The Debate of God.

[Daviso452]

Love is not always selfless. A king who loves his queen and makes her happy with jewelry. However, it comes at the expense of the peasants. For some, their lives. Is this selfless?

My point is this; through out this entire conversation you have claimed things without giving me a single quote, article, book, video, or site to back up anything you have said. I'll admit, neither have I. However, I have referred to specific points of evidence concerning neuroscience which I can happily link to if you wish. You, on the other hand, have not given a single bit of evidence, nor referred to anything but yourself. I don't care what you think. No sane person would care about what you think. What I care about is the validity of what you think; the evidence to support it.

You say, "Love is this."
I say, "Love is this because of this."

If you do have any evidence, just send it to me via PM if you wish. Otherwise, I'd say this debate is over.

 

[Prophet]

Oh, so this debate is over and I should forward this to your PM box? No thanks. If you want this embarrassing debate for you to end, you will likely be allowing me the last word.

I certainly can appreciate your last attempt to actually take on my beliefs in debate. Giving is one way to express love. However, many people are known to simulate selflessness while keeping their motives selfish.

Giving a gift with attached selfish motives does not make one a being who loves, but rather a hypocrite. A hypocrite never gives in the place that is most important, the mind. The gifts of a hypocrite are simulations of love in action. Acts of love are selfless offerings. Acts of hypocrisy are mere trades one makes to make himself appear selfless to his peers.

Every gift that extends from the hands of a hypocrite is actually not a gift, but a trade. If a hypocrite could speak honestly when he "gave" his gift, instead of saying "I love you" he would say the truth. "I give you this gift with the expectations that it will buy me affection in return. If it fails to purchase what I thought it would, I will feel cheated and punish you for it." If this is your own personal ideal of love, you will certainly fall victim to confirmation bias.

Pure reasoning trumps quotes, books, videos, and websites, while your kind of reasoning in the dark often must rely on them. I did quote Jesus, not because I'm relying on him in any way, but rather to show that what I've been saying has been said before in different words.

 

[Daviso452]

Oh, so this debate is over and I should forward this to your PM box? No thanks. If you want this embarrassing debate for you to end, you will likely be allowing me the last word.

I certainly can appreciate your last attempt to actually take on my beliefs in debate. Giving is one way to express love. However, many people are known to simulate selflessness while keeping their motives selfish.

Giving a gift with attached selfish motives does not make one a being who loves, but rather a hypocrite. A hypocrite never gives in the place that is most important, the mind. The gifts of a hypocrite are simulations of love in action. Acts of love are selfless offerings. Acts of hypocrisy are mere trades one makes to make himself appear selfless to his peers.

Every gift that extends from the hands of a hypocrite is actually not a gift, but a trade. If a hypocrite could speak honestly when he "gave" his gift, instead of saying "I love you" he would say the truth. "I give you this gift with the expectations that it will buy me affection in return. If it fails to purchase what I thought it would, I will feel cheated and punish you for it." If this is your own personal ideal of love, you will certainly fall victim to confirmation bias.

Pure reasoning trumps quotes, books, videos, and websites, while your kind of reasoning in the dark often must rely on them. I did quote Jesus, not because I'm relying on him in any way, but rather to show that what I've been saying has been said before in different words.

Okay, you are now describing love as an action. Giving selflessly. Such an act could stem from empathy, upbringing, or a biological program of the mind. And I can string all three together.

Some people are born with more (or more active, not sure which) mirror neurons than others. These allow a person to actually feel what others feel; to an extent at least. These kinds of people would want the least amount of pain as possible, and would raise their children to do so. And then it is passed down as a moral teaching. This teaching can spread, and eventually people as a whole adapt to having a selfless mindset.

Love as emotion, love as attraction, and love as selflessness can all be explained through evolution.

p.s. I asked for PM because I felt that if you posted on the thread (which you did) I would be more inclined to respond (which I am). I'll take back what I said. I shall continue this for as long as you wish, or until I truly admit defeat.

 

[Prophet]

You seem to equate the means for expression of love, in this case giving, with the actual love itself. I never once described love as an action as you say. That is completely your misinterpretation of my words.

Anyone who actually read and understood my last post would've realized that I was giving action a backseat to motive, as I derided cheritable actions with selfish motives as hypocrisy. Motive is the actual grounds upon which morality is judged.

Love is not an emotion. Love is not an attraction. Those phenomena masquerading as love can all be fully explained through evolution. However, you cannot explain selflessness through evolution at all and your attempts to do so have been exercises in intellectual dishonesty, which I have demonstrated repeatedly.

 

[Daviso452]

You seem to equate the means for expression of love, in this case giving, with the actual love itself. I never once described love as an action as you say. That is completely your misinterpretation of my words.

Anyone who actually read and understood my last post would've realized that I was giving action a backseat to motive, as I derided cheritable actions with selfish motives as hypocrisy. Motive is the actual grounds upon which morality is judged.

Love is not an emotion. Love is not an attraction. Those phenomena masquerading as love can all be fully explained through evolution. However, you cannot explain selflessness through evolution at all and your attempts to do so have been exercises in intellectual dishonesty, which I have demonstrated repeatedly.

Selflessness is explained by evolution. The example I gave was true. Selflessness through mirror neurons allowed our species to survive better. If we help each other, we are able to survive much more easily. The mirror neurons gave us empathy for each other, and that did two things: If people were hurt, or sad, we would be too. And no one wants that. If someone was happy, we would be too.

Being selfless is not only kind but logical from a survival standpoint. If you help others, they can better survive, and procreate more, and thus the species thrives. And look where we are now.

You are giving love a higher status than it is. You are saying it is all these things, and that might be true, but they can all be explained by evolution. Selflessness, attraction, any form of love you wish to use. You can choose any of these: define love - Bing DICTIONARY .

I am describing a kind of love that is different from how you see it, but the fact is, I am describing what love truly is. It is not intellectual dishonesty. While I have given evidence for why my definition is true, YOU HAVE GIVEN NOTHING.

Oh, and reasoning alone is not enough. It made sense when the scientist dropped the two balls of of Pisa for the heavy to land first. His reasoning was sound. But you know what? He was wrong.

Give me evidence. Reasoning includes evidence, FYI. In fact, evidence is what matters the most. Something can seem perfectly reasonable, but it can still be wrong. If you believe no evidence is required, please state why.

 

[Prophet]

There is no hint of actual reasoning here. You go into this with an attached belief that there is no true morality and you're willing to make any stretch to explain away morality as a mere illusion. If I take the time to defeat this mirror neuron jargon that you put in to disguise the weakness of your case, you will find another way to come to the belief you are attached to as you did the previous time. (There you go. Love with an evolutionary explanation. A way it helped us to survive. Yeah, right.) What truth could you ever hope to find when you are so attached to your beliefs that you are so afraid to fully understand their weaknesses? You are a fundamentalist as attached to your beliefs as any religious nut. I can demonstrate your tendancy to look at any evidence and come up with the conclusion you wish to come up with, and I only have to quote our debate to do it.

I'm going to disregard your demand for evidence because you aren't trying to understand me. I realize that I must be putting you in a position of great weakness for you to be leaning on that red herring. A debate on whether your tactic of demanding evidence is a red herring may be highly humiliating for you as well-done fallacy exposes can be and I suggest going against that route in your reply, but you're welcome to test my knowledge of debate logic.

Without attached belief, reasoning alone is quite enough for me.

 

[Daviso452]

There is no hint of actual reasoning here. You go into this with an attached belief that there is no true morality and you're willing to make any stretch to explain away morality as a mere illusion. If I take the time to defeat this mirror neuron jargon that you put in to disguise the weakness of your case, you will find another way to come to the belief you are attached to as you did the previous time. (There you go. Love with an evolutionary explanation. A way it helped us to survive. Yeah, right.) What truth could you ever hope to find when you are so attached to your beliefs that you are so afraid to fully understand their weaknesses? You are a fundamentalist as attached to your beliefs as any religious nut. I can demonstrate your tendancy to look at any evidence and come up with the conclusion you wish to come up with, and I only have to quote our debate to do it.

I'm going to disregard your demand for evidence because you aren't trying to understand me. I realize that I must be putting you in a position of great weakness for you to be leaning on that red herring. A debate on whether your tactic of demanding evidence is a red herring may be highly humiliating for you as well-done fallacy exposes can be and I suggest going against that route in your reply, but you're welcome to test my knowledge of debate logic.

Without attached belief, reasoning alone is quite enough for me.

I don't even think you understand what I'm saying. I agree with you, to an extent.

I agree that there is a possibility that God exists. I agree that there is a possibility that the true drive for selflessness might be an explainable force. I agree that science may not explain everything. To all these points, I agree with you.

I am a person who goes where the evidence lies. And the evidence lies with evolution. You may consider what I said an incredible stretch, but if evolution were true, then it would make perfect sense. And, I do not need to assume evolution is real, because of the evidence supporting it. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps love, if it came through evolution, came about a different way. My point is that it is not impossible.

I ask for evidence because this is how I see it: You claim love is a force beyond the human understanding. I say love is a biological drive. You describe love as selflessness, which cannot be explained by science. I explain selflessness through a drive to keep each other alive and thus survive.

At this point, we are at odds. There is no way to know which one of us is correct. What I consider the tie-breaker is evidence. I have evidence for evolution, but you do not have evidence for anything beyond our physical reality. That is not to say that there isn't, but there is currently no reason to believe so.

I apologize for what I had said earlier. I had no place in saying you were wrong. I got angry, and was not rational.

However, you have said multiple times that my argument is full of holes, and I do not see how. I admit that it may be wrong, but I wish to know what specifically you are referring to.

 

[Prophet]

I don't even think you understand what I'm saying. I agree with you, to an extent.

I agree that there is a possibility that God exists. I agree that there is a possibility that the true drive for selflessness might be an explainable force. I agree that science may not explain everything. To all these points, I agree with you.

I am a person who goes where the evidence lies. And the evidence lies with evolution. You may consider what I said an incredible stretch, but if evolution were true, then it would make perfect sense. And, I do not need to assume evolution is real, because of the evidence supporting it. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps love, if it came through evolution, came about a different way. My point is that it is not impossible.

My point in return is that it is impossible unless you pervert selflessness. Do you not see how selfish selflessness is a paradox? Is it very difficult to understand why Jesus called this perversion of love hypocrisy? You also seem to make love something that evolution endows upon what we deem to be higher lifeforms through a smokescreen of complex brains and strong emotions, while ants and bees sacrifice themselves for their peers on a regular basis. What complex delusion causes these noble simple beings to sacrifice themselves for their peers alongside us humans with our complex brain and advanced emotional capability for empathy?

By the way, I can certainly appreciate your point on how your strings of reason are meant to show that selflessness through evolution is merely possible, but you using the mere plausibility of one of your ideas to yourself to prove it correct or to call my conflicting idea wrong in actuality is the type of reasoning I refer to when I use the phrase "intellectually dishonest". I do not wish to be incendiary, but I don't know what else to do when I feel unfair debate tactics are being used against me except to point it out.

I ask for evidence because this is how I see it: You claim love is a force beyond the human understanding. I say love is a biological drive. You describe love as selflessness, which cannot be explained by science. I explain selflessness through a drive to keep each other alive and thus survive.

At no time did I say love is beyond understanding, but it is beyond the understanding of those who do not wish to understand it. This might be a good time to re-read my posts on Awareness starting on page 61 which you seemed to discount.

At this point, we are at odds. There is no way to know which one of us is correct. What I consider the tie-breaker is evidence. I have evidence for evolution, but you do not have evidence for anything beyond our physical reality. That is not to say that there isn't, but there is currently no reason to believe so.

I've seen what you do with evidence. You see it how you want to see it. I see no possible gain from bringing more. Go through our debate here and note anytime there's a question mark, because before it you are fairly likely to run into one of my many attempts to force you to look at the the most relevant evidence available to us through uncolored eyes.

I apologize for what I had said earlier. I had no place in saying you were wrong. I got angry, and was not rational.

However, you have said multiple times that my argument is full of holes, and I do not see how. I admit that it may be wrong, but I wish to know what specifically you are referring to.

If you truly want to understand where you may have gone wrong, you will. I appreciate the civil tone of your last response.

 

[cottage]

I ask for evidence because this is how I see it: You claim love is a force beyond the human understanding. I say love is a biological drive. You describe love as selflessness, which cannot be explained by science. I explain selflessness through a drive to keep each other alive and thus survive.

I entirely agree with you, the last sentence in particular. Love is most definitely not selfless. In fact I've yet to see any argument, on this thread or anywhere else, that demonstrates the contrary.

 

[Prophet]

Daviso452 has likely posited somewhere in this thread that love isn't selflessness, but I feel pretty safe in saying that at this point he'd tell you he's not sure, made obvious by his backup plan strings of reason to explain how selflessness-love could possibly arise from evolution.

Your agreeing with him entirely in spite of your lack of understanding where he's at is a bit blind.

 

[cottage]

Daviso452 has likely posited somewhere in this thread that love isn't selflessness, but I feel pretty safe in saying that at this point he'd tell you he's not sure, made obvious by his backup plan strings of reason to explain how selflessness-love could possibly arise from evolution.

Your agreeing with him entirely in spite of your lack of understanding where he's at is a bit blind.

I referred to what Daviso wrote in the quoted passage, the last sentence in particular, with which I am in complete agreement. But to be clear I’m saying love is a vague concept based upon the necessity of giving regard to the prior self. I therefore reject the notion of love being selfless or it having some (assumed) higher mystical purpose or quality.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

To not believe in God you would have to believe that nothing created something, order came from chaos, life came from nonlife, and intelligence came from non-intelligence. These are things that you absolutely HAVE to believe in if you negate the existence of Intellligent Design.

I dont know about yall, but it is clear which side is taking the faith leap here.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

If only people who didn't believe in evolution or the Big Bang, actually knew what each says. All of them so far, visibly don't know what they actually say.

 

[cottage]

To not believe in God you would have to believe that nothing created something, order came from chaos, life came from nonlife, and intelligence came from non-intelligence. These are things that you absolutely HAVE to believe in if you negate the existence of Intellligent Design.

I dont know about yall, but it is clear which side is taking the faith leap here.

Quite untrue! A non-theist doesn’t have to believe any such thing! There is nothing, not the BBE or anything else, that demonstrates that the eternity of the world is impossible, that matter in one form cannot have its origin in another. In contrast, god-belief requires causation, which makes deities dependent upon a physical phenomenon. That is not merely a leap of faith but a contradiction. God, it seems, needs features of the material world in order to…er…bring the material world into existence!

 

[fishy]

To not believe in God you would have to believe that nothing created something, order came from chaos, life came from nonlife, and intelligence came from non-intelligence. These are things that you absolutely HAVE to believe in if you negate the existence of Intellligent Design.

I dont know about yall, but it is clear which side is taking the faith leap here.

From the stories in the story books, what makes anyone think there's intelligence involved.

 

[Daviso452]

To not believe in God you would have to believe that nothing created something, order came from chaos, life came from nonlife, and intelligence came from non-intelligence. These are things that you absolutely HAVE to believe in if you negate the existence of Intellligent Design.

I dont know about yall, but it is clear which side is taking the faith leap here.

It isn't faith if we can back ourselves up, dumb ***. Faith is something without evidence. It isn't always a ludicrous idea.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Quite untrue! A non-theist doesn’t have to believe any such thing! There is nothing, not the BBE or anything else, that demonstrates that the eternity of the world is impossible

False statement. The universe began to exist, cottage. Now I know that may be a hard thing for non-theists to grasp, but that is where the evidence points. The universe began to exist. Big Bang cosmology has the strongest evidence supporting it. There was nothing, at least from a naturalistic perspective, that existed before the big bang. Second, the world cannot be eternal, because that would suggest an infinite past, but as I have argued elsewhere, an infinite past is not possible. So we have both scientific and philosophical reasons why the universe began to exist. You have to deal with those arguments and not just reject the idea because you are aware of its implications.

that matter in one form cannot have its origin in another.

This is confusing the two concepts of "the origin of all matter", and the "origin of material forms after all matter began to exist". Those are two completely different concepts and I am speaking of the origin of all matter. If the universe began to exist, then matter began to exist. Matter that changes from one form to another does not answer the question of the ORGIN OF ALL MATTER in general.

In contrast, god-belief requires causation, which makes deities dependent upon a physical phenomenon.

No it doesn't. Instead of creating humans, God could have only created spiritual beings, and spirtual beings dont have to exist in a physcial world (angels).

That is not merely a leap of faith but a contradiction. God, it seems, needs features of the material world in order to…er…bring the material world into existence!

As I mentioned above, a physical world is not a requirement. It was a CHOICE by God. He could have easily created all spiritual creatures, and presided over them in a spiritual world. In fact, that is EXACTLY what he is doing with the angels.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It isn't faith if we can back ourselves up, dumb ***. Faith is something without evidence. It isn't always a ludicrous idea.

Davis, you have already proven to me that you dont know what the hell you are talking about based on 95% of the crap you say on here. That percentage wont go down as a result of the name calling. So get off of here, do your research, study about the material that you want to talk about, and then come on here and engage in dialouge.

 

[idav]

Quite untrue! A non-theist doesn’t have to believe any such thing! There is nothing, not the BBE or anything else, that demonstrates that the eternity of the world is impossible, that matter in one form cannot have its origin in another. In contrast, god-belief requires causation, which makes deities dependent upon a physical phenomenon. That is not merely a leap of faith but a contradiction. God, it seems, needs features of the material world in order to…er…bring the material world into existence!

I agree. It should be that way anyway otherwise god doesn't exist as far as the material reality is concerned.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

From the stories in the story books, what makes anyone think there's intelligence involved.

If there was intelligence invovled in the creation of encyclopedias, then there was intelligence invovled in the creation of the DNA structure, which is vastly more complex than encyclopedias.

You asking "what makes anyone think theres intelligence invovled", would be the same as me asking "what makes anyone think intelligence was invovled in constructing the space shuttle???"

Guess what, the DNA code is more complex than that, too.