If I smile at something, I am worshipping it? I have seen babies smile at dogs, cats, balls, snow…
[/quote]
mimicing something for endearment and protection is not worship.
If you think babies coorperate with everything you msut not have had a close relationship with a baby. They can be cranky, complain, not be satified and they make their complaints and upsettness quite clear. You keep using terms that are not the same as ‘worship’ to justify the idea that babies worship.
here you say that babies smile/cooperate with everything, which means that it is not merely their likeness they do this with.
[/quote]
Here you acknowledge that imprinting (not worship) will take place between species. So it is not the likeness that is important. Even if the creature is really quite fantasitically different from the baby, the baby will monitor and imitate (if it can) the behavior of the other. It will feel comfort in the presence of that creature, regardless of the fur, feathers, baldness, intelligence, language, power, number of hands, species, of the other.
You say All X are Y.
He demonstrates that this is not the case and you acknowledge that there are exceptions.
But you do not concede that your use of ‘all’ was incorrect.
His example with the black swan is exactly what you are doing.
It’s a small thing for you to concede that, alright, not all, but most.
And if it is so important to your argument that you must deny that your use of ‘all’ was incorrect, then the honorable thing is to concede and see what the truth is.
Otherwise this is just another preacher who cannot admit mistakes, and we’ve sure had a lot of that in the history of Abrahamism.
mimicing something for endearment and protection is not worship.
If you think babies coorperate with everything you msut not have had a close relationship with a baby. They can be cranky, complain, not be satified and they make their complaints and upsettness quite clear. You keep using terms that are not the same as ‘worship’ to justify the idea that babies worship.
here you say that babies smile/cooperate with everything, which means that it is not merely their likeness they do this with.
[/quote]
Here you acknowledge that imprinting (not worship) will take place between species. So it is not the likeness that is important. Even if the creature is really quite fantasitically different from the baby, the baby will monitor and imitate (if it can) the behavior of the other. It will feel comfort in the presence of that creature, regardless of the fur, feathers, baldness, intelligence, language, power, number of hands, species, of the other.
[/quote]
Your language is too narrow and if you cannot open it up we may as well forget this talk.
I am not interested in debating the definition of words.
Try to think the way this poem does, in a broad spectrum. If you cannot, I don’t know where you wish to go from here.
What type of a god?.. “an imaginary one”. Why is there any need to define that sentiment further?
So no, I don’t think an “imaginary” naturalistic view of a god is going to be beneficial in any way that is good for the earth or the rate species are going extinct.
And by the by. Loose the signature. You don’t mean it with any degree of conviction. You insult someone and end it with regards. Sounds to me like you hold nothing but contempt for those who don’t agree with you.
Like the natives still do, by showing a respect for nature.
Compare that to the wanton destruction we are correctly doing with nature by having some guy in the sky god instead of seeing as an ideal and godlike the Earth that sustains us.