Nature as GOD

[REASON]

Wow, something is really wrong with your attitude to interpret what I said as

sarchastic jab! I did not say his atheism caused a feeling, and didn't even mean to imply that.

 

Really? So what motivated you to ask him, "And how happy are you now" in reference to him stating that he had let go of his Nature as God concept for an Atheist understanding?

 

Your implication was clear. It does you no good to try and backpedal now.

 

 

Just about every argument everyone has made, to what I am saying, is coming out of their own understanding of God, and their own understanding of what accepting a God is all about.

These arguements are a failure to grasp what I am saying.

 

Maybe that's because what you have been saying doesn't make a lot sense to others. You have not presented a very convincing argument for why it is important for people to adopt an understanding of Nature as God or Reason as God in my estimation. And no matter what you think of my attitude, I am not closed to a convincing argument. Maybe it's your communication style. Or maybe it's just that you are trying to convince the wrong audience. Maybe it's both.

 

 

Being okay with loosing one's identity, letting go of one's ego and everything attached to that ego, is psychological preservation, how?

 

I'm sorry, did I say that? I don't believe I said that. I don't believe I used the word ego once in my post. I don't believe I suggested anything about "losing one's identity."

 

My reference to psychological preservation had to do with the idea of pacifying oneself with a notion that a God is there to provide comfort, support, and hope during times of despair. It relates to my comments about having expectations of God. In this instance, it's the expectation that God, or at least a belief in God, will help you through a difficult period in your life.

 

Maybe you didn't think I was clear enough. Or maybe it has to do with the way you filter information. :)

[Overdog]

Besides, the animals are 10x more civilized in comparison to our species derived from the bible.

And the animals are not governed by the 10 commandments. Ha ha.

 

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.

[REASON]

Well, since I look to Nature as my teacher, then that means I accept 'Evolution'.

So I believe we are EA's. Than I learned from them that they are Vegans

I am aware of the abberation of the Chimps as eating monkeys but I attribute that to the human spirits infuencing them.

 

So being a Vegan, enables me to stay healthy at my present age of 90.

Also, my excelent circulation keeps my brain functioning at top capacity.

Need I say more?

 

Of course, Nature teaches the 'multiple' God system, so you have to be choosey.

So I respect the females as 'Creator' Gods and the Apes as our anscestral ancient relalives and 'muscle' GODS.

 

However, all our material goodies are copies from Natures creatures (species) as inventors(?)

 

Besides, the animals are 10x more civilized in comparison to our species derived from the bible.

And the animals are not governed by the 10 commandments. Ha ha.

 

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?

[C1ay]

This arguing is pathetic. Time and time again, I have said, we study nature and then infer something about God. God is an abstract concept. Why aren't you comprehending the concept of God being an abstract concept?

 

Why aren't you comprehending the fact that there is ZERO evidence for any deities? Invoking a mythical being to explain anything in nature is simply a cop out for those that are too lazy to pursue he truth.

[Thunderbird]

Why aren't you comprehending the fact that there is ZERO evidence for any deities? Invoking a mythical being to explain anything in nature is simply a cop out for those that are too lazy to pursue he truth.

 

Anyone who thinks mythology is not a good way to study man’s collective unconscious's, and not to mention mans ancient connection with nature is not only being lazy minded but narrow minded. I’m afraid you have shown time and time again you have an irrational hate for anyone that has any sacred view of nature. Having a “hate” for another's way of viewing the world leads to paranoia and suspicion and you start seeing things that aren't really there, like creationist. The most mind destroying superstitious concept a man can hold is one of hate toward’s his fellow mans belief in something they belief is sacred, and they do not share. If you really believed in the sanctities of thought you would not be attacking others with such vehement disregard of the truth as they see it. :)

[C1ay]

I’m afraid you have shown time and time again you have an irrational hate for anyone that has any sacred view of nature.

 

Far from it. I simply have an expectation for people to use science to support the claims that they come to a science forum to make. If someone doesn't like that then they should wander off to some forum of faith and make their claims, not come here and expect us to change our rules for them. If you want to believe in a deity that's fine. If you want to come here and claim that deities exist then prove it and do so via science.

 

BTW, thanks for that badge of honor you left in my user profile :)

[Thunderbird]

 

BTW, thanks for that badge of honor you left in my user profile :)

 

 

Your very welcome.....;)

[InfiniteNow]

Your very welcome.....

 

Your post is missing both an apostrophe and an e. The word you are searching for is "You're." :)

 

 

 

 

I enjoy reading your post, when you are not rude. You are intelligent, so I assume you know when you are being rude and have the ability to avoid that.

 

What if I told you that I consider it rude for you to continue with an assumption that nature is god without evidencing what benefit this brings? I find it rude that you are in a science forum and you are asking us to accept your premise without any evidence whatsoever that this approach does anything more than add a redundant and unnecessary term.

 

To be perfectly frank, it really doesn't matter what you consider rude. Rude to you is not to another, so that really has zero objective or useful application here.

 

Now, perhaps you would be "un-rude" enough to address the points I raised instead of brushing them aside using some subjective, biased, irrelevant label?

 

 

I encourage you, and everyone else, to review the video below. If you are TRULY interested in improving yourself and this culture, then perhaps watch the whole thing, and not just Part 2 of 8 which I've posted below.

 

 

YouTube - Sam Harris - The End of Faith (Part 2-8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrScXF98tH0

 

 

 

 

;)

[Overdog]

I was born and raised an ultra right-wing fundamentalist christian. My story is similar to the one Modest told, except my journey of mind was a bit more ardous. I recall suffering through years of guilt and fear, doubting God's existence one moment and praying for forgiveness the next. It wasn't untill I after I was an adult and had read many philosophy books and travelled the world that I arrived at a point where I could comfortably consider God as Nature. So I know it is tough to take that final step.

 

At that time, I called myself an agnostic. I saw so many different religions in my travels that it became apparent that one man's superstition was another man's religion.

 

One day I met a fellow traveller on the island of Guam. Somehow, we ended up talking about religion, and I professed myself to be an agnostic. He told me an agnostic was a person who didn't have the balls to decide one way or the other. I have been an athiest ever since, and finally rid of the guilt and fear. I cannot express how happy and fortunate I am that I managed to free my mind of all the superstitious crap I was indoctrinated with from childhood.

[Overdog]

I encourage you, and everyone else, to review the video below. If you are TRULY interested in improving yourself and this culture, then perhaps watch the whole thing, and not just Part 2 of 8 which I've posted below.

 

I've read Sam Harris's The End of Faith. Excellent book. I recommend it to anyone. Also "Breaking the Spell", by Danial C. Dennet.

[Thunderbird]

....or "The Demon-Haunted World: by Carl Sagan Science as a Candle in the Dark" Its an excellent video but I’m not sure who you think in the conversation needs to hear this. Its really not applicable to a person unless they are of the fundamentalist ilk, which I do not really see. If you see any, please do point them out specifically so as to understand why you need to make the point. that said,... I was driving though town the other day and a bumper stick read something to the effect "land of the free fought for by the brave" I said to my girl friend that's true, but you never read bumper stickers that say land of free fought with technology provided by engineers and scientist. Try throwing a spear at a laser guided missile. Any idiot can pull a trigger, try inventing a thermonuclear device. She thought that was funny... Just so you know I am ex-military, just making a point about how I see the roll of science.

 

 

You can always tell when ones a belief system is fundamentally ****ed up is when they put it on a bumper sticker.

However what you may not realize is this..... belief systems are not only good for what is known and can be proven.... There are other ways of utilizing beliefs systems that are far and away more important in the world than simply stating the facts of the past .

[Overdog]

....or "The Demon-Haunted World: by Carl Sagan Science as a Candle in the Dark" Its an excellent video but I’m not sure who you think in the conversation needs to hear this. Its really not applicable to a person unless they are of the fundamentalist ilk, which I do not really see. If you see any, please do point them out specifically so as to understand why you need to make the point. that said,... I was driving though town the other day and a bumper stick read something to the effect "land of the free fought for by the brave" I said to my girl friend that's true, but you never read bumper stickers that say land of free fought with technology provided by engineers and scientist. Try throwing a spear at a laser guided missile. Any idiot can pull a trigger, try inventing a thermonuclear device. She thought that was funny... Just so you know I am ex-military, just making a point about how I see the roll of science.

 

 

You can always tell when ones a belief system is fundamentally ****ed up is when they put it on a bumper sticker.

However what you may not realize is this..... belief systems are not only good for what is known and can be proven.... There are other ways of utilizing beliefs systems that are far and away more important in the world than simply stating the facts of the past .

 

Hey Thunderbird! Last I saw of you was in another thread, where you were slain, killed, and banished to hell. Maybe there is a God, because here you are, risen from the dead and raising just as much hell as before.

 

Hows that work? You just get banished from the thread? Or is 24 hours in purgatory?

 

Anyway I'm glad you're back!

[Overdog]

Quote:

 

...but I’m not sure who you think in the conversation needs to hear this

 

Anyone who believes in a god needs to hear it.

[InfiniteNow]

Its an excellent video but I’m not sure who you think in the conversation needs to hear this. Its really not applicable to a person unless they are of the fundamentalist ilk, which I do not really see. If you see any, please do point them out specifically so as to understand why you need to make the point.

Had you watched the presentation from Sam Harris which I shared above, you would be able to answer your own question. One of the key points he makes is the dangers of religious moderation, and how it provides a cover for the fundamentalists. He articulates multiple reasons why this is so, and I find myself agreeing with his approach.

 

 

I make this point because despite the fact that the god being espoused in this thread is not one of abrahamic origin, it is still false, it is still unnecessary, and it is simply another form of delusion which deserves direct confrontation from the reason of those not themselves deluded.

[Overdog]

I make this point because despite the fact that the god being espoused in this thread is not one of abrahamic origin, it is still false, it is still unnecessary, and it is simply another form of delusion which deserves direct confrontation from the reason of those not themselves deluded.

 

Ditto.

[nutronjon]

Really? So what motivated you to ask him, "And how happy are you now" in reference to him stating that he had let go of his Nature as God concept for an Atheist understanding?

Your implication was clear. It does you no good to try and backpeddle now.

 

Please, stop jumping to conclusions. I believe as we age, we go through many stages, and as I near the end of life, I am aware of going through different periods of believing and the feelings that went with them. My question was a sincere one, prompted by my own life experience. I was relating to what he said, based on my own experiences, and as one human with another. I was checking with him, like I check the temperature of my bath water before getting in the bath. He had a very pleasant experience and that changed. There is so much to talk about here. A change in feeling is one of the things to talk about, because what is true for him, is based on his feelings, not just his intellect. He has had an experience, feels something is true, and made an argument based on his experience and feelings.

 

Maybe that's because what you have been saying doesn't make a lot sense to others. You have not presented a very convincing argument for why it is important for people to adopt an understanding of Nature as God or Reason as God in my estimation. And no matter what you think of my attitude, I am not closed to a convincing argument. Maybe it's your communication style. Or maybe it's just that you are trying to convince the wrong audience. Maybe it's both.

 

I have provided at least one Cicero quote and several quotes from Jefferson, and said accepting reason, is the controlling force of the universe, is very important to understanding democracy. I understanding we stopped using the classics in public schools in 1958 and stopped educating for good moral judgement, and left moral training to the church, and that brings us to communication problem we are experiencing. However, I can not proceed with my arguements, when you are not ready to understanding them, and instead of asking questions I can anwer, everyone is keeping on me on the defensive. If any of you were picking up on the information I have provided, this discussion would progress, but that information is being ignored. None of this is my fault. I am doing the best that can be done, under these circumstances.

 

 

I'm sorry, did I say that? I don't believe I said that. I don't believe I used the word ego once in my post. I don't believe I suggested anything about "losing one's identity."

 

No you said nothing about ego. What I said about ego is pretty much a Buddhist point of view about how to avoid the pain of life. This is an extremely different from the western point of view, and how can we discuss this different point of view, unless there is some awareness of it, or at least a willingness of drop the assumptions and ask questions with an open mind?

 

My reference to psychological preservation had to do with the idea of pacifying oneself with a notion that a God is there to provide comfort, support, and hope during times of despair. It relates to my comments about having expectations of God. In this instance, it's the expectation that God, or at least a belief in God, will help you through a difficult period in your life.

 

This is very Western and so different from Eastern concepts.

 

Maybe you didn't think I was clear enough. Or maybe it has to do with the way you filter information.

 

I think you are being clear, and are limited to the Western concepts of reality, and basing your arguments on what you think about God and the people who believe in God, and are not on basing your arguments on what I am saying. I don't think you have the information necessary to understanding what I am saying. Your argument regarding ego, is a million miles from what I am talking about.

[InfiniteNow]

You are talking about god being something greater than some anthropomorphic being.

 

You are talking about avoiding limitations in our understanding, and discarding those preconceptions which are not at all likely to be accurate.

 

You are proposing that there is a great wealth of both insight and beauty in reason and in nature.

 

You are suggesting that without a clear view into the great rational complexity which is nature that we will fail as individuals and also collectively as a culture.

 

You are using the writings of seriously gifted writers and thinkers to show how you are not the first to propose this.

 

You are trying to share the passion and centeredness that you feel with others here in the fora so as they can potentially enjoy the same enrichment and connectedness which you yourself have found.

 

Don't tell me that I "just don't get it."

 

 

I want to know why understanding the beauty which is nature, which is this vast and awe inspiring universe in which we exist, requires some additional layer of needless and nondescriptive attribution which you choose to call god.