Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...

[The Grand Nudger]

There are plenty of things of which we're ignorant, and we'll never learn everything. That doesn't mean that the supernatural is among those things. We know an awful lot about the supernatural.

[Belacqua]

Then I’m not sure what you’re saying. I’m sorry.

No worries. 

As I say, I'm through working on it. It's pretty clear that a number of people would like me to stop.

---

One is; "...Entire argument is indistinguishable from an argument from ignorance,"

While the other is: "...There are things of which we are ignorant."

If I said "I don't know, therefore it must be a certain way," that would be an argument from ignorance.

But I'm not saying that.

I typed it all out yesterday, so that's enough.

[Fake Messiah]

In philosophy, naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the universe.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism...losophy%29


Atheism describes people on RELIGION's terms (it owns most of the word, literally)....the only problem I can see with describing myself as a naturalist from here on out is that some people might think I go hang out at the beach butt naked...this could be quite witty though, thinking on, so no bad really! Thoughts?

Maybe it depends on the situation.

You know what they say "The word atheist shouldn't exist" just like there's no word for people who disbelieve in the existence of a teapot in orbit around Venus, but because there's the intolerance and tension between religious people towards people who are not the same faith (or no faith at all) this word exists. So use the word that religious will understand when they want to know where you stand in position toward their God.

[possibletarian]

Then I’m not sure what you’re saying. I’m sorry.

No worries. 

As I say, I'm through working on it. It's pretty clear that a number of people would like me to stop.

---

One is; "...Entire argument is indistinguishable from an argument from ignorance,"

While the other is: "...There are things of which we are ignorant."

If I said "I don't know, therefore it must be a certain way," that would be an argument from ignorance.

But I'm not saying that.

I typed it all out yesterday, so that's enough.

Yesterday you were claiming that there is 'plenty of evidence for the supernatural' based almost entirely on 'there are things we do not know'

[Belacqua]

An argument from ignorance would be more like "I have never seen anything supernatural. I don't know how it could work. Therefore I conclude it's impossible."

The fact that we are ignorant of how the supernatural would work may constitute evidence against the supernatural, depending on the model you're using to interpret things. But as a logical argument it's not sufficient.

[possibletarian]

An argument from ignorance would be more like "I have never seen anything supernatural. I don't know how it could work. Therefore I conclude it's impossible."

The fact that we are ignorant of how the supernatural would work may constitute evidence against the supernatural, depending on the model you're using to interpret things. But as a logical argument it's not sufficient.

First we would have to have a reason to show the supernatural existed at all, that there was sufficient reason to engage in a non~material world as even a possible explanation. Which 'model' as you call it people use, really is irrelevant. Not knowing an answer to something is not evidence of anything period.

To ask for evidence or proof is not a prior, to believe you know the answer, or who has the answer is. Theism has a prior of god is in control, so even if i don't have an answer, then god does.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism...losophy%29


Atheism describes people on RELIGION's terms (it owns most of the word, literally)....the only problem I can see with describing myself as a naturalist from here on out is that some people might think I go hang out at the beach butt naked...this could be quite witty though, thinking on, so no bad really! Thoughts?

Maybe it depends on the situation.

You know what they say "The word atheist shouldn't exist" just like there's no word for people who disbelieve in the existence of a teapot in orbit around Venus, but because there's the intolerance and tension between religious people towards people who are not the same faith (or no faith at all) this word exists. So use the word that religious will understand when they want to know where you stand in position toward their God.

I generally say 'I am not theist' I can see see confusion in their eyes and is almost always followed by the question 'what do you believe then'.
It's as if they cannot image not having some kind of belief of the beyond, or that an alternative theory is needed.

[The Architect Of Fate]

An argument from ignorance would be more like "I have never seen anything supernatural. I don't know how it could work. Therefore I conclude it's impossible."

The fact that we are ignorant of how the supernatural would work may constitute evidence against the supernatural, depending on the model you're using to interpret things. But as a logical argument it's not sufficient.

No ones argued that 

And your the one who literally said . The supernatural is evidenced by our ignorance .

---

I disagree with you.

To say there are things of which we are ignorant is just a statement of fact. 

To assume that we are sure to learn everything is an unwarranted assumption. 

If I were claiming that because there are gaps the supernatural must exist, that would be an argument from ignorance. But that is very much NOT what I'm saying.

You literally said the evidence for the supernatural is our ignorance . So yes you were doing an argument ignorance

---

An argument from ignorance would be more like "I have never seen anything supernatural. I don't know how it could work. Therefore I conclude it's impossible."

The fact that we are ignorant of how the supernatural would work may constitute evidence against the supernatural, depending on the model you're using to interpret things. But as a logical argument it's not sufficient.

First we would have to have a reason to show the supernatural existed at all, that there was sufficient reason to engage in a non~material world as even a possible explanation.  Which 'model' as you call it people use, really is irrelevant. Not knowing an answer to something is not evidence of anything period.

To ask for evidence or proof is not a prior, to believe you know the answer, or who has the answer is. Theism has a prior of god is in control, so even if i don't have an answer, then god does.

---

Maybe it depends on the situation.

You know what they say "The word atheist shouldn't exist" just like there's no word for people who disbelieve in the existence of a teapot in orbit around Venus, but because there's the intolerance and tension between religious people towards people who are not the same faith (or no faith at all) this word exists. So use the word that religious will understand when they want to know where you stand in position toward their God.

I generally say 'I am not theist' I can see see confusion in their eyes and is almost always followed by the question 'what do you believe then'.
It's as if they cannot image not having some kind of belief of the beyond, or that an alternative theory is needed.

And it is an argument . We don't know therefore it's evidence is an argument from ignorance . He's trying to wiggle out .

[Succubus#2]

An argument from ignorance would be more like "I have never seen anything supernatural. I don't know how it could work. Therefore I conclude it's impossible."

The fact that we are ignorant of how the supernatural would work may constitute evidence against the supernatural, depending on the model you're using to interpret things. But as a logical argument it's not sufficient.

After countless requests you are still unable to furnish a definition of the word supernatural so why should I take anything you have to say on the subject Seriously?

[Belacqua]

After countless requests you are still unable to furnish a definition of the word supernatural so why should I take anything you have to say on the subject Seriously?

I gave a definition right at the beginning.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I gave a definition right at the beginning.

No you did not