Atheism

[LadyForCamus]

RoadRunner79

---

Let’s take a look; from Merriam-Webster:


I don’t see anything in either of these definitions that explicitly states supernatural things can interact with our observable reality and leave behind evidence. This seems to be something that you’ve injected after the fact. Problem with that is, adding that characteristic to definition 1 invalidates it:

If some thing is interacting with, and evident within the observable universe, then it is no longer ‘beyond the observable universe’. It is natural.

Definition 2 doesn’t even necessitate a true departing from the natural world. It says, ‘appears to’, which does not necessarily eliminate a thing or event from the category of natural.

So, which definition describes the immaculate conception?  If it happened at all; if it was evident in any way; it wouldn’t qualify as supernatural by definition 1. Drawing from definition 2., ‘appears to transcend the laws of nature’, how could you determine that it was an active, intentional manipulation of the laws of the physical world by a god, versus a passively occurring physical anomaly, like the ones you cited in your previous post?

But, if you’d rather, we can drop labels and just talk about concepts.  I’ve no problem with that. I see three possible ontological scenarios for an event or object:

A. It exists and can be evident.

B. It exists, but cannot be evident.

C. Doesn’t exist/didn’t occur at all.

Things that fit description A are automatically disqualified from the category of supernatural by definition 1.  Description C, I hope, is self-explanatory. And B? What rational justification is there for believing in a claim that fits description B, other than for the sake of the claim itself? That would be question begging.


There is a composition fallacy in this analogy. We know that extra-terrestrial, or, ‘outside the earth and it’s atmosphere’ (Merriam-Webster), exists. There is, demonstrably, time-space beyond planet earth. Further, if extra-terrestrial beings from another galaxy exist, we could infer based on what we know of the physical world that they would be comprised of matter.  We can’t infer anything like that about the supernatural.  I’ve asked over and over for even one positive characteristic of the supernatural, and I’ve got no response so far.


As I said, the second something interacts with, affects, or is otherwise evident within the natural world, it is a part of the natural world, and is disqualified from the category of supernatural.  


To be clear, I’m not asserting that these things are impossible. I’m merely saying that they’re highly unlikely based on what we already know via rigorous scientific observation, so in order for me to believe it happened, I would need more than testimony. 


I didn’t articulate my thoughts clearly; I apologize. Yes, we would only need to demonstrate that it happened once to show that such an occurrence is possible, but testimony from thousands of years ago is not a demonstration. You would need testable, physical evidence to do that.


Sure. And, exactly no elements of these types of claims contradict known scientific principles about the world. That’s a hurdle only supernatural claims need to clear by way of demonstrable, physical evidence.  


Whether or not the prosecution made its case to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt is a completely different discussion than whether or not I’m personally convinced Bill Cosby is a serial rapist, and why.  I don’t think the rest of the women’s testimony was allowed into either of his trials. I’m convinced that Bill Cosby is guilty. Sixty women’s accountings are enough to convince me that a rich, famous, powerful man was a sexual predator. Now, if sixty women; if a thousand women; claimed that Cosby impregnated them absent intercourse, I am going to need some kind of corroborating, scientific evidence before I believe it. 


What did people have knowledge and evidence of?


I’m confused here.  How does knowledge provide evidence.

---

Hi Lady,

I think that your criticism of "injecting after the fact" the matter of something which is supernatural being able to interact with the natural is interesting.

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?

It also does not say that it does not; which is what is important.  As long as it meets the criteria of the definition is all that matters, anything which outside of that is not effected.

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.’

To go back to the example of an extra terrestrial;  it could be defined as a being originating from outside of the planet earth.   This definition doesn't mention that such a being could come to earth, nor does it preclude it.  If an E.T. did visit the earth, it wouldn't cease to be defined as at E.T.

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

As I said before, I don't understand why you are so hung up on this supernatural vs natural thing

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.  

or how it plays into your argument.

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

I see three possible ontological scenarios for an event or object:

A. It exists and can be evident.

B. It exists, but cannot be evident.

C. Doesn’t exist/didn’t occur at all.

Things that fit description A are automatically disqualified from the category of supernatural by definition 1.  Description C, I hope, is self-explanatory. And B? What rational justification is there for believing in a claim that fits description B, other than for the sake of the claim itself? That would be question begging.

I don't see how this affects in a discussion about evidence.

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.

Do you think that you have a bias against the supernatural?   Is that why you would move the bar to some unknown and seemingly unreachable level?

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. 

As we discussed before science is a tool for gaining knowledge.  It does very well in describing and testing the natural and repeatable sciences, and can assist by adding it's knowledge to other investigations.

What are ‘repeatable sciences’?

However not everything fits into the category where it can be repeated by science

I agree.  

nor is it the only path to knowledge

Alternatives?

If we observe something, and it is well evidenced, then we don't necessarily need to be able to repeat or even understand it, to know that it is true.  Would you agree?

Well, one facet of a well-evidenced fact is repeatability.  What other evidence do we have in this hypothetical scenario?  Are we able to demonstrate that it happened?

It doesn't seem like science played a big part in the Bill Cosby case, nor does it need to.  While the philosophy of modern science has made great increases to our overall knowledge, we had evidence and knowledge before that particular area of study.

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.  

You state the need for physical evidence in order to believe some things. I had mentioned parthenogenesis previously which relates to the virgin birth.   How much evidence would it take for you to believe that some scientists where successful in this?

And as a follow up question I asked you:

Are you saying that Mary’s immaculate conception had a natural cause describable via the scientific method, as is the case for the parthenogenetic human embryos? If so, then it wasn’t a supernatural event, was it?  How could you possibly determine whether the cause was natural, or god manipulating nature to his agenda? If an alleged event is accessible to us via scientific inquiry, then it is subject to the same rigorous evidential standards as any other claim about reality, whether you’re calling it natural, or supernatural, or extra-natural, etc.

I’m trying to get an idea for where you are setting your standards.  What if they where able to accomplish this once, but not able to repeat it? If they had good documented evidence, then would you believe it?

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.   

Would you need to see it for yourself?  It seems to me, that you only raise the bar on some things (which don't fit your world view), but not for others.

Not at all. That’s what scientific evidence is for.  

I’m not sure what you mean by “world view”.  I just prefer to have evidence for things before I believe them.  It’s really that simple, RR.  If you tell me that you sprouted wings and flew to the sun, I am going to require demonstrable evidence that that happened, because all the well-established, available evidence indicates such an occurrence would be highly unlikely.  Some people are more credulous than others, I guess.

It does not seem that your objection is based on a standard of evidence (which looks like it is variable for you), it doesn't appear to be on what you previously thought what "unlikely".  Just because something is unlikely, does not mean that it did not happen, or as we have discussed, that we need equal or more evidence to believe it (how would you even quantitize such a thing).  Why isn't standard evidence not good enough?  Again the circular argument seems to appear, that you don't believe because you evidence but you need to believe in order to admit the evidence.  Perhaps no evidence would be able to convince you of a thing, or you will place it far off, into a hyper-skeptical realm, which is mostly unreachable; but, I don't think that you can say that this is an evidential approach.  Or that there is not enough evidence, if you keep moving the bar.

This was all a bit confusing; I’m sorry. For me, claims that defy established, demonstrable, scientific principles about the world demand demonstrable, scientific support before I can believe them.  I apply the same evidential hierarchy across all claims, equally. That scientific evidence is on the top of that hierarchy and testimony is at the bottom has nothing to do with me, or any biases I may or may not have. Claims that contradict scientific facts should require scientific evidence. 

But I believe that in an objective discussion about evidence, that our reasons and logic, should be consistent, that we should follow the evidence wherever it leads, not just to what confirms our previous understandings.

See above.  

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.

[Angrboda]

Not to horn in on your discussion here, but there may be an underlying dilemma here that I think needs pointing out. When we speak of scientific evidence, unless we're simply talking about evidence gathered using the tools of science, but rather referring to evidence of an underlying cause, I'm not sure one can have such about a single, one-time miraculous event. Science is about the nature of ordered phenomena, detecting patterns in behaviors that repeat themselves, so to speak of scientific evidence of a one-time phenomena is something of an oxymoron, imho, as we might be able to detect such an event, but we couldn't really make any scientific inferences from that event. Or, at least, I think. This probably gets balled up into the question of universals and how we create generalities from particular cases, but I'm too foggy this morning to go there.

[Huggy Bear]

This is for those who always assert atheism is something it isn't.

Wrong buddy.

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.

[Silver]

Wrong buddy.

The 'ism' in atheism denotes a system.

Therefore atheism literally means a godless system.

You cannot have an ideology without making any assertions.

Let me start by stating I appreciate your difference in opinion dependent upon your personal, subjective interpretation.

Atheism is the system or practice of not believing in god(s). Nothing more. Mayhaps you personally have a vendetta against atheism whereby you want to attribute more to it than it is, but atheism is not a rule-abiding system as is Christianity whereby theists can be lumped in the same group based upon their belief in a deity that is a tyrant.

Correct, atheism is a godless system. At least you got something right, even though you were thinking to turn it into something negative to support your unreasonable stance.

Christianity is an ideology founded on assertions. Your point? "God does not exist" wouldn't be an assertion, however. Until such a god can be proven to exist, it is a fact that god does not exist.

[Amarok]

Wrong buddy.

Nope 

The 'ism' in atheism denotes a system. 

we have been over this not everything that is an ism is a system or belief it can also be a state of something which atheism is  

Therefore atheism literally means a godless system.

Nope it's a state of disbelief nothing else 

You cannot have an ideology without making any assertions.

Too bad atheism isn't an ideology

---

Wrong buddy.

The 'ism' in atheism denotes a system.

Therefore atheism literally means a godless system.

You cannot have an ideology without making any assertions.

Let me start by stating I appreciate your difference in opinion dependent upon your personal, subjective interpretation.

Atheism is the system or practice of not believing in god(s).  Nothing more.  Mayhaps you personally have a vendetta against atheism whereby you want to attribute more to it than it is, but atheism is not a rule-abiding system as is Christianity whereby theists can be lumped in the same group based upon their belief in a deity that is a tyrant.

Correct, atheism is a godless system.  At least you got something right, even though you were thinking to turn it into something negative to support your unreasonable stance.

Christianity is an ideology founded on assertions.  Your point?  "God does not exist" wouldn't be an assertion, however.  Until such a god can be proven to exist, it is a fact that god does not exist.

Kit atheism is a state or condition  not a system

suffix forming nouns of action, state, condition, doctrine,

When people talk about "isms," they are referring to some "distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice" like liberalism, communism, conservatism, or pacifism. Atheism has the suffix "ism," so it belongs in this group, right? Wrong: the suffix "ism" also means a "state, condition, attribute, or quality" like pauperism, astigmatism, heroism, anachronism, or metabolism. Is astigmatism a theory?

Is metabolism a doctrine? Is anachronism a practice? Not every word that ends in "ism" is a system of beliefs or an "ism" in the way people usually mean it. Failure to realize this can be behind other errors here.

https://www.thoughtco.com/is-atheism-an-ism-249819

[Huggy Bear]

Metabolism refers to a system...

So much fail in that post.

[Silver]

Metabolism refers to a system...

So much fail in that post.

Get back to me when you have something more relevant to contribute.

[I_am_not_mafia]

The 'ism' in atheism denotes a system.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/-ism

a suffix appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form action nouns from verbs (baptism); on this model, used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc. (criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism; intellectualism).

---

Metabolism refers to a system...

Meaningless. Virtually everything that exists in the world is either a system or part of a system.

[KevinM1]

The system atheism refers to is theism. The a-prefix is a negation of it, meaning, literally, not-theism. The degree to which someone isn't a theist varies from person to person. Agnostic atheism is a legitimate state of (dis)belief.

We've been over this before, Huggy. I know it's hard for you while chasing UFOs and trying to find Marilyn Hickey's missing uterus, but at least make an honest effort.

[robvalue]

"I don't own a car" means I own a car, because it contains the words "own a car".