Ted Hoffman

No Robots, what you are saying is thoroughgoing materialism. Are you a Physicalist? I thought you were into mysticism?
Oops, sorry. You have redefined what being "Real" means. I am outta here.

No Robots

The real can be understood in two ways: contingently as a unified material motion complex or absolutely as a unified ideal. Thus we are relative materialists and absolute idealists.

Clarice O'C

I like this one, learned from my philosophy professor:

"The spirit is intelligent, reasonable, responsible, compassionate, and loving. Most of all loving and therefore free!"

.

Peter Kirby

Howdy all, I'm just popping in to let you know, first, that I am reading along, and second, that I do have some definitions for the terms that I am using.

"Naturalism is consistent adherence to the reliability of sense experience and the validity of induction." This I wrote on June 1, 2003. I have an article on the Secular Web that has more detail concerning my take on naturalism.

And...Catholic? As quoted in the catechism from the dogmatic constitution on the church, "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation." I do not believe that teachings promulgated from the Roman see are all without error, but I have decided that this is the religious tradition and spiritual community with which I will wrestle in defining my faith.

...where do I go from here? I have doubts about discussing my faith on IIDB at all, not because I can't take criticism but because I don't have a whole lot of time for discussion boards and don't want to leave anyone hanging. If say I made a post and got 10 different people responding, the whole affair could snowball quickly if I made the good faith efforts to dialogue with each person. If anyone could explain to me a good method for posting to IIDB on faith matters without either too much acrimony or too much investment of time on my part (and please, not too much drama--I don't want a formal 1-on-1 debate in that section), then I might reconsider.

So with that said, I am popping out again until further notice. :wave:

Steve Schlicht

Oz never did give nothing to the tin man...

Steve

PS edited to add this was given as a precursor days earlier and basically the regression based on emotional appeal. Note that Islam was probably never even an option

So I'm having these feelings

Sauron

Don't use IIDB.

How about starting a blog instead? Someplace where we can read about your journey, your insights, even the wrestling and contemplation?

atheistica

nuh uh!!! lol http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=171073

David Vestal

You have time to read along and post about your faith, but not enough to respond to criticisms of it? :huh:

Peter Kirby

OK David, the further point of it is that point scoring (with smilies like :huh: so we can all keep track of who is scoring the points) is not something I'm looking for but is an inherent part of a many-to-many Internet medium (such as IIDB discussion board, IRC chat, etc.). I like the blog idea because it is a one-to-many plus many-to-one medium basically (the latter with feedback enabled), which allows for dialogue but elevates it from the prose analogue of a free-for-all rap duel.

David Vestal

I'm not scoring points, I'm pointing out that to merely post about your faith without engaging in critical dialogue is little better than preaching. I've no interest in snarky one-upsmanship in this particular conversation, precisely because the topic of reconversion has greater and more personal meaning to me than most topics discussed here.

Thus my dismay at your seeming unwillingness to discuss it.