Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really? Do atheists understand Nature as Christians understand God? What is the fallacy here?
God is a loaded word and it is understood only in one way - a creator being that will reward you and punish you with a heaven and hell. It is difficult to get past that in any discussion pertaining to spirituality or religion if we use that term to denote "something else." Do atheists believe in "something else"? How would you define it?
Perhaps the Gaia theory and 'anything is possible besides the supernatural'.
Arach has it right. I call it nature and you call it 'God'.
Which is absolutely fine, so long as you don't make it the basis for debunking atheism or saying our view is wrong. All the time you don't claim it is intelligent and somehow dabbles in human affairs with a forward - planning intent, we are apparently saying the same thing but in a different dialect.
The problem arises because of a lack of reciprocity with your demands about a default. The bold is fine so long as you don't make it the basis for debunking theism or saying our view is wrong.
Understanding "nature" is an attempt by humans to understand how the universe we exist in functions. We have learned, through practical experience, that the most productive method for understanding the functioning of nature is through empirical observation and practical experience. Empirica is the Greek word for experience.
Religion, on the other hand, is the attempt to understand nature as being the result of supernatural cause, as opposed to entirely natural cause. So a religious person attempts to explain a tornado, as one possible example, as a supernatural event deliberately caused with an intelligent intention. Empirical observation, on the other hand, explains a tornado as being the natural result, ultimately, of nature at work. Ultimately, like everything else that occurs, a tornado is the result of quantum mechanics in action. No intelligent intent is involved.
So what is the difference in understanding nature and "understanding" God? One is based on the direct observation of nature in action, and the other is based imagining a supernatural cause.
So... we are faced with two competing methods for attempting to understand the nature and function of the universe we exist in. One method has led to modern technology, i.e. electrical power, TV's, cell phones, robots on Mars, and the like. The other method has led to stories of devils and demons, belief in witches, flying reanimated corpses, and the like. One method is based on direct observation resulting in practical functioning applications, and the other method is based on make believe and wishful thinking, resulting in centuries of ongoing EMPTY CLAIMS.
So... which method has the better claim to being factual?
Whether or not God is the source of everything we discover and explain is the actual question, NOT what best explains how nature functions. Science has no answer and is impotent as regards finding an answer to that question. That is why theism and atheism are equal as answers based entirely on our preference. Religions are not probative.
Really? Do atheists understand Nature as Christians understand God? What is the fallacy here?
God is a loaded word and it is understood only in one way - a creator being that will reward you and punish you with a heaven and hell. It is difficult to get past that in any discussion pertaining to spirituality or religion if we use that term to denote "something else."
Do atheists believe in "something else"? How would you define it?
the difernce is, to me, is how we self correct. How do we know when to "change our minds" based on new information.
"Faith" vs "the scientific method" is what it really comes down to. Its not so much what we believe. It more important how we believe. And multi-leveled, that understanding includes how we treat people that don't believe like us.
Understanding "nature" is an attempt by humans to understand how the universe we exist in functions. We have learned, through practical experience, that the most productive method for understanding the functioning of nature is through empirical observation and practical experience. Empirica is the Greek word for experience.
Religion, on the other hand, is the attempt to understand nature as being the result of supernatural cause, as opposed to entirely natural cause. So a religious person attempts to explain a tornado, as one possible example, as a supernatural event deliberately caused with an intelligent intention. Empirical observation, on the other hand, explains a tornado as being the natural result, ultimately, of nature at work. Ultimately, like everything else that occurs, a tornado is the result of quantum mechanics in action. No intelligent intent is involved.
So what is the difference in understanding nature and "understanding" God? One is based on the direct observation of nature in action, and the other is based imagining a supernatural cause.
So... we are faced with two competing methods for attempting to understand the nature and function of the universe we exist in. One method has led to modern technology, i.e. electrical power, TV's, cell phones, robots on Mars, and the like. The other method has led to stories of devils and demons, belief in witches, flying reanimated corpses, and the like. One method is based on direct observation resulting in practical functioning applications, and the other method is based on make believe and wishful thinking, resulting in centuries of ongoing EMPTY CLAIMS.
So... which method has the better claim to being factual?
Attempting to clearly frame the differences in these two methods has a direct impact on how the various views on religion and spirituality are evolving. Not just on this forum, but in the world in general.
the definition of deity is the definition of a deity. But your type of god has enough evidence, scientifically speaking only, that all we can say is that we call it "this" and you call it "that"
I only point to the formal definition of "G-O-D" to show that it has a meaning that goes beyond just Deities.
Many do not accept any other meaning for "God" than Deities...which does not comport with what can be observed as to how it is actually fully defined.
And this is the logical conundrum: Either the Pantheist concepts that evolved my Spirituality, that I was made aware of by and through this forum, are a valid and meritorious way to define and manifest "G-O-D" (and thus God unequivocally and irrefutably exists), or those Pantheist concepts are not a valid & meritorious way to define and manifest God.
These concepts have no logical relation to, "Guy died, came back to life a few days later, and flew away". That does not comport with observations.
If "my type of God has enough evidence, scientifically...", then, that's a wrap, relative to the existence issue.
That is why I use the analogy of someone I perceive to be my "Friend"...even though others may not consider that person their friend, and just views them as a person called "John Doe"...does not then nullify that they are a *friend*, and thus "friends" do exist.
That's fine, and we have no quarrel, so long as you don't have a quarrel with anyone who uses the term 'nature' - pending the demonstration of anything beyond 'natural forces' Or unknowns (which prove nothing) for the way everything works and is.
That's fine, and we have no quarrel, so long as you don't have a quarrel with anyone who uses the term 'nature' - pending the demonstration of anything beyond 'natural forces' Or unknowns (which prove nothing) for the way everything works and is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
