Nature as GOD

[InfiniteNow]

This idea of "where would morality come from if there were no religion" or "no belief in god," regardles of how how personally choose define that... is thoroughly null and void, and it's been an excuse for worse evil than it has ever ameliorated.

 

Got 10 minutes? This approach is one of the best I've seen (specifically Christophers comments roughly 4 minutes in, after Peters comments):

 

YouTube - Hitchens vs. Hitchens (8 of 14) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOsKxVMvTXw&feature=PlayList&p=D235CA219715C124&index=7

 

 

 

And later in that same debate, another powerful point along the same lines as the above:

 

YouTube - Hitchens vs. Hitchens (12 of 14) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8gTswFbKo0&feature=PlayList&p=D235CA219715C124&index=11

 

 

 

For there to be a fair test about this, you'd have to do the following, and no one I've ever debated with has even tried it, so you be the first.

 

You find me a state or society that threw off theocracy and threw off religion and said, "We adopt the teachings of Lucretius, and Democratus, and Galileo, and Spinoza, and Darwin, and Russell, and Jefferson, and Thomas Payne... and we make THOSE what we teach our children... We make THAT scientific and rational humanism our teaching."

 

You find me that state that did that and fell into tyranny, and slavery, and famine, and torture, and THEN we'll be on a level playing field. As it is, all you've done is show that the idea of worship, and the idea of credulity, and the idea of servility and slavery to religion is a bad idea in the first place.

[Mike C]

In the meantime, you seriously need to watch this and try to learn from the positions shared:

 

Does God Exist? | Events recordings | American Jewish University ( AJULA ) formerly University of Judaism

 

 

Your logic above is incomprehensible, and based on so many flawed, yet simultaneously accpeted premises that your conclusions are inherently flawed as well.

 

 

The above is the full debate, just under 2 hours long, and worth the watch.

 

 

The much shorter sections of the debate which are specific to your underlying tone about Stalin and Hitler and your negative slant on atheism using them as your props are linked below:

 

 

YouTube - Sam Harris defends atheists AND Christians from past tyrants

 

 

The earlier exchange which prompted that question:

 

YouTube - Sam Harris vs David Wolpe 04

 

 

 

 

 

Further, if you are moving forward accepting that a belief in god is the basis of good things, then you must by default also except how that same belief quickly results in bad things.

 

 

My 'sound' does not work on 'Your Tube'. Can you quote the summation of those talks?

 

Mike C

[InfiniteNow]

My 'sound' does not work on 'Your Tube'. Can you quote the summation of those talks?

 

Mike C

 

Sure, Mike. I'd hoped to find you a transcript, but was unsuccessful in my search.

 

In sum:

• Claims of any god should be challenged like any other assertion, and not provided some unearned censorship from criticism
  
• The fact that someone does not accept god, and rejects it as a specious and childish concept, does not make them a bad person, nor any more prone to immoral actions
  
• The atrocities committed by Hitler and Stalin were not the direct result of their atheism. It was not their deeply held belief in the value of critical thinking and empirical evidence which inspired them to commit such tremendous horrors. To ascribe the motivation of those acts to a lack of belief in god is academically dishonest, inaccurate, and severely misguided.
  
• If one claims that religion or belief in god are the source of morality and good society, they are blatantly ignoring evidence to the contrary. They are cherry picking their evidence, and wearing the rose colored glasses of delusion
  
• It is not religion or belief in god that brings good things. It is more appropriately described by the community effect and our evolved tendencies. There is no one thing, no single positive act or deed, that a believer in god can do that an atheist cannot.
  
• Every time someone claims that there is a god, or that nature is god, or anything whatsoever about god, they are engaging in terrible logical fallacies and must assume a priori that their premise is correct, despite the blaring lack of support for said premise.
  
• Calling nature god offers zero benefit, is unsupportable, and should be rejected as nothing more than an irrelevant and unnecessary obfuscation.
  

 

 

I imagine others watching the videos I shared would take other points from them as well, but those were a few off the top of my head. I hope that helps.

[Mike C]

Civilization and that all it entails, is the result of efforts by our ancestors to protect themselves and their children FROM the capricious ravages of Nature.

 

Well, I do have some respect for technology and our copies of Natures birds as promoting air flight, the beavers as sources for our river dams, fish as submarines, turtles as military tanks, the use of sonar evolving to radar from the bats and dolphins and possibly other such inventions.

 

But how do you explain the J. Stalins, Al Quida and other such abberations of people?

 

Mike C

[Moontanman]

Did anyone help you ?

 

Yeah, I helped my self.

[C1ay]

Personally, I'm fine with Nature is God, but as C1ay points out that's an *opinion* that is unsupported, and I think definitionally, unsupportable.

 

I do not personally believe there is any thing that is particularly wrong or unsupportable about being a pantheist per se but....

 

When you get down to the nitty gritty you find that there are as many different definitions for the word God as there are people on Earth. If someone then wants to use "God" as a synonym for "nature" then it is implied that there are just as many definitions for nature. That is not helpful in the overall effort to study and learn about the one true nature which I think we can agree exists where we'll never agree that there is only one true definition of God because people are always going to use their beliefs in defining God and belief does not mean truth.

[Mike C]

More "monkeys" than just chimps eat meat,

baboons eat meat as do many tree dwelling monkeys of both the new

and old world. Many primates will eat meat when they can catch

another small animal.

 

Yes you need to get off your ego more, your eating habits may be

very commendable but then again you see people who live past one

hundred that eat read meat routinely and smoke cigars and drink

liquor. You have good genes. Just because you don't eat meat

doesn't mean that is what is keeping you alive or what keeps

your brain functioning.

 

What ever floats your boat

 

That does not make sense, can you be specific?

 

Well, how about bird study led to aircraft, beaver dams to river

dams, fish led to submarines, bats and dolphins led to sonar

evolving to radar, turtles to military tanks, ducks to boats,

bird nests to housing and possibly others such things.

 

How is this true? Animals are far more violent than humans, even

carnivores that are very social do things like kill all the young

after they kill the leaders so they don't have to raise the

babies of the last leader. Nature is full of violence. Humans have

cut back on the violence by a considerable margin compared to most

social mammals.

 

Animal do not commit genocide, diabolicle lab research, drive

species to extinctions, destroy huge tracts of forests to create

'global marming', pollute the air and waters to create health

problems and other such problems.

 

The problems you cite above are isolated incidents that involve

survival primarily.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Oh dear, Mike, your knowledge has some holes in it. The purpose of studying nature is to know the laws. Our laws are supposed to be based on the laws of nature. If you can, google "Cicero and God" for a better understanding of "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God". If at least two of us understand this line of of reasoning, reasonable discussion might follow.

 

Jon

 

I said that the 'biological' Nature is not governed by laws but by DNA

 

Only physical nature complies with some laws of physics.

 

Mike C

[Overdog]

But how do you explain the J. Stalins, Al Quida and other such abberations of people?

 

Mike C

 

What does this have to do with the idea of Nature as God?

[InfiniteNow]

I said that the 'biological' Nature is not governed by laws but by DNA

 

Only physical nature complies with some laws of physics.

 

Just because you are in the theology forum does not mean you are given free reign to lie and completely misrepresent the truth. The above comment couldn't be more wrong, as the laws of physics apply equally in all reference frames, including nature and biology.

[Mike C]

To be honest, this wasn't exactly the explanation I expected. It sounds as if you're saying that because you see nature as your teacher, you give it authority over how you have chosen to live your life. And because the concept of god is most often described authoritatively, you are equating the authority you assign to nature as your teacher with the authority that is typically attributed to god. Such that nature as god means that nature is all powerfull and authoritative as a result of natural law.

 

Am I grasping what you are trying to convey?

 

You will notice that the Roman Church has straigthened the Jewish OT out by

their portrayal of woman as 'holy mothers' rather then woman beiing sinners.

 

This is Nature being taught.

This prompt has given the Roman popes the ultimate power that is built into our language subliminal psychology.

All the 'P' words in our language are good words while on the other hands, the bad words are the 'M' words.

This psychology is an insult the to mothers, man and monkeys.

 

The irony of this is that the 'gun and the cannon' are the main factor in this boost to power. The Romans invented the GaC back in the 13th century.

 

I could go on but these extended posts take up too much time.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

What does this have to do with the idea of Nature as God?

 

That Nature is more civilized.

 

Mike C

[freeztar]

That Nature is more civilized.

 

Mike C

 

More civilized than what?

[Overdog]

That Nature is more civilized.

Mike C

 

I believe you are mis-using the word "civilized" Mike.

 

This is the common definition of civilized.

as found here: civilized: Definition, Synonyms and Much More from Answers.com

 

1. Having a highly developed society and culture.

2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable.

3. Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.

 

If anything, I'd say Nature is the very absence of "civilized".

[Moontanman]

Well, how about bird study led to aircraft, beaver dams to river

dams, fish led to submarines, bats and dolphins led to sonar

evolving to radar, turtles to military tanks, ducks to boats,

bird nests to housing and possibly others such things.

 

You are putting the cart before the horse, humans built all of these things and then compared them to the animals not the other way around.

 

Animal do not commit genocide, diabolical lab research, drive

species to extinctions, destroy huge tracts of forests to create

'global maiming', pollute the air and waters to create health

problems and other such problems.

 

The only reason they don't do these things is because they cannot, the reason we do is because we can (reminds me of a joke) ;)

 

The problems you cite above are isolated incidents that involve

survival primarily.

Mike C

 

BS, these things are how animals survive in the wild, survival is what they do, it's also what we do. Saying they only do these horrific things to survive is like saying I am not a Murderer because I only did it so I could take his food to eat. An animal will take food from babies in an instant if they can. They don't care or worry about hurting any one or anything to get that they want. At least humans try to deal with the needs and urges in a manner that seeks to do as little harm to each other as possible. When was the last time you heard of a human male invading a home killing the husband and children and keeping the wife the home the the husbands job and no one doing anything about it? We don't allow such things but animals do these things as part of their life style. Animals will do what ever they need to do to make their lives easier. If catching and killing a small animals is easier than foraging for food an animal that can eat meat will. If an animals can tear down and kill an entire tree to get a few bites from the tops leaves they will! If animals can devastate an entire ecology they will. The only stops on them are other animals and their lack of ability to do what every they find to do. Animals are not some sort of noble superior being, they are not even as noble as we are, at least we try to stop such behaviors, animals don't and don't care or want to do so.

[freeztar]

I believe you are mis-using the word "civilized" Mike.

 

This is the common definition of civilized.

as found here: civilized: Definition, Synonyms and Much More from Answers.com

 

1. Having a highly developed society and culture.

2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable.

3. Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.

 

If anything, I'd say Nature is the very absence of "civilized".

 

That's a good point. ;)

[Overdog]

That's a good point. :)

 

Thank you.

 

Now if Mike will just show us some of the qualities in definition 2. ;)