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.
That only works if you pretend that 'God' and 'nature' are meaningless labels that carry no baggage. You can only do that by ignoring the examples of the 'baggage' attached to the 'God' label in the definition and pretend that it only means 'reality' (everything that exists).
Nature also has baggage, which is everything that exists or let's see.
Hmm - well. Definition of nature
1a: the inherent character or basic constitution (see CONSTITUTION sense 2) of a person or thing : ESSENCE
the nature of the controversy
b: DISPOSITION, TEMPERAMENT
it was his nature to look after others
— F. A. Swinnerton
her romantic nature
2a: a creative and controlling force in the universe
b: an inner force (such as instinct, appetite, desire) or the sum of such forces in an individual
3: a kind or class usually distinguished by fundamental or essential characteristics
documents of a confidential nature
acts of a ceremonial nature
4: the physical constitution or drives of an organism
especially : an excretory organ or function —used in phrases like the call of nature
5: a spontaneous attitude (as of generosity)
6: the external world in its entirety
7a: humankind's original or natural condition
b: a simplified mode of life resembling this condition
escape from civilization and get back to nature
8: the genetically controlled qualities of an organism
nature … modified by nurture...
Obviously covers a lot of terms but including a few terms for things in their entirely. That's 'Everything' and Reality - not 'God'. Until you can validate with evidence the baggage that other bring to the word 'God' - because you do not get to impose your own meaning on the word as it suits you - you have nothing but a semantic swindle.
Trans, what is it about Mystic's beliefs (panentheism) that bothers you so much? I don't understand why you care so much. He ridicules Christian fundamentalism, which should endear him to you.
I thought you didn't have a big problem with people who hold supernatural beliefs, as long as they aren't traditional Abrahamic religions. Why do you focus so much attention/criticism on Mystic's beliefs and no criticism on the sorta-godders who believe in deistic gods, the afterlife, immortal souls and spirits?
Is it because Mystic associates himself with Christianity, even though his beliefs are his own invention?
Trans, what is it about Mystic's beliefs (panentheism) that bothers you so much? I don't understand why you care so much. He ridicules Christian fundamentalism, which should endear him to you.
I thought you didn't have a big problem with people who hold supernatural beliefs, as long as they aren't traditional Abrahamic religions. Why do you focus so much attention/criticism on Mystic's beliefs and no criticism on the sorta-godders who believe in deistic gods, the afterlife, immortal souls and spirits?
Is it because Mystic associates himself with Christianity, even though his beliefs are his own invention?
Another poison well fallacy. Pretending it is anti-Christian is dishonest.
I do not think it is irrelevant that you and CS Lewis and you had a similar view of morality.
It is irrelevant because all the work on innate morality does not require any input from C S Lewis, and you could address innate morality without referencing C S Lewis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
Why do you think your morality is better than the morality of someone that disagrees with the above?
Why is rational moral arguments better than what you call tribalism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
Do you know why most engineers are men?
Yes, and if you answered my question, you would understand the problem with why most engineers are men.
Trans, what is it about Mystic's beliefs (panentheism) that bothers you so much? I don't understand why you care so much. He ridicules Christian fundamentalism, which should endear him to you.
I thought you didn't have a big problem with people who hold supernatural beliefs, as long as they aren't traditional Abrahamic religions. Why do you focus so much attention/criticism on Mystic's beliefs and no criticism on the sorta-godders who believe in deistic gods, the afterlife, immortal souls and spirits?
Is it because Mystic associates himself with Christianity, even though his beliefs are his own invention?
two words "moral activism"
They believe they are on a mission for a statement of belief about god. Just like some theist take a belief in things greater than myself way to far, they take bad religion way past what rational people do.
Trans, what is it about Mystic's beliefs (panentheism) that bothers you so much? I don't understand why you care so much. He ridicules Christian fundamentalism, which should endear him to you.
I thought you didn't have a big problem with people who hold supernatural beliefs, as long as they aren't traditional Abrahamic religions. Why do you focus so much attention/criticism on Mystic's beliefs and no criticism on the sorta-godders who believe in deistic gods, the afterlife, immortal souls and spirits?
Is it because Mystic associates himself with Christianity, even though his beliefs are his own invention?
No. In fact I'm a bit surprised you ask. Quite apart from us agreeing on a lot (OT for one thing), Mystic has a nice little hypothesis. I appreciate that it is a hypothetical mechanism for 'God'. Other theism just makes it a spirit with no real description. It just has no real support for it, only speculation or perhaps interpretation of science. The inversion of the evidence and logic is par for theist course.
Even the repetition of the same arguments is expected, but I do rather expect them from different people. Even Pneuma , BF and Julian move on and try a new gimmick.
The beef with Mystic is what I said - he pops up in every other thread and start peddling his theory yet again, and the same argument goes the same way as the other 200 times. Even I'm not as bad as that.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-14-2021 at 08:23 AM..
Even the repetition of the same arguments is expected, but I do rather expect them from different people. Even Pneuma , BF and Julian move on and try a new gimmick.
The beef with Mystic is what I said - he pops up in every other thread and start peddling his theory yet again, and the same argument goes the same way as the other 200 times. Even I'm not as bad as that.
If you stop thinking about the posts in this forum as "gimmicks" you might get a clue about what sincerity is all about, Arq. The reason the posters can be so repetitious, unchanging, and boring is that their posts are not "gimmicks," they sincerely believe it is the truth.
Is it because Mystic associates himself with Christianity, even though his beliefs are his own invention?
Stop this attempt to mischaracterize my Christian beliefs as though yours are the standard. My beliefs are not my own invention. Unlike your primitive interpretations of God's nature and motives, mine are completely consistent and compatible interpretations from the Bible of what Jesus described, revealed, and unambiguously demonstrated as the True Nature of God - His Holy Spirit of agape love. The awful things you believe about God are completely contrary to the True Nature of the God Jesus described and unambiguously demonstrated. That your beliefs about your wrathful God do not remotely bother your inner sense of decency and love is not a good sign.
It is irrelevant because all the work on innate morality does not require any input from C S Lewis, and you could address innate morality without referencing C S Lewis.
OK, no problem. However, you and CS Lewis coincide/
Quote:
Why is rational moral arguments better than what you call tribalism?
The biology of evolution cannot be compared to your rational thinking. Why do you think your views are better?
Quote:
Yes, and if you answered my question, you would understand the problem with why most engineers are men.
Most engineers are men because of how men and women evolved. Do you disagree?
Trans, what is it about Mystic's beliefs (panentheism) that bothers you so much? I don't understand why you care so much. He ridicules Christian fundamentalism, which should endear him to you.
I thought you didn't have a big problem with people who hold supernatural beliefs, as long as they aren't traditional Abrahamic religions. Why do you focus so much attention/criticism on Mystic's beliefs and no criticism on the sorta-godders who believe in deistic gods, the afterlife, immortal souls and spirits?
Is it because Mystic associates himself with Christianity, even though his beliefs are his own invention?
The problem he has with mystic's beliefs is that have some evidence. Mystic's belief are scientifically, "plausible". Unscientifically they can deny it all they want and lack belief, but that's faith based belief and not really my area. He feels it slows him down for some reason to say "plausible" so he avoids and wants anything that shows that some god claims have some strong evidence stopped or avoided so it doesn't get in the way of his activism.
They believe they are on a mission for a statement of belief about god. Just like some theist take a belief in things greater than myself way to far, they take bad religion way past what rational people do.
To be more precise, in the case of atheists, it's subjective moral activism grounded in personal preference.
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.
