wasnt Hitler a christian?

or is it a case of he isnt a christian anymore once it makes christians look bad? haha

This post was edited by C4NTWO on Nov 16 2023 08:15am

you're as bad as Crunkt...

Yeah but that definition is not sufficient, cause it seperates humankind from nature which is stupid. I get that the hoover dam didnt occur naturally, but the same goes for honey for example. Doesnt occur anywhere. Bees have to make it.
I understand the point that they have to and we dont, but still its baseless linedrawing. Doesnt leed to anything.

You could also argue that humankind has to progress all the time. Its in our genes. We - as a whole species - have no choice.

Humans and animals
Humans and nature
Body and Soul
Health and mental health

Humans have a pretty weird habit of seperating things that are one.

This post was edited by Modulok2405 on Nov 16 2023 08:44am

i dont know what to tell you. the definition clearly states that anything that exists on this planet, which is not made my humans, again by definition, is natural... including honey. a beaver dam is too for that matter.
youre hooked on semantics, and arguing this further is useless.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758027/#:~:text=Honey%20is%20a%20natural%20product,minerals%20and%20enzymes%20(2).



yes, humans themselves are part of nature, but the things we do/create are not...

i think the distinction can be made with the idea that humans are aware of what we are doing and why. beavers and bees just do it instinctively. again, we dont need electricity to survive. we need the shelter and thats the difference. nature vs. human nature are not the same.

youre more then welcome to pick a fight with Websters. but thats what the definition currently says.

This post was edited by C4NTWO on Nov 16 2023 09:25am

That's because human beings are dualistic in nature. You would have to study a philosophy or accept God to see that all things are actually non-dual and part of the same ONE existence/consciousness and that there is no separation.

When you get down to WORDS and LANGUAGE itself you realize it creates a barrier from the original self i.e God. As soon as your parents give you a name and you start living life you will constantly say....."I" which separates yourself from the WHOLE that is existence itself.

Is a TREE really a "TREE"? Or is a tree a NAME/TERM we use to describe that object? The Ego will always separate itself from the oneness because it can't let go of the "control" it perceives it has. You have no control. All things simply are and always will be.

The same goes for "GOD". Is "GOD" actually "GOD" or is "GOD" a name/term we use to describe that "thing". Call "God" by whatever name you want. Give "God" all the qualities and depth you want. God is still unknowable. Only a fool thinks he "knows God". You can know ones "self" and know that "God" is a part of that self/whole only because YOU YOURSELF said/claim YOU are not a part of that whole. You were always a part of "God" because you cannot exist/not exist simultaneously. You are in the human form. The only form capable of contemplating a higher truth.

In Vedanta in lamens terms you have a "TRUTH" that truth is "GOD" but all across the world that truth is called by different names but yet it is still the same truth. That's why God is often described as the "Truth" because only fools think "their" God is the only God. If there is a God it is nameless,formless,etc. and when humans give it a name it is used to describe something. God doesn't limit itself to the confines of language. God is infinite/limitless/all pervading existence. Man simply has no words that can truly encompass all that is God. That's why they use words like all-pervading, eternal, etc. because that's as close as language can get.

God is the destroyer, creator, and sustainer of existence itself and you(as a being in human forum) were not and have never been "outside that scope". That's why theist and atheist alike get caught in double binds when arguing philosophy.

The theist can't admit that "they" and God are one and the same. The atheist can't admit that God is merely the existence they are a part of.

The atheist can only deny the existence of "God" when speaking of God as a "form" therefore admitting God exists in some way/shape/form.

The theist can only deny that they aren't God because their scripture tells them that God is "beyond" their knowing. God is seperate. They are one with God from the day they are born. Only told/feel they are different because of Ego.

All differences in this world are of degree, and not of kind, because oneness is the secret of everything.

I really dont care about the definition of nature, I also dont care about the definition of definition. Someone thought about it and wrote it down. Its fine. But its not the whole story and not the end of all discussions.

Its not that I dont think honey is natural, its more that I think everything is else is natural as well. Even the phone I am writing this message with.

Maybe you forgot what started this weird conversation. Someone (dont remember if it was you) said, that humans are the worst thing that ever happened to nature.

My argumentation is that humans are nature and that it is stupid to say that. Especially because nature for a fact does not care at all. Even if we throw 40 nukes all over the planet, the only ones to really suffer will eventually be we who threw them.
Nature will not be bothered by it longterm. Nature will also not be bothered by the extinction of thousands of species that inhabit it.
New life will eventually rise on day. So whatever.

Nature developed humans and humans, like some other advanced animals, use the resources of nature to survive. We did this with such perfection, that a lot of us do not have to think about survival anymore. Doesnt matter cause we wont play any part one day when earth collapses.

If the history of earth was a book with a million pages, human history would not even be a single sentence on its last page right now.

We do not command nature or seperate from it. Nothing we ever made is anything but nature interpreted in a different way, no matter what defintion anyone presents.

40 nukes, depending on yield (lets assume they will be big ones), would be an absolutely cataclysmic event, something probably coming close in scale (probably not that bad but really I can't think of a single other event that would be close to comparison) to when the asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. It would result in the earth going into some form of an ice age, with many species, if not completely going extinct, significantly impacted, both plant mammals and everything in between. To say it wouldn't impact nature is silly, as it would alter large swaths of biome for a long time.

>I don't care about definitions.

You should dawg, because you sound like an utter idiot posting that incoherent gibberish above.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Nov 16 2023 09:49am

we really do, in the sense that we manipulate nature for the sake of our own benefit, and not necessarily to co-exist within it.

our fecal matter is natural, not our toxic waste, lol

This post was edited by C4NTWO on Nov 16 2023 10:01am

Before you make statements like the one you just made, you have to understand that most of it is not more than a bunch assumptions that you make.

Let me go over what you wrote and add a layer of perspective to your thoughts:
Before I talk about your definition of god, let me say that it is one of the better ones imho.

To simplify it, dumb it down in a way, I try to summarize it.
The unknown truth out there is what you call "god", is that right? Thats fine, because there is an unknown truth and I as an atheist do not doubt that.

Where we separate is consciousness.
The whole concept of thinking that the unknown you call god is conscious is when I step aside and refuse to believe you. You say people who say they know god are fools while you call god a consciousness, which - with all due to respect - makes you a fool.

Low key questions like "is a tree a tree" are also not helping a lot. Yes a tree is a tree, but the name tree is just a name we gave it to describe the object. So its not one or the other its both.

Some even ask if chicken or egg were there first, when its obviously the wrong question to ask, because life just isnt as simple as that.

By the way I do not deny the existence of god, cause denial would mean I am able to prove the opposite, which I cannot. I just dont believe any god claims I heard so far. Thats about it.

This post was edited by Modulok2405 on Nov 16 2023 10:18am