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.
So I've been an atheist longer than you were, and all of my years are as an adult.
And I became an atheist through life-changing meditation.
Hmm.... that means one of us is right, and the other is wrong. How do you propose we settle this? Jello wrestling? Tiddlywinks? Global thermonuclear war?
No . . . it is simply another of the myriad definitions of disputed characteristics of God that also happen to NOT be easily tested and refuted.
Nature is the name we give for the world around us (does not imply that it is conscious); "God" is a name we give to a conscious controller of the universe (NOT THE SAME THING). Whether or not the universe is conscious is the same question as whether or not a "universe god" exists - the "universe god" being the "universe's consciousness". So the debate is not over the "attributes" of "God" but rather whether this "God consciousness" exists.
Your attempt to convince us that semantically "nature = God" will not change that.
Quote:
Reality . . . whatever else you prefer to believe about it . . . is as Godly as anything humans can possibly conjure up. Face it. Our piddling knowledge and puny efforts to decipher this majestic panorama before us is no substitute for the God that it represents . . . whatever you PREFER to believe about that undeniable God.
More bald assertions that the universe is conscious that you try to use to "prove" your point. Sorry, there is no observable "Godly" consciousness to "face". Again you make the mistake that we are ignoring something when there is no tangible evidence to ignore.
Quote:
You would rather keep your foot in the door for the unconscious universe without proof or rationale for it at all, right? Preference, pure and simple . . despite our massive ignorance and puny capabilities to ascertain the truth. That is pure hubris masquerading as neutrality.
I'm not making an assertion that there is no "universe consciousness". You are the one with haughty bald assertions.
Quote:
What exactly would be impressive and imposing enough to warrant the status of God relative to us puny beings?
That depends on semantics, but it would surely include a consciousness with control over the universe. Since that is not evident I have no reason to claim a god exists. How is that hubris?
So I've been an atheist longer than you were, and all of my years are as an adult.
And I became an atheist through life-changing meditation.
Hmm.... that means one of us is right, and the other is wrong. How do you propose we settle this? Jello wrestling? Tiddlywinks? Global thermonuclear war?
There is no way to settle it. For my part . . . this is explanatory with a goal to disabuse atheists of their unwarranted feelings of intellectual superiority over theists and the religious. There is NO scientific basis for their hubris. It is mere preference. I have yet to see a scientific explanation of their unwarranted position. which they inappropriately claim as the default view (Hint: That little Friar's nonsense will not suffice. It has been debunked repeatedly. The simplest is NOT always the best explanation.)
According to most sources there are between 450,000 to 1,000,000 distinct words in the English language, each with its own distinct standardized meaning that allows us to pick and choose the word that most appropriates the tone, feeling, or idea that we wish to convey. If we just used words to mean whatever we arbitrarily decided they meant, we wouldn't be able to effectively communicate with one another, as this thread has amply demonstrated.
The word Nature has been in the english language for about 700 years, and its earliest use was to describe "the inherent or dominating power or impulse which drives a person or living organism". At no time in that 700 year history has nature been considered a synonym for God, that is why we have the word "supernatural".
nature
c.1300, "essential qualities, innate disposition," also "creative power in the material world," from O.Fr. nature, from L. natura "course of things, natural character, the universe," lit. "birth," from natus "born," pp. of nasci "to be born," from PIE *gene- "to give birth, beget" (see genus). Original sense is in human nature. Meaning "inherent, dominating power or impulse" of a person or thing is from c.1386. Contrasted with art since 1704. Nature and nurture have been contrasted since 1874.
Nature should be avoided in such vague expressions as 'a lover of nature,' 'poems about nature.' Unless more specific statements follow, the reader cannot tell whether the poems have to do with natural scenery, rural life, the sunset, the untouched wilderness, or the habits of squirrels." [Strunk & White, "The Elements of Style," 3rd ed., 1979]
Nature is the name we give for the world around us (does not imply that it is conscious); "God" is a name we give to a conscious controller of the universe (NOT THE SAME THING).
Are you asserting that "Nature" does NOT control the universe???
Quote:
Whether or not the universe is conscious is the same question as whether or not a "universe god" exists - the "universe god" being the "universe's consciousness". So the debate is not over the "attributes" of "God" but rather whether this "God consciousness" exists.
If the control exists . . . it exists and must be explained. You prefer to ASSUME that this control is what? Capricious, chaotic, unconscious, . . . are those disputable attributes or not?
Quote:
Your attempt to convince us that semantically "nature = God" will not change that.
Only in the untestable realm . . . the existence of the control is undeniable.
Quote:
More bald assertions that the universe is conscious that you try to use to "prove" your point. Sorry, there is no observable "Godly" consciousness to "face". Again you make the mistake that we are ignoring something when there is no tangible evidence to ignore.
The control is as tangible as it gets. You want to ignore it without explanation. No sale.
Quote:
I'm not making an assertion that there is no "universe consciousness". You are the one with haughty bald assertions.
You assert there is control but refuse to account for it and claim that is neutrality. Give me a break! That is a denial of a controller.
Quote:
That depends on semantics, but it would surely include a consciousness with control over the universe. Since that is not evident I have no reason to claim a god exists. How is that hubris?
See above. It IS controlled . . . you just prefer NOT to account for it.
There is no way to settle it. For my part . . . this is explanatory with a goal to disabuse atheists of their unwarranted feelings of intellectual superiority over theists and the religious. There is NO scientific basis for their hubris. It is mere preference. I have yet to see a scientific explanation of their unwarranted position. which they inappropriately claim as the default view (Hint: That little Friar's nonsense will not suffice. It has been debunked repeatedly. The simplest is NOT always the best explanation.)
See, this is what we're talking about. "unwarranted feelings", "hubris", "inappropriately claim". These words imply that you are smarter/wiser/better/faster/prettier, which is a position of arrogance not born from any objective measurement, merely personal preference. You accuse of us unwarranted feelings of superiority while exhibiting that very behavior in the same sentence. This is what is known as "hypocrisy".
See, this is what we're talking about. "unwarranted feelings", "hubris", "inappropriately claim". These words imply that you are smarter/wiser/better/faster/prettier, which is a position of arrogance not born from any objective measurement, merely personal preference. You accuse of us unwarranted feelings of superiority while exhibiting that very behavior in the same sentence. This is what is known as "hypocrisy".
See. This is the response repeatedly. . . attacking me and my presentations on the basis of my character instead of addressing the assertions directly. It is the assertions that justify the adjectives. If you wish to refute the adjectives . . . refute the assertions . . . not my character.
See. This is the response repeatedly. . . attacking me and my presentations on the basis of my character instead of addressing the assertions directly. It is the assertions that justify the adjectives. If you wish to refute the adjectives . . . refute the assertions . . . not my character.
We have. When we do, we are told that we are ignorant, unwarranted, blind, inexperienced, biased, incapable, foolish, etc, etc.
It is your 3rd post in this thread, and right out of the gate you are using insulting and denigrating language to someone who asked you a pointed and thorough question. All you had to do was answer, but you instead chose to deflect and insult, from the beginning.
We have. When we do, we are told that we are ignorant, unwarranted, blind, inexperienced, biased, incapable, foolish, etc, etc.
Payback can be hell . . . but I do not say YOU (collective) as individuals are anything. It is your so-called explanations and arguments that are based largely on "taken for granted" or "it just is" nonsense without any empirical support or rationale for them. It is only human to assume a lack of familiarity with such reasoning and philosophical support for one's positions.
Payback can be hell . . . but I do not say YOU (collective) as individuals are anything.
Payback?
You don't say we are anything?
Do you truly think we are that stupid? Wait, you've already answered that.
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.
