[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I should be able to shed some insight as I once believed in this.

For me, I believed that everything in Nature was part or parcel of God, including myself. I gained satisfaction from this belief because when I would commune with Nature, the feeling of being connected with the Nature I was experiencing (sitting on a mountain looking out for example) resulted in an inner and outer merger that felt holy. Coming from a Lutheran upbringing, I found the idea of Nature as God much more believable and real than a personified version of God. It was a way to free myself of Religion, but retain my belief in God.

I held this belief for years, but gradually it became something that I never really thought about...until it disappeared completely. It doesn't make sense to believe this any more.

It's interesting that Science led to my abandonment of this belief. My beliefs were anchored by spiritualism in the natural world. I saw Nature as Magical. I would see signs in Nature and things would happen for a purpose. When I applied the Scientific Method to these mystical attributes of Nature, I found that they could not hold up. This caused my belief in the Mystic quality of Nature to rapidly disintegrate. Once that was gone, my belief in Nature as God was laid naked. It didn't have a leg to stand on (so to speak).

So here I am today, an atheist.

The puzzling thing for me is: What began all this (which leads to the conundrum of turtle's all the way down)? And if there was no beginning, then how could we ever comprehend that?

It's these questions that lead people to gods of all kinds, imho. These questions don't have answers, and don't necessarily rely on cause and effect, and most people don't want to accept this. It's easier and more satifying to have an answer, it's easier and more satisfying to believe in God.

All that said, I much prefer that if people are going to belief in God, that they view God as Nature. Just know that as satisfying as it is to hold this belief, it is even more satisfying to set it free, in my experience.

Hum, that was pretty revealing. And how happy are you now?

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Rubbish. Why exactly do you think we're building the LHC? It's because the particles DO have a measurable effect. God does not, no matter how you define it.

Try again.



Good for you. You're still wrong, regardless of what you are reminded of.



As is so clearly evidenced by so many of your posts here on Hypograpahy.



Nobody is telling you that you cannot say these things, so your calls suggesting this community has an intolerance and an inability to remember the importance of freedom of speech are unfounded.

Further, I DO NOT have to respect your point of view. I can mock it, I can challenge it as the crap that it is, and I can forgo manners depending on the context in which I am sharing my opinion.

I repeat. I DO NOT HAVE TO RESPECT YOUR OPINION, especially when I think that opinion is misguided, short-sighted, and ignorant.

I do respect your right to say whatever you want, and that is all. You have your freedom of speech, but so do I, and I have chosen to use my freedom to challenge these ridiculous and unsupportable notions of yours for the nonsense they are.



You might try leading by example then.



Uhhmmm... Nazism had a lot more involved than just a lack of god. I would welcome a debate with you on this subject, but encourage you to open a new thread if you wish to assert that atheism was the cause of the travesties which occurred circa WWII Germany.

I'd advise you avoid this line of reasoning, however, because it is not supportable and I will completely crush you if you try to argue in favor of such an unfounded, inaccurate, and insanely misrepresentative position.



God is not the source of morals because god is a figment of your imagination. The source of morals are our evolved tendencies toward group behaviors and our need to avoid ostricization from the group to maximize our survival and also reproductive potential.

How many examples must I give to show you how people who believe in god still do immoral things?

You can assert the same thing as many times as you want. You have yet to prove your premise, and simply repeating it offers no additional validity to it.



Nope. You want evidence to the contrary? I can provide it, even though the onus is on YOU to support YOUR assertion that "god keeps minds open."




That's all well and good, but it's still NOTHING MORE THAN YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, CONJECTURE, and ASSERTION.

Let me show you what I mean. I will take the same words you used and replace the word "god" with "purple unicorn." This is how your sentence comes across to me (and you can quickly see how insanely stupid my version sounds, yet it's NO DIFFERENT than yours):

Purple unicorns also function as a minor of ourselves and our highest aspirations. Purple unicorns are above all, and distances us from our very personal point of view and very, very personal self interest.

Both statements rest on EXACTLY the same footing, yet for some reason you expect me to accept yours as valid? Rubbish.



Do you know what a non-sequitur is? You may as well have said, "Since bananas are yellow, blow jobs feel good."




So, basically, you suggest that the best way to deal with deluded people is to accept their delusion as true and incorporate it into your own psyche?

I ... uhhmmm... errr.... yeah.... I disagree.

If someone told me that sunshine is the result of millions of fairies farting as they play their harps, I'd not accept that. I'd instead describe how things actually happen.

The concept of god deserves no less, and I reject your suggestion on it's face.




I've told you repeatedly, but I'll say it again.

I argue against knowing god because there is ZERO evidence that there is one. You've accepted without evidence (or even necessity) that this imaginary ethereal entity exists, and have provided NO acceptable reasons why the rest of us should do the same.



Actually, you can. It happens all of the time. Would you like me to cite some examples of people who stopped believing in god when they learned more about the REAL way nature operates through science? I'd be glad to. It won't be hard.

It doesn't really matter what their version of god was. It doesn't matter if it was abrahamic or nature or otherwise. It was imaginary, and discarded like their other imaginary friends were when they reached their post toddler years.



You're right. If people refuse to let go of their childish imaginary friends, we really will have a difficult time getting anywhere. Couldn't agree more.



I say AGAIN...

Simply repeating yourself over and over again does not make what you are saying true. Further, how can you take this seriously? People's acceptance of some God is PRECISELY what has caused so many deaths and countless challenges in communications and relationships among the global populace.

Do you want evidence of this, too? I'll be glad to share it, despite the fact that YOU are the one making the claims and hence the onus is on YOU to support them. I'd imagine you really cannot, though, at least if your posts thus far are to serve as any guide.




Really, just one single example of an area where a belief in god coexisted with a police state proves your suggestion completely false. Do you want an example of that, too?


You're really making this too easy.

In case you don't realize it, saying what someone has said is "rubbish" is insulting. Until your manners improve, I am reading what you write.

[modest]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

And how happy are you now?

When I was part of a church (long ago) this was something I heard a lot. "The only true happiness comes from God" As if 'happiness' was a property of God that he handed out on an individual basis. I'm not saying this is your position nutronjon - but it is a commonly held religious idea that deserves stomping.

I am no more or less happy as an atheist than I was as a believer. My happiness is no more or less genuine.

It's a false claim.

-modest

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Hum, that was pretty revealing. And how happy are you now?

I'll loosely quote Ben Franklin:

"A person is about as happy as they make themselves out to be."

I'm quite happy nutron.

What did you think of my post? "Revealing" is a bit obscure...

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I realize that this is not your main argument, but I feel that I must bring attention to his. Do you have a source for the claim above? The only reason I ask is that it goes against conventional theory.



Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh bother, it took a lot of effort to find the post I made days ago, and here again is the source that things began with an electron and protron

Origin of Matter in the Universe: How Protons, Electrons, and Neutrons Formed in the Big Bang

After the inflationary period matter began to form in the early universe. Initially heavy particles such as protons formed. Next lighter particles such as electrons formed. After these basic particles formed, nucleosynthesis could begin to form the few elements made during the big bang. How did these particles form?

I don't know what nucleosynthesis is, but evidently there had to be protons and electrons before nucleosynthese could begin, according to this theory which we can not prove beyond a doubt, because we can not make it happen again and observe the happening. Like knowing God, we can only study nature today and make our best guess.

The OPB show last night was about the whole universe is the result of decaying neutrino. I think there are almost as many opinions about what happened as there are opinions about God, and I wouldn't bet my life on any of the opinions. On the other hand, I have no desire to prevent discussion of how the universe began, because we are not absolutely sure of the truth.

[InfiniteNow]

nutronjon,

You seem to have ignored my posts even before your whining about my rudeness, so I'm not exactly hurt. Your loss.

I read your posts, think, learn, and react.

If you ignore my posts, you will lose that same opportunity.

[modest]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Oh bother, it took a lot of effort to find the post I made days ago, and here again is the source that things began with an electron and protron

I see where you've gone wrong then. This is an incomplete description bordering on wrong. Freeztar's link to wikipedia's big bang nucleosynthesis and particularly the bit about "Sequence of BBN" would be more illuminating. If you have questions or want to discuss it, here is a good thread:

http://hypography.com/forums/astrono...-creation.html

-modest

[nutronjon]

Excuse me Mike, but I am desparate to move the argue beyond "God doesn't exist", so I am throwing in something else to talk about.

Hindu Consciuosness - an Astronomy Net God & Science Forum Message
Hindu Consciousness:

We propose to identify in physics what the Hindu concept of consciousness is. First here is a description of the different forms of consciousness recognized in Hinhuism.

“There are myriad gradations of consciousness, from the simple sentience of inanimate matter to the consciousness of basic life forms, to the higher consciousness of human embodiment, to omniscient states of superconsciousness, leading to immersion in the One universal consciousness, Parashakti.”

Ref.: Consciousness: Hindu - Hinduism Dictionary on Consciousness


From this description, consciousness does not need to be self-aware. Even inanimate matter has consciousness.

Now let us assume that consciousness is that which is common to all the above types of consciousness. What possible physics of particles, that make up inanimate matter, could be the same in animal consciousness, or human consciousness in it's various forms (e.g., waking, sleeping, etc), and even the omniscient states of superconsciousness, whose different states are not know to most, except that they are called omniscient, all knowing.

What physical property of particles could be the same as the fundamental property of an all knowing state of superconsciousness. In physics totally entangled superfluids are said to behave like one particle, just like the two particles of EPR experiments know instantly what happens to the other.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by modest

I see where you've gone wrong then. This is an incomplete description bordering on wrong. Freeztar's link to wikipedia's big bang nucleosynthesis and particularly the bit about "Sequence of BBN" would be more illuminating. If you have questions or want to discuss it, here is a good thread:

http://hypography.com/forums/astrono...-creation.html

-modest

Thanks, I am too tired for heavy thoughts right now. The source is not my thinking, and I take no credit nor blame fore it. I just wanted to throw it out there. Mike is not the only one who said things begin with a proton and electron. Like I posted the source, and Freeztar takes up an argument with me and asked me to provide a source. Nuts- the idea was never mine. The whole thing is someone else's and I posted the link. It just deomonstrates, Mike is not totally alone.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Hum, that was pretty revealing. And how happy are you now?

This is a sarchastic jab, and a condescending inference that freeztar's atheism must lead to some sort of unhappiness.

For someone who complains about the tone of other's posts, you sure don't have a problem dishing it out.

Anyway, I'd be willing to guess relative to what I know of freezy from the posts of his that I've read, that he happens to be at a particularly happy place in his life.



Belief in God can only provide a sense of wellbeing if there is something you expect from God, that you think, or hope, will be fulfilled. Everyone who believes in a god, expects something from him/her/it. Whenever someone like this experiences something positive in their life, something they probably wanted, they automatically attribute it as a blessing from God. As this mindset is established in an individual, it is very difficult for them to imagine how someone could ever experience happiness and fulfillment if they reject believing in God. This also carries with it the assumtion that God will not look to provide happines to those who have rejected him/her/it.

If you do not expect anything from a god, then there is no emotional connection to a god concept. The emotional connection is instead tied to real relationships with actual individuals, and real opportunities for expression and feedback. I believe this is what it means to genuinely experience life. Not that there's anything wrong with conceptualization, but ultimately it's important to be a participant in life.

With this in mind, I understand that my happiness can be directly attributed to the choices I make, and the effort I put into seeking happiness by taking responsibility for not only the way I perceive the world around me, but how I relate to those I come in contact with. I believe that a choice to exude happiness will generate happiness within, and will draw happiness to me externally from others. When I do that, I get the credit. When I don't do that, I have to take the responsibility.

None of that behavior requires a belief in a god, for any of us. But it does involve commitment. As such, with every effort to exude and receive happiness in our lives or place our faith in some god concept, we are destined to experience challenges, difficulty, saddness, regret, and unfulfilled expectations. And no matter what your belief or lack thereof in god, it will remain up to us as individuals to see our way through those circumstances.

One of the greatest benefits of a belief in God during times of sorrow is the feeling that you're not alone, when you may actually be alone. But it's only natural to want to feel that way, and therefore it's only natural to believe as such for many people.

But it's only a form of psychological preservation.