Life, The Universe, And Everything

[Ouroboros]

Character isn't natural and it isn't a choice; it's a hundred choices a day for a lifetime. While evolutionary thinkers and behavioral psychologists maul one another on this issue, the unimpressive result of their labor walks the streets. It is intangible but so commonly understood as to be presumed imbued by nature. The fact that it's not points to the separation between realms of physical science and whatever might be outside that austere realm.

 

Hmm... Buddy, something is wrong here, seriously wrong. It's very confusing statement you're doing there.

 

You're saying that character is not a choice.. hence it must come from somewhere, and it doesn't come from nature according to you. Is your answer then that God gives us character? Then I wonder about the people that don't have character; they don't have it because of ... what?...

 

It can't be that they don't have it because of a choice since it doesn't come from choice, and it can't be that they lost their character because of nature, so I guess there's only one option left and that is God gave them the bad character. So if someone got a good character or a bad character, that is God who did it. Am I right? Well, then, can you really blame anyone then for having a good or bad character? No, you can't! Since it wasn't nature, society, culture, family, violent video games, media, genetics or by free will that someone got it or didn't' get it. The blame is completely, and 100% on God!

 

Is that what you really intended to say?

[webmdave]

To the regulars here:

 

As you know, I rarely interject like this (I don't remember the last time, or if there was a time exactly like this.), but this bozo's disingenuous and obvious air of superiority personally infuriates me. I've known too many arrogant Christians in my days in the fold, and this bozo wears the brightest wig of them all.

 

Interestingly, he is oblivious to how he comes across, or just doesn't care.

 

Buddy,

 

Your thinking is a prime example of what a lifetime of religious delusion can do to what would ordinarily be considered a fairly decent intellect. It's good that you've come here. Maybe one day you'll realize, in opposition to the rest of the loonies you associate with in "meatspace," that your KING is not only naked, but doesn't even exist.

 

I hope to no-god that my own humanity doesn't reduce me to a drooling mirror of what you have become when I reach your purported age in a few years.

 

Wow.

[BuddyFerris]

Character isn't natural and it isn't a choice; it's a hundred choices a day for a lifetime. While evolutionary thinkers and behavioral psychologists maul one another on this issue, the unimpressive result of their labor walks the streets. It is intangible but so commonly understood as to be presumed imbued by nature. The fact that it's not points to the separation between realms of physical science and whatever might be outside that austere realm.

 

Hmm... Buddy, something is wrong here, seriously wrong. It's very confusing statement you're doing there.

 

You're saying that character is not a choice.. hence it must come from somewhere, and it doesn't come from nature according to you. Is your answer then that God gives us character? Then I wonder about the people that don't have character; they don't have it because of ... what?...

...

Is that what you really intended to say?

Poor phrasing on my part, HanS. Character is not a (one) choice; it's a hundred choices a day .... and the discussion on character needn't go further unless it's of interest; it was offered in response to a question of intangibles. If you'll re-read the original above with phrase explained, you'll see I was attempting to say that character is absolutely a result of choice. Sorry to have confused the issue.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

In order to really understand an artists world and what might motivate an artist to create, one would need superpowers like experiencing the artists thoughts. So now you know the mind of God?

I think what Buddy is saying is that god lives in that touchy feely place that cannot be catalogued.

It was interesing in the film Good Will Hunting, making a good point about those intangibles that cannot be found in books; such as how the Cistine Chapel smells. It proves something about the human experience, but it doesn't come anywhere close to even an insinuation that maybe, just maybe there's something more hiding in the nether reaches of special pleading.

See Buddy, I can be cryptic to.

Well done. And your argument provides a good question. What are the intangibles of human experience? And where do we draw the line between one realm and the other?

Buddy

You ignored the part about special pleading.

Your special plead is bigotry against rational methods.

Buddy: What are the intangibles of human experience? And where do we draw the line between one realm and the other?

This is a dodge. These questions are in no way gaps for your idol to exist in. Your idol exists only in your imagination.

Mankey,

Do you genuinely think that all experience extends from the realm of science and math? If so, that's an acceptable position for discussion's sake, I suppose. My question regarding intangibles was legitimate; do all such things have a root cause (not description, cause) in evolution? I'm not reaching for God here, just an understanding of the basics as shared here.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

Buddy, random chance. It all comes back to the skewed view of statistics, probability and "purpose of design" etc that I see you have a lot of. And I can't make you understand how and why, because you need a total paradigm shift to get it.

 

The man you talked to was of course encourage, because he was also a Christian, or became one after you talked to him. I'm getting warmer? I've heard many stories like these. How come mine mostly only are related to solving software bugs rather then helping people? I have had many intuitive solutions to computer problems which I can't explain, and God was never glorified by it, and neither did I think it was supernatural.

 

When it comes to your mind making an image or dream which connects you to a person who you then talk to, can actually be explained with natural means and science. I've read books that would lead you to understand these things, but I'm not even going to bother to go into this topic now. We're all over the map as it is anyway in this thread. But my opinion is that "dreams" like that, does not prove supernatural forces, but it does very well falls into certain psychological area and can be explained. It's not as mysterious as it sounds. Another reason I won't discuss that topic is because I'm certain there are a lot more parameters to that situation that we're not aware of, and that you might not remember them all either, so it can't be dissected and analyses properly. The mind does selectively pertain information that fits into what you want to believe, rather then what actually did happen. You might have overheard about this persons plans earlier without realizing it. We don't know, and neither do you if it was subconsciously.

HanS,

As I've said, I dislike having to fit this stuff into my usually reasonable world. The possibilities you raise have crossed my mind and I've discounted or discarded other such events where the possibility of such pre-loading seemed likely. This one was, to the best of my understanding, uncontaminated. This guy hadn't been in my conversations or in my thoughts in a few weeks while this was going on in his world. His life and mine don't overlap except occasionally at church. Best I can tell, it's legit.

 

As you say, though, it doesn't prove supernatural forces. It might be a natural phenomenon which I've filtered through my own beliefs and labeled as supernatural. It doesn't prove the existence of God, nor is it necessarily miraculous. It needn't prove anything for our discussion other than to open the question of where such things fit in our thinking. If you're satisfied with your explanation, no sweat; it's not a life or death issue. I put it out there primarily to give Dano something to fuss about, not to change anyone's mind.

 

I do appreciate your rational response.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

But isn't "character" defined relative to the culture in question? What might be considered "character" (if their language even has a word for the concept) in one culture wouldn't necessarily be considered a positive thing in another.

Good point; I think your right regarding character being visible primarily in the context of the culture in which it is formed; it it's truly a product of consistent choice in the context of local standards, character and culture would be tightly linked. The reason for discussing character here is to suggest that there are elements of human existence which are outside the realm of science and math, not explained by physics or evolution. I didn't choose character as an example for any particular reason other than that it lends itself to the illustration; good character is counter-select, expensive, and of questionable benefit, however admirable it may be. Bad character (or the absence of character, however it might be described) is more prevalent, more likely survival/success/selectable, and much less expensive in terms of individual cost and effort. Character is one in a list of such human experience elements about which science doesn't seem to have much of substance to say regarding its' arrival or continuance. At least that's my impression so far.

Buddy

[Sparrow]

 

...Text ...

 

1. Your generous offer of a stroll across the firing line is tempting, I'll admit, but I'll likely pass for the moment. .......

 

2. By the way, the insults through which I waded reviewing your posts were all yours! Impressive. I don't across many people who can string so many together in a near-continuous discharge like that. Well, there was this one Marine Master Sargent who was pretty impressive; you don't by chance come from a military family do you?

 

 

1. Oh Buddy - you can't be serious?!? You're in the Lion's Den - you're already in the firing line!!

 

2. Err .... Buddy ... excuse me .... "marine master sargent"?? errr .... what army was that? The terribly nice army? The army of awfully friendly fellows? Near continuous stream of insults??? - wow!!! You had a sheltered life, didn't you? Buddy, if those insults were as "hard" as you say they were, then what can I say?? How old are you? Sorry Buddy ... but that is really wimpy!!

 

You're not THAT thin skinned, are you? (I suppose this is an insult too).

 

Spatz

[Legion]

My question regarding intangibles was legitimate; do all such things have a root cause (not description, cause) in evolution? I'm not reaching for God here, just an understanding of the basics as shared here.

I don't believe that any one theory or set of theories of evolution will encompass an a complete understanding of the natural systems we know as organisms. And I believe you Buddy when you say that you are not reaching for God here.

 

In "Life Itself" the theoretical biologist Robert Rosen argues that if we wish to understand organisms we would do well to throw away the matter and retain the "organization". This organization is an "intangible". He argues that it is best described as a pattern of entailment.

 

I am convinced that evolution has occurred. All the evidence suggests that it has in my estimation. And I don't believe in the supernatural. Yet I also believe that there is more to life than matter and evolution.

[Mankey]

Do you genuinely think that all experience extends from the realm of science and math? If so, that's an acceptable position for discussion's sake, I suppose. My question regarding intangibles was legitimate; do all such things have a root cause (not description, cause) in evolution? I'm not reaching for God here, just an understanding of the basics as shared here.

Buddy

Guess what old man. The more we understand about the brain the less room there will be for spiritual explanations of human experiences and reality. Science will kill your sky pixie.....even if theists will never be honest enough to admit it.

 

Experience is what sentient beings do and God is not needed for human experience. The best we got is our senses, reason and rational methods as well as technological extensions of our senses. We have nothing else. We are aware of matter/energy and nothing else. Thinking and feeling are purely processes of matter/energy.

 

Faith as the bible defines it is delusion. Your superstition deserves no respect. You deserve respect in many, many cases, but your attitude that goes with your apologizing for your delusions most certainly do not deserve any respect.

 

Buddy:"My question regarding intangibles was legitimate; do all such things have a root cause (not description, cause) in evolution?"

Your questions regarding intangibles was a non sequitur following your special plead, following your bigoted complaint "To summarize: modern thought (particularly the popular version) may be incomplete or narrow enough to exclude useful knowledge." .........this is what you said when asked to demonstrate that there is a divine external standard. You are so full of shit. You keep avoiding backing up your delusions about the bibles idol.

 

Fact is you can't even prove your superstition even to yourself....not rationally. All you have is a close minded bigotry ( faith) for your superstitious beliefs. Your behavior here makes it crystal clear that you can in no way rationally demonstrate that your superstitious beliefs are rationally valid positions to hold.

[dano]

Buddy does best when he's just talking randomly generated shit.

 

He has a huge amount of difficulty when he starts trying to explain to God how everything works.

 

That why he always changes the subject, and downplays his metaphysical experiences, when you try to get to the essence of his true beliefs.

 

His veneer of Christianity is so thin, it is all but indistinguishable from the rest of us.

 

Welcome to agnosticism Buddy. Welcome to ex-Christian!

Danl.

[Mankey]

His veneer of Christianity is so thin, it is all but indistinguishable from the rest of us.

[/b]

Even if he is an agnostic, he will continue to apologize for the bible and Christianity. Nothing makes me more disgusted than a heathen who is a Christian apologist.

[Skankboy]

good character is counter-select, expensive, and of questionable benefit, however admirable it may be. Bad character (or the absence of character, however it might be described) is more prevalent, more likely survival/success/selectable, and much less expensive in terms of individual cost and effort. Character is one in a list of such human experience elements about which science doesn't seem to have much of substance to say regarding its' arrival or continuance. At least that's my impression so far.

 

I would strongly disagree with this. Good character in it's citizens is a great survival tool when considered on the species level. Don't forget, evolution doesn't really deal with the individual, it deals with populations. Morals and "character" are positive co-operative traits when individuals are organized on the level of societies. Is it easier to not have character and morals? In the short-run, individualistic perspective, possilby. But when you combine evloutionary strategies of co-operation with sexual selections based on cultural norms, it doesn't seem too far fetch too me for this to have developed without the need for supernatural intervention of some kind.

 

IMOHO,

[dano]

Do you genuinely think that all experience extends from the realm of science and math? If so, that's an acceptable position for discussion's sake, I suppose. My question regarding intangibles was legitimate; do all such things have a root cause (not description, cause) in evolution? I'm not reaching for God here, just an understanding of the basics as shared here.

Buddy

Guess what old man. The more we understand about the brain the less room there will be for spiritual explanations of human experiences and reality. Science will kill your sky pixie.....even if theists will never be honest enough to admit it.

 

Experience is what sentient beings do and God is not needed for human experience. The best we got is our senses, reason and rational methods as well as technological extensions of our senses. We have nothing else. We are aware of matter/energy and nothing else. Thinking and feeling are purely processes of matter/energy.

 

Faith as the bible defines it is delusion. Your superstition deserves no respect. You deserve respect in many, many cases, but your attitude that goes with your apologizing for your delusions most certainly do not deserve any respect.

 

Buddy:"My question regarding intangibles was legitimate; do all such things have a root cause (not description, cause) in evolution?"

Your questions regarding intangibles was a non sequitur following your special plead, following your bigoted complaint "To summarize: modern thought (particularly the popular version) may be incomplete or narrow enough to exclude useful knowledge." .........this is what you said when asked to demonstrate that there is a divine external standard. You are so full of shit. You keep avoiding backing up your delusions about the bibles idol.

 

Fact is you can't even prove your superstition even to yourself....not rationally. All you have is a close minded bigotry ( faith) for your superstitious beliefs. Your behavior here makes it crystal clear that you can in no way rationally demonstrate that your superstitious beliefs are rationally valid positions to hold.

 

Don't you wish your brain worked as well as Mankey's Buddy?

[Mankey]

good character is counter-select, expensive, and of questionable benefit, however admirable it may be. Bad character (or the absence of character, however it might be described) is more prevalent, more likely survival/success/selectable, and much less expensive in terms of individual cost and effort. Character is one in a list of such human experience elements about which science doesn't seem to have much of substance to say regarding its' arrival or continuance. At least that's my impression so far.

 

I would strongly disagree with this. Good character in it's citizens is a great survival tool when considered on the species level. Don't forget, evolution doesn't really deal with the individual, it deals with populations. Morals and "character" are positive co-operative traits when individuals are organized on the level of societies. Is it easier to not have character and morals? In the short-run, individualistic perspective, possilby. But when you combine evloutionary strategies of co-operation with sexual selections based on cultural norms, it doesn't seem too far fetch too me for this to have developed without the need for supernatural intervention of some kind.

 

IMOHO,

That is why I say that if a person has respect for their basic needs and as well as a respect for probability the long run is what counts. No mankey is an island unto themselves. Besides there are natural emotions that go with co-operation that can feel pretty good. To bring up that we are not consistent in empathy and altruism is besides the point.

 

No idol is needed to coerce ethical behavior.

[Deva]

Then please think about this Buddy. Where do we obtain an external moral standard?

Yes, Buddy, and you also said "Be patient on the issue of self-evident truth." and we are still waiting. (emphasis added)

C'mon you two! Surely you needn't wait until I unveil my 'surprise' answer that such a standard, external to mankind, might be of divine origin. Or perhaps am I overly suspicious, and the two of you actually wait breathlessly for my amazing intellect and insight to unfold the book of truth and light to you.

 

Take a deep breath and repeat, "It's Ok, Buddy won't abandon us."

:wink: Buddy

 

 

Still waiting, Buddy. Instead, we get your anecdotes about prayer and some kind of clairvoyance; meaningless and unfunny jokes and confusing statements about character entirely off the subject.

 

Buddy, you don't seem to be able to put two thoughts together in a sequence. I think you just like throwing out provocative and confusing statements to see if you can get some response, any response, out of people. This seems sick to me. I am not participating in it anymore.

[BuddyFerris]

My question regarding intangibles was legitimate; do all such things have a root cause (not description, cause) in evolution? I'm not reaching for God here, just an understanding of the basics as shared here.

I don't believe that any one theory or set of theories of evolution will encompass an a complete understanding of the natural systems we know as organisms. And I believe you Buddy when you say that you are not reaching for God here.

 

In "Life Itself" the theoretical biologist Robert Rosen argues that if we wish to understand organisms we would do well to throw away the matter and retain the "organization". This organization is an "intangible". He argues that it is best described as a pattern of entailment.

 

I am convinced that evolution has occurred. All the evidence suggests that it has in my estimation. And I don't believe in the supernatural. Yet I also believe that there is more to life than matter and evolution.

Legion, good morning.

To perhaps clarify, we probably agree on most of evolution's contribution to life; common descent from a probable single line, natural selection of survival traits, adaptive mutation, etc. I'll be interested in Rosen's description. I've made my way through the literature (casually, not academically) over the years and been impressed by descriptive discoveries and equally unimpressed by many extrapolated conclusions. I'm alert to statements that sound like 'obviously'; many are directional choices where the researcher's bias is painfully evident. Facts and descriptions are useful, biased extrapolations are less so. Perhaps Rosen will do better.

Have a great day,

Buddy

[Mankey]

My question regarding intangibles was legitimate; do all such things have a root cause (not description, cause) in evolution? I'm not reaching for God here, just an understanding of the basics as shared here.

I don't believe that any one theory or set of theories of evolution will encompass an a complete understanding of the natural systems we know as organisms. And I believe you Buddy when you say that you are not reaching for God here.

 

In "Life Itself" the theoretical biologist Robert Rosen argues that if we wish to understand organisms we would do well to throw away the matter and retain the "organization". This organization is an "intangible". He argues that it is best described as a pattern of entailment.

 

I am convinced that evolution has occurred. All the evidence suggests that it has in my estimation. And I don't believe in the supernatural. Yet I also believe that there is more to life than matter and evolution.

Legion, good morning.

To perhaps clarify, we probably agree on most of evolution's contribution to life; common descent from a probable single line, natural selection of survival traits, adaptive mutation, etc. I'll be interested in Rosen's description. I've made my way through the literature (casually, not academically) over the years and been impressed by descriptive discoveries and equally unimpressed by many extrapolated conclusions. I'm alert to statements that sound like 'obviously'; many are directional choices where the researcher's bias is painfully evident. Facts and descriptions are useful, biased extrapolations are less so. Perhaps Rosen will do better.

Have a great day,

Buddy

You can not prove your superstition even if science might make mistakes or not have all of the answers.

 

Don't like logic? Well then that means you don't like fairness.

[Ouroboros]

Poor phrasing on my part, HanS. Character is not a (one) choice; it's a hundred choices a day .... and the discussion on character needn't go further unless it's of interest; it was offered in response to a question of intangibles. If you'll re-read the original above with phrase explained, you'll see I was attempting to say that character is absolutely a result of choice. Sorry to have confused the issue.

Thanks. It was a bit strange.

 

Later I think I figured out what you perhaps meant. Maybe with "natural" you really meant "genetic" or "inherited" or such. Character isn't genetic, inherited or a one time choice, but built over time by choices in micro-events. That would make more sense... I think.

 

 

As I've said, I dislike having to fit this stuff into my usually reasonable world. The possibilities you raise have crossed my mind and I've discounted or discarded other such events where the possibility of such pre-loading seemed likely. This one was, to the best of my understanding, uncontaminated. This guy hadn't been in my conversations or in my thoughts in a few weeks while this was going on in his world. His life and mine don't overlap except occasionally at church. Best I can tell, it's legit.

Okay. Fair enough. Maybe there is a "quantum entanglement" or link between minds beyond the normal physical level. I know this is a stretch, but scientists can make particles that are entangled and act in pair, even when they're separated over long distances. If the universe is a fractal web, then perhaps some minds are closer through the fabric on the universe. It wouldn't be supernatural, but just physical connection through the construct itself.

 

As you say, though, it doesn't prove supernatural forces. It might be a natural phenomenon which I've filtered through my own beliefs and labeled as supernatural. It doesn't prove the existence of God, nor is it necessarily miraculous. It needn't prove anything for our discussion other than to open the question of where such things fit in our thinking. If you're satisfied with your explanation, no sweat; it's not a life or death issue. I put it out there primarily to give Dano something to fuss about, not to change anyone's mind.

Sure. (or I could be satisfied with my altternative explanation above. )

 

And of course the third (fourth?) explanation would be that we have some "soul" or "life force" beyond the natural. Which just validates a million different versions of beliefs.

 

I do appreciate your rational response.

You're welcome. I do try.

[Ouroboros]

I don't believe that any one theory or set of theories of evolution will encompass an a complete understanding of the natural systems we know as organisms. And I believe you Buddy when you say that you are not reaching for God here.

 

In "Life Itself" the theoretical biologist Robert Rosen argues that if we wish to understand organisms we would do well to throw away the matter and retain the "organization". This organization is an "intangible". He argues that it is best described as a pattern of entailment.

 

I am convinced that evolution has occurred. All the evidence suggests that it has in my estimation. And I don't believe in the supernatural. Yet I also believe that there is more to life than matter and evolution.

Legion, good morning.

To perhaps clarify, we probably agree on most of evolution's contribution to life; common descent from a probable single line, natural selection of survival traits, adaptive mutation, etc. I'll be interested in Rosen's description. I've made my way through the literature (casually, not academically) over the years and been impressed by descriptive discoveries and equally unimpressed by many extrapolated conclusions. I'm alert to statements that sound like 'obviously'; many are directional choices where the researcher's bias is painfully evident. Facts and descriptions are useful, biased extrapolations are less so. Perhaps Rosen will do better.

Have a great day,

Buddy

I also recommend both of you just to look at the article in Wikipedia about Emergence.

[Ouroboros]

Good point; I think your right regarding character being visible primarily in the context of the culture in which it is formed; it it's truly a product of consistent choice in the context of local standards, character and culture would be tightly linked. The reason for discussing character here is to suggest that there are elements of human existence which are outside the realm of science and math, not explained by physics or evolution. I didn't choose character as an example for any particular reason other than that it lends itself to the illustration; good character is counter-select, expensive, and of questionable benefit, however admirable it may be. Bad character (or the absence of character, however it might be described) is more prevalent, more likely survival/success/selectable, and much less expensive in terms of individual cost and effort. Character is one in a list of such human experience elements about which science doesn't seem to have much of substance to say regarding its' arrival or continuance. At least that's my impression so far.

Buddy

Maybe because "Character" is just a word we have arbitrarily made to be the definition for a certain trait in people, and maybe science isn't just interested in it. I'd like to see if you have any links or articles where scientists try to explain it but can't. I'm curious, because I actually think I could. It isn't Fermat's last theorem here, but just how something developes on responses to natural events.

 

I read that character also means moral quality, and that it could be one or several of these attributes: "integrity, courage, fortitude, honesty, loyalty, or virtue".

 

I will give it a little thought today, and perhaps answer you tonight or tomorrow, and we'll see if I can explain why someone would have these attributes... and using natural means of course.

[alanh]

Thinking and feeling are purely processes of matter/energy.

Mankey, I agree, however when talking about the significance or importance or "meaning" of thoughts and feelings (which apologists always do) I think we need to to bear in mind the concept of gestalt:

 

"A physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts."

 

Thinking and feeling are physiological processes, but they cannot be fully understood through physiology alone. In other words, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is where apologists always intentionally get it wrong with simple-minded reductionist arguments: according to science love is nothing more than a biochemical process, evolution means we're just a random collection of molecules, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

[Mankey]

And of course the third (fourth?) explanation would be that we have some "soul" or "life force" beyond the natural. Which just validates a million different versions of beliefs.

"Vitalism"/"Immaterialism" and Christian "dualism" have long since been debunked."

By DeludedGod

 

A little bit from the link.

 

"In dualism/immaterialism, there is a “seat” of the the mind, a single, unified essence of a person. This is sometimes called the homonunculus. Unfortunately, that was one of the first things to be flushed down the neuroscience toilet. The mind is fragmented. Different aspects of a person are handled by different parts of the brain. Two decades of neuroangiogram research has confirmed that. Neuroscientists can now construct a “map” of the brain. For higher cognition, there are many such areas, the temporal lobe, prefrontal cortex, as well as areas of sensory/cognitive integration such as the Somatic sensory cortex or the primary visual association cortex etc."

 

 

"In short, there is no brain function which is indivisible and unchanging, and certainly no brain function which is the domain of a mysterious immaterial, atemporal essence which does not even reside inside the brain. There is no function of the brain, not consciousness, not the mind, not cognition, or personality, or memory, which is not open to change, damage or destruction by disease, trauma, injury, chemicals, toxins etc or simply the everyday brain functions like synaptogenesis or serotonin release."

 

 

Compilation of works from DeludedGod

 

I know that some people have a prejudice against any opinions that may come from R.R.S. but they have a few people there that actually do science.

 

DeludedGod's stuff is at least worth a read.

 

There is absolutely no reason to posit a soul.

[Mankey]

Thinking and feeling are purely processes of matter/energy.

Mankey, I agree, however when talking about the significance or importance or "meaning" of thoughts and feelings (which apologists always do) I think we need to to bear in mind the concept of gestalt:

 

"A physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts."

 

Thinking and feeling are physiological processes, but they cannot be fully understood through physiology alone. In other words, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is where apologists always intentionally get it wrong with simple-minded reductionist arguments: according to science love is nothing more than a biochemical process, evolution means we're just a random collection of molecules, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

 

""A physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts."

 

We know of nothing beyond matter/energy. I am very green yet, but I am interested in the brain. I will try to catch up so that I can understand exactly what you are saying. THAT might take a while. hehe.

[dano]

Buddy says that the central story of Christianity, (THE RANSOM), the one you have to believe, to keep from going to hell is something that doesn't make any sense to him.

 

He says he believes in evolution.

 

He admits that his mystical experiences are probably "Mind Farts"

 

He doesn't take any of the Bible literally.

 

I ask you good heathens, does that make Buddy a Unitarian or what?

 

We really should try to be nicer to Buddy, cause he is confused, and just wants to talk.

 

All of his Christian friends have become brain dead robots, and Buddy hasn't anyone to talk to.

 

Welcome to Unitarianism Buddy. Welcome to ex-Christian!

[Mankey]

Buddy says that the central story of Christianity, (THE RANSOM), the one you have to believe, to keep from going to hell is something that doesn't make any sense to him.

 

He says he believes in evolution.

 

He admits that his mystical experiences are probably "Mind Farts"

 

He doesn't take any of the Bible literally.

 

I ask you good heathens, does that make Buddy a Unitarian or what?

 

We really should try to be nicer to Buddy, cause he is confused, and just wants to talk.

 

All of his Christian friends have become brain dead robots, and Buddy hasn't anyone to talk to.

 

Welcome to Unitarianism Buddy. Welcome to ex-Christian!

Yea....

 

Bump.