🚀 go-pugleaf

BuddyThunder wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:

>>
>> Well, OK.  I could point out a few things, for instance, spirit of
>> anger, spirit of contention, etc.  So what do you atheists do to tell
>> someone is angry, just look to see if their face gets red?  I
>> personally can feel the spirit of the thing.  The way you atheists do
>> it, someone could be having a heatstroke, and you would just think
>> they were angry.
> 
> I don't talk about a "spirit of anger", although I see lots of that kind 
> of rhetoric on TBN. Unless some (external) consciousness can be 
> demonstrated, then it's just a personification of a natural phenomenon. 
> That's just what religions do! :-)
> 

Indeed, and to a less sophisticated mind than the modern, that should 
not be so criticised..many natural phenomena seem to occur with apparent 
intent, form and direction.

Science preserves the noumenal side of the mystical worldview in the 
form of natural laws.

If you take the personality and intention out of 'God-the Creator' you 
end up with no real difference in actual theoretical *shape* from the 
big bang.

I.e at some point in the (past) an event of Creation happened, that set 
the course of the Universe on its present path. And that it involved a 
lot of creation of LIGHT (energy) out of essentially a formless empty void.

I bet if you tried to translate modern theories into the ancient 
languages that were around when Genesis was first spoken as an oral 
history, you would have a problem sayng it uch different from how it 
appears..

My beef with religion, is it clings to the language and simplistic 
worldviews of stone age people: re-visiting the Bible with modern 
knowledge, one is suprised at how sophisticated it actually is.
,


> Do you believe that something supernatural is occuring when someone is 
> angry, that is absent when they simply get heatstroke?
> 

Well do you believe that something supernatural is happening when a 
stone falls to the ground?


Its no different oin principle: we assume a supernatural non personal 
force called 'gravity' instead of a supernatural personal force called 
'the spirit of anger'



> I don't personally have difficulty with telling the two apart, it has 
> nothing to do with somehow detecting some "essence" or "force", it's a 
> simple case of observation.

No, its a question of the noumenous reality you presuppose to lie behind 
the phenomena.