Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

cbayer

(146,218 posts)

1. I can't watch the video (being throttled by Verizon, but that's a different story), but

Reply to rug (Original post)

Mon May 7, 2012, 12:55 PM

May 2012

I like what he has to say here.

Those that take a positive position rather than the null position are offering some very interesting perspectives in these difficult days. There is much to relate to here.

I still object to the whole idea of labels when it comes to religion, though. Not everyone has to be something. Many just sit at the different tables and sample. At least that is what I do.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Case for Naturalism [View all] rug May 2012 OP

I can't watch the video (being throttled by Verizon, but that's a different story), but cbayer May 2012 #1

It's a good video (10:39). rug May 2012 #3

The idea of Naturalism has one thing that religions do not have. cleanhippie May 2012 #2

What do you think about his preference for the term Naturalism? rug May 2012 #4

Another idealist with a desire for superiority, painting atheism as a negative in order to get to it darkstar3 May 2012 #5

A Senior Research Associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology, rug May 2012 #9

That position negates the possibility of one being an idealist? darkstar3 May 2012 #15

Sean Carroll could use his own Princess Elizabeth. Jim__ May 2012 #6

Are you trying to say edhopper May 2012 #7

I am saying that Sean Carroll claims that if we put an atom into any set of circumstances, ... Jim__ May 2012 #10

So you don't want to answer my question edhopper May 2012 #17

No, you didn't ask what I think. You asked what I was trying to say. Jim__ May 2012 #18

Given that so far you have claimed that every reply to... eqfan592 May 2012 #20

Nowhere in this subthread did I say anyone misinterpreted my original post. Jim__ May 2012 #22

Posts 13, 18 and 19 would disagree with you. eqfan592 May 2012 #25

Posts 13 and 19 are not in *this* subthread; and post 18 is not about my original post. Jim__ May 2012 #26

They are subthreads of your original post. (nt) eqfan592 May 2012 #29

The whole is greater than the parts. rug May 2012 #8

That may be true. But based on Carroll's own words ... Jim__ May 2012 #11

So you're saying that the "animal spirits" of Descartes are on equal footing... eqfan592 May 2012 #12

No. That's not what I said. Jim__ May 2012 #13

No, he's saying that he believes we must allow for a god of the gaps. trotsky May 2012 #14

Your entire second paragraph is ridiculous on its face. laconicsax May 2012 #16

Your post is ridiculous on its face. Jim__ May 2012 #19

From your post: eqfan592 May 2012 #21

The sentence states it is "based on that claim". Jim__ May 2012 #23

Just because you say it is based on that claim... eqfan592 May 2012 #24

He is responding to Elizabeth's objection that she doesn't understand how the mind communicates ... Jim__ May 2012 #27

*sigh* (nt) eqfan592 May 2012 #30

Nice comeback. laconicsax May 2012 #34

No it isn't. Jim__ May 2012 #36

"[S]omeone who believes that there is only one realm of reality, LTX May 2012 #28

Natural laws are just our own tools of thinking. trotsky May 2012 #31

So in your view, mathematics is invented, LTX May 2012 #32

You're gonna need to lay down some definitions before I walk into that trap. n/t trotsky May 2012 #33

I don't think it's a trap. LTX May 2012 #35