The difficulty of talking to Atheist

[Colter]

"Love" is something we are biologically programmed to experience, so that we want to reproduce. Or should I say, a stronger urge to reproduce. Life has one main function, to survive. Survive as an individual and as a whole. That's basically it.

love would be a virus to a meaningless life whoe sole function is to survive. Love is not the basis for sexual reproduction. God is Love, it is a spiritual endowment of will conciousness man.

 

[Eudaimonist]

love would be a virus to a meaningless life whoe sole function is to survive.

Assuming that that is true, what precisely is the problem with that?

(Incidentally, a life whose sole function is to survive does have meaning. Its meaning is survival.)

Love is not the basis for sexual reproduction.

There are many types of love. I suspect that you and he are talking about different sorts.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

Assuming that that is true, what precisely is the problem with that?

(Incidentally, a life whose sole function is to survive does have meaning. Its meaning is survival.)



There are many types of love. I suspect that you and he are talking about different sorts.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If evolution were not spiritually planned and the law of survival is the only thing that drives evolution, then love, as well as all the other spiritual influences would be a hindrances to might making what is. That's just an opinion, an observation. Atheists desire to rid society of spiritual values or religious influence seems to be grounded on this assumption, that religion has had a negative influence on the evolution of man rather than a positive contribution to purposive progression.

 

[Colter]

dup

 

[Eudaimonist]

If evolution were not spiritually planned and the law of survival is the only thing that drives evolution, then love, as well as all the other spiritual influences would be a hindrances to might making what is.

What would be wrong with that? Evolution isn't an ethical doctrine. It doesn't say anything normative about might.

Atheists desire to rid society of spiritual values or religious influence seems to be grounded on this assumption, that religion has had a negative influence on the evolution of man rather than a positive contribution to purposive progression.

I think that you are confusing atheists with anti-theists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

What would be wrong with that? Evolution isn't an ethical doctrine. It doesn't say anything normative about might.



I think that you are confusing atheists with anti-theists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Evolution itself, not evolution as a discipline or belief.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Evolution itself, not evolution as a discipline or belief.

And what is the problem with something acting against evolution in some way? Why should we care about that?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

And what is the problem with something acting against evolution in some way? Why should we care about that?


eudaimonia,

Mark

It demonstrates that there are super material, spiritual forces that trancend the forces of evolution which faithers know already, they come from the creator.

 

[Loudmouth]

It demonstrates that there are super material, spiritual forces that trancend the forces of evolution which faithers know already, they come from the creator.

Why would you need super material or spiritual forces to "transcend the forces of evolution"? Are airplanes supernatural because the transcend the forces of gravity?

 

[muichimotsu]

I wouldn't say this problem the OP brings up is related primarily to atheists, but anyone who uses logic and reason, which tends towards a contrary interpretation of one based in pseudophilosophy, spirituality and faith in the fideistic sense.

The lacking adequate and sufficient terms to explain your experiences means that the whole basis of your beliefs is ineffable by your own admittance, meaning that the argument can't proceed without admitting that you could be wrong, which seems near impossible for many believers. Also, making an attempt to qualify what you believe in with terms that can be discussed instead of jargon only applicable to believers to begin with might help.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It demonstrates that there are super material, spiritual forces that trancend the forces of evolution which faithers know already, they come from the creator.

Perhaps in a very narrow reading of the word "survival", but evolution is more about the passing on of genes than survival per se. Evolution theory does not support your conclusion.

What we see is that human beings have evolved a high degree of abstract intelligence that allows them the flexibility to choose their values, even self-destructive ones. That flexibility is far more often than not a huge advantage. There are evolutionary reasons for how a psychological capacity to sacrifice one's personal interests in order to protect one's genes in others could develop (think of stinging bees that die in the process of defending their hive), and that capacity could in principle be hijacked by religion (or philosophy) by regarding everyone else abstractly as brothers and sisters.

There is no solid evolutionary reason to think that self-destructiveness can't exist in human beings.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

Why would you need super material or spiritual forces to "transcend the forces of evolution"? Are airplanes supernatural because the transcend the forces of gravity?

Airplanes were first envisioned and then created by mind for a purpose, I wouldn't call an airplane supernatural. My point is that mind itself transcends the precise laws that govern it's electrochemical, material platform. Consciousness is super-material. It is this liberated consciousness that we of religion claim can be influenced by other nonmaterial forces; spirit. Therefore, it is not in the material realm of facts that we are contacting God, but in this liberated consciousness.

My original point about evolution was that the laws that governed evolution did not illustrate Love per say up until the mind of will conscious man evolved to the point of being able to perceive the spirit of Love.

 

[Colter]

Perhaps in a very narrow reading of the word "survival", but evolution is more about the passing on of genes than survival per se. Evolution theory does not support your conclusion.

What we see is that human beings have evolved a high degree of abstract intelligence that allows them the flexibility to choose their values, even self-destructive ones. That flexibility is far more often than not a huge advantage. There are evolutionary reasons for how a psychological capacity to sacrifice one's personal interests in order to protect one's genes in others could develop (think of stinging bees that die in the process of defending their hive), and that capacity could in principle be hijacked by religion (or philosophy) by regarding everyone else abstractly as brothers and sisters.

There is no solid evolutionary reason to think that self-destructiveness can't exist in human beings.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I agree with your observations about the evolution of mind. In religion we see mind as planning mind. The fingerprint of the mind that planned mind is in the purposive string. Each segment along the way is seen as the purposive scaffolding for an emerging plan.

 

[Colter]

I wouldn't say this problem the OP brings up is related primarily to atheists, but anyone who uses logic and reason, which tends towards a contrary interpretation of one based in pseudophilosophy, spirituality and faith in the fideistic sense.

The lacking adequate and sufficient terms to explain your experiences means that the whole basis of your beliefs is ineffable by your own admittance, meaning that the argument can't proceed without admitting that you could be wrong, which seems near impossible for many believers. Also, making an attempt to qualify what you believe in with terms that can be discussed instead of jargon only applicable to believers to begin with might help.

Thanks, good points.

 

[Loudmouth]

My point is that mind itself transcends the precise laws that govern it's electrochemical, material platform.

That would appear to be an unsubstantiated assertion.

My original point about evolution was that the laws that governed evolution did not illustrate Love per say up until the mind of will conscious man evolved to the point of being able to perceive the spirit of Love.

Evolution producing a brain capable of certain emotions doesn't seem like anything super material or something that transcends nature. It is biochemistry.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Airplanes were first envisioned and then created by mind for a purpose, I wouldn't call an airplane supernatural.

Right because its a product of hard work and putting an idea to the test.

My point is that mind itself transcends the precise laws that govern it's electrochemical, material platform.

When? I'm confused.

Consciousness is super-material.

No, it isn't. I doubt it would exist as anything but an extension of the mind.

It is this liberated consciousness that we of religion claim can be influenced by other nonmaterial forces; spirit.

Ironically that's just your mind convincing you of this as well.

Therefore, it is not in the material realm of facts that we are contacting God, but in this liberated consciousness.

Again, that's just your mind convincing yourself of that.

My original point about evolution was that the laws that governed evolution did not illustrate Love per say up until the mind of will conscious man evolved to the point of being able to perceive the spirit of Love.

I seriously doubt you can back up this claim. Animals do exhibit long term partnerships with one another and I suspect have been doing so for quite some time before humans. "Love" would be an extension of a mutual relationship between mates at first but be strengthened in bonding.