How much do we know?

[TagliatelliMonster]

" the mentally ill person asks why i dont see all the little green men around me"

Point?

Only a half wit would understand nature and god as split apart.

Calling me a half wit?




Well... this "half wit" sees religious people talk about their god and notices that they mean something very very different form just mere "nature". In fact, "god created nature", they say.

So unless they mean that god created himself, I'm pretty sure it's a false assumption to say that god and nature are one and the same.

It's also kind of a bizar thing to say, considering I am an atheist, which distinctly means that I don't believe gods to be real, but I do recognise nature as real. And I think it's pretty safe to say that all other atheists would like believe the same.

Even if you mean a religion where nature IS seen as god, or an extension of god or what-have-you, the mere word "god" has LOADS of baggage that the word "nature" does not have - including in those religions.
Those religions, when they talk about god(s), they don't talk about just mure nature. They talk about nature plus other stuff.


I feel like a "half wit" explaining this, beause I find it extremely unlikely that you don't already know and realise all of this...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Point?



Calling me a half wit?




Well... this "half wit" sees religious people talk about their god and notices that they mean something very very different form just mere "nature". In fact, "god created nature", they say.

So unless they mean that god created himself, I'm pretty sure it's a false assumption to say that god and nature are one and the same.

It's also kind of a bizar thing to say, considering I am an atheist, which distinctly means that I don't believe gods to be real, but I do recognise nature as real. And I think it's pretty safe to say that all other atheists would like believe the same.

Even if you mean a religion where nature IS seen as god, or an extension of god or what-have-you, the mere word "god" has LOADS of baggage that the word "nature" does not have - including in those religions.
Those religions, when they talk about god(s), they don't talk about just mure nature. They talk about nature plus other stuff.


I feel like a "half wit" explaining this, beause I find it extremely unlikely that you don't already know and realise all of this...

A side note: A fun fact about the word "real" is that it itself has no observable referent. You can't see, hold, touch and so real. It is one of those words, where if there were no humans, there would be no real, yet nature would still be there. The same with truth, knowledge and so on

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A side note: A fun fact about the word "real" is that it itself has no observable referent. You can't see, hold, touch and so real. It is one of those words, where if there were no humans, there would be no real, yet nature would still be there. The same with truth, knowledge and so on

No words would exist.
The things words refer to, like "reality", exist regardless of there being minds to make up words to refer to them or not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No words would exist.
The things words refer to, like "reality", exist regardless of there being minds to make up words to refer to them or not.

Yeah, but what the word "gravity" is about would still be there. Not "real" though. That is the point. Not all words have objective referents. That includes word like reason, logic, rationality and objective. That is what you don't get. Some of what some of the words you use, requires humans. Other don't.
Give me your definition of "reality" and we will check it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That reminds me: the 72 hours are up, so thanks for the conversation. I'm sorry you weren't able to define a real god for me, but it seems, at least on the basis of my enquiries so far, that there's no such definition.

I guess what surprises me is that the lack of such a definition is so little remarked.

What do you mean, "72 hours"? Can you prove 72 hours passed in the natural world, external to your being?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, but what the word "gravity" is about would still be there. Not "real" though.

That makes no sense to me.
If a thing external to humans is being called "real" which wouldn't be "real" anymore when humans disappear, then that thing was never "real" in the first place.

That's what I understand by the world "real" in context of physical reality: that it exists, regardless of human minds existing. Ie, objectively real.

That is the point. Not all words have objective referents.

I'ld say the world "real" refers to things "real", as in independend of human minds.

That includes word like reason, logic, rationality and objective.

Those are properties of brains capable of such things.
Yes, if there are no humans, then there is no human reasoning or logic or whatnot.

That is what you don't get

What I get, is that you like to play ambigous and vague semantic games.

Give me your definition of "reality" and we will check it.

That which exists regardless of opinion.

 

[blü 2]

What do you mean, "72 hours"? Can you prove 72 hours passed in the natural world, external to your being?

To the satisfaction of anyone who's ever owned a watch, I think I'd give it a good shake, yes.

 

[David T]

Point?



Calling me a half wit?




Well... this "half wit" sees religious people talk about their god and notices that they mean something very very different form just mere "nature". In fact, "god created nature", they say.

So unless they mean that god created himself, I'm pretty sure it's a false assumption to say that god and nature are one and the same.

It's also kind of a bizar thing to say, considering I am an atheist, which distinctly means that I don't believe gods to be real, but I do recognise nature as real. And I think it's pretty safe to say that all other atheists would like believe the same.

Even if you mean a religion where nature IS seen as god, or an extension of god or what-have-you, the mere word "god" has LOADS of baggage that the word "nature" does not have - including in those religions.
Those religions, when they talk about god(s), they don't talk about just mure nature. They talk about nature plus other stuff.


I feel like a "half wit" explaining this, beause I find it extremely unlikely that you don't already know and realise all of this...

Only a half wit would let religion define the term god for them! Sorry being clueless about nature and. Religion at the same time is pretty silly. Read John muir although wowzer he uses religious terms. Often times so he might be brain surgery for you.

Please, art and poetry and science at simplistic levels is as best you are going to do. Dont brag just accept it. Normal.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Only a half wit would let religion define the term god for them!

Only a morron wouldn't.
I can play that juvenile game as well

Sorry being clueless about nature and. Religion at the same time is pretty silly. Read John muir although wowzer he uses religious terms. Often times so he might be brain surgery for you.

Why would I read "John muir"? Why would his opinion be of any interest?

Please, art and poetry and science at simplistic levels is as best you are going to do. Dont brag just accept it. Normal.

Random statement is random.
Art, poetry and science have nothing to do with the fact that when people talk about God, they mean something else then mere nature.

 

[night912]

Yeah, but what the word "gravity" is about would still be there. Not "real" though. That is the point. Not all words have objective referents. That includes word like reason, logic, rationality and objective. That is what you don't get. Some of what some of the words you use, requires humans. Other don't.
Give me your definition of "reality" and we will check it.

Nope. You're wrong. All words requires humans. If there were no humans, then no words would exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope. You're wrong. All words requires humans. If there were no humans, then no words would exist.

But not all words are about humans. Remove humans and there still would be something left, right? I.e. objective reality or what words you use.

 

[PureX]

But not all words are about humans. Remove humans and there still would be something left, right? I.e. objective reality or what words you use.

There is no "objective reality" because reality is a concept, not an object. What exists apart from human cognition is a mystery to us, and will remain so. It is 'the unknowable'. What we assume to exist apart from our cognition is a conceptual fantasy. And although we can't help generating it, I think it's important that we try and remain aware of this.

 

[tas8831]

but I am certain....
there is a God

How...
so...?

I am certain...
that if there is such a thing...

it is not...
the deity depicted...
in...
the bible

 

[BilliardsBall]

To the satisfaction of anyone who's ever owned a watch, I think I'd give it a good shake, yes.

So we're back to "I only believe in material things, but I use math every time I shop and logic every time I debate, even though those things don't exist."

 

[blü 2]

So we're back to "I only believe in material things, but I use math every time I shop and logic every time I debate, even though those things don't exist."

As I said before, maths and logic exist as systems of concepts, and concepts only exist in brains. If there were no brains around capable of holding concepts, there'd be no maths or logic.

But in fact there are brains around, hence concepts, hence systems of concepts, hence maths and logic.

Brains are material, by the way.

 

[David T]

Only a morron wouldn't.
I can play that juvenile game as well






Why would I read "John muir"? Why would his opinion be of any interest?



Random statement is random.
Art, poetry and science have nothing to do with the fact that when people talk about God, they mean something else then mere nature.

Whats your opinion on the sunset or gravity? Conservative or liberal?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Whats your opinion on the sunset or gravity? Conservative or liberal?

French fries with mayonaise is my favorite dish.



(I'm just continuing your trend of making random points)

 

[David T]

French fries with mayonaise is my favorite dish.



(I'm just continuing your trend of making random points)

And how is one to speak to a southern baptist with or without jesus? Who cares?

Like i said whats your opinion on gravity since thats all you are capable of mustering.pitiful but hey!!! Normal.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And how is one to speak to a southern baptist with or without jesus? Who cares?

Like i said whats your opinion on gravity since thats all you are capable of mustering.pitiful but hey!!! Normal.

I have no idea what you are on about. Totally clueless as to how any of these seemingly random statements are in any way relevant to when a religious person speaks about his / her God, that that person means something very different from mere nature.

All I did was point that out. It seems mega flipping obvious...

Again... no clue why you feel the need to respond to that with the randomness you are doing...

 

[David T]

I have no idea what you are on about. Totally clueless as to how any of these seemingly random statements are in any way relevant to when a religious person speaks about his / her God, that that person means something very different from mere nature.

All I did was point that out. It seems mega flipping obvious...

Again... no clue why you feel the need to respond to that with the randomness you are doing...

Like i said read muir. Not that hard. Actually.

Fantasy is a funny thing. Muir doesnt speak in fantasy terms. He speaks very clearly and directly. Now if someone insists their fantasy, or in this case ( belief, non belief agnosticism), singular is fact, well thats the seed of the vast majority of mental disorders. It really does not matter. Factually ...

Whats your belief about gravity ? It does not matter. Since it does not matter in terms of gravity it most certainly does not matter in context to the topic god and nature both. Irrelevant who cares?