"I believe in God . . .

[remez]

your view of morality is built on sand: the supposition that morality must be objective is baseless.

Ironically you sound pretty objective about me being wrong. Make your case and we'll see.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If a person has to be a pantheist to appreciate the universe that sounds like a claim right out of a fundy handbook for children.

Again, give me a break.

Seriously, how could you possibly think I asserted that?

This is so typical of you. You jump right in and start throwing insults around, with no knowledge of the context. I wasn't asserting that. I was criticizing that.

So please have someone read post 14 to you and while they're at it, have them teach you how to structure a proper if-then statement. Or just stay ignorant. It's your call joebabe.

Again, you seem to be the one who is confused. Perhaps you need to reread your own responses, including post 14.

So I stand by what I said.

 

[Underseer]

I just spell it N A T U R E." Frank Lloyd Wright.

So does Wright get kicked out of the atheist club? Or is pantheism logically defensible?

SLD

All respect to Einstein and Spinoza, but I think pantheism is silly. To quote YouTube personality TMM, If you call the universe god, then god is just an unnecessary explanation. Why not call the universe the universe?

 

[remez]

If a person has to be a pantheist to appreciate the universe that sounds like a claim right out of a fundy handbook for children.

Again, give me a break.

Seriously, how could you possibly think I asserted that?

This is so typical of you. You jump right in and start throwing insults around, with no knowledge of the context. I wasn't asserting that. I was criticizing that.

So please have someone read post 14 to you and while they're at it, have them teach you how to structure a proper if-then statement. Or just stay ignorant. It's your call joebabe.

Again, you seem to be the one who is confused. Perhaps you need to reread your own responses, including post 14.

So I stand by what I said.

OK
You're on.
I'm calling your bluff.


Show me precisely where I asserted ....a person has to be a pantheist to appreciate the universe.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If a person has to be a pantheist to appreciate the universe that sounds like a claim right out of a fundy handbook for children.

Again, give me a break.

Seriously, how could you possibly think I asserted that?

This is so typical of you. You jump right in and start throwing insults around, with no knowledge of the context. I wasn't asserting that. I was criticizing that.

So please have someone read post 14 to you and while they're at it, have them teach you how to structure a proper if-then statement. Or just stay ignorant. It's your call joebabe.

Again, you seem to be the one who is confused. Perhaps you need to reread your own responses, including post 14.

So I stand by what I said.

OK
You're on.
I'm calling your bluff.


Show me precisely where I asserted ....a person has to be a pantheist to appreciate the universe.

remez,

I'm not going to get into a middle school he-said-she-said-they-said exchange. If you disagree with my take that's fine. If you want to explain your position further, that's fine too.

 

[remez]

If a person has to be a pantheist to appreciate the universe that sounds like a claim right out of a fundy handbook for children.

Again, give me a break.

Seriously, how could you possibly think I asserted that?

This is so typical of you. You jump right in and start throwing insults around, with no knowledge of the context. I wasn't asserting that. I was criticizing that.

So please have someone read post 14 to you and while they're at it, have them teach you how to structure a proper if-then statement. Or just stay ignorant. It's your call joebabe.

Again, you seem to be the one who is confused. Perhaps you need to reread your own responses, including post 14.

So I stand by what I said.

OK
You're on.
I'm calling your bluff.


Show me precisely where I asserted ....

a person has to be a pantheist to appreciate the universe

remez,

I'm not going to get into a middle school he-said-she-said-they-said exchange. If you disagree with my take that's fine. If you want to explain your position further, that's fine too.

Ok I'll do just that.

Poor try.
Your insulting, immature attempt to sweep this under the carpet completely fails.
You just shot yourself in the foot again, but this time it was right after you put your foot in your mouth.

Here's why.

Even the average middle-schooler knows that an analogy must correspond to the application. Embarrassingly your analogy misses the target. Our contention is not a he-said-she-said-they-said contention. Think about it. A he-said-she-said-they-said contention infers that there is no overt, concrete evidence by which to render a determination of judgement. Sadly for you, the concrete evidence is overtly there for all of us to render a determination of judgement against your poor reasoning. You can't just sweep your bad reasoning under the carpet here with a lame misapplied analogy.

So provide your evidence, silently let it go or dig your hole even deeper.
Your call.

 

[bilby]

"Spiritual but not religious" just means "I have rejected the bullshit made up by other people long ago, and replaced it with bullshit I made up myself, and/or bullshit made up by other people more recently".

Pantheism is pointless - it is applying an incorrect and therefore confusing label to an entity that already has a correct and non-confusing label. If you want to talk about 'the universe', or 'nature', or 'awe', or 'fascination', or 'wonder', why confuse things by saying 'God'?

Believing in things is dumb; Believing things, but only once they are demonstrated to be either true or highly plausible, with a commitment to changing those beliefs if new evidence comes to light, is smart.

I don't believe in nature or the universe; I have what I think are good reasons to believe that they exist, and that they operate largely in accordance with the set of predictions made by current science. They are plenty awesome and exciting, without needing to gild the lily by nailing some half-arsed spiritualistic crap to them.

There is nothing non-fictional that deserves or requires the label 'God', anymore than there is anything non-fictional that deserves or requires the label 'Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry'. The existence of a label does not imply that it has value outside the realm of the imagination.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If a person has to be a pantheist to appreciate the universe that sounds like a claim right out of a fundy handbook for children.

Again, give me a break.


Again, you seem to be the one who is confused. Perhaps you need to reread your own responses, including post 14.

So I stand by what I said.

OK
You're on.
I'm calling your bluff.


Show me precisely where I asserted ....

a person has to be a pantheist to appreciate the universe

remez,

I'm not going to get into a middle school he-said-she-said-they-said exchange. If you disagree with my take that's fine. If you want to explain your position further, that's fine too.

Ok I'll do just that.

Poor try.
Your insulting, immature attempt to sweep this under the carpet completely fails.
You just shot yourself in the foot again, but this time it was right after you put your foot in your mouth.

Here's why.

Even the average middle-schooler knows that an analogy must correspond to the application. Embarrassingly your analogy misses the target. Our contention is not a he-said-she-said-they-said contention. Think about it. A he-said-she-said-they-said contention infers that there is no overt, concrete evidence by which to render a determination of judgement. Sadly for you, the concrete evidence is overtly there for all of us to render a determination of judgement against your poor reasoning. You can't just sweep your bad reasoning under the carpet here with a lame misapplied analogy.

So provide your evidence, silently let it go or dig your hole even deeper.
Your call.

Well, You didn't explain anything, just continued with your tantrum. My kids never had tantrums so I'm unpracticed at dealing with them.

At the risk of ruining a thread I will ignore any future posts of a similar nature. I sincerely hope you are able to work things out.

 

[remez]

What I said is that other people who are not pantheists feel awe of nature, the difference that makes a difference irt pantheism is what they do with it.

Obviously.
And just what does a pantheist "do with it?" ............ They deify nature.
Thereby removing themselves from the worldview of atheism.
FLW can not be both.

Just because something gives you goose bumps it's what? A god? Something that isn't even real to that very person?

Give me a break. That's so weak as to invite laughter.

I can still remember my young deconversion days. I'd reflect on the grandness and beauty of nature, how awesome something was. National Parks can do that to a person. And at the same time I would recall how puny and insignificant churches were by comparison, how strained the arguments were for gods, all the contradictions and apologetics. Never one time did I equate what I was experiencing with anything remotely concerning those silly teachings about magic creatures.

If a person has to be a pantheist to appreciate the universe that sounds like a claim right out of a fundy handbook for children.

Again, give me a break.

Seriously, how could you possibly think I asserted that?

This is so typical of you. You jump right in and start throwing insults around, with no knowledge of the context. I wasn't asserting that. I was criticizing that.

So please have someone read post 14 to you and while they're at it, have them teach you how to structure a proper if-then statement. Or just stay ignorant. It's your call joebabe.

Again, you seem to be the one who is confused. Perhaps you need to reread your own responses, including post 14.

So I stand by what I said.

OK
You're on.
I'm calling your bluff.

Show me precisely where I asserted ....
a person has to be a pantheist to appreciate the universe

remez,

I'm not going to get into a middle school he-said-she-said-they-said exchange. If you disagree with my take that's fine. If you want to explain your position further, that's fine too.

Ok I'll do just that.

Poor try.
Your insulting, immature attempt to sweep this under the carpet completely fails.
You just shot yourself in the foot again, but this time it was right after you put your foot in your mouth.
Here's why.
Even the average middle-schooler knows that an analogy must correspond to the application. Embarrassingly your analogy misses the target. Our contention is not a he-said-she-said-they-said contention. Think about it. A he-said-she-said-they-said contention infers that there is no overt, concrete evidence by which to render a determination of judgement. Sadly for you, the concrete evidence is overtly there for all of us to render a determination of judgement against your poor reasoning. You can't just sweep your bad reasoning under the carpet here with a lame misapplied analogy.

So provide your evidence, silently let it go or dig your hole even deeper.
Your call.

Well, You didn't explain anything, just continued with your tantrum. My kids never had tantrums so I'm unpracticed at dealing with them.

At the risk of ruining a thread I will ignore any future posts of a similar nature. I sincerely hope you are able to work things out.

大的错误去大铲

Look it down.

"I explained nothing" .... it obviously went over your head. Most bullies don't get it. Again I simply tried to explained that your last post failed to deflect your burden of proof for your unreasonable insults earlier. (note this time I included your entire insult and what you bullied into for context)

"just continued with my tantrum"...... You again bullied in to my conversation with an horrendous set of insults directed at me. I stood up to you, gave you repeated chances to defend yourself, and you ran away crying that I was mean....Poor poor joebabe.

"My kids never had tantrums so I'm unpracticed at dealing with them." More unreasonable slanderous insults from a bully who is running away. I'm crushed.

" At the risk of ruining a thread I will ignore any future posts of a similar nature." What's new?

" I sincerely hope you are able to work things out." Not to worry. I'm content either way. If the bully stays away, then great. If he comes back, then I'll reassess his attitude and proceed accordingly. Semper fi.

再见

 

[Copernicus]

I just spell it N A T U R E." Frank Lloyd Wright.

So does Wright get kicked out of the atheist club? Or is pantheism logically defensible?

SLD

But does everyone agree on the nature of NATURE? Claims about belief in "God" usually require some agreement as to what one means by that word. If there is something like the "supernatural", a concept usually associated a deity, then equating deities with nature can be very misleading. Atheists are people who reject belief in deities, not nature. However, there are always going to be folks who like to play with metaphors, so feeling awe or wonder for nature can be likened to awe or wonder for a deity. Just remember that nature does not perform miracles. Gods do.

 

[SLD]

I just spell it N A T U R E." Frank Lloyd Wright.

So does Wright get kicked out of the atheist club? Or is pantheism logically defensible?

SLD

But does everyone agree on the nature of NATURE? Claims about belief in "God" usually require some agreement as to what one means by that word. If there is something like the "supernatural", a concept usually associated a deity, then equating deities with nature can be very misleading. Atheists are people who reject belief in deities, not nature. However, there are always going to be folks who like to play with metaphors, so feeling awe or wonder for nature can be likened to awe or wonder for a deity. Just remember that nature does not perform miracles. Gods do.

Nature is our creator for atheists. Same as god for theists.

SLD

 

[Underseer]

I just spell it N A T U R E." Frank Lloyd Wright.

So does Wright get kicked out of the atheist club? Or is pantheism logically defensible?

SLD

But does everyone agree on the nature of NATURE? Claims about belief in "God" usually require some agreement as to what one means by that word. If there is something like the "supernatural", a concept usually associated a deity, then equating deities with nature can be very misleading. Atheists are people who reject belief in deities, not nature. However, there are always going to be folks who like to play with metaphors, so feeling awe or wonder for nature can be likened to awe or wonder for a deity. Just remember that nature does not perform miracles. Gods do.

The purpose of agreeing on a definition of god is so that you can have a rational argument about whether or not god exists.

If someone says "I define god as love/truth/harmony/indigestion/whatever," they have made it plain that they are desperate to avoid that particular discussion. The whole point of those arbitrary definitions is to avoid having a real conversation about whether or not god exists.

P1: I define god to be this mechanical pencil.
P2: This mechanical pencil exists.
C: Therefore, god exists.

Ta da! Your claim is proven by self-manufactured tautology and you can claim that your conclusion is definitely true. Of course, the fact that any claim can be proved with arbitrary definitions is irrelevant. What is important is that you proved all those silly atheists wrong and you don't have to have yet another tiresome discussion that involves discussing the definition of argument from ignorance fallacies.

 

[Angry Floof]

I think the most useful definition of God is the question itself. It applies to every single individual's definition of God. The fact that we chew on such a question at all, to me, is more interesting and awe inspiring than any claim made by God believers as to the nature of God.

What are we really chewing on? I suspect it's just ourselves. We can't even answer "What are we?" but we fight about the existence of a human-like entity in charge of the universe. :/ The fact that all religion and all definitions of God are artifacts of humanity, and not the other way around as something bestowed on us from an external source, might be fairly well accepted and understood by even religious believers when you state it out clearly like that, but that compartment slams shut when the God question comes up.

 

[rousseau]

I just spell it N A T U R E." Frank Lloyd Wright.

So does Wright get kicked out of the atheist club? Or is pantheism logically defensible?

SLD

No, Wright doesn't get kicked out of the Atheist club, nor do I think he would call himself a pantheist.

The quote speaks to the awe-inspiring nature of existence and reality, not to the existence or lack thereof of God.

 

[Copernicus]

I just spell it N A T U R E." Frank Lloyd Wright.

So does Wright get kicked out of the atheist club? Or is pantheism logically defensible?

SLD

But does everyone agree on the nature of NATURE? Claims about belief in "God" usually require some agreement as to what one means by that word. If there is something like the "supernatural", a concept usually associated a deity, then equating deities with nature can be very misleading. Atheists are people who reject belief in deities, not nature. However, there are always going to be folks who like to play with metaphors, so feeling awe or wonder for nature can be likened to awe or wonder for a deity. Just remember that nature does not perform miracles. Gods do.

Nature is our creator for atheists. Same as god for theists.

SLD

Not really the same, though, is it? There is a reason why atheists don't pray to nature. They aren't expecting it to perform miracles or grant them eternal life. Deities can be reasoned with and influenced by praise or compassion. Nature doesn't listen and doesn't care.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Nature is our creator for atheists. Same as god for theists.

SLD

Not really the same, though, is it? There is a reason why atheists don't pray to nature. They aren't expecting it to perform miracles or grant them eternal life. Deities can be reasoned with and influenced by praise or compassion. Nature doesn't listen and doesn't care.

Right. Natural behavior can be observed and predicted. Try that with gods, devils, angels, vampires, ghosts.

When you're taking a walk in the woods, if you keep your eye on the footpath you won't trip and fall. But you've still got to be careful not to commit any Holy Spirit Thought Crimes when you stop to take a leak if you're the religious type.

 

[Underseer]

Nature is our creator for atheists. Same as god for theists.

SLD

Not really the same, though, is it? There is a reason why atheists don't pray to nature. They aren't expecting it to perform miracles or grant them eternal life. Deities can be reasoned with and influenced by praise or compassion. Nature doesn't listen and doesn't care.

What about deists? They expect no reward, but still pray.

Some believe in an indifferent god, some believe in a watchmaker god, but some acknowledge that they really worship the "first cause" and acknowledge that whatever it is might not exist anymore and might never have been sentient.

I guess we should specify that deists do not make intercessory prayers. They have no expectation of any of their prayers being answered.

 

[Sarpedon]

If calling nature "God" means a reverence for nature, a respect, a recognition that nature drives everything and that we don't and can't fully understand its influence over us or our place in it, and if this view helps to mitigate the problems of ego, delusion, and hubris, then I am with Wright most definitely

Well it didn't help mitigate ego, delusion and hubris in Wright's case.

 

[Copernicus]

Nature is our creator for atheists. Same as god for theists.

SLD

Not really the same, though, is it? There is a reason why atheists don't pray to nature. They aren't expecting it to perform miracles or grant them eternal life. Deities can be reasoned with and influenced by praise or compassion. Nature doesn't listen and doesn't care.

What about deists? They expect no reward, but still pray.

Some believe in an indifferent god, some believe in a watchmaker god, but some acknowledge that they really worship the "first cause" and acknowledge that whatever it is might not exist anymore and might never have been sentient.

I guess we should specify that deists do not make intercessory prayers. They have no expectation of any of their prayers being answered.

Where did you get this information about deists? Deism is a rather broad category, so I don't see a basis for such generalizations. If someone is "praying" to a deity, then that suggests an expected benefit of some kind from a personal entity that can at least receive the information in the prayer. I've met quite a few theists (not deists) who claim not to pray for any "special favors" but just to commune and express love for the deity. It is hard not to interpret such claims as evidence of an anthropomorphic deity, despite assurances to the contrary.

 

[Malintent]

The entire notion of "god" is the slimy afterbirth of the highly successful ability to recognize patterns in a way that errs on the side of caution.

It's evolutionarily better to be afraid of nothing in the dark than to be fearless in the mouth of a lion.

Everything must have agency, just in case that rustling noise wasn't just the wind, but your impending death from a hungry threat agent.

So, god is what goes bump in the night. God is superstition. God is the ignorance of causes.