The 'nature god' of atheists (reject, bible, worship, quote)

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Somebody spending considerable amounts of time and effort in fervent support of "SOMETHING" they have knowledge of, or faith in...and hold dear and precious--Indicative of a person of great commitment.

Somebody spending considerable amounts of time and effort in fervent debate about that which they proclaim is "NOTHING, nada, zip"...and hold as nonexistent---Indicative of a person in need of being committed.

Which particular atheists spend these "thousands of hours" arguing against your make-believe sky god?

The Atheists are "smart" enough not to believe in "something"...but not "smart" enough to refrain from spending thousands of hours of their precious life arguing about that which they define as "nothing". So much for "wisdom" and "common sense".[/quote]


In your opinion. You neglected to mention that so I corrected your oversight.

[Asheville Native]

Damn, this guy is further removed from reality than C34 and his big boat

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

You just defined "God" again. Will you stick with it?
These are your definitions:
"God" is the universe (all there is), and
"God minus beliefs about" is the scientifically validated universe (the known universe).
Again, these are your definitions.

Those are YOUR inferred definitions . . . stop putting words in my mouth. I am NOT concerned with BELIEFS ABOUT God . . . and all YOUR definitions contain them. I am looking for EVIDENCE that there IS a God/Creator . . . which is routinely denied (irrationally) using the very evidence that mandates that there IS one.You cannot define something you do NOT have ALL the characteristics of.

I am not defining anything . . . I am looking for (and finding) evidence that there is a God/Creator for all that exists. THAT there is one is incontrovertible . . . it is the evidence that has been absconded with under a pseudonym (an artifice to escape religious persecution) and used to demand "other proof" than what we abundantly have.

Hypocrite! This time I get to call out YOUR reading comprehension skills. The "known universe" is the "set of attributes in our scientific understanding of reality". What did you think I meant by "known"?

Reading comprehension fail #2: I said clearly "minus the 'beliefs about', as you insist". Yet you continue to accuse me of still discussing them. Fail

You are insisting that we ignore the "beliefs about", to discuss the "evidence that 'God' exists". So you really mean "evidence that "God minus beliefs about" exists", or in other words, "evidence that the scientifically validated universe exists."

There's that putting words in my mouth fallacy again. Either you intend to stick with scientific parameters for the EVIDENCE (NOT the definition) of God/Creator or not. The scope of the EVIDENCE does NOT delimit the scope of the phenomenon. Phenomena routinely can exceed the scope of what we can measure and KNOW. We are looking for SUFFICIENCY of EVIDENCE . . . NOT DEFINITIONS that always contain BELIEFS!!!

So again, NO ONE IS DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF THE SCIENTIFICALLY VALIDATED UNIVERSE! Get it through your enormous skull!

Then you CANNOT deny the EXISTENCE of God/Creator based upon differences in BELIEFS ABOUT God. Deny specific sets of BELIEFS all you want . . . and some of you seem to relish doing so with the kiddies . . . BUT the denial of EXISTENCE is a whole other ballgame that exceeds your abilities to justify apparently. Epic fail.

You must have failed the "fact vs opinion" unit in middle school.

I will simply have to reduce my estimation of your abilities Quarter-Logic.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

GoldenRule, you have something to understand about atheists. They come in two sizes

(1) those who don't know, think or care about god - belief

(2) those who think about it and don't see sufficient reason to believe.

The latter I denote 'thinking atheists' as they have thought about it.

The enormity of the god - delusion (as we see it) is such a pervasive. prolonged and pernicious one that we have to spend a long time countering it.

I can only speak for myself here but I am convinced that the logical rational and evidence - based worldview is the best one and the other, very pervasive, powerful and persuasive one is wrong. Fundamentally wrong. Even if it does make people behave better, wrong.

It holds up Faith as evidence, science as unreliable and inspiration better than research.

That worldview is worth spending a large section of our lives in countering, opposing and discrediting. We make no apology for it. We are dedicated, we are committed.

Ps. Common sense is not to be trusted. Common sense is what is put forward as a specious label for 'what I happen to believe'. Common sense says that the celestial bodies revolve around the earth. Common sense says that since the canal is most certainly flat the earth can't be curved (1) Common sense tells us that solid objects are solid, the sky is blue, a rainbow is a solid thing and lightning must be the weapons of a god. It takes science-based research to get to the truth. Science - based research with controls, double - blinds, checking, predictions, confirmation and constant reappraisal. That is what gives reliable evidence. Common sense does not, neccessarily.

(1) Owen 'Parallax' ... (flat earthists) offered £500 to any who could disprove him. It may be understood how difficult that was. His disciple, John Hamden, issued such a challenge and an experiment agreed at Old bedford canal with Wallace (co -developer of evolution theory with Darwin), referees being appointed. The bargee involved in the experient said he'd been up and down the canal all his life and he knew damn' well it was flat.

You have educated me to the Atheist mindset...and increased my understanding. For that I thank you...I always appreciate the opportunity to learn.

I am now hip to WHY you feel so passionate. And obviously it is true that some of you do... as demonstrated by the dedication and commitment that it takes to motivate some of you to devote the thousands of hours to put up thousands of posts debating a few strangers on some internet forum. But if I could ask you to educate me further...Where do you figure that's gonna get ya in your "quest" to debunk the "god-delusion"? It seems (well, not just "seems"...it IS) an incredibly inefficient/ineffective method of achieving your "goal".

P.S. Please don't stop...it provides me with great amusement. Sort of like watching a kitten chase it's tail.

[ChristyGrl]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

After much dialog with Mystic on this topic, I'm pretty sure I can safely answer for him in saying "neither." To put it analogously...

Think of electromagnetism as a "broad spectrum field" that you find everywhere in the universe. The laws of electromagnetism are, to our knowledge, universal (as are the other laws of physics). Whether you're looking at the first instances of the Big Bang, a black hole, or the sun, electromagnetism is involved.

Now, think of a lightning bolt. It is indeed a tremendous charge of electromagnetism but given the universality of electromagnetism in the universe, it is really not much more than a "localized event."

Of course, the four forces of the universe - the weak and strong nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity have yet to be unified. It is the strong opinion of most of the eminent physicists and mathematicians (Einstein, Lebowitz, Poincare, Minkowski, etc...) that a universal field must govern these four forces otherwise they don't really make much sense when put inside a singularity (black holes, Big Bang singularity, etc...)

In essence, to those following, the argument is over whether or not consciousness is that universal field and, if so, why you wouldn't call it "God." As well, the "human experience" would also be something of a "localized event" in relation to this universal field. And, as such, would be the localized event (think lightning) of that field (think electromagnetism).

That's a rough crash course and I feel like I spoke for Mystic but for some reason whenever this topic comes up I feel more agreeable with Mystic than I do from my Atheists brethren who clamor on with bloviations and rhetoric about Flying Spaghetti Monsters and leprechauns. Don't get me wrong... I love berating the traditional ideas of the monster most people worship as God as much as the next person. But, this is almost an entirely different argument and, for some reason, people can't seem to get that through their heads...

Perhaps it results due to the label of "God" being used. Why not just call it Universal Consciousness instead of God...methinks this would lead to less confusion on the part of those who don't believe in the bible God or any supernatural diety.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Mystic wrote above "The scope of the power is itself sufficient to qualify as God.

This is another argument but no better. In fact worse since it is nothing more that a rhetorical trick. It is pasting the 'god' label onto nature.

The rhetorical trick was pasting the "Nature" label onto God to avoid religious persecution.

Why call it nature rather than 'God' or even 'god'? Because, as said above the 'god' idea carries the assumption that there is a planning mind and this is not yet supported other than with 'it's right in front of you'.

Wrong. Those assumptions are BELIEFS ABOUT God . . . and have NOTHING to do with empirical evidence for God's EXISTENCE . . . which is incontrovertible. Our God/Creator has supplied us with abilities to learn as much as we can and explain HOW Creation works . . . but none of that can remotely be used to deny God's EXISTENCE . . . which relies on God's controls, processes, direction and intelligibility to achieve.

"The burden is yours to assign it elsewhere."

This is also a logical fallacy. Assuming what is to be proved. It is not new. Take 'god' as a given and demand that it be disproved. Doesn't work that way. YOU first need to give any good reason why we should first postulate a god.

There is no need to postulate anything. That a God/Creator is responsible for existence is indisputable in the face of the existence of Creation.

I can see where you are coming from Mystic. You look at the complexity and the way things work and simply cannot accept that nothing comes from nothing. You cannot entertain the idea that anything that survives survives because it works together in a way that works. If it doesn't it falls apart or becomes extinct. It is a logical fallacy (Occam's razor) to invent a planning mind to account for it when we don't really need to.

Again with the BELIEFS ABOUT crap and a non-fallacy fallacy. The Friar's "principle" is neither a fallacy nor science and has repeatedly been found to be false. Convince me with your philosophical erudition that what you suggest is remotely reasonable. I am fascinated at the ease with which some people seem to gravitate toward this "No Source" view.

Your insistence that evidence of a mind is evident in nature itself is just the watchmaker repacked. It is Creationism indeed, whether you like it or not.

The arguments for this mind are not complelling and come down to no more than belief, whether you like it or not - unless you can support that belief by some good scientific evidence FOR a 'god'. Not just picking holes in naturist theory or appealing to gaps for god, but some evidence FOR.

Your attempts to tar my views with the frauds associated with the Creationist and Discovery Institute ID movements will fail. We are not dealing with anything but science and reality here . . . no BELIEFS ABOUT allowed, period! I submit everything we know is proof for God/Creator and how Creation works. On WHAT scientific basis do you deny this? (This will require a fairly rigorous philosophical rationale . . . NOT your mindless parroting of your already unsubstantiated opinions).

And sticking the God - label onto what we have without first giving some good reason why we should do so is just a rhetorical trick.

Sticking the "Nature" label onto what we have without first giving a good reason why we should do so is just a rhetorical trick.

Look. The burden of proof really is on you. We are not supposing that we can convince you. We are waiting to see what you have to convince us.

It is you who claims no God/Creator in the face of the enormity of Creation. The empirical burden is yours . . . NO BELIEFS ALLOWED.

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Those are YOUR inferred definitions . . . stop putting words in my mouth.

The nerve that you can just deny what you clearly just did!

"God is all there is" you say, and then "I didn't define God"

ARE YOU EVEN READING WHAT YOU WRITE?

I am NOT concerned with BELIEFS ABOUT God . . .

And I got rid of them. I said "God minus beliefs about".

Clearly if you're reading, you aren't comprehending.

Still lost in your own sophistry to support your ego.

I am not defining anything . . .

You think you aren't, but that's idiotic because you can't have a discussion using terms that haven't been defined.

That's the problem.. you refuse to clarify definitions. Thus we go round and round, and all your huffing has tricked you into thinking you're smarter than everyone else, and maybe earned you a few lipstick marks on your ass from GldnRule. But all you've done is thrown smoke into the conversation in an attempt to obfuscate definitions.

I am looking for (and finding) evidence that there is a God/Creator for all that exists. THAT there is one is incontrovertible . . . it is the evidence that has been absconded with under a pseudonym

And again now (or still) you get your panties in a bunch over semantics..

(an artifice to escape religious persecution) and used to demand "other proof" than what we abundantly have. There's that putting words in my mouth fallacy again. Either you intend to stick with scientific parameters for the EVIDENCE (NOT the definition) of God/Creator or not. The scope of the EVIDENCE does NOT delimit the scope of the phenomenon. Phenomena routinely can exceed the scope of what we can measure and KNOW. We are looking for SUFFICIENCY of EVIDENCE . . . NOT DEFINITIONS that always contain BELIEFS!!! Then you CANNOT deny the EXISTENCE of God/Creator based upon differences in BELIEFS ABOUT God. Deny specific sets of BELIEFS all you want . . . and some of you seem to relish doing so with the kiddies . . . BUT the denial of EXISTENCE is a whole other ballgame that exceeds your abilities to justify apparently. Epic fail.I will simply have to reduce my estimation of your abilities Quarter-Logic.

Pathetic.. you don't even understand that you are talking about beliefs, while berating us for doing so.

If you weren't talking about beliefs, you would be talking about only what has been validated by science. AND NO ONE IS DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF WHAT HAS BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY VALIDATED.

[ChristyGrl]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Our Creator is everything that a God should be scientifically . . . that we differ in our BELIEFS about consciousness can NOT be used to assert there is NO God merely by renaming all the attributes that qualify as God without any scientific justification. You refuse to acknowledge that only our BELIEFS differ about what God MUST be . . . not our scientifically verified criteria.Ad populum. NO I am asking you to SCIENTIFICALLY justify the creation of a new word for God that has ALL the godly attributes verified by science . . . and claiming they are NOT God because you BELIEVE they are not conscious (you do NOT know).

Could you please define exactly what is your definition of God and what attributes you referring to and where were these attributes derived from which would qualify as God? I know that you don't believe in the bible God but I am having a difficult time trying to figure out exactly what is meant by you when you refer to God.

[old_cold]

Originally Posted by ChristyGrl

Could you please define exactly what is your definition of God and what attributes you referring to and where were these attributes derived from which would qualify as God? I know that you don't believe in the bible God but I am having a difficult time trying to figure out exactly what is meant by you when you refer to God.

LOL.Join the crowd.

Mystic insists "........stick with scientific parameters for the EVIDENCE (NOT the definition) of God/Creator or not."

How is one supposed to find evidence of something that isn't defined?
Tell you what......you tell me where I can find (I'm not going to tell you what) Just tell me where I might find it.
You shouldn't need a definition or description of what it is, right?

"you don't even understand that you are talking about beliefs, while berating us for doing so "
Logic gets the points on this one ^^

[le roi]

Originally Posted by agnostic soldier

Where does this idea crop up.

throughout human history. Some native americans, some asiatic religions like shintoism.

why is it that saying nature is not god is seen as arrogant by the folk who claim we believe in a 'nature god'?

perhaps those individuals who said that, are offended.

What evidence do these folk have for claiming saying something is natural/nature is no different than saying it is god?

if you're looking for evidence, you're in the wrong place. faith - which is belief in the absence of evidence - is the name of the game in religion.

All it does is make it a matter of useless semantics. Instead of calling it god why not just use the proper word-nature.

seriously? you just said yourself that these people draw no distinction between god and nature. therefore how can you expect them to consider nature an improper word for god?

It seems that those folk are making personal biases then trying to purport them as empirical fact.

this is fundamentally what religion is, no matter what you believe.