Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[henry quirk]

You are welcome to discard the idea of God on grounds that the name has a bad wrap.

I think God (specifically the Christian God) is a sticking point for a lot of subjectivists.

They will not admit the possibility God, the moral arbiter, might be distant and uninvolved (but not necessarily uncaring) as I believe He is.

They simply reflexively bridle at what they see as an oppressive authority.

[Iwannaplato]

You are welcome to discard the idea of God on grounds that the name has a bad wrap.

I think God (specifically the Christian God) is a sticking point for a lot of subjectivists.

They will not admit the possibility God, the moral arbiter, might be distant and uninvolved (but not necessarily uncaring) as I believe He is.

They simply reflexively bridle at what they see as an oppressive authority.

Well, isn't that their proto-moral realism that is in their bones showing them that something is wrong?

[Will Bouwman]

You are welcome to discard the idea of God on grounds that the name has a bad wrap.

I think God (specifically the Christian God) is a sticking point for a lot of subjectivists.

They will not admit the possibility God, the moral arbiter, might be distant and uninvolved (but not necessarily uncaring) as I believe He is.

I don't believe in any god. I don't care what anyone else calls that position, but I've always been comfortable with someone who is not a theist being an atheist. When I call myself an atheist, though I sometimes get people telling me that, therefore, I believe that God doesn't exist. That is not so, I am happy to admit the possibility God, the moral arbiter, might be distant and uninvolved (but not necessarily uncaring) as you believe He is. I just don't believe it.

They simply reflexively bridle at what they see as an oppressive authority.

Some of 'they' don't believe that shade of oppressive authority exists.

[Skepdick]

I don't believe in any god. I don't care what anyone else calls that position.

I call that lying to yourself. You need only one counter-example to abandon an atheism defined as "lack of belief in any god", right?

Do you not believe in Spinoza's God?!? Which is synonymous/identical with nature (or reality, or existence, or any of the other ontological synonyms).
Every natural scientist necessarily believes in that God.

Queue the apologetics necessary to preserve your identity as an atheist. Redefining words! Switching contexts! Rejecting shared meaning! Excluding Spinoza's God as an "actual god". I bet this list is not exhaustive.

[Will Bouwman]

I don't believe in any god. I don't care what anyone else calls that position.

I call that lying to yourself. You need only one counter-example to abandon an atheism defined as "lack of belief in any god", right?

Do you not believe in Spinoza's God?!? Which is synonymous/identical with nature (or reality, or existence, or any of the other ontological synonyms).
Every natural scientist necessarily believes in that God.

Queue the apologetics necessary to preserve your identity as an atheist. Redefining words!

Such as God means nature?

Switching contexts!

Meh.

Rejecting shared meaning!

You think everyone who says 'God' means 'nature'?.

Excluding Spinoza's God as an "actual god".

Yep.

I bet this list is not exhaustive.

Probably not.

[Skepdick]

I don't believe in any god. I don't care what anyone else calls that position.

I call that lying to yourself. You need only one counter-example to abandon an atheism defined as "lack of belief in any god", right?

Do you not believe in Spinoza's God?!? Which is synonymous/identical with nature (or reality, or existence, or any of the other ontological synonyms).
Every natural scientist necessarily believes in that God.

Queue the apologetics necessary to preserve your identity as an atheist. Redefining words!

Such as God means nature?

Switching contexts!

Meh.

Rejecting shared meaning!

You think everyone who says 'God' means 'nature'?.

Excluding Spinoza's God as an "actual god".

Yep.

I bet this list is not exhaustive.

Probably not.

Q.E.D he rejects the first law of Logic. The law of identity (in order to protect his own).

Yes Spinoza's God means nature. Those two terms have an identical/objective meaning. Their referent!

Spinoza's God is IDENTICAL WITH Nature. That's how synonyms work in English.

You don't believe in nature ?!?

Illogical atheist is illogical.

WIll, enjoy the journey. I am so sad you are only starting at your age. You are now at step 0 (but I doubt you are curious enough to get anywhere else).

Next step is Mathematics. For you to actually understand identity. The description is not the described. The representation is not the represented.

You can't believe in 7+1 but reject 9-1. That's a contradiction.

[Will Bouwman]

Spinoza's God is IDENTICAL WITH Nature.

I happen to disagree. In my view, the one quality a god needs to qualify is supernature.

[Skepdick]

Spinoza's God is IDENTICAL WITH Nature.

I happen to disagree. In my view, the one quality a god needs to qualify is supernature.

Whose meaning of "supernatural" are we going for here? Your made up one; or the shared/objective meaning of all English speakers?

Qualia are subjective. Identity is objective.

Nature is nature is nature is Spinoza's God is Spinoza's God is Spinoza's God irrespectie of what qualities you qualify it with.

The representations/descriptions/qualifications/definitions/stories refer to the exact same self-identical thing!

supernatural
/ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

The set of entities which fit the above meaing is NOT empty.
There's at least one example for it - the human mind.

That's the "redefining words" part... to protect your identity. You've placed the "supernatural" some place far out of reach.

Somewhere not even wrong. So your identity can survive.

[Skepdick]

Spinoza's God is IDENTICAL WITH Nature.

I happen to disagree. In my view, the one quality a god needs to qualify is supernature.

Another observation... Qualify? You set the standards of what qualifies and doesn't qualify for existence?!?!?

What exists exists - your criteria are irrelevant, least my criteria for existence remove you from the picture.

You can't do any science until you suspend judgment and leave your qualifying criteria at home.

Just look and marvel at Spinoza's God; in all its glory, beauty and existence! It's incredible, isn't it?

[henry quirk]

I don't believe in any god. I don't care what anyone else calls that position, but I've always been comfortable with someone who is not a theist being an atheist. When I call myself an atheist, though I sometimes get people telling me that, therefore, I believe that God doesn't exist. That is not so, I am happy to admit the possibility God, the moral arbiter, might be distant and uninvolved (but not necessarily uncaring) as you believe He is. I just don't believe it.

Some of 'they' don't believe that shade of oppressive authority exists.

[henry quirk]

You are welcome to discard the idea of God on grounds that the name has a bad wrap.

I think God (specifically the Christian God) is a sticking point for a lot of subjectivists.

They will not admit the possibility God, the moral arbiter, might be distant and uninvolved (but not necessarily uncaring) as I believe He is.

They simply reflexively bridle at what they see as an oppressive authority.

Well, isn't that their proto-moral realism that is in their bones showing them that something is wrong?

Mebbe so.

[Will Bouwman]

supernatural
/ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

The set of entities which fit the above meaing is NOT empty.
There's at least one example for it - the human mind.

This is fundamentally the same mistake you made with your understanding of 'impossible':

"Impossible" simply means NOT possible. And I say that it's NOT possible because I haven't seen anybody do it.

the one you had to:

Edit 2: Recant on using my own definition of "impossible" and default to Oxford definition.

As Arthur C. Clarke said: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". The same is true of laws of nature.

Spinoza's God is IDENTICAL WITH Nature.

I happen to disagree. In my view, the one quality a god needs to qualify is supernature.

Another observation... Qualify? You set the standards of what qualifies and doesn't qualify for existence?!?!?

I really don't think much of your system of logic. In mine it doesn't follow that whatever you or Spinoza want to call god doesn't exist because it isn't supernatural; it just isn't what I call a god.

[Dontaskme]

Identity is objective.

If you are talking about identity in the sense of a ''person''.
Then, No, identity is not objective. The sense of a self, to be known as a person, requires a subject.

Objective identities are simply ideas in subjects only, projected as objects, that have zero knowledge they exist as an identity, so can't be objective.

[Skepdick]

I really don't think much of your system of logic.

Yes. I get that. It's the same system everybody uses. English

In mine it doesn't follow

Sure, but the English speaking world doesn't care much about your logic. We already have one.

Fit in, or fuck off.

that whatever you or Spinoza want to call god doesn't exist

We aren't here to bicker over what we call it. We acknowledge THAT it exists first; and then we can call it whatever we want.

Nature. Spinoza's God. Will Bouwman's shorts. It's just a name.

because it isn't supernatural; it just isn't what I call a god.

There we go again. Cashing in the skeptic's privilege without counter evidence.

The claim NOT supernatural requires proof of work.

supernatural
/ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Nature IS supernatural BECAUSE we lack complete understanding of its laws

To claim that nature/spinoza's god is NOT supernatural requires that you provide the counter-evidence. Where is the scientific explanation (the meta-theory) FOR nature's laws? You don't have those ?!?!

Provide the explanation for nature. Until you do - it's fucking supernatual.

[Dontaskme]

We aren't here to bicker over what we call it. We acknowledge THAT it exists first; and then we can call it whatever we want.

Nature. Spinoza's God. Will Bouwman's shorts. It's just a name.

You cannot piss of an atheist or a naturalist. No more than you can look at the name ''Atheist'' and say to yourself, that name is pissed off for being a name, because it's just a name.

Names have no power to show emotion, like being pissed off.