Political Crossfire Forums

mojo · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 5537 Location: Dreamland, NC

Ek0nomik wrote: politicalmojo wrote: If you believe in reason alone than you must believe man is no more than an animal.

But if you believe in the supernatural concepts of love, hope, and beauty then you can believe in the supernatural.

The Christian chooses to lift his head through the heavens not cram the heavens inside his head.

Man is an animal. How can you have doubt about that?

I do believe in love, hope, and beauty. I don't believe it's supernatural though. I believe in free will.

Free will is an intangible and supernatural concept. Love, hope, and beauty are illogical and irrational sentiments. That is exactly what makes them so important. All animals react with instinct. Is that our human condition? If you beleive the human is an animal you must believe in predestination of our lives. You must think that we do the things we do because nature tells us to do those things. But if you believe in the concept of free will then you have the first building block towards faith. Free will is entirely agaisnt the laws of nature. No other "animal" can boast such a claim.

If I need proof in God I dont need to look any further than the tremendous gifts a human has in comparison to the rest of the universe. When we are born we can see colors, have opposable thumbs, have pleasurable sex (only dogs have this amazing ability, most organisms reproduce by simply splitting in half), the ability to reason, and can walk upright. All of natures best examples of evolution all present within one life form.

I am sure you can counter by saying that these traits are simply the offspring of evolution. That position is entirely logical. But what you must realize is that a human being craves the romantic nature of his life. People need to know that not only is their existence rational but it is irrational as well. Its not some cosmic cooincidence that we are built the way we are built.

mojo · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 5537 Location: Dreamland, NC

JDHURF wrote: politicalmojo wrote: If you believe in reason alone than you must believe man is no more than an animal.
A highly sophisticated and magnificent animal.
politicalmojo wrote: But if you believe in the supernatural concepts of love, hope, and beauty then you can believe in the supernatural.
You do not have to extend supernaturalism to the concepts of love, hope and beauty to “believe” in them – that is absurd – you only have to experience life to believe in them. Love and hope are human emotions that we have been afforded through the evolutionary apex of psycho-biological evolution and beauty is a subjective interpretation of specific sensory information.
TreizeEnder wrote: Science is just as much a matter of belief as any religion.
We weren’t talking about belief but rather faith. Science does not require faith, religion does.

The concepts of love, hope, and beauty are supernatural. They fly in the direct face of the idea that men are no better than animals. Love is not necessary for our survival. Hope certainly isn't necessary. We are the only creature that sees the beauty of things. That in and of itself should be proof of a divine being.

melchizedek22 · Joined: 27 Apr 2006 Posts: 370 Location: Holy Toledo

Snowdens secret in Catch22 said it best,"without the Spirit man is garbage"

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

politicalmojo wrote: Free will is an intangible and supernatural concept. Love, hope, and beauty are illogical and irrational sentiments. That is exactly what makes them so important. All animals react with instinct. Is that our human condition? If you beleive the human is an animal you must believe in predestination of our lives. You must think that we do the things we do because nature tells us to do those things. But if you believe in the concept of free will then you have the first building block towards faith. Free will is entirely agaisnt the laws of nature. No other "animal" can boast such a claim.

If I need proof in God I dont need to look any further than the tremendous gifts a human has in comparison to the rest of the universe. When we are born we can see colors, have opposable thumbs, have pleasurable sex (only dogs have this amazing ability, most organisms reproduce by simply splitting in half), the ability to reason, and can walk upright. All of natures best examples of evolution all present within one life form.

I am sure you can counter by saying that these traits are simply the offspring of evolution. That position is entirely logical. But what you must realize is that a human being craves the romantic nature of his life. People need to know that not only is their existence rational but it is irrational as well. Its not some cosmic cooincidence that we are built the way we are built.

Beautiful post politicalmojo. Truthfully, well said.

In all honesty, it's hard for us to continue this conversation however. Everything you mentioned, is based upon this presumption of faith. It's something that you know I do not yet carry with me.

mojo · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 5537 Location: Dreamland, NC

Ek0nomik wrote: politicalmojo wrote: Free will is an intangible and supernatural concept. Love, hope, and beauty are illogical and irrational sentiments. That is exactly what makes them so important. All animals react with instinct. Is that our human condition? If you beleive the human is an animal you must believe in predestination of our lives. You must think that we do the things we do because nature tells us to do those things. But if you believe in the concept of free will then you have the first building block towards faith. Free will is entirely agaisnt the laws of nature. No other "animal" can boast such a claim.

If I need proof in God I dont need to look any further than the tremendous gifts a human has in comparison to the rest of the universe. When we are born we can see colors, have opposable thumbs, have pleasurable sex (only dogs have this amazing ability, most organisms reproduce by simply splitting in half), the ability to reason, and can walk upright. All of natures best examples of evolution all present within one life form.

I am sure you can counter by saying that these traits are simply the offspring of evolution. That position is entirely logical. But what you must realize is that a human being craves the romantic nature of his life. People need to know that not only is their existence rational but it is irrational as well. Its not some cosmic cooincidence that we are built the way we are built.

Beautiful post politicalmojo. Truthfully, well said.

In all honesty, it's hard for us to continue this conversation however. Everything you mentioned, is based upon this presumption of faith. It's something that you know I do not yet carry with me.

You are correct ultimately the question of faith is a personal one. But probably the most important one of our life. I cannot say that your position isn't reasonable. It is reasonable. But that is exactly why I have chosen not to agree with it.

In my quest for truth, I have found that beauty is found more in these supernatural concepts than the material objects of our world. For this reason I have aligned myself with Christianity and more specifically Catholicism.

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

mojo wrote: You are correct ultimately the question of faith is a personal one. But probably the most important one of our life. I cannot say that your position isn't reasonable. It is reasonable. But that is exactly why I have chosen not to agree with it.

In my quest for truth, I have found that beauty is found more in these supernatural concepts than the material objects of our world. For this reason I have aligned myself with Christianity and more specifically Catholicism.

Can you specifically point out the beauty which can't exist in our physical world?

mojo · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 5537 Location: Dreamland, NC

Ek0nomik wrote: mojo wrote: You are correct ultimately the question of faith is a personal one. But probably the most important one of our life. I cannot say that your position isn't reasonable. It is reasonable. But that is exactly why I have chosen not to agree with it.

In my quest for truth, I have found that beauty is found more in these supernatural concepts than the material objects of our world. For this reason I have aligned myself with Christianity and more specifically Catholicism.

Can you specifically point out the beauty which can't exist in our physical world?

I find beauty in simply unreasonable human acts. Such as a child playing. I find beauty in the concept of free will (which I find supernatural). I find an aesthetic quality to a lot of the random things human beings do. Such as love a seemingly unlovable person.

But my definition of beauty goes outside what my eyes can see.

mgwisni · Joined: 07 Mar 2006 Posts: 73

mojo wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: mojo wrote: You are correct ultimately the question of faith is a personal one. But probably the most important one of our life. I cannot say that your position isn't reasonable. It is reasonable. But that is exactly why I have chosen not to agree with it.

In my quest for truth, I have found that beauty is found more in these supernatural concepts than the material objects of our world. For this reason I have aligned myself with Christianity and more specifically Catholicism.

Can you specifically point out the beauty which can't exist in our physical world?

I find beauty in simply unreasonable human acts. Such as a child playing. I find beauty in the concept of free will (which I find supernatural). I find an aesthetic quality to a lot of the random things human beings do. Such as love a seemingly unlovable person.

But my definition of beauty goes outside what my eyes can see.

I couldn't agree with you more Mojo, you're putting into words a lot of the things I can't seem to. There's something about a human's ability to risk his/her own life to save someone else's that is above and beyond the capabilities of an animal. There is something beyond instincts. When a creature can overide their instincts, there is something different about them than the rest of the animal world.

XxMorningStarxX · Joined: 22 Oct 2005 Posts: 287 Location: XxUndIsCloSedxX

Well, some parts of the Bible are definitely open to interpreteation, I agree, such as parts in the book of genesis in which creation is explained. But still in other parts, there is NO ROOM for interpretation, such as some of the strict and authoritative elements. For instance, to respect and observe the Sabbath Day, Sunday. It is also very obvious that if you've actually read that Bible that in both New and Old testaments, God states that the Church is his sanctuary on Earth, it is the body that makes up the Body of Christ and that resides in each individual. Therefore, you CAN have your own interpretations of the Bible (in whichever parts may be open to interpretation), however, it is still necessary to go to church every sunday to experience God, for God choses the places which he recognizes and deems holy.

Many people these days claim that they are christian, and claim that they have the lifestyles they have because they are simply "interpreting" the Bible differently. Lone behold most of these people are hypocrites and they do this merely to cleanse their own conscience in an attempt to do whatever they want of their interpretations, while at the same time enjoying the blissful belief that they may be "saved."

Anyis · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 64

dtwizzy2k5 wrote: Correct me if im wrong, but you sound like a Protestant. Or at least, you have the same qualms as a Protestant.

It shouldn't matter...but if you must know, then I am agnostic. However, I was hopping for a response from someone that would acknowledge the crimes of the Catholic Church in the past but would also explain the importance of why they believe as they do. I wanted to understand the views of a devout Catholic and how they can believe so religiously (didn't mean the pun :P ) in an organization with the history that the Catholic Church has. I find religion to be a very exciting topic and I love hearing and trying to understand the differences of opinions of our fellow members and why they believe as they do. Only through understanding will there ever be true peace...and I like to understand people. Mojo is a very devout Catholic and has answered very well in several of my posts :wink: I respect his comments.

JDHURF · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 4044 Location: Tulsa, OK

mojo wrote: The concepts of love, hope, and beauty are supernatural. They fly in the direct face of the idea that men are no better than animals. Love is not necessary for our survival. Hope certainly isn't necessary. We are the only creature that sees the beauty of things. That in and of itself should be proof of a divine being.
Your post comes off as a vein attempt to legitimatize the alleged validity of religious dogma. Naturalism does not – in any way – make the claim that human beings are no better than animals, quite the contrary.
Only through evolution is it understood with such clarity our dominant attributes that raise us above the vast majority of the animal kingdom. To claim that altruism, love, etc. retains no survival value is to admit that one doesn’t actually know anything about the subject. That is simply false – that these specific items are not defined naturally - and illustrates definitively that you know nothing of the subject. I suggest that you look into kin-selection altruism and reciprocal altruism or the chemical oxytocin; these items help describe the biological nature of love and altruism and how - through evolution - such items have been adapted so as to further our survival ability.
Furthermore I find it wholly unwarranted to claim that we are the only creature that views the environment in which they live as beautiful.
mojo wrote: Free will is an intangible and supernatural concept.
I disagree. Many claim that free will is illusory and does not exist – look into hard determinism – but there are many philosophers that claim that free will is the product of cognitive evolutionary upsurge – look into the Multiple Drafts theory of consciousness – and can exist in a deterministic universe, this is known as compatibilism. It can clearly be defined and theorized in a supernatural fashion but over 90% of the elite scientists dealing with such concepts define it otherwise….naturally.
mojo wrote: Love, hope, and beauty are illogical and irrational sentiments. That is exactly what makes them so important.
Simply untrue.
mojo wrote: All animals react with instinct. Is that our human condition?
Of course instinct is part of the human condition.
mojo wrote: If you beleive the human is an animal you must believe in predestination of our lives.
Incorrect. It is usually theists that propose the supernatural concept of “fate” and "destiny.” If you reject evolution then this will clearly be a difficult discussion.
mojo wrote: You must think that we do the things we do because nature tells us to do those things.
The human species has evolved a highly advanced form of consciousness and, with that, free-will. We are clearly still bound to specific instincts and biological urges that we are unable to overcome – our adrenal gland helps makes this so – but we have also evolved to the point where we are able to locate, understand and review certain instincts and urges, then pose possible actions to take in accordance to them and choose which solution or action is best fit to follow through with. Nature “tells us to do things” but we also have the ability – via evolutionary upsurge – to decide for ourselves which actions to either carry out or to refrain from.
mojo wrote: But if you believe in the concept of free will then you have the first building block towards faith. Free will is entirely agaisnt the laws of nature. No other "animal" can boast such a claim.
That is an unwarranted claim and I insist on the evidence of it. Free-will is not “entirely against the laws of nature” where is your evidence of this? Again I direct you towards the scientific theories of compatibilism found in the Multiple Drafts and Global workspace theories of consciousness (to name only two), in these scientific theories free-will not only does not go against the law of nature it is a part of the law of nature.
mojo wrote: When we are born we can see colors, have opposable thumbs, have pleasurable sex (only dogs have this amazing ability, most organisms reproduce by simply splitting in half), the ability to reason, and can walk upright. All of natures best examples of evolution all present within one life form.
This is not evidence of supernaturalism.
mojo wrote: I am sure you can counter by saying that these traits are simply the offspring of evolution. That position is entirely logical. But what you must realize is that a human being craves the romantic nature of his life.
Because of the nature of evolution, again, look into the topics I mentioned previously.
mojo wrote: People need to know that not only is their existence rational but it is irrational as well. Its not some cosmic cooincidence that we are built the way we are built.
Correct, it was the process of evolutionary upsurge. It was not some form of cosmic voodoo that oversaw our “creation” and/or put into motion the process of evolution, it was simply the nature of the universe.

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

JDHURF wrote: [
We weren’t talking about belief but rather faith. Science does not require faith, religion does.

What do you call it when science leads to what can only be assumed to be the answer but the conclusion is not falsifiable. ie big bang, origins of life etc.

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

Anyis wrote: dtwizzy2k5 wrote: Correct me if im wrong, but you sound like a Protestant. Or at least, you have the same qualms as a Protestant.

It shouldn't matter...but if you must know, then I am agnostic. However, I was hopping for a response from someone that would acknowledge the crimes of the Catholic Church in the past but would also explain the importance of why they believe as they do. I wanted to understand the views of a devout Catholic and how they can believe so religiously (didn't mean the pun :P ) in an organization with the history that the Catholic Church has. I find religion to be a very exciting topic and I love hearing and trying to understand the differences of opinions of our fellow members and why they believe as they do. Only through understanding will there ever be true peace...and I like to understand people. Mojo is a very devout Catholic and has answered very well in several of my posts :wink: I respect his comments.

Im not a Catholic ,but would like to offer my opinion. Catholics and protestants believe in Divine revelation(the Bible) When the atrocities were committed by the church, the Bible was not in the hands of most people, so the leadership could use their position's to lead the body in ways that contradicted the word of God often for their own purposes. with the invention of the printing press Bibles were mass produced and the more people that read it the more the church became a force for good as it should have been since the begging, had the teachings of Jesus been followed all along.

JDHURF · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 4044 Location: Tulsa, OK

lovebush wrote: JDHURF wrote: [
We weren’t talking about belief but rather faith. Science does not require faith, religion does.

What do you call it when science leads to what can only be assumed to be the answer but the conclusion is not falsifiable. ie big bang, origins of life etc. When something leads to "what can only be assumed....is not falsifiable" we are no longer speaking of science. The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory and as such it is falsibiable, there are competing theories right now that dispute the accuracy of the big bang, such as brane cosmology, the same applies to any theory regarding the begining of life but for the fact that the scientfic community widely agrees with the theory of evolution, there are no other competing scientific theories.

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

JDHURF wrote: lovebush wrote: JDHURF wrote: [
We weren’t talking about belief but rather faith. Science does not require faith, religion does.

What do you call it when science leads to what can only be assumed to be the answer but the conclusion is not falsifiable. ie big bang, origins of life etc. When something leads to "what can only be assumed....is not falsifiable" we are no longer speaking of science. The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory and as such it is falsibiable, there are competing theories right now that dispute the accuracy of the big bang, such as brane cosmology, the same applies to any theory regarding the begining of life but for the fact that the scientfic community widely agrees with the theory of evolution, there are no other competing scientific theories.

this may be my lack of education shining through here, but I thought it was the inability to falsify something that keeps it labeled a theory. A theory remains a theory until it is proved to be true, making it a scientific fact or false, and adding it to the scrapheap of history. But if there is no way to repeat and observe an event that may have happened thousands or billions of years ago it can not be empirically proved or falsified.

JDHURF · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 4044 Location: Tulsa, OK

lovebush wrote: JDHURF wrote: lovebush wrote: JDHURF wrote: [
We weren’t talking about belief but rather faith. Science does not require faith, religion does.

What do you call it when science leads to what can only be assumed to be the answer but the conclusion is not falsifiable. ie big bang, origins of life etc. When something leads to "what can only be assumed....is not falsifiable" we are no longer speaking of science. The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory and as such it is falsibiable, there are competing theories right now that dispute the accuracy of the big bang, such as brane cosmology, the same applies to any theory regarding the begining of life but for the fact that the scientfic community widely agrees with the theory of evolution, there are no other competing scientific theories.

this may be my lack of education shining through here, but I thought it was the inability to falsify something that keeps it labeled a theory. A theory remains a theory until it is proved to be true, making it a scientific fact or false, and adding it to the scrapheap of history. But if there is no way to repeat and observe an event that may have happened thousands or billions of years ago it can not be empirically proved or falsified. That is an incorrect interpretation of what "theory" means with regards to science.

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

JDHURF wrote: lovebush wrote: JDHURF wrote: lovebush wrote: JDHURF wrote: [
We weren’t talking about belief but rather faith. Science does not require faith, religion does.

What do you call it when science leads to what can only be assumed to be the answer but the conclusion is not falsifiable. ie big bang, origins of life etc. When something leads to "what can only be assumed....is not falsifiable" we are no longer speaking of science. The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory and as such it is falsibiable, there are competing theories right now that dispute the accuracy of the big bang, such as brane cosmology, the same applies to any theory regarding the begining of life but for the fact that the scientfic community widely agrees with the theory of evolution, there are no other competing scientific theories.

this may be my lack of education shining through here, but I thought it was the inability to falsify something that keeps it labeled a theory. A theory remains a theory until it is proved to be true, making it a scientific fact or false, and adding it to the scrapheap of history. But if there is no way to repeat and observe an event that may have happened thousands or billions of years ago it can not be empirically proved or falsified. That is an incorrect interpretation of what "theory" means with regards to science.

would you please provide the correct definition?

ElcharroNegro · Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 196

lovebush wrote: JDHURF wrote: lovebush wrote: JDHURF wrote: [
We weren’t talking about belief but rather faith. Science does not require faith, religion does.

What do you call it when science leads to what can only be assumed to be the answer but the conclusion is not falsifiable. ie big bang, origins of life etc. When something leads to "what can only be assumed....is not falsifiable" we are no longer speaking of science. The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory and as such it is falsibiable, there are competing theories right now that dispute the accuracy of the big bang, such as brane cosmology, the same applies to any theory regarding the begining of life but for the fact that the scientfic community widely agrees with the theory of evolution, there are no other competing scientific theories.

this may be my lack of education shining through here, but I thought it was the inability to falsify something that keeps it labeled a theory. A theory remains a theory until it is proved to be true, making it a scientific fact or false, and adding it to the scrapheap of history. But if there is no way to repeat and observe an event that may have happened thousands or billions of years ago it can not be empirically proved or falsified.

false. theres not such thing as "scientific fact"

JDHURF · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 4044 Location: Tulsa, OK

lovebush wrote: JDHURF wrote: lovebush wrote: JDHURF wrote: lovebush wrote: JDHURF wrote: [
We weren’t talking about belief but rather faith. Science does not require faith, religion does.

What do you call it when science leads to what can only be assumed to be the answer but the conclusion is not falsifiable. ie big bang, origins of life etc. When something leads to "what can only be assumed....is not falsifiable" we are no longer speaking of science. The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory and as such it is falsibiable, there are competing theories right now that dispute the accuracy of the big bang, such as brane cosmology, the same applies to any theory regarding the begining of life but for the fact that the scientfic community widely agrees with the theory of evolution, there are no other competing scientific theories.

this may be my lack of education shining through here, but I thought it was the inability to falsify something that keeps it labeled a theory. A theory remains a theory until it is proved to be true, making it a scientific fact or false, and adding it to the scrapheap of history. But if there is no way to repeat and observe an event that may have happened thousands or billions of years ago it can not be empirically proved or falsified. That is an incorrect interpretation of what "theory" means with regards to science.

would you please provide the correct definition? Gladly:
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

melchizedek22 · Joined: 27 Apr 2006 Posts: 370 Location: Holy Toledo

If The Big Bang caused the creation of the physical universe,than the universe was without matter,before the Big Bang,meaning the Big bang was caused by a Spiritual event! Satans original fall from Heaven,not to be confused with Satan and his fallen Angels being thrown out of Heaven by michael and his Angels!

12-7-41= Revelation 12-vs7