RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 27, 2020 at 8:04 pm
(This post was last modified: May 27, 2020 at 8:07 pm by Succubus#2.)
(May 27, 2020 at 7:11 pm)Belacqua Wrote:(May 27, 2020 at 7:03 pm)Succubus#2 Wrote: According to the definition you're using? Of course; it will be your particular definition du jour. Your definitions are remarkably fickle things.
Quote:If we're going to talk about something, it makes sense to define that thing. If you'd prefer to use a different definition, and make it clear, that's fine with me.
It is beyond my capabilities to define something that does not exist
Quote:But anyway, there is no such thing as the supernatural and we know this for an absolute certainty because there is no possible mechanism whereby in can work.
Quote:How do you prove this?
Prove it to yourself by reading the link and or, watch the video.
The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood.
As I wrote yesterday, I'm fine with the idea that science can describe everything natural.
Your singing frogs? *If* they exist of course, there's always an if isn't there.
Miserable Bastard.
