Forum Index » Philosophy & Technique » nature=church?


Display Avatars Sort By:
Ben 2 World
(ben2world) - MLife

Locale: So Cal
Re: Co-Opting on 03/22/2012 17:29:35 MDT Print View

Tom:

Word meanings do change with time... but in any current conversation, we also do need common ground. You are being too idealistic (hey, let words mean whatever they mean) -- or just stubborn.

But anyway, going by what you wrote, I'd like to hear your view about what I wrote above re. terms like Christian Scientists, Democratic Republic of Korea, and spiritual atheists. Because in all three cases, it's not even just morphing of word meaning -- but willful and dubious co-opting. And adding to that -- a full expectation that everyone else needs to agree with what is now their definition!

Edited by ben2world on 03/22/2012 17:35:01 MDT.

Jacob D
(JacobD) - F

Locale: North Bay
Anyway... on 03/22/2012 23:01:47 MDT Print View

From Ben:
[i]
But I doubt any professed atheist true to definition would look at Nature -- and feel spiritual or religious -- and associate that with a church. That makes no sense.

So by definition, you cannot be an atheist and have any sort of spiritual feelings. You feelings are just as real, obviously, but you ought to think through and attribute those feelings to their proper sources -- and not to anything that you already profess to be 'not real'[/i]


I am an atheist by the strict definition, not an agnostic. I don't believe in the eternal spirit. I cannot understand how anyone can be a so called spiritual atheist, that makes no sense, but others can call themselves whatever they like.

Suggesting to an atheist that their feelings come from god is about as useful as telling an atheist "god exists". The "all things to his glory" premise is rejected as per atheism 101 :)

However, I don't think the concept of an atheist considering the outdoors their "church" is totally out of line so long as "church" doesn't entail deity worship. Of course if that doesn't fit your definition of "church", then according to you it's wrong, but I don't really care what you think (no offense), my response was also to the OP for their consideration. I am an atheist, I have gone on record as having said the mountains are my church in the past. If that doesn't make sense to you, no worries.



From Tom:
[i]One cannot deny that which stirs within them in the presence of nature's beauty. What, if anything, one chooses to call it, is up to the the individual.[/i]

Agree.

Edited by JacobD on 03/22/2012 23:11:15 MDT.

BER ---
(BER) - MLife

Locale: Wisconsin
Nature=chrurch on 03/23/2012 09:33:00 MDT Print View

I find myself in the camp with Miguel, Tom and Jacob. Good company, I'd say.
+1 gentlemen on your fine words.


“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”--Suart Chase

Edited by BER on 03/23/2012 10:03:57 MDT.

Ben 2 World
(ben2world) - MLife

Locale: So Cal
Re: Anyway... on 03/23/2012 10:05:55 MDT Print View

@ Jacob, et. al.

Well, I am clearly in the minority, so while not changing my view that word meanings are important and that one can't just call anything however one wants... I'll respect the views of the majority.

But with any choice, comes consequences, of course. Different, but not all that different, these postings remind me of how some teachers -- beginning in the 60's -- de-emphasized grammar, spelling, etc. -- in the name of greater freedom of expression for their students. I believe the general result isn't so much an explosion of creative thought... but a deterioration in the language (or the use of the language).

Time to move on...

Dave U
(FamilyGuy) - F

Locale: Rockies
Re: Re: Anyway... on 03/23/2012 10:06:46 MDT Print View

Nope - I support your thoughts Ben. That makes two.

Jacob - I love the quote!

Ben 2 World
(ben2world) - MLife

Locale: So Cal
Re: Anyway... on 03/23/2012 10:09:41 MDT Print View

Thanks, David. :)

joseph peterson
(sparky) - F

Locale: Southern California
nature=church? on 04/07/2012 18:57:40 MDT Print View

Self, and everything outside the self. Self being your mind, your perception. Outside the self, meaning reality....the world around you.....everything else except you in existence.

Many spiritual people think of themselves as this pilot that has control of a spaceship and is maneuvering through an obstacle course, trying to do the right thing.

Light, and darkness. They go together, they are the same. Light with no darkness is not light, it is just...something that cannot possibly exist. Light and dark coexist together....each other spring forth each others existence. More importantly, OUR perception and definition of light and darkness defines them and springs forth their existence.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, it doesn't make a sound because sound only exists in your mind. All the same, if a tree falls in the forest, you are the tree! But just as light and darkness, self and everything outside the self are the same, and cannot possibly exist without the other. Sound is nothing without silence, wet without dry, good without evil...but more importantly, neither are possible without the self, and the not self, they're coexisting and self aware of the mirror on a mirror reflection of itself spinning new realities off into fractal tangents.

The self, and everything outside the self is the same thing....the face of god personified in time and space.

So yes, nature is church like everything else.....

Edited by sparky on 04/07/2012 19:00:18 MDT.