User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Community of Austin
definition of 'love'

Hello folks,

What is the definition of 'love' from an atheist's point of view? Just chemichal reactions in the brain? Because then 'hatred' is also "just chemical reactions in the brain". o_O

Russell Glasser did an Atheist Experience show on that topic, #550. See http://www.atheist-experience.com/archive/?full=1#table

Thanks, I will look at it.

nineteeneightyfour said, "What is the definition of 'love' from an atheist's point of view? Just chemichal reactions in the brain? Because then 'hatred' is also "just chemical reactions in the brain". o_O"

No, it's a little more involved than just a chemical reaction in the brain. A very brief explanation: Life began on earth about 1.5 billion years ago, and for the first billion of those years reproduction was asexual (not sexual.) Unicellular microorganism splits up its DNA into batches, divides up and each half goes it own way. The parent dies but two copies of itself will live on. Not a very effective - and very slow.

Around 500,000,000 years ago bacteria mixed and matched DNA of two organisms rather than making clones for children. This sped up evolution and sex (love) evolved for reproduction that is what caused the Cambrian explosion. Life Forms, that eventually led to man, some 495 million years later. Until sex (love) for a billion years amoebas were the highest life form.

Other forms of love (bonds) evolved to insure that the species would survive.

Linda, can every human behaviour be reduced to the evolutionary concepts of the "Survival of the fittest" and "Reproduction"? Since humans are nothing more than biological machines, does their behaviour always mimic natural evolution?

(A) In the case your answer is 'no': How can science explain human behaviour, which doesn't serve the advancement of the human race? If your answer to this one is: "Because humans tend to act in their own interests as individuals." Then the next question is: (§) What evolutionary benefit does a person gain, if for instance (s)he proves a mathematical conjencture which doesn't have any practical benefit for the human race and then refuses to take the reward (money, e.g. Fields medall, whatever...) for it, which means that this person also doesn't benefit from the proof of this conjencture in an Evolutionary sense? (e.g. Grigori Perelman)

(B) In the case your answer is 'yes': GOTO (§)

Nineteeneightyfour said, "Linda, can every human behaviour be reduced to the evolutionary concepts of the "Survival of the fittest" and "Reproduction"? Since humans are nothing more than biological machines, does their behaviour always mimic natural evolution?"

Answer: The word is spelled BEHAVIOR. Everything in our universe evolved out of matter. That is where life came from, and as we became more complex we developed complex emotions that helped us to survive. Two of the first emotions that helped our ancestors survive were fear and love.

Nineteeneightyfour said, "(A) In the case your answer is 'no': How can science explain human behaviour, which doesn't serve the advancement of the human race?

Answer: People who are interested in protecting the environment for future generations (serve the advancement of the human race) and this is evidence that we evolved to insure the continuation of our species. The exception is the flat earth crowd who doesn't believe in global warming.

Nineteeneightyfour said, "If your answer to this one is: "Because humans tend to act in their own interests as individuals." Then the next question is: (§) What evolutionary benefit does a person gain, if for instance (s)he proves a mathematical conjencture which doesn't have any practical benefit for the human race and then refuses to take the reward (money, e.g. Fields medall, whatever...) for it, which means that this person also doesn't benefit from the proof of this conjencture in an Evolutionary sense? (e.g. Grigori Perelman)

Answer: No it doesn't prove that! Russian mathematician Grigori Perelman proved Poincare hypothesis. His groundbreaking work on the problem, which was set out by the French mathematician, physicist and philosopher Jules Henri Poincare in 1904. The conjecture couldn't be solved by some of the greatest minds of the 20th century. It concerns the geometry of multidimensional spaces and is key to the field of topology. Dr. Perelman solved a more general version of the problem called Thurston's geometrisation conjecture, of which the Poincare conjecture is a special case. It's a central problem both in math and physics because it seeks to understand what the shape of the universe can be. The conjecture is about spheres that live in a higher dimension. Although mathematicians knew how to define a normal three-dimensional sphere, it had been hard to pin down the properties of the abstract four-dimensional sphere. Perelman's proof of the Poincare conjecture runs to several hundred pages of dense mathematics and is considered a mathematical masterpiece. Rather than publishing in a peer-reviewed journal, he posted three manuscripts in an online archive of maths and physics papers. He's not interested in money. He has also refused a major European maths prize, presumably on the grounds that he did not believe the committee awarding the prize was sufficiently qualified to judge his work. The big prize for him was proving his theorem. Perelman spurns money, medals and honors, because the highest reward for him is the opportunity to create amazing math. Most anyone could see the significance (or benefit to man) in solving this problem.

Nineteeneightyfour said, "(B) In the case your answer is 'yes': GOTO (§)"

Answer: GOTO (§) typographical character used to refer to a particular section. The section has a statement that is wrong, and I didn't answer it the only way you seem to think it could be answered.

I'm sure your theories didn't come from reading anything written by George Orwell. George Orwell (who was an atheist) wrote "1984." His books have themes that are explicitly anti-religious. George Orwell's real name was Eric Blair. "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." George Orwell

Nice answer Linda, it is more or less what I expected. Just one more thing:

According to http://dict.leo.org:

(1) The american version is "behavior", and the british version: "behaviour". However since the server this forum is running on is probably located somethere in America, and since I'm not a native speaker of the English language, I grant you your point. [Actually it doesn't matter how something is spelled as long as we both can understand it.]

(2) How can you be so sure that the first emotion humans developed was love? I think it was just self-preservation and empathy towards ourselves and to some extent towards other beings.

(3) Otherwise I agree with you; Although unlike Perelman i would have taken the 1 million dollar price; And you probably would have done the same. ;-)

Nineteeneightyfour said, "(1) The american version is "behavior", and the british version: "behaviour". However since the server this forum is running on is probably located somethere in America, and since I'm not a native speaker of the English language, I grant you your point. [Actually it doesn't matter how something is spelled as long as we both can understand it.]"

Answer: Dude, cometh on, thou art not using a Modern English Dictionary? Behavior - is the Modern English spelling of that word. Do the British spell (conjencture) or (Medall) that way? Americans spell them Medal and Conjecture.

Nineteeneightyfour said, "(2) How can you be so sure that the first emotion humans developed was love? I think it was just self-preservation and empathy towards ourselves and to some extent towards other beings."

Answer: Negative emotions (fear) helped us avoid danger, while positive emotions help us approach what we need to survive (food, shelter, and procreation). Oh coarse, I am right about this, but someone who doesn't believe in evolution can't understand how it works, and that's the problem. Emotions are traits that evolved to help organisms survive, and that is the point.

Nineteeneightyfour said, (3) Otherwise I agree with you; Although unlike Perelman i would have taken the 1 million dollar price; And you probably would have done the same. ;-)

Answer: I'm quite certain Perelman earned the medals and money. I think he preferred that they just said thank you. People don't go into mathematics because of medals and money. To sort out this situation - for the truth to be found and known - I think it is a matter of remaining independent. Not selling out to institutions. It's hard to make independent decisions when you accept gifts. I have a better understanding of this than you can imagine. You have the leisure of not knowing. I don't have the time or the interest to explain this to someone who questions the incredible insights that science has provided us with, and doesn't question the false myths of ancient men. You don't want the truth. It is rare to find a person who does want the truth more than they want medals and money.

I just think that the behavio[u]r of living organisms cannot be explained by evolution alone. Perhaps it was so at the beginning when life formed ~ 3.7 billion years ago. Life was governed by the laws of genetic selection. However look at the human society now. The laws of genetic selection especially "survival of the fittest" don't really apply anymore. People with disabilities can survive in our societies. What does it tell us about the brain of an individual of a species which allows that to happen? It tells us, that although our brain is basically a product of evolution it evolved beyond that a long time ago. Thus we are not governed by our evolutionary traits alone. We are already more than that. And that is why people like Perelman can enjoy just to solve a mathematical problem without an obvious direct benefit for himself.

Look at the Mandelbrot set for example. Although it is defined by a simple complex recursive equation it shows us many different patterns when graphed on a complex plane using different color shadings for the question whether a point is in the set or not. Imagine the initial equation symbolizes evolution. Yet the results of the application of this seemingly simple equation can be unpredictable. Evolution is not everything it's just the beginning.

Nineteeneightyfour said, "I just think that the behavio[u]r of living organisms cannot be explained by evolution alone. Perhaps it was so at the beginning when life formed ~ 3.7 billion years ago. Life was governed by the laws of genetic selection.

Answer: The universe is possibly fifteen billion years old. The universe may have existed ten billion years before the earth.

In 2001 the Human Genome was Mapped (ge·nome - one haploid set of chromosomes with the genes they contain; the full DNA sequence of an organism.) The human genome mapping provides indisputable proof that Darwin was right. Mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive ancestors.

Everything in our Universe has come into being through mechanistic processes without any kind of supernatural intervention. The origin and development of the Universe and all of its complex systems living and non-living organisms can be explained on the basis of continuing natural processes, innate in the very structure of matter and energy.

Nineteeneightyfour said, "However look at the human society now. The laws of genetic selection especially "survival of the fittest" don't really apply anymore. People with disabilities can survive in our societies. What does it tell us about the brain of an individual of a species which allows that to happen? It tells us, that although our brain is basically a product of evolution it evolved beyond that a long time ago."

Answer: It is the Scripture that teaches creation as a completed event not evolution. The economist Herbert Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" in 1864. Its use to describe evolution is not accurate. A species ability to survive actually depends on many factors and it isn't always the fittest that survive. Being the "fittest" is not all that helped man survive intelligence is a bigger factor. Man was smarter than any other animal. The animals were stronger, faster and had bigger teeth and claws than man, but the very reason man's intelligence developed more was the fact that man was not the strongest animal. Traits that help an organism to survive develop and are passed on. Natural selection on the other hand refers more to inherited traits which make an individual more or less likely to be able to survive and mate, passing on its traits to another generation. For example having a particular gene mutation in order so survive a deadly virus could become the factor in determining both the "fittest" along with those naturally selected.

Man being smarter than the other animals learned how to make weapons and tools. Our species will continue to get smarter. Also in the true sense of the process of evolution, it is not only the strongest or fittest that survive.

Nineteeneightyfour said, "Thus we are not governed by our evolutionary traits alone. We are already more than that. And that is why people like Perelman can enjoy just to solve a mathematical problem without an obvious direct benefit for himself."

Answer: Evolution is stronger today than it was when it first started because of DNA. If evolution was an erroneous theory DNA would have falsified it, but instead DNA is confirming evolution. Evolution operates by 'natural selection' traits that help an organism survive to reproductive age, and that help it to produce offspring that do the same, will be in evidence in those succeeding generations. Traits that did not do this will disappear with the organisms that died before they could pass them on. Creationist (Intelligent Design) have not shown that they have a theory that can account for any of the data evolution accounts for, and they have not provided any reason for believing that their theory (intelligent designer) even has the potential to produce anything useful to science.

There are all sorts of findings and experiments that could have falsified evolution. In the century-and-a-half since Darwin published his theory, not one has.

Nineteeneightyfour said, "Look at the Mandelbrot set for example. Although it is defined by a simple complex recursive equation it shows us many different patterns when graphed on a complex plane using different color shadings for the question whether a point is in the set or not. Imagine the initial equation symbolizes evolution. Yet the results of the application of this seemingly simple equation can be unpredictable. Evolution is not everything it's just the beginning."

Answer: The Mandelbrot set is named after its discoverer, Benoit B. Mandelbrot. The Mandelbrot set is a (barnacle covered pear shape) probably the most famous of all fractals. This odd shaped image is created with an extremely simple formula: Z = Z * Z + C. The area of the Mandelbrot set is unknown, but it's fairly small. The length of the border is known - it's infinite. The barnacle covered pear shape occurs an infinite number of times in the Mandelbrot set. All of the black areas of the Mandelbrot set are connected together. Every band of color around the Mandelbrot set goes all the way around, without breaking, and without crossing any other colour bands. Without computers, the Mandelbrot set would be invisible Even a very low-resolution image of the Mandelbrot set requires millions of calculations.

Looking for scientific or mathematical evidence for the existence of a supernatural God or design is ridiculous. God is an abstract concept that cannot be proven, that's why you have "faith in God".

The Mandelbrot set is found in natural occurring phenomenon example (lightening and plants.) However, the Mandelbrot set is a mathematical concept, not a potential interactive force in the universe. There are those who think that the Mandelbrot set is the product of an intelligent designer. The Mandelbrot set is the product of a relatively simple mathematical equation.

With the advancement of high-powered computers, mathematicians and statisticians often employ simulation as a research methodology. This is termed as experimental mathematics, as opposed to pure mathematics. In theory, a sampling distribution is based on infinite cases, but in actuality no one could run a simulation forever. With the use of supercomputers it is more likely that a particular theorem is true, but a simulation with billions of cases is more like a grain of sand on the beach than infinity.

The foundation of modern biology stems from Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution (natural selection) Polls show that Americans are behind almost all other countries in the developed world in science and mathematics. Polls generally show that only around 40 percent of Americans believe evolution is true while in most European countries the figure is closer to 80 percent.

There are many bible passages that would appear to be immoral by today's secular and religious standards. Proving that we have evolved to a higher moral standard than our ancestors who made up those myths.

Hello Linda,

I just wanted to thank you for your long answer. I really liked it and have nothing more to add except ...

" [..] you have "faith in God". [..] "

I wouldn't read this forum if I hadn't any doubts about God. And your answer has a lot of interesting stuff in it to think about. :)

My modern - published in 2003 - Oxford English Dictionary still spells it behaviour. Here in the Commonwealth or old British Empire we are a little backward compared to you up to date Americans. Also, while I was studying English at the extremely non-English University of Canterbury in the extremely un-English city of Christchurch, it was I'm afraid considered a sin to use the 'common American' spelling of words. I know that we pompous Anglo-Saxons do not have the same command of the Queens English as you most learned Americans. Please take no offence as I know that you are a supremely intelligent person who's posts I deeply enjoy reading, and most often completely agree with. But us in the rest of the English speaking world do have some things we hold dear and our over complicated spelling of words, coupled with the last letter of the alphabet being pronounced zed not zee, is for some odd reason important to us. Sorry, very English and sorry. Also, I'm very sorry for that whole tyrannical rule thing of those nasty old empire days. But you Yanks did seem to learn how to rule from us well. ;-) Just taking the piss lol

I'm not an atheist, but I was studying the Mandelbrot set. I couldn't understand it. This was a good explanation that the average person could comprehend. It's not the way it is explained in the textbooks, but I went back and read the textbook, and now I can see what they are talking about. Thanks!

Is this promoting a positive Atheism? Cometh on ACA. Tell her to cool the ad hominem, man.

Evolution isn't a ladder so love or whatever didn't evolve "TO" make the species survive.

Devin,

This discussion has nothing to do with this entire community, anymore than your outrageous behavior does. Your portrayal of this being anything besides a discussion between two parties is just obnoxious. The opinions Linda has expressed on evolution are prevalent in atheist communities. This is not Jesus Camp. Most atheists share her opinions on evolution. I know that you don't realize that you are out of place here. This discussion has nothing to do with your opinions. They don't disagree with her, you do.

Jacqueline

My behavior is justified, your speech isn't. I do not have opinions about Genesis and the Table of Elements, I was playing Christians advocate. I sent an e-mail to the Atheist-Experience before I posted that topic and said, I believED it when I was a Christian. Opologize, you all should.

The discussion has nothing to do with scrutinizing people writing.

**** Linda said, Around 500,000,000 years ago bacteria mixed and matched DNA of two organisms rather than making clones for children. This sped up evolution and sex (love) evolved for reproduction that is what caused the Cambrian explosion. Life Forms, that eventually led to man, some 495 million years later. Until sex (love) for a billion years amoebas were the highest life form. Other forms of love (bonds) evolved to insure that the species would survive. ****

You're mistaking attraction for love. Now do I really have to write up a science article or lookup a science article to prove that to you? LOL. Attraction is NOT love.

I could go out and sleep with 50 women and I'll tell you right now that is not love. That is attraction followed by sex (which is the process you described which I agree with).

The difference between us and animals is free will (gift from God). You will notice a severe gap of intelligence between the 1st most intelligent species on the planet and the 2nd most intelligent species. But then you will notice the intelligence between the 2nd & 3rd most intelligence species is very close (it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that).

Back to the complexity of love.

There are three types of Love you need for happiness. 1st - Love for the Lord. 2nd - Love for parents. 3rd - Love between a man & women who have both waited until marriage before having sex. Then never committing adultery to keep their love intact.

I've seen couples who have waited until marriage backed by the care of their God fearing families. It can be most beautiful thing in the world. This is the Love God wants for us.

Mr. T. (sure)

What this miserable clod posted was only one half of the answer - it is not the complete text: Here is the question and complete answer. You've done this before.

nineteeneightyfour said, "What is the definition of 'love' from an atheist's point of view? Just chemichal reactions in the brain? Because then 'hatred' is also "just chemical reactions in the brain". o_O"

Linda said, "No, it's a little more involved than just a chemical reaction in the brain. A very brief explanation: Life began on earth about 1.5 billion years ago, and for the first billion of those years reproduction was asexual (not sexual.) Unicellular microorganism splits up its DNA into batches, divides up and each half goes it own way. The parent dies but two copies of itself will live on. Not a very effective - and very slow.

Around 500,000,000 years ago bacteria mixed and matched DNA of two organisms rather than making clones for children. This sped up evolution and sex (love) evolved for reproduction that is what caused the Cambrian explosion. Life Forms, that eventually led to man, some 495 million years later. Until sex (love) for a billion years amoebas were the highest life form. Other forms of love (bonds) evolved to insure that the species would survive."

That was the complete answer not what the jerk tried to pone off! The processes Linda is describing are sound science that no fool would argue against. But they are things that you couldn't explain and you don't understand.

Creationism, Intelligent Design or "God did it" is not science or a credible alternative to the Theory of Evolution and it is not a scientific proposition. Can you prove any your uninitiated low-grade rubbish? Where is your "god did it" theory or intelligent design theory or creationist theory. There isn't one. A model is actually a tool of science, as a means of allowing the testing of a hypothesis. Without a model, a theory is not testable and will never gain acceptance in scientific circles. You can not discuss science without knowing science and that's your real problem. Now Mr. T. (ha ha) you can tell everyone what the Russian mathematician Grigori Perelman proved - I'm sure you can! I'm sure it is all in one place too. Explain the Poincare hypothesis. I'm sure you will get right on that! You can just copy what Linda wrote as you often do. But I'm sure you will get it wrong.

Linda said, "Dr. Perelman solved a more general version of the problem called Thurston's geometrisation conjecture, of which the Poincare conjecture is a special case." And she explained all of this crap - I'll bet she got it all wrong. We will be waiting for your corrections Mr. T.

Linda explained the Mandelbrot set - I'm sure you have a much better explanation and I just can't wait to hear it. Linda said, "this odd shaped image is created with an extremely simple formula: Z = Z * Z + C." Tell us about the math Mr.T. I bet she made that equation up. You give us the real one Mr. T.

This is where she proved the theory of evolution.

In 2001 the Human Genome was Mapped (ge·nome - one haploid set of chromosomes with the genes they contain; the full DNA sequence of an organism.) The human genome mapping provides indisputable proof that Darwin was right. Mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive ancestors.

Mr. T. - You need to explain how they mapped the human genome and it didn't work out. And then explain why it didn't work out.

You're a simpleton that has never studied the subject, and you do not comprehend one thing that was written. No article would involve the diversity of answers involved in this discussion, you invidious uninformed clod. She has written enough on scientific subjects for everyone to know that she does know what she is talking about. The expansive amount of information covered - and the ability to explain it - could only be learned through study.

What she explained was that Love and Fear are; EMOTIONS: Emotions evolved and are about the life of an organism, its body to be precise, and their role is to assist the organism in maintaining life. Emotions are biologically determined processes, depending upon innately set brain devices, laid down by long evolutionary history. The devices that produce emotions are part of a set of structures that both regulate and represent body states. All devices can be engaged automatically, without conscious deliberation. The variety of the emotional responses is responsible for profound changes in both the body landscape and the brain landscape. The collection of these changes constitutes the substrate for the neural patterns, which eventually become feelings of emotion.

Humans must procreate in order to further their species. Therefore, human love evolved to carry on the species and protect the family unit.

Evolutionary Psychology is based on the theory that all human psychological traits, such as love, must be traceable to our evolutionary ancestors. The source of love in humans is evolved from the mother infant relationship in early mammals. Love is an emotion that evolved without which mammals would not have survived.

Linda said, "Negative emotions (fear) helped us avoid danger, while positive emotions help us approach what we need to survive (food, shelter, and procreation). Oh coarse, I am right about this, but someone who doesn't believe in evolution can't understand how it works, and that's the problem. Emotions are traits that evolved to help organisms survive, and that is the point."

Mr. T.'s low class trashy examples of what was being discussed do not deserve any answers, but they do prove where you get your answers. I have never met a fanatic that wasn't vulgar. You can save your trashy mouth and your beliefs for your uncultivated crude low class associates. We don't want to hear them. Unless you have testable rebuttal your butt-ins on discussions that Linda already won are not needed. Even if you are jealous - and a loser. In other words the discussion was with someone else who at least had the ability to comprehend what was written.

Your intelligent design answers do not require much reading because there are no testable theories or scientific writings that have ever been presented to the scientific community. So, they do nothing to advance the development or understanding of anything.

Everyone knows what your problem is. You don't know anything about science or much of anything else either, but we are all going to listen to you. Nobody should read anything Linda writes! Besides it's boring to people who are too dumb to understand scientific theory. You can't discuss a scientific theory because you don't know anything about science. You are didn't prove anything except how inept you are!

Mr. T. said, "I could go out and sleep with 50 women and I'll tell you right now that is not love. That is attraction followed by sex (which is the process you described which I agree with)."

Where would you find that many stupid ugly women? You seem to think that the fact that emotions evolved gives you an opening to prove something about your morality.

How much "goodness" is really involved in the religion con game anyway?

Bishop Earl Paulk, 80-year-old leader of a suburban Atlanta megachurch involved in sex scandal. He slept with his brother's wife and fathered a child by her. Paulk had an additional sexual affair with a church worker, where he told her the only way to salvation was to have sex with him. I guess love isn't all that is involved in having sex, because it looks like they also have sex in order to go to heaven.

I think it's time for a word from the "good book." II Samuel 13:1-20, Prophet David had a son named Amnon. Amnon had a half-sister called Tamar who was very beautiful. Amnon was in love with Tamar who was a virgin. He pretended to be sick and asked his sister to bring him food into the bedroom and feed him with her hand. When she began feeding her brother, he grabbed her and asked her to sleep with him. Tamar refused, but he forced her to have sex with him. After that he hated her, and locked her in a room.

I Kings 11:3-10, Solomon had 700 wives. He also had 300 slave women that were like wives to him.

Religion may not be the root of all evil, but it sure helps, doesn't it?

Journal of Religion and Society - Religiosity and Secularism - Gregory S. Paul. The data from eighteen different countries (prosperous democracies) for the measures of societal health and social survey that includes some 23,000 respondents.

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies, rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies

The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are starting to rise again as the microbe's resistance increases. The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia.

Increasing adolescent abortion rates show are higher with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and lower with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies, but rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest. A detailed comparison of sexual practices in France and the U.S. indicated that the French (contrary to common thinking) tend to be somewhat more conservative.

Now the only question I have for you is this; if your "belief" in god makes anyone moral where is the proof?

Hi Linda, love your posts. But if you're not from the USA and from say; New Zealand, Great Britain, Canada or Australia, it is spelled behaviour not behavior. Just like color is colour and labor is labour. English spelling got simplified by Americans after the revolution. Maybe it was a small way to both simplify and differentiate at the same time. Otherwise I completely agree with ya.

I believe I pointed out several misspelled words and the spelling of behaviour before I knew this was a person who is still in the process of learning English.

I'm American Irish so I won't be using the British language.

Americans changed the sound of their speech after the Revolutionary War in seventeen seventy-six. English was the same in the American colonies and Britain. Americans wanted to separate themselves from the British by separating themselves from the British language. American leaders proposed major changes in the language. Benjamin Franklin wanted a new system of spelling. His reforms were rejected but not his idea. Webster published a dictionary of the American language in 1828. I don't think the British are that much above Americans when it comes to ignorance or bigotry. I've read some articles that indicate that the British have a few problems with conservatives promoting Intelligent Design. One from 2006 - "Pupils in England will be required to discuss creationist theories as part of a new GCSE biology course being introduced in September."

Interesting stuff Linda and you're right on the ignorance and bigotry point. We have a long history of conservative thinking as well as out right prejudice. The British Empire spanned a long period of oppression, war, genocide, and an aggressive expansionist foreign policy.

Irish got a bit of that in me too, a Kennedy from Tipperary. :)

Okay Linda and GR, unlike mere imposters, any true Irishman knows the origin of the term "Whiskey". Would you like to take a shot (at its origin)? :-D

Hello folks,

Although I'm not an Irishman/American or Englishman Wiktionary helps alot: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whiskey . I never thought of whiskey as "water of life". :) [Then again: I almost never drink alcohol apart from medicine... and no ... it has nothing to do with religion. :) ]

Uisce beatha (the water of life) or in the common vernacular Irish whiskey was a superior drink to the cheep rubbish that the Scott's were flooding the market with in the later part of the 19th century. The history of Irish whiskey is as old as the history of whiskey itself. The art of distilling is believed to have been brought to Europe through Irish missionary monks. The knowledge of distilling spread through the Church and eventually reached beyond the monastery walls. Ireland was overtaken by Scotland long ago as the world's largest whiskey producing region, but there are still three active distilleries on Ireland. The Irish whiskey is less smoky than most Scottish whisky since the Irish generally do not smoke their barley. Additionally, the Irish practice triple distillation which further reduces the medicinal qualities of the whiskey.

Not sure if this is what you are looking for. I'm interested to see your version of events :-)

What's the point of being an Irish imposter - perhaps you don't know the history.

The origin of the word whiskey is something that anyone could find out. However, I am the only Irish here. The others didn't say that they were Irish.

This term originally came from uisce beatha (Irish Gaelic), which means, (water of life). The word entered English as (whiskey) or (whisky) when Henry II invaded Ireland. Uisce beatha - The Old Irish uisce (water) and (bethad) of life, water of life.

The name the Irish gave distilled spirits was (uisce beatha). Broken down (uisce) means (water) (beatha) means (life) and the two combined mean (water of life).

This term uisge beatha is (Scottish Gaelic) also means water of life.

So, the origin of whiskey isn't Irish it's English.

If one were to be painfully precise, one might point out that "British" is not, in point of fact, a language. Rather, it is, at most, a dialect. To say that, "...I won't be using the British language." is to say that, "...I won't be using English." Reaching beyond painfully to, perhaps, tortuously precise, "British" in fact encompasses a rather wide range of territories, cultures and social identities; "British" can refer to the United Kingdom or merely England, Scotland and Wales or often some combination or subset of these. In this sense, the previous implied notion that anyone could, in fact, speak "British" is, at least, imprecise. All London sub-dialects would fall within "British," even though Cockney speakers would hardly risk ever being confused with members of parliament. These rather modest attempts at clarification are offered only in the hope that those who are so concerned with accuracy in the fields of logic and science might also apply such dilligence with regard to the language they employ.

Clearly the British and Americans speak the same language, but America wanted to change the sound of their speech after the Revolutionary War in seventeen seventy-six. English was the same in the American colonies and Britain.

Americans wanted to separate themselves from the British by separating themselves from the British language. That is exactly how it was written in an Encyclopedia. I am sure it is being done for the same reason I did it - they both speak the same language how would you make a distinction - not by saying they would both speak English. If you don't like it bitch out the fool who wrote the Encyclopedia explaining how the Americans changed the spelling and sound of the language and why.

See it wouldn't be logical. Not as hard as explaining algorithms though.

So, they wanted to distinguish Americans from British, and they did that by changing the spelling and sound of the language. Most did sound British in Early America. Dialect means the sound. Once you change the sound you would have to change the spelling. But since they both speak the same language using the word "British" is the only way "one" could describe the distinction when both parties speak English. It's totally logical though; it would be much easier to explain if they both spoke totally different languages, but really…. fill in the blank. I can figure that out and I'm not that good with figures.

I would like to add: The use of the term "British" was the best way to expedite the matter. Scotland, Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all speak English. Part of Canada speaks French the other part speak English. What was being expressed can be taken out of context, but what's the purpose?

"These rather modest attempts at clarification are offered only in the hope that those who are so concerned with accuracy in the fields of logic and science might also apply such dilligence with regard to the language they employ."

One who doesn't spell diligence correctly shouldn't be criticizing anyone.Also, paragraphs are really nifty.

Sorry, I was just trying to be funny. Clearly, I'm no Jonathan Swift; maybe not even Pauly Shore. I just get a real charge out of the constant sideways parsing and thought I'd jump in for fun.

The spelling error was a typo...the sort of thing that happens, say, when you don't hit the space key at the end of a sentence:

One who doesn't spell diligence correctly shouldn't be criticizing anyone.Also, paragraphs are really nifty. [To be clear, insert "LOL" here.]

I sincerely enjoy reading the banter here, so keep it up and in future I will keep shut up.

Cheers.

Ray said, "So, the origin of whiskey isn't Irish it's English." Yet another thing the Irish need to thank the English for (besides the fun times at the potato famine.)

Quinn said, " tortuously precise.." Is "tortuously" some type of British turtle, or did you mean torturously? As far as what love is, I think it is the word chosen to describe a feeling you have when your brain is flooded with dopamine (like when you have a bottle of English whisky.)

The reality of a human being is: It exists in the biosphere of Earth. And: It exists as a member of a society of (essentially) equal beings.

If one human being and its immediate neighbors (cause&effect-wise, so an immediate neighbor could also be on another continent if it directly matters to the human in question) are in a good balance with the above mentioned two-facet-reality, then love is inevitable.

Example: If two humans are playing the game of sex, it is common for each of them to enjoy the act *more*, if the other one apparently experiences it as joyful. Even if one participant would use the other one for the mere purpose of self-satisfaction, just as a tool of warm flesh, the participant would still enjoy it more if the other one expresses to be joyful. There are of course exceptions from this concept. But in general, I think it is safe to say that even egoistic behavior leads to the wish that the other one also has a good time.

And I think this concept does not only apply to sex but to every aspect of human life.

Makeroni,

It doesn't matter how much shit anyone piles on top of this discussion, and a lot has been, this discussion was about the fact that emotions evolved to help the species survive and reproduce, and love was not "inevitable" when life first started to evolve. Love wasn't necessary because for the first billion years reproduction was asexual (not sexual.) Unicellular microorganism splits up its DNA into batches, divides up and each half goes it own way. The parent dies but two copies of itself will live on. This was not a very effective and was very slow. Until the emotion love and sexual reproduction evolved for a billion years amoebae were the highest life form.

Around 500,000,000 years ago bacteria mixed and matched DNA of two organisms rather than making clones for children. This sped up evolution and the emotion (love) evolved for sexual reproduction that was far more efficient. It is what caused the Cambrian explosion. Life Forms, that eventually led to man, some 495 million years later. The emotion (love) evolved to make reproduction more efficient and to help the species survive. Love comes from the maternal a paternal love for their offspring.

I think most of us know what planet we live on, but for those who don't thanks for the unrelated information, as well as, the fact that there is human life on all of the continents. Sexual reproduction evolved and was not inevitable for slimy amoebae. It didn't matter to one amoeba if having sex with the another amoeba was like falling into a bucket of lard.

And the concept that applies to human life is that emotions evolved in order to make reproduction more efficient and help the species survive! Accordingly, sex is only "inevitable" with amoebae that don't care who they screw or in a brothel.

> It doesn't matter how much shit anyone piles on top of this discussion

I have had a negative impression of you for the longest time. You do not fail to disappoint.

how testy the discussion has become on the definition of love thread. further proof of evolution not needed :P

Macaroni,

Just for the record…. (Macaroni copied this from my response) > It doesn't matter how much shit anyone piles on top of this discussion

I like the way you chopped that off to make your point, but here is my actual statement in it's entirety: Linda said, "It doesn't matter how much shit anyone piles on top of this discussion, and a lot has been, this discussion was about the fact that emotions evolved to help the species survive and reproduce, and love was not "inevitable" when life first started to evolve. Love wasn't necessary because for the first billion years reproduction was asexual (not sexual.)"

Makeroni said, "I have had a negative impression of you for the longest time. You do not fail to disappoint."

It's always been my opinion that you're a hick, and your opinion doesn't matter to me…. but maybe you can explain what this vulgar little response had to do with this discussion?

Makeroni said, "Example: If two humans are playing the game of sex, it is common for each of them to enjoy the act *more*, if the other one apparently experiences it as joyful. Even if one participant would use the other one for the mere purpose of self-satisfaction, just as a tool of warm flesh, the participant would still enjoy it more if the other one expresses to be joyful. There are of course exceptions from this concept. But in general, I think it is safe to say that even egoistic behavior leads to the wish that the other one also has a good time.

And I think this concept does not only apply to sex but to every aspect of human life."

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Sorry, but I couldn't get my head up my ass far enough to see things your way. I think your response was vulgar and stupid, but an amateur scientist evidently finds these kinds of responses irresistible. Unfortunately, it had nothing to do with the fact that "love" is an emotion that evolved to help the species survive. Love is not "inevitable" it's an emotion that evolved. Do us all a huge favor; when you can't debate the issues don't insult people.

Despite the fact that others and I have proven your pseudo-science wrong many times I don't recall you ever giving a rebuttal, but now you are posting a rebuttal to a discussion that I obviously won. Nevertheless, your reply was not a rebuttal of the issue that emotions evolved to help the species survive.

This discussion was about evolution, and "scientific" creationism is religion, not science or atheism. An unnatural agent performing an unspecified "supernatural" act has nothing to do with science.

Your opinion of this discussion or anything else is of no interest to me, because there are plenty of discussions with limited knowledge of quantum theories and a "creationist" spin to prove "something" that I debunked and there was never any rebuttal. There are plenty of attempts to pass pseudo-science off as scientific proof of the "supernatural" that were debunked by me. I don't think there was ever any answer to any of my rebuttals.

Here's a piece of news for future reference. Science that depends on quantum effects in physics can not be used to prove "god exists" because there is no "supernatural entity" involved in the models. A model and a theory are not the same things. Evolution and the Big Bang are theories with a preponderance of evidence (including observations) backing them up. A model does not necessarily have observable evidence; it is merely a computational model.

Quantum information science concerns information science that depends on quantum effects in physics. It includes theoretical issues in computational models that are not necessarily theories. Additionally, these models are not about the "supernatural" or the existence of a "designer".

P. S. I can't tell you the number of times I've stopped myself from saying what I think of you, but don't let that discourage you from posting your twaddle and utter loads of crap!

Makeroni said, "The reality of a human being is: It exists in the biosphere of Earth. And: It exists as a member of a society of (essentially) equal beings."

That has no relationship to the discussion, which was concerning the fact that life and sexual reproduction evolved.

Makeroni said, "If one human being and its immediate neighbors (cause&effect-wise, so an immediate neighbor could also be on another continent if it directly matters to the human in question) are in a good balance with the above mentioned two-facet-reality, then love is inevitable."

That would not be necessary for a-sexual reproduction, which was the only form of reproduction for billions of years. The point had been made that before sexual reproduction the only form of reproduction was a-sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction evolved and so did all of the emotions love, hate, fear etc. in order for the species to survive. What you have written is meaningless since it does not dispute the theory in question or support its critics.

Makeroni said, "Example: If two humans are playing the game of sex, it is common for each of them to enjoy the act *more*, if the other one apparently experiences it as joyful. Even if one participant would use the other one for the mere purpose of self-satisfaction, just as a tool of warm flesh, the participant would still enjoy it more if the other one expresses to be joyful. There are of course exceptions from this concept. But in general, I think it is safe to say that even egoistic behavior leads to the wish that the other one also has a good time."

Egoistic - one devoted to one's own interests and advancement; an egocentric person. A pretty good description of someone who can't debate a topic so they just post irrelevant garbage. There are plenty of egoistic persons on this message board.

Makeroni said, "And I think this concept does not only apply to sex but to every aspect of human life."

I'll just bet this does apply to every aspect of your life.

I'd like to add to the "emotions evolving for survival" concept. It is entirely possible that humans (and most other life forms) display emergent properties that aren't especially pertinent to the prosperity of the species. For example, self-awareness could simply be a side effect (emergent quality or epiphenomenon) of our brains having attained a certain level of complexity and information processing capacity. From some perspectives, self-awareness creates so many new problems as to be a disadvantage to the species. Perhaps our global race to self-destruct is the ultimate realization of unfettered self-involvement...?

Might love be an epiphenomenon that isn't needed but is merely a byproduct of emotional complexity? I reckon it depends on how we define "love." Certainly we want to repeat the oxytocin rush we feel when we're "in love" or feeling strong affinity for a child or other object of affection. This is clearly a chemically induced emotional reward that enhances our caring for one another as a social organism and can be easily seen to arise from natural selection.

But is there another level of "love" which arises from the complexity of consciousness, a subjective state of being that isn't necessary for survival, in which an individual experiences a sense of connection and benevolence toward all of existence? Evolution doesn't seem to explain this type of universal compassion, nor does it fail to explain it.

The paradigm of evolution is not powerful enough to explain all observed phenomena in self-organizing open systems. Logical positivism still pervades a lot of the discourse on forums such as this one, probably a result of our need to feel as though we can explain things by connecting the few dots that are accessible to our limited perceptual capabilities. Fortunately, the evolution of evolutionary theory gets increasingly subtle and non-linear as new discoveries are made and old ideas are blown out of the water. It becomes increasingly difficult to debate with those who can't even buy into the most basic of Darwinian concept, let alone the vastly more complex models that animate our current narrative about how things came to be as they appear.

The goal of apologist is not to find the truth; they do not follow the evidence wherever it leads. Darwinism is how apologists refer to evolution, which is a biological science. That's like calling astrophysics Hawkingism. It's just plain nonsense.

When the apologists (creationists) couldn't argue against the fossil record and all the evidence that supports evolution they tried to use brain functions like consciousness (intelligence) and emotions to defeat evolution. They didn't. The arguments they have come up with are silly and just plain wrong. Science knows far more about how the human mind evolved and its fundamental functions than the apologists ever thought about.

Evolution is real science, and it is not very likely that someone without the training of an evolutionary biologists will find anything that these scientists haven't thought of to debunk evolution. From the Big Bang 15 billion years ago our Universe and life in the Universe came into existence. Through a long process of evolution mankind developed the mental capabilities that they have today. Evolution explains the molecular beginning of life 3 billion years ago.

The brain evolved when nerves appeared in the course of the evolution of life and nerve centers formed precursors of brains. The nerve uses a complex system of neurotransmitters for signaling complex interconnections that allow for complex memory and for complex responses, leading to networks of nerves. Nerves developed a variety of neurotransmitters for the biochemical coupling of nerves. This variety of neurotransmitters, some of them specialized for different functions in the body and brain, allowed for differentiated influences on body and brain functions, such as, biochemical substances in connection with emotions (for example, the formation and effect of adrenaline or dopamine. The formation of ever more complex networks of nerves led to the appearance of large accumulations of interconnected nerves close to the output of the most important sensors for fast responses based on memory. This evolved into the complex brain of mammals. The expansion of the cortex in the frontal regions led to greater memory. A higher degree of consciousness evolved when there was an increase in memory, ability and competence, and language skills started to form. Then the higher intellectual capabilities for mental creativity and strategy formulation begin.

Special nuclei developed in the early brains of primitive life for the assessment of situations that required evaluations such as danger (fear) an enemy (anger) etc. these evolved into the appearance of emotions.

It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks about the condition of the human race today, religion being one of the worst influences, it has nothing to do with the fact of evolution.

@John: "Darwinism is how apologists refer to evolution, which is a biological science. That's like calling astrophysics Hawkingism."

That's hilarious, and so true! It might even be a more accurate analogy to say evolution is to Darwin as physics is to Aristotle. I'd use an older name than that but don't know specific names of Egyptians and others who may have had early concepts of physics.

Apologists are annoying. I've listened to people presenting the "evidence" that Jesus is whatever they believe Jesus is, and it's just plain irritating. Ya just wanna slap 'em upside the head and hope that it helps knock some sense into them.

Tongpa-nyi said, "It becomes increasingly difficult to debate with those who can't even buy into the most basic of Darwinian concept, let alone the vastly more complex models that animate our current narrative about how things came to be as they appear."

Apologists imply by using terms like Darwinian evolution that there is some other kind, like "theological evolution", the use of that term Darwinian by apologists is to distinguish between their "theological evolution" and the scientific theory of evolution. The term Darwinian infers that there is some other evolution theory when there is only one, and it's simply called "the theory of evolution."

John said, "Darwinism is how apologists refer to evolution, which is a biological science. That's like calling astrophysics Hawkingism. It's just plain nonsense."

Evolution is the scientific term not Darwinian or Darwinism there is only one theory of evolution. Evolution is a science and theology is not science. There is no theory of "theological evolution", because there is no evidence of design at any point in the theory of evolution; therefore there is only one term in science and that is the theory of evolution. One either accepts the science or they don't. Meaning "Darwinian" is not a scientific term Darwin is the originator of a theory, but many scientists have been involved in the theory of evolution, and "theology" has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution. There is no scientific theory that involves a creator in biological evolution.

Tongpa-nyi said, That's hilarious, and so true! It might even be a more accurate analogy to say evolution is to Darwin as physics is to Aristotle.

It's not about an analogy; it is the use of the term Darwinian period, instead of using the term the theory of evolution (there is no term Darwinian) the term is absurd. His analogy is an example of other sciences that nobody would use a name to describe that science, but we do know why they do that with evolution, and no other science. Darwin originated the theory of evolution (evolution is a scientific fact) but many scientists are still involved in the science of biological evolution, and they have advanced our understanding of evolution. When scientists "cracked the code of the human genome" the genome revealed indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right, that mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive ancestors.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

blip.tv ustream.tv

Join us for the Bat Cruise Lecture, 1:15pm September 27th at Trinity United Methodist Church, at 40th and Speedway. Lecturers will be Richard Carrier and Chris Johnson.

The ACA Bat Cruise is set for Saturday, September 27th, 6-8pm. Purchase tickets in advance here.

The audio and video from Dr. Shahnawaz August lecture is now available.