Atheists and Naturalists: What does "Nature" represent? (God, Articles)

[doppelgänger]

This is a discussion for all "naturalists", atheistic "scientists" and the like.

What does "nature" represent to you? What do you mean when you say something is "natural"?

[Seyorni]

Nature is depersonalized God; God without the human attributes and "personality" people are so fond of investing It with.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

This is a discussion for all "naturalists", atheistic "scientists" and the like.

What does "nature" represent to you? What do you mean when you say something is "natural"?

The way I look at it, nature in general is the sum of the natures of independent "things," and the nature of a thing is determined by its characteristics. Everything that can be said to describe a thing is characteristic of it. So nature in general, essentially, is all that can be described.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Willamena

The way I look at it, nature in general is the sum of the natures of independent "things," and the nature of a thing is determined by its characteristics. Everything that can be said to describe a thing is characteristic of it. So nature in general, essentially, is all that can be described.

Those "things" we perceive and give thingness to, or sort of a sum total of all things that might, are or could be "things"? Would you exclude "things" that "are", but you haven't discovered or described them yet?

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

Nature is depersonalized God; God without the human attributes and "personality" people are so fond of investing It with.

The difference between "atheist" naturalists and "theists" appears that the latter perceives "God" as a discreet being/consciousness with a personality?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Those "things" we perceive and give thingness to, or sort of a sum total of all things that might, are or could be "things"?

The latter. All things that *can* be described.

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Would you exclude "things" that "are", but you haven't discovered or described them yet?

If I can describe them once I encounter them, in reality or imagination, I assign them characteristics.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Willamena

The latter. All things that *can* be described.


If I can describe them once I encounter them, in reality or imagination, I assign them characteristics.

What about things like subatomic particles and ecological systems that can't be reduced to a descriptive model?