FOLYKAZE:


You admit Nicki is God. You admit atheism is disbelieve in the existence of God. And you ended saying I am confused?

M, do you disbelieve in the existence of God (defined as Nicki Minaj)?

To tell you more, you might not belief in any God (this is non-belief). Athiesm is the disbelieve in the existence of God. Nicki is God and she does exist. Do you disbelieve in her existence?



People might not believe in Nicki as there God. This doesnot disqualify her as God. When you dont belief in her, you are non-believer. Atheists reject the existence of God. Since Nicki is a God and you accept this, you cannot disbelieve in her existence because she does exist.



Note, the person has to define the kind of spirit he/she disbelieve in.

If the person just say spirit, he/she might be hold for his/her word.

Atheism has to do with God, not some specific kind of God.

I'm done with you. Play crazy on your own time.

sinequanon:


Stop posturing.

You make yourself sound like one of these shrill laypeople who think that they can substitute ranting for argument.

What have you contributed here? Address the question, and stop dilly-dallying.

have you been playing around with your medication?

Weah96:


I'm done with you. Play crazy on your own time.

Lol. . . . .all your contributions on this thread exposes your gullibility .

Atheism is the disbelieve in the existence of God.

Beyism is a religion centred around the popular singer Beyonce as the goddess. Beyonce is a deity and been worshipped in a temple by her believers.

Do you disbelieve in the existence of deity (beyonce)?

FOLYKAZE:


Lol. . . . .all your contributions on this thread exposes your gullibility .

Atheism is the disbelieve in the existence of God.

Or it could be used to mean a belief in the non-existence of God.

Some "atheists" shift from one definition to the other according to the particular point they are making.

sinequanon:


Or it could be used to mean a belief in the non-existence of God.

Some "atheists" shift from one definition to the other according to the particular point they are making.

You right there. Flying spag comes in here.


Just like fela would say, confusion break bone

FOLYKAZE:


You right there. Flying spag comes in here.

Sure.

But even though I am not religious or a follower of "God", I can see that invoking a flying spaghetti monster would be frivolous compared with invoking the idea of a god.

In terms of burden of proof, the Pastafarian would have to demonstrate the physical attributes relating to the choice of pasta, etc. in order to make his case. The notion of "God" on the other hand is a lot more open and targeted at questions of universal origin and creation.

FOLYKAZE:


Hateists hate the word God. Though they claim to be atheist but are anti-theist.

I'm not sure of what you mean.

Atheists disbelieve in the existence of God.

The thread is about definition of God. . . . . . .and would help I and others to know what definition of God atheism covers.

Lol. No. What you want is to show that since atheists cannot disbelieve in every definition of God (including the gallery in a theatre), their position is weak. You're like that person who answers "daily" when asked "what's your sex?". I don tire for you. Which definition of God does your spiritual atheism cover anyway?

Is Nature not excellent?

Nature is excellent. Marvelous even.

Can human and animal not be supreme?

Relatively, yes.

You keep on bringing up this supernatural stuff. Supernatural means a phenomena which is natural but cannot be explain with known law of nature.

You forgot to add being. It's supernatural being, not just supernatural.

Human activities can be supernatural. Nature can be supernatural. Which mean divinity is of the gods and the gods are everything including the water you drinks. They are Gods. . . .

Now, do you disbelieve in the existence of God defined as water?

Where is the definition? If you literally mean God is water, then no. Water is a colourless, odourless, tasteless liquid made up of hydrogen and oxygen.

Let me put knife into the neck of your definition.

You define deity as:

A supernatural being; Eistein is a supernatural being.

God/goddess; going by the definition we have in the dictionary (influencial, admired and adored person), Einstein is a god.

Been wroship by people; I dont need to go far here. I believe you think worship is all about going to church and mosque. Nope. . . .worship is acknowledging worth of something or someone. Einstein is been worshipped even by you.

Force that control part of the world; Einstein took a massive control of science which changes lot of things in our world.

He is a deity.

Do you disbelieve in the existence of God (einstein)?
Einstein is a supernatural being how please?

Am I going to have to define every single word when we speak?

There is nothing like supernatural, everything in nature is super enough.

Okay.

You might not accept it. But this is what the dictionary have to say

supernatural:

1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

The bolded is what I described as unexplainable. If it is explainable, there should be understandable laws of nature which would employed.

Note, science is a body of knowledge. The laws of nature are defines by science too. When a mnifestation defies or goes beyond this body of knowledge, it is called supernatural.

Why do you think something is said to be beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature? Merely because science currently can't explain it? Look, supernatural refers to things that are permanently unexplainable by science, not being subject to the laws of nature at all.

finofaya:


I'm not sure of what you mean.

Read about hateist here http://soulliberty.com/atheism-vs-hatetheism-how-respond-each/

finofaya:

Atheists disbelieve in the existence of God.

Do you disbelieve in the existence of Goddess (beyonce). The great beyism deity, daughter of Mother Earth; Gaia.

finofaya:

Lol. No. What you want is to show that since atheists cannot disbelieve in every definition of God (including the gallery in a theatre), their position is weak. You're like that person who answers "daily" when asked "what's your sex?". I don tire for you. Which definition of God does your spiritual atheism cover anyway?

You have not answered me.

Do you disbelieve in the existence of Goddess beyonce?

finofaya:

Nature is excellent. Marvelous even.

Nature is therefore divine.

Do you disbelieve it exist?

finofaya:

Relatively, yes.

That make them Gods too. Do you disbelieve in there existence?

finofaya:

You forgot to add being. It's supernatural being, not just supernatural.

Go get a dictionary for that

finofaya:

Now, do you disbelieve in the existence of God defined as water?

I believe water exist. Olokun, Yemoja, Osun, Oba, Yemowo and many other Goddess are known of water which I acknowledge their existence.

finofaya:

Where is the definition? If you literally mean God is water, then no. Water is a colourless, odourless, tasteless liquid made up of hydrogen and oxygen.

water is the product of nature, nature is divine. And divinity is the attribute of the Gods. Therefore, water is God.

finofaya:

Am I going to have to define every single word when we speak?

Oga, the definition of God you have there has been splitted and Einstein fits in.

Can you pls answer my question now. . . . .do you disbelieve in the existence of God (Einstein)?

finofaya:

Okay.

Why do you think something is said to be beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature? Merely because science currently can't explain it? Look, supernatural refers to things that are permanently unexplainable by science, not being subject to the laws of nature at all.

You are wrong sire!

Some decades ago, rain was seen has a supernatural manifestation. This was when science had no explanation of how it happens. But now there is empirical explanation so it becomes norm.

Centuries ago, Rainbow was seen as a supernatural manifestation. But today, science has brought explanation of how it make it to the sky. It is no more supernatural but natural today.


Samething goes for thunder strike, earthquake and many natural events.

Supernatural is not permanent. The post shift when there is explanation to natural science.

wiegraf:


A worthy opponent to disagree with it, at last. An atheist does not necessarily say there is no fruit in the box, it's more he says if there is indeed something in the box, it arose naturally.

A good and proper agnostic, imo, would be more open to whether these claims are possible. Put in another way, I would say an agnostic would claim that as we cannot, perhaps even by definition, determine that the supernatural exists then maybe, just maybe, there's the possibility....

The atheist, on the other hand? No. All there is is natural. Nothing more, nothing less.

That right there, I believe is the subtle difference between full blown atheists and agnostics (put in those pesky freethinkers, etc, amongst those ranks).




On another somewhat random note, as usual one ignoring and confusing as to which god. Confusionist-in-chief-plaetton-wannabe folly leading the charge, obfuscating and pulling all manner of silly tricks. Also, bafflingly, claiming he knows what's in the box, the concept being one that pisses all over natural laws, yet is an atheist.

Anyways, I can be fully atheist to certain claims, eg yahweh and talking yoruba dolls that can make me faster than Usain Bolt. However I can be 'agnostic', in the sense that I cannot tell you categorically that they do not exist, to those vaguest of the most vaguest concepts of god. The ones that were in rocks till science figured out rocks were just some sort of minerals. Then ran off to the sky, got caught there too. Then the Milky Way, and now apparently live beyond the scope of spacetime.

Well, I certainly don't live my life believing they exist. The simple fact that through history most of these concepts have been contorted and evolved, becoming more and more sophisticated with the advent of science whilst usually leaving one aspect untouched; humanity as the centre of the universe, should tell one something.

Again, I cannot, however, tell you categorically that they do NOT exist (as we cannot test the hypothesis, yet (and maybe even perhaps ever, depending on natural laws), and they are not yet shown to 'break' natural laws) . I can tell you there's no good reason to believe they do exist though, non at all I can think of. You can call that agnostic if you wish, but I simply won't just accept any souped mumbo jumbo as evidence (where is oga deepsight, lol). Most importantly I can tell you that if indeed such exists, they are bound to natural laws. That's what I believe makes me a good and proper atheist.

So, there might be something in the box, but it's natural.

Hi there. I think we are confusing Naturalism with Atheism. This is a common error. The fact is that most Atheism is based on Naturalism. But not all Atheism. For instance, most Buddhism is atheistic but it is full of belief in 'supernatural' beings.

Most Atheists derive their atheism from Naturalism. They are first Naturalist and subsequently they cannot believe in any supernatural beings, of which God is one.

The whole issue of Naturalism versus Supernaturalism is a very messy one that I've thrashed out on NL in the past.

The main jist of my contentions is 1) Most naturalists don't even know what they are talking about when they make the distinction between Natural and supernatural. It is one of the most ill-defined philosophical terms.
2)This allows for all sort of wishy-washiness. Ultimately whatever phenomenon you present can be dismissed as being natural because natural has just come to mean Everything. It makes a mockery of language itself, and often the only way to properly demonstrate this is to flick it and tell then that Supernatural just means 'Everything that exists'.

I've got a feeling that you'd like a proper dialogue on this issue, but due to limitations of time and the fact that I've also thrashed the subject out here on NL numerous times before, I hope you don't mind if I just refer you to threads in which this matter has been discussed before.
If you think there is anything that is left out or left unconsidered in the threads then we can take it on from there.

https://www.nairaland.com/279631/why-not-atheist/6

My main problem is that of classifications and categorisations. Before we use a word like Natural, we must know what we mean by it and what we are talking about, otherwise we succumb to absurdity at the very first hurdle.

https://www.nairaland.com/280962/what-supernatural#3990511

This is a very excellent line of enquiry. What is the Supernatural? intimately bound to this is obviously the question what is the natural. Without a clear definition of what natural is how can we say what is super-natural, super meaning 'over' or above. To know what is above the natural it is necessary to first know what the natural is.

Note, even if we do not know every natural phenomenon that exists we can still say what features it will have to have in order to be considered a natural event.

To answer you questions for the moment I would say

1) As we know natural events (whatever those are) via our faculties of perception tuned to the natural, if there is a supernatural world then we must have faculties capable of perceiving it.

2) That depends entirely on what you consider to be natural and what you would consider to be supernatural.

3) Again would depend on what definitions you were using for these terms.

4) When you have a proper definition of the natural and you witness an event that is not yet understood yet exhibits the features associated with natural phenomena then you can say that it is a natural event. If it has features associated with supernatural events then it is supernatural.

One definition of Naturalism says that every event has a cause that is based on the material world. All causal agents are material. But that has difficulties. What is Matter? etc.

Perhaps if you gave us a definition of Nature and Natural cause then implicit in that definition will be the definition of Supernaturalism.

PastorAIO:


Hi there. I think we are confusing Naturalism with Atheism. This is a common error. The fact is that most Atheism is based on Naturalism. But not all Atheism. For instance, most Buddhism is atheistic but it is full of belief in 'supernatural' beings.

Most Atheists derive their atheism from Naturalism. They are first Naturalist and subsequently they cannot believe in any supernatural beings, of which God is one.

The whole issue of Naturalism versus Supernaturalism is a very messy one that I've thrashed out on NL in the past.

The main jist of my contentions is 1) Most naturalists don't even know what they are talking about when they make the distinction between Natural and supernatural. It is one of the most ill-defined philosophical terms.
2)This allows for all sort of wishy-washiness. Ultimately whatever phenomenon you present can be dismissed as being natural because natural has just come to mean Everything. It makes a mockery of language itself, and often the only way to properly demonstrate this is to flick it and tell then that Supernatural just means 'Everything that exists'.

I've got a feeling that you'd like a proper dialogue on this issue, but due to limitations of time and the fact that I've also thrashed the subject out here on NL numerous times before, I hope you don't mind if I just refer you to threads in which this matter has been discussed before.
If you think there is anything that is left out or left unconsidered in the threads then we can take it on from there.

https://www.nairaland.com/279631/why-not-atheist/6

My main problem is that of classifications and categorisations. Before we use a word like Natural, we must know what we mean by it and what we are talking about, otherwise we succumb to absurdity at the very first hurdle.

https://www.nairaland.com/280962/what-supernatural#3990511

Just a quick note, I'll address more clearly eventually, but yes, I am indeed saying that if you ain't a naturalist, you aren't an atheist. There's no difference between mumbo jumbo a and mumbo jumbo x except for terminology

Strictly speaking you are correct in that some 'spiritual' people, like some buddhists, would refer to themselves as atheist. Strictly speaking again, in normal parlance, you are correct; they are atheist. But I, personally, think that's extremely shortsighted.

You believe in juju you aren't an atheist, simples. They are the same concept(s) as god just using different nomenclature.

As for definitions as to what supernatural would be, and if their definition allows for them to show that they exist that's another long story I too do not particularly have the time to address properly. But yes, I believe they can be demonstrated if they do indeed exist, and would not fall under the definition of natural just because they have been observed/verified in some manner or the other. Perhaps I will be back to elaborate.

Also, skimming through your posts, yes, causality may be a huge factor here, with 'god playing dice' etc all involved. But I can save that for another time. It is never straight forward, especially when you consider factors like how time works, eg simultaneous events in all frames is impossible, aforementioned quantum weirdness etc.

But like I said, another long story.

Kudos.

@ Wiegraf

You believe in juju you aren't an atheist, simples. They are the same concept(s) as god just using different nomenclature.

Just as shaky as our NON-definitions of Natural is our NON-definition of a god as we can see on this thread. If we can't be agreed on what is a god then how do we even start a discussion on atheism.

Strictly speaking you are correct in that some 'spiritual' people, like some buddhists, would refer to themselves as atheist. Strictly speaking again, in normal parlance, you are correct; they are atheist. But I, personally, think that's extremely shortsighted.

Strictly speaking I believe the only way to have a conversation on this topic is to speak strictly within the confines of terms as defined. Anything else and we'll soon find that we are deceiving ourselves tossing words and phrases about that probably sound good but when analysed will be found to mean nothing.

As for definitions as to what supernatural would be, and if their definition allows for them to show that they exist that's another long story I too do not particularly have the time to address properly. But yes, I believe they can be demonstrated if they do indeed exist, and would not fall under the definition of natural just because they have been observed/verified in some manner or the other. Perhaps I will be back to elaborate.

An essay that helped my thoughts on the Naturalism debate a lot was written by Keith Augustine. Please let me know what you think of it:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/thesis.html


The Meaning of 'Nature' or 'Natural'

Danto's definition of a natural cause, while capturing very general features of natural causation and natural causal explanation, does not shed much light on what is meant by the term 'natural' itself. One obvious candidate for what is meant by the term 'natural' is physical. The earliest forms of naturalism, in fact, were versions of materialism or physicalism which maintained that everything that exists is physical. As I have construed naturalism, simple (reductive) physicalism maintains that everything that exists within nature is physical and solely influenced by physical causes. However, the prominent twentieth century debate over materialism in the philosophy of mind has revealed several difficulties with reductive physicalism as a solution to the mind-body problem.

One of the most persistent difficulties for reductive physicalism has been the apparent inability of physicalistic explanations to capture qualitative features of conscious experience. It has been persuasively argued that qualia--the experiential feels of 'what it is like' to be in a conscious mental state--cannot be captured by any physicalistic explanations in principle because physicalistic explanations inherently refer to objective or public features of phenomena, whereas the experiential features of consciousness are inherently subjective or private (Teller 1992, pp. 190-191). While such arguments for the irreducibility of consciousness are not the last word on the subject, they have not been decisively refuted either--at least not in the view of several prominent philosophers. Although such difficulties may be resolved in the future, their current resistance to a clear resolution that gains widespread acceptance gives us good reason to resist simply identifying the natural with the physical.

Also, skimming through your posts, yes, causality may be a huge factor here, with 'god playing dice' etc all involved. But I can save that for another time. It is never straight forward, especially when you consider factors like how time works, eg simultaneous events in all frames is impossible, aforementioned quantum weirdness etc.

And we mustn't forget to bring Teleology into it when we get to the appropriate place.

^^^^
No vex no vex no vex
temporarily buuuuussssssssyyyyyyy

Will get back to it definitely