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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"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.
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.
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.
Evolution itself, not evolution as a discipline or belief.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.
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.
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?
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
Thanks, good points.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.
My point is that mind itself transcends the precise laws that govern it's electrochemical, material platform.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?