties that atoms, quarks or gluons do not.   Emergent properties exist.

To claim one is guided by science but then surrender to such non-sensical ideas as a universe of "love" or "morality" or "justice" is absurd on its face.

I have never claimed to be guided entirely by science.  One must rely on intuition, philosophy, logic, reason, and rationality.  Science hasn’t the capacity to go everywhere, and where it cannot go we have to rely on other tools.

[The Night Owl]

At this point, you just really need to elucidate on what you think love, in its incoherent form, is supposed to mean.  So far, all you have said on the matter is “If it were real it would involve choice” – pretty vague.  Its pretty obvious to me, that what you keep complaining about, is simply not what I hold love to be.  Your criticisms might hold true against some poet type with a wild imagination, but they simply don’t seem to apply to me.  We agree that love, like every other trait of living things, is a material process or thing which came about through evolution and natural selection.

I have to say... who I thought of when I read the OP is William Shakespeare-- his star-crossed lovers and all that. Who I did not think of is Richard Dawkins.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I have never claimed to be guided entirely by science.

But others do.

One must rely on intuition, philosophy, logic, reason, and rationality.

And some unicorns and the tooth fairy and maybe an angel or two thrown in for good measure.

Science hasn’t the capacity to go everywhere, and where it cannot go we have to rely on other tools.

Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen. --Joooooooz 11:1

There's another one about motes and beams.




I'm trying to discern the difference between you boys and them christians. So far the only real difference I can find is:

* They subscribe to an extra-natural persona to account for the tides of history and unexplainable phenomenon.


In common the both of you feel the need to prosletyze but they are far less annoying because:

* it is consistent with their first assumptions and

* they at least offer a happy ending (not to be confused with the happy ending one can pay for at the corner of Colfax and Federal).


To date I have resisted their lures but you and TNO strain my electrons to such a degree I am compelled to report the occurrence as a headache to such a degree that I should throw in with them just to escape you.

[The Night Owl]

* they at least offer a happy ending (not to be confused with the happy ending one can pay for at the corner of Colfax and Federal).

Theists claim that their gods offer a happy ending but no one in all of human history has been able to conjure a compelling vision of that happy ending.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Theists claim that their gods offer a happy ending but no one in all of human history has been able to conjure a compelling vision of that happy ending.

Yes, well, as we have learned on numerous occassions elsewhere you've never been able to conjure a compelling vision of the crap you peddle but that fact has yet to shut you up.

[rubliw]

I was hoping you would get around to addressing the substance of my posts instead of more avoidance, but such is life.   I suppose I can indulge another red-herring.  

But others do.

Fine.  But they arent me.

I'm trying to discern the difference between you boys and them christians.

So far the only real difference I can find is:

* They subscribe to an extra-natural persona to account for the tides of history and unexplainable phenomenon.

Well, let me help you discern.  I reject Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, and the Bible as the word of God divinely revealed.  False prophet, false book, false religion.  Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus, that the Bible is the Word of God divinely revealed, original sin, eternal life, and on and on and on. There's at least a *minor* difference there.  I am sure of it.  

If you don't discern it… well, thats a personal failure on your part, not mine.  Though I suspect its less that you don't, and more that you won't - or haven't bothered to so inquire before jumping to conclusions.  The fact is, legion amounts of doctrine separate them from me.  

This is not to say the Bible or Christian doctrine is entirely without merit.  There is some redeemable stuff in there.  I certainly have many points of agreement with Christians too.  I have nothing against having things in common with them at all.  So it shouldn't be strange even if some of my beliefs are Christian-like, at least some of the time.  They can believe good things too.

Now from what I can tell, it seems that you believe that the negation of nihilism is as good as assenting to Christian theism, or at least very close to it.  I don't.  Its very possible to coherently believe that your nihilist position is false or absurd, while also believing Christian theism is false or absurd.   To go further, its also possible to coherently believe your nihilist position is false and absurd, while believing that naturalism is probably true.

I'll reiterate - I think its a good summary of my position to say that there is no meaning and purpose that we exist, but in existing, we gain meaning and purpose.  That purpose and meaning is not contingent upon the length of our lives - be they short, or be they eternal.  Its there in either case.

I also suspect that if one assents to some form of meaning and purpose for one of the two, one must then assent to the other.    So, if one claims that purpose and meaning is somehow inherent in eternal life, they must also assent to the proposition that it exists in a temporary life too.  You do seem to imply that eternal life would have some meaning and significance - so I think this shows your nihilism false.

In common the both of you feel the need to prosletyze

I do like to converse about and argue my beliefs, and the beliefs of others.  Guilty.  But apparently you do too (see this thread for exhibit A).  

but they are far less annoying because:

* it is consistent with their first assumptions and

You haven't done your part in defending your arguments as to why my brief outline of love - or any other portion of my worldview - are inconsistent with my "first assumptions".   I've offered what I think are compelling objections to your arguments.  They must be, because you still avoid answering them.  When you actually do, your answers seem to be little more than repetition of the points that I have rebutted.  Other answers have included total silence, and accusations of "being Christian-like".  And third-rate Hindu-like. And  Pantheist-like.  Any other theism you want to accuse me of?

* they at least offer a happy ending (not to be confused with the happy ending one can pay for at the corner of Colfax and Federal).

They offer a false ending.  

To date I have resisted their lures but you and TNO strain my electrons to such a degree I am compelled to report the occurrence as a headache to such a degree that I should throw in with them just to escape you.

It should be easy for you, because from what I can tell there is really only one point of disagreement you have with them: the existence of God.   Get that out of the way, and I bet you'll be right at home.  You dutifully play the part of the despairing nihilist of backyard Christian apologetics like such a virtuoso, that your whole persona really has a greasy feel like there is some apologist feverishly pulling the strings behind the scenes, in the throes of some bad character acting.  Take that how you like.. doesn't matter anyway, right?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Fine.  But they arent me.

I never was referring to you.

Kinda full of yourself, aren't you?

...there is no meaning and purpose that we exist, but in existing, we gain meaning and purpose...

 

What tripe.

And yes, I like christians better than I like you and in that I am unapologetic.

[The Night Owl]

Feel the love!

[rubliw]

What tripe.

Nice argument.....

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Nice argument.....

I concede there is no argument that can overcome your solipsism.

[rubliw]

I concede there is no argument that can overcome your solipsism.

Solipsism is the idea that one can only be sure that one's own mind exists, and that therefore, the belief in the existence of external things is unjustified.  I have not argued for solipsism at all, anywhere in this thread. 

[dutch508]

Solipsism is the idea that one can only be sure that one's own mind exists, and that therefore, the belief in the existence of external things is unjustified.  I have not argued for solipsism at all, anywhere in this thread. 

and I'm not that sure wilberrebliw has a brain.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Solipsism is the idea that one can only be sure that one's own mind exists, and that therefore, the belief in the existence of external things is unjustified.  I have not argued for solipsism at all, anywhere in this thread. 

"There is no meaning and purpose that we exist, but in existing, we gain meaning and purpose" is something that only exists in your head and in most everyone else's head your existence is pretty meaningless.

[rubliw]

"There is no meaning and purpose that we exist, but in existing, we gain meaning and purpose" is something that only exists in your head

It exists in my head as a belief, yes.  But more than that, I feel it is an empirical statement about the world.   Even if there were no minds that presently held this belief, I maintain that it would still be probably true.

and in most everyone else's head your existence is pretty meaningless.

I can't presume to know the mental life inside 'most everyone else's head'.  It could be that a majority of people would not say that my existence is meaningless.  

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

It exists in my head as a belief, yes.  But more than that, I feel it is an empirical statement about the world.   Even if there were no minds that presently held this belief, I maintain that it would still be probably true.

Stop.talking.to.the unicorns.

Seriously. First you admit meaningfulness only a belief in your head but then you try to claim it is "more than that" only to tell us what you "feel."

Empiricism isn't a subjective feeling it is an objective observation. This thread's topic is about observable facts not whether of not pickle-peanut butter sandwhiches give you the tummy squishies.

[rubliw]

Ah, the mood has struck again - I shall resume.

Stop.talking.to.the unicorns.

Seriously. First you admit meaningfulness only a belief in your head

I certainly didn't say "meaningfulness is only a belief inside my head", I also said it is an empirical fact about the world.  "The sun is round" exists as a belief inside my head - it is also an empirical fact about the world.   Roundness is a property of the sun, just like I would forward that meaning is a property of sentient minds.  Other properties will include forms of love, intelligence, emotions and purpose.

You seem very eager pounce upon certain things and this might be causing you to jump to conclusions, perhaps where you shouldn't.  I'm always happy to clarify my thoughts - you can be inquisitive without being accusatory and snide.  One might be inclined to think thats all you have.

but then you try to claim it is "more than that" only to tell us what you "feel."

I claimed meaning was more than a belief inside my head.  The "more" I was clearly referring too was not some ethereal, poetic sentiment, but that meaning is also an empirical fact about the world.  More specifically, its an empirical fact about minds, just like intelligence is an empirical fact about minds.

Empiricism isn't a subjective feeling it is an objective observation. This thread's topic is about observable facts not whether of not pickle-peanut butter sandwhiches give you the tummy squishies.

I do hate to break the bad news - but all empirical beliefs come to us by way of subjective sensory experience.  The set of all empirical beliefs you, me and everybody else hold, are facilitated entirely by subjective experience.  So quite frankly, your demands in the OP that we can never use the terms "I feel"/"I believe", etc don't make a lick of sense - I'm only calling you on it now, because I used one of your silly trigger words.  Not to mention, those terms are often used simply to indicate a level of uncertainty or open-mindedness - a willingness to debate or reconsider a belief - which is perfectly reasonable and acceptable, even when talking about what one currently believes to be empirically true.  

Furthermore, the lines of reasoning you presented in your opening posts were almost entirely metaphysical in nature.  Reasoning about the existence of things, based on inferences about abstract entities like numbers, was unequivocally NOT empirical, but actually an example of bonified metaphysical reasoning.   This would be completely fine, of course - except for the fact that you seem hung up on empiricism, but seem entirely confused by what it is and why even your own arguments have not really been of that category (and therefore, don't even really meet the requirements you demand from others).   So, let me be the first to welcome you to the wonderful world of ontology, where one tries to use reason and logic to make inferences about the world, where empirical observation is not feasible.  Its a pity you didnt realize you had joined the party sooner.

What empirical facts you do bring up, completely contradict one of your core arguments - that love does not exist.  You contradict yourself quite clearly by stating that it does exist as an evolved trait to facilitate reproduction.

I think what you really want to argue is that since love is  a material process which arose to drive reproduction,  we should all have the same cynical emotional reaction to it (and the universe) that you do.   If thats what you want to do, you have yet to make a clear argument in that regard, nor have you provided any good reasons as to why less cynical or even positive reactions to the evolved existence of love are unjustified.