Originally posted by whodey
I think it is kinda like the scripture that says to be a doer of the word, and not a hearer only. What good is the message if you do not apply it to your life? If you don't apply it, it will shrival up and die. You might say that you should use it or lose it.

He's talking about virtu, not virtue.

Originally posted by whodey
You raise an interesting point here. In fact, love is what gives our life meaning. So essentially you are saying that the most vital aspect to our existence is rooted in something irrational and not tangible.

I disagree that love alone makes life meaningful. I have large parts of my life that seem very meaningful to me and have little or no connection to romantic love or familial love. If you choose to include my love of computer games, then you might be onto something.
I am not even sure if I would label love 'the most vital aspect of our existence'.
I am also not convinced that love is inherently irrational or tangible. I only pointed out that I and many others have behaved irrationally when it comes to love.

When it comes to honesty, I think that we should be honest when we know we are behaving irrationally. If I do something irrational because of a girl, I should admit that I do not really know why I am doing it, or why I am in love with her etc. When it comes to religion, I find that far to often people make up justifications to the point of outright lies, when they could perfectly well go with 'I don't know'.

Originally posted by amannion
I don't think there's any virtue in believing or not.
Virtue arises out of how you live your life. In my experience that has very little to do with belief or lack of it.

Rec'd

Originally posted by whodey
What I mean is, you claim to believe in "other" principles. So it is by your beliefs that you live your life. THat is why our beliefs are so vital to us.

Having said that, are we really that much different? Christ claimed that the two biggy laws were to love God with all your heart, and soul, and mind and to do unto others as they would do to you. If y ...[text shortened]... an we at least agree with the golden rule of doing unto others as they would have done to you?

Absolutely I agree with the golden rule and it forms a central part of my principles. But it's not unique to Jesus and was around long before he was, and since it's a principle shared by most if not all cultures across time, I think it's fair to say it's more than just a belief.

Originally posted by whodey
You raise an interesting point here. In fact, love is what gives our life meaning. So essentially you are saying that the most vital aspect to our existence is rooted in something irrational and not tangible.

Why is love irrational?
It makes perfectly rational sense to love one's children for example - they are the carriers of your genes into the future. Now of course, human love of ones children goes well beyond just loving them for their genes, as do many other creatures, but it derives from something that is perfectly rational.

Originally posted by LemonJello
He's talking about virtu, not virtue.

Virtue is virtu misspelled.

Originally posted by amannion
Why is love irrational?
It makes perfectly rational sense to love one's children for example - they are the carriers of your genes into the future. Now of course, human love of ones children goes well beyond just loving them for their genes, as do many other creatures, but it derives from something that is perfectly rational.

There is nothing rational whatsoever about loving the carriers of your genes. It is an emotional effect that results from evolution, but there is no purely rational argument for maintaining it - other than the fact that the emotional response is there and makes us happy.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is nothing rational whatsoever about loving the carriers of your genes. It is an emotional effect that results from evolution, but there is no purely rational argument for maintaining it - other than the fact that the emotional response is there and makes us happy.

By your own logic , if evolution is the driving force of nature then EVERY thought and emotion must derive from it ultimately. Some emotions (like caring for children) are easier to directly attribute to evolution than others but ultimately every thought , behaviour and emotion must be driven indirectly by evolution. Therefore , by your own definition all human behaviours , thoughts , emotions are not rational.

If I could prove that altruism , compassion and giving to the poor was evolutuonary in nature would that mean we should stop because "there is no purely rational argument for maintaining it" ?

The only other option is to believe that there are some human thoughts and emotions that are driven by something else other than mere evolution , but that's a path no atheist wants to walk down.

Originally posted by knightmeister
By your own logic , if evolution is the driving force of nature then EVERY thought and emotion must derive from it ultimately.

No, my logic does not lead to that conclusion. I also question what you mean by "the driving force of nature". I certainly do not believe that all nature is in some way slave to evolution or directly controlled in every action by evolution.

Some emotions (like caring for children) are easier to directly attribute to evolution than others but ultimately every thought , behaviour and emotion must be driven indirectly by evolution.
Why? Where do you get that conclusion from?

Therefore , by your own definition all human behaviours , thoughts , emotions are not rational.
Which definition was that again?

If I could prove that altruism , compassion and giving to the poor was evolutuonary in nature would that mean we should stop because "there is no purely rational argument for maintaining it" ?
No. Even if your proof was genuine. However, I never said that love was 'evolutionary in nature'. I said it resulted from evolution. Not the same thing at all. Our intelligence too is a result of evolution.
I also have never claimed that we should stop something simply because there is no rational argument for maintaining it. In fact I stated quite clearly that I do not follow such a rule.

The only other option is to believe that there are some human thoughts and emotions that are driven by something else other than mere evolution , but that's a path no atheist wants to walk down.
If you are talking about the road where all your thoughts are essentially controlled by God whispering in one ear and Satan whispering in the other, then no, I have no interest in that road.
But you too must admit that you cannot make a rational argument for doing what you do. Whatever argument you make will almost certainly end with 'doing right for the sake of doing right' or 'doing what God wants - just because' or far more likely 'doing what you believe to be in your own self interest'. But what is the rational argument for seeking happiness, or seeking a longer life? This is the challenge that josephw has recently faced but the problem is that he does not realize that his religion does not solve the problem, it only hides it. He for some reason thinks that meaning can only be found if it can be placed in a framework of some 'greater meaning'. Where that 'greater meaning' gets its meaning from remains unclear. As always religion hides the problem by saying 'God did it, but God is magically immune to the problem - problem solved'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is nothing rational whatsoever about loving the carriers of your genes. It is an emotional effect that results from evolution, but there is no purely rational argument for maintaining it - other than the fact that the emotional response is there and makes us happy.

Our emotions must be biological in origin, since they occur within us. Since they are biological, I would guess they have some evolutionary purpose. You might argue they are a vestige, like the appendix, but surely they are too ubiquitous to be considered in that way.
If they are a result of evolution then I would suggest that to label them irrational is incorrect.
My attempt to point out some possible rationality behind love was only that - an attempt - although I can't see why an organism who already had emotions wouldn't attribute love towards its offspring, since that love will help it to care for those offspring and hence ensure its genes continued survival.
But, I accept I may be right off the mark here. Still, I'm sure there's some sort of evolutionary basis behind many or most of our emotions. Don't you think?

Originally posted by amannion
Still, I'm sure there's some sort of evolutionary basis behind many or most of our emotions. Don't you think?

I think I already said as much several times. That doesn't make following them rational. Evolution is not 'right' or 'wrong' and there is no rational reason for aiding evolution. We feel emotions as a result of evolution, but following those emotions is only 'rational' insofar as we 'feel the urge' to do so. It is not something that can be rationally deduced as the 'correct course of action'. At some point we know what we desire, and we may follow those desires using the most rational or irrational methods, but the desire itself is neither rational nor irrational, it is simply desire.

I must point out that many theists focus heavily on attaining eternal life - especially a happy eternal life, and again, this is not based on it being 'right' or 'wrong' but simply a desire to live longer - which is also a result of evolution.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think I already said as much several times. That doesn't make following them rational. Evolution is not 'right' or 'wrong' and there is no rational reason for aiding evolution. We feel emotions as a result of evolution, but following those emotions is only 'rational' insofar as we 'feel the urge' to do so. It is not something that can be rationally dedu ...[text shortened]... 'wrong' but simply a desire to live longer - which is also a result of evolution.

Yeah, good point. You're right, I was wrong.
Thanks for the post, it clarifies things nicely.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree that love alone makes life meaningful. I have large parts of my life that seem very meaningful to me and have little or no connection to romantic love or familial love. If you choose to include my love of computer games, then you might be onto something.
I am not even sure if I would label love 'the most vital aspect of our existence'.
I am a ...[text shortened]... tions to the point of outright lies, when they could perfectly well go with 'I don't know'.

I am not sure we are discussing the same thing when we discuss "love". I think most think of romantic love or familial love only when discussing love, but that is not all there is. In fact, the Greek language denotes five different kinds of love. The Godly form of love is called agape, for example. When Christ was questioned about loving your neighbor as yourself, a man asked who his neighbor was and he used the agape kind of love as the example? Then he gave the paraable of the Good Samaritan. In short, it is simply an example of the Golden rule. Of course, there are many more interesting facts about the parable of the Good Samaritan. One is that there was never any verbal exchange between the two. In fact, the only relationship was one of rescue or salvation. Secondly, the only one who helped the man at the side of the road was a Samaritan, who was a natural enemy of the dying Jew, yet he helped him. Using this parable as an example, emotion did not play a factor in love, rather, it was a choice. In fact, if there were any emotion attached to the interaction, it would be one of hostility, which if the man had any, he then had to overcome it in order to help the dying man.

So I ask you, is it "rational" to help your adversery, or put another way, is it natural to "love" your adversary? Would you not want your adversary to perish so that you may live and/or prosper?

Originally posted by amannion
Absolutely I agree with the golden rule and it forms a central part of my principles. But it's not unique to Jesus and was around long before he was, and since it's a principle shared by most if not all cultures across time, I think it's fair to say it's more than just a belief.

Of course, before Jesus came this morality did exist just like it did back during the Mosaic law of an eye for an eye, however, what was revolutional about what Christ had to say about it? The revolution he started was the recognition that we have all broken the golden rule. Secondly, it was the recognistion that the entire Mosaic law hinges upon this very rule. Thirdly, the rule applies to us at all times, even when if we are confronted by an "adversary". And lastly, he pointed to the violation of this rule as what ails us and then provided us a means in which to atone for these violations and repent or turn away from such poor behavior.

Originally posted by whodey
Of course, before Jesus came this morality did exist just like it did back during the Mosaic law of an eye for an eye, however, what was revolutional about what Christ had to say about it? The revolution he started was the recognition that we have all broken the golden rule. Secondly, it was the recognistion that the entire Mosaic law hinges upon this very ...[text shortened]... means in which to atone for these violations and repent or turn away from such poor behavior.

'We have all broken the golden rule' is just a chance to justify the self flagellation and the abhorent practices of such entities as the Inquisition. Not sure I'd be quite as self congratulatory in claiming Mosaic law - this was a barbaric period of human history.
Jesus was not the first to apply this notion to our enemies.
The last point was of course where he went completely off the rails - much in the same way as any sect leader from early to modern times.

What's your point?