Nick Seldon - A Quotation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2015, 08:15 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(27-08-2015 12:54 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 10:48 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  If you say so. Personally, I would consider continuing in a loveless relationship to be harmful to both parties involved.

You are backfilling. You formerly wrote that if YOU stopped loving, that would be sufficient to sever the relationship.

PS. Marriage and divorce? You know very little of either, perhaps. Very few children whose loveless parents stayed together until the children were older regretted their parents' choice. I'm sure some testimonies will not pour into the thread... oh, no, I'm so glad mum left dad... but we're speaking of loveless, not abusive, relationships. Your unfortunate statements are a part of the endemic divorce problem in this fallen world.

"testimonies?" Apart to contrast your blind assertion?

Except sociological and psychological efforts to show how well people behave show that there is many times that the "stay together for the kid" type of instance is more harmful than divorcing.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
27-08-2015, 09:15 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(27-08-2015 12:54 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Very few children whose loveless parents stayed together until the children were older regretted their parents' choice.
What utter nonsense.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 10:02 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(27-08-2015 08:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 01:59 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  It is from comments like that one that we conclude you are willfully dishonest, or else ignorant beyond repair. We have a pretty solid basis for the "just chemicals" biochemical basis of pair-bonding. (What I like to call love and commitment.)

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v7/n...n1327.html

Which is it, my friend, I am dishonest or stupid?

That's a definitions question. If you are unable to grasp the science of neurochemistry to a point that you can grasp that the emotions we feel are generated by physical means in a biological computer, then you are stupid. If you are unwilling to acknowledge the things that you are capable of understanding but refuse to admit to because it would hamstring the debates you are having in here, then you are dishonest.

So I suppose I should ask you again: which is it, my friend, are you dishonest or stupid?

(27-08-2015 08:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  What you like to call love and commitment are two different words.

Not only different words, but different neurological systems in our brains. What we call "love" is related to the dopamine (reward/pleasure) center of our brains, while the "commitment" centers are based on other neurotransmitters. It turns out that there are genes that determine our sensitivity to the latter set of neurotransmitters, and thus our proclivity for commitment. Interestingly, fMRI studies have shown that people who are in long term committed, loving relationships have connections that form in their brains, and activation of the latter center triggers the former center about 0.10 seconds later, when shown a picture of their longterm partner. It's really rather charming. Smile


(27-08-2015 08:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Is love purely chemical?

Is commitment purely chemical?

In the sense that everything that happens in our brain is "purely chemical", yes. In the sense that we are intelligent beings of a complex set of thought processes that form out of the competition between hundreds of different regions of the brain all telling us different things per different stimuli/situations, I think "purely" might be an unfair description. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. But it's not magic, however we might "feel" about it.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
27-08-2015, 10:59 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(27-08-2015 10:02 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 08:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Which is it, my friend, I am dishonest or stupid?

That's a definitions question. If you are unable to grasp the science of neurochemistry to a point that you can grasp that the emotions we feel are generated by physical means in a biological computer, then you are stupid. If you are unwilling to acknowledge the things that you are capable of understanding but refuse to admit to because it would hamstring the debates you are having in here, then you are dishonest.

So I suppose I should ask you again: which is it, my friend, are you dishonest or stupid?

The apologists's dilemma: which is it?

Either outright lying for Jesus, or just rock-chewing dumbfuck: YOU decide!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
28-08-2015, 09:35 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(27-08-2015 05:57 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 12:54 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You are backfilling. You formerly wrote that if YOU stopped loving, that would be sufficient to sever the relationship.

Well, yes. Unrequited love does not a healthy relationship make. It takes two to tango, as they say.

(27-08-2015 12:54 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  PS. Marriage and divorce? You know very little of either, perhaps. Very few children whose loveless parents stayed together until the children were older regretted their parents' choice.

Actually, most of them do. Dysfunctional homes are not a happy thing to witness. Or are you incapable of conceiving of a home life that is less than idyllic so long as the term "marriage" is involved?

No, you are incorrect on both counts. And you skipped over the hurt you will cause someone who loves you when you "quit and give up" on loving them and/or seeing if you might rekindle love.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 09:36 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(27-08-2015 08:15 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 12:54 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You are backfilling. You formerly wrote that if YOU stopped loving, that would be sufficient to sever the relationship.

PS. Marriage and divorce? You know very little of either, perhaps. Very few children whose loveless parents stayed together until the children were older regretted their parents' choice. I'm sure some testimonies will not pour into the thread... oh, no, I'm so glad mum left dad... but we're speaking of loveless, not abusive, relationships. Your unfortunate statements are a part of the endemic divorce problem in this fallen world.

"testimonies?" Apart to contrast your blind assertion?

Except sociological and psychological efforts to show how well people behave show that there is many times that the "stay together for the kid" type of instance is more harmful than divorcing.

It wasn't a blind assertion, but rather than point you to studies online, I'll let you do the research so that I won't be accused of pointing only to biased sources.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 09:36 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(27-08-2015 09:15 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 12:54 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Very few children whose loveless parents stayed together until the children were older regretted their parents' choice.
What utter nonsense.

I thought you had me on ignore?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 09:38 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(28-08-2015 09:35 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  No, you are incorrect on both counts.

That a one-sided relationship is not healthy and that loveless marriages do not benefit the children?

I am curious about this alternate universe you live in where these things are not true. Tell me more.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 09:39 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(27-08-2015 10:02 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 08:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Which is it, my friend, I am dishonest or stupid?

That's a definitions question. If you are unable to grasp the science of neurochemistry to a point that you can grasp that the emotions we feel are generated by physical means in a biological computer, then you are stupid. If you are unwilling to acknowledge the things that you are capable of understanding but refuse to admit to because it would hamstring the debates you are having in here, then you are dishonest.

So I suppose I should ask you again: which is it, my friend, are you dishonest or stupid?

(27-08-2015 08:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  What you like to call love and commitment are two different words.

Not only different words, but different neurological systems in our brains. What we call "love" is related to the dopamine (reward/pleasure) center of our brains, while the "commitment" centers are based on other neurotransmitters. It turns out that there are genes that determine our sensitivity to the latter set of neurotransmitters, and thus our proclivity for commitment. Interestingly, fMRI studies have shown that people who are in long term committed, loving relationships have connections that form in their brains, and activation of the latter center triggers the former center about 0.10 seconds later, when shown a picture of their longterm partner. It's really rather charming. Smile


(27-08-2015 08:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Is love purely chemical?

Is commitment purely chemical?

In the sense that everything that happens in our brain is "purely chemical", yes. In the sense that we are intelligent beings of a complex set of thought processes that form out of the competition between hundreds of different regions of the brain all telling us different things per different stimuli/situations, I think "purely" might be an unfair description. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. But it's not magic, however we might "feel" about it.

I'm neither dishonest nor stupid. I see clearly that you are taking neuroscience, which admits to a phenomenal level of complexity in emotional reactions in the human brain (and body) and admits to knowing less about the brain than we know about the depths of the deepest oceans, and confusing the wonder that is science with a gap filler for everything.

If your claims regarding neuroscience were even fractionally true, we could pop pills to control anger the way we control diabetes or erectile dysfunction. I call baloney.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 09:40 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(27-08-2015 10:59 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 10:02 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  That's a definitions question. If you are unable to grasp the science of neurochemistry to a point that you can grasp that the emotions we feel are generated by physical means in a biological computer, then you are stupid. If you are unwilling to acknowledge the things that you are capable of understanding but refuse to admit to because it would hamstring the debates you are having in here, then you are dishonest.

So I suppose I should ask you again: which is it, my friend, are you dishonest or stupid?

The apologists's dilemma: which is it?

Either outright lying for Jesus, or just rock-chewing dumbfuck: YOU decide!

Can I possibly pay you to attend my public debates about Christ, so that all assembled can better understand the depths of the depravity of those who oppose the gospel?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: