(July 28, 2012 at 6:21 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Bored now.

63 pages of bollocks will do that.

(July 26, 2012 at 7:31 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: That you state you don't need to justify your view/belief/dogma is amusing for me too

That's because you're a fucking retard.

(July 28, 2012 at 8:25 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:

(July 26, 2012 at 7:31 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: That you state you don't need to justify your view/belief/dogma is amusing for me too

That's because you're a fucking retard.

Norfolk old sock,you really need to be less obtuse when trying to communicate with a recalitrant carrot.

(July 28, 2012 at 8:25 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:

(July 26, 2012 at 7:31 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: That you state you don't need to justify your view/belief/dogma is amusing for me too

That's because you're a fucking retard.

By retarded you mean I deny your application of knowledge.

Quote:By retarded you mean I deny your application of knowledge.

See what I mean Norfolk?--- and you thought I was joking.

(July 28, 2012 at 3:49 am)Selliedjoup Wrote:

(July 27, 2012 at 11:21 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: So you are basically arguing that the unknown is out there and branding it all supernatural? All of it a force *beyond* science, *beyond* nature because it cannot be measured?
By your definition gravity would of been supernatural before we finally figured out how it works and a unit of measurement for it. Needless to say gravity is not supernatural and your definition that the supernatural is what we can't measure does not hold up to speculation.
The definitions I gave are ones I took the trouble to look up and quote from directly. I'm not sure how that permits you to accuse me of treating them as interchangeable. Should I perhaps quote every definition I can find on the internet?

No I'm arguing for the possibility of the unknown, and if it exists it exists irrespective of whether we label it supernatural or natural.

Its a given the unknown exists, we as a species do not know alot of things.

Given this allow me to ask you a direct question for which I expect a direct answer:
Do you consider the unknown to be by definition supernatural?
If not would you provide me with a specific example of the supernatural?

Man, is this where we're at-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30x8VTCaOws

(Actually I only follow this thread because it stimulates Norfolk's laconic eloquence.)

(July 29, 2012 at 4:08 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(July 28, 2012 at 3:49 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: No I'm arguing for the possibility of the unknown, and if it exists it exists irrespective of whether we label it supernatural or natural.

Its a given the unknown exists, we as a species do not know alot of things.

Given this allow me to ask you a direct question for which I expect a direct answer:
Do you consider the unknown to be by definition supernatural?
If not would you provide me with a specific example of the supernatural?

No I don't. I can't give you an example of something unknown. Are you implying anything unknown is supernatural, therefore something which may be discovered in 100 years becomes natural until then it's supernatural?

If this definition was commonly used:

"Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

The definitions you offered are quite different. The issue I have with the term is it's a sensationalised pejorative in the rationalist world.

---

(July 29, 2012 at 5:00 am)jonb Wrote: Man, is this where we're at-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30x8VTCaOws

(Actually I only follow this thread because it stimulates Norfolk's laconic eloquence.)

I wish.

(July 26, 2012 at 4:18 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: It's very simple to get rid of me, admit you have a belief or justify why it's not. So far whateverist admitted it and I respect him for that.

So, back to the point at hand. I propose materialism is a belief on the basis that there is no justified reason to believe it to be correct, therefore it's a belief. Science may be the best means we have to assess the evidence, this does not mean it must be able to obtain all evidence (for example, our ability to observe could limit what can be obtained). If you can outline why it must be able to answer the question, this would justify your view and make it rational until then it's a belief.

Justify it and I'll go away. I thought atheists loved to demonstrate their intellectual prowess?

If you have evidence that materialism is incorrect then let's see it.

Everything that we know exists has evidence for it, that is how we know it exists.

There are many things in this universe that we don't have knowledge of, life on other planets, physical laws that we are yet to discover, many, many species on this very planet which we are yet to identify.

But until such time as we do have evidence for them we have no reason to think they exist.

And the same goes for your god.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Pixie_Science