Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-31-2007, 09:12 AM   #46
Kate
Mistress Monster Mod'rator Spy
 
Kate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The North Coast
Posts: 15,428
Quote:
Irreligious wrote
Is nobody here going to define that cryptic phrase: Grace builds upon nature? Is this just a poetic way of saying "Godidit?"
I think it's one of those sneaky advertising things, like when you can read the product labels on your favorite sitcom.

"I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death."
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Kate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 09:12 AM   #47
Professor Chaos
General of the Attacking Army
 
Professor Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,904
Grace? She died years ago.

I will grieve. Grief is not a theistic concept. ~ Sternwallow
Professor Chaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 09:13 AM   #48
Philboid Studge
Organ Donator
 
Philboid Studge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
Quote:
SteveG wrote
Let me rephrase it. Catholicism and Orthodoxy from a theological perspective would simply not have any fear of this explanation of the workings of the brain. Indeed, the discovery is totally in line with the theological understanding of human nature.
Okay, I see your point clearer now. It sure looked like you were making broader claims about what most Christians think. This is somewhat of a touchy subject in these parts, thanks to Dawkins.

Quote:
I think itís true however that such a discovery would be threatening to the Calvinistic understanding of total depravity because it shows that there is something inherent in human nature that longs and desires to do good (which has always been the Catholic understanding).
Perhaps that's true, but I also think it answers (to an extent) any theist who cannot imagine where morality comes from, if not from God (the article Mog cites doesn't get into the evolutionary mechanisms that led to the development of the brain in the first place, which are well-documented)

Quote:
My point was not that all people calling themselves Catholic/Orthodox would have a perfect understanding of the theology, but that at the least, most people calling themselves Christian consider themselves part of a group(s), that from a theological stance, would have no problem with the mechanics that the article points out.
Maybe, I don't know. I'm leery of assuming what 'most people' would think (and then of course I go and do exactly that). And anyway, as you say, they are merely identifying with a group with a specific doctrine -- whether they believe, understand, or are even aware of that doctrine might be.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriťtť, c'est le vol ...
Philboid Studge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 09:15 AM   #49
nkb
He who walks among the theists
 
nkb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
Quote:
Lily wrote
Thanks, SteveG for speaking up for me! But I want to assure you that it is as unnecessary, as it is appreciated. A fair number of folks here don't care much about honesty or actually hearing out someone who doesn't agree with them. Renaissanceman and nkb just made that clear, yet again. Who knows what they fear? That something like real conversation might ensue? That they might actually learn something?

Well, I know this is the Raving Atheists forum but raving about what doesn't actually exist, shaking your fist in the face of straw fundies ... isn't that mental illness? Mog?
What does calling you dishonest and condescending have to do with caring about honesty? That is exactly the reason that you are so reviled on this forum, your lack of honesty.

You lack the basic decency to admit when you are wrong, or made a mistake. It's a character flaw, apparently.

So, do you still contend that we can infer attributes about the entire population of a country based on one person's actions? Can you at least admit that you were wrong about that?

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
nkb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 09:20 AM   #50
SteveG
Senior Member
 
SteveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 830
Quote:
Just Us Chickens wrote
Quote:
Irreligious wrote
Is nobody here going to define that cryptic phrase: Grace builds upon nature? Is this just a poetic way of saying "Godidit?"
I think it means that god works through natural mediums so finding natural explanations shouldnít be surprising
Absolutely! Well said JUC.

If one is familiar with Thomism, this is really the point being made. It's funny, because I just yesterday read a fascinating article discussing how many folks in the Protestant community are upset that Catholics, and in particular Thomists, aren't getting on board with Intelligent design.

The reason boils down in it's simplest terms to what JUC just said, and in Thomistic terms, it's because fundamentally Intelligent Design is built on a fallacy (Cosmogonical Fallacy).

Anyone even moderately interested in such things can find the article here.

What is Godís Finger Doing in My Pre-Biotic Soup?

In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don't know it.
G.K. Chesterton
SteveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 09:21 AM   #51
RenaissanceMan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Just Us Chickens wrote
Quote:
RenaissanceMan wrote
This is standard theistic bullshit. 'There are billions of us! And we all believe as I do! Therefore we are right." When in reality, the zealots, like you and Lily, are a tiny minority of "All Christians"
Steve isnít a zealot and he certainly doesnít deserve to be lumped in with Lily
Ok, I was a bit harsh. You are correct, Steve doesn't deserve to lumped in with Lily. I appologize for the implication.

A 'zealot' on the other hand, is simply someone who is jealous about god. It doesn't necessarily imply violence or anything of the sort. I don't consider Steve or Lily to be in any way violent.

My issue with zealotry is that it clouds the mind into an internal, closed minded tranjectory of thought.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 09:26 AM   #52
Lily
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
nkb wrote
So, do you still contend that we can infer attributes about the entire population of a country based on one person's actions? Can you at least admit that you were wrong about that?
I am going to give you one more chance to demonstrate that you are capable of basic, kindergarden variety honesty yourself. Go back and read the message I wrote. Read it until you find any legitimate way to support your assertion that I claimed one could infer attributes about "the entire population of a country based on one person's actions". Report back on your findings. Then we will see who is honest and able to admit that he is wrong ... I am not going to hold my breath. You have perfected the art of attributing to me attitudes I do not hold and statements I have not made. Then, when I refuse to play along, you accuse me of being dishonest. It is a swell game but I am not playing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 09:27 AM   #53
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
In other words, no matter what science discovers, God/gods/magic will always be the explanation for some. Many, in fact. Yeah, I'd agree with that.

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 09:28 AM   #54
Professor Chaos
General of the Attacking Army
 
Professor Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,904
Quote:
Irreligious wrote
In other words, no matter what science discovers, God/gods/magic will always be the explanation for some. Many, in fact. Yeah, I'd agree with that.
You had it right the first time. "Goddidit."

I will grieve. Grief is not a theistic concept. ~ Sternwallow
Professor Chaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 09:34 AM   #55
nkb
He who walks among the theists
 
nkb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
Maybe I'm missing the point, but I will wade in with my questions anyway.

The way I see it, there are 2 points being made:
1. God does not make evil (is this a correct statement?), yet psychopaths are born physically different, and don't "choose" to be evil.

2. There is an urge to do good that is embedded in our brains, so it can be explained without a divine being. It sounds to me like Lily (do you agree?) that God is the one to put those urges for good in there, which sounds a lot like an ID-type of position to take.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
nkb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 09:43 AM   #56
SteveG
Senior Member
 
SteveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 830
Irr and PC, I'll strongly recommend the article linked above if you want to understand Catholic thinking on this.

I am not saying you are right or wrong in your assertion. If pressed I'd probably have to say that yes, the fundamental explanation of everything is 'God did it' by virtue of the fact that existence is from God. It does not follow though that God is constantly poking his finger into the mix.

Again, the article is not overly long and does a far better job of explaining than I possibly could.

Edit:
NKB, I think the article addresses your second question as well.

In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don't know it.
G.K. Chesterton
SteveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 09:48 AM   #57
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Quote:
SteveG wrote
.......Catholic thinking.....
:lol::lol:

If you drink the blood and eat the flesh of a man who was not god but was and who didn't die for sins not yet committed (but already done because of a sneaky snake) you won't burn in hell, maybe.

Is that about right Steve?

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 09:54 AM   #58
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Quote:
SteveG wrote
I am not saying you are right or wrong in your assertion.
Either your god did it, or he didn't.

Edit
Depends who you ask, I guess. Your god, the Muslim's god, the various gods of the practioners of Voodoo and Santeria are entirely mum on the subject. At least, I haven't heard from them.

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 09:56 AM   #59
SteveG
Senior Member
 
SteveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 830
Quote:
Choobus wrote
Quote:
SteveG wrote
.......Catholic thinking.....
:lol::lol:

If you drink the blood and eat the flesh of a man who was not god but was and who didn't die for sins not yet committed (but already done because of a sneaky snake) you won't burn in hell, maybe.

Is that about right Steve?
uh....no, not quite right, but so close.:D

In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don't know it.
G.K. Chesterton
SteveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 10:06 AM   #60
SteveG
Senior Member
 
SteveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 830
Quote:
Irreligious wrote
Quote:
SteveG wrote
I am not saying you are right or wrong in your assertion.
Either your god did it, or he didn't.
It depends on what you are asking.

If you are asking...

Do all things exists because of God, and therefore anything that occurs can be tied back to that fundamental principle? The answer is yes.

If on the other hand you are asking...

Did I just spill my coffee on myself because God specifically pushed it over with his finger? The answer is no.

You obviously will not agree, but the whole thing can be roughly summarized as something like...

God's will holds all things in existence and therefore is the ultimate cause for all our circumstance, AND we have the freedom to affect those circumstances as well.

...It's a paradox to be sure, that I readily admit, but reality is rife with paradoxes whether we are believer or non-believer.

Again, even if it leaves you unsatisfied and unconvinced, the article does a better job at explaining than I can.

In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don't know it.
G.K. Chesterton
SteveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:53 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational