I can feel your anger

[Ace Otana]

So if there is no better method than the scientific method, yet it never worked with anything like the 'supernatural' how could it assess the 'supernatural'.

It can't, it rules it out. If you add supernatural as an answer to the natural it's immediately ruled out because it cannot be tested.

Note you claim natural is what science can prove, and imply anything unprovable is 'supernatural' which has the connotation of not being credible.

No you dense twit, science works on the natural because IT'S FUCKING TESTABLE!!! Fuck me what's wrong with you?

Looks like I'll have to sod off, that said I'll stay if you can prove that science can prove or disprove a god, otherwise you'll just have to stick with the belief tag.

Not believing in something doesn't make it a belief. That's that and it ain't gonna change.

I asked why must science be able to assess the existence of a god, and you responded with science being the best method.

Science is the best method we have to explain things. It's a tool that helps us to look into things and gain a measure of understanding. If god cannot be tested/verified in an way, then it must be ruled out.

What evidence are you looking for? fingerprints, dna?

I'm so done with you. The only thing you've convinced me of is that you're a complete troll. So I'm putting you on ignore.
I won't be responding to any more of your posts.

[Epimethean]

I think ignore is about the best possible outcome. His denseness is cloying.

[Epimethean]

I put him on ignore. He wants nothing to do with dialogue and everything to do with diatribe.

[Selliedjoup]

So if there is no better method than the scientific method, yet it never worked with anything like the 'supernatural' how could it assess the 'supernatural'.

It can't, it rules it out. If you add supernatural as an answer to the natural it's immediately ruled out because it cannot be tested.

Exactly, that you consider you can define natural based on the assumption what is observed is circular. That you can't observe it, does not make it supernatural, as if it exsits it would still ne natural, but just that you can't observe it. But wait science is the best method we have therefore is tells us what natural is.

Note you claim natural is what science can prove, and imply anything unprovable is 'supernatural' which has the connotation of not being credible.

No you dense twit, science works on the natural because IT'S FUCKING TESTABLE!!! Fuck me what's wrong with you?

I'm not sure if you're bright enough to understand the question as your reponse does not address what I've said at all. I realise science is testable and works on the natural, this is not in contention. I'm stating your belief is that science can prove what is natural, therefore anything science cannot prove becomes 'supernatural'. Why MUST science/mankind be able to prove/observe everything that is? On what grounds do you make this assumption? Please to refrain from saying because it's testable as this does not address YOUR assumption. Yes it's testable, how does it test that which it can't test? or can it only test that which it can tested, which rules out possibility of the untestable? Your assumption is flawed.

Looks like I'll have to sod off, that said I'll stay if you can prove that science can prove or disprove a god, otherwise you'll just have to stick with the belief tag.

Not believing in something doesn't make it a belief. That's that and it ain't gonna change.

It's only not changing in your mind. This doesn't change what it is. I've answered every question, you just repeat science is our best method and testable as it's relevant. So what?

I asked why must science be able to assess the existence of a god, and you responded with science being the best method.

Science is the best method we have to explain things. It's a tool that helps us to look into things and gain a measure of understanding. If god cannot be tested/verified in an way, then it must be ruled out.

Try to answer (or at least address) the question this time. Does the BEST explanation we have mean it MUST be able answer the question? Yes or no? Supply reasoning if you can.

What evidence are you looking for? fingerprints, dna?

I'm so done with you. The only thing you've convinced me of is that you're a complete troll. So I'm putting you on ignore.
I won't be responding to any more of your posts.

Like totally?

It's a genuine question. You state there's no proof. To state there's no proof I would hope that you have some idea of what proof you're looking for, or at least what constitutes proof.

So far you can't answer why science MUST be able to answer the question, or what proof you're looking. But yeah sure, you hold no beliefs whatsoever.

Please note the bolding and capitalisation is for emphasis.

---

I put him on ignore. He wants nothing to do with dialogue and everything to do with diatribe.

If you tried dialogue, (i.e presenting your position as a subjective one) then it's fairly simple.

Dialogue with a fundamentalist is impossible, they will commonly assert unjustified criticism. Good use of words beginning with "D" though.

[Gambit]

I was looking for the movie Groundhog Day, and a Google search lead me here. So, um, can someone tell me how to download the movie? Thanks...

[Selliedjoup]

The superiority complex of the atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Funny you're the one who said others have half a brain and yet here's me projecting.

[Reforged]

Selliedjoup.
Quick question, if supernatural is beyond anything natural. Cannot be studied or experienced through natural means... what makes you think it should even apply to us even if it existed? We're natural creatures. When we die we become dead natural creatures right down to our decomposing bodies keeping within the natural laws as they did in life.
If you were to claim that the dead become supernatural "spirits" or go to heaven or some such nonsense then you would be assuming the existence of a supernatural creature or plane you cannot possibly know exists because as you clearly state you have no means to discern such a thing.

So to outline and clarify the question; Why should something beyond nature, apply to nature? On what are you basing this?

[Selliedjoup]

I was looking for the movie Groundhog Day, and a Google search lead me here. So, um, can someone tell me how to download the movie? Thanks...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiE5BgBADCU

---

Selliedjoup.
Quick question, if supernatural is beyond anything natural. Cannot be studied or experienced through natural means... what makes you think it should even apply to us even if it existed? We're natural creatures. When we die we become dead natural creatures right down to our decomposing bodies keeping within the natural laws as they did in life.
If you were to claim that the dead become supernatural "spirits" or go to heaven or some such nonsense then you would be assuming the existence of a supernatural creature or plane you cannot possibly know exists because as you clearly state you have no means to discern such a thing.

So to outline and clarify the question; Why should something beyond nature, apply to nature? On what are you basing this?

Firstly, I'm assuming that by natural you mean that which we can measure, and supernatural is that which we can't? I think if it exists, it's natural.
If a god existed, it could explain why existence is. For proponents of Occam's razor, the occurence of a series of highly unlikely events as being random is a step (or several) too far.

As we are created within existence, and are part of it, it would explain a cause for it. I'm not proposing any more than that.

I don't claim to know or dismiss the supernatural, I just claim it's a possibility as I don't place huge emphasis on humanity's abilitiy to determine this question. You're welcome to assume it doesn't exist if it makes you feel better for whatever reason.

To answer your question, to me the whole is other/greater/different than the sum of his parts, so considering that a creator must be 'in' nature is bizarre position to hold.

[Napoléon]

Page 27 over at Raving Atheists:
http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthre...00&page=27

Looks strikingly familiar to the crap that's been gushing out of this thread.

Sulliedpoop is a troll guys, isn't it about time everyone just ignored him and let this thread die? I mean damn, 62 pages and he's still harping on the same shit.

[Selliedjoup]

Page 27 over at Raving Atheists:
http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthre...00&page=27

Looks strikingly familiar to the crap that's been gushing out of this thread.

Sulliedpoop is a troll guys, isn't it about time everyone just ignored him and let this thread die? I mean damn, 62 pages and he's still harping on the same shit.

I was more than content to let it rest, but your call to let the troll sleep has caused him to awaken.It's odd that posting a request to ignore has the reverse affect.

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?