Your Politics: Liberal/Conservative/Centrist?

[thessalonian]

Catholic!

I am serious. I do not consider myself democrat or republican or independent. There was a time I think democrats were okay to vote for. But right now few are. But I saw my dad for too many years hold on to what he believed to the be the ideals of a party that he now says left him. To the point where he would put his blinders on in the polling both and vote for people who vote for abortion. Fortunately he has seen the light. The same thing can happen with republicans. So I keep my Catholic faith intact and vote for the Candidate who overal I think upholds those values. The vast majority of those have been republicans for quite some time but the pendulum will swing again.

[theculturewarrior]

I am Catholic. It's the only label I care about.

Some of the most interesting discussions I have had have been with atheists and agnostics. A man of intellectual integrity will tell you that the arguments for both are compelling. (In fact, I'm paraphrasing the editor in chief of Skeptic Magazine by saying that.)

There was a wonderful documentary called, "The Question of God," in which a panel of intellectuals from widely varied worldviews (including the editor of Skeptic Magazine) were interviewed in tandem with a documentary comparing C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud.

It was awesome, but I only got to see the first part.

I usually find that when somebody asks me if I'm conservative or liberal, they are looking for a reason to hate me. I am Catholic, and that encompasses and transcends both conservativism and liberalism.

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='AtheistAlex' date='Feb 9 2005, 01:00 AM'] Oh, and as an agnostic, I am telling you, after a while I've found, no one can prove or disprove the existence of a God. If it is possible, then you can disprove the existence of Zeus and the other Greek gods, right? [/quote]
This is what makes Catholicism unique. The secular worldview relies on reason alone, which, from my admittedly shaky knowledge of philosophy, cannot be used to prove God, but also, cannot be used ultimately to prove anything is real. Descarte said, "I think therefore I am." But then (that empiricist guy), said you can't prove that the mind is not illusory.

Then on the other side of the Tiber, you have reason disparaged for faith. You don't need science. If you pray hard enough, grandma will be healed. The fossil record only goes back 5000 years. The world is flat.

What makes Catholicism unique, is that we start with faith in the basic principles upon which our reason builds. We can't prove that the mind is real. But that doesn't make it go away. And when you start with basic principles such as these, God's existence can be known through reason.

I'll keep you in my prayers. I used to be an atheist.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Welcome Alex,
If you have time, read over this website. It firmly crushed my atheistic thoughts.
[url="http://peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm"]http://peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm[/url]

[AtheistAlex]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 9 2005, 07:41 AM'] Not all definitions can be reduced to their etymology. For example, Goodbye comes from "God be with you" but I assume that when you say "bye" to someone, you are not wishing that a deity whom you do not believe exists should remain in their proximity. A "cynic" comes from a Greek word meaning "dog". "Stoic" means "porch". Sometimes etymology can be illuminative but shouldn't be followed mindlessly. You answered my question with your fuller definition. I would consider you an agnostic. It think the agnostic/atheist distinction is simpler than your agnostic atheist/atheist distinction. If all agnostics are atheists, then why add that second word? Why not just call yourself an agnostic? People will not assume that you are agnostic about whether pizza exists, or unicorns, but about whether God exists.

The reason why I dislike your definition is that it doesn't jibe with my experience. I have heard on more than one occasion someone say "I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic."
"Agnostic" was coined by Thomas Huxley and he meant it to be not a denial of God but rather a denial that one could have knowledge of God or his existence. An atheist denies the existence of God.

I guess you could divide atheism into strong and weak and conflate weak atheism with agnosticism, but why go to that trouble? A-theist = denial of God; a-gnostic = denial of knowledge of God. That's pretty simple. [/quote]
I understand what you mean. I just found the etymology to be closer to my definition, as I feel the dictionaries of the world are not always too reflective of the true ideology of atheism. I mean, basically, dictionaries did not do atheists justice with their definitions.

Like I said earlier, saying I am an agnostic atheist is redundant, but many have been told that the two are separate ideals, when in practice and thought pattern, agnosticism is a subset of atheism. I add the word to make that point clear to those who do not see things the way I do. Understand?

Atheist may mean denial of God for you, but I will [u]never[/u] call my weak atheism as such.

Lastly, when you tried to do the whole etymology thingy, you used "a~" as though it meant denial, when it only means a lack of the following concept. [i]That's[/i] pretty simple. Have a great day.

[AtheistAlex]

[quote name='thedude' date='Feb 9 2005, 11:13 AM'] Welcome Alex,
If you have time, read over this website. It firmly crushed my atheistic thoughts.
[url="http://peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm"]http://peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm[/url] [/quote]
Yo, theDude.
Can I call you dudey? Or just "the"? Or maybe DaDude?

Dude, possibly?

Okay, here we go.

<<Another specially strong aspect of the design argument is the so-called anthropic principle, according to which the universe seems to have been specially designed from the beginning for human life to evolve. If the temperature of the primal fireball that resulted from the Big Bang some fifteen to twenty billion years ago, which was the beginning of our universe, had been a trillionth of a degree colder or hotter, the carbon molecule that is the foundation of all organic life could never have developed. The number of possible universes is trillions of trillions; only one of them could support human life: this one. Sounds suspiciously like a plot. If the cosmic rays had bombarded the primordial slime at a slightly different angle or time or intensity, the hemoglobin molecule, necessary for all warm-blooded animals, could never have evolved. The chance of this molecule's evolving is something like one in a trillion trillion. Add together each of the chances and you have something far more unbelievable than a million monkeys writing Hamlet.

>>

That was from that site. It was a particularlly interesting part of the Design Argument used by theists to prove God exists.

1. How does he know only one can support life? Has he the knowledge of [u]all[/u] the cosmos?

2. What "cosmic rays" bombarded the "primordial slime"? From what I learned plants gave off oxygen as waste from the CO2 they got from the sun. As the plants died off, the made rocks and sediment over billions of years. The oxygen made the ozone layer and the air we breathe today. I never heard of any "cosmic rays"!

3. This presupposes that because we are ignorant on a subject, one side [u]must[/u] be true. Basically, because we do not know for sure if other planets have life, or why the Earth is so well-balanced for human life, then God [u]must[/u] be the Designer. Come on now.

4. How did he get those odds he has? What math I wonder? Still, I have always liked this argument because it makes me ask a lot of questions in class and out of class, and that's always fun.

That's one of the arguments. I'm not much of a debunker any more, I was when I was about thirteen and fourteen, but now I just read, look, smile, and talk. Too much worrying about college to debunk. Unless someone calls me out. Then it's on.

[theculturewarrior]

I've heard similar odds given in secular books, I'll see if I can find a source. More to come...

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='AtheistAlex' date='Feb 9 2005, 04:20 PM']
2. What "cosmic rays" bombarded the "primordial slime"? From what I learned plants gave off oxygen as waste from the CO2 they got from the sun. As the plants died off, the made rocks and sediment over billions of years. The oxygen made the ozone layer and the air we breathe today. I never heard of any "cosmic rays"!
[/quote]
this is outside my field of expertise, but I think the plants you speak of came from the cosmic rays and primordial slime Kreeft speaks of. More to come...

[theculturewarrior]

[quote]1. How does he know only one can support life? Has he the knowledge of all the cosmos?[/quote]

I remember reading in a secular source recently, I think it was the NY Times or the Times Magazine, about a convention of scientists who got together to hopefully answer the question why the Universe supports life, why it is seemingly fine-tuned to do so. They concluded that this is just one universe among an infinite number, and this one randomly supports life. As an atheist professor once told me, when faced with a plurality of explanations, usually the most parsimonious is true. I'll see if I can find that article.

[theculturewarrior]

I forgot to say, more to come...

[AtheistAlex]

See now that Occum's Razor.

And now it gets philosophical. Heh.

See, this depends on which seems more simple...that something happens to succeed in producing life after several tries, or a deity put it there and decides not to show himself in a clear, definable and empirical fashion.

I go with the first one, thanks.

[theculturewarrior]

Could you tell us more about Ockham's Razor? I'm honestly a little shaky on philosophy, and I just have murky memories of medieval history class, where Ockham was presented as a precursor to the Reformation. (But then, so was Thomas A Kempis. )

I still think intelligent design is the more parsimonious explanation, and also the more satisfactory. The conditions which scientists suppose that life arose from were rather precarious and elaborate. When I get around to answering my more to comes... (BTW more to come...) I'll lay down just how elaborate those conditions were. It is not a stretch to say, it was as if something were guiding natural history.

again... more to come...

BTW Alex, how old are you?

[theculturewarrior]

one last thing, and again, this is admittedly shaky knowledge and I encourage you to verify this.

It is more than just evolution. It is the mechanics of the universe itself. Biophysicists still don't know how life can resist the force of gravity. That's what those scientists in the NY Times were discussing.

Again, murky memories from an admittedly inexpert man.

[Ash Wednesday]

If I ever voted in Sweden, I'd perhaps vote for "Kalle Anka partiet!"

Kalle Anka Partiet = The Donald Duck Party.













Well, maybe not. Like others here, I vote as a Catholic, and I play no specific political game.

[AtheistAlex]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Feb 10 2005, 01:27 AM'] one last thing, and again, this is admittedly shaky knowledge and I encourage you to verify this.

It is more than just evolution. It is the mechanics of the universe itself. Biophysicists still don't know how life can resist the force of gravity. That's what those scientists in the NY Times were discussing.

Again, murky memories from an admittedly inexpert man. [/quote]
How does life resist gravity?

The same way all mass does. It's called inertia.

Bodies at rest want to stay at rest, and bodies in motion want to stay in motion.

Also, I want to understand something. Is it or is it not a non sequitur to relate that there is intricacy in our world, and the concept of intelligent design? How does intricacy in our world mean that there must be an intelligent designer at work? Is it not possible that our system is a lucky one that has, at least for now hit the right balance for life?

Remember, the Earth's life has come and gone many many times. Land life itself has been hit pretty hard (70% of all land life or more) by metoers, Ice Ages, etc. at least five times. I heard an estimate from an environmental science teacher of at least ten times.