(November 25, 2018 at 9:30 pm)tackattack Wrote: Jor,
It wasn't a pointless swipe. It's an example of an apophatic definition. Atheism (especially hard atheism) is used to describe a large group of people (here especially) that lack belief in God(s).
Supernatural defines beliefs beyond (or without being) what is natural. I could have just as easily said non-naturalistic because in this case they mean the same exact things. From my point of view I prefer super as opposed to non, because in revealing previously held supernatural definitions we add more modern collective knowledge that it is above/outside rather than doesn't exist.
If you truly believe that you can not be descriptive with a apophatic definition please describe what your dog will dig in the backyard to bury a bone in without using the word hole or it's synonym.
We've already stated that with relation to the OP, science isn't exclusively atheistic and rephrased it to science has no religious views and is just another tool like math and would be best described as secular. That it can be used to debunk supernatural claims and that it is only as good as it can test. If you have something to add or comment on that point have at it.
Exactly how do you define the term 'natural'?
