Atheism

[RoadRunner79]

So if car car wits working, that shows that it evolved and was not intelligently desighned.  I think there is a flaw in your reasoning.

No one is arguing that an omniscient designer designed a car. Cars with inherent flaws in their design, like the Ford Pinto which blew up if you crashed into it from behind, were designed by people who were not omniscient. They learned from their mistakes and the design of the cars has evolved over the years wih the most successful designs being re-used and improved.

OK then, this isn't an argument against design then.  So then I understand this new argument (at least I don't think this was the original intent) is that an omniscient designer, would not create an un-intended flaw.   I agree.  As defined, the designer knows that this will occur.    However, there may be compromises, or other features which are not realized.  The designer could have intended it to be this way for a reason.  As an engineer, I wouldn't be too quick to judge what is good design or not.  It always bugs me, when I have to change a program or a design, and I don't understand why it was done in the first place.  Just because the designer could have built a car that can go 200 MPH, doesn't mean that it is suboptimal, that mine does not.

Also don't forget in a living organism, that they have to build themselves from a single cell up, undergoing various changes throughout the process, and adapting to changing issues in the environment as they live.  You will often see human designers marvel and try to replicate the design that they see in nature.  Sometimes they struggle with this.  And often, they are just trying to produce the end result, not having to make it grow and unfold and reproduce.

[Angrboda]

[Amarok]

What predictably nonsensical and asinine text blob of non counter points from Roadkill

Now you all know why i don't even bother with him 

---

TRUTH!!!

[robvalue]

Why the desperation to be someone's action toy?

[Whateverist]

The 'ism' in atheism denotes a system.

Therefore atheism literally means a system based on the non existence of God.

You cannot have an ideology without making any assertions.

Gee, is that so? Well then can I at least subscribe to some ideologies which are religion neutral?

[Amarok]

The 'ism' in atheism denotes a system.

Therefore atheism literally means a system based on the non existence of God.

You cannot have an ideology without making any assertions.

Gee, is that so?  Well then can I at least subscribe to some ideologies which are religion neutral?

Too bad i already showed this to false As ISM can also mean state or condition and this perfectly fits Atheism and Huggy then tries desperately to conflate systems like a Metabolism to a system of beliefs like Communism .

[Whateverist]

Huggy mekka me raff!

He too much the funny!!!

---

Would these people be less confused if I said I'm a nontheist, or I'm not a theist?

How about if we stipulate from the beginning that we are non theists, non believers and non giveashitters?  Maybe that would help with their confusion?

---

The fact that you can choke to death while eating suggests that there is no such thing as "intelligent design."   Or an intelligent "designer."

If we were so badly designed then according to evolution we would have died off...

I've got to call bullshit. An organism doesn't die out because it has design flaws. It's like not getting eaten by a grizzly. You don't have to be an olympic sprinter you just have to hike with slower runners than yourself. So long as an organism's flaws are less debilitating than those of the other organisms competing for the same niche, no dying off need ensue.

---

If you could design not only the life forms but the rules of reality that they live in, would you decide to have them excrete smelly and toxic shit? Considering God could presumably just not do that, and have everything else the same, he essentially chose it to be there.

I wonder if there's an arbitrary restriction that explains this? Or just "fuck you that's why"? Or a problem he created so he could overcome it? Was he that desperate to make his work look like the result of mindless natural processes?

You're damned right, Rob.  If it was up to me, we'd excrete nothing more toxic than a marshmallow.  You may just have stumbled onto an irrefutable proof for the non existence of an intelligent designer.  If you get the nobel, I'd like to come to the ceremony.

[LadyForCamus]

---

RoadRunner79


It’s not a criticism; I’m merely making a point.  If you’re using definition 1. (beyond the universe) then anything that could interact with the universe and leave evidence wouldn’t qualify.  If you’re using definition 2., then any rare phenomena with a scientific explanation (even if we don’t what it is at the time it occurred) could be considered ‘supernatural’.  So where do biblical claims fit in?


Such claims don’t meet the criteria by definition, as I’ve explained.  If something is interacting with our physical world, physically changing it, and leaving behind testable, observable physical evidence, then it is a part of this world; it can be described via scientific inquiry, and no longer fits the definition of ‘supernatural.’


Again, this analogy commits a composition fallacy.  Please, see my previous post. 


Well, because theists assert that they are seperate, distinct categories of existing things, and I am asking for someone to defend that position by explaining what a supernatural thing is made of, and what disqualifies it from being be a natural thing.  


See below for my position...again.  You haven’t addressed it yet:

Because if something can be evident, or generate evidence of its existence, then it’s a part of this world, and not supernatural.  If you’re going to assert that a thing can exist in the world, effect it, and leave evidence behind, but is somehow not a part of it, you’re going to have to defend that.

---

I quoted a large section here, because it seems that it is essentially the same argument.  Namely, that something which is outside of the natural known universe, cannot leave evidence (or enter?) it.  That if it leaves evidence in the natural world, then it is necessarily a part of the the natural world.  I would disagree.  There is not reason for this statement.

There is no reason to think that any existing thing acting and interacting within the universe isn’t a part of that universe, and since the definition of the word supernatural doesn’t specifically name ‘the ability to leave physical evidence, yet be wholly apart from’, as a particular attribute, you are going to have to make a case for that position. 

Take the example of an extra-terrestrial previously.  The definition is similar, of a being which originates outside of the from the Earth.   There is no reason, if such a being exists, that it cannot come to earth, and leave evidence of that visitation (if it had the power to do so).  Second, when it leaves evidence on the earth, of it's visit, that is evidence of an extra-terrestial if it makes evident, that this being was from another planet.   We wouldn't say that the evidence points to a  terrestrial being, simply because it was found here, if reason shows that it did not originate from here ("originate being the key word).  Also, I have no idea what you are talking about with the composition fallacy.   I can't even figure out where in my arguments you think that I might be appealing to the characteristics the things that make up an E.T.

“Terrestrial”, and “extra-terrestrial”, are both places known to exist within the physical universe.  Terrestrial beings and extra-terrestrial beings (if they exist) are physical objects existing within this universe. The assumption that whatever lies ‘beyond’ the physical, natural universe could have a relationship with the universe as a whole, the same way that physical objects and events existing within the universe have with each other, is your composition fallacy. There is no rational comparison between ‘physical things within the physical universe compared to each other,’ and, ‘the universe itself’ compared to some non-physical ‘other’ category.

Bias against the supernatural?  I just want someone to explain to me what it is, and how it’s distinct from the categories of ‘natural’ and ‘non-existent’. To your second sentence, I don’t know understand what you mean, I’m sorry.

It is different in that it transcends the natural universe (or forces),[/i]
and it differs from non-existent if it exists. (sorry couldn't help myself)

If it can leave physical evidence; if it can be present in this universe, and alter the contents of it in some physical, material way, then it would fall under the purview of science.  That would qualify the phenomenon as ‘natural’.

As to what makes up something that is supernatural, I don't know that I can say from the definition.  It's similar to the definition of E.T.   Must an extra-terrestial be like us.  And the answer is that there is nothing in the definition which says either way.

An extra-terrestrial, like us terrestrials, and everything else that exists in the natural world, would most certainly be made up of matter. This is your composition fallacy again. Do you think that the supernatural is made up of some other kind of physical substance besides matter? Or, some non-physical force? If it’s not material how could it possibly interact with the material world? Further, if it’s not material, how could it be made up of any kind of thing at all? When I ask these questions about the positive characteristics of the ‘supernatural’ it becomes obvious to me that the concept is incoherent.  

If you seen something, say something that you didn't believe in previously.  Would you believe in it afterwards?   Would you need a scientific study, to tell you what you saw?  Would you believe even if someone in a white lab coat told you it couldn't happen?

I honestly don’t know.  What I do know, is that wouldn’t expect a rational person to take me on my word.  

The answers to these might depend on a few things.   One how well where you able to see what you think you saw?  How much time did you have to see it?   Did others see it as well, or is their corroborating evidence to support that you did see this thing?  If you have strong reason to believe that you did see what you think you saw, then why would you need a scientific study (unless someone can add more information to make things clearer)?

Again, I’m not sure what it would take to convince me, as the first person observer.  But, I would expect that if I told you my whole family saw Santa, you’d withhold believing us until our claim could be well-corroborated with physical evidence.

---

Yes, we knew facts about the case; knew demonstrable facts about our world relating to the subject matter of the case, as I mentioned several posts ago.  


And as a follow up question I asked you:

So again, you seem to be saying that the virgin birth has a scientific explanation, and therefore was a natural occurrence. Is this correct?   It’s also worth noting that the human embryos created via parthenogenesis were not viable.  So, contrary to your implications, it has not been demonstrated that a woman can give birth to a live infant (as claimed by the Bible) via such a mechanism.

---

The bible doesn't go much into the details of how the virgin birth occurred.   I was mostly bringing up the other things, because you where incredulous to it.   I wouldn't necessarily point to the virgin birth, in a discussion of histical evidence (you brought it up).  However, just because you don't know of something, or even if our best scientists, can't repeat something, doesn't present much of a case against sufficient evidence.  It's not a good reason to deny evidence.

I think it’s pretty straightforward from the Bible that the Virgin birth was meant to be interpreted as a miracle from god, lol. I can’t imagine any self-respecting Christian would intentionally conflate the potential causes. If I’m incredulous of the alleged virgin birth because it defies what we know about the natural world via scientific inquiry, and you counter me with an example of some similar or related phenomenon that has a naturalistic, scientific explanation, then you seem to be implying that the Virgin birth was possible as a natural phenomenon. No god required. Is that your position?  If not, then your parthenogenesis example was irrelevant. I’m willing to move past it though.  I’m just saying, we don’t get to use science only when we think it works in our favor in a particular instance, and then poo-poo at its inadequacy when it becomes an obstacle.

---

You see, when you say to me, ‘if you accept that testimony is evidence, then you should believe that biblical claims are true, because they are evidenced by testimony’, what you’re really asking me to do is turn my back on the overwhelming body of evidence that suggests they’re likely not true.  I won’t do that. I can’t.

---

See what overwhelming evidence or reason would you have to say that these things did not occur?

An almost insurmountable collection of scientific facts about the world indicates it is highly unlikely that: someone was dead for three days and came back to life, someone walked ontop of water, and that a woman, two-thousand years ago, had a baby absent human semen. No amount of testimony is sufficient to override this evidence.  Not for me, anyway.  

Science tells us that If there is evidence that it did occur, and natural forces can be reasonable excluded, then that would point to something supernatural as the cause.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think any self-respecting scientist would agree with that reasoning.  And, how exactly have believers reasonably ruled out natural explanations for what people thousands of years ago supposedly said they saw?  How did believers determine beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone saw anything at all?  

This last part here, smells a bit like scientism. The scientific methodology is a great tool for gaining knowledge.  For collecting data, and analyzing trends.  But it's not the be all; end all of knowledge.  It's just one of the ways.  If I have evidence, and scientists offer incredulity;  I;m going with the evidence.

And, my point is that Christians’ ancient, alleged eye-witness testimony doesn’t exist in a vacuum.  It has to contend with hundreds and hundreds of years of scientific discovery.

---

Also @RR,

Sorry for being so tardy getting back to you. It’s been a crazy couple of weeks. Thanks for your patience!

[RoadRunner79]

Hi Lady;

Sorry for the delay, and thanks again for the pleasant conversation. 

As you requested, I quoted you in line with my responses, however this seems to be quite a wall of text.  So I'm going put hide tags in for what I am responding to for reference.  I hope this is acceptable.

---

I quoted a large section here, because it seems that it is essentially the same argument.  Namely, that something which is outside of the natural known universe, cannot leave evidence (or enter?) it.  That if it leaves evidence in the natural world, then it is necessarily a part of the the natural world.  I would disagree.  There is not reason for this statement.

There is no reason to think that any existing thing acting and interacting within the universe isn’t a part of that universe, and since the definition of the word supernatural doesn’t specifically name ‘the ability to leave physical evidence, yet be wholly apart from’, as a particular attribute, you are going to have to make a case for that position. 

Take the example of an extra-terrestrial previously.  The definition is similar, of a being which originates outside of the from the Earth.   There is no reason, if such a being exists, that it cannot come to earth, and leave evidence of that visitation (if it had the power to do so).  Second, when it leaves evidence on the earth, of it's visit, that is evidence of an extra-terrestial if it makes evident, that this being was from another planet.   We wouldn't say that the evidence points to a  terrestrial being, simply because it was found here, if reason shows that it did not originate from here ("originate being the key word).  Also, I have no idea what you are talking about with the composition fallacy.   I can't even figure out where in my arguments you think that I might be appealing to the characteristics the things that make up an E.T.

“Terrestrial”, and “extra-terrestrial”, are both places known to exist within the physical universe.  Terrestrial beings and extra-terrestrial beings (if they exist) are physical objects existing within this universe. The assumption that whatever lies ‘beyond’ the physical, natural universe could have a relationship with the universe as a whole, the same way that physical objects and events existing within the universe have with each other, is your composition fallacy. There is no rational comparison between ‘physical things within the physical universe compared to each other,’ and, ‘the universe itself’ compared to some non-physical ‘other’ category.

---

As I said before, there is nothing precluding in the definition that something supernatural can interact with the natural universe.   This is no different than the definition of extra-terrestrial defining a being which originates from outside of the earth.  The definition doesn't say that it can or cannot interact with the earth.  If the universe is not a closed system then things can enter in from outside.   Again, I'm not appealing what anything is made of, so I fail to see how the composition fallacy applies.  If anything, you seem to be saying that if a thing is not made up of matter, then it cannot interact with matter; which would be much closer to the composition fallacy.  

---

Bias against the supernatural?  I just want someone to explain to me what it is, and how it’s distinct from the categories of ‘natural’ and ‘non-existent’. To your second sentence, I don’t know understand what you mean, I’m sorry.

It is different in that it transcends the natural universe (or forces),[/i]
and it differs from non-existent if it exists. (sorry couldn't help myself)

If it can leave physical evidence; if it can be present in this universe, and alter the contents of it in some physical, material way, then it would fall under the purview of science.  That would qualify the phenomenon as ‘natural’.

As to what makes up something that is supernatural, I don't know that I can say from the definition.  It's similar to the definition of E.T.   Must an extra-terrestial be like us.  And the answer is that there is nothing in the definition which says either way.

An extra-terrestrial, like us terrestrials, and everything else that exists in the natural world, would most certainly be made up of matter. This is your composition fallacy again. Do you think that the supernatural is made up of some other kind of physical substance besides matter? Or, some non-physical force? If it’s not material how could it possibly interact with the material world? Further, if it’s not material, how could it be made up of any kind of thing at all? When I ask these questions about the positive characteristics of the ‘supernatural’ it becomes obvious to me that the concept is incoherent.  

---

The definition I would give for supernatural doesn't say what it is made up from, just where it comes from.   Although I would agree, that supernatural is often used in connection with something which is non-material in it's makeup.  How something non-physical can interact with the physical.  I don't know.  It does seem that at least it must be capable of generating  a physical force.  I cannot say how, but I don't see where this is incoherent or contains some logical error.  If it can leave physical evidence, it may fall under the per view of science (historical science anyway) to give their input on any data available or what may not be readily observable.  But an event isn't always going to leave evidence, which would fall into the category of science.  But scientific evidence isn't the only way to know something.   You can have knowledge of truth through logic, metaphysics, observation, or through the testimony of others (which can apply to all categories).  Sometimes asking for scientific evidence may even be a category error.    

---

If you seen something, say something that you didn't believe in previously.  Would you believe in it afterwards?   Would you need a scientific study, to tell you what you saw?  Would you believe even if someone in a white lab coat told you it couldn't happen?

I honestly don’t know.  What I do know, is that wouldn’t expect a rational person to take me on my word.  

The answers to these might depend on a few things.   One how well where you able to see what you think you saw?  How much time did you have to see it?   Did others see it as well, or is their corroborating evidence to support that you did see this thing?  If you have strong reason to believe that you did see what you think you saw, then why would you need a scientific study (unless someone can add more information to make things clearer)?

Again, I’m not sure what it would take to convince me, as the first person observer.  But, I would expect that if I told you my whole family saw Santa, you’d withhold believing us until our claim could be well-corroborated with physical evidence.

---

Why would you not expect someone to believe you (are you a known liar).  Unless they can add information which makes more sense of what you saw, why would you trust a scientist over your own experience.  As to Santa, it seems that you are coming to a conclusion before you examined any evidence, not because of it.  You have to deny the evidence a priori.

---

[hide]Yes, we knew facts about the case; knew demonstrable facts about our world relating to the subject matter of the case, as I mentioned several posts ago.  


And as a follow up question I asked you:

So again, you seem to be saying that the virgin birth has a scientific explanation, and therefore was a natural occurrence. Is this correct?   It’s also worth noting that the human embryos created via parthenogenesis were not viable.  So, contrary to your implications, it has not been demonstrated that a woman can give birth to a live infant (as claimed by the Bible) via such a mechanism.

The bible doesn't go much into the details of how the virgin birth occurred.   I was mostly bringing up the other things, because you where incredulous to it.   I wouldn't necessarily point to the virgin birth, in a discussion of histical evidence (you brought it up).  However, just because you don't know of something, or even if our best scientists, can't repeat something, doesn't present much of a case against sufficient evidence.  It's not a good reason to deny evidence.

I think it’s pretty straightforward from the Bible that the Virgin birth was meant to be interpreted as a miracle from god, lol. I can’t imagine any self-respecting Christian would intentionally conflate the potential causes. If I’m incredulous of the alleged virgin birth because it defies what we know about the natural world via scientific inquiry, and you counter me with an example of some similar or related phenomenon that has a naturalistic, scientific explanation, then you seem to be implying that the Virgin birth was possible as a natural phenomenon. No god required. Is that your position?  If not, then your parthenogenesis example was irrelevant. I’m willing to move past it though.  I’m just saying, we don’t get to use science only when we think it works in our favor in a particular instance, and then poo-poo at its inadequacy when it becomes an obstacle.

---

I only brought up parthenogenesis because of your statements that it was impossible.   It seems that if a scientist tells you otherwise your incredulity fades away fairly quickly.  I do agree, that the Bible says that God was involved with Mary becoming pregnant with Jesus.  It was just some rare or odd set of circumstances. Personally, I don't preclude natural explanations in defining a miracle (I know that some do).  I do think that in order for a miracle to suit it's purpose it is going to be something out of the ordinary, but I think that something highly unlikely occurring just when needed (or when said to occur), can also be evidence. Even if it can be explained with natural forces.  If someone get's struck by lightning, ok, that can happen.   If they are carrying a metal pole around in a storm, it's even more likely.  If someone get's struck by lightning when there is no indication of storms, and they immediately said just prior "May God strike me down if I'm lying" just previously.   Without other reason to the contrary, it's going to make me stop and take notice.

---

[hide]You see, when you say to me, ‘if you accept that testimony is evidence, then you should believe that biblical claims are true, because they are evidenced by testimony’, what you’re really asking me to do is turn my back on the overwhelming body of evidence that suggests they’re likely not true.  I won’t do that. I can’t.

See what overwhelming evidence or reason would you have to say that these things did not occur?

An almost insurmountable collection of scientific facts about the world indicates it is highly unlikely that: someone was dead for three days and came back to life, someone walked ontop of water, and that a woman, two-thousand years ago, had a baby absent human semen. No amount of testimony is sufficient to override this evidence.  Not for me, anyway.  

---

Here I have to disagree.   While science can tell us what will normally occur, I don't think that a good scientist would comment on that these things are impossible from a scientific perspective.  They may be able to give some knowledge about what would be required for this to occur, but I don't think that there is any study against them.  Again, we get into the amount of evidence required to demonstrate a rare occurrence.   My conclusion is sufficient evidence.  And I don't see any coherent reason why sufficient evidence would not be sufficient (or sufficient in one instance, but not another).  Again, your conclusion seems to be apart from any evidence, not because of it.  I'm not saying that we blindly follow any testimony, or not be critical of it, but being skeptical is a neutral position, where you are not making an opposing claim either.   Which we come back to if testimony alone, cannot be sufficient evidence, then set Bill Cosby Free.

---

Science tells us that If there is evidence that it did occur, and natural forces can be reasonable excluded, then that would point to something supernatural as the cause.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think any self-respecting scientist would agree with that reasoning.  And, how exactly have believers reasonably ruled out natural explanations for what people thousands of years ago supposedly said they saw?  How did believers determine beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone saw anything at all?  

---

Perhaps, scientists might not agree, but it is a matter of logic, not science (which only shows that they need some philosophy courses.  It is called proof from contradiction or may also be seen in a disjunctive syllogism.   I would remind you, that you are the one saying, that this cannot happen according to science.   If evidence shows that it did, then you are left with one of two conclusions.   Either something outside of the field of science is responsible, or the premise is wrong concerning it being able to occur via natural mechanisms.   Either you deny the evidence, you deny the reasons (given our knowledge) that it could not occur naturally, or you accept the logical conclusion.  If you deny the evidence, then your conclusion is not based on evidence, but an a priori commitment (which is probably unfounded).  You can deny the reasons given that it cannot occur naturally, and go against the science.  However I think that this then demands reason to do so (perhaps you think their conclusions do not have solid ground.  Or you can follow the evidence and reason to it's logical conclusion.  Scientist sometimes may over-reach the data in their conclusions, or have bad logic.  But without some defense (burden) it would seem that one must deny evidence and/or  reason to deny the conclusion.  I think that this normally comes out as begging the question where the conclusion is denied from the beginning, or sometimes combined with an argument from ignorance, where it must be natural, we just don't know yet.  I think that this is where the quip extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence comes from.  Extra ordinary claims just require evidence, the same as anything else.  We may take for granted something which is common or inconsequential and loosen the standards and take it with a measure of faith or charity either for expediency or based on trust.   As I've said before, there is no epistemological basis which supports extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.  And again, I would point out that you where the one, who said that they couldn't occur naturally.

---

This last part here, smells a bit like scientism. The scientific methodology is a great tool for gaining knowledge.  For collecting data, and analyzing trends.  But it's not the be all; end all of knowledge.  It's just one of the ways.  If I have evidence, and scientists offer incredulity;  I;m going with the evidence.

And, my point is that Christians’ ancient, alleged eye-witness testimony doesn’t exist in a vacuum.  It has to contend with hundreds and hundreds of years of scientific discovery.

---

---

And you have mentioned three things from the Bible here.   The resurrection, walking on water, and the virgin birth.  I agree, that these things don't occur in a vacuum, but I would ask, what scientific discovery would you point to, to contradict these?   What knowledge would you add to this; to make a claim against them?     Any claim of a miracle is by nature going to be rare or uncommon.  It must be, as the purpose in the Bible is to point to God.   To point to something outside of the natural occurrence, something with supernatural intervention.  I'm not advocating a "god of the gaps" here.  That just because we do not know something that it must be from God.   We can't imagine how something as powerful and destructive as lightning occurs so it must be God.  But you do not get to make an argument from ignorance either, and just assume that it is natural.   I think that we should follow the reasons and evidence to make an informed decision.  Perhaps we have reason to doubt the evidence (without begging the question) or perhaps we think that the reasons that natural forces are precluded are hasty.  You may be skeptical, and not making a claim either way, but I think that eventually it's difficult to be skeptical in light of evidence and reason where one is just being hyper-skeptical, irrational, and incredulous (flat earthers come to mind).  That special pleading must be made, to require extraordinary evidence, and ignore everyday reason and logic.

[Amarok]

A small novel that does not address or refute any of Lady's point .There should be a medal for that .