Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?

[Hellbound]

Okay, so strawman.

I never said love is science, that's your fantasy.

I said love is perfectly capable of being examined by science, and described by science, which you've agreed with.

So whoever you're arguing against, it isn't me.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Okay, so strawman.

I never said love is science, that's your fantasy.

I said love is perfectly capable of being examined by science, and described by science, which you've agreed with.

So whoever you're arguing against, it isn't me.

No, we are arguing because the scientific explanation of love is not all, there is to love.
So it is all there is to love covered by the scientific explanation?
That is my question to you.
You can ignore it or answer.

 

[baron]

Science has not convinced me of how the university got into existence, or what happens after death. Religion has failed to explain these coherently too. My agnosticism is based on the failure of both science and religion to give trustworthy answers to the fundamental questions of existence and meaning of life.

It's unfortunate that the only option upon doubting the explanations offered by religion and science is agnosticism, which essentially says that one or the other is true and that the failure to decide which one represents a defect in your own analysis. It's a choice between 'A' or 'B' or 'on the fence', there is no 'C'. It's a depressing situation.

 

[Hellbound]

No, we are arguing because the scientific explanation of love is not all, there is to love.
So it is all there is to love covered by the scientific explanation?
That is my question to you.
You can ignore it or answer.

Yes.

Anything that is "outside" the scientific explanation of love (current or theoretical) can, by definition, have no impact on reality.

Because science is the study of reality.

Anything that can affect reality can be studied by science, either directly or by it's effects.

You're doing the same old tired arguments that always come up. The philosophical navel-gazing of assuming some ideal behind the actual reality (love IS a set of behaviors, both internal and external. There's nothing more to it) and the same old assumption that because something is only studied by the effects it has, that it can't be "truly known".

In other words, you're arguing "if we don't know everything then we can't ever know everything".

You are arguing for ignorance.

 

[The Norseman]

Science has not convinced me of how the university got into existence, or what happens after death.

That seems to me to be rather arbitrary, though interesting, criteria. Did you have other criteria besides these two that were either confirmed or denied by science or theism?

...ecause according to you there is no difference between different kind of human behavior...

Could you point to the post or quote a line which gives this impression, because I'm not seeing it.

 

[The Norseman]

No, we are arguing because the scientific explanation of love is not all, there is to love.
So it is all there is to love covered by the scientific explanation?
That is my question to you.
You can ignore it or answer.

Are you talking about qualia here?

 

[Hellbound]

Could you point to the post or quote a line which gives this impression, because I'm not seeing it.

Don't look too hard. I suspect if you find where it came from, you'd like be charged under various sodomy laws.

 

[The Norseman]

Don't look too hard. I suspect if you find where it came from, you'd like be charged under various sodomy laws.

lol Maybe you're right. It seemed like a left-turn-out-of-nowhere kind of post and I didn't know if it was my misunderstanding or not.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Yes.

Anything that is "outside" the scientific explanation of love (current or theoretical) can, by definition, have no impact on reality.

Because science is the study of reality.

...

I get it now. Science is not the study of reality. Science is a human behavior, which is a part of reality.
Ask yourself this: Where does science take place? Inside as a part of reality or outside of reality? Are scientists humans and a part of reality?

Science is the study of reality.
-versus-
Science is a human behavior which takes places inside reality as a part of reality and follows certain rules to qualify as science.
Which one is more correct?

 

[Hellbound]

I get it now. Science is not the study of reality. Science is a human behavior, which is a part of reality.
Ask yourself this: Where does science take place? Inside as a part of reality or outside of reality? Are scientists humans and a part of reality?

Science is the study of reality.
-versus-
Science is a human behavior which takes places inside reality as a part of reality and follows certain rules to qualify as science.
Which one is more correct?

False dichotomy.

Both are correct.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Are you talking about qualia here?

No.

 

[The Big Dog]

To use the original example, you say you love your kids. That can be tested. Do you care for them? Sacrifice things for their betterment? Feed and cloth them? Offer emotional support? Teach them? The actions you take towards those you claim to love show whether you actually care for them or not. And, as with all science, the conclusions will change as additional evidence comes in.

Claiming that you can "test" something does not make it scientific particularly when you use wildly vague terms that are not scientific in the slightest!

Lets run that test through the old tester, using one of my partners who claims to love his son, who is a millionaire product developer who lives in California, and who my partner does not sacrifice for his betterment, Feed or cloth him or teach them in any realistic way. He probably does Offer emotional support, tho. Can only guess what caring for entails.

In contrast my partner does most of those things for his employees, and he dislikes most of them!

Heck, tigers do most of those things too for their cubs until they kick them out or, like Spaulding, eat them.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

False dichotomy.

Both are correct.

Give evidence for the fact that it is false dichotomy and only use science.

 

[Hellbound]

Give evidence for the fact that it is false dichotomy and only use science.

Give evidence that love is more than behavior and use no scientific tools.

It's a false dichotomy because neither answer excludes the other. Nothing prevents both from being true (or neither, for that matter).

 

[Hellbound]

Claiming that you can "test" something does not make it scientific particularly when you use wildly vague terms that are not scientific in the slightest!

Lets run that test through the old tester, using one of my partners who claims to love his son, who is a millionaire product developer who lives in California, and who my partner does not sacrifice for his betterment, Feed or cloth him or teach them in any realistic way. He probably does Offer emotional support, tho. Can only guess what caring for entails.

In contrast my partner does most of those things for his employees, and he dislikes most of them!

You get two internets for scoring a "point".

My list wasn't an exhaustive list, obviously. It was representative. But actually taking it as that wouldn't let you score a "point".

Your response is about as sensible as responding to "You can measure speed with a radar gun" by saying "Oh, so if I point a radar gun at something, it's moving?"

You have anything meaningful to say?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Give evidence that love is more than behavior and use no scientific tools.

It's a false dichotomy because neither answer excludes the other. Nothing prevents both from being true (or neither, for that matter).

Yes, you are right.

So I will try to be more precise.

Science is one human behavior observable in some humans but not all humans. The purpose of science is to make testable explanations and predictions about different aspects of reality.

So is there something a scientist can't do as a scientist, but that she/he could do as a human?
That is my question to you and be aware of the following: It is testable according to what science is.

 

[applecorped]

As learning increases theism decreases

 

[Hellbound]

Yes, you are right.

So I will try to be more precise.

Science is one human behavior observable in some humans but not all humans. The purpose of science is to make testable explanations and predictions about different aspects of reality.

So is there something a scientist can't do as a scientist, but that she/he could do as a human?

Of course, and this is the same straw-man nonsense you started with. I never said everything was science, or that everything a scientist does is science. That's either your intentional misrepresentation of my argument, of a product of unclear thinking.

That is my question to you and be aware of the following: It is testable according to what science is.

Is WHAT testable? Love? Absolutely.

 

[applecorped]

Define love.

 

[Hellbound]

Define love.

love

/ləv/

noun

noun: love; plural noun: loves

1.an intense feeling of deep affection.
"babies fill parents with intense feelings of love"

synonyms: deep affection, fondness, tenderness, warmth, intimacy, attachment, endearment;

ETA: Of course that's easy, but you do hit on the problem: Just like "god" and "soul" people add a LOT of baggage to their definition of "love".

Frankly, we can recognize love...that's why we have a word for it. How do we recognize it? Either by how we feel (internal behaviors) and act (external behavior) towards one we "love", or by how they act towards us.

Both of which are amenable to scientific investigation.