Can atheism explain love?

[Yuujin]

"why would anyone sacrifice one's life for others?"

An example...

My nephew is eight years old. I find him to be the most marvelous person in the world.

If need be: I'd take a bullet to save him.

Why? Cuz I love him.

I need no other reason.

Is my reason sound?

Probably not...don't care...I believe the world is a better place with him in it...I know my life is better with him in it...I value him beyond all others and things...I want him to live, to grow, to find his place, to be happy.

So: because I value him, I believe it to be in my best interest to preserve and cultivate him, even if I have to sacrifice myself to do it.

Even if I'm not around to see it, knowing (in my last moments) that he continues, serves 'me'.

There's nuthin' noble about it.

It is what it is.

Hey Henry,

You just described what I consider to be selfless love. Some may say, "well, he's talking about his nephew, so it's still within the instinct of passing on his genes ...", but I think your love for your nephew wouldn't change a bit even if he had, god forbid, a terminal illness. So, you're not valuing him for passing on your genes. You need no reason other than that you recognize the beauty of his spirit, and are willing to give your life for it. In my theistic world, it makes perfect sense, your reason is very sound, and very noble in the eyes of god.

I think we have a slightly different definition of what 'self-serving' is. When someone else's happiness serves 'you' (I guess technically, you could still call that self-serving), that's to me, you're no longer trying to serve the most important need for yourself (in the atheistic worldview), your own survival. That's the way nature supposedly made us, in the purely naturalistic worldview, right? So, I guess you are a loony in your world, but not in my world.

You are a good man, Henry.

[Yuujin]

"There have been people who had thrown themselves on others in a shooting rampage, trying to protect his/her friend. In your eyes, such acts of heroism is a crazy notion, getting a satisfaction for submitting oneself to self-torture?"

First: every one (including me) is loony.

Second: as I say in my post above, it ain't noble (ain't heroism).

Third: if you could dissect the 'hero's' psyche, I'm bettin' his or her motivation is not much different than what I describe in my post above.

Ok... then are you saying there's no such thing as heroism? I have no problem calling anyone who takes a bullet for others, a hero and noble. And feeling good about one's self-sacrificial act does not disqualify him from being a hero.

[Yuujin]

I googled 'animals mourning', there were "About 7,260,000 results (0.41 seconds)" take your pick. I don't know of any academic studies, it's not my field, but I can imagine there would be a reluctance to attribute an emotion to animals.

Getting hits on an Internet search only means that there's content with those words in it. We have no idea what's in the websites (if the argument is for it or against it, or just asking "'Is there such a thing as animals mourning?")... So, just having hits does not prove anything. And we don't know who wrote it either, zoologists or just laymen casually speculating. Therefore, we need a legitimate source, some articles from academic studies done by experts in the field, otherwise we can't present it as evidence. But I have no trouble believing that other animals (especially social animals) can mourn. I think I read something about it before somewhere.

Besides, what I asked for was how many known cases there are where animals didn't abandon their stillborn babies as you suggested, and if they seemed to know that the babies were dead.

There is no way of telling what science will find answers to;

Agreed. So, in the future, it may find what I'm picturing as god, a force of Mind that sends subliminal signals to our minds telling us "Love one another" . . .

the only certainty is that if you satisfy yourself with attributing everything to god, you will never find out.

Agreed again. If you satisfy yourself with attributing everything to the nonexistence of god, you will never find it either.

Why are those things more meaningful in a universe with a god, than one without?

Because those things don't make coherent sense to me without the hypothesis of a god and also the hypothesis that we have a soul, neither of which the atheistic worldview entertains.

[uwot]

Getting hits on an Internet search only means that there's content with those words in it. We have no idea what's in the websites (if the argument is for it or against it, or just asking "'Is there such a thing as animals mourning?")... So, just having hits does not prove anything.

If nothing else, it proves that there is information available. We have no idea what is in the websites, because neither of us has looked at them. But it is you that is making claims based on your assumptions that can easily be researched.

And we don't know who wrote it either, zoologists or just laymen casually speculating. Therefore, we need a legitimate source, some articles from academic studies done by experts in the field, otherwise we can't present it as evidence.

Not 'we'; you.

...what I asked for was how many known cases there are where animals didn't abandon their stillborn babies as you suggested, and if they seemed to know that the babies were dead.

And I said I don't know, but unlike you, I am not using my guesswork as a premise in an argument about the existence of god.

...in the future, it may find what I'm picturing as god, a force of Mind that sends subliminal signals to our minds telling us "Love one another" . . .

Who knows? The point of science is not to prove that there is no god, rather it is to find out what you can explain without reference to a god. It may be that we discover a phenomenon that can only be explained by (non human) conscious intervention, but unless god comes out and says 'Aw, shucks ya found me.' scientists will keep looking for a natural explanation; it's what scientists do.

If you satisfy yourself with attributing everything to the nonexistence of god, you will never find it either.

Like I said, scientists are not out to prove there is no god. Think of it in terms of control, scientists want to discover what they can do to understand and manipulate the environment, before resorting to prayer.

...those things don't make coherent sense to me without the hypothesis of a god and also the hypothesis that we have a soul, neither of which the atheistic worldview entertains.

They make perfect sense to me.

[Yuujin]

If nothing else, it proves that there is information available. We have no idea what is in the websites, because neither of us has looked at them. But it is you that is making claims based on your assumptions that can easily be researched.

I'm sorry???
It is you who made a claim as below, so, I asked for an article from a legitimate source.

on Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:06 pm (page 1, the sixth post)

Many animals will attempt to nurture even stillborn offspring and display behaviour that looks very like mourning.

[uwot]

If nothing else, it proves that there is information available. We have no idea what is in the websites, because neither of us has looked at them. But it is you that is making claims based on your assumptions that can easily be researched.

I'm sorry???
It is you who made a claim as below, so, I asked for an article from a legitimate source.

on Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:06 pm (page 1, the sixth post)

Many animals will attempt to nurture even stillborn offspring and display behaviour that looks very like mourning.

Indeed. It was also me that pointed out that there are 'About 7,260,000 results (0.41 seconds)' pertaining to 'animal mourning'. I don't know, because I haven't looked, but my guess is that among those results are images I have seen before of animals displaying behaviour that if they were human, we would describe as mourning. Just to remind you, it was your original post that included this claim:

Other animals won't raise their offspring that are born defective, but abandon them. We may think that's cold and cruel, but it is logical, biologically. Why waste time and energy on those who can't contribute to the prosperity of the species?

Mon Aug 04, 2014 8:41 pm (page 1, the first post) if you care.

[Yuujin]

If nothing else, it proves that there is information available. We have no idea what is in the websites, because neither of us has looked at them. But it is you that is making claims based on your assumptions that can easily be researched.

I'm sorry???
It is you who made a claim as below, so, I asked for an article from a legitimate source.

on Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:06 pm (page 1, the sixth post)

Many animals will attempt to nurture even stillborn offspring and display behaviour that looks very like mourning.

Indeed. It was also me that pointed out that there are 'About 7,260,000 results (0.41 seconds)' pertaining to 'animal mourning'. I don't know, because I haven't looked, but my guess is that among those results are images I have seen before of animals displaying behaviour that if they were human, we would describe as mourning. Just to remind you, it was your original post that included this claim:

(The emphasis was added by me)

So, when you made the above claim (on Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:06 pm), you didn't know if what you were saying was true?

And for the third time, I'm not talking about 'animal mourning' as I said repeatedly that I believe animals can mourn.

What I've been addressing was whether it is common for animals to abandon their offspring, if they detect a defect in their young. Here are articles to support my claim.

Kittens born with severe deformities will likely be rejected by their mother because she senses that they won't survive, according to the Feline Advisory Bureau.
http://pets.thenest.com/reasons-mother- ... -7859.html

Some mothers instinctively know something is wrong with their young, and will ignore those who are runts or deformed.
http://www.critters360.com/index.php/wh ... ung-10776/

[uwot]

I don't know, because I haven't looked, but my guess is that among those results are images I have seen before of animals displaying behaviour that if they were human, we would describe as mourning.

(The emphasis was added by me)
So, when you made the above claim (on Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:06 pm), you didn't know if what you were saying was true?

Yup. (on Sun Aug 10, 2014 10:15 am)

And for the third time, I'm not talking about 'animal mourning' as I said repeatedly that I believe animals can mourn.

So you don't know either.

What I've been addressing was whether it is common for animals to abandon their offspring, if they detect a defect in their young. Here are articles to support my claim.

I believe you. It has also been the case throughout history that some humans do the same thing, a practise known as exposure, as infants were simply left outside to the elements and predators or scavengers. Prior to the birth of my own children, the hospital wouldn't tell us whether they were boys or girls, apparently because some mothers will abort a pregnancy that doesn't tick their boxes. In China, for example, the one child policy has meant that there was an average of nearly 120 boys born for every hundred girls, compared with a global average of 105. We are much more like animals than your thesis admits.

[uwot]

Oh yeah, here's a paper supporting that: http://www.faqs.org/childhood/A-Ar/Abandonment.html

[vegetariantaxidermy]

All this talk of 'us' and 'animals'. We ARE animals! Anyone who has anything to do with other animals knows they feel everything we do, often more intensely. Next someone will be suggesting 'animals' can't feel pain. As a matter of fact humans aren't even particularly good parents compared to other apes. We could learn a lot from them about parenting.

[Yuujin]

I don't know, because I haven't looked, but my guess is that among those results are images I have seen before of animals displaying behaviour that if they were human, we would describe as mourning.

(The emphasis was added by me)
So, when you made the above claim (on Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:06 pm), you didn't know if what you were saying was true?

Yup. (on Sun Aug 10, 2014 10:15 am)

If you didn't know if it was true, then you shouldn't have made the claim, don't cha think? And I'm only talking about the part where you said, "Many animals will attempt to nurture even stillborn offspring" and not the part about 'animal mourning' which we both think they can mourn, so no point arguing there, right? (Did you understand that I agreed with you on this the very first time?)

And for the third time, I'm not talking about 'animal mourning' as I said repeatedly that I believe animals can mourn.

So you don't know either.

What are you suggesting that I don't know? I do know animals abandon their defective babies (and it's common), as I submitted articles to support my claim.

What I've been addressing was whether it is common for animals to abandon their offspring, if they detect a defect in their young. Here are articles to support my claim.

I believe you. It has also been the case throughout history that some humans do the same thing, a practise known as exposure, as infants were simply left outside to the elements and predators or scavengers. Prior to the birth of my own children, the hospital wouldn't tell us whether they were boys or girls, apparently because some mothers will abort a pregnancy that doesn't tick their boxes. In China, for example, the one child policy has meant that there was an average of nearly 120 boys born for every hundred girls, compared with a global average of 105. We are much more like animals than your thesis admits.

I didn't say humans never abandon their children. Obviously it happens, regretfully. There always are cases of anomalies in any animals, so we have to go with what the majority does. When humans abandon defective offspring, we consider that abnormal, whereas in other animals' cases, it's normal (if they do take care of the defective, that is an abnormal case), and they're making more sense, if we speak strictly from the prosperity of the species.

I'm questioning why the difference, if humans are just animals too, but only smarter, why the majority of us engage in the 'love' behavior that doesn't make biological sense? I'm looking for the scientific explanations for the examples I stated in my OP.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You aren't looking for any 'scientific explanation'. That's dishonest crap. You are insinuating 'god' here, and implying that only the supernatural can explain 'love'. I LOVE the way you ignore everything I write. Most humans are less 'smart' than the average dog (and love less too), which is why we have so many religious nuts.

[Yuujin]

Most humans are less 'smart' than the average dog (and love less too),

That has not been my experience. If you think my posts are dishonest crap, you don't have to talk to me. Please ignore me. I ignore people who can't make their arguments without being offensive. I have never learned anything valuable from those kind of people.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Most humans are less 'smart' than the average dog (and love less too),

That has not been my experience. If you think my posts are dishonest crap, you don't have to talk to me. Please ignore me. I ignore people who can't make their arguments without being offensive. I have never learned anything valuable from those kind of people.

Boo hoo. Don't say stupid things then if you don't want them ridiculed.

[NielsBohr]

What I've been addressing was whether it is common for animals to abandon their offspring, if they detect a defect in their young. Here are articles to support my claim.

I believe you. It has also been the case throughout history that some humans do the same thing, a practise known as exposure, as infants were simply left outside to the elements and predators or scavengers. Prior to the birth of my own children, the hospital wouldn't tell us whether they were boys or girls, apparently because some mothers will abort a pregnancy that doesn't tick their boxes. In China, for example, the one child policy has meant that there was an average of nearly 120 boys born for every hundred girls, compared with a global average of 105. We are much more like animals than your thesis admits.

-Yujin,

I would help you in showing that love doesn't process of thermochemistry only...

But I must admit that Uwot get this deal.

In ancient Greece, it was famous that families let the handicapped children to the crocodiles, or maybe was it in Egypt. Although, it is a known practice of these times.
------

Let us make this clear: scientists, not Science. Science is a discipline, and approach to problem solving, a method, a human endeavour encompassing many fields of study in which millions of people participate over thousands of years, each adding their little bit of theory, observation, experimentation, explanation, and yet more questions. Science is not a conscious entity: it doesn't say anything, do anything or want anything. People do.

Sorry for the late answer, Skip.

I don't think that Yujin was trying to play on word - it was most probably a shortcut in writing "science".

But I recall your wise teaching.