Can atheism explain love?

[Yuujin]

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

I'd think you deem any arguments based on the existence of god stupid anyway.

I'm a theist, that's what I base my theories on, what else do you expect? If you don't wanna hear theists talking about their beliefs, don't come to the section called "Philosophy of Religion". What do you take religion for, if there's no god in it???

[Yuujin]

Hi Niels, (assuming this is your first name?)

I think you may have slightly misunderstood what I'm trying to discuss here ...

I agree with you and uwot that there have been some humans who have done awful things to their children. But the difference is we (humans) realized that is wrong (immoral). So we've improved our culture.

But other animals don't care about doing awful things to their young, if it helps passing on their own genes over others (the law of natural selection a.k.a. the survival of the fittest) or if it helps improving the prosperity of the species overall, which includes abandoning defective offspring who can't contribute to the procreation of the next generation. No matter how cruel it may seem to us, this is biologically logical.

Why have we (humans) developed the mentality to view these biologically logical actions, immoral? . . . My theory is this (I posted this on a different thread too) . . .

I see "survival" as a self-centered animalistic instinct that we're all saddled with, "conscience" as a divine instinct that keeps reminding us of our true nature, the part that's made in the image of god. There always is a tug-of-war between these different types of instincts. In some occasions, animalistic instinct wins, in other times, divine instinct wins.

It all depends on how receptive one is to the divine voice. And the reception can be completely subliminal, that one doesn't have to be a believer, doesn't have to know he is following the voice of god, in the same way homing pigeons follow the earth's magnetic field without knowing that's what they're doing.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

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

I'd think you deem any arguments based on the existence of god stupid anyway.

I'm a theist, that's what I base my theories on, what else do you expect? If you don't wanna hear theists talking about their beliefs, don't come to the section called "Philosophy of Religion". What do you take religion for, if there's no god in it???

Don't post a thread then if you only want those who agree with you to comment. I sort of worked out that you are a theist. Your comments regarding so-called 'animals' are pretty offensive, completely inaccurate, and deserve to be shot down in flames.

[Yuujin]

Don't post a thread then if you only want those who agree with you to comment. I sort of worked out that you are a theist. Your comments regarding so-called 'animals' are pretty offensive, completely inaccurate, and deserve to be shot down in flames.

No, I welcome the opinions of atheists who can present their arguments in a civil manner. I just don't think I can learn anything from a militant atheist, or militant anyone anyway.

I don't think I inaccurately described the animals' behaviors that are often seen in the wild.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Don't post a thread then if you only want those who agree with you to comment. I sort of worked out that you are a theist. Your comments regarding so-called 'animals' are pretty offensive, completely inaccurate, and deserve to be shot down in flames.

No, I welcome the opinions of atheists who can present their arguments in a civil manner. I just don't think I can learn anything from a militant atheist, or militant anyone anyway.

I don't think I inaccurately described the animals' behaviors that are often seen in the wild.

It would be difficult to find any people more 'militant' than religious nuts. And you will find that human behaviour in the wild is little different from any other animal. Ever observed a mob of drunkards, or a mob for that matter? Not a lot of evidence of 'civilisation' there. I think you have very little knowledge of the rest of the animal kingdom. There is no 'them' and 'us'--only arrogant fools think like that.
It's also pretty obvious why 'love' carries distinct survival advantages. The more protective a parent is to its offspring the more likely they are to survive. Are you suggesting only humans love their offspring? That's beyond ridiculous--just get between a bear and her young.

[Skip]

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

Maybe so, but I make a point of calling them on it, every time they attribute to "Science" an opinion, an attitude, a shortcoming or basic inability to explain whatever it is they prefer to remain ignorant about, because the handers-down of their canon have claimed that territory for their own. I believe this shortcut or sloppy wording is not usually accidental, but part of a campaign to discredit the scientific method - to which I owe much (and presume to imagine that eugene does, too).

I also make a point of responding to mischaracterizations of atheists, in whatever forum the challenge is posted.

Blunt points, I know; it's just my sense of duty.

[Yuujin]

It would be difficult to find any people more 'militant' than religious nuts.

I would say there are militant people on either side, both religious and secular.

Just to let you know, though I now believe in the existence of god, I don't have a religion. I view religions as all man-made and imperfect. Although there are many things I can learn from religions, none of them will never act as my final authority, I'll always follow my conscience. I especially think the belief in the inerrancy of the scriptures to be quite dangerous. I don't know how many times I got into an argument with religious fundamentalists.

And you will find that human behaviour in the wild is little different from any other animal. Ever observed a mob of drunkards, or a mob for that matter? Not a lot of evidence of 'civilisation' there. I think you have very little knowledge of the rest of the animal kingdom. There is no 'them' and 'us'--only arrogant fools think like that.

I agree with you, humans can act in a pretty barbaric way. And I know some animals can act so lovingly, yea, my dog would be more civil than the people you just described, and, seeing-eye dogs, oh, they are just marvelous!

It's also pretty obvious why 'love' carries distinct survival advantages. The more protective a parent is to its offspring the more likely they are to survive. Are you suggesting only humans love their offspring? That's beyond ridiculous--just get between a bear and her young.

No, I am not at all saying only humans love their young. Of course it's obvious other animals do too. What I suggested was, they are very focused on their survival (as they should), and a lot of times, they only care about the best outcome for passing on their genes, and there's nothing wrong with that, I am not faulting them for it, like I said many times, it's biologically logical. They are just very loyal to the law of natural selection, and I was wondering why humans aren't, compared to them.

I hope this article doesn't offend you.(That is not at all my intention.) And I think the title is wrong to call those animal moms 'worst', there's nothing wrong in what they're doing, that's what they have to do to survive. They are just very faithful to the purpose of their lives, which is survival. But humans' culture has developed in the direction that if we did what these animals do, we'd be condemned as immoral. And I'm wondering why the difference, if we're also being guided by the same law of natural selection and nothing else . . .

== excerpts from an article ==

Despite the fact that pandas often have twins, they almost never care for more than one cub. The mom will choose the weaker of the two babies and start ignoring him or her in favor of the stronger sibling.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the black bear generally has two or three cubs at a time. Unfortunately, when she only has one cub, the mother will often abandon it, deciding that raising only one baby just isn’t worth her effort.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/30657/9- ... al-kingdom

[Yuujin]

I believe this shortcut or sloppy wording is not usually accidental, but part of a campaign to discredit the scientific method -

Well, this is a pure accusation. I have great respect for science, as I tell religious folks "religion without science is blind" all the time. And I support the evolution theory, I just think a divine influence is behind it.

I also make a point of responding to mischaracterizations of atheists, in whatever forum the challenge is posted.

Where did I do that? If I did, it was not intentional.

[Skip]

skip: "I believe this shortcut or sloppy wording is not usually accidental, but part of a campaign to discredit the scientific method ."
Well, this is a pure accusation.

No, this is a general observation by me. It doesn't concern your feelings. I was responding to NeilsBohr.

skip: I also make a point of responding to mischaracterizations of atheists, in whatever forum the challenge is posted."

Where did I do that? If I did, it was not intentional.

Can atheism explain love?

I'm looking for the scientific explanations for the examples I stated in my OP.

So, in essence, you're saying the question is too complicated for science to answer ...

I ignore people who can't make their arguments without being offensive.

The underlying agenda begins to form a pattern.
But you don't have to own it.

[Yuujin]

skip: "I believe this shortcut or sloppy wording is not usually accidental, but part of a campaign to discredit the scientific method ."
Well, this is a pure accusation.

No, this is a general observation by me. It doesn't concern your feelings. I was responding to NeilsBohr.

skip: I also make a point of responding to mischaracterizations of atheists, in whatever forum the challenge is posted."

Where did I do that? If I did, it was not intentional.

Can atheism explain love?

I'm looking for the scientific explanations for the examples I stated in my OP.

So, in essence, you're saying the question is too complicated for science to answer ...

I ignore people who can't make their arguments without being offensive.

The underlying agenda begins to form a pattern.
But you don't have to own it.

Wow, I've never met anyone who is so sensitive to a single innocuous thing I say ..., or do all other atheists feel the same way?????
(Then I have to find a different forum.)

Okay, then, how can I ask a simple scientific question to an atheist? or have a debate? If I titled my thread "How does science explain love?", would it have been better?

By the way, the last quote of mine was made because I actually received hostility that I thought was not called for, I just reacted, and responded in kind. Sorry, I'm an imperfect human being.

Oh, and, English is not my first language, so if I misunderstood some of what you said, or the way I wrote was crude (I didn't come up with better phrasing), my apologies.

[Skip]

Wow, I've never met anyone who is so sensitive to a single innocuous thing I say ...,

It's not about you and your innocuous single things. It's just my standard policy.

or do all other atheists feel the same way?????

I wouldn't know.
Where do you get the notion that any two atheists feel the same way about anything?

(Then I have to find a different forum.)

I'm sure you've found others before and will find more.

Okay, then, how can I ask a simple scientific question to an atheist?

Like this, e.g.: What is the biological aetiology of parental love?

or have a debate?

Like this, e.g.: " Unconditional love for defective offspring is divinely inspired. " Discuss.

Make up your mind. Scientific question or philosophical debate?

If I titled my thread "How does science explain love?", would it have been better?

Slightly, but I still would have had to point out that "science" isn't a person who can explain things, but a method whereby persons discover how things in the universe function, and that all the data on human psychology is not yet collected, let alone processed or distilled into a neat sound-bite.

By the way, the last quote of mine was made because I actually received

perceived / inspired / provoked / exaggerated / imagined ?

hostility that I thought was not called for, I just reacted, and responded in kind.

I followed the exchange. The pattern remains.

Sorry, I'm an imperfect human being.

You needn't apologize to me - I have no vested interest.

[Yuujin]

Okay Skip, too much instruction I have to follow... I think I'd better find a different forum. Thanks for the advice.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Okay Skip, too much instruction I have to follow... I think I'd better find a different forum. Thanks for the advice.

You aren't going to find a forum where everyone agrees with you. Skip has some very good points. Your OP title was quite hostile in itself.
I have also noticed that religious people always say 'I'm not religious....' If you believe in god then you are religious.

[henry quirk]

'You are a good man, Henry'

Eye of the beholder, I think.

#

'are you saying there's no such thing as heroism?'

Oh, there are heroes, no doubt.

I just think heroism is motivated by self-interest, like any- and every-thing else.

#

'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?'

Cuz we’re not just smarter.

Humans do what (it seems) other animals can't, that is: self-reference.

Human consciousness folds back on itself. We aren't just aware of the world, but are aware of ourselves in the world.

To some extent, this self-referencing allows each of us to hi-jack our biology and turn instinct or impulse into sumthin' more: choice, for reasons sussed out by the individual.

'Love' is a placeholder for the valuing one has for another (I value him or her); the why for that valuing is idiosyncratic (will vary from individual to individual, from circumstance to circumstance) but the foundation for that valuing is always self-interest (as understood by the valuer).

And: self-interest isn't just about bio-survival (though that is a root of it). Identity, efficacy, autonomy, etc., none of these are necessary for human survival but all (and more) are the necessary result of humans 'doing' what they do (self-referencing, 'I'ness).

So: 'love' is not necessary to human living, but love (valuing) is the necessary result of being human.

[NielsBohr]

Your OP title was quite hostile in itself.

-Or seemed to be (if you thought it couldn't explain).

I have also noticed that religious people always say 'I'm not religious....' If you believe in god then you are religious.

-No, not me, so I do: I am not religious.

-Seriously, I did not "benefit" a traditional baptism. I don't think why I should go in a church to take part with people have a notion of God being what I consider as some "biased views", beginning with the pastor, having adoration for a picture of Jesus. (Contrary to some of the most important Orders.)
---------------------------
You should understand Yujin: it is not easy to maintain a "dia"logue with several people.