Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Vile Atheist]

Not with PureX I don't think, but certainly with many other theists who claim to be able to present evidence of god.

Sometimes you get ones who ask you original questions and that spices things up. Or you shave the fluff off their arguments and they are more presentable, stronger cases. Those are generally rare, but I have encountered a couple lately on RF.

 

[Alceste]

Sometimes you get ones who ask you original questions and that spices things up. Or you shave the fluff off their arguments and they are more presentable, stronger cases. Those are generally rare, but I have encountered a couple lately on RF.

Any thread in particular?

 

[Runewolf1973]

What if that which I consider to be "God" or Spirit is everything that actually exists? Can you still say that my God does not exist?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Any thread in particular?

They were both in the same thread. "To the Anti-Religious".

For example, I made the claim that all my beliefs are based on some sort of evidence. lunamoth is the first theist to actually press me for examples of that and I gave her quite a length display of a lot of the evidence I use in general and for specific things. It was an original question that I was very glad to answer. This has been buried under a few pages, though.

And Dunemeister has presented a version of theistic evolution I've never heard before. That's always fun. Instead of the usual "God poked his finger at evolution to make humans", he argues that God controls the dynamic environment which indirectly controls evolution. It's a much stronger argument than the ordinary crap you hear.

 

[Alceste]

What if that which I consider to be "God" or Spirit is everything that actually exists? Can you still say that my God does not exist?

Whoah, Red Deer - we're practically neighbours! My family has a cabin at Sylvan.

So, anyway, I don't say "God doesn't exist." That atheists need to say or believe such things is a fantasy of certain theists. The way it works is, someone presents their particular definition of God, and I go "no, I don't believe in that one either".

If your God is nature, then of course I believe in that one, since nature very obviously exists. I've got plenty of evidence for that.

 

[Vile Atheist]

But I do question the ultimate point of labelling nature as "God".

 

[Commoner]

What if that which I consider to be "God" or Spirit is everything that actually exists? Can you still say that my God does not exist?

By that definition, god exists.

And if you define an apple to be an onion, I just ate a delicious onion.

 

[Alceste]

But I do question the ultimate point of labelling nature as "God".

It simply implies that nature itself has an innate intelligence. I can't argue with that, and there is plenty of evidence for it.

 

[Vile Atheist]

It simply implies that nature itself has an innate intelligence. I can't argue with that, and there is plenty of evidence for it.

Fair enough. That would be a definition of God I can accept.

 

[Commoner]

Fair enough. That would be a definition of God I can accept.

I'd still prefer not to call it god though. Or better yet, I'd prefer other people not use the word to define all kinds of other stuff.

 

[Runewolf1973]

But I do question the ultimate point of labelling nature as "God".

You see, I don't actually like the term "God" for anything. I prefer to call it all Spirit, but that is simply because Spirit (to me anyways) indicates something that has the ability or quality of movement ie: it is animate. Just calling it Universe or existence, in my opinion, fails to indicate this most important aspect or quality. I don't think the fact that things move to be due to something "supernatural". Things in nature that exist all seem to have this one thing in common, they all have movement, even atoms are vibrational. Heck, the fact that there is movement or change is one of the main reasons the Universe even exists at all. The Universe is very active, or how I would say it is "spirited". But I am after all, an Animist.

 

[Alceste]

I'd still prefer not to call it god though. Or better yet, I'd prefer other people not use the word to define all kinds of other stuff.

I agree that the word "god" confuses things, at least in the context of a culture where the majority are monotheistic supernaturalists. It can force the mind to struggle to find some relationship between the god of the Abrahamic monotheists and the god/s of animists and / or polytheists. Really, they haven't really got anything in common.

That's why sometimes I use the name "Yahweh" when I specifically mean the Abrahamic god. Otherwise I use "god" in a generic sense, where the definition is entirely subjective from the POV of the believer.

 

[Alceste]

You see, I don't actually like the term "God" for anything. I prefer to call it all Spirit, but that is simply because Spirit (to me anyways) indicates something that has the ability or quality of movement ie: it is animate. Just calling it Universe or existence, in my opinion, fails to indicate this most important aspect or quality. I don't think the fact that things move to be due to something "supernatural". Things in nature that exist all seem to have this one thing in common, they all have movement, even atoms are vibrational. Heck, the fact that there is movement or change is one of the main reasons the Universe even exists at all. The Universe is very active, or how I would say it is "spirited". But I am after all, an Animist.

To me, it seems you prefer a dynamic (rather than static) characterization of nature.

 

[Runewolf1973]

To me, it seems you prefer a dynamic (rather than static) characterization of nature.

Science (as far as I understand it anyways, I could be wrong) would tend to view everything that exists as being composed of energy in some form or another. I don't believe in anything in nature that exists that would be truly down to it's core "inanimate" or static. Everything has vibration or movement. Therefore everything in my opinion is animate and could be called Spirit. Or at least that's what I choose to call it.

 

[Alceste]

Science (as far as I understand it anyways, I could be wrong) would tend to view everything that exists as being composed of energy in some form or another. I don't believe in anything that exists that would be truly down to it's core "inanimate" or static.

Yeah, I know, but I was thinking more of the nuanced meaning of the word "dynamic". It means more than simply "animate". It implies a character, or personality. Intelligence or intent. Something a person could aspire to interact with in a meaningful way. A pendulum, for example, is "animate", but not "dynamic".

In retrospect, I shouldn't have tossed the concept of "static" in there. Not every idea needs an opposite to define it. (Difficult for a Taoist to remember).

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yeah, I know, but I was thinking more of the nuanced meaning of the word "dynamic". It means more than simply "animate". It implies a character, or personality. Intelligence or intent. Something a person could aspire to interact with in a meaningful way. A pendulum, for example, is "animate", but not "dynamic".

In retrospect, I shouldn't have tossed the concept of "static" in there. Not every idea needs an opposite to define it. (Difficult for a Taoist to remember).

I do understand what you are referring to by saying an "intelligence". (I do practice shamanism and contacting other dimensions, consciousness, etc...) I do believe nature or existence to have that as well. I even believe in ghosts and the afterlife and reincarnation, but that part cannot be proven to others. I can not say that it exists as a fact when I can not prove it as such, but that does not mean I can't believe it. On a side note, I don't believe that ghosts are "supernatural". I believe that they are real and exist (as some as yet undefined energy or force), but that can not be proven, admittedly so. But what good would a shaman be if he/she didn't at least believe the forces being contacted were real and existing? Supernatural is not good enough, not real enough.

 

[Alceste]

I do understand what you are referring to by saying an "intelligence". (I do practice shamanism and contacting other dimensions, consciousness, etc...) I do believe nature or existence to have that as well, but that part cannot be proven others. I can not say that it exists as a fact when I can not prove it as such, but that does not mean I can't believe it.

Yeah - I used to practice shamanism myself. I still do to some extent, but it's more integrated into my everyday life, rather than ritualized. It is very effective and fascinating to believe that nature itself is intelligent in some way and can be interacted with on an interpersonal level. I am thinking of using "dynamic" instead of "intelligent" because of the weight of that ridiculous ID "controversy". I don't want people getting the wrong idea. But, then, I can't spend my whole life looking for other words to replace perfectly good words the theocrats have stolen and corrupted, can I?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yeah - I used to practice shamanism myself. I still do to some extent, but it's more integrated into my everyday life, rather than ritualized. It is very effective and fascinating to believe that nature itself is intelligent in some way and can be interacted with on an interpersonal level. I am thinking of using "dynamic" instead of "intelligent" because of the weight of that ridiculous ID "controversy". I don't want people getting the wrong idea. But, then, I can't spend my whole life looking for other words to replace perfectly good words the theocrats have stolen and corrupted, can I?

That is true. Bye the way, nice to meet someone so close to home. We are practically neighbors like you said.

 

[PureX]

Wow. I have never encountered a more profound ignorance of the world we live in.

- The Crusades
- The Reconquista
- French Wars of Religion
- Muslim Conquests
- Thirty Years War
- Taiping Rebellion
- Boxer Rebellion
- 2nd Sudanese Civil War
- Indo-Pakistani Partition of 1947
- Indian Rebellion of 1857
- Yellow Scarves Rebellion
- Five Pecks of Rice Rebellion
- White Lotus Rebellion
- Sri Lankan Civil War
- Jewish-Roman Wars
- Sikh Uprising
- The Saxon Wars


Substantiate your claim by demonstrating each and every one of these to not be religious conflicts.

I guess you missed the "right now" part. Also, most of those wars were politically or ethnically motivated.

 

[PureX]

If you do not consider God a "supernatural" being, then I have no idea what you think the word means.

If the physical universe is an expression of God's mind and will, it would be unreasonable to expect God to act "supernaturally". To do so would in effect be countermanding God's own mind and will.