Nature as GOD

[Thunderbird]

Yeah, I helped my self.

Well that explains the chicken little Syndrome. Moontanman the sky is not falling, the earth is not doomed [not for a very very long time anyway] And the space program is not an evacuation plan. No man is an island and the cyber community is not a substitute for the real thing.:)If this does not apply to you just ignore it.

[Moontanman]

Well that explains the chicken little Syndrome. Moontanman the sky is not falling, the earth is not doomed [not for a very very long time anyway] And the space program is not an evacuation plan. No man is an island and the cyber community is not a substitute for the real thing.:)If this does not apply to you just ignore it.

 

Thank you T-Bird, gosh darn it I feel like a completely different person already:yay_jump:

[Cathryn]

Want a definintion of God?

God is energy!

[freeztar]

Want a definintion of God?

God is energy!

 

How is God energy?

[Cathryn]

Well, it just makes sense. Reconciles God and science. Answers all the questions. Though it may help to know what God is up to in creating the universe! Which of course is to experience physicality. That's all we're doing and she doesn't really care how we go about it. That's what 'free will' is about. He can't give us free will and then put restrictions on any action. That's why knowing that God is energy and therefore God is nature helps us all. We begin to see that everything is made of the same 'stuff', just in differing densities; it interacts with itself and therefore whatever happens with one part of the 'energy field' affects the rest. It's empowering to know your not here 'by chance' and 'for no particular reason'. And of course because we are all 'made of energy'; we all are God, individualy and collectively.

[C1ay]

Well, it just makes sense. Reconciles God and science. Answers all the questions.

 

Which God? Which questions? In what ways are the answers known to be "the" truth as opposed to the assumption "God did it"? In the search for true knowledge how does the leap to "God did it" provide any answers at all?

[Thunderbird]

Thank you T-Bird, gosh darn it I feel like a completely different person already:yay_jump:

Ok, I had that one comming.

[freeztar]

Well, it just makes sense. Reconciles God and science. Answers all the questions. Though it may help to know what God is up to in creating the universe! Which of course is to experience physicality. That's all we're doing and she doesn't really care how we go about it. That's what 'free will' is about. He can't give us free will and then put restrictions on any action. That's why knowing that God is energy and therefore God is nature helps us all.

 

How is that any different from worshiping atoms, or photons? How does it "help us all"?

 

We begin to see that everything is made of the same 'stuff', just in differing densities;

 

So chlorine gas and me are made of the same thing, just different in density?

 

it interacts with itself and therefore whatever happens with one part of the 'energy field' affects the rest.

 

I think I agree with you here, but it's a little vague. What do you mean by 'energy field'.

 

It's empowering to know your not here 'by chance' and 'for no particular reason'.

 

Winning the lottery is also empowering.

I honestly get no less satisfaction or empowerment from my disbelief than I did from my belief in god. But I understand how people can feel this way. I think it's fine for people to feel that way as long as that feeling doesn't turn into proselytizing.

 

And of course because we are all 'made of energy'; we all are God, individualy and collectively.

 

I used to think this as well. The collective unconscious is an interesting idea that allows one to transcend into a creative vision of the universe.

I have decided that it is just a way of thinking about the universe and causality. It's a mindframe, a mindset. It can be a productive way to think, but it does not mean that it is true.

 

Why not just call energy, energy? Why must it be the source of mystical wonder? Science has a very specific meaning for the word energy. How do we reconcile this with god?

[REASON]

Hi Cathryn. Welcome to Hypo.

 

It's empowering to know your not here 'by chance' and 'for no particular reason'.

 

I imagine this is the crux of the matter for you. It is for many people. A great majority of people find it very unsatisfying to believe that there isn't some grand intelligence behind all of this. You used the word "empowering" but I think you are essentially saying the same thing.

 

It appears that like nutronjon, you have abandoned the all powerful, external, God the Creator notion of god - the God of Abraham - in favor of an everything in nature is God concept. For some reason you have been able to reject the Abrahamic God, but are not ready to completely reject all god concepts.

 

What would it mean to you if you were to try and imagine that there were no god what-so-ever? Does it make the vast, complex, and wonderful universe seem somehow less important? Does it make you feel less important?

 

I wonder if you would feel the same if from the time you were born, nobody ever mentioned the concept of a god to you.

[Thunderbird]

The concept of god, gods or a spirit world are universal concepts, in all cultures. It more a natural outgrowth of evolution of consciousness.

 

 

 

 

“The goal of life is to make your heartbeat match the beat of the universe, to match your nature with Nature.”

Joseph Campbell quote

[REASON]

The concept of god, gods or a spirit world are universal concepts, in all cultures. It more a natural outgrowth of evolution of consciousness.

 

I completely agree with this, T-Bird.

 

If you agree that spiritualism and god concepts are only universal in human beings, and you agree that all human beings have originated and evolved from a primate species in northern Africa, and you agree that spiritualism and god concepts arise out of a sense of unknowing, which would be an obvious characteristic of early human kind, then it is not surprising that spiritualism and god concepts were essentially born with our species and have been modified and expanded upon as they have been passed down generationally.

 

As a species, we have grown up with these concepts, and given a tremendous amount of credence to them as a part of our existence. In many ways, they could be described as inherent. So much so in fact, that most of us grow up believing that the universe is lacking without God. Would we if no one ever mentioned it?

 

I imagine that as our consciousness and understanding of the universe continues to evolve through science, spiritualism, mysticism, and god concepts will go by way of our appendix. It will still be part of us, but will serve less purpose.

 

This assumes we don't destroy ourselves out of ignorance first.

[freeztar]

Well said, REASON!

 

If god as nature is part of human evolution, then it's quite possible, that it would express itself less and less as its usefulness wanes, if it indeed wanes. Time will tell.

[InfiniteNow]

Winning the lottery is also empowering.

I honestly get no less satisfaction or empowerment from my disbelief than I did from my belief in god. But I understand how people can feel this way. I think it's fine for people to feel that way as long as that feeling doesn't turn into proselytizing.

 

Let me preface by saying that I know you and I are in near total agreement overall on this issue, and also that we have a very similar passion for a reasonable approach to the universe.

 

However, I think this is one place where you and I disagree. You mention that you "think it's fine for people to feel that way."

 

I don't.

 

I respect their right to believe that way. I respect their freedom to do so, but I don't think it's fine for people to feel that it's okay to place all power into an unprovable, unnecessary, delusional unicorn. My stance is that this is precluding our advancement as a species, as a culture, and as a mature society. It places a fundamental limit on what we can achieve, and all because people either a) cannot understand the vast beauty and reasonableness which is the scientific approach, or actively seek to impede that approach because it conflicts with their personal religious teachings, convictions, and beliefs.

 

So, I DON'T think it's okay for people to disregard the actual process which caused us as humans to come about. I DON'T think it's okay for people to suggest some unecessary "specialness" in humans, especially when this is based on a fairy tale.

 

I just take a stronger stance against such beliefs and feelings than you, that's all. I respect people's right to believe such things, but even if they are not proselytizing those beliefs, I don't think it's fine for them to have them.

 

With all of that said, I know that we align much more than not, and also that you likely agree to an extent with my comments above, you're just softer in the way you express them.

[freeztar]

Let me preface by saying that I know you and I are in near total agreement overall on this issue, and also that we have a very similar passion for a reasonable approach to the universe.

 

However, I think this is one place where you and I disagree. You mention that you "think it's fine for people to feel that way."

 

I don't.

 

Well, this is great that we have an opportunity to debate each other. :)

 

I respect their right to believe that way. I respect their freedom to do so, but I don't think it's fine for people to feel that it's okay to place all power into an unprovable, unnecessary, delusional unicorn. My stance is that this is precluding our advancement as a species, as a culture, and as a mature society. It places a fundamental limit on what we can achieve, and all because people either a) cannot understand the vast beauty and reasonableness which is the scientific approach, or actively seek to impede that approach because it conflicts with their personal religious teachings, convictions, and beliefs.

 

So, I DON'T think it's okay for people to disregard the actual process which caused us as humans to come about. I DON'T think it's okay for people to suggest some unecessary "specialness" in humans, especially when this is based on a fairy tale.

 

I just take a stronger stance against such beliefs and feelings than you, that's all. I respect people's right to believe such things, but even if they are not proselytizing those beliefs, I don't think it's fine for them to have them.

 

With all of that said, I know that we align much more than not, and also that you likely agree to an extent with my comments above, you're just softer in the way you express them.

 

I agree that we should all strive to help our species along.

 

Which do you find more offensive IN?

a) a belief in an abrahamic god

:) a belief in nature as god

 

We can agree that neither answer is valid, but there is no overarching authority for either of us to impose this upon another individual, imho.

I will diligently question and inquire upon these beliefs that are held by societies. I will refute faith and question science. The rights that you spoke of are very important.

[Mike C]

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

 

In sum:

Quote

[*]Claims of any god should be challenged like any other assertion, and not provided some unearned censorship from criticism

 

Reply

Agree

 

Quote

[*]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

 

Reply

Agree

 

Quote

[*]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.

 

reply

Stalin was kicked out of a seminary in Russia for lack of obedience.

So he apparently had some religious training.

But his actions complied with the biblical spirit that was genocidal

 

Hitler IMO, was a Karmic spirit that punished the Jews for Stalins actions.

 

Quote

[*]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

 

Reply

False. I used to hunt, fish and play the horses. So my feelings for these creatures changed when I saw the abuse of same.

 

Quote

[*]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.

 

Reply

No comment

 

Quote

[*]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.

 

Reply

False

 

Quote

[*]Calling nature god offers zero benefit, is unsupportable, and should be rejected as nothing more than an irrelevant and unnecessary obfuscation.

 

Reply

Nonsense

 

Quote

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.

 

Thanks

 

Mike C

[InfiniteNow]

I agree that we should all strive to help our species along.

 

Which do you find more offensive IN?

a) a belief in an abrahamic god

:) a belief in nature as god

 

Perhaps you will first answer a question for me: Which do YOU find more offensive? a) Purple unicorns; :) Green Unicorns

 

I sort of reject your question on it's face, because it's asking me to choose between two equally ridiculous assertions.

 

However, let me take a moment to clarify that I don't find either of them "offensive." I find people's belief in the absence of evidence offensive.

 

I don't find the tooth fairy or easter bunny offensive, either. I find people who ascribe powers and existence to these things after their toddler years offensive.

 

 

We can agree that neither answer is valid, but there is no overarching authority for either of us to impose this upon another individual, imho.

 

Ah... but it's not about "imposing," nor about "overarching authority." It's about teaching, and helping to form a respect in others for the importance of reasonableness and evidence.

 

So, to an extent, if we make that "overarching authority" the principles of the scientific method and an appreciation for rationality and reason, then I whole heartedly suggest that we "impose" it on others.

 

Unfortunately, all too often people wear their faith in the absence of evidence as a badge of honor, and we must first extinguish such a limiting mindset if we are ever to reach them on a level which is meaningful.

 

 

 

 

To Mike C:

 

I'm not going to respond to your post. I will likely get myself infracted if I say to you the things I am thinking.

[Mike C]

More civilized than what?

 

This is easy to answer.

All evils in Nature are done to survive except of course the carnivors consumptions of their own offspring.

 

On the other hand, people at the top levels act for the power of their egos that far exceeds their survival needs.

 

Mike C