the God term
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-04-2013, 07:16 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 07:08 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 06:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  Of course love is innate. We evolved to care for the young because that has survival value.
The problem is that the theory that Love evolved would be counter to logic, since it would be a required predisposition.

No it would be weird if it didn't in a species that requires extended parental care. Snakes and other reptiles that just lay a clutch of eggs and leave never developed attachment to their young and will in fact cannibalise them however Crocodilians do provide maternal care and do show attachment. If the young requires care then selective pressure will favor the genes of those who become emotionally attached over those that do not.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
15-04-2013, 07:17 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 06:58 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 06:36 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  You don't know what a Poe is?

Google "Poe definition". If you can google "spirit" you can google that no problem. Thumbsup
So I googled "Poe definition". There are many differing definitions. Personally, I don't see how the term is being applied to me. Why don't you just say what you mean by it?

Back at you for the whole "spirit" thing.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 07:17 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 07:03 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 06:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  Of course love is innate. We evolved to care for the young because that has survival value.

Love isn't innate, survival instinct is. The mother will likely feel "love" for baby, but really all the baby knows is that its needs are being met. Babies do require touch, rocking, food, clean diapers, but love isn't really required. Babies will suffer from failure to thrive, when some of their needs are met, but others are neglected.

Just like telling a baby they are loved, and neglecting their needs (food, rocking) will likely end the baby's life.

There are only a few "prime" emotions that are innate. All the rest, like love and hate, are taught through a parental figure or through experience. They are secondary (taught emotions).


I think I don't agree, but we may not be defining love the same way. We might want to take that discussion to the Science section, or possibly Philosophy.

Let's not derail the fun we're having here. Big Grin

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 07:19 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 07:03 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 06:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  Of course love is innate. We evolved to care for the young because that has survival value.

Love isn't innate, survival instinct is. The mother will likely feel "love" for baby, but really all the baby knows is that its needs are being met. Babies do require touch, rocking, food, clean diapers, but love isn't really required. Babies will suffer from failure to thrive, when some of their needs are met, but others are neglected.

Just like telling a baby they are loved, and neglecting their needs (food, rocking) will likely end the baby's life.

There are only a few "prime" emotions that are innate. All the rest, like love and hate, are taught through a parental figure or through experience. They are secondary (taught emotions).
I think Love is a catalyst for many emotions. Please note, I was not taught to cry or laugh, feel sorrow, nor joy. happiness, contentment, fear, terror, anger, etc...etc...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 07:22 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 07:17 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 06:58 PM)childeye Wrote:  So I googled "Poe definition". There are many differing definitions. Personally, I don't see how the term is being applied to me. Why don't you just say what you mean by it?

Back at you for the whole "spirit" thing.
I still don't get it. I didn't write the definition. It was from the oxford dictionary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 07:28 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 07:16 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 07:08 PM)childeye Wrote:  The problem is that the theory that Love evolved would be counter to logic, since it would be a required predisposition.

No it would be weird if it didn't in a species that requires extended parental care. Snakes and other reptiles that just lay a clutch of eggs and leave never developed attachment to their young and will in fact cannibalise them however Crocodilians do provide maternal care and do show attachment. If the young requires care then selective pressure will favor the genes of those who become emotionally attached over those that do not.
Fine but we're not snakes nor crocodiles. We know we need care. I'm beginning to think that the theory of evolution is your, dare I say it, god. It appears to be the creator of all that you hold to be truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 07:30 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 07:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 07:17 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  Back at you for the whole "spirit" thing.
I still don't get it. I didn't write the definition. It was from the oxford dictionary.

That sort of explains your whole conundrum on this site.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 07:36 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 07:30 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 07:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  I still don't get it. I didn't write the definition. It was from the oxford dictionary.

That sort of explains your whole conundrum on this site.
Perhaps so. But since you don't seem to acknowledge any definition to that which you don't believe in, how can this be avoided? It's like trying to discuss mathematics with someone that doesn't believe in the term numbers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 07:39 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 07:36 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 07:30 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  That sort of explains your whole conundrum on this site.
Perhaps so. But since you don't seem to acknowledge any definition to that which you don't believe in, how can this be avoided?

Simple: realize that your attempt at wordplay is futile because the exact question you where asking in the OP has been answered by you yourself right here. ^^

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cheapthrillseaker's post
15-04-2013, 07:48 PM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 07:39 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 07:36 PM)childeye Wrote:  Perhaps so. But since you don't seem to acknowledge any definition to that which you don't believe in, how can this be avoided?

Simple: realize that your attempt at wordplay is futile because the exact question you where asking in the OP has been answered by you yourself right here. ^^
What you call wordplay I call talking. The term God as the Spirit of Love is accepted throughout the world and in many differing cultures. I have proposed that definition at the outset of this thread, this is true. So where's the so called wordplay? Is it not in your unacceptance of such a definition? Or are you saying you realize that Love is universally recognized as God, the moral imperative, but don't agree?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: