[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by 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.

I enjoy reading your post, when you are not rude. You are intelligent, so I assume you know when you are being rude and have the ability to avoid that.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

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.

How can you not know the meaning of an idea/theory and then ascribe a qualification to it?

Like knowing God, we can only study nature today and make our best guess.

Well, at least you've admitted that God is a 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.

I wouldn't either. I choose to base my opinion upon scientific research.

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.

I'm really curious now if you even read my last post.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by modest

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

Okay, I agree with you, happiness does not come from God like a gift. But to not feel connected with nature and have a delighted, child like, sense of awe, sounds like depression to me.

To be excited about what we can discover and enjoying that discovery with others, is one experience we can have. To be technologically correct and concerned that everyone else is technologically correct is, another experience. Through all these God discussions I have gotten the impression the argument is not so much about what people think, but what they feel.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by REASON

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 psycological preservation.

Wow, something is really wrong with your attitude to interpret what I said as
sarchastic jab! I did not say his atheism caused a feeling, and didn't even mean to imply that. Just about every argument everyone has made, to what I am saying, is coming out of their own understanding of God, and their own understanding of what accepting a God is all about. These arguements are a failure to grasp what I am saying.

Being okay with loosing one's identity, letting go of one's ego and everything attached to that ego, is psychological preservation, how?

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by freeztar

How can you not know the meaning of an idea/theory and then ascribe a qualification to it?



Well, at least you've admitted that God is a guess.



I wouldn't either. I choose to base my opinion upon scientific research.



I'm really curious now if you even read my last post.

I would say everything humans think is a guess. Our thoughts are human thoughts, and we should not be too sure of what we think is so.

Did I ascribe a qualification to it; a qualification to God? If I did, it was for the sake of discussion, and not something to take too literally. This is why I have no problem discussing God with Mike, from the point of view God is Nature. To me this is just a discussion, a way of exploring our ideas. It is not a technological definition of what is so. Unfortunately, Mike's thread is no longer his thread, and the discussion he attempted to have, never happened, so we can not know where those thoughts would have taken us.

I want people to understand, the witch hunts were also based on science. Just because science makes a claim, that does not guarantee it is so. It is very important we understand these claims as the best reasoning at the moment, and that new evidence can change the belief.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Overdog

I wouldn't, and don't. Why would I?

I'd just lose the word from my vocabulary and use the word Nature.

As far as the biblical faction are concerned, they place much credibility to the 'WORD '.

Nature presents pictures! The Latin educational system uses Nature as a means for study.
So scientists study some aspects of Nature as its reference.

The biblical religions are for dummies because the animals do NOT need the bible. They know what to do.

Of course, since we evolved so much, we do need laws to govern ourselves since people are the most savage and diabolical creatures in existence today.
This does not include all the people. Just the biblical chauvinist faction.

Mike C

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by Mike C

As far as the biblical faction are concerned, they place much credibility to the 'WORD '.

Nature presents pictures! The Latin educational system uses Nature as a means for study.
So scientists study some aspects of Nature as its reference.

The biblical religions are for dummies because the animals do NOT need the bible. They know what to do.

Of course, since we evolved so much, we do need laws to govern ourselves since people are the most savage and diabolical creatures in existence today.
This does not include all the people. Just the biblical chauvinist faction.

Mike C

Oh dear, Mike, your knowledge has some holes in it. The purpose of studying nature is to know the laws. Our laws are supposed to be based on the laws of nature. If you can, google "Cicero and God" for a better understanding of "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God". If at least two of us understand this line of of reasoning, reasonable discussion might follow.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by REASON

I believe that the need to supplant the term "nature" with the term "god" serves only to fulfill some personal desire.

Mike, I wonder if you could elaborate on why you feel that understanding what we observe in nature as reflective of god is satisfying to you? What desires are fulfilled for you by orienting your beliefs in this way?

This is an honest question. I'm very curious as to what this belief does for people.

Well, since I look to Nature as my teacher, then that means I accept 'Evolution'.
So I believe we are EA's. Than I learned from them that they are Vegans
I am aware of the abberation of the Chimps as eating monkeys but I attribute that to the human spirits infuencing them.

So being a Vegan, enables me to stay healthy at my present age of 90.
Also, my excelent circulation keeps my brain functioning at top capacity.
Need I say more?

Of course, Nature teaches the 'multiple' God system, so you have to be choosey.
So I respect the females as 'Creator' Gods and the Apes as our anscestral ancient relalives and 'muscle' GODS.

However, all our material goodies are copies from Natures creatures (species) as inventors(?)

Besides, the animals are 10x more civilized in comparison to our species derived from the bible.
And the animals are not governed by the 10 commandments. Ha ha.

Mike C

[Moontanman]

Well, since I look to Nature as my teacher, then that means I accept 'Evolution'.
So I believe we are EA's. Than I learned from them that they are Vegans
I am aware of the abberation of the Chimps as eating monkeys but I attribute that to the human spirits infuencing them.

More "monkeys" than just chimps eat meat, baboons eat meat as do many tree dwelling monkeys of both the new and old world. Many primates will eat meat when they can catch another small animal.

So being a Vegan, enables me to stay healthy at my present age of 90.
Also, my excelent circulation keeps my brain functioning at top capacity.
Need I say more?

Yes you need to get off your ego more, your eating habits may be very commendable but then again you see people who live past one hundred that eat read meat routinely and smoke cigars and drink liquor. You have good genes. Just because you don't eat meat doesn't mean that is what is keeping you alive or what keeps your brain functioning.

Of course, Nature teaches the 'multiple' God system, so you have to be choosey.
So I respect the females as 'Creator' Gods and the Apes as our anscestral ancient relalives and 'muscle' GODS.

What ever floats your boat

However, all our material goodies are copies from Natures creatures (species) as inventors(?)

That does not make sense, can you be specific?

Besides, the animals are 10x more civilized in comparison to our species derived from the bible.
And the animals are not governed by the 10 commandments. Ha ha.

Mike C

How is this true? Animals are far more violent than humans, even carnivores that are very social do things like kill all the young after they kill the leaders so they don't have to raise the babies of the last leader. Nature is full of violence. Humans have cut back on the violence by a considerable margin compared to most social mammals.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Wow, something is really wrong with your attitude to interpret what I said as
sarchastic jab! I did not say his atheism caused a feeling, and didn't even mean to imply that.

Really? So what motivated you to ask him, "And how happy are you now" in reference to him stating that he had let go of his Nature as God concept for an Atheist understanding?

Your implication was clear. It does you no good to try and backpedal now.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Just about every argument everyone has made, to what I am saying, is coming out of their own understanding of God, and their own understanding of what accepting a God is all about.
These arguements are a failure to grasp what I am saying.

Maybe that's because what you have been saying doesn't make a lot sense to others. You have not presented a very convincing argument for why it is important for people to adopt an understanding of Nature as God or Reason as God in my estimation. And no matter what you think of my attitude, I am not closed to a convincing argument. Maybe it's your communication style. Or maybe it's just that you are trying to convince the wrong audience. Maybe it's both.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Being okay with loosing one's identity, letting go of one's ego and everything attached to that ego, is psychological preservation, how?

I'm sorry, did I say that? I don't believe I said that. I don't believe I used the word ego once in my post. I don't believe I suggested anything about "losing one's identity."

My reference to psychological preservation had to do with the idea of pacifying oneself with a notion that a God is there to provide comfort, support, and hope during times of despair. It relates to my comments about having expectations of God. In this instance, it's the expectation that God, or at least a belief in God, will help you through a difficult period in your life.

Maybe you didn't think I was clear enough. Or maybe it has to do with the way you filter information.