What is love?

[plumjam]

So no answers to my questions then. You can't think of any survival advantages contests of physical prowess might have had in our evolutionary ancestors? None at all?

The beings that existed who first engaged in 'sport' (however you want to define it) already existed. They already were successfully surviving and reproducing.. otherwise they wouldn't have been there in the first place in order to create the phenomena of sport.
The people who hit on football as a new type of sport, were not thereby increasing their chances of survival and reproduction, so football is an irrationality in evolutionism.
How about dangerous sports? Are hang-gliding, free-climbing, sky-diving, mountaineering, white-water canoeing, motor racing, the x-games ..increasing one's chances of survival and procreation? No. They're doing the exact opposite. So in evolutionism they shouldn't exist. Yet they do.
Any explanations for that?

 

[plumjam]

I especially like this - mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy as examples of irrationality.

Or do you get it both ways? Rationality and irrationality disprove materialism.

Deliberate misunderstanding on your part.
Keep trying though.

 

[plumjam]

Yes, synchronised swimming and Days of Our Lives absolutely cry out "superintelligent origin".

they cry out free will, aesthetic endeavour for its own sake, and drama.. none of which can be accommodated into the evolutionist/deterministic/materialistic paradigm.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Or, to be more precise, not so much what is your personal opinion of what love is, but how does love fit in the belief wars that JREF is engaged in? Can love be defined, studied and understood in a rationalist, materialist perspective? Does talking about love indicate something about the speaker's other beliefs, and if so, what? What use and abuse of the concept of love is being made by believers in the paranormal and the supernatural?

Don't waste too much time trying to define love. Because the definition is so precise that it's gonna sound ugly. I can give it to you but you don't wanna hear it, trust me. Just keep loving. Keep sharing the love, spreading the love, being the love. That's it. But don't waste your time trying to define it. The point is: yes, it can be defined. But better to abstain from it.

 

[JoeEllison]

The people who hit on football as a new type of sport, were not thereby increasing their chances of survival and reproduction, so football is an irrationality in evolutionism.

You're kidding, right? A couple of million dollars a year, and tons of hot women who want a piece of you because you're a big deal athlete... and you think that's not increasing their chances of survival and reproduction? The only thing irrational here is your position.

 

[JoeEllison]

Deliberate misunderstanding on your part.
Keep trying though.

Why don't YOU try explaining your assertions, as stupid as they are, instead of just stating them as though they make sense.

 

[plumjam]

You're kidding, right? A couple of million dollars a year, and tons of hot women who want a piece of you because you're a big deal athlete... and you think that's not increasing their chances of survival and reproduction? The only thing irrational here is your position.

British football. Invented sometime in the middle ages, consisting of a whole village kicking around some stuffed bladder, with few rules, often most enthusiastically practiced by drunken louts and ending in mass violence.. to the extent that it was frequently banned.

 

[JoeEllison]

British football. Invented sometime in the middle ages, consisting of a whole village kicking around some stuffed bladder, with few rules, often most enthusiastically practiced by drunken louts and ending in mass violence.. to the extent that it was frequently banned.

Yep... and I'll bet the ones who did more butt-kicking got more chicks.

 

[Robin]

The beings that existed who first engaged in 'sport' (however you want to define it) already existed. They already were successfully surviving and reproducing.. otherwise they wouldn't have been there in the first place in order to create the phenomena of sport.

That goes for every single evolutionary adaptation. The organism who first developed the ability to sense light already existed, they were already surviving and reproducing otherwise they wouldn’t have been there in the first place. So I don’t know where you are going with that.

The people who hit on football as a new type of sport, were not thereby increasing their chances of survival and reproduction, so football is an irrationality in evolutionism.

We have not evolved since we became human. But this behaviour – contests of physical strength, strategy, defending and invading territory that characterises football, you are saying that you can’t think of any similar behaviour our primate ancestors might have developed that would have any survival advantages. None?

How about dangerous sports? Are hang-gliding, free-climbing, sky-diving, mountaineering, white-water canoeing, motor racing, the x-games ..increasing one's chances of survival and procreation? No. They're doing the exact opposite. So in evolutionism they shouldn't exist. Yet they do.
Any explanations for that?

Is the death rate from these sports higher than the death rate for sitting in front of the telly? No.

You have got to think of colonies of primates competing for food. Complete risk aversion, ie cowering in dark corners would not have been useful. Clumsy and stupid risk taking would have been similarly problematic. Skillfully executed risk-taking behaviours would have given the maximal advantage.

It is sitting in front of the telly behaviour that is harder to explain from an evolutionary standpoint.

Do you really think it more probable that football or dangerous sports were gifted to us by a superintellect?

 

[plumjam]

Why don't YOU try explaining your assertions, as stupid as they are, instead of just stating them as though they make sense.

If my assertions are stupid why on Earth would you want them explained?
Wouldn't your time be better spent eating, drinking, and humping, as Darwinism recommends?

 

[Robin]

British football. Invented sometime in the middle ages, consisting of a whole village kicking around some stuffed bladder, with few rules, often most enthusiastically practiced by drunken louts and ending in mass violence.. to the extent that it was frequently banned.

So rather than this sort of behaviour being a vestige of our primate ancestry, you think it more likely to have been gifted to us by a superintelligent being?

 

[plumjam]

That goes for every single evolutionary adaptation. The organism who first developed the ability to sense light already existed, they were already surviving and reproducing otherwise they wouldn’t have been there in the first place. So I don’t know where you are going with that.

Yeah, makes you wonder, doesn't it

We have not evolved since we became human.

Quite telling that, isn't it. Macro-evolution is something that only ever happened in the dim and distant past. Somehow it happened back then when it was naturally unobservable. Now, when it could be observed, it's kind of well... stopped.

But this behaviour – contests of physical strength, strategy, defending and invading territory that characterises football, you are saying that you can’t think of any similar behaviour our primate ancestors might have developed that would have any survival advantages. None?

This is kind of fallacious. If a particular form of behaviour has certain aspects to it that could conceivably be of help in survival and procreation it doesn't mean that that whole behaviour originated thus. The aspects that are clearly not to do with survival and reproduction.. such as simple aesthetic enjoyment of a game of football, or chess or a symphony need to be explicable also, if evolutionism can be accepted as a serious theory about the origination of all biologically-based phenomena.

Is the death rate from these sports higher than the death rate for sitting in front of the telly? No.

Neither does sitting in front of the telly aid survival and reproduction, so it's another irrationality in the paradigm. Unless of course the viewer is stuffing his face with doritos while his missus straddles him.

You have got to think of colonies of primates competing for food. Complete risk aversion, ie cowering in dark corners would not have been useful. Clumsy and stupid risk taking would have been similarly problematic. Skillfully executed risk-taking behaviours would have given the maximal advantage.

But dangerous sports generally don't secure food from the environment.

It is sitting in front of the telly behaviour that is harder to explain from an evolutionary standpoint.

If it is then that in no way helps your case.

Do you really think it more probable that football or dangerous sports were gifted to us by a superintellect?

It's you who keep bringing in this superintellect. I haven't mentioned that in the whole discussion. Seeing as you ask, no. But the superintellect did give us free will, and the ability to engage in aesthetic appreciation for its own sake. The rest is up to us as to what we do with those abilities.

 

[The Atheist]

So let me get this straight. Theists can and do have theist agendas. Whereas you seem to believe that materialists/atheists are somehow immune from having materialist/atheist agendas?
How does that work?

Wow, you are in trouble, aren't you?

What are those agendas? Who votes for them? How do those agendas get promulgated? For a start, to have an agenda, one needs an organisation. Materialism & atheism don't have those organisations.

Here's a simple test for you:

You're in England, right? Roughly 50% of Poms think religion is a load of old bollocks. How many of them do belong to any type of secular or atheist organisations? The British Humanist Association nationally probably has fewer members than the Anglican Church does in bleeding Bristol! How many Catholics go to church every week in Britain? Millions!

Repeat after me: "There are no atheist or materialist "agendas", nor can there ever be."

Maybe if I went back to my old sig, which contained this quote:

The only thing which could possibly unite atheists is hatred of The Atheist

Sorry, mate, but there's no way out of this one.

You could ask God tonight in your prayers.
My guess would be that they all do. I mean why should you have a soul but not them?
(There are certain teachings that say some life forms such as insect colonies have group souls.. but we'd be getting a bit obscure there)

If I thought there were even a 1% chance of someone being able to hear and answer a prayer, I'd be doing just that, but I'll take your opinion in the meantime.

Man, I am so glad not to be going to heaven with the dysentery amoeba. Or scorpions - they're the one animal I really detest.

I always thought that love was the secret ingredient in really nice food.

Did you really say that?

*shudder*

How interesting. On this forum I keep hearing about these fabled MOUNTAINS of evidence to back up the dogma. Rarely do you get to see any.

Uh-oh. Looking for evidence of non-existence again? Nasty. We can cure tha, you know, but first you must give up all fairytales. No Tooth Fairy, no Santa - or his evil twin, Satan, no sky-daddy.

Where are the MOUNTAINS of evidence for evolutionist explanations of the origination of:
humour, music, poetry, sport, literature, art, plays, soap operas, homosexuality, celibacy, religion, prayer, meditation, chess, computer games, photography, astronomy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, zoos, political satire, ventriloquists, landscape gardening, camping, dressage, ... I could go on all night listing them.
Surely then, there should be a HIMALAYAN RANGE of evidence to explain how all this stuff originated from the evolutionist paradigm.
Haven't seen even any hills yet.

Carry on believing though. It's probably some kind of comfort to you.

Well, there are so many mountains, the best plan is to start with a couple of scholarly books, which will give you a good basis to research more, if required. The best of these have already been advised to you. The Himalayas would be mere foothills in the two million-year history of human development.

Project often?

Facetiousness, too, is inexplicable within the evolutionist paradigm. The more irrational behaviour you exhibit the more you're helping my argument. Cheers

Not only is it an easily explicable part of human nature, there are even arguments among the secular options for humour. Have a butcher's at this stuff.

Don't waste too much time trying to define love. Because the definition is so precise that it's gonna sound ugly. I can give it to you but you don't wanna hear it, trust me.

Something like this?

What's love like?

Love is a silly human construct, on par with religion, homeopathy and anal-probing aliens. It is the conscious replacement for survival instinct. I'd much rather build a relationship on mutual respect & trust, enjoyment of each other's company and sexual compatibility than anything as fickle as a made-up emotion.

Love is holding a bucket for your loved one to chunder into because she's too weak to hold it herself. Love is drying the tears from her face as she feels the touch of her newborn baby on her bare skin. Love is holding hands and smooching in the sunset, never mind that you have grey hair, a pot belly* and saggy breasts*. Love is knowing that there is at least one person in the world who knows you as well as you know yourself but still isn't asking Jack Kervorkian over for dinner.


*Hopefully, that's one each.

FSM thought it was pretty good and I still stand by it.

(edited from the original due to now being in the kids' section)

 

[plumjam]

Wow, you are in trouble, aren't you?

What are those agendas? Who votes for them? How do those agendas get promulgated? For a start, to have an agenda, one needs an organisation. Materialism & atheism don't have those organisations.

Here's a simple test for you:

You're in England, right? Roughly 50% of Poms think religion is a load of old bollocks. How many of them do belong to any type of secular or atheist organisations? The British Humanist Association nationally probably has fewer members than the Anglican Church does in bleeding Bristol! How many Catholics go to church every week in Britain? Millions!

Repeat after me: "There are no atheist or materialist "agendas", nor can there ever be."

Sorry TA, but that's just a bit mad. I am a theist with, as you rightly point out, a theist agenda, yet I am not part of any religious organisation.
Having an agenda in no way necessitates that a person belong to an organisation.

The other week I admired your criticism of the more extreme atheists here who will fight tooth and nail to deny that religion can be of benefit to society. So I guess when they're doing this it's not them having an agenda, due somehow mysteriously to being atheists/materialists rather than theists and thus immune from agenda ownership.

If I thought there were even a 1% chance of someone being able to hear and answer a prayer, I'd be doing just that, but I'll take your opinion in the meantime.

Self-fulfilling prophecy, no?

Well, there are so many mountains, the best plan is to start with a couple of scholarly books, which will give you a good basis to research more, if required. The best of these have already been advised to you. The Himalayas would be mere foothills in the two million-year history of human development.

Project often?

I've been through materialism, and found it woefully inadequate as a response to life the universe and everything. Ain't going back no more.

Not only is it an easily explicable part of human nature, there are even arguments among the secular options for humour. Have a butcher's at this stuff.

I'll have a look at that tomorrow. From the first page it sounds like it'll be a total scream

 

[Robin]

Quite telling that, isn't it. Macro-evolution is something that only ever happened in the dim and distant past. Somehow it happened back then when it was naturally unobservable. Now, when it could be observed, it's kind of well... stopped.

Evolution has stopped? You had better tell the biologist community, they are going to be mightily surprised.

A hint for you is that macro evolution is really, really slow. And our lives are really, really short.

This is kind of fallacious. If a particular form of behaviour has certain aspects to it that could conceivably be of help in survival and procreation it doesn't mean that that whole behaviour originated thus. The aspects that are clearly not to do with survival and reproduction.. such as simple aesthetic enjoyment of a game of football,…

You have got to think about that just a little harder. Why is sex pleasurable? Why is eating pleasurable? We do not simply do things because we know they have a survival advantage. Evolution gives us a pleasure response to things with a survival advantage and a pain response to things with a survival disadvantage.

… or chess …

A game that originated from the strategy of war … no possible survival link there

…or a symphony need to be explicable also

You have never heard of aesthetic displays having survival or reproductive advantages in the wild?

…, if evolutionism can be accepted as a serious theory about the origination of all biologically-based phenomena.

No, it just has to do it well enough to make the hypothesis of a superintelligence unnecessary.

Neither does sitting in front of the telly aid survival and reproduction, so it's another irrationality in the paradigm. Unless of course the viewer is stuffing his face with doritos while his missus straddles him.

I see – so Darwinism is contradicted by risk taking behaviour and by non risk-taking behaviour? Make up your mind.

But dangerous sports generally don't secure food from the environment.

But we are talking about evolution, so the relevant question to ask is whether similar behaviour would have secured food in our primate ancestors' environment.

If it is then that in no way helps your case.

I never said it did. In the end we cannot reverse engineer evolution and I have never pretended that you could. We cannot know the evolutionary roots of every single piece of behaviour and it would be utterly surprising if we could.

But your claim was that all these behaviours you listed could not possibly have any evolutionary explanation, I think we have shown you that they could in a sufficient number of cases.

If you think that Materialism is defeated by the fact that we cannot explain every single fact about the universe then you are just engaging in God of gaps.

It's you who keep bringing in this superintellect. I haven't mentioned that in the whole discussion.

It is either blind forces or purposeful superintellect. No middle way.

Seeing as you ask, no. But the superintellect did give us free will, and the ability to engage in aesthetic appreciation for its own sake. The rest is up to us as to what we do with those abilities.

So it is one standard for Materialism and quite another for Theism it it? Football has to be absolutely explicable in terms of survival but in Theism it can just be something we decide to do?

Intelligence, the ability to analyse situations and make choices are all things that are completely explicable in terms of survival.

But you think that evolution is somehow standing over us ensuring that none of this intelligence or choices are now used in a maladaptive fashion?

 

[The Atheist]

Sorry TA, but that's just a bit mad. I am a theist with, as you rightly point out, a theist agenda, yet I am not part of any religious organisation.
Having an agenda in no way necessitates that a person belong to an organisation.

The other week I admired your criticism of the more extreme atheists here who will fight tooth and nail to deny that religion can be of benefit to society. So I guess when they're doing this it's not them having an agenda, due somehow mysteriously to being atheists/materialists rather than theists and thus immune from agenda ownership.

Ah, you're simply confused. Any group of people can have a private agenda. You're getting mixed up because those people are atheists with an agenda. That doesn't make it an atheist agenda. While you don't need to belong to a church to ascribe to a theist agenda, the basic framework has been there since Aquinas was a cowboy, so to speak. Atheists don't have that luxury.

I'm hoping you're smart enough to see the difference.

 

[Robin]

OK, how about music. How could blind evolution give us St Matthew's Passion?

The answer is that it didn't, Bach would have likely been simply bewildering to our neolithic ancestors. In fact just a few centuries earlier and the transcendent beauty of Bach and Mozart would have likely been regarded as jangling dissonances. Certain intervals which are harmonious to our ears were called "the devils interval" in prior times.

Bach's music is the art of a talented and clever man, but it also incorporates the whole cultural history of music up until that time.

What evolution gave us was a very smart primate with a certain emotional reaction to certain tonal combinations. Millions of years of cultural interactions did the rest.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Or, to be more precise, not so much what is your personal opinion of what love is...

"Love" is a mythical concept; a mere invention of the jewelers, greeting card printers, wedding planners, and divorce attorneys.

 

[plumjam]

Ah, you're simply confused. Any group of people can have a private agenda. You're getting mixed up because those people are atheists with an agenda. That doesn't make it an atheist agenda. While you don't need to belong to a church to ascribe to a theist agenda, the basic framework has been there since Aquinas was a cowboy, so to speak. Atheists don't have that luxury.

I'm hoping you're smart enough to see the difference.

Confused, no. Check the online dictionaries and most coalesce on an agenda being simply a list of things to do. That can be within an organisation or outside of one. As a group or as an individual. "My wife has a hidden agenda".

Anyone who spends even a few hours at this forum should be able to clearly see the predominant materialist and/or atheist agenda of most of the contributors.

Roughly speaking it is anti: paranormal, religion, intelligent design, free will, complementary therapy, conspiracy theories, creationism, etc..

Roughly speaking it is pro: materialism/physicalism, determinism, evolution by natural selection of mutations, orthodox western medicine, the "debunking" of practitioners of "woo" etc..

You're an intelligent bloke. Surely you can see it too.

It is the people who question the above materialist/atheist agenda who come in for the most stick and abuse. You must know this as you have questioned it yourself on occasion too, and pissed quite a few people off by doing so.
For which I congratulate you.

 

[Piscivore]

Wouldn't your time be better spent eating, drinking, and humping, as Darwinism recommends?

That's Epicurianism, not Darwinism.

Anyone who spends even a few hours at this forum should be able to clearly see the predominant materialist and/or atheist agenda of most of the contributors.

Roughly speaking it is anti: paranormal, religion, intelligent design, free will, complementary therapy, conspiracy theories, creationism, etc..

Roughly speaking it is pro: materialism/physicalism, determinism, evolution by natural selection of mutations, orthodox western medicine, the "debunking" of practitioners of "woo" etc.

That's the "agenda" of the evidence, not of any "materialist" or atheist.