Search results

Obviously because not everyone is hardwired exactly the same.

Becuase they stopped selling silver boob tubes?

Interepretations will differ. If it's only an awareness of something higher in being then it's down to the individual to interpret it. In a modern day setting a persons awareness of their surroundings will differ from someone 2000 years ago. The differences are the evolution of the interpretation.

Or we were originally hardwired to be aware of something else outside of our own plane of existence. How else could something be so wide spread and not present in any other species on the planet?

There's plenty of religious influence in modern day morality. That's a historical fact.

Yes, I am far superior to your budgie.

I am making sense, you just can't follow. I tried explaining to you why lack of evidence is not required for you to believe in something. You don't need evidence of love because you have experienced something you have labelled love. Same goes for people with religious beliefs. They have...

You miss the whole "I don't consider myself an animal" part? Scientifically we might be animals, doesn't mean you have to relate to being one.

Because not everyone is the same. Why do you have emapthy for other people than the next person who has none?

That's flat out wrong. You're basing your opinion on the view that nobody who believes in a god has applied any critical thinking to their beliefs. Far more intellgent and enlightened people than you have held a view of a god. If "god" is a taught concept then who taught the first person who...

They are the same in regards to it taking personal feelings, thoughts and experiences to form an opinion on the reality of their existence. If someone has never experienced love then they will have the same mindset as an atheist has in regards to a god but in their case have it towards love.

By all means feel free to be an animal. I don't consider myself one however. Well "love" is all about a feeling and how people chose to decipher a chemical reaction in the brain. Your reasoning for love is no different to religious people's reasoning for their God. You take the end product...

Romance is just posturing to impress a potential mate to get laid. Nothing you just said is evidence of "love". All you described was the proverbial peacock feather show. How you justify love is how a belief in a God is justified. To someone who has faith there's plenty of evidence to them of...

You're conflating a made up concept(love) with a natural hardwiring which is present to ensure species keep on producing in order to survive. I'm simply pointing out that the basis on which you believe in love is the same premice as someone who believes in a god applies. You don't require...

Animals don't love. I'm saying even an atheist believes in things that aren't real based on nothing more than what they percieve an internal feeling means to them.

Love is just a human construct. There is no proof it's a real thing.

So you don't believe in love then.