[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Right. That's called nature. Not God. I'm fine if you call it nature, but calling it god brings a whole new aspect to the equation, and I'm simply stating that this "extra" aspect is unecessary and should be left out.


If you want to give nature extra and arbitrary "specialness" by calling it god, then that's fine, but don't expect me to take you seriously since the concept of nature covers the issue quite adequately on it's own, and without the nonsense laden baggage and vast preconceptions that come with the god concept.


If we call balloons rocks, then you can say that rocks can be twisted into animal shapes by circus clowns. ... It's still just a balloon though, not a rock.


By the way, it's "Touché."

Nature is worshiped in some religions, Christians called these people witches and ascribed all sorts of ridiculous things to them to make them look evil and of the Devil. One of the most damning things about these people from the stand point of Christianity is they worshiped a goddess. Instead of a male god. There is some reason to believe that the Goddess concept predates all other religions. Stone figures of exaggerated female forms are thought to be examples of the first or near first religious figures made by man. I have read some allusions to Neanderthals also worshiping this concept but I think it's probably wishful thinking rather any real evidence. This worship of nature did indeed ascribe supernatural powers to nature () or at least the Goddess who was the personification of nature.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

One of the most damning things about these people from the stand point of Christianity is they worshiped a goddess. Instead of a male god. There is some reason to believe that the Goddess concept predates all other religions. Stone figures of exaggerated female forms are thought to be examples of the first or near first religious figures made by man.....

.....This worship of nature did indeed ascribe supernatural powers to nature () or at least the Goddess who was the personification of nature.

It's because females are the givers of life; An act of creation no man is capable of.

[nutronjon]

Good morning, I woke this morning seeing a connection between people choosing to ignore the information I present, with the Catholic church persecuting Galileo, insisting he was wrong, and refusing to look through Galileo's telescope.

Democracy is based on an ancient Greek philosophical the idea that reason, is the controling force of the universe. Socrates was order to drink hemlock for standing up for this idea, because the majority of Athenians wanted their superstitious religion. Athens fell soon after Socrates was killed. However, the Roman statesman Cicero had studied in Athens and was a prolific writer. At the time of the founding of the US, literate meant literate in Greek and Roman classics and Cicero was one of the most read men, having a profound influence on our forefathers. The religion that came out of this literacy was Deism. Thomas Jefferson wrote from this point of view when in the Declaration, when he wrote of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. It has become evident to me that while my writing is associated with a belief in the tooth fairy, no one is looking at the evidence I provide for a scientific understanding of God. What I am saying is being ignored, except for a comment to attack it.

It is one thing to share information with people who want it, and quite another to share information with those who intentionally ignore it and continue to attack; associating what I say with believing in the tooth fairy, and giving me a warning because I object to the information being ignored while the attacks and insults continue. Let me make this perfectly clear, the information was ignored, while what I said was associated with believing in the tooth fairy. That is not following the rules of argumentation, and it is a personal attack, not a logical argument. If I say what you believe is equal to believing in the tooth fairy, I am not making a logic argument to counter your logic. I am attacking you, not your the logic. And after being on the defensive for several days, with everyone ignoring the information I present, I am the one who gets the warning. Great. This is cherry on top.

After making a great effort to share what is to me, very important information, I give up. My only satisfaction is finally understanding what happened to Galileo, and why despite his ability to prove he was correct, the church condemned him. When people knowingly choose to ignore information and persist in attacking, it is futile to continue. I think the well intentioned warning I recieved, is miss placed. Shalom

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I am the one who gets the warning. Great. This is cherry on top.

Remember that, as stated in the warning itself, the member you had been provoked by received an infraction. Fair enough?

BTW, what you say about Galileo is an all too widespread misportrayal of what happened back then.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Good morning, I woke this morning seeing a connection between people choosing to ignore the information I present, with the Catholic church persecuting Galileo, insisting he was wrong, and refusing to look through Galileo's telescope.

I wish all those people who try to make me paranoid would simply go away.

Oh man, all the information we choose to ignore. And still there is the infinity of information we do not even know about.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

After making a great effort to share what is to me, very important information, I give up. My only satisfaction is finally understanding what happened to Galileo, and why despite his ability to prove he was correct, the church condemned him. When people knowingly choose to ignore information and persist in attacking, it is futile to continue. I think the well intentioned warning I recieved, is miss placed. Shalom

What information is being ignored? In that whole long post you just made, you made no mention of this ignored information other than to say it has been ignored.

Furthermore, drawing a parallel to your situation here and Galileo is a bit of a stretch. You are talking about the "science of God" where Galileo was talking about the science of the solar system. Galileo's ideas could be tested, but were dismissed. Your ideas can not be tested and are dismissed. Not everyone who is dismissed is right, nor are they necessarily wrong. Hypography is not the Catholic Church of Galileo's days, quite the opposite.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Good morning, I woke this morning seeing a connection between people choosing to ignore the information I present, with the Catholic church persecuting Galileo, insisting he was wrong, and refusing to look through Galileo's telescope.

Democracy is based on an ancient Greek philosophical the idea that reason, is the controling force of the universe. Socrates was order to drink hemlock for standing up for this idea, because the majority of Athenians wanted their superstitious religion. Athens fell soon after Socrates was killed. However, the Roman statesman Cicero had studied in Athens and was a prolific writer. At the time of the founding of the US, literate meant literate in Greek and Roman classics and Cicero was one of the most read men, having a profound influence on our forefathers. The religion that came out of this literacy was Deism. Thomas Jefferson wrote from this point of view when in the Declaration, when he wrote of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. It has become evident to me that while my writing is associated with a belief in the tooth fairy, no one is looking at the evidence I provide for a scientific understanding of God. What I am saying is being ignored, except for a comment to attack it.

It is one thing to share information with people who want it, and quite another to share information with those who intentionally ignore it and continue to attack; associating what I say with believing in the tooth fairy, and giving me a warning because I object to the information being ignored while the attacks and insults continue. Let me make this perfectly clear, the information was ignored, while what I said was associated with believing in the tooth fairy. That is not following the rules of argumentation, and it is a personal attack, not a logical argument. If I say what you believe is equal to believing in the tooth fairy, I am not making a logic argument to counter your logic. I am attacking you, not your the logic. And after being on the defensive for several days, with everyone ignoring the information I present, I am the one who gets the warning. Great. This is cherry on top.

After making a great effort to share what is to me, very important information, I give up. My only satisfaction is finally understanding what happened to Galileo, and why despite his ability to prove he was correct, the church condemned him. When people knowingly choose to ignore information and persist in attacking, it is futile to continue. I think the well intentioned warning I recieved, is miss placed. Shalom

Nutron, while I respect your belief and acknowledge that in some ways it is more appealing than the biblical idea of God I cannot make the connection with Galileo other than almost surety that organized religion would not approve of your ideas.

You continue to promote the idea of God as the natural laws of the universe. I do not see how this is any different than any other concept of god. Why must your idea be described as God?

If I was told I had to worship something and I had to chose my own idea of God I would choose the "Sun" The sun gives the Earth the energy that allows all complex life (as well as humans) to exist. But the concept of God also includes intelligence and direction, the sun has no intelligence (the science fiction Novel "Whipping Star" would disagree) and it gives us the energy for life through no desire or intent of it's own. Nor has it chosen or consciously influenced life on Earth.

Your concept of god is very similar. The natural laws of the universe, nature, or the universe as a whole is indeed responsible on some level for our existence but not in any conscious way. I don't see how a label like God in anyway contributes to our understanding of the universe. Are you saying that humans need and are somehow benefited by a belief in God and a null god would be the best way to go?

If the god you describe Has no conscious influence or intent on us and cannot be proved to exist then this god would be a null. To me it's like saying there is another universe we cannot see or detect in anyway that has no influence on us in any way and is totally outside our experience. Why even discuss it's existence if it is for all purposes non existent to us? Does this describe your idea of god or am I totally off in the wrong direction?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I find what you saying in response to what I write a personal attack.

After having listened to the below (in it's entirety, not just the section I shared), I realize that I should have responded to your comment above, "So fucking what?"

YouTube - Chris Hitchens Vs. Stephen Fry Debate...

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Right. That's called nature. Not God. I'm fine if you call it nature, but calling it god brings a whole new aspect to the equation...

There is a scene in "Alice Through the Looking Glass" (by Lewis Carol) where Alice meets Humpty Dumpty. He entertains her with some nonsense poetry and she questions how he can create poems with made up words.

He said, "when I use a word, it means precisely what I want it to. I say what it means, and it means what I say. You must decide who is to be the Master, you or your words!"

The story is funny, because although well-intentioned, Humpty had it wrong. Words carry not just the meaning that we want to attach to them ("god") but also the mountains of meaning and innuendo, or baggage, that the words have accumulated over generations of use. "God" is NOT a word that can be used context-free and malleable, because it carries its own context around with it.

Arbitrarily trying to equate "god" with anything else, Nature, Love, Knowledge, Mercy--typically results in a very strained metaphor. It sounds like it belongs in poetry. But it doesn't convey any profound meaning.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Science has shown a link between mind and body. Science has shown us nothing about "ESP". So while it may seem that people are being close-minded, remember where you are posting.

I agree that it is not good to be close-minded about most things (ideally, all things). Yet, it seems a condition of our existence. On opposite sides of the deity chasm, you'll find intelligent people with closed minds. Indeed, I believe everyone's mind is closed to a certain degree or other. So, in a sense, we are all blind.

I believe we are posting in the Theology forum.

Science revealed nothing about bactria, until the microscope. Just because we do not have already have a scientific explanation for something, that doesn't mean a scientific explanation is not possible. A reason for speaking outside of the science forums, is to ask the impossible questions and than attempt to answer them. The step to wisdom begins with "I don't know". As soon as we believe we know God, we know God not.