Atheism

[Amarok]

I think that it is OK, to point out poor behavior, to show that it is not acceptable and not rational.  I also think that it is respectable to show a certain amount of grace (which I think that Steve shows remarkable restraint; which I wish I could repeat at times).     And when things get heated, in discussion, as they sometimes do, occasionally emotions get the better of us. I don't put too much into a one off comment (unless it is particularly nasty)   I do agree that we shouldn't have a negative view of those who oppose our ideas.   And sometimes we make take more exception because we have a greater respect and expectation for someone.   But we are all human.   And sometimes it is difficult when you are trying to have a discussion, and others are spouting hate and intolerance, trying to derail that discussion.   Sometimes it's difficult to ignore.

Nope your whining does not change any need to respect your beliefs. YOUR BELIEFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO RESPECT.and calling  you out is not intolerance no matter how persecuted you pretend you are.

---

Also KS. I’m not trying to say that you where necessarily wrong, I think I was surprised that “peanut gallery “ would even merit mention in comparison to some of the other stuff that is constantly being said

Stuff that totally justified despite your blobbing

[Simon Moon]

Constantly disrespecting our beliefs (not just disagreeing with them).

You deserve to have your beliefs disrespected.  They are stupid.  It's the 21st century, man.  Not the 8th.  There are no fucking miracles.  The problem with xtians is that for centuries, while you had the power to do so, you would routinely murder those who disputed your bullshit.  I get that you look upon them as the good old days but those days are gone.  If you can't produce evidence to support your claims - and you never have - then you are simply shit out of luck.  Stop whining.

I believe the problem shown here by Steve and RR, is that , they are unable to separate their beliefs from all other aspects of their makeup. So, when their beliefs are attacked they perceive it as a personal attack on their entire being.

When we call their unevidenced god-man beliefs idiotic, they perceive we are calling them idiotic.

If someone calls one of my beliefs idiotic, I don't perceive they are calling me an idiot. I am the first to admit, that there are many subjects I am an idiot on. And, if they can show me how I am being an idiot, with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument (not the kind of crap that Steve and RR post here), I will be the first to thank them for helping me eliminate a false belief.

Time for theists to get over their persecution complex (as Tizheruk points out above).

If you want to not have your beliefs 'disrespected', get beliefs that are due more respect.

[Silver]

Theists do not perceive their beliefs as we do, which is why they're still theists.

[RoadRunner79]

If you have a claim, and can support it.... go right ahead. But when all I see is chest thumping bad polemics and rhetoric mixed in with name callling. You could say I’m skeptical.

[Amarok]

If you have a claim, and can support it.... go right ahead. But when all I see is chest thumping bad polemics and rhetoric mixed in with name callling. You could say I’m skeptical.

The pissing a moaning and sense of entitlement and faux victim hood continues

[Minimalist]

Of course, Simon. By dissing their absurd God I am dissing them. If I wanted to hear people blabber about fucking Jesus I'd go to a Jesus freak board. I don't. I find their behavior on those sites nauseating.

Schmucks like Stevie and RR just want to preach and whine. Fuck them. They are as bad as dripshit and G-C.

[Amarok]

Of course, Simon.  By dissing their absurd God I am dissing them.  If I wanted to hear people blabber about fucking Jesus I'd go to a Jesus freak board.  I don't.  I find their behavior on those sites nauseating.

Schmucks like Stevie and RR just want to preach and whine.  Fuck them.  They are as bad as dripshit and G-C.

And then they bitch at us for sticking to the fact they are the only ones making claims .While trying to distort things as if we are . Atheism is a lack of belief and it makes no claims and thus far neither steve nor road have even touched it .

[surreptitious57]

There is no such thing as the specific Gospel message. If there was there would only be one Gospel instead of four. None of the four Gospel
writers actually knew Jesus and they were written twenty to eighty years after his death. None of them is therefore primary source material

The Gospel of Matthew is actually plagiarised from the Gospel of Mark which should automatically invalidate its inclusion in the New Testament yet it is there
The one Gospel that was primary source material was the Gospel of Mary Magdalene who was a cousin of Jesus but it was omitted because she was a woman

Furthermore the Gospel message was not love because Jesus very specifically stated that he came not to bring peace but a sword
There is no way this can be interpreted metaphorically since it is so obvious that to suggest it is metaphor would be simply wrong

Also there are different versions of the Bible with specific verses either included or omitted that do not appear in other versions of the Bible

And if the Bible is the word of God it should all be accepted without question. This would include both Old and New Testaments not just the
Gospels regardless of what the OT actually says. To therefore not include it and deliberately so is simply cherry picking of the highest order

Your highly sophisticated objections will fit right in with a certain group at AF. Unfortunately I am picky with whom I respond to. Sorry

The least relevant thing about an argument is who ever is making it so you should be focusing on what I have said not who I am
Now being picky with who you respond to is entirely your choice of course but this in no way invalidates what I have actually said

Also I do not say things to fit in rather I say them because I either think or know them to be true

[LadyForCamus]

---

The thing is, in order to be able to move forward in this conversation we have to be absolutely clear on what we mean by, ‘supernatural.’  The dictionary definition of the word is rather ambiguous; leaving its implications open to subjective interpretation. Do you consider the supernatural to be an extension of the natural world, or entirely apart from it? Can its activity leave behind evidence?  Is your position that these are seperate categories of things, or a singular category with a superset? (Or subset, depending on how you look at it). This is a linchpin in any discussion regarding what is real, and we’ve got to be brave enough to take positions in order to have productive dialogue.

 My positon is this:

If the supernatural can interact with the natural and leave behind physical evidence, then we’re really just talking about one category: types of natural things. If an object or event exists, and can affect the natural world, then it is a part of that world, and no longer beyond the reaches of science. If this is the case, ‘supernatural’ versus ‘natural’ is a distinction without a meaningful difference.

OTOH, if the supernatural can’t interact with the natural world or produce evidence that it exists, we’re talking about two seperate categories of things. Existing things that are evident, and...whatever the opposite of that is. I’m still waiting for someone to explain it to me.  

I believe this is a true dichotomy.  Do you disagree?

Not quite. Just because we can determine what something is not, doesn’t necessarily mean we have successfully described what it is.  Let me try another analogy. If you ask me to explain to you what a dog is, and my answer is: ‘well, it’s not a cat, or a bird’, then I haven’t actually described a dog, have I? If something exists, but cannot be evident, what is the rational justification for believing it exists at all?

I had asked you a couple of pointed questions about the supernatural in my previous response that I notice you didn’t answer.  I would really like for you to address them, because I think they’re important. If you can’t answer them, that’s fine. No harm in just saying “I don’t know.”  I have bolded the one that I think is most pivotal to the discussion going forward.


Thanks!


’Not a theist’ is neither the definition nor description of ‘atheist’ though, is it? My cat is ‘not a theist’, but that doesn’t make him an atheist.  We can do a far more thorough job of describing the characteristics of atheism. Can we say the same for the word ‘supernatural’?  I’ll point to my questions above.


Sure. Critical thinking skills are necessary any time we are assessing a cumulative body of evidence and attempting to draw conclusions from it.


Again, I’m not sure how you could identify something that can’t even be coherently described in concept.


Science isn’t a world view.  It’s a tool for modeling and describing the reality we exist in.

I’m perplexed as to why you would use an example of a well-evidenced, observable, scientifically demonstrated occurrence in a lab in support of an argument in favor of a biblical miracle. Are you saying that Mary’s immaculate conception had a natural cause describable via science?

If an alleged event is accessible to us via scientific inquiry, then it is subject to the same rigorous evidential standards as any other claim about reality, whether you’re calling it natural, or supernatural, or extra-natural, etc.


It’s not simply a rewording; it’s a different statement altogether from, “supernatural claims require extraordinary evidence.” It’s what I’ve been trying to explain to you this whole discussion. It’s why I’ve been trying to get out of you what you mean by natural versus supernatural.  I can’t tell if you really don’t understand, or if you’re pretending not to.


No. We would just need enough evidence to demonstrate that it happened the one time. If the claim, if true, would be a scientific anomaly that contradicts an enormous body of evidence indicating such a occurrence is highly unlikely, we should require equally strong, scientific evidence to demonstrate that it happened at all. Again, testimony from thousands of years ago doesn’t even come close

I will get to the last part of your response soon as I can!  Thanks, RR!

---

I get that you are having trouble with the definition of supernatural.   But I don't know what to say.  That is the definition.

Let’s take a look; from Merriam-Webster:

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe;  especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.

2a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature.
b: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit).

I don’t see anything in either of these definitions that explicitly states supernatural things can interact with our observable reality and leave behind evidence. This seems to be something that you’ve injected after the fact. Problem with that is, adding that characteristic to definition 1 invalidates it:

If some thing is interacting with, and evident within the observable universe, then it is no longer ‘beyond the observable universe’. It is natural.

Definition 2 doesn’t even necessitate a true departing from the natural world. It says, ‘appears to’, which does not necessarily eliminate a thing or event from the category of natural.

So, which definition describes the immaculate conception?  If it happened at all; if it was evident in any way; it wouldn’t qualify as supernatural by definition 1. Drawing from definition 2., ‘appears to transcend the laws of nature’, how could you determine that it was an active, intentional manipulation of the laws of the physical world by a god, versus a passively occurring physical anomaly, like the ones you cited in your previous post?

But, if you’d rather, we can drop labels and just talk about concepts.  I’ve no problem with that. I see three possible ontological scenarios for an event or object:

A. It exists and can be evident.

B. It exists, but cannot be evident.

C. Doesn’t exist/didn’t occur at all.

Things that fit description A are automatically disqualified from the category of supernatural by definition 1.  Description C, I hope, is self-explanatory. And B? What rational justification is there for believing in a claim that fits description B, other than for the sake of the claim itself? That would be question begging.

I would note on your objections, that we describe "extra terrestrials"  similarly.   That they would be beings from outside of this earth.  It wouldn't make sense to ask what color they are, or how tall they are, based on that definition.

There is a composition fallacy in this analogy. We know that extra-terrestrial, or, ‘outside the earth and it’s atmosphere’ (Merriam-Webster), exists. There is, demonstrably, time-space beyond planet earth. Further, if extra-terrestrial beings from another galaxy exist, we could infer based on what we know of the physical world that they would be comprised of matter.  We can’t infer anything like that about the supernatural.  I’ve asked over and over for even one positive characteristic of the supernatural, and I’ve got no response so far.

I would agree, that science is not a worldview (although I think that scientism could be considered one).  And I agree, that if something supernatural is to interact with the natural world (which would be necessary if one is claiming evidence for it) then it may be testable by science.  I agree that science is a tool (specifically a philosophical methodology), which has it's uses.  And if that tool is appropriate to the evidence, then it should be applied in that way.

As I said, the second something interacts with, affects, or is otherwise evident within the natural world, it is a part of the natural world, and is disqualified from the category of supernatural.  

I don't offer that as evidence of the biblical claim.   It is however, evidence against the claim that it cannot happen, or an argument from ignorance to such.

To be clear, I’m not asserting that these things are impossible. I’m merely saying that they’re highly unlikely based on what we already know via rigorous scientific observation, so in order for me to believe it happened, I would need more than testimony. 

RE: Extraordinary claims and an experiment that produces a rare anomaly.  
I'm confused here.  On one hand, you say that we only need to demonstrate that it happened once;  then you say that we need equally strong evidence that it happened at all.

I didn’t articulate my thoughts clearly; I apologize. Yes, we would only need to demonstrate that it happened once to show that such an occurrence is possible, but testimony from thousands of years ago is not a demonstration. You would need testable, physical evidence to do that.

We don't discount things just because they are rare.   But back to testimony and the Crosby case. I'm unsure if in a rape/assault if they are instructed to have evidence  beyond reasonable doubt, such as in a murder case.  If not, I think that it should be.   However murder cases are also tried, where there is only testimony as evidence.   Testimony is sufficient in rape cases, and murder cases.   It is sufficient to establish a fact beyond a reasonable doubt in these cases.  It is evidence to make an informed decision as to the truth of a matter.

Sure. And, exactly no elements of these types of claims contradict known scientific principles about the world. That’s a hurdle only supernatural claims need to clear by way of demonstrable, physical evidence.  

If it can be sufficient, and can make evident beyond a reasonable doubt.  Do you agree, or should we set Bill Crosby free?

Whether or not the prosecution made its case to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt is a completely different discussion than whether or not I’m personally convinced Bill Cosby is a serial rapist, and why.  I don’t think the rest of the women’s testimony was allowed into either of his trials. I’m convinced that Bill Cosby is guilty. Sixty women’s accountings are enough to convince me that a rich, famous, powerful man was a sexual predator. Now, if sixty women; if a thousand women; claimed that Cosby impregnated them absent intercourse, I am going to need some kind of corroborating, scientific evidence before I believe it. 

I don't think that science played a role in this case, and that people did have knowledge and evidence before modern scientific methodology was established.

What did people have knowledge and evidence of?

If knowledge can provide sufficient evidence, which leads to decisions beyond a reasonable doubt;  I would ask, what more are you asking for?

I’m confused here.  How does knowledge provide evidence.

[Amarok]

I get that you are having trouble with the definition of supernatural.   But I don't know what to say.  That is the definition.

Let’s take a look; from Merriam-Webster:

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe;  especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.

2 a:departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature 

   [b]b: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)[/b]

I don’t see anything in either of these definitions that explicitly states supernatural things can interact with our observable reality and leave behind evidence. This seems to be something that you’ve injected after the fact. Problem with that is, adding that characteristic to definition 1. invalidates it.  See below:

[b]If some thing is interacting with, and evident within the observable universe, then it is no longer “beyond the observable universe”.  It is a part of it.  It is natural.

As for definition 2., it doesn’t even imply a true departing from the natural world. It only says that it “appears to”, which does not necessarily eliminate a thing or event from the category of natural.

So, which definition describes the immaculate conception?  If it happened at all; if it was evident in any way; it wouldn’t qualify as supernatural by definition 1. Drawing from definition 2., ‘appears to transcend the laws of nature’, how could one determine that the immaculate conception was an active, intentional manipulation of the laws of the physical world by a god, versus a passively occurring physical anomaly, like the ones you cited in your previous post?

But, if you’d rather, we can drop labels and just talk about concepts.  I’ve no problem with that. I see three possible ontological scenarios for an event or object:

A. It exists and can be evident

B. It exists, but cannot be evident

C. Doesn’t exist/didn’t occur at all

Things that fit description A are automatically disqualified from the category of supernatural by definition 1.  Description C, I hope, is self-explanatory.  And B?  What rational justification is there for believing in a claim that fits description B, other than for the sake of the claim itself?  That would be question begging.
[/b]

I would note on your objections, that we describe "extra terrestrials"  similarly.   That they would be beings from outside of this earth.  It wouldn't make sense to ask what color they are, or how tall they are, based on that definition.

There is a composition fallacy in this analogy.  We know that extra-terrestrial, or, ‘outside the earth and it’s atmosphere’ (Merriam-Webster), exists.  There is, demonstrably, time-space beyond planet earth. Further, if extra-terrestrial beings from another galaxy exist, we could infer based on what we know of the physical world that they would be comprised of matter.  We can’t infer anything like that about the supernatural.  I’ve asked over and over for even one positive characteristic of the supernatural, and I’ve got no response so far.  what is it?

I tend to agree; however, that is exactly how it is often described here.  And I believe that Neo has made that same joke, or something similar.   I personally prefer the old distinction between atheists and agnostic, but realize that many in the atheistic community, don't like those more specified understandings.

I agree with you and Neo on that point.

I would agree, that science is not a worldview (although I think that scientism could be considered one).  And I agree, that if something supernatural is to interact with the natural world (which would be necessary if one is claiming evidence for it) then it may be testable by science.  I agree that science is a tool (specifically a philosophical methodology), which has it's uses.  And if that tool is appropriate to the evidence, then it should be applied in that way.

As I said above, the second something begins to interact with, affect, or is otherwise evident evident within the natural world, it is a part of the natural world, and is disqualified from the category of supernatural.  

I don't offer that as evidence of the biblical claim.   It is however, evidence against the claim that it cannot happen, or an argument from ignorance to such.

To be clear, I’m not asserting that these things are impossible.  I’m merely saying that they’re highly unlikely based on what we already know via rigorous scientific observation, so in order for me to believe it happened, I would need more than testimony. 

RE: Extraordinary claims and an experiment that produces a rare anomaly.  
I'm confused here.  On one hand, you say that we only need to demonstrate that it happened once;  then you say that we need equally strong evidence that it happened at all.

I didn’t articulate my thoughts clearly; I apologize. Yes, we would only need to demonstrate that it happened once to show that such an occurrence is possible, but testimony from thousands of years ago is not a demonstration.  You would need testable, physical evidence in order to demonstate such an event.

We don't discount things just because they are rare.   But back to testimony and the Crosby case.   I'm unsure if in a rape/assault if they are instructed to have evidence  beyond reasonable doubt, such as in a murder case.  If not, I think that it should be.   However murder cases are also tried, where there is only testimony as evidence.   Testimony is sufficient in rape cases, and murder cases.   It is sufficient to establish a fact beyond a reasonable doubt in these cases.  It is evidence to make an informed decision as to the truth of a matter.

Sure. And, exactly no elements of these types of claims contradict known scientific principles about the world.  That’s a huge hurdle only supernatural claims need to clear by way of demonstrable, physical evidence.  

If it can be sufficient, and can make evident beyond a reasonable doubt.  Do you agree, or should we set Bill Crosby free?

Whether or not the prosecution made its case to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt is a completely different discussion than whether or not I’m personally convinced Bill Cosby is a serial rapist, and why.  I don’t think the rest of the women’s testimony was allowed into either of his trials.

 I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Bill Cosby is guilty.  Sixty women’s accountings are enough to convince me that a rich, famous, powerful man was a sexual predator. Now, if sixty women; if a thousand women; claimed that Cosby impregnated them absent intercourse, I am going to need some kind of corroborating, scientific evidence before I believe it. 

don't think that science played a role in this case, and that people did have knowledge and evidence before modern scientific methodology was established.

What did people have knowledge and evidence of?

If knowledge can provide sufficient evidence, which leads to decisions beyond a reasonable doubt;  I would ask, what more are you asking for?

I’m confused here.  How does knowledge provide evidence.

Epic take down and the judges give it 

10 10 10 10 

Gold medal