The evidence of scientific observation. The Universe exists, it is more or less ineffable, possessing a divine quality for human beings, and therefore worthy of veneration in the same sensible manner as the way in which we came to recognise it and feel its divinity.

There is no scientific evidence that points to some divine presence as you describe it in nature. What you attribute divine quality is your human emotions that are directed toward nature. Feeling divinity means nothing; it is a construction of the human mind--it is not universally true.

True. But that doesn't make the belief so invalid that it can be dismissed out of hand, or as offensive to reason and science as other religions. The emotion exists, and there is no point to denying it as in the context of human existence, it seems to be only beneficient.

Beneficent, yes, but atheist scientists often have the same reverence of nature without ascribing a divine being to it. As a species, it allows us to advance, but I see no reason to give nature an indefinite and self-contained divinity. In the end, what advantage does a mystical divinity give?

I enjoy art as well. But, too often these days men shuffle through life with their eyes upon the ground; they do not discover a true point to life, and seem to live oblivious to the reality of death. To an atheist, he will die, and thus end his life. Nothing further will happen. Yet all other men will die, the world will pass, and eventually, the stars will go out. All of it will happen without thought or reflection upon the one man. Why then would he live? For the simple pleasures in life? I find such a thing so utterly foolish that I cannot comprehend it. Why does he not kill himself, if in the end the stars will dim regardless? All humanity will mean nothing; all its work will be forgotten; all its joy, lost. Too often these days men shuffle.

If I wasn't alive, I wouldn't know what death was. For me, everything is alive.

I am not saying that you are dead; I am saying that, according to the beliefs of atheists, all men will die as if they had never been. Thus life has no meaning.

[quote]I am saying that, according to the beliefs of atheists[/quote] [quote]all men will die as if they had never been.[/quote] Here is the problem. Not all atheists think that there is no life after death as it is a lack of believe in God(s) and just that, nothing more or less.

I'm just putting death in its place, which is second. Life comes first. Transient things still have meaning. If there will be nobody to say we existed, there will also be nobody to say we never existed. What is, has been and will be, is what is, has been and will be. And we do have some power over it. The present holds the most meaning.

I was talking about the atheist belief. Also, if you die with nothing beyond, you will cease to exist; there will be no transient ghost-like state. Additionally, your claims have little evidence. The only evidence you have brought forth is of human emotion towards nature. By the way, I don't mean to be offensive: only analytical.

You're repeating statements I've already answered, and adding other statements seemingly at random that have no reference in my assertions. You need to focus your 'analysis'.

I am asserting my belief of the atheist death and pointing towards a seeming lack of evidence, both of which I addressed in my earlier posts.

Alright, I'll admit that I haven't said to you that I understand the concept of death that you're putting forward, so: I recognise the concept of death that you're putting forward. Mine is no different, just less certain, since I won't know for sure until I die. But this is superfluous to the issue, thus I never mentioned it, thus it seemed random and unconnected to me that you did. As for the lack of evidence, I've already said in as many words that there is no source I can point to that says 'Pantheism is the correct belief to hold in regards to reality as we percieve it'. But this isn't really an issue of the tenants of my belief being infallible or fallible, since the ideals that a pantheist might commonly hold to are not uncommon, and no assertion a human being may generally make can really be thought of as infallible, evidence or no. There are always multiple interpretations that we can take from a piece of information, with this number diminishing the further we apply logic and reason. Pantheism is a way of interpreting the information that we have about our universe, and also our lack of information thereof in such a fashion that we allow our spiritual intuition to inform our judgements as to the 'metaphysical quality' of what we percieve about said universe. What we percieve follows science in its observations inasmuch as they describe the basic physical structures of what surrounds us. Now we come to the point where I can only speak for myself, and no one else, whether or not my own beliefs correlate in some fashion with their own; I view the universe in all its unfathomable vastness and intricacy as the closest synonymous thing to the concept that I hold of what a 'god' would be like. I cannot explain the gods/universe's presence, or my own in relation to it. But my intuition tells me that it is in fact so 'godlike' as to be 'divine' in the sense of its mystery and transcedental force. So it's a matter of interpreting what the evidence means, not providing it, because the evidence itself when interpreted in a basically logical fashion, is self-evidently in accord with human concepts concerning transcedental forces. For which I can use the word 'God', since it describes both the interpretation of the information and my own relation to it emotionally and intellectually. And that's my definitive statement. This really isn't so complicated that I had to write all that.

What a delightful conversation we've had. In the end, I will leave you to believe the things you do, though I may find them undesirable or incomplete.