Is Love Logical

[Akheia]

ASM, exactly. I feel for End in so many ways, but he can't have it both ways. Either his faith exists completely independently of objective reality, or it fits in perfectly with it. The latter is absolutely not the case, but he's trying to *make* it the case with a shitty education, no critical thinking skills, and a healthy victim complex.

 

Christianity and reality are diametrically opposed. Any time his religion goes up against science, it loses. That's why its only hope is to make science into some kind of subjective faith-based proposition like it is. Alas, reality does not line up with that idea, either. Christians shouldn't need to lie, but they do constantly. They shouldn't need to make up history to shoehorn their claims into reality, but they do constantly. They shouldn't need to make up archaeological finds to make their religion sound more real, but they do constantly. If faith is all they really cared about, nobody'd even care about this shit. The New Testament's ghostwriters certainly did not. There's plenty of evidence that not even Paul cared if Jesus had actually risen from the dead or if he was even really a real person. It was the concepts that he was more interested in, not the evidence of the claims (because there was none). But nowadays because the modern age DOES know and DOES care about objective reality, Christians suddenly have a huge dilemma on their hands. Ignore reality, or else try to make reality fit their preconceived mythology.

[oddbird1963]

The "S" in the word sin stands for "shifting" the goal post.

 

The "I" stands for "irrelevant" connections.

 

The "N" stands for "nothing" but a mythological concept.

 

You learned that in college right? lol. What language do you give our choices OB?

 

Please restate the question. I don't get what you're asking, especially since "sin" in most Christian theology is not the same thing as choice.

[TrailBlazer]

Allow me to disillusion you about emotions: humans can be reduced to nothing more than simple chemistry.

 

Love is a biological survival mechanism: Humans are pack creatures by nature- we need each other and we need a reason to form meaningful bonds together.

Once we finally realize we are attracted to another person, our bodies have already been at work producing sex hormones to get the messages to the brain. When we act on these hormones (testosterone or oestrogen) our brains produce adrenaline, dopamine, and serotonin in overdrive to make us "addicted" to the highs this other person gives us. The deepest stage of love bonding comes after sexual intercourse, when our brains release oxytocin and vassopressin.

With other types of love - serotonin, adrenaline, and dopamine bond us together. Mothers are thought to bond with children through oxytocin and prolactin. In the case of religious love, we bond with a higher power somewhat similarly.

 

Humans are lazy and selfish animals. We don't do a darn thing without a neurochemical motivation - love included!

[Ouroboros]

No, that's not the question. The question later in the thread that I am asking her is do infants love one second after being born or is a function of stimuli after they are born.....

Yes and no.

 

Define what "love" is because it's way, way, very much way too vague.

 

Love is not like blinking your eyes.

 

Most babies have the potential to love. The capacity is there, but they have to learn what love is, and that's the nurture part. Capacity to love is a nature part. And some level of love, depending on definition and what you include or exclude from it, is natural from birth. Just look at how dogs can play and care for each other as puppies. So some of it is natural.

 

But as I said, it's all depending on your definition.

 

the nurture vs. nature discussion I would gather. She says she knows but won't answer, yet beats on me for "intellectual laziness".

It's both nurture and nature. Not a "yes or no" question. Sorry.

 

It's also an intellectual laziness not to spend more time to clearly define exactly what it is that you're asking. If you only want to throw unclear questions and have your mindset already fixed on what answer you want, it's only a rhetorical question and doesn't really have any greater function. But it's up to you and whoever debates you if they want to engage in a futile endeavor.

[Guest end3]

ASM, exactly. I feel for End in so many ways, but he can't have it both ways. Either his faith exists completely independently of objective reality, or it fits in perfectly with it. The latter is absolutely not the case, but he's trying to *make* it the case with a shitty education, no critical thinking skills, and a healthy victim complex.

 

Christianity and reality are diametrically opposed. Any time his religion goes up against science, it loses. That's why its only hope is to make science into some kind of subjective faith-based proposition like it is. Alas, reality does not line up with that idea, either. Christians shouldn't need to lie, but they do constantly. They shouldn't need to make up history to shoehorn their claims into reality, but they do constantly. They shouldn't need to make up archaeological finds to make their religion sound more real, but they do constantly. If faith is all they really cared about, nobody'd even care about this shit. The New Testament's ghostwriters certainly did not. There's plenty of evidence that not even Paul cared if Jesus had actually risen from the dead or if he was even really a real person. It was the concepts that he was more interested in, not the evidence of the claims (because there was none). But nowadays because the modern age DOES know and DOES care about objective reality, Christians suddenly have a huge dilemma on their hands. Ignore reality, or else try to make reality fit their preconceived mythology.

 

What is it you don't get A. I work in science DAILY.i.e I religiously practice science. The computer I sit typing now networks three gas chromatographs used to analyze natural gas. So yes I have faith and no the concepts don't always match science, but they also do in SO MANY WAYS. Obviously science doesn't have all the answers either, yet, just as a Christian may choose some "lie" to make things fit, you appear much the same here by not admitting to what at least 2 or 3 have already said in this thread answering FOR you....and from what I gather is mostly speculation anyhow, yet you make me out to be someone with a "shitty education, no critical thinking skills, and a healthy victim complex".

 

The consensus of your peers here say no to the answer I am asking, but obviously until I go find the research that gives credit to the yes answer, I will remain in the aforementioned categories. Critical thinking would suggest that competing scientific conclusions is just about like competing theology.

 

Still waitin for an answer,

 

Signed,

 

Ill-educated, fear-stricken, non critical, lacking the Holy Spirit, END3.

[Akheia]

Awww. Poor End.

 

You and I aren't going to have a meaningful discussion about psychology because despite your protestations, you don't understand what science even is. You can't "religiously" practice science because religion requires you to turn off your mind and just have faith, and it has all the aspects I mentioned above which you did not even touch (ie, belief rather than knowledge; membership in a group; rituals and invocations; requirements of your personal conduct, etc). You may know how to analyze natural gas, but you don't have the faintest idea what a hypothesis is and how it's formed. You don't know what a null hypothesis is. You don't know how to construct an experiment that can be falsified. You don't know how to interpret the data that results. You don't know what objective reality even is, and you don't know why we know exactly how to judge it. If you understood a single bit of that, you'd understand that SCIENCE IS NOT RELIGION. IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE. IT'S DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED. But some Facebook fundie posted a meme about it, or you heard some preacher talk about it or something, and you're absolutely convinced despite all evidence to the contrary that science is a religion. When people point that out, suddenly we're the meanies and you're being picked on.

 

So yes: you have a shitty education. You have no critical thinking skills. You have a victim complex. The worst part: That's all your choice, End. You could educate yourself in logical fallacies and in the things you ask disingenuous questions about. You could certainly grow up and pull on big boy pants and stop crying when you're solidly beaten. But you do not.

 

You were dishonest here, End. You asked a vague and misleading question because you were specifically angling for a specific answer. If you want to show that emotions are divinely created and granted, you're going to have to prove it. NOBODY has to disprove it. I don't answer not because I don't know the answer--holy fuck, I wrote how many papers about exactly that topic--but because I'm not going to get suckered into that rodeo. Answer it yourself, champ. The answers are there to be had.... if you take off the religious blinders.

[mymistake]

Obviously science doesn't have all the answers either . . .

 

Of course not. Science does not claim to be the word of an all knowing deity. Science is a search. Science uncovers new questions faster than it can answer existing questions so unless the situation changes it looks like we will never have all the answers. Don't need to because science isn't pretending to be something it isn't.

 

.... yet you make me out to be someone with a "shitty education, no critical thinking skills, and a healthy victim complex".

 

No End, you do that to yourself.

 

The consensus of your peers here say no to the answer I am asking, but obviously until I go find the research that gives credit to the yes answer, I will remain in the aforementioned categories.

 

I didn't realize we had arrived at a consensus. The opinions I offered were only my own.

 

Critical thinking would suggest that competing scientific conclusions is just about like competing theology.

 

Not at all.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

The difference BD is when I make a statement, almost ANY statement, it's probably considered 98% wrong regardless. There aren't many like Roadrunner or Hans that will admit to someone having a valid opinion despite their religious orientation. Damn it, that's brilliance. CALL the ACLU! Call OBAMA! I have been discriminated upon. Quote from Sally, Charilie Brown's Christmas, "All I want is what I have coming to me. All I want is my fair share....10's and 20's".

Still you continue to throw a guilt trip. YOU'RE NOT BEING PERSECUTED NOR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST!

 

If you put an idea forth in the Lion's Den, some will agree with you and others will disagree with you, depending on who is on and responds to the forum in your thread. That's the whole point of the Lion's Den.

 

If you state something that makes sense, people are more likely to agree with you. If you state something that is incoherent, vague, and just isn't believeable to those who you're stating it to, they're going to disagree with you. This isn't just with religion. Its even with things as trivial as "which food tastes good".

 

I say brussel sprouts are delicious. A friend of mine jokingly said, "what's wrong with you? Those are gross", and I get even worse responses from people when they hear of the delicasies I like. Like fried ants and sushi (never ate them together though). Whereas, I've had almost everyone I talk to agree, that pizza tastes awesome.

 

Its not persecution if you go to a forum with a majority who don't believe in your religion, especially those who are in a forum dedicated to no longer being christian, and they disagree with you. Its a matter of course. In a christian forum, what you say will be believed and agreed with, and what I say wouldn't be. But unless I get banned for something stupid (I did), I wouldn't claim discrimination.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

I appreciate that. I think it fair to say that most think it reductionistic on this site. But to me that doesn't answer the whole question. So let me ask you this please.....taking this another direction that has crossed my inane self. Do you think it a remote possibility that "sin" in concert with evolution produces something so very difficult change. I reference epigenetics....something I know little about as well.

As a reductionist and materialist, I accept that you disagree with me. Though I still think that the wheel of the car still helps make the car what it is. Without the wheel, the car would be very different. And unless it flew or had something in place of the wheel to make it move, it would be useless and worthless. I firmly believe that we are the sum of our parts. Having logic is only one aspect of our humanity, there is also the illogical side that makes us us, that doesn't go against reductionism at all.

 

As for the second part, no. Sin isn't even as old as the New Testament, its a concept derived from the Bible. The hebrews lacked a concept of sin and evil in their language and sacred writing. Its actually a later concept. Much less have come along with evolution, which is in of itself in direct contradiction of the Bible's account of biogeny (origin of life).

[Akheia]

Here's the problem. If someone's going to make an outrageous claim, then yes, he has to support it, or else he's going to show only that he believes everything he hears. He doesn't get to cry about how persecuted he is if people don't take his word for everything but demand he show evidence of his claims. That's just how the real world works. If I said that Miatas have the best safety record in the automotive industry, then surely you would want to know how I'd arrived at that conclusion. If I couldn't show that, then I have no right to get weepy and outraged that you won't believe it.

 

End, you're not a dumb guy. You're clearly very caring and clearly you really do want to believe that you're on the right path. But religion views the world top down--it starts with "obviously God is real" and then works backward; any evidence to the contrary of that endpoint is disregarded or declared invalid. That's what ID does, and that's what you did here in this thread. By contrast, science starts with a question and makes a hypothesis based on that question, but it then moves forward to see if the hypothesis is supported or not--and if it doesn't, then it doesn't totally toss the evidence but rather incorporates it into a new and better-educated hypothesis. The objective facts--the observable evidence--has to fit the theory.

 

You asserted that "God gave us emotions and babies are born knowing how to love." At least that's what I think you're trying to assert; you haven't really stated it that concretely, but you dance around the edges of it at least. And we said "Prove your claims." Until you do, then yes, absolutely I will think that you're just talking out of your ass. Again. Next time, at least look at the fucking Wikipedia page about emotions before you go off half-cocked like that again. The reason people think almost everything you say is wrong because you often make clearly erroneous claims and can't be bothered to even do basic research before you spark a discussion about something you know *NOTHING* about. You remember that O'Reilly quote about "the tide goes in, the tide goes out. You can't explain that" -- and all those meteorologists said well actually yes, we've had a proven explanation for tides for 200 years? That's what this thread is like. Once you take off the religious blinders, you're in for a real treat--this universe is so much more amazing when it's not constricted into a little Bible-shaped box.

[Spectrox]

End, the reason I'm not engaging you in your question the way you want me to is that your question is inane (you're right--it's a perfect word). You're not being clear about what kind of love you're talking about--you've mentioned several different kinds, and to me they all mean something different from each other, come from different places, and accomplish different things. You've clearly chosen to disregard what science has said on the subject, consulting ONE study that doesn't even address what you did half-assedly explain about your question and then you diss science as a religion (which shows me how ignorant you are of science, because frankly we've gotten good at figuring out what objective reality is, and wow wait a sec I bet that actually is pretty scary for a religious person who thinks all reality is subjective and the truth is chooseable). You want my subjective opinion, but my opinion is formed by the science you just said you don't care about (an Honors bachelor's degree and very-near cum laude in psychology with emphasis in clinical and developmental psych, if you care; I was heading for a Psy.D. until my fundie Evil Ex wigged out and I had to flee the country, so actually yeah I do kind of know what I'm talking about, so be really careful of what assumptions you make about just what I know). You've gotten several good recs on where to start educating yourself. Why are you so resistant to doing that? Are you scared of finding out that your half-articulated, poorly-formed vague assumptions about this gauzy idea of "love" you have will get shot down and therefore that your religion might not have a solid basis in science? I ask sincerely, because it seems so sad to me that a man your age would deliberately stunt himself the way you do. Christianity makes men into weepy toddlers. You're hardly the first I've seen go that route. It's time to abandon the pull-ups and start wearing big boys' pants. You need to educate yourself about how we know what reality is, and why the scientific method works. Until you join the real world and know those two things, nothing I say is going to get through.

 

Face it, man. You asked a question that science has answered multiple times in multiple ways, and you don't like thinking that actually humans have a good bead on just about everything they once thought was the provenance of gods. You don't want to educate yourself. You want everybody to educate you. You're a grown man, not an infant. Please start acting like it. Once you've gotten through an intro text on developmental psych, why don't we revisit this question and see what you think about your "tabula rasa"?

 

It's valid to call science a reglion. If I religiously adhere to science, then it's religion. It absolutely does not scare me to discover some scientific fact. And lastly, the truth be known, the reason I don't read about whether babies can love right out of the shoot, is it doesn't interest me in the least.

 

The problem with this discussion is that you continue to discount my humanity, writing it off as laziness, fear, whatever, instead of simply answering the question.

 

Which is, do infants love immediately after being born......not do they have the potential to love. In the above paragraph you mention science addressing this numerous times. Please, please, please attempt drive a fear stake right through my Christian heart by answering.

 

This is contrived nonsense, End. I could say "if I angrily adhere to science then science is anger."

 

Science is not a religion.

 

Religion = supernatural claims, symbolism, souls, afterlife, usually belief in a higher power, worship, revealed authority that leads the evidence

 

Science = testable, measurable, repeatable, demonstrable, falsifiable phenomenon - science, along with logic and reasoned argument gives us the best way we have of homing in on the truth of a claim. Science follows the evidence and comes up with explanations. It comes from an understanding of reality not an assertion of authority.

 

Heres's a conflict between the two:

 

Creationism (Genesis) - before the Fall, it was a perfect world, no pain. Then Adam and Eve's sin and God puts a curse on the earth. This is the whole reason for Jesus' mission.

 

Evolution - the fossil record shows that T.Rexs were killing other animals millions of years before man came on the scene. A cheetah didn't suddenly start ripping a gazelle to pieces because Adam bit the apple. There was no fall. Pain and suffering were already built into the fabric of life before we came on the scene.

 

This sets up a conflict which needs to be resolved. Cop-out answer by Christians - God knew Humans were going to arise and pre-empted the curse on the earth anyway! I find this disingenuous as a response. Particularly as evolution doesn't have a goal. Every species on the planet is transitional.

 

The most honest thing for people to do is to reject the bits of the Bible that make no sense - which happens to be an awful lot of it.

 

It's mostly a bag o' shite.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Nonetheless, the assertions that love is innate in babies is speculative IMO.

Are babies born with an amygdala? If so, then its a fact, and not speculative. As "love" is at heart, a bio-chemical reaction that occurs in the Amygdala. It can and has been measured, along with other emotions. For example, cortisol, found to increase when you are afraid, because it is the chemical name for what causes us to feal fear.

 

Just like temporal lobe stimulation can cause a religious experience, because that's the part of the brain that's activating when you have a "religious experience".

 

Truthfully, I used to think otherwise.

It doesn't matter, and nobody cares what you used to think. Having used to think something, doesn't boost your arguement. My having used to believe in Christianity doesn't boost my credibility in believing it to be nonsense, does it?

 

Also, the fact that I make "connections" where there are perhaps none to be made is just proof that people haven't looked at things from different perspectives.

No its not. Its proof you are human, and that we are all humans. We all connect dots. Whether or not they're represented as reality or whether we all connect the same dots along the same lines is a different story.

 

Just look at constellations, what we call the big and little dipper/measuring cups, the romans used to call the greater and lesser bears (ursa major and ursa minor). And according to the Babylonians, it was something else entirely.

 

The constellations, like the made up connections you form and of which religions form period, are completely made up and arbitrary. Unlike scientifically verified fact, which people at different times all independantly end up coming up with. Like Steam power (though Archimedes' invention never got anywhere), calculus, a round earth, and the idea that the moon reflects light instead of giving off it.

 

They may prove to be non-factual in the end, but sometimes they prove factual when the research finally "uncovers" them.

Yeah, but that's why independant verification and the testing of hypothesis are important. Which is what science has been doing since forever. Religion on the other hand, is against this.

 

I'm not going to apologize nor shrink down to the crap here unless I am modestly striving for grace....which is not often, because I am definately one of the lost.

Whether or not you're striving for modesty or grace, this is still self-flaggelating incoherent nonsense.

It's valid to call science a reglion. If I religiously adhere to science, then it's religion.

In this sense, after every meal I religiously brush my teeth in order to avoid losing them to decay. Though one could hardly call my teethbrushing a religion. The same goes with science. This is exactly the problem I referred to in another thread, indeed, you were the inspiration to my thread "The Theists have a Point", you use 10 different definitions for a word. Then, having by one definition you may be right, you assume you are right because you then paste that one word by that definition onto that word with all its definitions and say "Aha!".

 

You are being annoyingly vague, and not consistently using the same definition of the same word. You're switching to suit your purposes. It's inherently dishonest, and isn't it a "sin" to lie?

 

he problem with this discussion is that you continue to discount my humanity, writing it off as laziness,

You called it intellectual lazyness, not us. You counted yourself as "the lost", discounting your own "humanity", not us. We disagree with you, we don't discount your humanity.

 

Which is, do infants love immediately after being born......not do they have the potential to love. In the above paragraph you mention science addressing this numerous times. Please, please, please attempt drive a fear stake right through my Christian heart by answering.

You said that this didn't matter to you but you've asked this more than once. But what does love being logical have anything to do with whether infants love when born or not? Also, by not asking about the potentiality, hence not whether or not their brains are equipped for it, you ask a question that lacks meaning! In the way it seems from this particular quote, you're asking a blanket question, expecting us all to be mindreaders. Its like asking "do babies want food" (as in, are they all hungry and wanting food right at this second?).

 

You inflate your arguements with nonsense making them unaddressable. Then falsely claim that as evidence, because others can't "prove your wrong". Which is quite frankly, innately illogical.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Also, I have to take note of this. Not everyone who responded to you even agreed completely with eachother here. You see here also areas of scientific debate, where people disagree at, for instance, what age one feels "love". We do this civilly. Not one of us has claimed to be victims. We disagree with you, and yet you want this to be personal. We on the other hand, debate ideas and it isn't personal. That's the difference also between science and religion, science allows debate that isn't personal, where if you're disagreed with, its not heresy or persecution, its a means to arrive at the truth. That's at the heart of scientific discovery, and its what binds scientists together into working together. Its friendly competition to find the right answer.

[Guest end3]

Here's the problem. If someone's going to make an outrageous claim, then yes, he has to support it, or else he's going to show only that he believes everything he hears. He doesn't get to cry about how persecuted he is if people don't take his word for everything but demand he show evidence of his claims. That's just how the real world works. If I said that Miatas have the best safety record in the automotive industry, then surely you would want to know how I'd arrived at that conclusion. If I couldn't show that, then I have no right to get weepy and outraged that you won't believe it.

 

End, you're not a dumb guy. You're clearly very caring and clearly you really do want to believe that you're on the right path. But religion views the world top down--it starts with "obviously God is real" and then works backward; any evidence to the contrary of that endpoint is disregarded or declared invalid. That's what ID does, and that's what you did here in this thread. By contrast, science starts with a question and makes a hypothesis based on that question, but it then moves forward to see if the hypothesis is supported or not--and if it doesn't, then it doesn't totally toss the evidence but rather incorporates it into a new and better-educated hypothesis. The objective facts--the observable evidence--has to fit the theory.

 

You asserted that "God gave us emotions and babies are born knowing how to love." At least that's what I think you're trying to assert; you haven't really stated it that concretely, but you dance around the edges of it at least. And we said "Prove your claims." Until you do, then yes, absolutely I will think that you're just talking out of your ass. Again. Next time, at least look at the fucking Wikipedia page about emotions before you go off half-cocked like that again. The reason people think almost everything you say is wrong because you often make clearly erroneous claims and can't be bothered to even do basic research before you spark a discussion about something you know *NOTHING* about. You remember that O'Reilly quote about "the tide goes in, the tide goes out. You can't explain that" -- and all those meteorologists said well actually yes, we've had a proven explanation for tides for 200 years? That's what this thread is like. Once you take off the religious blinders, you're in for a real treat--this universe is so much more amazing when it's not constricted into a little Bible-shaped box.

 

Fine, no more weeping me. You won't like the real me....but here goes. The assertion I am making, so you well be crystal clear dear, is infants must have input to learn love. To my understanding you are saying science says the brain accomplishes this without any bodily input. One, sweetie, is this is not by any stretch and OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM. How useful the phrase though is to your silent defense. Roadrunner, Hans, and I think one or two more have answered NO, an infant must have input.....the brain is essentially a blank slate. The thing is really meaningless to me., The more important point is you show very little understanding in the relationship department. How easy would it be for you to say yes or no? Yes, Ed, here is a smattering of where I was gaining my knowledge base and have formed my opinion. And all the while the more important thing to you is NOT an equilibrium between beleves as ALL of you idiots profess, but continued descrimination, bigotry, etc. under something we don't want to classify as a following, a religion. IF dear, you pratice it and you follow it, and you believe in it daily, then it's pretty well a religion. And futhermore, the decrepit nature of banging your truth gong long enough so that someone will fall for the arrogance at best a waste of time and a deception to which you are sightless.

 

Unless you have some wonderful peer reviewed, human baby isolating, brainless body science you can share at this time, I am turning the volume down on your relentless, arrogant gong,

 

Peace.

[Akheia]

End, stop calling me sweetie and stupid shit like that. We've talked about this, but this--like the constant lectures people write to you about truth and reality--seems to go over your head the second it's written out. If we're not on friendly terms, then calling someone a pet name like that is a blatant attempt at infantilization. Especially when you use a gender-specific word like that, it comes across as being terribly sexist and demeaning. Don't imagine I haven't noticed that you never use such fake, passive-aggressive endearments on the men on this forum. For a Christian, you really are a hateful, angry motherfucker, you know that? I wonder what you'd be like if you adopted a philosophy that allowed you to honor your intellect and emotions rather than stuff them into a bottle till you spew.

 

To the main point, then. Does it make you happy to make assumptions about what people say? I didn't say that our emotions are purely brain-derived. I don't think that, so it'd be kind of weird for me to say it. The research points to a really nuanced approach to understanding how emotions originated, and you want an either/or. There isn't an either/or with psychology. There's a lot of both nature (hardwiring, evolution, neurology) and nurture (environment, how a kid is raised, the influences upon that kid from an early stage) involved. Did you read that webpage I reference in my previous post to you, the Wiki entry about emotions? What did you think of it? Did you have questions about it?

 

It's funny that someone as poorly educated as you are thinks we're the idiots. We're not the ones asking a ridiculously stupid, vapid question about a complex subject.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Fine, no more weeping me. You won't like the real me....but here goes.

This is either a statement of a guilt trip or selfflagellation, or it is a statement of (hopefully) passive aggression. Aggression is fine if you debate right, but if you're just going to start more ad hominem and other nonsense, you're right, we're not going to like the real you. Though whether we do or don't, it doesn't matter enough to say. Just get to your arguement, cut the nonsense.

 

The assertion I am making, so you well be crystal clear dear, is infants must have input to learn love. To my understanding you are saying science says the brain accomplishes this without any bodily input.

Huh?... where?.... What did I miss? Last I checked, it was a neurological (in the brain) experience, derived from the input of neurons in the brain. Straw man much? You're just trying to make your arguement sound better by lying about your opponents arguement.

 

Roadrunner, Hans, and I think one or two more have answered NO, an infant must have input.....the brain is essentially a blank slate. The thing is really meaningless to me.

Actually, there is debate as to how much is nature and how much is nurture, but virtually nobody with reason says its a completely blank slate, more like a canvas. There are already parameters based on biology, but there are also things that are nurtured in. In my view, things like language and culture, things that have evolved to help us to work together and survive, are such learned behaviors. Some will also say certain emotional states or levels of emotional states, or the understanding of such, is learned. This is all matters of debate.

 

The more important point is you show very little understanding in the relationship department.

Because you, O Knowing One, know very well the relationship department, and she must learn from thee, O Knowing One!

 

Pompous and arrogant as usual, but wait.... I thought it was supposed to be the scientists that were that? Could it be? Maybe you're not the open minded one....

 

As for understanding the relationship department, you're the one who insinuated gift giving was a form of "loving", or that "empathy" was the same thing as love. You're the one who insinuated that codependants have it right on what love is.

 

It's funny, you just did something. You got me to change my mind, you actually convinced me of someone else's arguement. I didn't believe that love had a learned aspect to it. But knowing that it does seem correct, that some are confused as to what love is, perhaps it is in part learned, to know what love is! I did something theists can't and or don't do, admit they're or could be wrong. I was wrong about that. And you didn't even try to convince me of that.

How easy would it be for you to say yes or no? Yes, Ed, here is a smattering of where I was gaining my knowledge base and have formed my opinion. And all the while the more important thing to you is NOT an equilibrium between beleves as ALL of you idiots profess, but continued descrimination, bigotry, etc. under something we don't want to classify as a following, a religion.

You're right, I don't like the real you if this is the real you. However, I know you to be quite nice when you're not just getting angry and attacking other people instead of their arguements. Hence, you're the one trying to do the persecuting by making simple debate/discussion on your idea, into a personal matter.

 

To suggest that we are wrong and are idiots because we disagree with you, means that you are being a know it all. You are not omniscient. You've destroyed the value of your arguement with this. Who will listen to you or consider your ideas, if you attack them personally for disagreeing with you? You'll get at best a "uh huh.... whatever...." or worse, be called on it. The majority of responses you'll get are that of some variation on alienation.

 

IF dear, you pratice it and you follow it, and you believe in it daily, then it's pretty well a religion. And futhermore, the decrepit nature of banging your truth gong long enough so that someone will fall for the arrogance at best a waste of time and a deception to which you are sightless.

 

Unless you have some wonderful peer reviewed, human baby isolating, brainless body science you can share at this time, I am turning the volume down on your relentless, arrogant gong,

 

Peace.

Pot calling the kettle black much? Arrogance is something I've seen frequently from you, but not once from her. By the definition you are using, sleeping is also your religion unless you have insomnia.

[mymistake]

And all the while the more important thing to you is NOT an equilibrium between beleves as ALL of you idiots profess, but continued descrimination, bigotry, etc. under something we don't want to classify as a following, a religion. IF dear, you pratice it and you follow it, and you believe in it daily, then it's pretty well a religion. And futhermore, the decrepit nature of banging your truth gong long enough so that someone will fall for the arrogance at best a waste of time and a deception to which you are sightless.

 

Unless you have some wonderful peer reviewed, human baby isolating, brainless body science you can share at this time, I am turning the volume down on your relentless, arrogant gong,

 

At times like this I am reminded of the immoral words of the Translator Devise:

"All green of skin. Eight hundred centuries ago. Their body fluids include the birth of half breads. For the fundamental truth self-determination of the cosmos. For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest!"

-Mars Attacks! 1996

[Guest end3]

End, stop calling me sweetie and stupid shit like that. We've talked about this, but this--like the constant lectures people write to you about truth and reality--seems to go over your head the second it's written out. If we're not on friendly terms, then calling someone a pet name like that is a blatant attempt at infantilization. Especially when you use a gender-specific word like that, it comes across as being terribly sexist and demeaning. Don't imagine I haven't noticed that you never use such fake, passive-aggressive endearments on the men on this forum. For a Christian, you really are a hateful, angry motherfucker, you know that? I wonder what you'd be like if you adopted a philosophy that allowed you to honor your intellect and emotions rather than stuff them into a bottle till you spew.

 

To the main point, then. Does it make you happy to make assumptions about what people say? I didn't say that our emotions are purely brain-derived. I don't think that, so it'd be kind of weird for me to say it. The research points to a really nuanced approach to understanding how emotions originated, and you want an either/or. There isn't an either/or with psychology. There's a lot of both nature (hardwiring, evolution, neurology) and nurture (environment, how a kid is raised, the influences upon that kid from an early stage) involved. Did you read that webpage I reference in my previous post to you, the Wiki entry about emotions? What did you think of it? Did you have questions about it?

 

It's funny that someone as poorly educated as you are thinks we're the idiots. We're not the ones asking a ridiculously stupid, vapid question about a complex subject.

 

No, you never said anything other than it's my burden of truth until the last post where I had to basically shame you into participation. Here's a point. I think somewhere in this thread we have talked about actions as being part of love. All I am trying to accomplish in life is enough self control to give others their freedom in life. Best I can tell, sacrifice plays a role,self-responisbility plays a role, wisdom, and ultimately Grace. But to listen to people here, science is truth....which it certainly holds its ground in this world, but is lacking in many respects. Then, when confronted by a portion of this dilemma, aka this thread, then it's always science wins and any adherence to subjective reality is labeled stupid, uneducated, and so forth.

 

And then you played the, wow your a mean Christian. Why would you give a damn whether I am mean or not if your own tenent describes a science based freedom with no adherence to a particular religion?

 

And the the blessed part of all of this is I ask how science answers the subjectivity and DEAD FUCKING SILENCE from you other than ACTIONS that make the Chistian villian for not knowing? REALLY?

 

I don't have any anamosity towards you A, but a break in your stubborness would go a long way towards LIFE for both of us. Obviously you haven't read that in a jounal nor does it appear hard wired in your bod. Are you sure you're not lost like me and in need of saving...lol.

 

An again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern almost instantaneously that the subject was up in the air. The split was pretty even in this thread as well as the know it all, over-educated asshats and their self aggrandizing publications. How many times did I say that in this thread......and you came to the same answer after having to beat on you relentlessly.

 

But hey, you and I will come to an equilibrium some day......maybe.

[Guest end3]

It's funny, you just did something. You got me to change my mind, you actually convinced me of someone else's arguement. I didn't believe that love had a learned aspect to it. But knowing that it does seem correct, that some are confused as to what love is, perhaps it is in part learned, to know what love is! I did something theists can't and or don't do, admit they're or could be wrong. I was wrong about that. And you didn't even try to convince me of that.

So why not? What would be incorrect or non-logical to think someone is raised not knowing the mechanisms of love and then being labeled "lost" under some religious methodology to relearn, or be reborn with the correct method of love...aka the "holy spirit".

 

You're right, I don't like the real you if this is the real you. However, I know you to be quite nice when you're not just getting angry and attacking other people instead of their arguements. Hence, you're the one trying to do the persecuting by making simple debate/discussion on your idea, into a personal matter.

What I see from my perspective is NOT just criticism of my arguements....except maybe Hans and a few others, but the use of the words uneducated, stupid, morontheist is all that's ever really put towards the argument along with "there is no WAY that is a legitimate thought because it belongs to a Christian or is a Christiant tenent".

 

To suggest that we are wrong and are idiots because we disagree with you, means that you are being a know it all. You are not omniscient. You've destroyed the value of your arguement with this. Who will listen to you or consider your ideas, if you attack them personally for disagreeing with you? You'll get at best a "uh huh.... whatever...." or worse, be called on it. The majority of responses you'll get are that of some variation on alienation.

Exactly, why would I listen to the ideas here if I feel I am attacked. She had nothing to offer in the way of compromise. Would she had to have suffered to bring life to me, would she have to have swallowed her pride?

[mymistake]

End you are being dishonest.

[Akheia]

End: Wow you are a dumbass. You haven't "shamed" me into anything. All I did was fucking repeat what I'd already said to you a few pages back to your poorly-articulated, vastly-uninformed, monumentally disorganized, dishonest, and inadequately-defined question about "love." Go look it up. I said exactly then what I said now. Maybe I should have quoted myself to make it easier on poor widdle you. Then we talked about your complete dishonesty and intellectual vapidity and lack of understanding of the subject you brought up. Then you brought in the denigrating infantilizing pet names to try to distract everybody from your aforementioned dishonesty and lack of integrity and understanding.

 

I wonder. Why don't you ever denigrate the men on this forum? Why is it "sweetie" and "dear" for me, but no similar terms for the men? You infantilize the woman who speaks up against your fallacies and wrongdoing. But never the men who've used much stronger terms than I have in describing you. I cannot honestly say that I have ever encountered sexism and denigration from any non-Christians on this forum. Only from the guy who claims that a god of peace and love inhabits him and fills him and informs his actions and will judge him (*FOR NOT BEING LOVING*) when he dies. What do you suppose that says about you as a person, and about your religion's validity that you don't even follow its most important commandment yet still insist it's the truth? What do you reckon it says about you that you are the only person here who downtalks to women the way you do?

 

I don't want equilibrium with a asshole who is dishonest, abusive, hate-filled, and demeaning. I don't want "peace" with a person who thinks it's okay to infantilize women who disagree with him and try to invalidate their opinions by using pet names to make them look less threatening. I think your religion is complete and unadulterated bullshit, I think you don't even believe it or else you'd fucking *ACT* like it, and if you actually have proof of anything about a single bit of it being true, that you need to put up or GTFO.

 

Oh, and you still don't understand the first thing about science or the scientific method, and you clearly didn't check out that link I gave you or show even the barest iota of understanding of the subject you tried to bring up as a failed "proof" of your deity. I'm out of this thread. I thought there was hope for you, but if you're not even going to *try* to pay attention, I don't know why I should.

[Guest end3]

End: Wow you are a dumbass. You haven't "shamed" me into anything. All I did was fucking repeat what I'd already said to you a few pages back to your poorly-articulated, vastly-uninformed, monumentally disorganized, dishonest, and inadequately-defined question about "love." Go look it up. I said exactly then what I said now. Maybe I should have quoted myself to make it easier on poor widdle you. Then we talked about your complete dishonesty and intellectual vapidity and lack of understanding of the subject you brought up. Then you brought in the denigrating infantilizing pet names to try to distract everybody from your aforementioned dishonesty and lack of integrity and understanding.

 

You tell me how "this is a topic I thought worth discussing" is anywhere close to "I am an expert at neuroscience and am here to bait and stab you"? Whatever. This exercise in futility is only confirmation.

 

I wonder. Why don't you ever denigrate the men on this forum? Why is it "sweetie" and "dear" for me, but no similar terms for the men? You infantilize the woman who speaks up against your fallacies and wrongdoing. But never the men who've used much stronger terms than I have in describing you. I cannot honestly say that I have ever encountered sexism and denigration from any non-Christians on this forum. Only from the guy who claims that a god of peace and love inhabits him and fills him and informs his actions and will judge him (*FOR NOT BEING LOVING*) when he dies. What do you suppose that says about you as a person, and about your religion's validity that you don't even follow its most important commandment yet still insist it's the truth? What do you reckon it says about you that you are the only person here who downtalks to women the way you do?

 

Why would you think me less than perceptive to your weaknesses when you arrived here A. You scream I am woman hear me roar....I have educated myself primarily to belittle men. You know, I am really sorry if this is what your husband did to you, but it wasn't me. But as I have confirmed many time, I'm an egregious sinner capable of intense hate. So you asking me how I am so good at it? I told you with my father story, did I not.

 

I don't want equilibrium with a asshole who is dishonest, abusive, hate-filled, and demeaning. I don't want "peace" with a person who thinks it's okay to infantilize women who disagree with him and try to invalidate their opinions by using pet names to make them look less threatening. I think your religion is complete and unadulterated bullshit, I think you don't even believe it or else you'd fucking *ACT* like it, and if you actually have proof of anything about a single bit of it being true, that you need to put up or GTFO.

 

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. Ms. A, tear down this wall!

 

Oh, and you still don't understand the first thing about science or the scientific method, and you clearly didn't check out that link I gave you or show even the barest iota of understanding of the subject you tried to bring up as a failed "proof" of your deity. I'm out of this thread. I thought there was hope for you, but if you're not even going to *try* to pay attention, I don't know why I should.

 

Oh yes I do, and there is nothing you can do about it....neener neener.

 

Hang in there A.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

It's funny, you just did something. You got me to change my mind, you actually convinced me of someone else's arguement. I didn't believe that love had a learned aspect to it. But knowing that it does seem correct, that some are confused as to what love is, perhaps it is in part learned, to know what love is! I did something theists can't and or don't do, admit they're or could be wrong. I was wrong about that. And you didn't even try to convince me of that.

So why not? What would be incorrect or non-logical to think someone is raised not knowing the mechanisms of love and then being labeled "lost" under some religious methodology to relearn, or be reborn with the correct method of love...aka the "holy spirit".

What does that have to do with what I said? Nothing.

 

Incorrect and illogical/nonlogical are two different things. It is logical to say "I barked, dogs bark, therefore I am a dog", however it would be incorrect to say that I'm a dog.

 

Also, why not what? Or was that a response to my question or just some random question to precede an answer to which you added a conclusion.

 

You are as dishonest when argueing as a pathological liar, but yet less consistent. Your response to me doesn't even make a whole lot of sense. As for needing "the holy spirit" to know the "correct form" of love. That's the same as saying that a way to marry someone includes raping some virgin (Deut. 22). Sorry for any hurt feelings, but what your religion says about "love" just isn't my cup of tea, its psychotic and barbaric beyond measure. And to say that raping a young girl is okay, even grounds for getting married to her, is somehow just and moral, and that my being gay means that I'm an abomination who shall be put to death, isn't love; Its a hallmark of people with personalities that don't experience love, empathy, and normal human emotions (i.e. psycho/sociopaths). And to an extreme that those who are like that, should be locked away and never let out.

 

I say this as someone who believes in giving the mentally ill more rights and to be treated better. But those people are just downright scary.

 

You're right, I don't like the real you if this is the real you. However, I know you to be quite nice when you're not just getting angry and attacking other people instead of their arguements. Hence, you're the one trying to do the persecuting by making simple debate/discussion on your idea, into a personal matter.

What I see from my perspective is NOT just criticism of my arguements....except maybe Hans and a few others, but the use of the words uneducated, stupid, morontheist is all that's ever really put towards the argument along with "there is no WAY that is a legitimate thought because it belongs to a Christian or is a Christiant tenent".

Hans, me, Akheia, and most others have responded to you with at least more respect than you've given them. Others, including myself, ended in being harsh, but responding to the personal attacks you sent our way. I don't use the term morontheist, I will say that I think its a little overboard, but you did worse before that was even posted. So who are you to talk?

 

I break down your arguements and debate them. I don't attack you. Do I scold you when you attack others? Yeah, because I don't put up with crap and shouldn't have to, nor should others. The next time someone calls you something you don't like, call them specifically out for it, not members of a whole group.

 

To suggest that we are wrong and are idiots because we disagree with you, means that you are being a know it all. You are not omniscient. You've destroyed the value of your arguement with this. Who will listen to you or consider your ideas, if you attack them personally for disagreeing with you? You'll get at best a "uh huh.... whatever...." or worse, be called on it. The majority of responses you'll get are that of some variation on alienation.

Exactly, why would I listen to the ideas here if I feel I am attacked. She had nothing to offer in the way of compromise. Would she had to have suffered to bring life to me, would she have to have swallowed her pride?

She hasn't attacked you yet. You attacked her and she went back at you. That's on you, not her. You're the one that needs to get rid of the arrogance. No one wants or needs to deal with your narcissistic sense of being "attacked" when someone is defensive towards you for your condescending them and being arrogant towards them.

 

You tell me how "this is a topic I thought worth discussing" is anywhere close to "I am an expert at neuroscience and am here to bait and stab you"? Whatever. This exercise in futility is only confirmation.

Again to her and others point, you're being dishonest. You're like a pathological liar.

 

I wonder. Why don't you ever denigrate the men on this forum? Why is it "sweetie" and "dear" for me, but no similar terms for the men? You infantilize the woman who speaks up against your fallacies and wrongdoing. But never the men who've used much stronger terms than I have in describing you. I cannot honestly say that I have ever encountered sexism and denigration from any non-Christians on this forum. Only from the guy who claims that a god of peace and love inhabits him and fills him and informs his actions and will judge him (*FOR NOT BEING LOVING*) when he dies. What do you suppose that says about you as a person, and about your religion's validity that you don't even follow its most important commandment yet still insist it's the truth? What do you reckon it says about you that you are the only person here who downtalks to women the way you do?

 

Why would you think me less than perceptive to your weaknesses when you arrived here A. You scream I am woman hear me roar....I have educated myself primarily to belittle men. You know, I am really sorry if this is what your husband did to you, but it wasn't me. But as I have confirmed many time, I'm an egregious sinner capable of intense hate. So you asking me how I am so good at it? I told you with my father story, did I not.

 

I've noticed the same pattern with you. Freudianism has nothing to do with it, Freud didn't know what he was talking about. Also, even if you did specialize in attacking men, that would too be sexism. See, you can't even pretend not to discriminate.

 

You've yet to treat me how you treated her. I've disagreed with you worse than her repeatedly, most of the time you ignore me because you know you're just a troll. The only thing that has prevented you from being banned, is that this forum has freedom of speech, unlike at christian forums where I was banned for posting unfavorable scriptures.

[Guest Valk0010]

Is love logical? No it isn't. Does one need god to explain why we love? No. Even biology of the brain says that are emotions come from chemical response in our brain. Anything more then that is a bit like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

 

As far as logic itself coming from material forces. You don't need a god to realize that say, authority alone doesn't determine correctness or voting doesn't determine correctness. You don't need a god to recognize any other fallacious argument. Those are just products of the kind of thinking ability we developed to not get eaten or lied too. The same goes for the logical absolutes. We can't even really envision a world where in a non-theoretical sort of where A can be the same as nonA. Or A could somehow not be anything other then A. Or A being the same as not A. As far as I can see the only way those could not be self apparent is if we existent in a difference universe and tried to define our world in such a way that ignores what we see and touch and hear. Or we lived in a universe where those absolutes weren't absolutes but different kinds of absolutes.

 

So to tie all threads together, love need not be logical. But love is definitely natural and its not required to be logical.

[Guest end3]

What does that have to do with what I said? Nothing.

Sure it does, you just didn't make the connection.

 

 

I've noticed the same pattern with you. Freudianism has nothing to do with it, Freud didn't know what he was talking about. Also, even if you did specialize in attacking men, that would too be sexism. See, you can't even pretend not to discriminate.

Who said I didn't disciminate. Egregious sinner has no meaning for you?

 

 

You've yet to treat me how you treated her.

 

The ugly truth is most responses I find as not moving anything forward.....at a point behind where I would like to discuss.