Athiesm and logic

[Tyler]

"Why is it logical? When applied to the full range of pleasures, the idea of pursuing pleasure can be quite illogical."

How so? Persuing what you enjoy is logical. To deny your desires when there is no victim as the result of your desires is illogical.


"It's not that I deny that love can be helpful, but we cannot leave it simply as an emotion which aids humans. It also distracts them from more important matters. By important, I mean vital. People do stupid, damaging things for love. And maybe that's not real love, but to acknowledge that is to paint a scary picture of Americans, at least. I have a joke that I approve of marriage because it's two people who would otherwise be annoying the rest of us pledging to take it out on each other hereafter."

Perhaps you missed part of my post. The emotion of love is not illogical. The extreme people take it to and the value some people put on it is often illogical as it can cause much pain. Let me ask you, would a perfectly logical being do stupid, damaging things for love? Nope. The fact remains no human is perfectly logical. Or, at least I haven't seemed to find one.


"Ne'er have I seen atheism executed according to its foundation of logic."

Depends on your definition of atheism. I consider myself an atheist. To be agnostic would mean that I believe neither in god nor that god doesn't exist. Agnostic implies that you think we have not the knowledge or wisdom to know whether or not God exists. I believe there is no reason to believe in God. According to what we know about early human civilizations there was many 'religions' before the ones we know of today. As far as I'm concerned religion was invented by man. Man needed a way to explain everything and had no means to doing so, and in such they invented religions. Now, a newer member has brought up the idea of believing in God without believing in a religion. The fact is, there is no proof to suggest God exists. None. Various atheists have been able to knock down every 'proof' a theist has suggested. I look at it very much like a court case. We assume someone is innocent and that the claim (the claim being that they are guilty, or in our case, that there is a god) must be proven. If the claim cannot be proven, we assume innocense and let them go. We don't put them in pergatory saying 'well we don't really know', do we? And since God can't be proven I say, let's keep working on our sciences and logic and maybe one day we can discover we're right/wrong for sure. I do, however, admitt that there is a possibility I'm wrong. Where's the flaw in my logic?

 

[Tiassa]

Xev ....

Then again, said unicorns were going to die anyway, right?

At least two of them that wouldn't made the choice of pleasure over life.

I am sorry if I exhibited such behavior - I do not recall doing such. But if so, that was damned irrational. Sorry.

Actually, that was aimed generally. You seem to have figured out that part of it so why should I complain?

Such as....?

The big blue letters, for instance. The neurotic need to continue an anti-identification process aimed at someone who is, observably, either not paying attention or no longer here or else operating under a new ID and MO. It stopped being funny when it was just Loone. I watched a bunch of atheists give a whacko more attention than he needed just so they could have the pleasure of ridiculing him. Technically, such speech is your right, but I'm not about to respect it from people who want to be viewed as intelligent. Or I could look to a point where I picked up a thread that I shouldn't, when one poster chose to bash people for no particular reason than his opinion that something and someone needed to be bashed. This form of speech is, indeed, a person's right. But it utterly undermines their philosophical arguments on behalf of atheism. Christians used to piss of atheists around here by pointing out that atheism allows morality to be whatever a person wants it to be, regardless of its actual functional value. This notion used to offend atheists, and I suppose it's my error to wonder why so many of you are proving this Christian accusation to be true, thus strengthening their position, thus prolonging the ability of a Christian majority to continue damaging you and your neighbors. It's like the general premise of pursuing pleasure: it seems people get more pleasure in cutting each other to pieces than actually figuring anything out.

In any case, said conclusion was invalidated by Tyler.

Well, then ... that makes such behavior that much more tasteful.

Remains your error.

Yes ... it does remain my error to trust that atheism stands for anything more than deified greed.

Well nothing needs respect.

Alright, just as long as that's clear. See, that I can respect. Why, though, would someone wish to turn atheism into a religion?

Perhaps in your mind this has happened, but I never saw such behaviour. It remains your interpretation of events.

Um, Xev ... um ... okay, I've thought about the words originally written here and they're unnecessarily sarcastic. But we had a discussion about atheism, as we both seem to recall, in the recent past. Among my recollections of that is that this atheism which I have defended is the very one you denounced when you asked me who said atheists have to be that way. And then we had a couple of posts each about notions of atheism.

Remains your error.

It's just that you haven't demonstrated your declaration: Athiesm still rests on its foundation of logic, and is not an arbitrary application of logic. And I don't think you can. The atheism that rests on a logical foundation is separate from atheists. It's a theoretical state.

Try it this way: Atheism makes no considerations of God. This is how people conclude that atheists don't believe in God. They are without God. But when you lend enough weight to gods as to compare atheism to religion it becomes an examination in which God has weight and authority. Had God no weight or authority worth considering, It would remain outside the realm of consideration. Consider that Neutrino's response was based on a fairly specific image of God. How did that image come to be the foremost interpretation of the god concept? When atheism compares itself to something in the face of the very mystery about which it was trying to be logical, it runs into the same limitations that human beings do. The idea of logical atheism is one that I prefer because it makes atheism advantageous instead of just another peanut in the gallery.

Reacting to what superficial concepts? Christianity? One ought to react in some manner to one of the dominent religions on the planet.

But why react to the superficial side of Christianity. It's like slap-fighting. Whether one wishes to preserve or destroy Christianity in order to help benefit the world, the key lies much deeper than that. One must address the most fundamental representations of fear the human conscience knows. That requires greater compassion than mere reaction to the idiocy of it.

And what conclusions are drawn on insufficiant data?

Well, start with the common trend among atheists to be dealing largely with the Judeo-Christian experience. This is the God that they are without. In the case of active rejection, there is a tendency among atheists to extend their objections against this particular godhead to cover all gods, when, as pointed out to Neutrino, not all gods fit the description he gave.

Since I tend to find the Abramic tradition of texts to be non-literal representations of a certain facet of the human endeavor attempting to examine itself, I don't particularly care about the detail of, for instance, contradictions in the Bible or Koran. It's well enough to attempt to account for what the idiots will think when in the throes of the idea, but it's a little easier for you or I to predict Christian behavior than it is for us to predict Muslim ... or so I would guess. Cultural factors tend toward it.

Athiests are human, thus often illogical.

I accept this. It's self-evident.

But atheists who actually practice atheism--that is, who are conscious of and identify against religion--owe it to themselves to wonder why they identify against religion, and at least make a point of not enacting that unsatisfactory condition in their atheism. That's the whole point of logical atheism. If religious faith matters enough to devote any thought whatsoever to rejecting, one ought not undermine their own rejection.

Why not?

Because when I brought them up, atheists rejected them. I ought to trust you to your words, right? Mind you, such patent individualism can also make illogical atheists into their own classification: those pesky atheists. The ones who actively anti-identify for no particularly logical reason. I mean, by the demeanor of our atheists recently, it's quite obvious that they generally have nothing better to do than reaffirm one another like a therapy group. Believe me, that's the kinder of two summations. The other is reaffirming one another like religious folk. At this point, any practical merit of atheism is nil. It has become another voice in the cacophony shouting because it feels good. There is no real problem with that. But if they're not genuine considerations on religion, if they're merely rhetorical patty-cake for that many people, then take it over to Free Thoughts, because at that point it has nothing to do with Religion. I don't object to you stroking yourselves, I'm just wondering why you bother cluttering up the board with it.

Not good enough. It is logical because I have shown it to be so.

Did I say something about religious?

Like I said, Xev, if you say so. If you say so.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

If humanity decided to extinct itself, would that be "logical"?

How so? Persuing what you enjoy is logical. To deny your desires when there is no victim as the result of your desires is illogical.

Ah, you qualified yourself. Did you read the link I posted there?

Perhaps you missed part of my post.

Perhaps you missed part of mine. What I objected to was qualifying love as something that solely aids humanity. As illogical as people treat love, that is, nonetheless, its observable result among humanity.

Depends on your definition of atheism.

Just as I pointed out to others that so it depends on your definition of the word God.

I believe there is no reason to believe in God. According to what we know about early human civilizations there was many 'religions' before the ones we know of today. As far as I'm concerned religion was invented by man. Man needed a way to explain everything and had no means to doing so, and in such they invented religions

That's a little too simplified, isn't it? Certes, religion and gods alike are invented by human beings, but the observable result is that gods affect people. Whether or not you like it, these people have made gods real enough to have an effect on the world. This is the observable result. To wit: I don't believe in guns, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist. Before organized toward any specific purpose, religious symbols represented knowledge for which humans had no expression. Pick up any reasonable text on runes and look at how much energy people dedicated to the symbols of communication. The same is true of Hebrew.

Where's the flaw in my logic?

The flaw is in assuming that any human conception of God is remotely accurate of what it is actually intended to represent. God, at its most pure, is a word to represent an idea for which we have no other words. Religions are symptomatic. The undercurrent that motivates them all points toward the godhead.

And since God can't be proven I say, let's keep working on our sciences and logic and maybe one day we can discover we're right/wrong for sure. I do, however, admitt that there is a possibility I'm wrong

However, this is exactly the point. From where you are, I chose a different set of icons. Everything else is history.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Xev]

Tiassa:

Actually, that was aimed generally. You seem to have figured out that part of it so why should I complain?

Mmmkay, I understand now. Sorry.

The big blue letters, for instance. The neurotic need to continue an anti-identification process aimed at someone who is, observably, either not paying attention or no longer here or else operating under a new ID and MO. It stopped being funny when it was just Loone. I watched a bunch of atheists give a whacko more attention than he needed just so they could have the pleasure of ridiculing him.

True enough, but is it not rather amusing?

Yes, I do have a slightly sadistic sense of humor.

Technically, such speech is your right, but I'm not about to respect it from people who want to be viewed as intelligent. Or I could look to a point where I picked up a thread that I shouldn't, when one poster chose to bash people for no particular reason than his opinion that something and someone needed to be bashed.

Adam bashed your religion because he felt the need. He did not bash any person. Is his criticism invalid?

This form of speech is, indeed, a person's right. But it utterly undermines their philosophical arguments on behalf of atheism.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Christians used to piss of atheists around here by pointing out that atheism allows morality to be whatever a person wants it to be, regardless of its actual functional value. This notion used to offend atheists, and I suppose it's my error to wonder why so many of you are proving this Christian accusation to be true, thus strengthening their position, thus prolonging the ability of a Christian majority to continue damaging you and your neighbors.

In philosophy, as in science, there are bound to be disagreements. And when people are not nice, said disagreements will not be nice.

I don't recall anything worse said about Loone than that he was "mental". And, let's face it, going on about "Xev sitting on Satan's lap" rather establishes such a conclusion. You may note, should you ever venture into a thread in Astronomy, that I have defended him.

It's just that you haven't demonstrated your declaration: Athiesm still rests on its foundation of logic, and is not an arbitrary application of logic. And I don't think you can. The atheism that rests on a logical foundation is separate from atheists. It's a theoretical state.

So athiesm is logical while athiests are often illogical, is that what you are saying?

I agree wholeheartedly.

When atheism compares itself to something in the face of the very mystery about which it was trying to be logical, it runs into the same limitations that human beings do.

Athiests are human, yes? So of course they run into these limitations....whatever those are.....

One must address the most fundamental representations of fear the human conscience knows. That requires greater compassion than mere reaction to the idiocy of it.

"Thou turn'st mine eyes into my very soul
And there I see such black and grained spots
As will not leave their tinct"

You are right, Tiassa. I have been a callous fool. Instead of compassion for those weaker, I have acted with ridicule. I have let my annoyance get the better of me, whatever that "better" is. I have been without that crowning virtue of empathy and compassion, merely because I was annoyed.

"These words like daggers enter into mine ears"

Thank you.

But atheists who actually practice atheism--that is, who are conscious of and identify against religion--owe it to themselves to wonder why they identify against religion, and at least make a point of not enacting that unsatisfactory condition in their atheism.

Religion motivates and controls humans, we know that. We know its consequences, we know its power.....

For that reason, religion fascinates me. That is why I am here.

Edit to direct post.

 

[Tyler]

"Perhaps you missed part of mine. What I objected to was qualifying love as something that solely aids humanity. As illogical as people treat love, that is, nonetheless, its observable result among humanity."

Love is not solely somehting that aids us or hurts us. It does both. However, it does largely aid us. Therefore my statement stands as I did not in any way state love only aids us.


"That's a little too simplified, isn't it? Certes, religion and gods alike are invented by human beings, but the observable result is that gods affect people. Whether or not you like it, these people have made gods real enough to have an effect on the world. This is the observable result. To wit: I don't believe in guns, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist. Before organized toward any specific purpose, religious symbols represented knowledge for which humans had no expression. Pick up any reasonable text on runes and look at how much energy people dedicated to the symbols of communication. The same is true of Hebrew."

The fact is, a gun can be shown to exist in reality. I didn't say religions don't exist. I said gods don't exist in reality. They have an effect on people to the point that humans create an effect from them, but that does in no way make them real.


"The flaw is in assuming that any human conception of God is remotely accurate of what it is actually intended to represent. God, at its most pure, is a word to represent an idea for which we have no other words. Religions are symptomatic. The undercurrent that motivates them all points toward the godhead."

How is that a flaw? I fail to see how this denies my logic. In fact, it just sounds like a bunch of whinning if you ask me. 'Yeah, well god is bigger than anything you can comprehend, so it MUST be true!' Sounds like Anselm. There is no flaw in my logic even if god is beyond human comprehension. I can say the great googly-moogly is beyond the comprehension of god and that wouldn't in any way suggest (let alone prove) that the GGM exists.

 

[Tiassa]

Tyler

Tyler

Love is not solely somehting that aids us or hurts us. It does both. However, it does largely aid us. Therefore my statement stands as I did not in any way state love only aids us.

Well, how is love logical when it hurts us?

The fact is, a gun can be shown to exist in reality. I didn't say religions don't exist. I said gods don't exist in reality. They have an effect on people to the point that humans create an effect from them, but that does in no way make them real.

As long as we agree then that something which does not exist can have a real effect in the Universe?

How is that a flaw? I fail to see how this denies my logic. In fact, it just sounds like a bunch of whinning if you ask me. 'Yeah, well god is bigger than anything you can comprehend, so it MUST be true!' Sounds like Anselm. There is no flaw in my logic even if god is beyond human comprehension. I can say the great googly-moogly is beyond the comprehension of god and that wouldn't in any way suggest (let alone prove) that the GGM exists.

Well, it's a flaw because, having defeated a tiny, ridiculous God that one can find hiding in the nightstand at an hourly-rate motel, one cannot necessarily conclude to have disproved every notion of God. I agree that there is not a God. But there exists a condition in this Universe that comprises God.

Think of science. It learns facts about the way the Universe functions. Now, everything in the Universe that can be said to exist is part of this condition called God. Also, the hows and whys, the scientific facts--even those undiscovered. All of that knowledge is called God. And all of the experience of consciousness within that Universe and all of the expression of knowledge. And that body of ideas and knowledge that constitutes part of the condition called God also includes things that we from the present forward cannot know. Unique events in the Universe are unique events. It becomes the whole of perception and everything that escapes perception. And it's nothing more than that. People create gods, inadequate expressions of the boundless quarry of their curiosity.

Anything beyond that totality is symptomatic, because in this form, the idea of God offers no comfort whatsoever. God is forms the whole of what can be known of this idea.

When you attempt to slay God itself, you are in fact attempting to destroy one of the most primal distinctions of humanity--the need to understand what is not understood. We might look to Xev and Cthulhu: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn." To defeat the idea of God you have to make it no longer relevant. This can be done by installing a new vocabulary upon which to build a new paradigm. Unfortunately, nobody can find any great words for what God, at its most fundamental, represents. In other words, people will always search, but if you give them something more satisfactory to call it, then in his Heaven, dead God will wait dreaming.

Consider the EBE/Alien-seed myths. I admit, they're a hell of a lot more likely than the Bible. But it does nothing yet, as a myth, to address the larger idea that presently is called God. Perhaps the philosophers of the movement do, but I experienced some difficulty ... the most, er, philosophical of them seem to digress from the more popular CE paradigm. But it can also be as simple as a rock with the right elements and compounds on it falling out of the sky and creating the right chemical reaction and so on and so forth and the rest is history. A biology teacher of mine, incidentally a devout man unto God and not church (though Christian), looked across a roomful of Catholic and a few Protestant students, and then the four of us at our corner table just trying not to get in trouble, and said, "I believe God made the Universe; put the seeds in motion and everything else from there. Looking around, it's pretty cool how he did it and if you can't read the Bible and not figure that out, maybe there is a Devil." (Someone had actually dared ask him about God and evolution.) This is a man who read Gibran and Book of Rose (I have no idea what this was; neither did he, in fact--he found it at a garage sale for a dime in 1970 and kept it ever since because it had beautiful poems in it and his mother was named Rose) for class prayers; he once brought thirty texts down from a nearby University so we could read a few paragraphs--mere scratch exposure--about Zoroastrianism and Manicheanism and its relation to the Christian tradition of the Devil. For class prayer. In other words, I know some of them get it. And they know, as I assert, that gods in books are creations of people, and point toward a condition in the Universe that can often be beneficial to aspire to. Not necessarily the moral codes of religions, but the principle of discovering the undiscovered. If we made that our first priority, think of how few wars there would be. Look at what the human species can do for its sense of necessity? What if it accommodated its sense of vision?

Some philosophies have tried to avoid the idea of God. The use words like Enlightenment, Perfect Knowledge, Oneness, Harmony and other such terms, and are generally looked down upon for being too frilly and accommodating in their contemporary perspectives. Ironic, that.

I mean, discrediting a religion from a book is tough in the face of the rabid faithful, but it can be done. The idea of God itself is much different, though. And that's where I suggest the flaw in logic exists. Even big-stick theory would merely be beating it's stick against the gates to the city. In the mysterious City of God are new customs and new ideas that don't really make any sense to those whose idea of action/reaction is immediate and personal. Hell, they don't make a whole lot of sense to me, and I've been here for a while. But on the other hand, in light of the idea of Killing the Buddha, I may be in the wrong city, as, incidentally, might you.

Remember that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Rather, I apply that to ideas of God. The longer other people muddle around and hack away at minor incarnations and limited ideas of the godhead, certain groups (of which I would like to consider myself but I cannot claim that in any sense of knowledge) see religion in terms of something humans create and use like anything else, and continually refine and update our observations of how people interact with the religious idea. Everything does something. It is in the form of exploitation that we see the value of it. People make harsh assumptions about humanity when they invent religions; taken as a work of art, what does it represent? How does that representation affect the thought and conduct of humanity in history? Ah, now we see the real effects of God. If the idea is a disease, how does it spread, and why does that method have effect?

Even if stopping the damage means destroying a religion, it must be destroyed by an idea with a suitable vocabulary to replace what it does. Merely isolating it can lead to a human digression of years while ideas are physically extincted instead of ideologically put to rest.

thanx,
Tiassa

Xev--I'm working on it ....

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Xev
Chosen argues that belief brings pleasure. Now, the pursuit of pleasure is logical enough, correct?

It can be logically explained. But the reason could be illogical/irrational, faith is not logical (or so some believe) because it doesn't rest on empirical proof.

Logical has many meanings.

So this constitutes a reason to believe.

I don't believe for pleasure. I believe for the truth. If God exists and He is the ultimate truth, then it would be a pleasure to seek Him.

So belief is logical, for a certain type of person, no? But not for all people.

Example: I believe I am God. Logical explaination? Because I feel happy believing that I am.

Reason? Irrational/illogical, so that makes his belief illogical.

Just as some people pursue the rather irrational emotion of love, some pursue the rather irrational belief of God. This gives them pleasure, and thus is a logical choice.

Illogical could mean senseless. Where do we set the standard to state that it is utterly senselessness *just* believing in a God? Atheists? The ONLY way you can truly rule in senselessness for beief in God is to just look at religious Gods.

Whether athiesm is logical or not depends on the athiest.

Atheist: One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Atheists deny the existence of God. To deny is to declare untrue or refuse to believe in. They deny the existence of any God. They disbelieve in God's existence.

Everyone here is part agnostic, unless you utterly know that there is no God, and you disbelieve. This makes you a true atheist.

Tyler and I had a little argument, but you can still be an atheist if you admit to the possibility of a God?

According to my "Holy Book" - (my dictionary ), no one here is a true atheist, or unless they can admit that now. But is atheistism logical?

Originally posted by Tyler
Love is perfectly logical.

I disagree.

Love is not logical. It can be logically explained but some reasons of it is not logical. What I am trying to divulge, love is illogical and logical, but if it contains any illogical element it is by defenition illogical.

Love is sometimes illogical, it may go through the logical process, but it leads to irrational thinking. Remember when you have a happy life, try to jump out the window. Instinctly you can't, because your brain and genes wants you to survive, this is your nature. But with love you can, people will prove their love for someone by dying for them (this logical?), yet governed by logical laws, we should live to survive, yet love overcomes this natural process - it defies instinct (this logical also?). Who can explain unconditional love? Logical things can be explained right?

Say true or false questions. Something is only true when it is completely true, but if it has one little false part to it, it is false. So love is the same, it is illogical. But if you break it up into pieces (like true/false questions), then you may say love is logical here and so on.

So is love "perfectly logical"?

Love is a set of biochemical reactions that create deep emotional attachment to someone or something.

To all those saying love must be well thought out and logical, did you choose to love your parents?? If you do love your parents.

From a pure psychological point of view, there are 2 main kinds of love.

Romantic love: It is the spark, a tumbling set of feelings, an emotional roller coaster ride, which is tends to be more short lived than companionship love.

Companionship love: This is the unconditional trust, respect, and mutual understanding. You commonly experience this with your parents and close friends.

Everything else, from a scientific point of view, is an argument of semantics. Emotions are a choice. You should be in control. You can choose to love someone, you can choose to be "romantically" attached. It is when you give up control and stop acting rationally that you get into trouble. Love causes this irrational thinking, emotions clouds the brain's judgement.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Re: Re: Athiesm and logic

What do religions appeal to? Emotions

What do most humans appeal to? Emotions

There are not many intellects in this world, most humans appeal to emotions rather than intellect, this is where they get into trouble and do illogical and horrible things.

 

[Tyler]

"Well, how is love logical when it hurts us?" - and replying to Chosen...

Love is the emotion which makes us feel an emotional connection to another human being in order to ensure a child will have a family setup needed to grow.

Follow me on this now; love is logical. humans are rarely illogical. A human in love can be illogical. This does not make the emotion of love illogical. It makes the person illogical.


"As long as we agree then that something which does not exist can have a real effect in the Universe?"

Of course. However, like I said, it doesn't prove or suggest the things existence. Vampires have had an effect, but that does not mean they're real.


"Think of science. It learns facts about the way the Universe functions. Now, everything in the Universe that can be said to exist is part of this condition called God. Also, the hows and whys, the scientific facts--even those undiscovered. All of that knowledge is called God. And all of the experience of consciousness within that Universe and all of the expression of knowledge. And that body of ideas and knowledge that constitutes part of the condition called God also includes things that we from the present forward cannot know. Unique events in the Universe are unique events. It becomes the whole of perception and everything that escapes perception. And it's nothing more than that. People create gods, inadequate expressions of the boundless quarry of their curiosity."

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but is what you're saying that God is all information and facts in the universe? That, as far as I can see, means god is not an actual being. Just a title associated with knowledge.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Tyler
Follow me on this now; love is logical. humans are rarely illogical. A human in love can be illogical. This does not make the emotion of love illogical. It makes the person illogical.

Love is illogical. You stated it is "perfectly logical." I disagree with that statement. Love leads to irrational thinking, does the human cause this irrational thinking or does love cause it? Why does love defy instinct? Some will kill themselves for a "logical emotion." Is the human defying his instinct? or is it his emotion of love?

What do you think?

 

[Tyler]

Logical; Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic

Love as an emotion is logical because it serves a purpose evolutionarily. Without love their is little chance many women would want to bear child. Would you want to have a kid and have the husband laeve the next day?

Love causes people to do illogical things. A person who perpetrates an illogical act is illogical in his nature. To say that 'love' is illogical is to suggest that the purpose of the emotion is illogical. After all, unless you ask Nelson, 'love' is not a conscience thing. So how can it 'make' an illogical choice? It can't. It is just a powerful emotion that weak minded people such as myself let control us from time to time. The human does something illogical than the human is illogical. The emotion serves a huge purpose. Therefore it is a logical emotion.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Tyler
Love as an emotion is logical because it serves a purpose evolutionarily.

Love is not needed. It is a spice in life.

Without love their is little chance many women would want to bear child.

The nature of reproduction, human nature does not need love to produce children. Love only enhances life. Are you inferring that women need to love someone in order to reproduce?

Love causes people to do illogical things.

OK, you agree that it causes people to do illogical things. So how can something logical cause people to do illogical things?

A person who perpetrates an illogical act is illogical in his nature. To say that 'love' is illogical is to suggest that the purpose of the emotion is illogical.

Nope, no need to assume, I'm not saying the purpose of love is illogical. The purpose of love is to enhance life but it leads to irrational thinking.

After all, unless you ask Nelson, 'love' is not a conscience thing. So how can it 'make' an illogical choice? It can't. It is just a powerful emotion that weak minded people such as myself let control us from time to time. The human does something illogical than the human is illogical. The emotion serves a huge purpose. Therefore it is a logical emotion.

I did not state it "makes" an illogical choice. I said it causes an illogical choice. How can something logical cause an illogical choice?

Love is both logical and illogical. How can something be logical if it contains illogical sides? Can you call statement to be true if it has a false side to it? There are many types of love, you can't just state "love is a logical emotion." You said it was "perfectly logical" and it isn't.

Why don't you explain love? Can you? Or all you are going to say is "it is a set of biochemical reactions"? Where's the empirical proof of love? All we can use is deductive reasoning and conclude this and that off no experimental evidence. So is it logical? Love also varies through different people. Logic needs to remain consistent.

Human instinct is required, it is consistent through all individuals. Emotions such as love try to overide certain instincts, love is not consistent - it is wild and hard to tame and never the same with any one individual.

Love is not needed, it's just a spice in life.

 

[Adam]

Love is 100% logical.

As mentioned in other threads a few times...

We humans don't have claws, scales or other armour, the leaping ability of the flea, the running speed of the gazelle, et cetera. All the other creatures with such things have the luxury of breeding according to the seasons and other environmental conditions. No, we humans basically needed to breed at any possible opportunity until we became dominant. We also needed to protect our infants, which are basically defenceless for the first decade or so. To facilitate both communal bonding (necessary for hte survival of the species), and kin bonding for protection of one's own genes, we developed incredibly strong instincts for such bonds. As far as nature is concerned, love is all about that survival, that bonding.

What about sacrifice and altruism? Again, check this out. Read through some of those links.

 

[Tyler]

"The nature of reproduction, human nature does not need love to produce children. Love only enhances life. Are you inferring that women need to love someone in order to reproduce?"

You're right, you're just not thinking past stage one. It is human nature to fuck just as it is human nature to love. The reason love is in there is so parents will stay together after the child is born. Many animals are on their own after birth, a human baby could not survive that.


"OK, you agree that it causes people to do illogical things. So how can something logical cause people to do illogical things?"

It's a flaw in the person, not in the emotion. I ask you, what is illogical about love? You say it causes illogical actions. Well, no, it doesn't actually. Humans cause illogical actions. What you're saying is like suggesting the gun pulls the trigger itself. People kill people (guns just make it easier). People make illogical human choices (love just makes it easier and more frequent). Humans cause illogical actions. They fall in love and love (as the chemical reaction that it is) is out of our picture. Any illogical choice is made by the human being, not by love. Love can cloud judgement, but only that of an already irrational human being.


"Why don't you explain love? Can you? Or all you are going to say is "it is a set of biochemical reactions"? Where's the empirical proof of love? All we can use is deductive reasoning and conclude this and that off no experimental evidence. So is it logical? Love also varies through different people. Logic needs to remain consistent."

Well, yes there is proof that love is a biochemical reaction.
- http://thewebhouse.net/article7.html
I'll get some better sites in a sec, I gotta ask Cris. If you're suggesting love is something deeper I highly advise you go talk mumbo-jumbo with Nelson and the gang, because you aren't about to gain respect from me. There's no proof to suggest that love is anything more than a chemical reaction. Our descriptions of the reactions and causes of and knowledge of these things are limited. But this does not mean love is anything more than a reaction. It just means we haven't figured it out yet.


"Human instinct is required, it is consistent through all individuals. Emotions such as love try to overide certain instincts, love is not consistent - it is wild and hard to tame and never the same with any one individual."

Override certain instincts? Ever think that perhaps love is an evolutionary tool? Of course not. You just think about the baby until it's born.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Re: Love is 100% logical.

Originally posted by Adam
As mentioned in other threads a few times...

We humans don't have claws, scales or other armour, the leaping ability of the flea, the running speed of the gazelle, et cetera. All the other creatures with such things have the luxury of breeding according to the seasons and other environmental conditions. No, we humans basically needed to breed at any possible opportunity until we became dominant. We also needed to protect our infants, which are basically defenceless for the first decade or so. To facilitate both communal bonding (necessary for hte survival of the species), and kin bonding for protection of one's own genes, we developed incredibly strong instincts for such bonds. As far as nature is concerned, love is all about that survival, that bonding.

What about sacrifice and altruism? Again, check this out. Read through some of those links.

That's great Adam, but I'm not talking about Human Nature to protect their young. You call that love, but I'm talking about the non-consistent love, the unpredictable love. Your love is utterly predictable.

The love that does not follow a logical step-by-step process that is different in all humans. You refer to instinct.

Ever heard of the Reptilian Brain? I thought you were an evolutionist "know-it-all"...hmmm....

Basically our brains are divided into two parts, the reptilian and logical.

 

[Xev]

Atheist: One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Define "disbelief".

Try to think about this without using the shallow athiestic dictionary - sorry, bad joke.

Ever heard of the Reptilian Brain? I thought you were an evolutionist "know-it- all"...hmmm....

I would advise you to get your facts straight by being snide with Adam.

Basically our brains are divided into two parts, the reptilian and logical.

Your understanding of the triune brain proves limited.

Dr Paul McLean, head of the Laboratory for Brain Evolution and Behaviour at the National Institute for Mental Health, has proposed the triune brain theory, according to which the human brain is, in reality, three brains, each superimposed over the earlier in a pattern of brains within brains.

The first is an ancient, primitive reptilian brain,

The second, and next oldest brain is the limbic, or mammalian brain and registers rewards and punishments, is the seat of emotion, and controls the body's autonomic nervous system.

Finally, over the limbic brain lies the neocortex, or "thinking cap.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~caveman/Creative/Brain/herrmann.htm

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Tyler
You're right, you're just not thinking past stage one. It is human nature to fuck just as it is human nature to love. The reason love is in there is so parents will stay together after the child is born. Many animals are on their own after birth, a human baby could not survive that.

Ok, you have a different definition of love. I am talking about the unpredictable love. That humans "believe" in. Romantic love, not unconditional, that's "instinct-love." of course humans evolved this "sense of protection" to survive, you call this love.

I'm talking about inconsistent love, different in every individual.

It's a flaw in the person, not in the emotion. I ask you, what is illogical about love? You say it causes illogical actions.

The emotion causes the flaw, and not the person. The person chooses the emotion. As I have said earlier, I am talking NOT about human instincts of love (protection, etc. etc.) I'm talking about the emotion of love that is a choice for individuals.

There are three parts to our brain, reptilian, limbic, and neocortex. I will narrow it down to two. Our brain is divided into two parts - the repitilian and the logical. Love exposes the repitilian. The reptilian brain is responsible for all the pleasure centers, (think food, sex, comfort) while the logical brain is the center of reason. These two parts of the brain are forever at war with each other, seeking dominance. Usually the logical brain prevails, regulating and keeping a stern watch on our impulses. But then, sometimes our reptilian brain just breaks the shackles and defies explanation. It overrides reason. Love helps the reptilian brain to do this, this "logical emotion" actually weakens the logical side of the brain. There have been cases where besotted fools have jumped off a bridge, risking life and limb for it to prove their love. This is the reptilian brain at work, causing irrational thinking and defying human instinct (and logical reasons) to survive.

And if a human never experiences such a wild and illogical love? All this would never happen to him/her.

Well, no, it doesn't actually. Humans cause illogical actions. What you're saying is like suggesting the gun pulls the trigger itself. People kill people (guns just make it easier). People make illogical human choices (love just makes it easier and more frequent). Humans cause illogical actions. They fall in love and love (as the chemical reaction that it is) is out of our picture. Any illogical choice is made by the human being, not by love. Love can cloud judgement, but only that of an already irrational human being.

Love exploits irrationality. What if the illogical choice was made by his reptilian brain? not his logical brain? What if love is responsible for overriding his logical brain to let his primitive reptilian brain take over? So is love logical then?

Logical means capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner. Love is not consistent (and I'm not talking about unconditional natural protective "love")

Well, yes there is proof that love is a biochemical reaction.
- http://thewebhouse.net/article7.html
I'll get some better sites in a sec, I gotta ask Cris. If you're suggesting love is something deeper I highly advise you go talk mumbo-jumbo with Nelson and the gang, because you aren't about to gain respect from me. There's no proof to suggest that love is anything more than a chemical reaction. Our descriptions of the reactions and causes of and knowledge of these things are limited. But this does not mean love is anything more than a reaction. It just means we haven't figured it out yet.

I'm not suggesting love is "something deeper." And a person that mentions "gain respect from me" already lost some respect by such a statement.

Why haven't we figured it out yet? Logical things can be figured out.

Override certain instincts? Ever think that perhaps love is an evolutionary tool? Of course not. You just think about the baby until it's born.

Once again, I agree with you about protection of the baby to be instinct. You call this instinct "love" for the child. I agree with you, this is unconditional love.

I'm talking about unpredictable love, between two people.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Xev


Define "disbelief".

Why? It says disbelieve.

disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.

I would advise you to get your facts straight by being snide with Adam.

Your understanding of the triune brain proves limited.

There's a reason I mentioned "basically" It is relevant to this argument to just mention those two.

As you can see, I want simplicity in arguments.

 

[Adam]

TheChosen

That's great Adam, but I'm not talking about Human Nature to protect their young. You call that love, but I'm talking about the non-consistent love, the unpredictable love. Your love is utterly predictable.

Well, perghaps you could go and define the various classes and categories of love for us first.

Ever heard of the Reptilian Brain? I thought you were an evolutionist "know-it-all"...hmmm....

I've heard of that, yes, and many other things. What's your point? The reptilian brain idea involves three stages of brain development, not two.

 

[Xev]

Chosen:

disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.

Believe in what?

As you can see, I want simplicity in arguments.

Yeah, I want a Lear jet, an Alfa Romeo and another drink. That does not mean I get to post hideously simplistic babble while being snide with those more knowledgeable than I.