Gosh, Rooi
For someone that chucks the infantile word around, your comprehension of a simple idea, in plain language, is pretty bad.
I don't have a lot to say about the initial premise of this thread - that atheists are somehow driven by chemicals while god-botherers are driven by true love
Please show where this was said. Yet again, you did not at all understand what was being said. Let me guess, my phrasing is lacking?
- because I find that so ridiculous, ill-conceived and infantile that it's not worth wasting any further time on, but I will say this
If you are talking about the way that you understood what i was saying, then you are 100% correct. It is both ridiculous and infantile.
. . . there's a very good reason why religious people make such a big deal about a judgement that will determine whether you go to heaven or hell (or whatever equivalent) and that's because they just can't bear the thought that all their faith was for nothing and we'll all have the same end regardless of whether we still believe in some outlandish fairy stories and indoctrinated beliefs or not.
Here you are making an assumption for an entire group out of pure opinion and without laying down a decent premise for what you are saying. Simply...I believe it's for nothing and so it is. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is because you simply don't have a valid argument, rather than think it's because you''re so arrogant that you assume your opinion as fact and need to explain.
That's just weak...and "ill-conceived".
And by the way, your response speaks exactly to why Atheist was used in the title. They're a group that by definition precluded metaphysical explanations for the human condition. In other words, math and biology are left and it means you can now speak in measurable terms about human emotions. One last time, something you cannot do when religion is involved because you run into unsolvable philosophical roadblocks very early on.
You only see this position as support for religion because you feel attacked and then follow the usual defensive path that involves claiming religion is a fairytale. See, how silly that is? Considering that religion being a fairytale has nothing to do with this.
Procreating has nothing at all to do with whether you're religious or not, it's a basic instinct of all living things and loving and protecting your children, pups, kittens or whatever is common to all animals . . . it's not just reserved for selected humans who believe in a god.
Haha, you will have to point to where anyone said that procreation is the reserved for the religious. You made an argument an against your own misguided understanding. Most people would understand "Religious people don't subscribe to evolution, mostly. They derive love from the metaphysical. In other words, you cannot make an argument against it since you are forced to begin from their unproven point of view." Do show where this says that religion is proven or factual and that only if you subscribe to it are you capable of true love.
All you can do is say, god doesn't exist and so his love can't exist. Which is also just an opinion. You can't prove it either way, and so the argument is DOA.
but at some stage you need to grow up, stop having blind faith in primitive dogma and think for yourself. Those values won't suddenly disappear and we all have a built in conscience that replaces the need for religion or faith.
But here is your biggest blunder. Firstly, the fact that you are still talking about religion, which as we now know, is completely irrelevant in this discussion.
Using the term, "primitive dogma", in a clearly negative light, indicates that you take issue with it's era. Written back then so illogical to live by it now, right?
As someone that quotes Nietzsche, it's odd that you would feel so restrictively about about the idea of truth and relevance over time. There are endless dissertations, books, poems, songs, films and real life experiences which have given us much to consider as to the relevance of various truths through time. The majority of which, as concerns man's greatest psychological challenges, are basically shown to be eternal. Our emotional challenges are unchanging. And until our hardware changes, the status-quo will be maintained.
And you finish that sentence with ..."...think for yourself."
Because, according to you, man suddenly has an entirely new and more important field of emotional challenges to overcome and that only thinking(in a modern way) for yourself and not relying on past "archaic" understanding, is the only answer.
"All that we actually know about these laws of nature is what we ourselves bring to them — time and space, and therefore relationships of succession and number. But everything marvelous about the laws of nature, everything that quite astonishes us therein and seems to demand explanation, everything that might lead us to distrust idealism: all this is completely and solely contained within the mathematical strictness and inviolability of our representations of time and space. But we produce these representations in and from ourselves with the same necessity with which the spider spins." Nietzsche
And that is what this thread is actually about. And that is why "Atheist" is in the title. And that is why you have yet again, come storming out the gates only to now realise that you made an irrelevant argument.
And it is also why you must now reconsider your position on Nietzsche. Unless you wish to keep quoting an infant?