Notices
Results 1 to 97 of 97

Thread: Nature as GOD

  1. #1 Nature as GOD 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Why I believe NATURE is GOD

    Nature is the ONLY creator of all life. The female being the most important of the pairs. The male acts as the protector and servant.
    Nature has created food for us all and it is free.
    Nature has given all creatures its clothing. Almost all pairs (female and male) wear the same clothing.
    Nature is a liberal GOD because it has made no laws but gave us genetic and biological characteristics to govern our lives.
    Nature requires no licenses to reproduce or any other licenses for that matter.
    Hence, no costly marriages.
    It has created the food chain as our burial sites, hence no funerals.
    It has given us our own doctors with the 'immune systems' within us.
    It requires no rituals, tithes or taxes, forced attendances and etc.
    It grants no property ownerships, patents or any other grants to create millionaires or billionaires.
    It has given us complete freedom with no restrictions.
    It is a merciful GOD because it does not suffer us by prolonging death and even tempers this brief interim with the endorphin pain killers.
    It allows post abortion (carnivore consumption of newborns) and the food chain in the sea and ocean life to limit population imbalances.

    Socialism is about the closest political system to NATURE because it
    gives us the essential needs and freedoms and yet takes care of our lives with these necessities.


    The bible is at complete opposition to Nature.

    It promotes a deity that demands absolute obedience with the first three commandments. The last six can be considered generic and are OK.
    It’s deity is a genocidal deity.
    It portrays sex as a sin. This is nonsense. Only perverse sex can be considered to be sinful.
    It portrays the males as chauvinists. In our current culture, the males dominate and use the females as slaves while they consider themselves to be the masters.
    It portrays the females as the sinners and a fruit from a tree as a sin if eaten. This is a blatant falsehood. Fruit and vegetables are our proper food source because they can be eaten raw.
    This also insults the Apes as eating the fruit of the trees.
    It promotes racism by forbidding cross marriages outside the Jewish peoples culture and insults the apes that represent the darkness with the Moon as it symbolic source.

    This book does not represent truth.

    Cosmo


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman Rationalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    71
    You have got to be kidding me. Wow, that is very creative. Of course, utterly superfluous. Why would you need to give nature another name like God? You list these characteristics of nature, then compare it to these ideas about a religious God, then say God is nature. This makes no sense. And you're not even on the mark with your statements. . .
    Nature has created food for us all and it is free.
    Food acquisition is costly in terms of energy, and organisms are dying every second attempting to obtain it. It is hardly free in any sense.
    Nature is a liberal GOD because it has made no laws but gave us genetic and biological characteristics to govern our lives.
    No, it doesn't have some kind of legislature, but how can you say it doesn't make laws?! It is laws!
    It allows post abortion (carnivore consumption of newborns) and the food chain in the sea and ocean life to limit population imbalances.
    Yup, gotta love that infanticide. mmmmmmm
    It is a merciful GOD because it does not suffer us by prolonging death and even tempers this brief interim with the endorphin pain killers.
    Merciful?! Get real. I shouldn't have to name the diseases for you to know that mercy and lack of pain is hardly something that nature provides.
    It has given us complete freedom with no restrictions.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA
    Socialism is about the closest political system to NATURE because it
    gives us the essential needs and freedoms and yet takes care of our lives with these necessities.
    Maybe nature is socialism. It is also probably neo-isolationist because some organisms live in isolation to others. Also, it must have something to do with Keynesisan theory, where the state is represented on the community level and the organism the private sector.
    It’s deity is a genocidal deity.
    Nature has wiped out entire groups of individuals with famine and disease. I think nature qualifies as being genocidal. It kills everything. Life continues only because of killing and consuming. It is what I call the Circle of Death (as opposed to the euphemized circle of life).
    It portrays sex as a sin. This is nonsense. Only perverse sex can be considered to be sinful.
    Why is perverse sex a sin? What is perverse sex? You get that from the Bible or something?
    It portrays the females as the sinners and a fruit from a tree as a sin if eaten. This is a blatant falsehood. Fruit and vegetables are our proper food source because they can be eaten raw.
    This also insults the Apes as eating the fruit of the trees.
    It promotes racism by forbidding cross marriages outside the Jewish peoples culture and insults the apes that represent the darkness with the Moon as it symbolic source.
    Now I know you must be kidding. Your nature theory is as superfluous and muddled as your ideas on the Universal Mind. It appears as if it is the product of a long day of creative, and wishful thinking. If you don't believe in the God of these religions then why are you still trying to fit its concept onto something? Stop trying to personify the impersonal forces that govern this Universe.


    "I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch."

    -Dr. James Watson, American biologist
    (Discoverer of DNA)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Intersting theory (take note everyone else that is the polite way to respond), however nature being God itself is not sentient, or so it seems, so therefore how can a non-sentient being create all that is? Your saying technically that casuality is God. Is that right?

    PS Not being hostile here, just addressing a few ideas .
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    115
    Nature is what you see all around of you !

    my friend, look inside of you, feel by your conscience,
    You don't feel that you are superior then that nature !
    you don't feel that nature is under your control !

    if nature is the creator, how she died by the time !
    In many cases, man defeated nature ! Nature is a creature !

    So, It must be a creator behind this nature, !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Rationalist
    You have got to be kidding me. Wow, that is very creative. Of course, utterly superfluous. Why would you need to give nature another name like God?
    surely you know that 'GoD' stands for 'Generator of Diversity' ?
    that's what nature does best
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Www.frostfirezoo.com/Atheist-sees-image-of-big-bang-in-piece-of-toast
    Ahaha!

    Toast stories are always funny :wink:

    Thanks for that!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Rationalist
    Food acquisition is costly in terms of energy, and organisms are dying every second attempting to obtain it. It is hardly free in any sense.
    I am a Vegan (total vegetarian).
    The elaphants, rhinos, and other herbavores are surrounded by food.
    No problem here.
    Sure, other animals take some risk but hene , the risk is small.
    .
    No, it doesn't have some kind of legislature, but how can you say it doesn't make laws?! It is laws!
    The biological lifeforms are not regulated by laws.
    Only the physical realm conplies to some degree by laws.

    gotta love that infanticide. mmmmmmm
    Merciful?! Get real. I shouldn't have to name the diseases for you to know that mercy and lack of pain is hardly something that nature provides.
    Yes. The person that is more generally a child has a fighting chance to overcome the disease with a fever and its own immune system..
    This is done to prevent any imbalances in Nature that happens in the human sector like the Islamic 'people bombs'. Do the 'infedels' here have a chance?

    Why is perverse sex a sin? What is perverse sex? You get that from the Bible or something?
    Departure from using sex the natural way is considered to be sin.
    Eating the fruit from a tree as the bible teaches is an insult to the apes.

    Now I know you must be kidding. Your nature theory is as superfluous and muddled as your ideas on the Universal Mind. It appears as if it is the product of a long day of creative, and wishful thinking. If you don't believe in the God of these religions then why are you still trying to fit its concept onto something? Stop trying to personify the impersonal forces that govern this Universe.
    I wrote this concept because I consider the bible to be ludicrous as gods word.
    Do you believe in the bible?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Intersting theory (take note everyone else that is the polite way to respond), however nature being God itself is not sentient, or so it seems, so therefore how can a non-sentient being create all that is? Your saying technically that casuality is God. Is that right?

    PS Not being hostile here, just addressing a few ideas .
    Isn't the bible being used as a reference?

    Well, a picture is worth a thousand words.

    What has the bible invented or promoted its work of art? It is just words
    and human art.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by sherif003
    Nature is what you see all around of you !

    my friend, look inside of you, feel by your conscience,
    You don't feel that you are superior then that nature !
    you don't feel that nature is under your control !

    if nature is the creator, how she died by the time !
    In many cases, man defeated nature ! Nature is a creature !

    So, It must be a creator behind this nature, !
    It is my feelings of sorrow for the animals that prompted me to revere Nature.

    Humans do not rule over Nature!
    It is the WEAPONS in their hands that allow this.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    I'll see if I can put my thoughts into this...

    By saying nature is God, you are, in a way, saying that you are in some way a naturalist, yes? I mean, you don't believe in anything supernatural. You only have a belief in the natural, which is a bit wierd (not meant to be offensive). I used to have a belief in God once, since pretty much the whole community I am living in also believe in God, but I've always liked to think about things, and the thing that really bugged me was that God is supposed to be beyond understanding. It was quite obvious that if he was beyond our understanding then it would be pointless to try and understand God, but yet we do have concepts of God. After this thought I moved on to try and rationalize God, trying to explain his supposed existence. I came across ideas that God was nature as a whole, like you, but moved further on until I decided God must be some form of pure energy. Again I tried to further rationalize God and came to the conclusion that since a certain energy composition/structure is needed (complexity) for God to be conscious, so that this energy has intent, God can't exist at all! I thought that maybe energy formed randomly a conscious mind/a God, but then thought, "yeah, but how long is that going to last? The probability that such energy would randomly create God in enough time to let him do anything at all is absurd."

    Perhaps God destroyed himself in that split-second creating the big bang?

    etc, etc, etc...

    The point here is that no matter how I tried to rationalize the existence of God, the most logical thing was that he was nature in some way, but even that thought had its fallacies. Which leaves me to the biggest assumption of all, that you either are becoming an atheist... or... that you've stopped where you are in your rationalizations for whatever reason(s) and come to the conclusion that nature is God.

    Anyhow, to this day I find the concept of a creator irrational and inconsistent, because IF there is a supreme being out there we cannot even percieve, then it's pointless to even think about it, even more pointless to worship it in any way. If it doesn't care about us, then we don't have to care about it. To me, the concept of a creater is nothing more than wishful thinking.

    But the idea that God is nature is kind of pointless. Nature is nature, unless you see reality as a supernatural thing?

    Did I write all this? Wow! Sorry for the long bit in the beginning!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman Rationalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    71
    But the idea that God is nature is kind of pointless. Nature is nature, unless you see reality as a supernatural thing?
    Yes, what he said. That is what I mean by saying that calling nature "God" is superfluous. Use Occam's Razor.
    "I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch."

    -Dr. James Watson, American biologist
    (Discoverer of DNA)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Obviously and Rationalist:

    Let me clarify what I mean by 'Nature as GOD'.

    The bible is used as a reference for most of the western religions.
    It is being used as a 'teacher' of morality?

    Well, there is no greater teacher than Nature. All religions are derived from Nature.
    The bible is just words.

    Nature is 'pictures'.
    So you know the old saying thst a picture is worth a thousand words.

    I have analyzed the bible and have come to conclusions that it is completely false except the existance of the 'evil' spirit YHWH that is portayed as the Jewish god.
    They say this word should not be spoken and unpronounceble.

    Well, when you look at the captions for Jewish names, I have noticed that my name (Michael) has the caption 'who is liike god'. Wow! I am like god?
    So my name is derived from 'milk', mammal, mother, man and are associated with the Apes. So I am proud of being an ape (evolved, that is). But milk is 'white'!
    So I came to the conclusion that their god is also white?
    Being portrayed as a creator god, there is only one conclusion and that is the male ejacta (new word, noun) ha ha.
    So than their portayal of the women as sinners is 'false'.

    The males would have to be the sinners, since after they drop their balls,
    (sorry to be so blunt) they start using their hands. Ha ha.

    So now you can see why I refute the bible as erroneous.

    So now I look to Nature as my teacher and than I can catecorize it as Naturalist' that is a religion because it is a teacher. We learn from Nature.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    guess we've gone full circle. back in the ancient days they made deities for each force of nature, so if you wanted good harvests you prayed to the god of harvests and such.
    then along came the monotheistic god whom you prayed to for everything.
    and after that is atheism, or the abolishment of any sort of deities.
    and now you're suggesting that nature is god.
    essentially the belief that nature is the deity of everything.
    i'm sure you'll be able to pull a horde of gullible people with a desire for spiritual guidance into this though.
    you can start off with self-help courses, get some actors to promote it,
    eventually you can ask them to pay you for each session,
    and after a while demand you get official status as a religion.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    guess we've gone full circle. back in the ancient days they made deities for each force of nature, so if you wanted good harvests you prayed to the god of harvests and such.
    then along came the monotheistic god whom you prayed to for everything.
    and after that is atheism, or the abolishment of any sort of deities.
    and now you're suggesting that nature is god.
    essentially the belief that nature is the deity of everything.
    i'm sure you'll be able to pull a horde of gullible people with a desire for spiritual guidance into this though.
    you can start off with self-help courses, get some actors to promote it,
    eventually you can ask them to pay you for each session,
    and after a while demand you get official status as a religion.
    I am not a chauvinist like the OT teaches. Chauvinists are 'self serving'.

    What you suggest is to use my religion as a 'business'.
    Sorry, but I prefer to just promote the truth as Nature teaches without using a cup for 'handouts'. Besides, I do not have that 'sale-ability' to sell since the truth does not sell.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    I thought it is time to recycle this article that may answer some of the questions for the 'newcomers '.

    Cos mo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    You treat nature as a theist would a god, as an entity, an intelligent creator.

    By the same token, nature also gives us earthquakes, tidal waves, floods, diseases, etc.

    Nature is simply an ongoing evolutionary driven snapshot of any point in Earth's geological time.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    You treat nature as a theist would a god, as an entity, an intelligent creator.

    By the same token, nature also gives us earthquakes, tidal waves, floods, diseases, etc.

    Nature is simply an ongoing evolutionary driven snapshot of any point in Earth's geological time.
    When I portray Nature as GOD, I am speaking about the 'biological' Nature, not the physical.
    I will admit that there is a slight link between the two Natures.

    Anyway, you are pointing out the bad things but do not mention the good things like life itself, food, love, artistic beauty, purification of the atmosphere by the plants, the various inventive animals that we copied from and the wonderful sky with all its treasures if you have a telescope.
    Yes, Mother Nature is the greatest except for the last item
    AMEN

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    When I portray Nature as GOD, I am speaking about the 'biological' Nature, not the physical.
    I will admit that there is a slight link between the two Natures.
    The biological nature IS the physical nature.

    Anyway, you are pointing out the bad things but do not mention the good things like life itself, food, love, artistic beauty, purification of the atmosphere by the plants, the various inventive animals that we copied from and the wonderful sky with all its treasures if you have a telescope.
    No, you conveniently left out those ingredients.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    When I portray Nature as GOD, I am speaking about the 'biological' Nature, not the physical.
    I will admit that there is a slight link between the two Natures.
    The biological nature IS the physical nature.
    The biological Nature is a reproductive nature.
    The physical Nature is 'not'.

    In other words, living 'cells' do reproduce to their own image and the 'stem' cells can reproduce into other forms.

    The hydrogen atoms cannot reproduce and comply to the Laws of Conservation.
    The HA's can fuse into larger elements but that is not reproction of matter.
    I know you will say that stars and galaxies reproduce but there is no increased matter involved. These are just condensed congregates of matter.

    Anyway, you are pointing out the bad things but do not mention the good things like life itself, food, love, artistic beauty, purification of the atmosphere by the plants, the various inventive animals that we copied from and the wonderful sky with all its treasures if you have a telescope.
    No, you conveniently left out those ingredients.
    Well, I prefer to see the good side of Nature.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Junior DivideByZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    260
    Cosmo, I agree. Nature is God.
    and God is Nature.

    Rationalist, you are by no means rational. It makes the most sense saying that nature is god.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    This is ill-defined. What makes nature God? Consciousness? Why? How does it make a difference? Why believe something like that? And lastly, evidence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    This is ill-defined. What makes nature God? Consciousness? Why? How does it make a difference? Why believe something like that? And lastly, evidence?
    In my opening article on this subject, I said that Nature is our Greatest Teacher.
    We learn from our 'elders'.
    The bible is used as a reference book for questions about life.
    So we look to teachers as sources for our questions.

    All the sources of these questions look to Nature and quote Nature as their sources and opinions.

    The bible and the popes teach nothing that the animals do not know. They do not need the bible or the popes.
    They all reproduce and form families.

    So these are the main points of existing.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    The biological Nature is a reproductive nature.
    The physical Nature is 'not'.

    In other words, living 'cells' do reproduce to their own image and the 'stem' cells can reproduce into other forms.

    The hydrogen atoms cannot reproduce and comply to the Laws of Conservation.
    The HA's can fuse into larger elements but that is not reproction of matter.
    I know you will say that stars and galaxies reproduce but there is no increased matter involved. These are just condensed congregates of matter.
    Biological nature is physical. Reproduction is another topic altogether.


    Well, I prefer to see the good side of Nature.

    Cosmo
    What is the "good" side of nature. Please explain without the use of the religious concepts of good and evil.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    [quote="(Q)"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    The biological Nature is a reproductive nature.
    The physical Nature is 'not'.

    In other words, living 'cells' do reproduce to their own image and the 'stem' cells can reproduce into other forms.

    The hydrogen atoms cannot reproduce and comply to the Laws of Conservation.
    The HA's can fuse into larger elements but that is not reproction of matter.
    I know you will say that stars and galaxies reproduce but there is no increased matter involved. These are just condensed congregates of matter.
    Biological nature is physical. Reproduction is another topic altogether.


    Well, I prefer to see the good side of Nature.

    Cosmo
    What is the "good" side of nature. Please explain without the use of the religious concepts of good and evil.



    I explained above that biological Nature can reproduce while the physical Nature cannot. Granted, the biological is pysical but there is a difference.

    The 'good' side of nature is that it provides us with the delicious fruits that we should eat and the other vegetables.
    It also has the females and the males as compatible creatures that promotes love.

    So, what more do you want?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: Nature as GOD 
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Nature is the ONLY creator of all life. The female being the most important of the pairs. The male acts as the protector and servant.
    I think you need to be careful here. If your religion takes off we will have male equal opportunity/give males the right to vote marches in a couple thousand years or so.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: Nature as GOD 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Nature is the ONLY creator of all life. The female being the most important of the pairs. The male acts as the protector and servant.
    I think you need to be careful here. If your religion takes off we will have male equal opportunity/give males the right to vote marches in a couple thousand years or so.
    The Old Testament teachings are evil and degrade the females as 'sinners' that has reduced them to the level of 'farm' animals (breeding stock) as Islam promotes and the smaller Mormon cult.

    These people have their ignorance closed to the Natural balance of Nature that allows 'post' abortions to maintain some control of population explosions with the food chain in the oceans and seas and on land by the carnivores that will eat their offspring on occasions. This is done mostly by the males..

    So the OT is responsible for this unjust inequity with its promotion of 'Chauvinism' that is resonsible for all the social ills and evils.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    This still isn't making any sense. It seems as though you're reluctant to be atheist or something, and therefore made this concept. Somehow claiming the natural is supernatural within itself. Truth is, everything we're capable of, whether it's imbalance or evil, is a part of nature. Everything percieved to be unatural is in reality natural.

    In my eyes, Cosmo, you're an atheist. At least to some extent. God is just a metaphor to cloak your atheism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    This still isn't making any sense. It seems as though you're reluctant to be atheist or something, and therefore made this concept. Somehow claiming the natural is supernatural within itself. Truth is, everything we're capable of, whether it's imbalance or evil, is a part of nature. Everything percieved to be unatural is in reality natural.

    In my eyes, Cosmo, you're an atheist. At least to some extent. God is just a metaphor to cloak your atheism.
    No, I am a believer in GOD because I do not lie, cheat or steal.
    I believe in love between man and woman.

    I studied the bible and find its teachings as evil. So I looked to other truths and find Nature much more informative that can answer all questions.
    Besides, Nature is pictures, not words.

    The bible does teach the existence of an 'evil' spirit and I agree with that.

    But there is also a good spirit that I have observed and that is the females.

    So look to Nature if you want to learn.
    The bible is for dummies.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6
    [spam deleted]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31 Re: Nature as GOD 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Why I believe NATURE is GOD

    Nature is the ONLY creator of all life. The female being the most important of the pairs. The male acts as the protector and servant.
    Nature has created food for us all and it is free.
    Nature has given all creatures its clothing. Almost all pairs (female and male) wear the same clothing.
    Nature is a liberal GOD because it has made no laws but gave us genetic and biological characteristics to govern our lives.
    Nature requires no licenses to reproduce or any other licenses for that matter.
    Hence, no costly marriages.
    It has created the food chain as our burial sites, hence no funerals.
    It has given us our own doctors with the 'immune systems' within us.
    It requires no rituals, tithes or taxes, forced attendances and etc.
    It grants no property ownerships, patents or any other grants to create millionaires or billionaires.
    It has given us complete freedom with no restrictions.
    It is a merciful GOD because it does not suffer us by prolonging death and even tempers this brief interim with the endorphin pain killers.
    It allows post abortion (carnivore consumption of newborns) and the food chain in the sea and ocean life to limit population imbalances.

    Socialism is about the closest political system to NATURE because it
    gives us the essential needs and freedoms and yet takes care of our lives with these necessities.


    The bible is at complete opposition to Nature.

    It promotes a deity that demands absolute obedience with the first three commandments. The last six can be considered generic and are OK.
    It’s deity is a genocidal deity.
    It portrays sex as a sin. This is nonsense. Only perverse sex can be considered to be sinful.
    It portrays the males as chauvinists. In our current culture, the males dominate and use the females as slaves while they consider themselves to be the masters.
    It portrays the females as the sinners and a fruit from a tree as a sin if eaten. This is a blatant falsehood. Fruit and vegetables are our proper food source because they can be eaten raw.
    This also insults the Apes as eating the fruit of the trees.
    It promotes racism by forbidding cross marriages outside the Jewish peoples culture and insults the apes that represent the darkness with the Moon as it symbolic source.

    This book does not represent truth.

    Cosmo
    I thought I would bring this definition of GOD to the newcomers.
    Thank you for any comments.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmos
    It portrays the females as the sinners and a fruit from a tree as a sin if eaten. This is a blatant falsehood. Fruit and vegetables are our proper food source because they can be eaten raw.
    Blog
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    33
    I love these long replies to a relatively simple statement. Deistic theology is nothing new. A bit short sighted, I might add, in the context of all we know about genetic evolution, biology, and natural laws. The whole conjecture is weak.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    Although Cosmo says that he repeat the definition of Nature to newcomers I still don't get it. Is Nature a physical law? Is it a conscious entity? Does it think?
    When Nature created deers as "free" food for tigers, are the deers happy with the arrangement?
    When Nature gives us the immune system, why does it also gives us HIV?
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Although Cosmo says that he repeat the definition of Nature to newcomers I still don't get it. Is Nature a physical law? Is it a conscious entity? Does it think?
    When Nature created deers as "free" food for tigers, are the deers happy with the arrangement?
    When Nature gives us the immune system, why does it also gives us HIV?
    There are 2 forms of Nature. There is the physical nature that always existed as the Laws of Conservation say and then there is the biological that is a living Nature.
    My post applies to the biological that created all the living creatures.
    It created the predator food chain because of respect for the dying.

    This was done because the ony thing that smells worst than cat crap or dog dung is the smell of rotting flesh. So, in a way, this was done out of respect for the dead.

    Regarding the diseases, if the creatures eat the proper food for their survival, they would have strong immine systems to avoid the diseases.

    Athersclerosis is not a natural disease. There are others like lung diseases and etc.

    Cosmo


    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    Cosmo wrote:
    My post applies to the biological that created all the living creatures.
    Do you mean Nature is a biological law, or it is a biological entity? Does it have mind?

    This was done because the ony thing that smells worst than cat crap or dog dung is the smell of rotting flesh.
    According to the human nose, of course. But the vulture has a different opinion.
    Regarding the diseases, if the creatures eat the proper food for their survival, they would have strong immine systems to avoid the diseases.
    Unfortunately, they do not have clean supermarket to shop for proper food. Imagine, they have to drink from muddy river! Nature is cruel, isn't it?
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    [quote="prasit"]Cosmo wrote:
    My post applies to the biological that created all the living creatures.

    Do you mean Nature is a biological law, or it is a biological entity? Does it have mind?
    My religion applies to the biological living Nature only.
    It is not governed by laws but programmed by the DNA currently studied by science.

    This was done because the ony thing that smells worst than cat crap or dog dung is the smell of rotting flesh.

    According to the human nose, of course. But the vulture has a different opinion.
    We are not vultures. Our current role models are the apes.

    Regarding the diseases, if the creatures eat the proper food for their survival, they would have strong immine systems to avoid the diseases.

    Unfortunately, they do not have clean supermarket to shop for proper food. Imagine, they have to drink from muddy river! Nature is cruel, isn't it?
    As evolced apes, our proper diet is the 'green leafy vegetables and other vegetables plus fruits.
    We are not natural born killers.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    As evolced apes, our proper diet is the 'green leafy vegetables and other vegetables plus fruits.
    We are not natural born killers.
    Humans are omnivores. Not herbivore. Know your science.
    Blog
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    *Taunting*

    Cosmo is a closet atheist :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    As evolced apes, our proper diet is the 'green leafy vegetables and other vegetables plus fruits.
    We are not natural born killers.
    Humans are omnivores. Not herbivores. Know your science.
    I see you believe in the bible. The bible is 'junk' religion. Even Karl Marx called it a drug.

    The vast majority of animals on land are herbivores or Vegans.

    Both our internal and external anatomies are Vegan.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    *Taunting*

    Cosmo is a closet atheist :P
    THe bible teaches the ONE god system with the 1st 3 commandments.
    So the result is all the believers are waging war with each other to determine who is the one god?

    Nature teaches the multiple God system. So there are no wars in Nature.

    That way you can choose your GOD.
    I believe in the females as the creator GODS and the Apes as the muscle GODS.
    As a result, I accept 'evolution' with the Chimpanzees as our ancient anscestors.

    All these material goodies we got are copies of Nature that is our greatest inventors.

    The bible invented hamburgers abd hot dogs.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    As evolced apes, our proper diet is the 'green leafy vegetables and other vegetables plus fruits.
    We are not natural born killers.
    Humans are omnivores. Not herbivores. Know your science.
    I see you believe in the bible. The bible is 'junk' religion. Even Karl Marx called it a drug.

    The vast majority of animals on land are herbivores or Vegans.

    Both our internal and external anatomies are Vegan.

    Cosmo
    Ok. Whatever. Humans are vegans then if that makes you happy.
    Blog
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Cosmo, I am very sympathetic to your pantheistic view of the world. However,
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Both our internal and external anatomies are Vegan.
    Cosmo
    this is complete bollocks. We are omnivores. Our brains likely developed in part from the eating of fish and our digestive system is definitley oriented towards a mixed diet. (Plus show me a chimp who doesn't appreciate an occassional monkey fillet.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Cosmo, I am very sympathetic to your pantheistic view of the world. However,
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Both our internal and external anatomies are Vegan.
    Cosmo
    this is complete bollocks. We are omnivores. Our brains likely developed in part from the eating of fish and our digestive system is definitley oriented towards a mixed diet. (Plus show me a chimp who doesn't appreciate an occassional monkey fillet.)
    Another anti-scientific religion...?

    Indeed. I thought the scientific view was that our species were basically scavengers and that our most natural food is the marrow of bones for this was the reason we developed tools, in order to break open bones to get at the marrow of the bones left behind by predators.

    Biology including the kind of teeth a species has classifies them pretty clearly. Herbibores are built only to eat and digest plant matter and carnivores to eat only meat, but omnivores like homosapiens have the teeth and other digestive structures to handle both kinds of food.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Another anti-scientific religion...?

    Indeed. I thought the scientific view was that our species were basically scavengers and that our most natural food is the marrow of bones for this was the reason we developed tools, in order to break open bones to get at the marrow of the bones left behind by predators.

    Biology including the kind of teeth a species has classifies them pretty clearly. Herbibores are built only to eat and digest plant matter and carnivores to eat only meat, but omnivores like homosapiens have the teeth and other digestive structures to handle both kinds of food.
    Yes, basically, except that we were hunter-gatherers, AFAIK.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Cosmo, I am very sympathetic to your pantheistic view of the world. However,
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Both our internal and external anatomies are Vegan.
    Cosmo
    this is complete bollocks. We are omnivores. Our brains likely developed in part from the eating of fish and our digestive system is definitley oriented towards a mixed diet. (Plus show me a chimp who doesn't appreciate an occassional monkey fillet.)
    Ophi

    the internal anatomy of our specie is that our digestive system is 3 times longer than a carnivores system.

    Example:
    If you place a cut of fresh meat on a shelf and a freshly picked apple on the side, you will notice that the meat will spoil rapidly while the apple can remain fresh for a couple of weeks or more.

    This tells me that meat is more easily digested while the apple requires to be chewed thoroughly for digestion and a longer digestion system as well.

    So the evolution of humans from the Chimps was a long drawn out process over millions of years.

    Cosmo

    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Cosmo, I am very sympathetic to your pantheistic view of the world. However,
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Both our internal and external anatomies are Vegan.
    Cosmo
    this is complete bollocks. We are omnivores. Our brains likely developed in part from the eating of fish and our digestive system is definitley oriented towards a mixed diet. (Plus show me a chimp who doesn't appreciate an occassional monkey fillet.)
    Ophi

    the internal anatomy of our specie is that our digestive system is 3 times longer than a carnivores system.

    Example:
    If you place a cut of fresh meat on a shelf and a freshly picked apple on the side, you will notice that the meat will spoil rapidly while the apple can remain fresh for a couple of weeks or more.

    This tells me that meat is more easily digested while the apple requires to be chewed thoroughly for digestion and a longer digestion system as well.

    So the evolution of humans from the Chimps was a long drawn out process over millions of years.

    Cosmo

    .

    That doesn't prove a poop about Man being vegans.

    And saying that meat rot faster than vegetable says nothing about the ease of digestion. Different organisms digest at different rate by virtue of the type of enzymes they contain. Omnivores generally digest both equally well.

    And I have no idea how you link whatever you said to "so the evolution of humans from the chimps was a long draw out process". Where's the logic?

    Get your facts right
    Blog
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    So the evolution of humans from the Chimps was a long drawn out process over millions of years.
    I shall set aside the point that Man did not evolve from Chimps, we both evolved from a common ancestor. I understand what you mean. However, as arkofnoah says, this has nothing to do with demonstrating that man is naturally a vegan. We are omnivores, pure and simple. If you wish to claim we eat too much meat (especially red meat) in the western world, then I shall be the first to agree with you. But if, as is the case, you claim meat eating (and fish eating, and egg eating) is unnatural, then I shall vigorously disagree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    Cosmo,

    If by 'Nature as God' you mean that everything is created as a result of natural law e.g. thermodynamic, gravitation, evolution etc. then our duty to this god is to understand it and reap the benefit from understanding and applying it to our benefits. No need to worship, not even to praise.

    If you do not agree then, before you elaborate further, please give definition of 'nature' in your context.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Cosmo, I am very sympathetic to your pantheistic view of the world. However,
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Both our internal and external anatomies are Vegan.
    Cosmo
    this is complete bollocks. We are omnivores. Our brains likely developed in part from the eating of fish and our digestive system is definitley oriented towards a mixed diet. (Plus show me a chimp who doesn't appreciate an occassional monkey fillet.)
    Ophi

    the internal anatomy of our specie is that our digestive system is 3 times longer than a carnivores system.

    Example:
    If you place a cut of fresh meat on a shelf and a freshly picked apple on the side, you will notice that the meat will spoil rapidly while the apple can remain fresh for a couple of weeks or more.

    This tells me that meat is more easily digested while the apple requires to be chewed thoroughly for digestion and a longer digestion system as well.

    So the evolution of humans from the Chimps was a long drawn out process over millions of years.

    Cosmo

    .

    That doesn't prove a poop about Man being vegans.

    And saying that meat rot faster than vegetable says nothing about the ease of digestion. Different organisms digest at different rate by virtue of the type of enzymes they contain. Omnivores generally digest both equally well.

    And I have no idea how you link whatever you said to "so the evolution of humans from the chimps was a long draw out process". Where's the logic?

    Get your facts right
    Check out any anthropology books on evolution.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Cosmo,

    If by 'Nature as God' you mean that everything is created as a result of natural law e.g. thermodynamic, gravitation, evolution etc. then our duty to this god is to understand it and reap the benefit from understanding and applying it to our benefits. No need to worship, not even to praise.

    If you do not agree then, before you elaborate further, please give definition of 'nature' in your context.
    See those planes, submarines, boats, dams and etc, they were the creatures that were copied by us humans to create all the above to make our lives more comfortable.

    So we learned from Nature. Like I said, Nature is our greatest teacher.

    Now what did you learn from the bible, the communists or Islam?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    Check out any anthropology books on evolution.

    Cosmo
    Seriously man, what do you want me to read up on? Man not being omnivores?

    ...Awesome.
    Blog
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Check out any anthropology books on evolution.
    I have done so. None of them identify man as an herbivore at any point in his history. Perhaps you could provide a specific citation that claims this.

    Edited: corrected herbivore for omnivore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Check out any anthropology books on evolution.
    I have done so. None of them identify man as an herbivore at any point in his history. Perhaps you could provide a specific citation that claims this.
    I will have to search for a sutable source. So, in the meantime, stand by.
    Thank you.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    ^ Perfect way to spend your afternoon. :P
    Blog
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    To All:

    I do not want to press this issue because if we were all Vegans, the meat industry, the healthcare industry and the drug industry would all go bankrupt. Ha ha.

    This would create an economic disaster.

    We have one now in the US with the introduction of the 'new world order'.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    I love my meat Nothing's better than a nice and juicy steak... mmmm...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58 Re: Nature as GOD 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Why I believe NATURE is GOD

    Nature is the ONLY creator of all life. The female being the most important of the pairs. The male acts as the protector and servant.
    Nature has created food for us all and it is free.
    Nature has given all creatures its clothing. Almost all pairs (female and male) wear the same clothing.
    Nature is a liberal GOD because it has made no laws but gave us genetic and biological characteristics to govern our lives.
    Nature requires no licenses to reproduce or any other licenses for that matter.
    Hence, no costly marriages.
    It has created the food chain as our burial sites, hence no funerals.
    It has given us our own doctors with the 'immune systems' within us.
    It requires no rituals, tithes or taxes, forced attendances and etc.
    It grants no property ownerships, patents or any other grants to create millionaires or billionaires.
    It has given us complete freedom with no restrictions.
    It is a merciful GOD because it does not suffer us by prolonging death and even tempers this brief interim with the endorphin pain killers.
    It allows post abortion (carnivore consumption of newborns) and the food chain in the sea and ocean life to limit population imbalances.

    Socialism is about the closest political system to NATURE because it
    gives us the essential needs and freedoms and yet takes care of our lives with these necessities.


    The bible is at complete opposition to Nature.

    It promotes a deity that demands absolute obedience with the first three commandments. The last six can be considered generic and are OK.
    It’s deity is a genocidal deity.
    It portrays sex as a sin. This is nonsense. Only perverse sex can be considered to be sinful.
    It portrays the males as chauvinists. In our current culture, the males dominate and use the females as slaves while they consider themselves to be the masters.
    It portrays the females as the sinners and a fruit from a tree as a sin if eaten. This is a blatant falsehood. Fruit and vegetables are our proper food source because they can be eaten raw.
    This also insults the Apes as eating the fruit of the trees.
    It promotes racism by forbidding cross marriages outside the Jewish peoples culture and insults the apes that represent the darkness with the Moon as it symbolic source.

    This book does not represent truth.

    Cosmo
    I bought this back up in response to the 'afterlife issue, the abortion issue and the spiritual issue.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    182
    It is true that if we compare our disgestive system and actual bodiley structures (teeth and jaw for example) to carnivores - we are of a great difference yet we are of great simillarity to the herbivores we observe upon this planet.
    It is true that we are now omnivores as we do eat meat - but this is not to say that is the best option. This should be dependent upon where you live and what is availible. Meat is a luxury in modern countries not a nessesity, protine comes from other sources and it is a great mistake of man that there are alot of animals being bread into reality for the soul purpose of being grown and killed for mass profit by corporations, animals which are not growing in a natural environment and not living natural lives to what ever creature they are, this i personally disagree with and refuse to contribute to.
    I also could not kill a pig or calf (for example) unless i direly had to in order to survive, so this makes me think as a able bodied hunting man i should not take part in eating the animal. Mostly no respect has been rendered to the animals from the moment they are brought into creation unto the moment they are slaughtered, forms of life experiencing reality, treated as mere profit for the mostly unnessesary consumption of greedy men wanting meat over veg because he thinks stupidly it makes him to be big and strong.

    Cosmo, i agree with you to a certain extent. I see nature as my body, as the plant life, as all life, as the planets and as the space which is inbetween these plantets. I see nature as everything. Even a computer, a product of man and man being a product of nature makes the computer a product of nature also. So to me if God is nature, everything is God. So in my thinking why call it two different things?

    When does a thing stop becoming 'nature' and begin to be a product of something else? My observations tell me that all things we observe come from the earth, the source of all things is the earth. Earth is a natural body of space. If one thing is 'nature' surely all things are?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Dlrow

    There is a difference between the biological Nature and the physical counterpart.

    The biological reproduces while the physical does not.

    Stem Cells can reproduce into different forms and are not governed by laws of physics but by an inner code that is very complex.

    Although the physical structures are reformed by the gravitational and coulomb forces, there is no new matter created. In other words, the hydrogen atoms do not reproduce like the stem cells do.

    Although the bio'l matter is not additional matter because it is formed from the physical , this process is much more complex.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    182
    So 'god' as 'nature' is only occupying certain areas of space?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by ark
    That doesn't prove a poop about Man being vegans.

    And saying that meat rot faster than vegetable says nothing about the ease of digestion. Different organisms digest at different rate by virtue of the type of enzymes they contain. Omnivores generally digest both equally well.

    And I have no idea how you link whatever you said to "so the evolution of humans from the chimps was a long draw out process". Where's the logic?

    Get your facts right
    I forgot to add that carnivores have close to 'ten' times as much acid in their stomachs as the herbivores
    Reason? These acids are needed to digest the protein and bones.

    Regarding your 2nd paragraph, check out a book on anthropology.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dlrow
    So 'god' as 'nature' is only occupying certain areas of space?
    The 'biological' God is occupying only planets that are hospitable to life.
    That is my opinion depending on whether 'stem cells' can survive in 3K space.

    So far, I do not know if a test of this has yet to have been done .

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    182
    What defines a thing which has life and another without life?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Is the fact that humans digest meat faster than vegtables any significant? I read about it recently in a science magazine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66 Re: Nature as GOD 
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Why I believe NATURE is GOD
    Good
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    I forgot to add that carnivores have close to 'ten' times as much acid in their stomachs as the herbivores
    Reason? These acids are needed to digest the protein and bones.

    Regarding your 2nd paragraph, check out a book on anthropology.

    Cosmo
    Might I ask how old you are?

    I'm gonna explain this once and for all that human IS DEFINITELY anatomically omnivorous.

    For one, how much stomach acid a species has in its stomach is not indicative of its diet. A carnivore has more acid in their stomach due to a multitude of reason - killing the bacteria from raw meat, acid hydrolysis of biomolecules such as proteins and polysaccharides, etc. For human, there is apparently no need to kill off a large quantity bacteria as we cook most of our food before consumption (human "discovered" fire roughly the same time homo sapien diverged from homo erectus) , and the fact that we don't eat raw meats lessen the need for stomach acid. Once an organ is underutilized, selection mechanism remove it from the system with time as it will be a waste of resource to produce something that you don't need anymore. It all boils down to evolutionary needs.

    One should also note that even intestinal length is not completely indicative of a specie's feeding adaptation. It is the cell type and the surface area that really matters (along with the type of bacteria in the guts, the type of protein channels on the cell membrane, the absorption mechanism, if you want to be more specific). For example a dog has an intestinal length more in line with omnivore, despite it being a carnivore. Discrepancies arise due to evolutionary remnants, size restrictions, among others.

    The dentition is however the best indication of a species dietary pattern than stomach acid or intestinal length, due to the fact that the teeth is so significant in feeding that it is often the first structure to adapt when a species is subjected to natural selection that result in a change in dietary pattern. We all know that we have both molar teeth for chewing, characteristic of herbivores, and canine teeth, characteristic of carnivore, for tearing. Teeth is indeed a very good indicators that paleontologist use to deduce the feeding patterns of many fossilized animal.

    Secondly you seem to have the misconceptions that there is only three types of dietary adaptations: carnivore, herbivore and omnivore. In fact for any students taking ecology they would at least be aware that there are in fact intermediates such as frugivore, folivores, gramnivores, insectivores, detritivores, so on and so forth, each with their own set of adaptations. They feed on different food sources which vary in their protein and carbohydrate contents, and hence there is a corresponding spectrum of dfferent adaptations in between the carnivores and the herbivores. For example, ant-eaters and echidnas feed on ants, which has a relatively high level of carbohydrates in their exoskeletons. Their digestive system is therefore somewhere in between that of carnivore and herbivore, leaning more towards the herbivore side - but you can't say they feed on plants.

    Humans have a frugivorous taxonomic origin, from fruit-eating primates, but we also have a very defined hunter-gatherer history (evident from stone tools , fossils, and cave paintings, for example) that explain the fact that we are more of opportunistic feeders - feeding on whatever that is available. As taught in high school courses, a pure animal diet will lead to scurvy (Vitamin C deficiency), whereas a pure plant diet will lead to Vitamin B12 deficiency.

    There are literally a wealth of evidence that human IS omnivore. Saying that human is anatomically herbivorous is just as ridiculous as saying that the earth is flat.
    Blog
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dlrow
    What defines a thing which has life and another without life?
    REPRODUCTION.

    Stem Cells reproduce while Hydrogen atoms do not in compliance with the Conservation of Matter Law.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    182
    "Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature. If the whole
    world adopts vegetarianism, it can change the destiny of humankind."
    -Albert Einstein


    "Flesh eating is simply immoral, as it involves the performance of an
    act which is contrary to moral feeling: killing. By killing, man
    suppresses in himself, unnecessarily, the highest spiritual capacity,
    that of sympathy and pity towards living creatures like himself and by
    violating his own feelings becomes cruel." "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields." -Leo Tolstoy


    Genesis 1:29 "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." -God

    Cosmo said in reply to 'what defines a thing which has life and another without life?' ;

    REPRODUCTION.

    Stem Cells reproduce while Hydrogen atoms do not in compliance with the Conservation of Matter Law.


    So one who is not able to reproduce due to inactive 'stem cells' is not alive?
    What makes a 'stem cell' apeal to you more as 'god' / 'nature than a calaboration of other matter in the universe?

    If bio matter is different from the matter it was formed from i disagree with seperating them from one common destiny. Their differences do not change the fact that they are both contained within or part of space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Dlrow
    What defines a thing which has life and another without life?
    REPRODUCTION.

    Stem Cells reproduce while Hydrogen atoms do not in compliance with the Conservation of Matter Law.

    Cosmo
    Then what about viruses? What about ant drones? Are genetically infertile animals like liger (lion-zebra hybrid) and zorse (zebra-horse hybrid), wolphins (whale-dolphin cross)? What about ant colonies that are often regarded as superorganisms?
    Blog
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Is the fact that humans digest meat faster than vegtables any significant? I read about it recently in a science magazine.
    Well, BEANS talk back (ha ha) and one problem with meat fats is that the human body has trouble eliminating the animal fats. So the US consumers are the heaviest of all the industrialized countries.
    However, there is ono Mexican that holds a world record for storing fat. He weighs 1000 pounds.
    He was recently highlighted on a recent news item.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    liger (lion-zebra hybrid)
    A liger is a lion-tiger hybrid.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    182
    If bio matter is different from the matter it was formed from i disagree with seperating them from one common destiny. Their differences do not change the fact that they are both contained within or part of space.


    The above is in relation to the subject of God being nature.
    More specifically in relation to the following written by cosmo;

    Cosmo said - ''Stem Cells can reproduce into different forms and are not governed by laws of physics but by an inner code that is very complex.''

    Surley the stem cells are governed physics, maybe not our laws of physics or what we think physical laws are but none the less they are created in this physical reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Sophomore Schizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    164
    Why would we not call nature... nature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    liger (lion-zebra hybrid)
    A liger is a lion-tiger hybrid.
    Oops. But it would be an interesting sight if a lion decides to hit on a zebra.
    Blog
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    182
    To Cosmo

    Is you perception that God is contained within the fintie physical structures of nature?

    or

    Is you perception that God is Nature in itself. That the perception of God is actually a common misunderstanding of what is right in front of us - Naure.

    ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Ark

    I am 90 years old and give credit to my GOD sanctified Vegan diet..
    No health problems.

    The majority of the land animals are herbivores that get along nicely without meat consumption.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Ark

    I am 90 years old and give credit to my GOD sanctified Vegan diet..
    No health problems.
    Are you REALLY 90 years old. That will be very cool.

    Just because YOU manage to survive nicely with vegan diet doesn't mean that humans are designed to survive.

    Firstly, you have the luxury of diet planning. Early humans obviously doesn't have the wide range of choices as we do nowadays.

    Secondly, different people have different dietary needs. Some people just couldn't survive on a vegan diet.

    So your argument is based on your personal experience and, again, proves nothing about human being natural herbivore.

    The majority of the land animals are herbivores that get along nicely without meat consumption.

    Cosmo
    I don't know what you're trying to prove with this statement. You need to make a clearer link between what you said and what you're arguing for. Herbivore are at the first trophic level and hence they constitute the majority. It is their evolutionary adaptations. That explains the "majority" part. But, so what?
    Blog
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    182
    We match the physical catagory of what we call herbivours.

    Admitidly we have developed wepons to kill animals with, but these wepons are not a part of our body. Our body in itself is very poorly equiped to catch food which runs away from us. So on the basis of the anatomical body we do match up to the other creatures we call 'herbivours' - our structure is the same and is in the same catagory (physically) .. It is certainly not in the catagory of carnivours. We have developed a meat consumming diet as a species so we catagorise our specices as omnivours..

    Realistically you are non of these terms. You should be eating what is best for your diet and what is best obtained within your environment.. Aboriginal people of Africa need a meat diet as there is no super markets or fruit and veg plantations in good enough supply. Survival is the key.

    If one was living in an abundence of wild fruit, veg, flowers, nuts and other edible forms of suppliment then i believe it would be moraly unjustifiable to kill an animal for food as it is not nessesary and it goes against trying to live in harmony with the creatures around us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Dlrow
    We match the physical catagory of what we call herbivours.

    Admitidly we have developed wepons to kill animals with, but these wepons are not a part of our body. Our body in itself is very poorly equiped to catch food which runs away from us. So on the basis of the anatomical body we do match up to the other creatures we call 'herbivours' - our structure is the same and is in the same catagory (physically) .. It is certainly not in the catagory of carnivours. We have developed a meat consumming diet as a species so we catagorise our specices as omnivours..

    Realistically you are non of these terms. You should be eating what is best for your diet and what is best obtained within your environment.. Aboriginal people of Africa need a meat diet as there is no super markets or fruit and veg plantations in good enough supply. Survival is the key.

    If one was living in an abundence of wild fruit, veg, flowers, nuts and other edible forms of suppliment then i believe it would be moraly unjustifiable to kill an animal for food as it is not nessesary and it goes against trying to live in harmony with the creatures around us.
    We are a part of nature, so a part of "living in harmony" with nature would include killing animals for food. Humans aren't some weird alien specie.

    Being able to create weapons to hunt is a major evolutionary advantage, along with strategy and other things which comes with our big brain.

    We are adapt to eating meat and we have canines, so we are physically fit to eat meat.

    This website concludes:

    Quote Originally Posted by The Vegetarian Resource Group
    Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.

    [Dr. McArdle is a vegetarian and currently Scientific Advisor to The American Anti-Vivisection Society. He is an anatomist and a primatologist.]

    http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm#conc

    Evidence in support of that conclusion:
    http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm#evidence
    It is scientificly accurate to classify humans as omnivores. There's just no doubt about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    182
    This is a very dependent argument. Dependent largly on where one is from in the world, where one stands towards killing of other life and where one stands towards ones role on the planet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Dlrow
    This is a very dependent argument. Dependent largly on where one is from in the world, where one stands towards killing of other life and where one stands towards ones role on the planet.
    Plants are lifeforms too. Who are you to take the life of a plant just to satisfy your hunger. You monster! Plant killer!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Dlrow
    Admittedly we have developed weapons to kill animals with, but these weapons are not a part of our body. Our body in itself is very poorly equipped to catch food which runs away from us.
    This is very very wrong.

    The one big thing about evolution biology is that you have to consider both anatomic and behavioral adaptations. In the case of human, our biggest evolutionary asset is our cognition and problem solving skills.

    Weapon is a result of our behavioral development. Animals are shown to use tools. Hermit crab uses shell for protection. Sea otter cracks shellfish against a rock. Chimpanzee uses sticks to fish out termite from its mound. Heron drops worm into water as bait while fishing. Weapon is not a part of our anatomy but through evolution we develop a learning capacity to use these weapons that give us the advantage over other species.

    So when you talk about "body", you really have to consider the mind as well, especially in sentient species like homo sapien because our high capacity for associative learning IS our main evolutionary advantage.[/i]
    Blog
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dlrow
    To Cosmo

    Is you perception that God is contained within the fintie physical structures of nature?

    or

    Is you perception that God is Nature in itself. That the perception of God is actually a common misunderstanding of what is right in front of us - Naure.

    ?
    The main emphasis in the religions today is that they promote reproduction and family.

    The OT promotes reproduction as a means of punishment for Eves (female) sin.

    The Islamic religion has adopted this as their religion and hence the abuse of the females.

    In Nature, the females are the 'stars' of Nature as the creator GODS and are protected by the males and the natural camoflounge of their clothing (birds)

    Although we learn from all the animals, we must understand that we are a unique specie evolved from the Chimpanzees.

    The portrayal of Chimps eating monkeys is, IMO, a human spirit in these animals.

    I beieve in a Universal Mind and spirit. I have learned of this from my own observations of coincidents that cannot be explained in any other way .

    So, I repeat, the Chimps are not natural killers because of their intrinsic and
    external anatomies.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Are you REALLY 90 years old. That will be very cool.

    Just because YOU manage to survive nicely with vegan diet doesn't mean that humans are designed to survive.
    Firstly, you have the luxury of diet planning. Early humans obviously doesn't have the wide range of choices as we do nowadays.
    Secondly, different people have different dietary needs. Some people just couldn't survive on a vegan diet.

    So your argument is based on your personal experience and, again, proves nothing about human being natural herbivore.
    I became a Vegan in 1970. Prior to that I consumed meat and in restaurants, ate the standard meat, bread and potato US diet.

    The reason I can think clearly is that my circulation system is clear of arterial occlusions to keep my circulation in my brain fully able to feed it with t he nutrients it needs.

    Of course, a good part of our anatomies is our DNA.

    I don't know what you're trying to prove with this statement. You need to make a clearer link between what you said and what you're arguing for. Herbivore are at the first trophic level and hence they constitute the majority. It is their evolutionary adaptations. That explains the "majority" part. But, so what?
    Well, my point is to look to Nature for your teacher since it expands your source of knowledge that the current religions do not do.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    182
    Surviving is the most fundamental generalisation of being.

    The main actions we perform to survive is breathing, eating, drinking and sheltering.

    Fundamentaly our efforts in life revolve around these things.

    Aboriginal people of Africa need the meat they hunt to maintain a healthy diet.

    Aboriginal people of the UK for example eat meat for the forfillment of their own selffish desires. It is not nessesary that we consume such large ammounts of meat.

    Japan holds a very healthy race of people due its diet of mainly vegtables and fish.

    I hold no problem with killing to survive.
    I hole problem with killing to maintain ignorance of moral disfunction towards animals - which is mostly unnessesary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Dlrow, eating is a part of surviving. And given the fact that we are omnivores, killing animals for meat even if we have a sufficient amount of vegtables, is part of surviving.

    Is it somehow more wrong to kill an animal than it is to kill a plant? I would think not.

    Food is food, and we eat what we can eat. And so does nature.

    I generally don't like vegetarians. I see them as hypocritical people who claim that they chose vegetarianism because that is more "natural", when it's obviously not. What's natural is what we're doing, eating meat and vegtables. However it could be argued that the very fact that vegetarians practice vegetarianism makes it a natural occurence. I won't dispute that, but it's still clear that humans are adapt as omnivores.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Dlrow, eating is a part of surviving. And given the fact that we are omnivores, killing animals for meat even if we have a sufficient amount of vegtables, is part of surviving.

    Is it somehow more wrong to kill an animal than it is to kill a plant? I would think not.

    Food is food, and we eat what we can eat. And so does nature.

    I generally don't like vegetarians. I see them as hypocritical people who claim that they chose vegetarianism because that is more "natural", when it's obviously not. What's natural is what we're doing, eating meat and vegtables. However it could be argued that the very fact that vegetarians practice vegetarianism makes it a natural occurence. I won't dispute that, but it's still clear that humans are adapt as omnivores.
    I do not care to press this issue of vegetarian verses omnivore because if we were all Vegans, the meat industry would go out of business, same for the healthcare and drug companies.

    This would make a major upheaval in the economics of our country (US) and in the other various countries as well.

    But if you think we are natural born omnivores, than I suggest you go and catch an animal and tear its flesh with you fingernails and chew that raw bloody meat with relish.

    So, thank you God for those delicious vegetables enhanced flavor wise with dressing and those delicious fruits that taste like candy.

    cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    But if you think we are natural born omnivores, than I suggest you go and catch an animal and tear its flesh with you fingernails and chew that raw bloody meat with relish.
    You seem to define natural as being the inability to use tools and strategy? Unfortunately, that is quite wrong. I recently read in Science Illustrated that our body and mind is in fact made for hunting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    But if you think we are natural born omnivores, than I suggest you go and catch an animal and tear its flesh with you fingernails and chew that raw bloody meat with relish.
    You seem to define natural as being the inability to use tools and strategy? Unfortunately, that is quite wrong. I recently read in Science Illustrated that our body and mind is in fact made for hunting.
    Well, IMO, fangs and claws are not the kind of tools you use for picking fruit.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Well, IMO, fangs and claws are not the kind of tools you use for picking fruit.

    Cosmo
    Well said!! That's why humans have canine teeth. You don't need canine teeth to chew fruits!!
    Blog
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    182
    Obviously wrote - ''I generally don't like vegetarians. I see them as hypocritical people who claim that they chose vegetarianism because that is more "natural", when it's obviously not. What's natural is what we're doing, eating meat and vegtables. However it could be argued that the very fact that vegetarians practice vegetarianism makes it a natural occurence. I won't dispute that, but it's still clear that humans are adapt as omnivores.''


    I generally dont like people who class people as one thing when people are all very different..
    I generally dont like people who call others hypocrites when they themselves are probally suffering from the same problem in aspects of their life.

    I personally have a problem with killing certian types of animals (myself with a gun or knife or whatever) and therefore feel bad/wrong/contradictory/hypocritical when i eat the very animal i enjoy in its state of being alive.

    I consider a human being of more importance to a dog, a dog of more importance to a mouse and a mouse of more importance to a plant. To say that vegitarians are wrong because they kill plants while disagreeing to killing animals is a argument not even worth using as you know yourself certain forms of life we are able to feel empathy with, plants we cannot feel empathy for as it is a totally different structure of life to us - unlike animals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    certain forms of life we are able to feel empathy with, plants we cannot feel empathy for as it is a totally different structure of life to us - unlike animals.
    I can understand this. Animals are certainly capable of experiencing pain, melancholy, happiness, fear, but I still like my steak. We simply are omnivores by “design”, but I cannot really judge people if they want to be vegetarians. Vegans are a bit more of a stretch, but still. Although I can see what Obviously is talking about, some vegetarians are little more than pretentious and hypocritical, but you have those kind of people everywhere and I don’t think you can stereotype all or even most vegetarians in that way.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    To All

    Believe it or not, but plants do have sensitivities.
    One experiment was that plants prefer classical music to rock.

    Another is that it was found that when one plant is attacked by an insect, it releases a chemical to inform the other plants.

    But GOD gave us teeth and stomachs to partake of the plant foods.

    An you can be emotionally attached to plants because there are the flowers that
    project the beauty of reproduction that drives all the ceatures on the Earth.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95 Re: Nature as GOD 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Why I believe NATURE is GOD

    Nature is the ONLY creator of all life. The female being the most important of the pairs. The male acts as the protector and servant.
    Nature has created food for us all and it is free.
    Nature has given all creatures its clothing. Almost all pairs (female and male) wear the same clothing.
    Nature is a liberal GOD because it has made no laws but gave us genetic and biological characteristics to govern our lives.
    Nature requires no licenses to reproduce or any other licenses for that matter.
    Hence, no costly marriages.
    It has created the food chain as our burial sites, hence no funerals.
    It has given us our own doctors with the 'immune systems' within us.
    It requires no rituals, tithes or taxes, forced attendances and etc.
    It grants no property ownerships, patents or any other grants to create millionaires or billionaires.
    It has given us complete freedom with no restrictions.
    It is a merciful GOD because it does not suffer us by prolonging death and even tempers this brief interim with the endorphin pain killers.
    It allows post abortion (carnivore consumption of newborns) and the food chain in the sea and ocean life to limit population imbalances.

    Socialism is about the closest political system to NATURE because it
    gives us the essential needs and freedoms and yet takes care of our lives with these necessities.


    The bible is at complete opposition to Nature.

    It promotes a deity that demands absolute obedience with the first three commandments. The last six can be considered generic and are OK.
    It’s deity is a genocidal deity.
    It portrays sex as a sin. This is nonsense. Only perverse sex can be considered to be sinful.
    It portrays the males as chauvinists. In our current culture, the males dominate and use the females as slaves while they consider themselves to be the masters.
    It portrays the females as the sinners and a fruit from a tree as a sin if eaten. This is a blatant falsehood. Fruit and vegetables are our proper food source because they can be eaten raw.
    This also insults the Apes as eating the fruit of the trees.
    It promotes racism by forbidding cross marriages outside the Jewish peoples culture and insults the apes that represent the darkness with the Moon as it symbolic source.

    This book does not represent truth.

    Cosmo
    I resurrected this post because it needs to be reviewed again, since this is a very important topic.
    Thank you for understanding.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96 Re: Nature as GOD 
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    [quote="Cosmo"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Why I believe NATURE is GOD

    IMHO, God is the source or cause of energy that created nature...nature has its faults and therefore can not be called God.

    The bible is at complete opposition to Nature.

    This book does not represent truth.

    Cosmo
    The Bible is an inspirational story book for those who wish to look for inspiration therein...and represents certain truths if you look for them...but, like any story book, it should not be interpreted literally.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    You know what I think the message of the bible is?

    Beware of personal interpretations! Which should be evident decades ago...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •