Atheist = Closet theist

Status
Not open for further replies.
samcdkey said:
ToR:

Well let's just say not ALL kinds of love are learned. Some are just chemical reactions! :)

http://www.oxytocin.org/cuddle-hormone/
Click to expand...

Everything we feel is result of chemical reactions that is not disputed.

Those chemical reactions are innate, thus the 'effect' they produce is innate and 'intentional'.

Absence of 'love' chemicals in a species dependant on love for survival would see its elimination. Thus love chemicals are present in those species to begin with, thus innate.

Is there a kind of love not dependant on chemical reactions? I can not be taught to love my neighbour, it has to be experienced and 'felt'. The chemicals are required in all cases.
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
Absence of 'love' chemicals in a species dependant on love for survival would see its elimination.
Click to expand...

That is the sort of thing that the hippies used to say, to sell LSD.

--- Ron.
 
The problem is that "love" is a generic term.

So mother-child is love, man-woman is love, etc.

I like to differentiate between self-oriented and nonself-oriented love.

e.g. in mother-child or man-woman love, which is actually targeted to survival of species is more a "chemically" maintained kind of love.

whereas a nonself-oriented love, i.e. altruism, sympathy, compassion, especially when directed towards people not intimately connected to us, is a learned behavior.

In my example of feral children for example, hypothetically, if they grew up in the wild without any human contact whatsoever, they would still have the sexual and maternal instincts. This, however, would not be the "love" one would feel in a civilised society where concepts of love are much more complex and mediated or overlaid by many other factors besides instinct.
 
samcdkey said:
The problem is that "love" is a generic term.

So mother-child is love, man-woman is love, etc.

I like to differentiate between self-oriented and nonself-oriented love.

e.g. in mother-child or man-woman love, which is actually targeted to survival of species is more a "chemically" maintained kind of love.

whereas a nonself-oriented love, i.e. altruism, sympathy, compassion, especially when directed towards people not intimately connected to us, is a learned behavior.

In my example of feral children for example, hypothetically, if they grew up in the wild without any human contact whatsoever, they would still have the sexual and maternal instincts. This, however, would not be the "love" one would feel in a civilised society where concepts of love are much more complex and mediated or overlaid by many other factors besides instinct.
Click to expand...

It still brings us back to this though, if not innate where did it come from, learned from who how when? Other animals barely demonstrate compassion (though elephants, dolphins and primates appear to do so) so who did early man learn it from, how did their little tribes survive in absence of it if not there from the start?

My 2.5yr sold has always demonstrated strong compassionate streak, unusual for one so young. But he seems 'naturally' to care about others distress. My daughter however is not so afflicted. They have had same environment and upbringing and daughter is older so should be more advanced in this dept but she is not. She is 'normal' for her age, and my son is 'unusual'. There is deffinately a nature issue here aided by nurture.
 
Ah! now you go into the sphere of evolution and I promised I would not display my ignorance in that field.

Any evolutionary scientists here?
 
samcdkey said:
Ah! now you go into the sphere of evolution and I promised I would not display my ignorance in that field.

Any evolutionary scientists here?
Click to expand...

lol, that makes two of us then!

I just tend to think a 'thing' does not come from nowhere especially when the species survival depends upon it. Hence the beauty and sheer impressiveness of evolution, too successful to be 'accidental' it is perfect in design. It accounts for most everything.
 
Smithsonian said:
Why’s that? It doesn’t give or take anything away from her.
Click to expand...

Only her rights as a human being.

And if she really doesn’t like to think she’s sinning by not propagating the human race, she can turn to Protestantism or even simply reject god as organized religion might just not be her cup of tea.
Click to expand...

How very intolerant of Catholics, will they eventually evolve past the Bronze Age?

Many people have lost faith because the constant scrutiny of God was unbearable. Dogma was powerless to stop them. So much for that…
Click to expand...

Or, they finally came to the realization that religious dogma is just that; dogma.

You stated that Catholic women are treated badly. I’m saying that if they’re treated differently, it's not a catholic doing it. And yes, I find Catholicism rather amusing on an abstract level.
Click to expand...

If not a Catholic, then who?

Religious sentiment is a remarkably resilient thing. It doesn’t need anything to sustain it, but can base itself on anything. People will often endure loss of property, liberty and limb without giving in. So frankly I presently can’t see how this would be achieved.
Click to expand...

Indoctrination from a young age secures religion, not much else.

We can propose a great array of possible factors contributing to its counterproductiveness and work to diminish and overcome these, but I think we’re stuck with it…
Click to expand...

No, we're not.

As for indoctrination, it’s important to keep an open mind on the possibility that mankind might very well be much more of a social animal than a rational one.
Click to expand...

There are many other ways to be social without religion.

As for that first bit about sin, I think that considering others as sinners is a great improvement on considering them two-legged prey. At least they’re people. It’s not perfect, but (I think) considerably better.
Click to expand...

No, it degrades humans and must be discarded immediately.

It would be even better to consider them immediately persons, but then a person is a moral entity. Let’s not forget that a sin is what’s “bad”.
Click to expand...

Sins have no meaning in the real world.

Getting rid of religion won’t abolish moral judgements. I doubt that it will better the odds of actually reaching some sort of consensus on morality.
Click to expand...

Since morality has nothing to do with religion, I fail to see your point.

If there is one God, then it has one will and it would be absurd to base ones conduct on anything else. Without god, standardizing morality is very much an uphill battle.
Click to expand...

Gods are cruel and immoral, we would prosper without their so called 'morality.'

Well, let’s take your belief that all religious sentiments are inherently an obstacle. I assume this belief to be essential to your decision making process. It is considered self-evident and precedes perception. You go to great lengths to justify this belief. Expounding on it is self-gratifying.
Click to expand...

No one need to go to great lengths to justify religion as being dangerous, history will show that.

In a way it boils down to saying you’ve indoctrinated yourself, but it’s absolutely not meant in an insulting way. If Man is indeed more of a social animal, indoctrination is to a certain extent unavoidable. We just have to find organizational ways of minimizing it.
Click to expand...

How exactly am I indoctrinated and how is it unavoidable?
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
lol, that makes two of us then!

I just tend to think a 'thing' does not come from nowhere especially when the species survival depends upon it. Hence the beauty and sheer impressiveness of evolution, too successful to be 'accidental' it is perfect in design. It accounts for most everything.
Click to expand...

You're lack of education and overactive imagination are showing again. Please try to curb one and initiate the other, not particularily in that order.
 
(Q) said:
You're lack of education and overactive imagination are showing again. Please try to curb one and initiate the other, not particularily in that order.
Click to expand...

oh really, so when I state that love is innate , I am demonstrating an overactive imagination, when Sam says it is not innate but learned she is a theist talking crap.

Seems you are just a man with female issues as you contradict both arguments when 'one' not 'neither' is correct.
 
samcdkey said:
Prove it otherwise. I'm open to changing my opinion.
Click to expand...

No, you're not, especially when they contradict your religious beliefs, as so many things have, and you've not budged an inch.
 
So you cannot prove it?

btw, Islam does not have an opinion on love or violence being innate or learned.
 
Godless said:
The problem is that so many theists take the godamn thing literally. Some sects don't even believe in blood transfusion, cause it's against god's law, or the will of god if you survive a desease easily cured by todays medicine, they just let the child die, other than giving him/her medical care. I'm sure you read of some of these bastards winding up in jail, for shit like this.

Godless
Click to expand...
If they would take the Bible literally then they should have read the part where it says that we should respect doctors, but the sects aren't taking it literally, no one is, since taking it literally would bear no meaning. Instead they read it with their own ideas in mind. There will allways be interpretations on the Bible, since it isn't literally, there aren't any claims in the Bible that it is either, instead it states that the scriptures are good for different things. The Bible is the truth to man, but man can't understand it fully.

Jesus said that he talked in images so that not all will understand (not all will hear who has ears, and not all will see who has eyes) but when he returns he will speak in clean words.
 
perplexity said:
What a surprise.

Hands up, please, all those who come here to budge; budgers urgently required.

--- Ron.
Click to expand...

I was going to start a thread on that exact subject, I have seen no budgers or budgering! (They are closet budged!)
 
fahrenheit 451 said:
all the above was complete gibberish, infact nothing you've said has any value, you must be spamming, could you stop please. it breaks up the flow in the thread. thank you.
Click to expand...
I think i'll take your cue.
I might very well be wasting my time between those who blame every essential social behaviour on evolution and all the detrimental ones on religion and those who think all their opinions and motives are entirely their own, as if every individual existed in a vacuum.

You’re a real eye-opener. I’ll go find something better to do with my free time… like gouging myself with a spoon or start collecting dust bunnies or something…

Take care!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top