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

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that the fundamental disconnect here is that Bel thinks he's defending the "beauty" of supernatural narratives. He's failed to accurately address what believers in the supernatural (purportedly not him) are refering to when they discuss the supernatural..and like any other person steeped in a naturalist framework, has trouble expressing the idea of the supernatural as a separate category from the natural.

Arguably, this strips supernatural narratives of the very beauty he seeks to defend - beauty found in their comments on the human condition, not on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Bel has asserted that the supernatural is a logical impossibility contained to things that nothing does which cannot be observed. His pleas for some proof that this concept is false are likely genuine. He does not possess the knowledge, semantics, or rhetorical skill to express as much on his own. As his entire existence here at af has been one long running screed against dumb atheists, he's unlikely to accept any such demonstration no matter who or how many times he's given exactly what he's asked for....because he believes that atheists just don't "get it". He's here to educate us, not the other way round, lol.

[possibletarian]

if it is doing something, that activity is in its nature.

This is the metaphysical question begging that everyone here is doing. You are sure, a priori, that it must be so.

In what way could your assertion here be falsified?

We define something by the character of it's observable nature, if a frog is singing then that is it's observed behaviour, we no longer consider it an already classified frog, it's a new species with a new observable nature. The Mozartion Croakuss perhaps.

You could falsify it by simply proving for instance that it was a clever ploy, that it was not actually the frog singing, but a very clever mini-speaker inserted in its mouth. But if it is in fact the frog singing, then that's its nature. It's existence is also provable and observable.

Your question here is like me saying i have three grapes in my hand, so if i always have the same number of grapes in my hand i will always have three.  Then you coming along and saying ''How is that falsifiable''?   As though you have made some great point in the debate.

---

I think that the fundamental disconnect here is that Bel thinks he's defending the "beauty" of supernatural narratives.  He's failed to accurately address what believers in the supernatural (purportedly not him) are refering to when they discuss the supernatural..and like any other person steeped in a naturalist framework, has trouble expressing the idea of the supernatural as a separate category from the natural.  

Arguably, this strips supernatural narratives of the very beauty he seeks to defend - beauty found in their comments on the human condition, not on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Bel has asserted that the supernatural is a logical impossibility contained to things that nothing does which cannot be observed.  His pleas for some proof that this concept is false are likely genuine.  He does not possess the knowledge, semantics, or rhetorical skill to express as much on his own.  As his entire existence here at af has been one long running screed against dumb atheists, he's unlikely to accept any such demonstration no matter who or how many times he's given exactly what he's asked for....because he believes that atheists just don't  "get it".  He's here to educate us, not the other way round, lol.

I don't think I've ever seen such a long overly worded god of gaps type argument before, it's good mental exercise though, as theists often think along similar lines, that to not be able to disprove something that is defined as nothing we could know exists is somehow evidence.

---

Supernatural exists as a product of the human mind exclusively.

I've never seen evidence of existence, only anecdotes and arguments, which is what I'm seeing here.

Worst use of philosophy ever.

Exactly, you would think people would catch on, and i think many church goers / supernatural believers do, they simply love the lifestyle.

[The Grand Nudger]

The supernatural is rarely important to believers in and of itself. It's utility is dependent on supporting some other concept that is useful to them, which can't find support in mere reality.

That concept can be as simple as the fiction that no one can prove them wrong, as in Bels case.

[Belacqua]

Supernatural exists as a product of the human mind exclusively.

Please demonstrate that your assertion is true.

[The Grand Nudger]

We could compare this to Bels need to cast atheism as a positivist commitment. It's not that it's true or even useful to him that atheism be a positivist commitment - he won't have a single word to say about that if someone agrees. More, that it's useful to him to assert as much because he has prepared remarks about positivism.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Supernatural exists as a product of the human mind exclusively.

Please demonstrate that your assertion is true.

I think of 'Kami's' every now and then.

That sentence is both true and meets your critera Belaqua.

Now... if you'd be kind enough to supply a'Better' example of 'Supernatural' than just stapling 'Frog and 'singing' together, that'd be great.

Thought... I thought perhapse you were trying for some humor referencing the old "Merry Melodies"/"Looney Tunes" cartoon for a while there.

Cheers.

[possibletarian]

Supernatural exists as a product of the human mind exclusively.

Please demonstrate that your assertion is true.

Do you know it to exist outside of an idea ?

[Belacqua]

I think of 'Kami's' every now and then.

They're a splendid idea to think about. 

Now... if you'd be kind enough to supply a'Better' example of 'Supernatural' than just stapling 'Frog and 'singing' together, that'd be great.

I'm sure you can come up with examples that are just as good. Just think of something which is well known, the limits of which are fairly obvious. 

The point of course is that things as they exist are a certain way and not another. Your body is made of flesh and blood, not solid lead; it's human-sized, not a million miles long; it does human things, and not quasar things. 

Thought... I thought perhapse you were trying for some humor referencing the old "Merry Melodies"/"Looney Tunes" cartoon for a while there. 

Now that you mention it, I remember that cartoon! The frog sings and dances with a top hat, right? Maybe that was in my subconscious somehow when I thought of my example. Man, Saturday morning cartoons were fantastically important for me about 55 years ago. That and Batman twice a week.

As I recall, in the cartoon the frog refused to demonstrate his singing ability for anyone but his owner, right? Some people here would conclude from this that the singing ability never existed.

[The Grand Nudger]

And some, by which I mean "Bel" would conclude that a frog singing was neccessarily natural, since a things nature is defined by however it acts, whatever it does.

He's already cycled through his list of complaints, and now that he's out of gas we get a bunch of bullshit about the dub-abub-a-dubaya B.

[brewer]

I think that the fundamental disconnect here is that Bel thinks he's defending the "beauty" of supernatural narratives.  He's failed to accurately address what believers in the supernatural (purportedly not him) are refering to when they discuss the supernatural..and like any other person steeped in a naturalist framework, has trouble expressing the idea of the supernatural as a separate category from the natural.  

Arguably, this strips supernatural narratives of the very beauty he seeks to defend - beauty found in their comments on the human condition, not on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Bel has asserted that the supernatural is a logical impossibility contained to things that nothing does which cannot be observed.  His pleas for some proof that this concept is false are likely genuine.  He does not possess the knowledge, semantics, or rhetorical skill to express as much on his own.  As his entire existence here at af has been one long running screed against dumb atheists, he's unlikely to accept any such demonstration no matter who or how many times he's given exactly what he's asked for....because he believes that atheists just don't  "get it".  He's here to educate us, not the other way round, lol.

I don't think I've ever said that religion/religious thinking has not produced positive thoughts/motivations/works for humanity. If the supernaturalists want to acknowledge that their belief exists as concept only I'd have less of an issue with them.

For reasons that he refuses to acknowledge Bell needs the supernatural to exist as more than a narrative, more than a concept.

And he rarely, if ever, flips the supernatural narrative coin over and addresses the negatives. The avoidance is telling.