Hello

[aileron]

Mid-game? You didn’t answer the question asked. The OP asked about things in nature, which is generally taken to mean things that occure naturally, and you mentioned a man-made object.

There were two re-wordings of the challenge and the word nature appears in only one that I was not referencing. In any case I don’t think “in nature” should be taken to mean not man made in a philosophical / theological discussion.

As far as the seemingly angry response, that’s just a probing technique for discussions. I’m very direct in my speech and not very good at softening responses.

 

[aileron]

This is he definition of detect:

“discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of”

Please, please tell me how to do this without using human senses. Even if I use some device to measure it, it’s there TO measure. All I am doing is using a device to allow me to discover or determine the existence, presence or fact of the thing I am measuring.

It doesn’t matter whether is nature or man-made. You cannot produce something I cannot “detect” with my senses. Period.

As I wrote before, it is not my problem that you worded your challenge in a manner you did not intend. You cannot “see, feel, taste, smell or hear” radio waves, but you can detect them.

Do you want to issue a new one that deals with *detectability * instead of the previous way you worded your challenge?

 

[Annabea]

As I wrote before, it is not my problem that you worded your challenge in a manner you did not intend. You cannot “see, feel, taste, smell or hear” radio waves, but you can detect them.

Do you want to issue a new one that deals with *detectability * instead of the previous way you worded your challenge?

If it wasn’t detectable, then anything might count, right? because how are we supposed to know?

 

[aileron]

If it wasn’t detectable, then anything might count, right? because how are we supposed to know?

Finally, someone gets it.

 

[josie_L]

I found this, perfect example.
"It depends on the species. I think it’s fairly obvious that animals such as insects do not feel love - they don’t have a complex enough brain to deal with such emotions. Many ‘higher’ animals, however, form deep attachments, including exclusive pair bonds. In group-living species, such bonds can be vital to their survival. Grey wolves are a good example - they frequently show affection towards each other, and have been observed to mourn when a member of the pack dies (they cease play for around 6 weeks, and howl often as though calling to the missing individual). They mate for life, and if one of the pair dies, occasionally the other may be so distressed that it stops eating until it too dies. This behaviour can also be seen in their descendants, domestic dogs - I’m sure everyone’s heard of cases where a dog whose owner has died has pined away itself. Indeed, anyone who’s ever had a pet dog or cat will know that these animals love their human family members.

Anyone who claims that no animals have emotions of any kind has obviously never spent much time around them, or even observed them closely. Emotions are important for survival. When a zebra runs from a lion, that’s fear - fear is an emotion. Without it, the zebra would simply stand there and get eaten. A mother animal defending her young clearly has feelings for those young. There is an obvious hatred between certain animals, such as lions and hyenas - they often attack each other on sight, or seek out and kill each other’s young, which is clearly not a simple case of fighting over food. It is both ridiculous and incredibly arrogant to suggest that human beings are the only species of all the millions on this planet in which emotions, including love, have evolved."~ Some dude answering a question on yahoo.

I do understand “greater capacity” I think they have just as much “capacity” as you use it, as us.

Ahhhhhhhh, so finally you answer the question. Ok, define what is love? As for the grey wolves, I never said that animals could not love, but I do not put it on par with human love even though there are similarities between the two. Human love entails sacrifice, forgiveness, patience, humility, and a super human strenght at times to be kind and considerate when one ridicules or attacks . . . etc. These are virtues of a kind you will not find in the animal kingdom. It’s not like animals question the morality (which is a component of love) of their actions, it’s based on instinct more than emotion. You cannot pick and choose what animals you wish, to make your hypothesis work.

P.S. You’re working under the assumption that love evolves, what proof do you have for this?

 

[happilycatholic]

As I wrote before, it is not my problem that you worded your challenge in a manner you did not intend. You cannot “see, feel, taste, smell or hear” radio waves, but you can detect them.

Do you want to issue a new one that deals with *detectability *instead of the previous way you worded your challenge?

If you can tell me how we “detect” something without using our senses, sure. You are getting hung up on semantics.

 

[josie_L]

Evolution is not about chance. There is a very little chance, perhaps, that we would end up as we are now, but evolution is not chance, it’s simply survival of the fittest.

I suspect though that you’re mixing up evolution with abiogenesis.

Actually, it’s aileron who confused the two, go back to one of my earlier posts, I stated to him that I was refering to the origins of life.

P.S. You mean natural selection. God bless.

 

[jonhooi]

Hello all Atheists,

I have some questions about how you look at “life”.

Since an atheist does not believe in god and/or afterlife, why does he/she needs to have any morality (however defined)? Since you have only this life, why bother to do good? Why not just live life all for yourself (isn’t it a game of survivor of the fittest in the animal world)?

Why help the poor or less fortunate? Wouldn’t the death of all these people contributes to your better chance of survival (less competition)? Why the need to feel sorry? Shouldn’t humans be selfish?

What would be the purpose of sex (reproduction)? Why burden part of your life on the betterment of your child? What is the purpose of the continuation of the species? In the animal world, male black widow spiders always offer themselves to be eaten alive by the female during sex so that it may be able to perform sex for reproduction purpose, why?

Since there is no afterlife, what’s the purpose of leaving a legacy either for your offspring/s or the next generation when after death, there is no more consciousness? There is totally nothing to gain for leaving a legacy but all to gain for living this life to the fullest (be it at the expense of whoever and whatever).

If sex (for whatever reason) is necessary, monogamy surely isn’t, won’t you think? Surely, it’s a Christian thing, yes? It shouldn’t be practiced as it hinders the diversity mix of gene population.

If life is a one off thing, wouldn’t genes learn (evolve) to make living longer as generation grows as a progress of the species? Wouldn’t life not worth ending naturally without us deciding?

I may sound sadist but won’t you give it a thought? Being a logical person whom must see to believe, kindly give these questions a ponder, will you?

Religion does not hinder progress but encourages it!

God bless!

John

 

[happilycatholic]

If it wasn’t detectable, then anything might count, right? because how are we supposed to know?

You’re not. You don’t “know” because you cannot know. Love is not something that can be measured or detected. Neither is God. So why do you believe in love and not God?

That is the point to all of this. Whether you get hung up on “sensing” or “detecting” it’s the same thing. Sensing IS how humans detect. Semantics. It doesn’t matter that we use technology, technology can’t produce what’s not already there. Period.

In contrast, show me the technology that can detect or produce love. If you can’t then you have no basis to deny the existance of God.

You base your belief or non belief on proof. Well, there’s no “proof” that is, tangible evidence, of love. The same applies to God. With that said, you should be denying the existance of love or at least saying that there is a distict possiblility that God exists.

Oh and by the way if you do that you’re agnostic, not atheist.

 

[Annabea]

Ahhhhhhhh, so finally you answer the question. Ok, define what is love? As for the grey wolves, I never said that animals could not love, but I do not put it on par with human love even though there are similarities between the two. Human love entails sacrifice, forgiveness, patience, humility, and a super human strenght at times to be kind and considerate when one ridicules or attacks . . . etc. These are virtues of a kind you will not find in the animal kingdom. It’s not like animals question the morality (which is a component of love) of their actions, it’s based on instinct more than emotion. You cannot pick and choose what animals you wish, to make your hypothesis work.

P.S. You’re working under the assumption that love evolves, what proof do you have for this?

I wasn’t the one who said love evolves.
We are not talking about all animals have the same love capacity as we do. I think you are completely misunderstanding me. What do you think I am trying to say? And we will start with that.

 

[josie_L]

I have been an atheist all of my life and was lucky enough never to have been baptized. I still have empathy, morality, love, and care for other people. And I may not be 100% that there is no higher power but I am 100% certain that there is no Yahweh/Jesus whatever you want to call him. And it is ignorant statements like this that have turned me into an antitheist. You have deeply offended me jam and josie to say that I am incapable of love and morality.

It was not my intent to offend for I never said that atheists are immoral. But isn’t morality to a great degree subjective within the atheist worldview. Obviously, there are things we can all agree on, but this is because of the natural moral law inscribed into all hearts. I am glad you have empathy, morality, and love, but can you compare yourself to someone like the blessed mother theresa? Have you reached the heights of empathy, morality and love? I wish to, and it is through Jesus that I will achieve this.

 

[josie_L]

I wasn’t the one who said love evolves.
We are not talking about all animals have the same love capacity as we do. I think you are completely misunderstanding me. What do you think I am trying to say? And we will start with that.

No, I think you are choosing to misunderstand me. I have said what I had to say in a clear concisive manner. God bless, Annabea.

 

[Annabea]

You’re not. You don’t “know” because you cannot know. Love is not something that can be measured or detected. Neither is God. So why do you believe in love and not God?

That is the point to all of this. Whether you get hung up on “sensing” or “detecting” it’s the same thing. Sensing IS how humans detect. Semantics. It doesn’t matter that we use technology, technology can’t produce what’s not already there. Period.

In contrast, show me the technology that can detect or produce love. If you can’t then you have no basis to deny the existance of God.

You base your belief or non belief on proof. Well, there’s no “proof” that is, tangible evidence, of love. The same applies to God. With that said, you should be denying the existance of love or at least saying that there is a distict possiblility that God exists.

Oh and by the way if you do that you’re agnostic, not atheist.

LOVE IS NOT GOD! Love is an emotion! Just a very strong one. Depression is an emotion, it is very strong. You are proving nothing with love. Love is a reaction to something we see or feel. Is god a reaction!!! Sorry, I’m on the edge of the plank right now, give me some time to cool off.

 

[Annabea]

No, I think you are choosing to misunderstand me. I have said what I had to say in a clear concisive manner. God bless, Annabea.

Its a very simple matter. Not all animals have the same love capacity as we do, but there are a few who do. They do not express it in the same way however. Mating is not a way to show love, though it might be in our society. Animals have many many offspring, it is hard to love them all as our parents love us. There are too many and they are only with their mother for a short period of time. The act of reproducing is just sending genes down the line and making more in the animal world. It has nothing to do with love. Yet, mothers do love their babies (in mammals at least). Just maybe as much as we do. Okay, that was my case of the subject.

 

[rinnie]

No, you don’t know. You won’t admit it because you believe your god is love, if so why can’t animals love? Wouldn’t all animals follow god because they new nothing else? Please explain.

The reason that animals do not love is because they do not posess a soul. They do not understand right from wrong. The have no conscience. They are animals because they only know one need. That need is to survive. Humans can not only survive. They have need, emotions. That all comes from a inner being. THat is your soul.

 

[mrhenrik]

Actually, it’s aileron who confused the two, go back to one of my earlier posts, I stated to him that I was refering to the origins of life.

P.S. You mean natural selection. God bless.

Hm, alright. I wonder though, what the difference is between survival of the fittest and natural selection?

Hello all Atheists,

I have some questions about how you look at “life”.

Since an atheist does not believe in god and/or afterlife, why does he/she needs to have any morality (however defined)? Since you have only this life, why bother to do good? Why not just live life all for yourself (isn’t it a game of survivor of the fittest in the animal world)?

Why help the poor or less fortunate? Wouldn’t the death of all these people contributes to your better chance of survival (less competition)? Why the need to feel sorry? Shouldn’t humans be selfish?

Because this life is the only one we have, it is so immensively precious. I know that I cherish this spark of life that I’ve been lucky enough to get, and most others also probably do, so I would never consider taking it away from them. I look at others, and when I see them in a situation I know would suck to be in, I try to help them out of it so they also can enjoy this tiny little spark of life we have.

Emotions like morality and empathy are also things that are hard-wired into our brains through natural selection - it is not something which has to come from a god.

What would be the purpose of sex (reproduction)? Why burden part of your life on the betterment of your child? What is the purpose of the continuation of the species? In the animal world, male black widow spiders always offer themselves to be eaten alive by the female during sex so that it may be able to perform sex for reproduction purpose, why?

This is again something gained through natural selection. The species who do not care about reproduction, does not reproduce, and thus their genes won’t move on. The species who do care about reproduction, reproduce, and their reproduction-friendly genes carry on until all/most are reproduction-friendly.

The purpose of the continuation of the species, again this is hard-wired into our brains through evolution but I also want to let others enjoy this little life we have.

I don’t know the case of the black widow spiders, but surely it has evolved through natural selection. Somehow, the males who offered themselves to be eaten during sex had more chance of getting sex, and thus their “suicidal” genes carry on.

Since there is no afterlife, what’s the purpose of leaving a legacy either for your offspring/s or the next generation when after death, there is no more consciousness? There is totally nothing to gain for leaving a legacy but all to gain for living this life to the fullest (be it at the expense of whoever and whatever).

When I realise that my time is nearing it’s end, and I have something I can leave for those who still have a lot of time to enjoy life, I will of course give it to them. Again, natural selection. Those given these things by their parents/grandparents have a bigger chance of survival, and thus the “generous” genes have more chance of multiplying.

If sex (for whatever reason) is necessary, monogamy surely isn’t, won’t you think? Surely, it’s a Christian thing, yes? It shouldn’t be practiced as it hinders the diversity mix of gene population.

This I am not entirely sure of, but I believe that it is difficult for humans to fall in love with more than one person (perhaps through natural selection), and thus that stance has been promoted.

If life is a one off thing, wouldn’t genes learn (evolve) to make living longer as generation grows as a progress of the species? Wouldn’t life not worth ending naturally without us deciding?

Hasn’t it already? You don’t have to go far back in time to see the average length of life decreasing notably.

Religion does not hinder progress but encourages it!

This I disagree with, because religion teaches us to be happy with what we already know.

You’re not. You don’t “know” because you cannot know. Love is not something that can be measured or detected. Neither is God. So why do you believe in love and not God?

Love cannot be detected right now, just like radio waves could not be detected 500 years ago. This does not mean love will never be detected.

That is the point to all of this. Whether you get hung up on “sensing” or “detecting” it’s the same thing. Sensing IS how humans detect. Semantics. It doesn’t matter that we use technology, technology can’t produce what’s not already there. Period.

In contrast, show me the technology that can detect or produce love. If you can’t then you have no basis to deny the existance of God.

You base your belief or non belief on proof. Well, there’s no “proof” that is, tangible evidence, of love. The same applies to God. With that said, you should be denying the existance of love or at least saying that there is a distict possiblility that God exists.

Oh and by the way if you do that you’re agnostic, not atheist.

How does the current undetectability of love prove Yahwe, and why are you so hung up in the definitions of agnosticism and atheism? What are your definitions of the two terms, so we can clear that up?

 

[mrhenrik]

The reason that animals do not love is because they do not posess a soul. They do not understand right from wrong. The have no conscience. They are animals because they only know one need. That need is to survive. Humans can not only survive. They have need, emotions. That all comes from a inner being. THat is your soul.

Animals have no love, conciousness or emotions?
youtube.com/watch?v=cg4aaXgWn2g&NR=1
youtube.com/watch?v=TjtrdpSwEUY

 

[rinnie]

LOVE IS NOT GOD! Love is an emotion! Just a very strong one. Depression is an emotion, it is very strong. You are proving nothing with love. Love is a reaction to something we see or feel. Is god a reaction!!! Sorry, I’m on the edge of the plank right now, give me some time to cool off.

Love is a emotion that comes from God. Depression comes from the Devil. If you are depressed you have to find the need in you that is missing. That need is God and Love. If you have alot of God in you, you have less depression in you. THe more depression the less of the presense of God. It is quite simple!

 

[libbybeth]

Annabea, you said in your posting that love is not God; love is an emotion.

Love is so much more than an emotion. Love is something that we express with our will and effect by our actions.

Jesus showed his love for all, in that while we were yet sinners, he gave up his life to save us. This was an act of will for the good of those who rejected him then, and reject him now by refusing to believe in him and obey his way. I do not know you, and therefore do not “feel” about you one way or the other. But at the same time I can show love for you if I meet you by doing things that are good for you; if I do not meet you, then I can show love for you by praying that one day you take Jesus into your heart.

When you said that love is not God, had you forgotten the words of the hymn which state:
“God is love”

You say we cannot know the truth. Jesus said “I will tell you the truth”. He also said “I am the truth”. Think about what that means - the Truth comes from God, not man. Jesus is the truth. Listen to him.

 

[mrhenrik]

When you said that love is not God, had you forgotten the words of the hymn which state:
“God is love”

You say we cannot know the truth. Jesus said “I will tell you the truth”. He also said “I am the truth”. Think about what that means - the Truth comes from God, not man. Jesus is the truth. Listen to him.

The core of the problem here is that god did not write that hymn, and we cannot prove that Jesus said those things.