It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Agartha
LOL you are free to call it whatever you want, I'm just saying that I disagree, I don't see God, I see nature.
originally posted by: Ghost147
therefore it's unreasonable to be inclined to believe supernatural over natural.
originally posted by: gggilll
Actually many scientists and physicists have publicly expressed their concern that it seems the more we uncover about the secrets of matter, the more new questions it raises.
originally posted by: gggilll
Currently they kind of feel a bit overwhelmed and some are starting to question the finality of science.
originally posted by: gggilll
It's good to keep in mind that we should remain humble in the face of the grandiosity and complexity and mystery of the universe and calling it god is just one way among many to do so.
originally posted by: gggilll
I could say "I'm here on this earth today thanks to the creation of matter, the laws of causality, the gravitation, organic compounds, nucleobases, proteins, pluricellular organisms and an infinity of other conditions that allowed for the creation of my dna and for its self-replication into a colony which achieved sentience". And I sometime do.
Then other time, because I want to understand my heritage and roots with those who came here before me (or because it's the subject of the thread) I use their term and simply say: "I'm here, in god and thanks to god" because it's shorter and yet there are still plenty of people who understand what I mean perfectly.
originally posted by: Ghost147
It's a lot more humble than simple claiming that they know The Only Truth and are Absolutely Certain and no ammount of evidence can change their minds.
originally posted by: Ghost147
Uh... no. The two paragraphs do not mean identical things. in fact, to everyone else, they are claiming the exact opposite things.
originally posted by: gggilll
originally posted by: Ghost147
therefore it's unreasonable to be inclined to believe supernatural over natural.
Pantheism doesn't believe in supernatural over natural.
It's really something a lot of people have a difficulty to understand.
Pantheism says "god" and nature are the same thing. I never understand why people can't accept that god can very possibly something more mundane than their image of it.
originally posted by: gggilll
Not true. They are meaning different things to religious fundamentalists (which are it is true the majority of Christian in the US, but not in the rest of the world), but not to other deists or pantheists.
originally posted by: Ghost147
I only saw the post I originally responded to
originally posted by: Ghost147
If you were to just give that first paragraph without an explanation that your concepts come from pantheism, it would mean something entirely different at it's core.
originally posted by: gggilll
That might be a problem if you want to discuss what I believe in.
originally posted by: gggilll
That people automatically assume god = supernatural being is their problem not mine.
originally posted by: gggilll
So in a way you are correct (because you ignored the context).
originally posted by: Agartha
I see nature and I revere nature for its power and beauty, and I try to understand it through science and not by just accepting things with faith.